Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 4: On the Comparison of the King and the Cardinal
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).
The other reason which moved the king not to put his name to his Apology was the inequality of Cardinal Bellarmine to King James; for so he himself speaks on page 5: “The other reason for keeping silent my name was the condition of those with whom I was coming down to dispute. For although I noted the pontifical Briefs in a few words, yet I had given myself this labour chiefly, to refute Bellarmine's letter to Blackwell. Nor have I ever persuaded myself that there is so much dignity in the cardinal's purple that it can meet the royal splendour as an equal and rival, and be set to a contest with it as of equal majesty. For I have many thousands among my subjects who would not yield to Bellarmine in splendour of birth; and this ecclesiastical dignity of his, the cardinalate I mean, I know not in what place or at what price to hold, whether I weigh it by the authority of Scripture or by the constitutions of the emperors; since it is nothing else than a new institution of the Popes, which the soft lenity of our predecessors, kings I mean, who in these several centuries governed the Christian commonwealth, conniving at everything for the Pontiff, allowed to grow immense.” But I do not see in a theological disputation what need there is to seek an equality of birth, or dignity, or rule, when only an equality of wit and learning is necessary. Henry VIII, king of the English, did not think it unworthy of himself to write against Martin Luther, a monk, or, as the king himself speaks, a little friar. Julian the emperor too, because, not content with imperial splendour, he desired also to be famous for the name of learning, wrote books not against kings but against the teachers of Christians, and Bishop Cyril most copiously confuted him. Lastly the emperor Nero, when he wished to contend in song and on the lyre with antagonists in the theatre, sought not kings or princes, but men most skilled in the art of music, whom if he had conquered, he thought he had won great glory.
But since the king of England judges it unworthy of his majesty either that he himself should write against a cardinal far inferior to a king, or that a cardinal should write against him, far superior to a cardinal, on the comparison of a king and a cardinal I shall bring forward the judgment and testimonies of the ancient Fathers, who flourished in the first five hundred years, whom the king himself has witnessed above that he receives. Cardinals, then, are nothing else than bishops, priests and deacons, electors, councillors and coadjutors of the Supreme Pontiff. And of bishops of any kind, even not cardinals, Gregory Nazianzen writes in the oration to the people struck with fear and the prince or governor in anger: “Do you bear me with an even mind speaking freely? for you too the law of Christ has subjected to my power and my bench. For we too bear rule, I add even a more excellent and more perfect one; unless indeed it is fair that the spirit lower its fasces to the flesh, and heavenly things yield to earthly.” So he, who openly teaches that bishops are by spiritual power greater than kings, and that the spiritual power is more excellent than the temporal and earthly. Saint John Chrysostom in book 3 on the Priesthood compares the power of a king with the power of a priest, by which name he understands the bishop especially, and says that the priest has received from God a power as much greater as heaven excels earth, and souls excel bodies. For kings have the power of binding and loosing bodies; but priests bind and loose souls themselves. Saint Ambrose in the book on the Priestly Dignity, chapter 3: “Nothing,” he says, “in this world is more excellent than a priest, nothing is found more sublime than a bishop.” And that we may not rely on the testimonies of men only, though most learned, most holy and most ancient, let us hear the Holy Spirit speaking by the mouth of the Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 7: Without all contradiction, that which is less is blessed by the better; where better is put for greater and superior, by the consent of all. But it is certain that a king is blessed by a bishop, not a bishop by a king; therefore without contradiction a bishop is superior to a king. Wherefore if bishops of any kind are greater than kings, much more will cardinal bishops be greater than kings.
Now of priests the same reasoning holds. For priests are priests of a lesser order, and although under bishops, yet they too have the power of binding and loosing souls, of blessing kings and princes, and of celebrating that wonderful sacrifice which far surpasses the angelic powers. Wherefore Saint Ambrose, when the emperor Theodosius wished to sit in the presbytery, ordered him to be kept out, saying: “Purple makes emperors, not priests”; Theodoret relates this in book 5 of the Ecclesiastical History. I shall add also the words of Sulpicius Severus, an author of the same century, and the testimony of Saint Martin on the priestly dignity. For when Sulpicius had told that Saint Martin once, being asked, went to the banquet of the emperor Maximus with one of his priests, he added thus: “There were present as guests, as if called to a feast day, the highest and most illustrious men, the prefect and also consul Evodius, than whom nothing was ever more just, two counts endowed with the highest power, the king's brother and his uncle; between these Martin's priest had reclined; he himself had sat on a little stool placed beside the king. About the middle of the banquet (as is the custom) a servant offered the cup to the king; he orders it rather to be given to the most holy bishop, expecting and desiring to take the cup from his right hand. But Martin, when he had drunk, handed the cup to his priest, thinking namely that no one was worthier to drink first after him; and that it would not be right for him if he had preferred either the king, or those who were nearest the king, to the priest.” So he. You see, king, what was the judgment of Saint Martin, a man most praised in the mouth of all, on the dignity of priests. But if priests of any kind, only because they are priests, are endowed with such and so great a dignity that they are preferred even to kings, who will rightly wonder if cardinals are said by some to be equal to kings? Further, of the deacons of the Church of Constantinople Saint John Chrysostom, in the royal city itself in which the emperor resided, did not hesitate to affirm that they had greater power than the emperors themselves; for he speaks thus to them in homily 83 on Matthew: “If any general, if the consul himself, if he who is adorned with the diadem, comes unworthily, restrain and check him; you have greater power than he.” And if the deacons of Constantinople, on Chrysostom's authority, had greater power than generals, consuls and even the emperor himself, why should not the Roman deacons have the same, and those especially who are cardinals, that is, principal deacons of the whole world? Which being so, let the king of the English cease to say, I know not in what place or at what price to hold the cardinal's dignity. For he could already have learned from the Fathers of the ancient and primitive Church, which alone he approves, in what place or at what price bishops, priests and deacons are to be held; and from that make a conjecture in what place or at what price cardinal bishops, priests and deacons are to be held, who besides holy Orders are the electors of the supreme prelate of the Catholic Church, and Prince of all priests, and general Vicar of Christ himself on earth, and his principal coadjutors and councillors.
But, he says, the cardinalate is a new institution of the Popes. It is not so; for if cardinals are considered as bishops, priests and deacons, they were instituted by Christ himself, and have endured from the beginning of the Church to our times. So they are as ancient as the Church herself is ancient. But if the office of electing the Pontiff, and of helping him with counsel and work, is considered, this office has always been discharged by the Roman priests and deacons, with the bishops adjacent to the City. This alone is the difference between ancient times and recent, that once, on account of the fewness of persons, the Roman priests and deacons who were cardinals were not distinguished from those who were not, but all discharged this office in common; but afterwards, the number of priests and deacons growing, and the multitude itself breeding confusion and various tumults, it was necessary to select a few out of many to discharge this office, and these were called cardinal bishops, priests and deacons of the holy Roman Church. Nor is this reduction to a few, and the eminence of the cardinals which followed from it, so recent that it can be called new, since five or six hundred years are counted from that time. For Peter Damian writes much of the most ample dignity of the cardinals, by which they surpassed even all patriarchs and primates, in the epistle to the antipope Cadalus; and Peter Damian lived six hundred years ago. Saint Bernard writes much in book 4 on Consideration, where among other things he says that cardinals are to be chosen from the whole world, since they are to judge the whole world. Much is read in approved ancient historians, from whom the Abbot of Ursperg in the Chronicle for the year of the Lord 1116 witnesses that in the general council under Paschal II the cardinals were called the chief members of the Church. And this eminence of dignity the king will not be able to prove to have proceeded from the connivance or lenity of temporal princes; and we have given a most plain reason why the cardinal's dignity is so great, namely, as we said, because they alone elect the Supreme Pontiff, and always assist him as colleagues and coadjutors in ruling the universal Church.
And to finish this place on cardinals, I shall also briefly examine what the king adds much below; for not content with what he wrote in this place, again on page 116 he returns to the same argument, and first reproaches Cardinal Bellarmine with obscurity of birth. “Now,” he says, “I think it beyond a king's majesty to set himself in dispute and contest against a cardinal, at least against that cardinal who was born no more happily or illustriously than this one.” Bellarmine confesses that his parents were private men, but honest and upright; and that he had for uncle Pope Marcellus II, whose virtue and learning were such that he received testimony even from enemies. For Theodore Bibliander, a Lutheran, in his chronological tables, where he describes the successions of the Pontiffs, says: There sat in the year 1555 Marcellus II, holy in life and learned. But even if Cardinal Bellarmine had had for parents craftsmen or peasants, provided they were Catholic and godly, he would not blush, since he knows that of the Princes of the Apostles one was a fisherman, the other a maker of tents; that David too, the king and prophet, was raised from the pastures to the kingdom; and, what is greatest, that Christ our Lord willed to be called and held a carpenter and a carpenter's son, to teach us humility and contempt of the world; and let him hear the Apostle saying in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 1: See your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.
The king adds: “That ecclesiastical dignity (the cardinalate namely), although through the carelessness of princes, as I have already said, it has climbed to this height of presumed honour, yet if we return to its origin and cradle, is nothing else than a title given to the priests and deacons of the parish churches of the city of Rome; once indeed granted to the priests and deacons of every cathedral church universally, but when a huge multitude of such cardinals flocking to Rome from every side filled the City, at last the name of cardinal was taken from the rest, and reserved only to the priests and deacons of the Roman parishes. And since before Saint Gregory no one mentions that title, who six hundred years after Christ speaks of cardinals in certain epistles, so for many centuries after the Apostles these modern electors of the Apostolic See were unseen by all and unknown.” I do not wonder if many things are said here that are not true, since the king speaks of things unknown to him, and without an author. It is not true that cardinal deacons once had parish titles; for the titles of parishes were given to priests only, but to deacons other churches, which had the name of deaconries. Nor is it true that the cardinal's title was once allowed to the priests and deacons of every cathedral church; for very few churches used these words; and not even in the Roman Church in the time of Saint Sylvester were all the deacons cardinals, but only seven; and in the time of Pope Symmachus there were only twenty-eight titles of cardinal priests, as can be understood from the Roman councils under Symmachus; but the Roman priests were many more than twenty-eight. That also is not true, that a huge multitude of non-Roman cardinals ever came to the City, for that will be proved from no history (that I know). Nor is that true, that the name of cardinal was taken from others and reserved to Romans only, for to this day the Church of Compostela has its cardinals. Nor is it true that before the times of Saint Gregory the name of cardinal was unheard of, for the name of the seven cardinal deacons of the Roman Church is read in the Roman council under Saint Sylvester, who preceded Saint Gregory by three hundred years.
The king adds: “But how,” he says, “beyond the reason of their origin and institution they have been so prodigiously raised that from priests and deacons of parishes they are now princes, and equals of kings, and from a rank less in dignity than the episcopal are today the sole electors of the Pontiff, who, since they do the office of general councils (whence also the use of general councils has died out), nay, so that it is not lawful for a Pontiff to be elected except from their college, who claims for himself supreme authority over kings; how, I say, so insolent an increase began, and grew up with none resisting, it is the business of all of us to see to, who, since we are the Vicars of God on earth, ought with the best right to hold suspect such princes lately sprung up, who, small and lowly in their origin, carry themselves up by their own votes to the highest height, and then set themselves beside kings.” Here too the king, from ignorance of our affairs, and because he seems to give too great faith to the enemies of the Church, has let many things slip that are not true. For not beyond the reason and institution of its origin, but rather according to the reason and institution of its origin, the cardinal's dignity has grown. For, as we said above, it was an ancient institution that the Roman priests and deacons with the neighbouring bishops should elect the Roman Pontiff, and help him with counsel and work; but afterwards, the multitude of priests and deacons growing too great, this function was little by little reduced to a few. So those few began to stand out above the others, so that they could rightly be called cardinal, that is, principal bishops, priests and deacons, and indeed ecclesiastical princes; as those who hold the second parts under kings in administering the temporal commonwealth are wont to be called temporal princes. On equality with kings I think a distinction must be made; for if the discourse is of temporal power, of rule, of wealth, of strength, of arms, there is no doubt that kings far, far excel cardinals; if it is a matter of spiritual and ecclesiastical power, that not cardinals only, but all bishops, priests and deacons are superior to kings was shown a little before from the testimony of the ancient Church. But what is wont to be said among the jurists, that cardinals are made equal to kings, seems to be understood of external ceremony and honour; for usage has obtained that, as all princes yield to kings, so they also yield to cardinals; and in this there seems to be a certain equality. What the king adds, that cardinal priests and deacons were once less than bishops not cardinals, is true, since at that time they were not only inferior as far as the power of order is concerned, as they are also at this time, but also as to the power of ruling the universal Church, because these too were summoned to the Roman councils, and sat in a nobler place than the cardinal priests and deacons, and once were even admitted to the election of the Supreme Pontiff. But after the cardinals alone began to be electors, and to administer the universal Church in consistory with the Supreme Pontiff, it ought not to seem a wonder if cardinals are set before bishops not cardinals. Yet it is not true what the king writes in this place, that the cardinals with the Pontiff do the office of general councils, and that therefore the use of general councils has wholly died out. For from that time when the cardinals began to excel with that eminence with which they now excel, many general councils have been held, three Lateran, two of Lyons, one of Vienne, one of Constance, one of Florence, one of Trent, and others a little smaller. The particular Roman councils, then, have died out, and the consistories of cardinals seem to have succeeded in their place; general councils have not died out. Nor is that true, that it is not lawful for a Pontiff to be elected except from the college of cardinals. For we know that in these last five hundred years there were elected as Pontiffs Callistus II, Eugene III, Urban IV, Gregory X, Celestine V, Clement V, Urban V, Urban VI and Felix V, although this last was not held lawful, who were all outside the college. But what the king adds, that the Roman Pontiffs claim for themselves supreme authority over kings: if by claim he means usurp, we wholly deny it; but if to claim is to assert what is one's own, we gladly admit it; yet so that by authority we understand not a despotic rule, but a paternal or pastoral power, of which it has often been said, and below the discourse will return to it again. What the king also says, that it belongs to kings, as Vicars of God on earth, to see how so insolent an increase of the cardinal's dignity began, can by no reasoning be admitted. Kings are indeed ministers of God on earth, as the Wise Man calls them in the book of Wisdom, chapter 6, and the Apostle in Romans 13; but they are ministers in those things which regard earthly and temporal matters; for as to spiritual and heavenly, and in one word ecclesiastical matters, the Vicars of God are the bishops, whom the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood, Acts 20. And the supreme Vicar is he to whom the Lord said, Follow me, and, Feed my sheep, John 21; therefore to see whether, and how, and how far the cardinal's dignity, which is ecclesiastical and spiritual, ought to grow does not belong to kings. Less true is what the king adds, that such princes lately sprung up have carried themselves by their own votes to the highest height, and then set themselves beside kings. For neither have they lately sprung up (unless a space of five hundred or even six hundred years can be called lately); nor have they been raised by their own votes, but by the authority of him who holds the place of God on earth; nor do they set themselves beside kings, for it was not a cardinal who wrote that cardinals are made equal to kings, which how it is to be understood we said a little before.
Lastly the king adds these things: “But this is the chief injury which they do us, that they take from us the right common to Christian kings in general councils, since they have wholly taken away the manner of holding them; their force and power being drawn to themselves, and as it were a monopoly set up in the pontifical conclave. And yet if any hope or expectation remained that all Christians could be brought to some agreement in religion, it would be to be expected from a general council, called to a convenient place and an unsuspected assembly, where all Christian princes could be present, either in person or by legates, and all churchmen who profess the Christian religion, and cling to those ancient foundations of the true, ancient, Catholic and Apostolic faith, would have safe access and passage, the furious incendiaries and novices on both sides, whether Jesuits or Puritans, being excluded.” To this last part I answer with equal brevity; for what is proved by no authority or reason is wont to be refuted by a simple denial. First, then, I deny that the manner of holding general councils has been taken away; I deny that their force and power have been drawn to the cardinals; I deny that in the pontifical conclave a kind of monopoly has been set up. For we have already enumerated the general councils which have been celebrated in these last years. For how can it truly be said that the manner of holding general councils has been taken away, when most celebrated and very many councils have been held a little before this century, and in this very age of ours? And as to the king's complaint that an injury has been done to him and to other kings, in that the common right of Christian kings in general councils has been taken away, on what truth it rests I do not see, since in the general council held at Trent there were present the legates of the emperor, of almost all kings, and of very many princes. What he adds, that a council should have been called to an unsuspected and convenient place, that too was done, since Trent, situated on the borders of Germany and Italy, was judged a most fit and by no means suspect place by the Supreme Pontiff and the emperor and other kings and princes. But what he says, that all churchmen who profess the Christian religion ought to have safe access and passage to the council, this indeed is to depart from the form of the first four councils, or rather of all the councils that have ever been held in the Church. For councils are of bishops, not of all churchmen; otherwise no place would hold such a council; nor does it belong to all to judge of the dogmas of the faith, but to the princes of the Churches, who are the bishops; for so speaks the council of Chalcedon, one of the first four, which are admitted by King James: “Send out the superfluous; the council is of bishops.” With which agrees the emperor Theodosius in the epistle to the council of Ephesus, volume 1, chapter 32, saying thus: “It is unlawful for one who is not in the order of the most holy bishops to mix himself in ecclesiastical treatises.” Yet lest the Protestants or Calvinists should complain, all were invited, and a safe conduct given on public faith, and the determinations of the gravest matters were also deferred for long times, that space for preparing themselves and coming to the council might not be lacking. I pass over what is said against the Jesuits and Puritans, since it belongs to reproaches, not to doctrine.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. De comparatione regis , et Cardinalis. Altera ratio, quse regem movit, ut Apolo- gise suae nomen suum non adscriberet, fuit imparitas Cardinalis Bellarmini ad regem Jacobum : sic enim ipse loquitur pag. 5. « Altera tacendi nominis ratio mihi fuit eo¬ rum conditio, cum quibus ad disceptandum descendebam. Quamquam enim paucis Pon¬ tificia Brevia notabam, mihi tamen id prae¬ cipue laboris dederam, ut Bellarmini litteras ad Blakwellum refellerem. Neque vero mi¬ hi unquam persuasi tantum esse in purpura cardinalitia dignitatis, ut occurrere regio fulgori par, ac aemula, et velut aequali ma¬ jestate cum eo possit ad certamen componi. Nam et inulta millia in subditis habeo, qui splendore natalium Bellarmino non conce¬ dant; et hanc illius Ecclesiasticam dignita¬ tem, Cardinalatum, inquam, nescio quo loco, aut pretio habeam, sive ad Scripturae aucto¬ ritatem, sive ad Imperatorum constitutio¬ nes expendam : cum sit nihil aliud quam nova Paparum institutio, quam in immen¬ sum excrescere decessorum nostrorum, re¬ gum inquam, qui his aliquot saeculis rem Christianam rexerunt, mollis, et ad omni a Pontifici connivens lenitas permisit. » At ego non video in disputatione theolo¬ gica quid necesse sit paritatem natalium, aut dignitatis, aut imperii quaerere cum sola necessaria sit paritas ingenii, atque doctrinae. Henricus VIII. rex Anglorum non indignum sibi putavit, adversus Martinum Lutherum monachum, vel, ut ipse rex loquitur, frater¬ culum scribere. Julianus quoque imperator, quia non contentus imperiali splendore, cu¬ piebat etiam clarere nomine eruditionis scripsit libros non adversus reges, sed ad¬ versus magistros Christianorum, eumque Cyrillus Episcopus copiosissime confutavit. Denique Nero imperator cum cantu, et ci¬ thara cum antagonistis in theatro decertare vellet, non quaesivit reges aut principes, sed homines peritissimos musicae artis, quos si vicisset, tum magnam gloriam adeptum se esse arbitrabatur. Sed quando rex Angliae majestate sua in¬ dignum judicat, ut vel ipse scribat in Cardi¬ nalem rege longe inferiorem, vel Cardinalis in ipsum scribat Cardinali longe superiorem ; de comparatione regis, et Cardinalis adducam judicium et ( c ) testimonia Patrum veterum, qui primis quingentis annis floruerunt, quos a se recipi rex ipse supra testatus est. Igitur cardinales nihil sunt aliud, nisi (a) Anglia tributaria facta est Romano Pontifici ante annos octingentos sexaginta. — (b) Hg- berniam Adrianus IV. Pont. Regibus Anglorum sub certis conditionibus tradidit. — (c) Testimo¬ nium veteris Ecclesiae de eminenti dignitate S. R. E. Cardinalium. APOLOGIS CAP. IV. 129 episcopi, presbyteri et diaconi, electores, consiliarii, et coadjutores Sumini Pontificis. Ac de Episcopis quibuscumque etiam non cardinalibus, scribit Gregorius Nazianzenus in oratione ad populum timore perculsum, et principem, sive prsesidem irascentem : « An me, inquit, libere loquentem aequo ani¬ mo fertis? nam vos quoque potestati meae, meisque subselliis lex Christi subjecit. Im¬ perium enim ipsi quoque gerimus, addo et¬ iam praestantius, atque perfectius : nisi vero aequum est, spiritum carni fasces submit¬ tere, et coelestia terrenis cedere. » Haec ille, qui aperte docet Episcopos potestate spirituali majores esse regibus, et potestatem spiritualem praestantiorem esse temporali, atque terrena. Sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus in lib. iii. de Sacerdotio, confert potestatem regis cum potestate Sacerdotis, quo nomine Episco¬ pum praecipue intelligit, ac dicit, sacerdotem tanto majorem a Deo potestatem accepisse, quanto coelum terrae, et quanto animae cor¬ poribus praestant. Reges enim corpora li¬ gandi, atque solvendi potestatem habent; sacerdotes vero animas ipsas ligant, et sol¬ vunt. Sanctus Ambrosius in lib. de Dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 3. « Nihil, inquit, est in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdote, nihil Episcopo sublimius reperitur. » Ac ne solis hominum testimoniis nitamur, quamvis doctissimorum, sanctissimorum, atque antiquissimorum ; audiamus Spiritum sanctum per os Apostoli loquentem in Epist. ad Hebr. cap. vn. Sine ulla contradictione minor a meliore benedicitur , ubi melior poni¬ tur pro majore, etpotiore, omnium consensu. Certum autem est, regem ab Episcopo be¬ ne dici, non Episcopum a rege : proinde sine contradictione potior rege Episcopus est. Quare si Episcopi quicumque majores sunt regibus, multo magis Episcopi Cardinales majores regibus erunt. Jam vero de presbyteris eadem ratio est, Sunt enim presbyteri minoris Ordinis sacer¬ dotes, et quamvis sub Episcopis, tamen po¬ testatem ipsi quoque habent animas ligandi atque solvendi ; reges, .et principes benedi¬ cendi; et Sacrificium illud admirandum ce¬ lebrandi, quod Angelicas virtutes longe su¬ perat. Quare sanctus Ambrosius, cum The¬ odosius imperator in presbyterio sedere vellet, jussit eum arceri, dicens : « Purpura imperatores facit, non Sacerdotes : refert haec Theodoretus lib. v. hist. Eccles. Addam et verba Severi Sulpitii, auctoris ejusdem sacculi, et testimonium sancti Mar- tini de dignitate presbyterali. Num ergo nar¬ ravisset Sulpitius, sanctum Martinum ali¬ quando ad convivium imperatoris maximi, cum uno ex presbyteris suis rogatum acces¬ sisse ; ita subjunxit : « Convivae aderant, velut ad diem festum evocati, summi, atque illustres viri, praefectus, idemque consul Evodius, quo nihil unquam justius fuit, co¬ mites duo summa potestate praediti, frater regis, et patruus, medius inter hos Martini presbyter accubuerat : ipse autem sellula juxta regem posita consederat. Ad medium fere convivium (ut moris est) pateram regi minister obtulit : ille sancto admodum Epi¬ scopo dari potius jubet, expectans atque ambiens ut ab illius dextera poculum sume¬ ret. Sed Martinus, ubi ebibit, pateram pre¬ sbytero suo tradidit, nullum scilicet existi¬ mans digniorem qui post se prior biberet : nec integrum sibi fore, si aut regem, aut eos qui a rege erant proximi, presbytero praetu¬ lisset. » Haec ille. Yides, rex, quale fuerit ju¬ dicium sancti Martini, viri omnium ore lau¬ datissimi, de dignitate presbyterorum. Quod si quicumque presbyteri, solum quia presby¬ teri tali ac tanta dignitate praediti sunt, ut etiam regibus praeferantur, quis jure mira¬ bitur, si cardinales aequales regibus a non¬ nullis esse dicantur. Porro de diaconis Ecclesiae Constantinopo- litanae sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus in ipsa urbe regia, in qua imperator residebat, affirmare non dubitavit, majorem eos ipsis imperatoribus habere potestatem, sic enim ad eos loquitur hom. 83. in Matth. « Si dux quispiam, si consul ipse, si is qui diademate ornatur, indigne adeat, cohibe, et coerce; majorem tu illo habes potestatem. » Et si diaconi Constantinopolitani, Chrysostomo auctore, majorem ducibus, consulibus, et ipso etiam imperatore potestatem habebant; cur non eamdem habeant diaconi romani, at¬ que ii potissimum, qui cardinales, id est, principales totius Orbis terrae diaconi sunt ? Quae cum ita sint, desinat rex Anglorum di¬ cere, Cardinalitiam dignitatem nescio quu loco, aut pretio habeam. Jam enim discere potuit ex Patribus veteris, et primitivae Ec- (1) Hebr. VII, 7. Tom. XH 9 130 APOLOGIjE CAP. IV. clesiae, quam solam probat, quo loco, aut pretio habendi sint episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi : atque inde conjecturam facere quo loco, aut pretio sint habendi episcopi, presbyteri, et Diaconi (a) Cardinales, qui praeter sacrum Ordinem electores sunt su¬ premi Ecclesiae Catholicae praesulis, et sacer¬ dotum omnium Principis, atque ipsius Chri- ti in teryis Vicarii generalis, et ejusdem co- adjutores, et consiliarii principales. At, inquit, cardinalatus nova est Paparum institutio. Non ita est: Nam si cardinales ut Episcopi, presbyteri, et Diaconi consideren¬ tur, ( b ) a Christo ipso instituti sunt, et ab initio Ecclesiae, usque ad nostra tempora perdurarunt. Itaque tam sunt antiqui quam antiqua ipsa Ecclesia est. Si vero considere¬ tur officium eligendi Pontificem, eumdemque consilio atque opera adjuvandi, semper hoc officio functi sunt presbyteri, et diaconi Ro¬ mani, cum episcopis Urbi adjacentibus» Hoc solum interestinter antiqua tenlpora, et recentia, quod olim ob paucitatem persona¬ rum, non distinguebantur presbyteri, et di¬ aconi Romani Cardinales a non Cardinalibus, sed omnes in communi hoc officio fungeban¬ tur : postea vero crescente numero presbyte¬ rorum, et diaconorum, et confusionem, ac tumultus varios ipsa multitudine pariente ; necesse fuit paucos ex multis seligere, qui hoc munere fungerentur, atque ii dicti sunj. episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi S. R. E. Cardinales. Neque haec revocatio ad paucos, et emi¬ nentia, quae inde secuta est Cardinalium, tam recens est, ut nova dici possit, cum an¬ ni quingenti, vel sexcenti ab eo tempore nu¬ merentur. Multa enim scribit de Cardinalium amplissima dignitate, qua etiam Patriarchas, et Primates omnes superabant, Petrus Da- miani in Epistola ad Antip.apam Cadaloum Vixit autem Petrus Damiani ante annos sex¬ centos. Multa scribit S. Bernardusin lib. iv. de Consideratione, ubi praster cajtera dicit Cardinales de omni orbe esse eligendos, quoniam totum orbem sunt judicaturi. Mul- . ta leguntur in probatis historicis antiquis, ex quibus abbas TJrspergensis in chronico ad annum Domini 11 16. testatur in concilio ge¬ nerali sub Paschali secundo vocatos Cardi¬ nales, potiora membra Ecclesiae. Hanc vero 'eminentiam dignitatis, neque rex probare po¬ terit, ex conniventia, vel lenitate principum temporalium processisse ; et nos apertissi¬ mam rationem reddidimus, cur tanta sit di¬ gnitas Cardinalitia, quia videlicet, ut dixi¬ mus, ipsi soli summum Pontificem eligant, ei- que ut collaterales, et coadjutores in regenda universa Ecclesia semper assistant. Ac ut absolvamus hunc locum de Cardi¬ nalibus : excutiam etiam breviter, quee mul¬ to infra rex adjungit, siquidem non conten¬ tus iis quse hoc loco scripsit, iterum pag. 1 1 6. ad idem argumentum revertitur, ac primum exprobrat Cardinali Bellarmino obscuritatem natalium. « Jam, inquit, praeter regis Maje¬ statem esse puto, ut in lite, ac certamine Cardinali se componat, saltem cum eo Car¬ dinali, qui non felicius, ac illustrius, quam iste natus sit. » Fatetur Bellarininus, paren¬ tes suos homines privatos, sed honestos, et probos fuisse : avunculum vero habuisse ( c ) Marcellum II. Pont. Maxim, cujus ea virtus, et doctrina fuit, ut etiam ab hostibus testi¬ monium acceperit. Theodorus enim Biblian- der homo Lutheranus in tabuiis suis Cbrono- logicis, ubi Pontificum successiones describit : Sedit, inquit, anno 1535. MarcellusII. vita san¬ ctus, et doctus. Sed etiam si Card. Bellarmi- nus parentes habuisset opifices, aut rusticos, modo Catholicos, et pios, non erubesceret, cum sciat (d) Principum Apostolorum, alte¬ rum piscatorem, alterum tabernaculorum opificem fuisse: David quoque regem, et Prophetarum a pascuis ad regnum evectum : Et quod maximum est, Christum Dominum nostrum fabrum, et fabri filium dici, et ha¬ beri voluisse, ut nos humilitatem, et contem¬ ptum mundi doceret : Et Apostolum audiat dicentem in priore ad Corinth. cap. i. Vide¬ te vocationem vestram , fratres , quia nonmul- ti sapientes secundum carnem , non mulli po¬ tentes , non multi nobiles, sed quse stulta sunt mundi eligit Deus, ut confundat fortia (1). Addit rex : « Ecclesiastica illa dignitas (Cardinalitia videlicet) quamquam princi¬ pum incuria, ut jam dixi, ad hoc preesumpti honoris culmen ascendit : tamen si ad ejus originem, et cunabula redeamus, nihil est aliud quam titulus presbyteris, et diaconis (1) I Corinth. I, 26. (a) CardinaDs sunt electores , consiliarii , et coadjutores Summi Pontificis. — (b) Antiquitas Car¬ dinalium. — (c) Marcellus II. Papa; ab ipsis diam hostibus fidei laudatus. — [d) Splendor natalium non necessarius ad Ecclesiasticas dignitates, sed splendor sapientice , et virtutum. APOLOGLE CAP: IV. 131 paroeciensium Ecclesiarum urbis Romae at¬ tributus: olim quidem presbyteris et diaco¬ nis cujuslibet Cathedralis Ecclesiae uni ve rs ce concessus, sed cum ejusmodi Cardinalium ingens multitudo undique Romam commean¬ tium Urbem implerent, tandem nomen Car¬ dinalis caeteris ademptum est, et solum Ro¬ manarum paroeciarum presbyteris, et diaco¬ nis reservatum. Et cum ante sanctum Gre- gorium nemo illius tituli meminerit, qui sexcentis post Christum annis, in quibusdam Epistolis de Cardinalibus loquitur, atque ita multis post Apostolos saeculis, hodierni isti Sedis Apostolicce electores, invisi omnibus, et incogniti fuerunt. » Non miror si multa hic dicantur non vera, quoniam (a) rex de rebus sibi incognitis, et sine auctore loquitur. Non est verum diaco¬ nos Cardinales habuisse olim titulos paroeci- enses ; tituli enim paroeciarum solis presby¬ teris dabantur, diaconis autem Ecclesiae a- liae, quae diaconarum nomem habebant. Ne¬ que verum est olim presbyteris, et diaco¬ nis cujuslibet cathedralis Ecclesiae per¬ missum fuisse titulum Cardin alitium . ra¬ rissimae enim Ecclesia his vocibus uteban¬ tur : ac ne in Romana quidem Ecclesia tem¬ pore S. Sylvestri omnes diaconi Cardinales erant, sed soli septem : tempore autem Sym¬ machi Pontificis soli viginti octo erant tituli Cardinalium presbyterorum, ut ex Conciliis Romanis sub Symmacho intelligi potest : pre¬ sbyteri autem Romani multo plures erant quam viginti octo. Illud etiam non est verum, venisse unquam ad Urbem multitudinem in¬ gentem Cardinalium non Romanorum, id enim ex nulla historia (quod sciam) probabi¬ tur. Neque illud est verum, nomen Cardinalis demptum aliis, et solis Romanis reservatum, nam usque ad hanc diem Ecclesia Compo- stellana habet suos Cardinales. Neque verum est ante tempora S. Gregorii nomen Cardi¬ nalis fuisse inauditum, legitur enim nomen septem diaconorum Cardinalium Romanae Ecclesiae in concilio Romano sub S. Sylve- stro, qui trecentis annis S. Gregorium ante¬ cessit. Subjungit rex : « Sed quomodo, inquit, praeter rationem suae originis, ac institutio¬ nis tam prodigiose sint elati, ut ex paroecia¬ rum presbyteris, ac diaconis nunc principes sint, regumque aequales, et ex gradu episco¬ pali dignitate minori sint hodie soli Pontifi¬ cis electores, qui cum geueralium concilio¬ rum vice fungantur (unde etiam usus gene¬ ralium conciliorum exolevit)immo ut nonnisi ex illorum collegio fas sit Pontificem eligi, qui supremam in reges sibi auctoritatem vendicat; hoc, inquam, tam insolens incre¬ mentum quomodo coeperit, nullisque repu¬ gnantibus adoleverit, nostrum est omnium providere, qui cum in terris Vicarii Dei si¬ mus, jure optimo suspectos habere debemus, istiusmodi nuper exortos principes, qui sua origine modici, humilesque, seipsos ad sum¬ mum fastigium, suis ipsi suffragiis subve¬ hunt, regibusque deinde se componunt. » Hic quoque rex ex ignoratione rerum no¬ strarum, et quia nimis magnam fidem habere videtur hostibus Ecclesise, multa non vera ibi elabi passus est. Non enim praeter ratio¬ nem, et institutionem suae originis, sed po¬ tius secundum originis rationem, et institu¬ tionem Cardinalitia dignitas crevit. Nam, ut supra diximus, antiqua institutio erat, ut presbyteri, et diaconi Romani cum vicinis Episcopis Pontificem Romanum eligerent, eumque consilio et opera adjuvarent : sed postea excrescente nimium presbyterorum, et diaconorum multitudine, paulatim haec functio ad paucos redacta est. Ita pauci illi super alios eminere coeperunt, ut Cardinales, id est, principales episcopi, presbyteri, et diaconi, atque adeo principes ecclesiastici jure dici possent : quomodo qui secundas partes a regibus oblinent in administranda temporali republica, principes temporales dici solent. De aequalitate cum regibus distinguendum esse censeo(6) : nam si de potestate temporali sermo sit, de imperio, de opibus, de viribus, de armis, dubium non est, quin reges longe, ac longe Cardinalibus praestent: si de pote¬ state spirituali, atque Ecclesiastica agatur; non solos Cardinales, sed omnes episcopos, presbyteros, et diaconos regibus superiores esse : paulo ante ex testimonio Ecclesiae ve¬ teris demonstratum est. Quod vero apud ju¬ risconsultos dici solet, cardinales aequipa- rari .regibus, de externo cultu, et honore in- telligendum videtur : usus enim obtinuit, ut quemadmodum principes omnes regibus ce¬ dunt, sic etiam cedant Cardinalibus : et in hoc paritas quaedam esse videtur. (a) Jacobus rex de rebus fide non cognitis loquitur. — (b) Cardinales regibus ^inferiores sunt temporali potestate : sed potestate spirituali , et ecclesiastica superiores . 432 APOLOGIiE CAP. IV. Quod addit rex, Cardinales presbyteros, et diaconos aliquando minores fuisse Epi¬ scopis non Cardinalibus, verum est, quoniam eo tempore non solum inferiores erant, quod attinet ad potestatem ordinis, ut etiam hoc tempore sunt; sed etiam quoad potestatem regendi Ecclesiam universalem, quia ipsi quoque ad concilia Romana vocabantur, et nobiliore loco sedebant, quam presbyteri, et diaconi Cardinales, olim etiam ad electionem summi Pontificis admittebantur. Sed po- steaquam soli Cardinales electores esse, et in Consistorio cum Pontifice Maximo Ecclesiam universalem administrare coeperunt; mirum videri non debet, si cardinales Episcopis non cardinalibus antepositi sint. Non tamen est verum, quod hoc loco rex scribit, (a) cardina¬ les cum Pontifice fungi vice conciliorum ge¬ neralium, et ideo usum generalium concilio¬ rum penitus exolevisse. Nam ab eo tempore qeo coeperunt Cardinales ea eminentia excel¬ lere, qua nunc excellunt, habita sunt multa concilia generalia, tria Lateranensia, duo Lugdunensia, unum Viennense, unum Con- stantiense, unum Florentinum, unum Tri- dentinum, et alia paulo minora. Concilia ergo Romana particularia exoleverunt, et in eorum locum consistoria Cardinalium suc¬ cessisse videntur, concilia generalia non exo¬ leverunt. Neque illud verum est, nisi ex collegio Cardinalium Pontificem eligi fas non esse. Scimus enim his postremis quingentis annis electos fuisse Pontifices Callixtum II, Euge- nium III, Urbanum IV, Gregorium X, Goele- stinum V, Clementem V, Urbanum V, Urba¬ num VI, Felicem V, quamvis hic postremus legitimus non sit habitus, qui omnes extra Collegium erant. Quod autem rex addit, a Romanis Pontificibus supremam in reges sibi auctoritatem vindicare : si per vindicare, significare velit, usurpare, omnino negamus sin autem vindicare, sit quod suum est asse¬ rere : libenter admittimus : sic tamen, ut per auctoritatem, non despoticum imperium, sed paternam, sive pastoralem potestatem intelligamus, de qua re saepe dictum est, et infra iterum recurret oratio. Quod etiam rex ait, ad reges, ut Dei in terris Vicarios, pertinere curam videndi, quomodo tam insolens incrementum Cardi- nalitiae dignitatis coeperit, nulla ratione ad¬ mitti potest, sunt quidem (b) reges Ministri Dei in terris, ut eos vocat Sapiens in lib. Sap. c. vi. Et Apostolus ad Rom. xm, sed ministri sunt in iis, quae ad terrena, et tem¬ poralia spectant, nam quod attinet ad spiri¬ tualia, et coelestia, atque uno verbo ad Ec¬ clesiastica, Vicarii Dei Episcopi sunt, quos Spiritus sanctus posuit regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam acquisivit sanguine suo, Act. xx. Et summus Vicarius ille est, cui Dominus dixit, Sequere me , et : Pasce oves meas. Jo. xxi, proinde videre, an, et quomodo, et quousque crescere debeat dignitas Cardinalitia, quae est ecclesiastica et spiritualis, ad reges non pertinet. s Minus verum est, cpiod rex addit, istius- modi nuper exortos principes suis suffragiis seipsos ad summum fastigium evexisse, re¬ gibusque se deinde componere. Nam neque nuper exorti sunt (nisi quingentorum anno¬ rum, aut etiam sexcentorum spatium) nuper, dici possit ; neque suis ipsi suffragiis, sed auctoritate ejus, qui Dei locum tenet in terris, evecti sunt, neque se regibus ipsi componunt, non enim Cardinalis erat, qui scripsit. Cardinales sequiparari regibus, quod quomodo intelligendum sit paulo ante diximus. Postremo hsec rex adjungit : « Sed heec est praecipua, quam nobis inferunt, injuria, quod jus Christianis commune regibus in generalibus conciliis, nobis adimant, cum illorum habendi modum, penitus sustulerint; eorum vi, ac potestate ad se pertracta, et veluti monopolio in Pontificio Conclavi con¬ stituto. Et tamen si spes ulla, aut expectatio superesset, posse Christianos omnes ad ali¬ quem in Religione consensum adduci, id es¬ set a generali concilio expectandum, indicto in locum commodum, nec suspectum con¬ ventu, ubi Christiani omnes Principes, aut per se, aut per legatos possent adesse, et Ecclesiastici omnes, qui Christianam religio¬ nem profitentur, iliisque veteribus verae, an¬ tiquae, Catholicae, et Apostolicae fidei funda¬ mentis adhaerescunt, tutum accessum, ac commeatum haberent, incendiariis utrinque furiosis, ac novitiis, sive Jesuitis, sive Puri- tanis exclusis. » Ad hanc ultimam partem pari brevitate respondeo, quod enim nulla auctoritate, aut ratione probatur, simplici negatione refelli solet. Primum igitur nego, (e) sublatum esse modum habendi concilia generalia : nego (a) Dignitas cardinalitia generalium conciliorum usum non sustulit. — f b) Reges ministri Dei sunt in temporali regimine, — (c) Vana querela. i de sublato modo habendi coneilia generalia. APOLOGLE GAP. V. 133 vim et potestatem eorum ad Cardinales per¬ tractam : nego in Pontificio conclavi esse quasi monopolium constitutum. Jam enim concilia generalia enumeravimus, quae his postremis annis celebrata sunt. Quomodo enim vere dici potest, sublatum esse modum habendi generalia concilia, cum concilia ce¬ leberrima, et plurima paulo ante hoc saecu- lum, et hac ipsa setate nostra sint habita ? Quod autem rex queritur, factam sibi, at¬ que aliis regibus injuriam, quod commune jus regibus Christianis in conciliis generali¬ bus sit ademptum : qua veritate nitatur non video, cum in concilio generali apud Triden- tum habito, interfuerint legati Caesaris, Re¬ gum pene omnium, et principum plurimo¬ rum. Quod addit, indicendum fuisse conci¬ lium in locum non suspectum, et commodum : id quoque praestitum est, cum Tridentum in finibus Germaniae, atque Italiae constitutum, locus aptissimus, et minime suspectus a Summo Pontifice, et Caesare, aliisque regi¬ bus et principibus judicatus sit. Quod vero dicit, omnes Ecclesiasticos, qui Christianam Religionem profitentur, tutum accessum , et commeatum habere ad (a) conci¬ lium debere : hoc vero est, recedere a forma quatuor primorum conciliorum, vel potius omnium, quae habita sunt unquam in Ecclesia conciliorum. Concilia enim Episco¬ pum sunt, non omnium Ecclesiasticorum; alioqui nullus locus tale concilium caperet : neque de dogmatibus fidei judicare adnmnes pertinet, sed ad principes Ecclesiarum, qui Episcopi sunt : sic enim loquitur concilium Chalcedonense, unum ex primis quatuor, quae a Jacobo rege admittuntur : « Mitte foras superfluos, concilium Episcoporum est. » Cui consentit imperator Theodosius in epist. ad concilium Ephesinum, tom i, cap. 32. sic dicens: « Illicitum est eum, qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcopo¬ rum ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus. » Ne tamen quererentur Protestantes, aut Cal- viniani, invitati sunt omnes, et salvus con¬ ductus publica fide praestitus, dilatae quoque rerum gravissimarum determinationes in longa tempora, ut spatium comparandi se, atque ad concilium veniendi, non deesset. Omitto quae dicuntur in Jesuitas, et Purita- nos, quoniam ad convicia pertinent, non ad doctrinam.