Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 5: That Cardinal Bellarmine Did the King No Injury When He Undertook the Defence of the Apostolic Briefs and of His Own Letter
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 king goes on afterwards in his preface, and, to give the reason for the proposed oath, discourses copiously enough on the gunpowder conspiracy. Of this matter what seemed to me needful to say I have written in the other little book which is annexed to this Apology. He comes at last to Bellarmine, and first, page 15, strives to prove from conjectures that the book in which the pontifical Briefs and Bellarmine's letter are defended is by the same Bellarmine, not by Matthaeus Tortus, whose name it bears. To this the answer is easy. Cardinal Bellarmine confesses that the book is his; but, as I warned above, it did not seem good to him to inscribe his own name, because neither had the adversary inscribed his. He complains then of the manner of writing, that it is foreign to all modesty; and he proves this, page 16, from the preface ascribed to the printer of Pont-à-Mousson, where the cardinal's dignity seems to be set beside the royal dignity. But that preface Bellarmine neither wrote, nor has he to this day been able to learn who is the author of that preface, or who at last that printer of Pont-à-Mousson is. For the Cardinal gave his book, without any preface or dedication, to be printed at Cologne. But with what modesty he is wont to write, he leaves the judgment to readers.
The king then charges, page 17, the pride of the Cardinal in writing, and from it gathers that he contends with the king as of equal dignity, because he wished to imitate his brevity in writing: “The same brevity,” he says, “which I used in writing, he himself wished to follow in answering; the same compendious method which I had used in refuting the Pontiff's second Brief, he wished to use against me; and after my example almost to confine himself within the narrow limits of a single page. And because I distributed the sum of the oath of fidelity into fourteen articles, he would have thought he sinned against his own greatness unless he too had divided into just as many parts the edict of the public estates in which that oath is contained.” Good God, how wretched a condition it is to live under that king who judges an injury done to him if anyone learns to write from his example. Other princes certainly hold it most welcome, what that poet wrote: The whole world is shaped after the king's example. Add that Bellarmine did not know that he was writing against a king, whose name he had not seen on the front of the book, and had given credit to those who reported that the book in the English tongue was by some dean of the royal chapel, and the version into Latin by some royal chronographer, which persons he knew neither by name nor by face. So he could not have emulated the royal manner of writing on purpose, who did not know it was a royal book; but how familiar and friendly to him brevity in writing, and division, are, all know who have read his books, so that he had no need to learn these things from others.
He comes down a little after, page 18, to a much graver accusation, and says: “But if with this empty pride and display of his greatness he had so filled his mind as to refrain from a graver injury against me, he could indeed have seemed more tolerable. But now what cause will he say there is why he has stuffed his answer with almost continual reproaches against me and my Apology? For whereas I have nowhere wounded Bellarmine with a harsher word, and have especially taken care not to charge the man with lying, he, this law of humanity despised, nine times in express words pronounces that I lie, and seven times charges me with falsehood. Which is the same as if he reproached me with lying; and as for the other insults, I know not whether any part of the book is free of them, such as: trifles, reproaches, rashness, vanity, impudence, blasphemies, barbarity of speech, with the same felicity of writing, cavils, inept application, to invent histories, an audacity which cannot fall on a man of sound mind, or he lacks common sense, ignorance and levity, to have put off all shame and conscience whatever, he deals with us in bad faith, that he may impose on readers by fair means or foul. With these and such reproaches I know not whether he has left any page free.”
To these I answer thus: first, to write briefly and distinctly cannot be imputed to pride or arrogance, except by one whom too great a disturbance drives astray. Then, that the author of the Apology, which the king now says is his, wounded Bellarmine with no harsher word, and did not charge him with lying, the very words of the Apology witness to be false; for these are its words, page 37: “That great and famous writer of Controversies, Cardinal Bellarmine, lately an ex-Jesuit, with his talent too enriches and enlarges this good work begun, while, as if a fan were applied and spurs driven in, he sharpens and kindles sedition, by the letter sent here to the archpriest, and that so written that it is a wonder how partly passion of mind, partly an ambitious zeal for propping the Pontiff's monarchy could so carry him away, and dazzle and bewitch the light of judgment of so learned a man”; page 47: “I cannot but wonder here,” he says, “with all men, indeed I cannot but wish away so gross an error of so learned a man”; page 69: “This is known to us,” he says, “that unless certain of the cardinals in that business had used greater prudence and maturity than the Pontiff, the pontifical calendar itself, in which the saints are entered, would, though we were silent, have openly convicted Bellarmine of lying”; page 83: “Altogether rightly does that sentence of the old poet fit Bellarmine using so inept a comparison: Whom Jupiter would destroy, he first makes mad.” These and like things written by himself the king had forgotten when he said that Bellarmine had been wounded by him with no harsher word; unless perhaps these are not to be held harsh words: an ex-Jesuit cardinal, a fan of sedition, carried away by ambition, held in gross error, to be openly convicted of lying, made mad by Jupiter, and so on; which I then gladly passed over, since I had resolved to answer arguments, not reproaches. Lastly, that I in express words nine times pronounced that the king lies, and seven times charged him with falsehood, as the king himself complains, I altogether deny. For I have already said above that I never held that Apology for a royal writing; for neither did the author of the Apology ever name himself king, but rather always bore himself as a royal officer and defender. But neither ought you to have accused a minister of the king of lying, or falsehood, or barbarous speech. So it is, if he wrote true things; if he did not lie knowingly and wittingly; if he had learned to speak Latin; for what things are lies I do not know how to call in Latin except lies; as also the trifles, reproaches, blasphemies, invented histories, barbarity of speech, and other things of that kind which I found in the Apology, I called by their own names. It will be the readers' judgment whether they are such as I said they were. Although, if I could have known it to be a royal book, I would have noted the opinions, and refrained from the harsher words for the sake of honour; which honour I did not think that dean or chronographer worthy of, by whom I saw not myself only, but even the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, and the Lord's anointed, so shamelessly abused.
In the last place, page 19, he recounts those things which he thinks properly pertain to the injury done him. “But these,” he says, “perhaps he was throwing as reproaches only at the unknown author of the Apology; nay rather, he spared neither me myself nor my name. Now he affirms that Pope Clement thought that I did not shrink from the Catholic faith. That in Scotland I was a Puritan, and an enemy of the Protestants. Elsewhere he concludes: because James is not a Catholic, by that very fact he is a heretic. Again: from a Christian they made him a Calvinist. In another place: Nor is it at all true that James did not desert the religion which he had first received. And after he had compared me to Julian the Apostate, he concludes the matter with this argument: Since he is not a Catholic, neither is he a Christian. Whether this is an honourable way of dealing with a king or not, I leave to your sound judgment, whom so great an insult offered to one of your order cannot but gravely move.” Here indeed I would gladly hear whether the king thinks it honourable or shameful to shrink from the Catholic faith. For if it is shameful to shrink from the Catholic faith, as in truth it is shameful, Bellarmine did the king no injury when he wrote that Pope Clement VIII thought that King James did not shrink from the Catholic faith; but if it is honourable to shrink from the Catholic faith, he did the same king no injury when he affirmed that King James is not a Catholic, and because he is not a Catholic is of the heretics, since these two are contraries. But let us answer each briefly. I say that no injury was done the king by this, that Pope Clement of holy memory together with us had a good hope of the king's conversion, and began to think, chiefly from this, that he allowed the Catholics in Scotland to lead a quiet and tranquil life, that he did not shrink from the Catholic faith. For he hoped and thought of him what he believed to be good for him; and if it is not true that the king never failed to shrink from the Catholic faith, we were deceived, the Pontiff too was disappointed in his hope; but not on that account was injury done the king, because we hoped and thought of him, in our judgment, better things. But what Bellarmine wrote, that the king in Scotland was a Puritan and an enemy of the Protestants, belongs to history, not to injury. And he did not pronounce it absolutely to be so, but added, if the things are true which are told by those who knew him intimately. So of things unknown to himself he believed others, who seemed worthy of credit. If they told false things, let them see to it. Although there is no lack of conjectures from the Basilikon Doron by which what Bellarmine wrote is confirmed; for in book 1, page 6, it is thus read: “And unless my conscience had certainly persuaded me that that religion which we now profess in Scotland is founded on the express and even formal words of Scripture,” and so on; and in book 2, page 40: “But indeed,” he says, “the reformed religion was brought into this our Scotland by a plainly divine miracle,” and so on; for he says it was brought in by a miracle, because it was brought in by furious and greedy Puritans. From these passages it is gathered that the king in Scotland professed the Scottish religion, and that the morals indeed of the Puritans who had brought it in displeased him, but not the religion, which he thought had been brought in through them by a miracle, that is, a good religion carried in by bad men.
Further, that consequence, because King James is not a Catholic, by that very fact he is a heretic, cannot be turned to a fault with him who openly professes that he is not a Catholic, since in that whole Apology he always gives the name of Catholics to those who adhere to the Roman Pontiff, from whose faith and religion he does not deny that he shrinks. And although in this preface he strives to prove himself a Catholic, yet since he says he is a stranger to the Roman religion and to obedience to the Roman Pontiff, he cannot on that account ever be held or called a Catholic by the judgment of the world; since the Roman Church has so obtained the name of Catholic that even heretics, when asked where people assemble at the Catholic church, point not to their own houses but to that one alone, in which from Apostolic times through the successions of bishops the ancient tradition has been preserved, and from which all heretics have fallen off like broken branches. So Saint Ambrose, in the oration on the death of Satyrus, when he had said, “He asked whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops,” soon added the explanation: “that is,” he says, “whether he agreed with the Roman Church”; on which name see what we said on the last page of our earlier little book, which is annexed to this Apology. Now what I said, that a heretic is not a Christian, I did not say because I was ignorant that in a certain wide signification all can be called Christians who, baptized in Christ, profess that they worship Christ; but because properly those alone are true Christians who hold the true and whole faith of Christ in his Church, and adhere to no heretical sect. Which is the common opinion of the ancient Fathers who flourished in the first five hundred years, as of Saint Cyprian, book 4, epistle 2, to Antonianus, and the book on the Unity of the Church; of Saint Athanasius, oration 2 against the Arians; of Saint Jerome in the Dialogue against the Luciferians; of Saint Augustine in the book on the grace of Christ, chapter 20; and of others, whom for the sake of brevity I pass over. Wherefore if it is an injury to say of one not a Catholic that he is a heretic, and thereby not a Christian, he who believes injury is done him ought not to complain of me, but of the Fathers of the ancient Church, who taught me so to speak. From which we understand that it is neither false nor injurious to say that he who was born of Catholic parents, and received baptism by the Catholic rite, and afterwards, corrupted by his educators, fell into heresy, being made a heretic from a Christian, has let go the religion which he had received with baptism. He does him no injury, I say, who says this; but he truly did him a most grave injury who drew him away from his Catholic mother, and handed him over to Calvinists to be instructed. Nor can there be any doubt that at this time King James would be not only one of the order of kings, but also one of the number of Catholic kings, if he could have been instructed by his Catholic mother. Further, orthodox princes ought deservedly to be moved if someone of their order and number were unjustly branded with the mark of heresy; but that a prince who shrinks from their religion; who execrates as Antichrist him whom they honour as the Vicar of Christ; who openly laughs at the intercession of the saints; who calls the veneration of relics intolerable idolatry; who lastly spits upon purgatory, the Mass and the other dogmas of the Catholic faith, is called a heretic and not a Christian, they cannot take ill, nor be moved, except with the motion of brotherly grief, that so great a king, whom sceptre and crown had joined to their order, heresy and schism have separated from their communion.
And that the king may understand that it is not new in the Church for the priests of the Lord to reprove heretical kings with a free voice, I shall write in this place the words of Saint Hilary the bishop to the Arian emperor Constantius, from the book which begins: It is time to speak, because the time of keeping silence has now passed. “Now,” he says, “we fight against a deceiving persecutor, against a flattering enemy, against Constantius the Antichrist.” And below: “But someone perhaps will think me rash, because I say that Constantius is Antichrist; whoever judges this petulance rather than constancy, let him read again that John said to Herod, It is not lawful for thee to do this.” And below: “I proclaim to you, Constantius, what I would have said to Nero, what Decius and Maximian would hear from me: you fight against God, you rage against the Church, you persecute the saints, you hate the preachers of Christ, you take away religion, a tyrant now not of human but of divine things. These things are common and shared between you and them; but now receive what is your own. You lie that you are a Christian, you are a new enemy of Christ, you run before Antichrist, and work the mysteries of his secrets. You compose a faith, living against the faith; you are a teacher of the profane, unlearned in the things of the godly; you give bishoprics to your own, you commit priests to custody, you dispose your armies for the terror of the Church.” And below: “Most wicked of mortals, you so temper all the evils of persecution as to shut out both pardon in sin and martyrdom in confession.” And below: “O wicked one, what mockery do you make of the Church? Only dogs return to their vomit; you have forced the priests of Christ to swallow back what they had spat out. You call yourself a Christian, but how far you are from being one, you yourself witness.” So he, who is one of the ancient and most holy and most praised Fathers. Not unlike things could be added from Lucifer of Cagliari, from Gregory Nazianzen, and from others. But let these few suffice in this place. Nor is it true, what some have suspected, that that book of Saint Hilary was published after Constantius was dead; for that it was published while he lived, and offered to him living, Cardinal Baronius proves in volume 3 of the Annals, page 715.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V. i Quod Card. Bellarminus nulla injuria regem affecit , cum Apostolicorum Brevium , et Epistolae suae defensionem suscepit. Pergit postea rex in praefatione sua, et ut rationem reddat propositi juramenti, depul- veraria conjuratione satis copiose disserit. De qua re quod mihi dicendum videbatur, scripsi in alio libello, qui huic Apologiae ad¬ junctus est. Venit tandem ad Bellarminum, et primum pag. 15, ex conjecturis probare nititur, librum, quo Brevia Pontificia, et Epistola Bellarim ni defenduntur, ejusdem Bellarmini esse, non Matthaei Torti, cujus nomen gerit. Ad hoc facilis responsio est. Fatetur Cardi¬ nalis Bellarminus librum esse suum, sed ut supra admonui, non est visum illi suum no¬ men inscribere, quia neque adversarius no¬ men inscripserat suum. Quaeritur deinde de modo scribendi, quod sit ab omni modestia alienus ; idque probat pag. 16, ex praefatione Typographo Politano adscripta, ubi Cardi- nalitia dignitas cum regia dignitate componi videtur. At eam praefationem neque Bellar¬ minus scripsit, neque usque ad hanc diem cognoscere potuit, quis ejus praefationis sit auctor; aut quis tandem ille sitTypographus Politanus. Cardinalis enim librum suum, sine ulla praefatione, vel dedicatione Colo- niensibus excudendum dedit. Qua vero mo¬ destia soleat in scribendo uti, lectoribus ju¬ dicium relinquit. Arguit deinde pag. 17, rex fastum Cardi¬ nalis in scribendo, atque inde colligit, eum cum rege quasi de pari dignitate contendere, quod ejus brevitatem in scribendo imitari voluerit : « Quam ego, inquit, in scribendo brevitatem, eamdem ipse in respondendo sequi voluit , quo compendio in secundo Pontificis Brevi refutando usus eram, eodem in me voluit uti; meoque exemplo sese pene intra unius paginae aingustias coercere. Et quoniam Sacramenti fidelitatis summam in articulos quatuordecim distribui, peccare in suam amplitudinem credidisset, nisi et pu¬ blicorum ordinum edictum, quo istud jura- (a) Tale concilium Rex Jacobus petit , quale numquam a condita Ecclesia celebratum est. 134 APOLOGLE CAP. V. mentum continetur, fin totidem particulas divisisset. » Deus bone, quam misera conditio est sub eo rege vivere, qui injuriam sibi fieri judicat, si quis ab ejus exemplo scribere discat. Alii certe principes gratissimum habent, quod ille scripsit : Totus componitur orbis regis ad exemplum. Adde quod Bellarminus non sciebat, se adversus regem scribere, cujus nomen in fronte libri non viderat, el fidem habuerat iis, qui nunciaverunt librum An- glico idiomate esse nescio cujus decani sa¬ celli regii, versionem autem in latinam lin¬ guam esse Chronographi cujusdam regii, quas ille personas, neque de nomine, neque de facie noverat. Itaque non potuit regium in scribendo modum de industria aemulari, qui regium librum esse nesciebat : brevitas autem in scribendo, et distinctio, quam sit illi familiaris, et amica, norunt omnes, qui libros ejus legerunt, ut opus ei non fuerit ab aliis haec discere. Descendit paulo post pag. 18, ad accusa¬ tionem multo graviorem, atque ait : « Quod si inani hac superbia, et amplitudinis suae ostentatione ita animum explevisset, ut a graviore in me injuria temperaret,, videri sane tolerabilior potuisset. Nunc vero quid esse causae dicat, cur pene continuis in me, meamque Apologiam conviciis suam respon¬ sionem referserit? Nam cum ego nusquam Bellarminum verbo atrociore laeserim, et praecipue id caverim, ne hominem mendacii insimularem; illehaclege humanitatis spre¬ ta, novies disertis verbis, me mentiri pro¬ nuntiat, et septies falsi arguit. Quod perinde est, ac si mendacium mihi exprobraret, cae- teris vero contumeliis, nescio an ulla pars libri vacet, cujusmodi sunt, nugae, convicia, temeritas, vanitas, impudentia, blasphemiae, sermonis barbaries , cum eadem felicitate scribendi, cavillationes, applicatio inepta, fingere historias, audacia quae in hominem sanae mentis cadere non potest, vel sensu communi caret, imperitia, et levitas, omnem omnino pudorem et conscientiam exuisse, mala fide nobiscum agit, ut lectoribus per fas et nefas imponat. His et ejusmodi con¬ viciis nescio ullam ne paginam immunem re¬ liquerit. » Ad haec ita respondeo : primum, breviter, et distincte scribere, non potest superbiae, vel arrogantiae imputari, nisi ab eo, quem nimia perturbatio transversum agat. Deinde, quod auctor Apologiae, quam rex suam esse nunc dicit(a), nullo atrociore verbo Bellarmi¬ num laeserit, neque mendacii insimulaverit, falsum esse, ipsa Apologiae verba testantur : haec enim sunt ejus verba pag. 37. « Magnus ille, et praeclarus Controversia¬ rum scriptor Cardinalis nuper exjesuatus Bel¬ larminus, suo quoque talento coeptum hoc opus bonum locupletat, et amplificat, dum quasi flabello admoto, et calcaribus infixis seditionem acuit, accenditque, missis huc ad archipresbyterum litteris, iisque ita scri¬ ptis, ut mirum sit quomodo partim animi passio, partim ambitiosum fulciendae Ponti¬ ficis monarchia) studium, eum ita abripere, et lumen judicii tam docti viri perstringere, et fascinare potuerint, » pag. 47 : « Cunctos, inquit, mecum hic admirari non possum, quin exoptem, tam crassum errorem tam docti viri, » pag. 69 : « Hoc nobis, inquit, notum est, quod nisi quidam e Cardinalibus, in illo negotio, majori prudentia, et maturi¬ tate usi fuissent quam Pontifex : fasti ipsi Pontificii, in quos relati sunt divi, nobis ta¬ centibus, Bellarminum aperte mendacii convicissent, » pag. 83 : « Becte omnino quadrat in Bellarminum tam inepta similitu¬ dine utentem Poetae veteris illius sententia : Perdere, quos vult Jupiter hos dementat. lisec, et similia a se scripta oblitus erat rex, quando dixit, nullo atrociore verbo a se laesum fuisse Bellarminum; nisi forte non sint habenda verba atrocia, exjesuatus Car¬ dinalis, flabellum seditionis, ambitione abre¬ ptus, crasso errore detentus, aperte menda¬ cii convincendus, a Jove dementatus, etc., quae tunc libens praeterii, quoniam ad argu- menia, non ad convicia respondere decre¬ veram. Postremo quod ego disertis verbis novies regem mentiri prun undaverim, et septies arguerim falsi, ut rex ipse conqueritur, om¬ nino inficior. Jam enim supra dixi, Apolo¬ giam illam numquamme pro regia scriptura, habuisse ; nam, neque auctor Apologiae re'- gem se aliquando nominavit, quin potius semper se pro regio administro, et defen¬ sore gessit. At neque ministrum regis men¬ dacii, vel falsi, vel barbari sermonis accu¬ sare deberes. Ita est, si vera scriberet; si (a) An sit verum, quod rex Cardinalem nullo atrociore verbo laeserit. APOLOGLE CAP. V. non sciens, et prudens mentiretur ; si latine loqui didicisset (a); quse enim mendacia sunt, non scio latine appellare, nisi menda¬ cia; quemadmodum etiam nugas, convicia, blasphemias, confictas historias, sermonis barbariem, et alia id genus, quse in Apolo- gia reperi, suis nominibus appellavi. Judi¬ cium lectorum erit, an talia sint, qualia esse dixi. Quamquam si regium librum esse scire potuissem, sententias notassem, a verbis acerbioribus honoris gratia temperassem, quo honore dignum non existimavi decanum, vel chronographum illum, a quo non me so¬ lum, sed etiam Summum Pontificem, Vica¬ riam Christi, et Christum Domini tam inve¬ recunde factari videbam. Ultimo loco, pag. 19. commemorat ea, quae proprio ad injuriam suam pertinere ar¬ bitratur. « Sed haec, inquit, forte in ignotum Apologise auctorem solummodo probra mit¬ tebat; immo vero, nec mihi ipsi nec nomini meo pepercit. Modo affirmat Clementem Pontificem sensisse, me non abhorrere a fide Catholica. Me in Scotia Puritanum, et Prot^stnntium inimicum extitisse. Alibi con¬ cludit, quia Jacobus non est Catholicus, hoc ipso haereticus est. Iterum ex Christiano Calvinistam fecerunt. Alio loco : Neque om¬ nino verum est, Jacobum non deseruisse Re¬ ligionem, quam primo susceperat. Et post- eaquam Juliano apostatae me contuliset, hoc argumento rem concludit : Cum Catho¬ licus non sit, neque Christianus est. Sit haec honesta necne ratio cum rege agendi, vestro sano judicio relinquo, quos rton potest tanta contumelia uni vestri ordinis illata, non graviter commovete. » Hic vero libenter audirem, honestumne, an turpe rex existimet abhorrere a fide Ca¬ tholica. Si enim turpe sit a fide Catholica abhorrere, ut re vera turpe est, non fecit regi Bellarminus injuriam, cum scripsit Clementem VIII. Pontificem sensisse regem Jacobum a fide Catholica non abhorrere : sin autem honestum sit a fide Catholica ab¬ horrere, non fecit eidem regi injuriam, cum affirmavit regem Jacobum non esse Catholicum, et quia Catholicus non est, hae¬ reticorum esse, cum haec duo contraria sint. Sed ad singula breviter respondeamus. Dico, nullam factam esse regi injuriam, ex eo quod sanctae memoriae Clemens Pontifex i una nobiscum spem habuerit bonam de re¬ gis conversione, et existimare cceperit ex eo potissimum quod Catholicos in Scotia quietam, ac tranquillam vitam ducere patie¬ batur, eum a fide Catholica non abhorrere. Sperabat enim, et sentiebat de illo, quod bonum illi esse credebat; quod si verum non est, regem a fide Catholica numquam non abhorruisse ; nos decepti sumus, Ponti¬ fex quoque spe sua frustratus est, sed non ideo injuria regi facta est, quia speravimus, et sensimus de illo, nostro judicio, meliora. Quod autem scripsit Bellarminus regem in Scotia Puritanum, et Protestantium inimi¬ cum fuisse, ad historiam, non ad injuriam pertinet. Id autem ita esse non absolute pro¬ nuntiavit, sed addidit, si vera sunt, quse narrantur ab iis, qui eum intime noverunt. Itaque de rebus sibi ignotis aliis credidit, qui fide digni visi sunt. Si falsa narrarunt, ipsi viderint. Quamquam non desunt con¬ jecturae ex Basilico cloro , unde confirmatur quod scripsit Bellarminus : nam lib. i. pag. 6. sic legitur : « Et nisi mihi mea conscientia certe persuasisset, Religionem illam, quam in Scotia jam profitemur, ipsis expressis, etiam conceptis Scripturae verbis fundatam esse etc.» lib. vero ii, pag.40 : « At vero, inquit, reformata religio in hanc nostram Scotiam divino plane miraculo introducta est, etc., » dicit enim miraculo introductam; quoniam a furiosis, et cupidis Puritanis introducta fuit. Ex his locis colligitur, regem in Scotia Scoticam religionem professum esse, et dis¬ plicuisse illi quidem mores Puritanorum, qui illam introduxerant, sed non Religionem, quam per illos miraculo introductam, id est, per malos homines bonam religionem inve¬ ctam arbitrabatur. Porro illa consecutio quia rex Jacobus non est Catholicus, hoc ipso haereticus est; non potest vitio verti apud eum, qui Catho¬ licum se non esse palam profitetur cum in tota illa Apologia nomen Catholicorum sem- per tribuat illis, qui Romano Pontifici adhae¬ rent; a quorum fide, et religione se abhor¬ rere non negat. Quamvis autem in hac prae¬ fatione, Catholicum se probare nitatur, cum tamen a Romana religione, et a Romani Pontificis obedientia alienum se esse dicat; non ideo judicio orbis terrae Catholicus un¬ quam haberi, vel dici poterit, quoniam (b) (a) Non est conviciari , convicia adversarii detegere : neque vitio verti debet , vitia in libro adver¬ sarii notare. — (b) Nomen Catholici solis illis convenit , qui Romance Ecclesiae filii sunt. 136 APOLOGIS GAP. V. nomen Catholici, Ecclesia Romana ita obti¬ nuit, ut etiam hseretici interrogati, ubi ad Catholicam conveniatur, non suas domos, sed istam unam ostendant, in qua ab Apo- stolicis temporibus per successiones Episco¬ porum conservata est antiqua traditio, et unde hseretici omnes, tamquam rami fracti exciderunt. Itaque S. Ambrosius, in Ora¬ tione de obitu Satyri, cum dixisset: «Quaesi¬ vit, an cum Episcopis Catholicis consenti¬ ret, mox addidit explicationem, id est, in¬ quit, an cum Romana Ecclesia consentiret.» de quo nomine vide quse diximus in extrema pagina prioris nostris libelli, qui huic Apolo- giae adjunctus est. Jam vero quod dixi (a), haereticum non esse Christianum, non ideo dixi quod ignorarem, ampla quadam significatione Christianos dici posse, quotquot in Christo baptizati Chri¬ stum se colere profitentur : sed quoniam proprie illi soli veri Christiani sunt, qui ve¬ ram, atque integram Christi fidem in ejus Ecclesia tenent, nullique haereticae sectae adhaerent. Quae communis est sententia ve¬ terum Patrum, qui primis quingentis annis floruerunt, ut S. Cypriani lib. iv. epist. 2. ad Antonianum. Et lib. de Unitate Ecclesiae, S. Athanasii orat. 2. adversus Arianos, S. Hieronymi in Dialogo adversus Luciferanos, S. Augustini lib. de gratia Christi cap. 20. et aliorum, quos gratia brevitatis omitto : quare si injuria est de non Catholico dicere eum haereticum, ac per hoc non Christianum esse, non de me queri debet, qui injuriam sibi fieri credit; sed de Patribus veteris Ec¬ clesiae, qui me ita loqui docuerunt. Ex quo intelligimus, non esse falsum, ne¬ que injuriosum dicere, eum, qui ex parenti¬ bus Catholicis natus est, et baptismum Ca¬ tholico ritu suscepit, ac postea ab educato¬ ribus depravatus in haeresim incidit; ex Christiano haereticum factum, religionem, quam cum baptismo susceperat, dimisisse. Non facit, inquam, illi injuriam, qui hoc dicit, sed vere injuriam gravissimam illi fecit, qui eum abstraxit a matre Catholica, et insti¬ tuendum Calvinianis tradidit. Neque enim dubium esse potest, quin hoc tempore Jaco- bus rex, non solum unus esset ex ordine re¬ gum, sed etiam unus e numero Catholicorum regum, si a parente Catholica institui potuis¬ set. Porro principes Orthodoxi merito commo¬ veri deberent, si aliquis de ipsorum ordine, et numero nota haereseos injuste inurere¬ tur : sed quod princeps, qui ab ipsorum re¬ ligione abhorret; qui, ut Antichristum ex- ecratur, quem illi ut Christi vicarium colunt; qui intercessionem Sanctorum palam irridet; qui venerationem reliquiarum intolerabilem idololatriam vocat; qui denique purgato¬ rium, missam, et caetera fidei Catholicae dogmata conspuit; haereticus et non Chri¬ stianus dicatur, moleste ferre non possunt, neque commoveri, nisi commotione fratern1 doloris, quod tantum regem, quem ipsorum ordini sceptrum, et corona conjunxerat, ab ipsorum communione haeresis et schisma disjunxerit. Ac ut rex intelligat, non esse novum in Ecclesia, ut sacerdotes Domini libera voce arguant reges haereticos : adscribam hoc loco verba S. Ililarii Episcopi ad Constan¬ tium imperatorem Arianum, ex libro qui incipit : Tempus ex loquendi, quia jam prae¬ teriit tempus tacendi : « (b) Nunc, inquit, pugnamus contra persecutorem fallentem, contra hostem blandientem, contra Constan¬ tium Antichristum. » Et infra : « Sed teme¬ rarium me forte quisquam putabit, quia di¬ cam Constantium Antichristum esse : quis¬ quis petulantiam istud magis, quam constan¬ tiam judicabit, relegat primum Joannem di¬ xisse ad Herodem, non tibi licere facere istud. » Et infra : « Proclamo tibi Constanti, quod Neroni loquuturus fuissem, quod ex me Decius et Maximianus audirent : contra Deum pugnas, contra Ecclesiam saevis, san¬ ctos persequeris, praedicatores Christi odis, religionem tollis, tyrannus non jam huma¬ norum, sed divinorum. Haec tibi a me, at¬ que illis socia, atque communia sunt : at vero nunc propria tua accipe. Christianum te mentiris, Christi novus hostis es, Anti¬ christum praecurris, et arcanorum mysteria ejus operaris. Condis fidem, contra fidem vivens, Doctor prophanorum es, indoctus piorum, Episcopatus tuis donas, Sacerdotes custodiae mandas, exercitus tuos ad terro¬ rem Ecclesiae disponis. » Et infra : « Scele¬ stissime mortalium, omnia persecutionis mala ita temperas, ut excludas et in peccato veniam et in confessione martyrium. » Et infra : « 0 tu sceleste quod ludibrium de (a) Haeretici non sunt vere , et 'proprie Christiani. — ( b ) Libertas sancti Hilarii in rege haeretico ncrepando. APOLOGLE GAP. VI. !37 Ecclesia facis ? soli canes ad vomitum suum redeunt : tu sacerdotes Christi resorbere ea quae exspuerunt coegisti. Christianum te lo¬ queris, sed quam non sis, ipse testaris. » Haec ille, qui ex veteribus, et sanctissimis, et laudatissimis Patribus unus est. Possent addi non dissimilia ex Lucifero Caralitano, ex Gregorio Nazianzeno, et ex aliis. Sed ista pauca hoc loco sufficiant. Neque verum est, quod quidam suspicati sunt, librum illum sancti Hilarii Constantio defuncto, editum fuisse : nam vivente editum, et viventi obla¬ tum convincit Cardin. Baronius tom. m. An- nal. pag. 715. m