Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 6: That Cardinal Bellarmine Answered the Apology for the Oath of Fidelity Directly, While the Adversary Changes the State of the Cause and Digresses to Other Matters
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).
After the king has censured in vain the manner of writing of Cardinal Bellarmine, he sets about censuring the writing itself, or the matter of the book, as he himself speaks. For he writes thus on page 19: “Now the argument and subject matter of the book agrees well with the manner of handling it; for nowhere does he answer directly to that on which the hinge of the cause turns; for there are only two heads on which I discoursed in the Apology, as I warned above: the first, to prove that in the oath of fidelity nothing else is contained than the merely civil and secular obedience owed by subjects to supreme princes; the other, to show that this power over kings, unjustly usurped by the Pontiffs, fights with the Scriptures, councils and Fathers. The first he refutes in no other way than by this faulty consequence: since by this oath the right of deposing kings is denied to the Pontiff, not even the power of excommunicating them is left him. Nor does he attack the latter head of my disputation with other engines than those words of Christ: Feed my sheep, and so on; I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and that this was never doubtful to any Catholic.”
But Bellarmine gives thanks to God that his book still survives, and, twice reprinted, could be seen and read by many; and now again is reprinted with this new Apology. For when that book is looked into, which is neither obscure nor long, all will understand on which side the truth stands, and who is busy imposing on readers. For Bellarmine answered that first head directly, that in that oath of fidelity not civil obedience alone is contained, but an abjuration of the pontifical power; and he showed this by three arguments: from the title of the edict, which is, for the detecting and repressing of Papists; from the words of the oath, where the power of binding and loosing is denied to the Pontiff; from another clearer oath, which is on the primacy of the king in spiritual things. But that consequence, which the king says is faulty, and the only thing set down in his book, will nowhere be found in Bellarmine's book. For he did not dispute universally whether the Supreme Pontiff could depose kings, which did not bear on his matter; but assumed only that heretical kings can be excommunicated and deposed by the Supreme Pontiff, which among Catholics is not wont to be called into doubt. The latter head is ambiguously proposed in this place to deceive readers, when it is said: “The other, to show that this power over kings, unjustly usurped by the Pontiffs, fights with the Scriptures, councils and Fathers.” For I ask, what does that mean, this power? for the king had spoken a little before not of the power of the Pontiff over kings, but of the obedience of subjects to kings. But from the book of the Apology, which Bellarmine had undertaken to refute, it appears well enough that this place is to be understood of the power of forbidding oaths of civil obedience; for that this civil obedience is owed to kings, and can also be confirmed by an oath, the king proves in that place by testimonies of Scripture, councils and Fathers, and a little before had complained that the Supreme Pontiff had unjustly forbidden this obedience in his Brief; see that book, pages 22 to 27. But to this latter head Bellarmine answered directly that it is false that the Supreme Pontiff in that Brief of his forbade civil obedience; and therefore that those testimonies of Scriptures, councils and Fathers are wrongly brought forward to prove what no one denies. But those Gospel passages, Feed my sheep, and, I will give to thee the keys, he did not bring forward, as the king says, to attack that latter head, but to prove that there is in the Supreme Pontiff the power of excommunicating, absolving, dispensing and doing the like, which pertain to the first head, not to the latter. From what has been said it can easily be known that all the rest, from page 2 to page 35, is nothing else than digressions to conciliate ill will and hatred against the Supreme Pontiffs and all churchmen. But we are certain that Catholic and godly kings and princes will prudently consider that from a heretical king, and one who professes himself the manifest enemy of the Catholic Church and of the whole orthodox religion, nothing else can be expected than contempt of faith and religion.
So, to run through these briefly: page 21, “On this foundation of words,” he says, “Feed my sheep, how monstrously ample and unbounded a rule he builds up for the Pontiff, by which he can at pleasure bestow and take away kingdoms; yet binding to this servitude no others than Christian kings.” And a little after: “For since he counts me among heretics, makes me equal to Julian the Apostate, and thinks me outside the fold and flock of the Pontiff, it must be so. But you are of the pontifical flock; you that great Shepherd can lead like sheep to the slaughter at his pleasure.” All these things, by the king's good leave, who forces us so to speak, are mere calumnies; for not only will nothing of them be found in Bellarmine's book, but on the contrary he spoke rather of heretics only, who from sheep turn into ravening wolves; who, although they have either withdrawn from the Christian flock by manifest heresy, or been cast out by ecclesiastical censure, are nevertheless under the Shepherd, so that either they themselves, amended, may be compelled to return to the fold, or the other sheep, lest they be torn and devoured by them, may be kept as far as possible from their fellowship and obedience. He goes on, page 22, to calumniate, when he says: “So he has fastened a new and remarkable sense on these words of Christ, Feed my sheep, as if they signified: take away, proscribe, depose Christian princes and kings.” And a little after: “These words, which were said to Peter caught up in ecstasy, Arise, Peter, kill and eat, Baronius so expounds: Come, Pope, run through the Venetians, and utterly destroy them.” But where, I ask, did you see that exposition so uncivil and shameless in Bellarmine's book? He, then, did not fasten that sense on Christ's words, which nowhere exists in his books; but your interpreter, O king, fastened that sense on Bellarmine without any appearance of likelihood; for Bellarmine never changed the Father of the Christian people (for so Saint Augustine calls the Roman Pontiff) into a Caligula, or a Nero, or a Dionysius of Syracuse. With like calumny the king thought Cardinal Baronius should be bespattered, a man equally godly and learned, and most deserving of ecclesiastical history, giving greater credit to a libellous pamphlet than to grave men who have witnessed in published books the true and godly sense of that passage as explained by Cardinal Baronius.
The king then digresses without any cause, page 23, to the exemption of clerics, from which he says he has uncovered Bellarmine's mind as hostile to kings. As if indeed he had written anything new on the exemption of clerics, and not rather what all the doctors of divine and human law teach, and the councils themselves and the sacred canons command. But what mind Bellarmine bears toward kings and princes, all those know who have perhaps read his book On the Laity. For there against the Anabaptists and other heretics he defended and adorned the political principality from the divine letters, from the testimonies of the Fathers, from the springs of philosophy, by many and various reasons. The king then passes, page 24, caring nothing whether the parts of his book hang together aptly or not, to the temporal goods of churches and clerics, by whom he says a third part of the soil and lands is occupied; this namely troubles him, that not all princes are willing to follow the example of Henry VIII, who, as soon as he fell away from the Roman Pontiff and declared himself head of the Church, at once plundered all churches and monasteries, and gave the ecclesiastical revenues to his barons; excellently imitating the kings Antiochus and Nebuchadnezzar, who, having spoiled the temple of the Lord, enriched their treasury with the vessels of gold and silver dedicated to God. But those who imitated impious kings in crime have by the just judgment of God been made their companions in punishments, not temporal but eternal.
On page 25 he seems to have wished to return to that from which he had digressed, namely the oath of fidelity; but in truth, wandering and straying further, he digresses to other things still more remote; for he says: “And that it may be clearer to you that I had no other aim in this business than to treat of the civil and temporal obedience which is owed me by subjects, and that no snares were laid by me for their consciences, which this reviler has most falsely objected to me, let us first see how far the emperors and kings who in earlier centuries ruled religiously and Christianly were from believing that the Pontiff had any right over them; since on the contrary they themselves created Popes, reduced them to order, and even cast them from their seat.” So he, who spends many pages in describing the histories of emperors and kings who carried on enmities with the Roman Pontiffs. But to what purpose, I ask, are these told, if the king intends to show nothing else than that in the oath of fidelity only civil and temporal obedience is contained? What kind of argument, I beseech you, would this be: Many kings believed the Roman Pontiff had no right over them, but on the contrary deposed him when they pleased; therefore the king of the English in his oath of fidelity requires nothing else than civil and temporal obedience? For not even Aristotle himself would find a middle term in this argument; for whether the Pontiff has right over kings or has not, civil obedience is owed to kings by subjects. So there was no need of a long digression to prove what no one denies. But as the king of England under the appearance of civil obedience wished to force his Catholic subjects to abjure the pontifical power, so in this book of his, under the appearance of an Apology for the oath of fidelity, he desires to persuade Catholic kings and princes to depart by his example from the Apostolic See and the orthodox religion.
Let us see, however, what at last he brings forward, and let us too digress with him, since it so pleases him, fulfilling that Gospel saying: Whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Matthew 5. First, then, page 26, he proves that a certain and inviolate right of creating the Roman Pontiffs remained with the emperors, from this, that “Pope Hadrian in a council of 153 bishops and abbots decreed that the emperor Charlemagne should have the right and power of electing the Pope and ordering the Apostolic See; and granted him the dignity of the Patriciate; moreover he determined that archbishops and bishops in each province should receive investiture from him. And whoever should act against this decree he bound with the bond of anathema, and unless he repented, ordered his goods to be confiscated.” So he, and he alleges Sigebert, Walram and others later. To these we answer: if all these things are true, many things follow contrary to what the king tries to prove. For if the Pontiff grants the emperor the right of electing and investing bishops, then the emperor is not of himself head of the Church in his dominion, and thereby neither is the king head or supreme governor of the Church in his kingdom, since he cannot elect or invest bishops without a privilege of the Roman Pontiff. Then, if the Pontiff gives King Charles the dignity of the Roman Patriciate, which was a temporal dignity, and next to the imperial, then the Pontiff had a great right in the temporal empire, as one who could adorn and enlarge even kings themselves with dignities pertaining to the empire. Besides, if the Pontiff orders those who should act against his decree not only to be bound with the bond of anathema, but also to have their temporal goods confiscated, the Pontiff then has a right not spiritual only, but also temporal, over those who refuse to obey his decrees. I add second that that history seems invented, not true. For Sigebert, who first committed it to writing, was about three hundred years later than Charles and Hadrian; but those who lived with Charles, and wrote his deeds most accurately, such as Einhard and the author of the Annals of the Franks, made no mention of this privilege. Then, how can it be true that Hadrian gave some privilege to the emperor Charlemagne, when in Hadrian's time Charles was not emperor? For Hadrian died in the year of salvation 795, but Charles began to rule as emperor in the year of the Lord 800, as Einhard and others hand down. Besides, if Charlemagne had the right of creating Roman Pontiffs, why did he create none at all, neither he nor many of his successors? For Anastasius the Librarian wrote accurately the lives and creations of twelve Pontiffs who succeeded one another after the pontificate of Hadrian I; and nowhere mentions Charles or his successors, but hands down that they were elected and created by the clergy and people alone. Further, William, likewise Librarian, who succeeded Anastasius, wrote the life of Hadrian II, likewise elected by the clergy and people alone. And when perhaps the legates of the emperor were then present at Rome, and complained that they had not been invited to the election of the Pontiff, William writes that answer was given them that this had been done for this reason, lest the custom of waiting for the legates of princes in the election of the Roman Pontiffs should grow up; which reason being received, says William, “the legates thoroughly calmed all the indignation of their minds, and themselves too humbly came to greet the elect.” This certainly most plain demonstration makes it most manifest that either no such privilege was given to Charles, or certainly it was not admitted by him. Which is also confirmed from this, that Charles in his Capitulary, book 1, chapter 84, and it is found also in Gratian, distinction 64, canon Sacrorum, decrees that the elections of the clergy and people ought to be free; and Hadrian II in the eighth general council, canon 22, altogether forbids princes to mix themselves in the elections of bishops; and this decree is found also in Gratian, distinction 63, canon 2. And yet neither Charles nor Hadrian II make any mention of a privilege granted by Hadrian I; which mention they ought altogether to have made, either that Charles might say he renounced that privilege, or that Hadrian in a general synod might declare it abrogated by a new decree. I add lastly that nothing is prejudiced to the supreme authority of the Supreme Pontiff, even if it were true that Pontiffs were sometimes created by emperors; both because the emperors would have done this not by their own right, but by a privilege of the Supreme Pontiff; and because electors exercise some authority over the person to be designated, on whom the pontifical dignity is to be conferred, but can exercise none over the Pontiff once elected; otherwise the Electors of the emperor too would have a right over the emperor elected, whereas in truth they have none over the emperor, and the emperor has a great one over them; as also the Cardinals of the holy Roman Church, although they are the Electors of the Pontiff, yet when he is elected, he is not subjected to the Cardinals, but the Cardinals are subjected to him as to shepherd and prince.
The king goes on then, page 27, and adds: “That the emperor's assent through a long course of years intervened in the election of Pontiffs, Platina and many others of the papal writers are witnesses, and Bellarmine himself in his work of Controversies cannot conveniently evade this, that the Pontiffs were also compelled to pay a fixed sum of money into the imperial treasury to obtain confirmation; which custom lasted almost to the seven hundredth year of Christ, as Sigebert and Liutprand and other historians of the papal sect witness.” So he. We cannot deny that Arian princes, the Goths namely, afflicted the Catholic Church, among many other things, by this very thing, that they did not allow a Pontiff to be created without their consent, sometimes even without money paid down; which custom the Greek emperors followed for some time, who, the Goths being driven out, recovered Italy. But this tyranny seems to have taken its beginning from the beginning of the year five hundred, and to have ceased in the year of the Lord 684; for in this year Anastasius writes that the emperor Constantine granted to the Supreme Pontiff Benedict II that thereafter the consent of the prince should not be waited for. And that that law, whether of the Goths or of the Greeks, was tyrannical, Pope Saint Gregory witnesses in express words in the explanation of the fourth penitential Psalm. But what wonder is it if those princes mixed themselves in the election of Supreme Pontiffs, who punished the very persons of the Pontiffs with exile, or prison, or death? For judgment is not to be made of the power of princes over Supreme Pontiffs from what they sometimes did, but from what they could justly do. But if for about two hundred years, and perhaps a shorter time, the Church endured that tyranny, partly from the Goths, partly from the Greeks, for fourteen hundred years she has held her liberty.
The king goes on, same page, and says: “But everywhere there occur examples of emperors who took away their power from Roman Pontiffs. The emperor Otto removed John XII from the pontificate, because he was infamous for various crimes, and especially for lust. The emperor Henry III in a small space of time synodally deposed Benedict IX, Sylvester III and Gregory VI, both as charged with avarice, and because they had impudently and shamelessly usurped this extraordinary power over princes.” So he. But the answer is easy; for neither did Otto depose John XII, nor Henry Benedict, Sylvester and Gregory, by their own or the imperial power; but through a synod of bishops they procured them to be deposed by ecclesiastical authority. This Regino and the others cited witness. Nor do we easily grant that the deposition of those Pontiffs was just; but this does not belong to the present matter. But what the king adds, that Benedict, Sylvester and Gregory were deposed because they had impudently and shamelessly usurped this extraordinary power over princes, ought to have been proved by some testimony. For here I see alleged only Marianus Scotus, Sigebert, the Abbot of Ursperg and Platina; he could also have added Otto of Freising and Hermann the Lame. Marianus at the year 1045 speaks thus: “King Henry, having entered Italy, is peacefully received by the Romans; three Popes not worthily appointed he synodally deposed”; nor does he explain the particular cause. The Abbot of Ursperg repeats the same words, which namely he received from Marianus Scotus. Sigebert speaks thus: “At Rome, one contending against two, and two against one, for the papacy, King Henry goes to Rome against them, and they being deposed by canonical and imperial censure, Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, is elected, who as Clement presides over the Roman Church.” Hermann the Lame speaks thus: “About the Nativity of the Lord, not far from the city of Rome, at Sutri, a synod being likewise held, and the cause of the erring Pontiffs more diligently examined, he deprived Pope Gratian, convicted, of the pastoral staff. Then with the consent of all, both Romans and others, he elected Bishop Suidger as Pontiff of the Roman Church.” Otto of Freising, a most grave author, book 6 of the Chronicle, chapter 36, speaks thus: “Further, Gratian, meeting the king at Sutri, is said to have offered a precious diadem to soften his mind; whom the king at first, as was fitting, received with honour; but afterwards, an assembly of bishops being gathered, persuaded him to withdraw from the pontificate for the mark of simony.” So Otto, who most truly writes that Gregory VI, who before the pontificate was called Gratian, was persuaded by the emperor to abdicate the pontificate on account of the mark of simony; therefore Gregory was not properly deposed, either by the emperor or by a synod, but withdrew of his own accord, because he saw himself convicted of the crime of simony. Yet there is no lack of most grave men who defend that Gregory VI was convicted of no crime; but it is not to our purpose, who in this place wish only to show that it is written by no author what the king says in this place, that three Pontiffs were deposed because they had impudently and shamelessly usurped an extraordinary power over princes. For no one at all writes this. Further, Platina, who is brought forward in the last place, gives no cause why these Pontiffs were deposed in council, except that they were bad. Now if from these two examples of the emperors Otto and Henry anything were made to prove that emperors have some right to depose Pontiffs, much more easily would it be proved from very many examples that Pontiffs have the right to depose emperors. For those two, Otto and Henry, deposed Pontiffs not by their own authority, but by that of a synod, that is, by ecclesiastical power; but Pontiffs deposed emperors not by the lay power of princes, but by their own and proper power. The examples are at hand. Gregory the Younger deprived the emperor Leo the Isaurian, prince of the Iconoclast heretics, excommunicated, of the tributes of Italy, and thereby fined him part of the empire. The Greek writers Cedrenus and Zonaras witness and praise this in the life of Leo the Isaurian. Leo III transferred the whole Western empire from the Greeks to the Franks, and thereby deprived the Greek emperors of half the empire, and gave it to the Franks; of which matter there are innumerable witnesses, whom we brought forward in the first of the three books which we wrote on the Translation of the Empire. Gregory VII deprived the emperor Henry IV, excommunicated with public and solemn ceremony, of the empire; that this was rightly done, whatever a few schismatics say to the contrary, all grave historians and the other authors of his time witness, whom, the words of each being brought forward, we produced in book 4 on the Pontiff, chapter 13. Innocent III deposed the emperor Otto IV, as Flavio Biondo witnesses, book 6 of the second Decade. Innocent IV in the general council of Lyons, all assenting, publicly deposed the emperor Frederick II, the greatest persecutor of the Church. The sentence still exists, chapter Ad Apostolicae, on sentence and the thing judged, in the Sixth. Clement VI deprived the emperor Louis IV, excommunicated by John XXII and Benedict XII, of the empire. See Albert Pighius, book 5 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapters 14 and 15.
He goes on then, page 28, and brings examples of kings who stoutly resisted the Pontiffs. First, from Walram in the book on the investitures of bishops, he proves that the bishops of Spain, Scotland, England and Hungary entered through kings, with peace, into their temporalities purely and wholly, and by ancient institution, up to the modern novelty. But Walram calls the modern novelty the decree of Gregory VII forbidding the investitures of Churches to be received from kings and princes of the world. We answer that it is true that for no short time bishops were accustomed to be invested by kings; but that Gregory VII, the bravest champion of the Church of God, relying on God's help, did not fear to renew and defend the ancient and holy ecclesiastical laws. For he writes in the epistle to Hugh, bishop of Die, that in the council to be held, over which he himself was to preside as legate of the Apostolic See, he should take care that the twenty-second canon of the eighth general synod be renewed, by which all princes, even kings and emperors, are forbidden to mix themselves in the election of bishops; which opinion of Gregory on taking away the investitures of princes was defended not only by his successors Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II and others, but also by holy men who flourished at that time, such as the two Saint Anselms, one of Canterbury, the other of Lucca, and others. Then the king, same page, from the annals of France of Nicolas Gilles reports the beginning of the epistle of Philip the Fair, king of the Franks, to Pope Boniface VIII, which epistle contains a ridiculous salutation, such as anger rather than consideration could have written. For we know that King Philip carried on a most grave enmity with Pope Boniface; nor is it a wonder if from angry minds certain things slipped which from calm ones would never have slipped. He adds afterwards that Saint Louis the king by a public pragmatic sanction forbade all exactions of the papal court within his kingdom; and cites in the margin from the decrees of the Parliament of Paris. I indeed have read in Nicolas Gilles, among other ordinances of Saint Louis, these words: “Likewise the exactions and most heavy burdens imposed by the Roman Court on the Church of our kingdom, by which our kingdom has been miserably impoverished, or even to be imposed, we in no way wish to be levied or collected, except for a reasonable, godly and most urgent unavoidable necessity, and with the spontaneous express consent of ourselves and of the Churches themselves of our kingdom.” And perhaps these same words are found in a decree of the Parliament of Paris, which is not known to me. But I have read the pragmatic sanction of the same Saint Louis, which is found at the end of the sixth volume of the Library of the holy Fathers published at Paris in the year 1589, where the same ordinances are found, the words written above being absent, which seem to have been added afterwards in hatred of the Roman Church. I have read also like ordinances both in Paulus Aemilius and in Robert Gaguin in the life of Saint Louis, and those words recited by Nicolas Gilles I do not find; but on the contrary I have read in the same authors that Saint Louis was devoted and obedient to the Pontiffs of the Roman Church, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Urban IV and Clement IV, in whose times he lived. For Saint Louis stood by Innocent IV, excommunicating and deposing the emperor Frederick in the council of Lyons, and, to use the words of Aemilius: “Having professed that he and the strength of his kingdom and his counsel were ready for the protection of the sacrosanct power, he added dignity and strength to Innocent's cause.” And below: “Meanwhile the Frank (Saint Louis), covering the Pontiff with the authority of the Frankish name, had moreover professed a sacred warfare against the barbarian religion.” Lastly, in the life of Saint Louis, which exists in Laurence Surius, written, as is believed, by his confessor, among other admonitions which the saint, dying, gave to his son and heir of the kingdom, these words are found: “Be always devoted and attached to the Roman Church; show yourself compliant to its Pontiff no otherwise than to a spiritual father.” The king afterwards reports, same page and following, from Jean Le Maire in the book on the schism and councils, what was done between Pope Pius II and Louis XI, king of the Franks, about the pragmatic sanction which Charles VII, king of the Franks, issued according to the opinion of the council of Basel. But there is no need to dwell longer on this matter; for what Pius II could not effect in the times of Louis, that that pragmatic sanction be wholly taken out of the way, Leo X afterwards effected, Francis I reigning. So in the Lateran council, session 11, that pragmatic sanction was taken away by public decree. But this end of the pragmatic sanction, because it little favoured his cause, the king easily allowed to be passed over.
Lastly the king adds, page 30 and the four following, examples of kings of England, his predecessors. For Henry I conferred the bishopric of Winchester on William Giffard, and invested him, against the decree of the new council, with all the possessions pertaining to the bishopric. The same Henry also gave the archbishopric of Canterbury to Ralph, and invested him by staff and ring. The same commanded Thurstan, archbishop elect of York, setting out to Pope Callistus, not to receive the blessing from the Pontiff; and when he had neglected this, the king forbade him every place of his dominion; and these things are proved from the history of Matthew Paris. King Edward I forbade the Abbot of Waltham and the Dean of Saint Paul's to collect tithes for the expenses of the war of Jerusalem, although they had been delegated to this by the Roman Pontiff. And because, the Abbot meanwhile dying, the Dean promised that he would obey King Edward, King James triumphs and says: “Here I hold an ecclesiastical man who did not obey the Pope, that he might obey his king, even in ecclesiastical matters; for this new theology of the Jesuits had not yet become known to the world.” The same Edward punished three ecclesiastical men, from which it is understood that ecclesiastics are not exempt from the power of the temporal prince. Edward II, imitating his father, ordered ecclesiastical men to be taken into custody. Edward III, treading in the steps of his forefathers, either committed some ecclesiastics to prison, or stripped them of temporal and spiritual goods. Lastly, under Richard II it was provided by decree of the public estates that no one should obtain a benefice from the Roman Pontiff; whoever did otherwise should be counted outside the king's faith and protection. These are said to have been drawn from the royal archives. But I wonder that within the space of five hundred years so few disobedient men could be counted by the king; since it is established that by the kings of England through this time very many most holy bishops or archbishops were harassed for this cause, that they preferred to obey the Pontiff rather than the king, and most bravely protected ecclesiastical liberty. For this theology of the Jesuits is not new, but most ancient among true Catholics; unless perhaps the example of one dean is worth more than that of very many bishops, most illustrious for holiness, learning and miracles, and most desirous of the eternal salvation of their king and their flock.
It is known how much Saint Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, suffered from King William, how many years he was in exile, how often he fled to the Roman Pontiff, and with how great devotion, wherever he went, he was received by all as an angel of the Lord. Yet God gave him after the death of King William a glorious victory; for so Eadmer the Englishman writes in book 2 of the life of Saint Anselm: At that time, then, the chief men of England being assembled in the king's palace at London, Anselm obtained the victory for the liberty of the Church, for which he had long laboured; for the king, the usage of his predecessors being left, neither chose by himself the persons who were taken for the government of the Church, nor invested them by the giving of the pastoral staff in the Churches over which they were set. No less known is how many and how grave things Saint Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury and martyr, suffered from King Henry II, fleeing whose persecution he too betook himself to the Roman Pontiff; but he too obtained a famous victory, since after his death, the Lord glorifying him with signs and powers, the same king did public penance. To him can be joined Saint Edmund, archbishop of Canterbury, who for the defence of ecclesiastical liberty suffered much both from the king and from the nobles of the kingdom. So he too, withdrawing into voluntary exile, died at Pontigny, where was the receptacle and refuge of all prelates exiled from England for justice' sake. But before all these, Saint Dunstan, likewise archbishop of Canterbury, received from the hand of the Supreme Pontiff John XIII the pallium, the badge of the archiepiscopal dignity; and was most famous for the glory of wonderful holiness and miracles; nor yet could he escape being driven into exile by King Edwy, corrupted by the love of women. But afterwards, recalled from exile, with the greatest constancy he always reproved the crimes of kings, and rested in peace with the best end; whose life we have faithfully written by Osbern, a monk of Canterbury, a contemporary of Saint Dunstan. Saint Hugh, bishop of Lincoln, endured not a few things from King Richard, but by constancy and virtue overcame all. I shall write the words which are found in chapter 18 of his life: “When once the king was fighting briskly against the king of France outside the bounds of his kingdom, and had paid out much money to the soldiery, he sent the archbishop home with a command that, the bishops and prelates being called together, he should tell them that he had need of money, and desired to be helped by them; but the holy man, examining the matter itself more carefully, when he had found that the poor common people were burdened by this means, answered: even if you all consent to the king, yet I shall in no way consent to him. One also of the bishops, having heard the reasons which blessed Hugh copiously brought against that exaction, adhered to him. The archbishop took this gravely, and with hurried step went off to the king, to complain much to him of the holy bishop. The king, hearing that the bishop of Lincoln alone had held back his attempt, and had drawn another bishop too to his opinion, raging with anger said to a certain friend of his: As you love my welfare, so I command you that you hasten utterly to root out Hugh with the bishop adhering to him. That other one, then, was cast out, and all that he possessed was assigned to the king's treasury. But the just man, as a bold lion, shall be without dread, and so on. And at last the king, seeing the constancy of the man, and that he counted threats and all dangers as nothing, began to venerate him from his heart.” I shall add also a few words from chapter 20: “When friends once urged him, for the sake of avoiding a greater danger, to consent to the king in a certain matter of small moment against the right of the Church, he is reported to have said thus: Far be it that lay persons, of whatever dignity and eminence, should infringe the privilege of ecclesiastical liberty. May it never befall me that, through fear of any power, or dread of any difficulty however great, I allow the right of the Church of my Lady Saint Mary, as far as in me lies, to perish,” and so on. Here we too hold an ecclesiastical man to whom the theology was known which the Jesuits teach today, that the king is not to be obeyed to the prejudice of ecclesiastical liberty. Let Saint Richard, bishop of Chichester, close this place. “He was elected bishop against the will of the king; therefore the king, stirred with fury, ordered the goods of the Church of Chichester to be confiscated. The bishop, having endured many injuries and insults, betook himself to the Apostolic See, over which Innocent IV then presided; but the royal legates had gone before him, to harass the holy man Richard even before the Supreme Pontiff; but the Pontiff, the parties being heard, confirmed by his authority the election of blessed Richard, and consecrated the same man bishop by the imposition of sacred hands. The bishop, returned to England, not only could not recover the goods of his Church, but also, a public edict being set forth, the king forbade all that anyone should lend him money. But the holy man, mindful of the words of Saint James, that God has chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him, rejoicing in his poverty fulfilled all the parts of a good shepherd.” Hence we have what the king was seeking, examples of kings who by force snatched from ecclesiastics not only temporal but also spiritual goods; but we have also what the king was not seeking, examples of holy bishops who for ecclesiastical liberty, both by acting and by suffering, fought most bravely.
But in this place it is not to be passed over that these very five English kings, whatever at last they did, were Catholic in faith, and never fell away from obedience to the Supreme Pontiff as supreme head of the Church. For it is established that Henry I, after long struggles for the investitures of bishops, yielded to the decrees of the Pontiffs. This, besides the testimony of Eadmer brought forward above, Florence of Worcester witnesses in the Chronicle of the year 1107, in these words: “The king decreed that from that time for the future no one should ever be invested with a bishopric or abbey in England by the giving of the pastoral staff and ring, by the king or any lay hand whatever.” The same William of Malmesbury witnesses in book 5 of the history, in these words: “The investitures of Churches, after many controversies, he yielded to God and Saint Peter.” Edward I was without doubt a Catholic, and confessed the Supreme Pontiff head of the Church. For there exists his epistle in Thomas Walsingham for the year 1301 to Boniface VIII, of which this is the inscription: “To the most holy Father in Christ, the lord Boniface, Supreme Pontiff of the holy Roman and universal Church, Edward, by the grace of God king of England, health, and devout kisses of the blessed feet.” Certainly he who calls Boniface Supreme Pontiff of the universal Church cannot deny him obedience and subjection, unless he professes himself a stranger to the universal Church. And he who offers devout kisses of the feet to the Pontiff would surely never say what King James says, that he is in nothing inferior to the Pontiff. Edward II witnessed that he acknowledged the authority of the Pontiff from this alone, that he dealt with him to restrain the king of Scotland by ecclesiastical censures, the cause being first heard which was in controversy between the two kings. Edward III wrote an epistle to Pope Clement VI, the same Walsingham being witness, with the same inscription, namely: “To the most holy Father in Christ, the lord Clement, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the holy Roman and universal Church, Edward, by the same grace king of England and France, and so on, devout kisses of the blessed feet”; and below: “Weighing also the fullness of devotion with which our royal house, and the clergy and people of the said kingdom, have hitherto persisted in obedience to the Apostolic See,” and so on. Lastly, of Richard II it cannot be doubted that he too was a Catholic; for when in his time a schism had been made in the Church, the antipope Clement VII being created against Pope Urban VI, King Richard made a law that whoever should acknowledge another Pontiff besides Urban, whom he calls the one and true head of the Church, should be deprived of all his goods and of the king's protection. But suppose those five kings had been strangers to the Apostolic See: ought not King James rather to imitate the about two hundred kings his predecessors, partly English, partly Scottish, than five? For it is established from John Leslie that the kings of the Scots, from Donald I, who in the year of salvation 197 received the Christian faith from Pope Saint Victor, up to Mary, the mother of this king, were Catholics, and obedient to the Roman Apostolic See. And 84 kings are counted, or, as others will have it, above 90. Nor is it less established that from the year of salvation 600 the kings of England, from Ethelbert, who first received the Christian faith from Saint Augustine, up to Saint Edward, that is, up to the year of salvation 1066, were not only Catholics, but also most devoted to the Roman See, as Bede, Polydore and others hand down; and those kings are counted at about eighty. So there remain only twenty kings after the Conquest, from William I to Henry VIII, of whom King James has proposed to himself only five to imitate, leaving out fifteen, or rather two hundred and fifteen, whom he could not deny to have been both Catholics and obedient to the Apostolic See.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Quod Card. Bello, rminus directe responderit ad Apologiam pro juramento fidelitatis adversarius vero statum causae mutet , et ad alia extra rem digrediatur. Posteaquam rex modum scribendi Cardi¬ nalis Bellarmini frustra reprehendit, aggre¬ ditur scriptionem ipsam, sive materiam li¬ bri, ut ipse loquitur, reprehendere. Sic enim scribit pag. 19. « Jam vero argumentum, et subjecta materia libri modo tractandi probe convenit, nusquam enim ad id, in quo cau¬ sae cardo vertitur, directe respondet : quippe duo tantem sunt capita, de quibus inApolo- gia disserui, ut supra monui, prius ut pro¬ barem in fidelitatis Sacramento nihil aliud, quam obedientiam mere civilem, et saecula¬ rem Summis Principibus a sudditis debitam contineri, alterum ut ostenderem, hanc in reges potestatem a Pontificibus inique usur¬ patam, cum Scripturis, conciliis, et Patribus pugnare. Prius non aliter quam hac vitiosa consecutione refutat : cum hoc jurejurando jus abdicandorum regum Pontifici negetur, ne quidem excommunicandorum potestatem illi relinqui. Nec posterius disputationis meae caput aliis machinis adoritur, quam illis Christi verbis : Pasce oves meas, etc : Tibi dabo claves regni Caelorum. Et nemini unquam Catholico id dubium fuisse. » At Bellarminus Deo gratias agit, quod li¬ ber ipsius adhuc superest, atque bis recusus a multis videri, et legi potuit; et nunc ite¬ rum cum hac nova Apologia recuditur. Si¬ quidem (a) eo libro inspecto, qui nec ob¬ scurus, nec prolixus est, omnes intelligent, a qua parte stet veritas, et quis imponere le¬ ctoribus satagat. Siquidem Bellarminus ad prius illud caput directe respondit, in illo ju¬ ramento fidelitatis non contineri solam civi¬ lem obedientiam; sed adjurationem Pontifi¬ ciae potestatis, idque ostendit tribus argu¬ mentis : ex 'titulo edicti, qui est, ad dete¬ gendos, et reprimendos Papistas, ex verbis juramenti, ubi negatur Pontifici potestas ligandi, et solvendi ; ex alio juramento cla¬ riore, quod est de Primatu regis in spiritu¬ alibus. Illa vero consecutio, quam vitiosam esse, et solam in ejus libro positam rex dicit ( b ), nusquam in libro Bellarmini invenietur. Ipse enim non disputavit universe, posset ne Sum¬ mus Pontifex reges deponere : quod ad rem ipsius non faciebat; sed assumpsit solum, posse a Summo Pontifice reges haereticos excommunicari, atque deponi, quod apud Catholicos in dubium revocari non solet. Posterius caput ad fallendos lectores, ambi¬ gue hoc loco proponitur, cum dicitur : « Al¬ terum, ut ostenderem, hanc in repes pote¬ statem, a Pontificibus inique usurpatam, cum Scripturis, Conciliis, et Patribus pu¬ gnare. » Quaero enim, quid sibi vult illud, hanc potestatem? neque enim de potestate Pontificis in reges ; sed de obedientia subdi¬ torum ad reges paulo ante rex loquutus erat. Caeterum ex Apologiae libro, quem Bellarmi¬ nus refutandum susceperat, satis apparet, hunc locum esse intelligendum de potestate prohibendi juramenta civilis ohedientiae : hanc enim civilem obedientiam regibus de¬ beri, et juramento quoque confirmari posse probat eo loco rex testimoniis Scripturae, conciliorum, et patrum, et paulo ante con¬ questus erat, quod hanc obedientiam injuste summus Pontifex in suo Brevi prohibuisset: vide librum illum pag. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. et 27. Ad hoc autem posterius caput (c) Bellar¬ minus directe respondit, falsum esse, quod Summus Pontifex in suo illo brevi obedien¬ tiam civilem prohibuisset : ac propterea te¬ stimonia illa Scripturarum, conciliorum, et Patrum [d) perperam adduci ad probandum, (a) Ex inspectione libri Bellarmini anno superiore editi refelluntur omnes calumniae. — (&) Non fideliter referuntur scripta Bellarmini. — (c) Bellarminus directe respondit. — (d) Perperam ap~ 2)licantur ab adversario argumenta Bellarmini. 138 APOLOGLE CAP. VI. quod nemo negat. Illa vero Evangelica loca : Pasce oves meas , et : Tibi dabo claves , non adduxit, ut rex dicit, ad oppugnandum caput illud posterius, sed ad probandum esse in Summo Pontifice potestatem excommuni¬ candi, absolvendi, dispensandi, et similia fa¬ ciendi, quae ad prius caput, non ad posterius pertinent. Ex his quae dicta sunt facile co¬ gnosci poterit, reliqua omnia apag. 2 usque ad pag. 35, nihil esse aliud, nisi digressio¬ nes ad invidiam , atque odium Summis Pontificibus, ei Ecclesiasticis omnibus con¬ ciliandum. Certi vero sumus, Catholicos, piosque reges, ac principes prudenter cogi¬ taturos a rege haeretico, quique se hostem manifestum Ecclesiae Catholicae, totiusque Orthodoxae religionis profitetur, nihil aliud expectari posse, nisi fidei religionisque con¬ temptum. Igitur, ut haec breviter percurramus, pag. 21. (a) «Hoc, inquit, verborum fundamento, Pasce oves meas , immane quam amplum, so- lutumque imperium Pontifici extruat, quo ad libidinem condonare, atque adimeren*egna possit ; huic tamen servituti non alios quam Christianos reges addicens. » Et paulo post : (i Nam cum me haereticis annumeret, cum Juliano Apostata aequet, extra caulam etiam, gregemque Pontificium esse putet, necesse est. At vos, de Pontificio grege estis, vos magnus ille Pastor, instar ovium ad occi¬ sionem ducere pro libidine sua potest. » Haec omnia cum bona regis venia, quinos ita loqui cogit, merae calumniae sunt, mm solum enim nihil horum in Bellarmini libro reperietur, sed contra potius de solis haere¬ ticis, qui ex ovibus lupi rapaces evadunt, locutus est ; qui quamvis a grege Christiano, vel recesserint per hceresim manifestam, vel ejecti fuerint per Ecclesiasticam censuram ; subsunt tamen Pastori, ut vel ipsi ad caulam emendati redire cogantur ; vel oves caetera?, ne ab eis discerpantur, et devorentur, ab ipsorum consortio, et obedientia quam lon¬ gissime arceantur. Pergit pag. 22. calumniari, cum ait : (b) « Sic novum, et egregium sensum his Christi verbis affinxit, Pasce oves meas, tanquam hoc significarent, tolle, proscribe, abdica Christianos principes, atque reges.» Et paulo post. « Haec verba, quae Petro in extasim rapto dicta sunt, Surge Petre, occide et manduca : ita Baronius exponit, Age Papa, confige Venetos, penitusque disperde. » At ubi quaeso expositionem illam tam in¬ civilem, et inverecundam in libro Bellarmini vidisti? non igitur ipse affinxit sensum illum Christi verbis, qui nusquam in libris ejus extat : sed interpres tuus, o rex, Bellarmino eum sensum sine ulla specie verisimilitudi¬ nis affinxit: neque enim Bellarminus unquam Patrem Christianae plebis (sic enim sanctus Augustinus Romanum Pontificem vocat) in Caligulam, aut Neronem, aut Dionysium Syracusanum, commutavit. Pari calumnia Cardinalem Baronium, virum aeque pium ac doctum, ac de historiis Ecclesiasticis optime meritum, aspergendum esse rex duxit, ma¬ jorem fidem habens famoso libello, quam viris gravibus, qui sensum verum, et pium ejus loci a Card. Baronio explicatum, scri¬ ptis libris testari sunt. Digreditur deinde rex sineulla causa pag. 23. ( c ) ad exemptionem Clericorum, ex qua Bellarmini animum alienum a regibus de¬ texisse se dicit. Quasi vero novum aliquid ipse scripserit de Clericorum exemptione, et non potius id quod Doctores omnes juris divini, atque humani docent; ipsa etiam concilio sacrique canones jubent. Sed qua¬ lem animum erga reges, et principes Bel¬ larminus gerat, illi omnes sciunt, qui librum ejus « De laicis » forte legerunt. Ibi enim adversus Anabaptistas, ali osque haereticos principatum politicum defendit, atque orna¬ vit ex divinis litteris, ex testimoniis Patrum, ex fontibus philosophiae ductis multis, et variis rationibus. Transit deinde rex pag. 24. nihil laborans si libri sui partes inter se apte cohaereant, an non; ad bona temporalia Ecclesiarum, et Clericorum, a quibus occupari dicit ter¬ tiam partem soli, et fundorum, hoc videlicet illum male habet, quod non omnes Principes exemplum (d) Henrici VIII. sequi velint, qui cum primum a Romano Pontifice defecit, seque caput Ecclesise declaravit; continuo Ecclesias, et Monasteria omnia diripuit, et redditus Ecclesiasticos Baronibus suis attri¬ buit; egregie imitatus Antiochum*et Nabu- chodonosor reges, qui templo Domini spo¬ liato, ex vasis aureis et argenteis Deo dica- (a) Amplificatio ad conflandam invidiam. — (6) Conficta interpretatio. — (c) De exemptione Clericorum nihil novi Card. Bell arminis scripsit. — (cf) Henric. VIII. initio sui primatus Eccle $ias , et Monosteria argumentatio. APOLOGIS CAP. VI, 139 tis gazam suam ditaverunt. Sed qui Reges impios imitati sunt in scelere, eorum justo Dei judicio socii facti sunt in poenis, non temporalibus, sed aeternis. Pag. 25, videtur redire voluisse ad id un¬ de digressus fuerat, ad juramentum vide¬ licet fidelitatis ; sed revera tamen longius expatiando, atque evagando ad alia magis adhuc remota digreditur, ait enim : <c Ac ut vobis in perspicuo magis sit, non alium mihi scopum in hoc negotio extitisse, quam ut de civili, et temporali obedientia, qu® mihi a subditis debetur, agerem, nec illorum con¬ scientiis insidias a me esse comparatas quod hic mihi convitiator falsissime objecit pri¬ mum illud videamus, quam longe impera¬ tores, atque reges, qui superioribus sseculis religiose, Christianeque dixerunt, ab eo ab¬ fuerint, ut jus in se aliquod Pontifici esse crederent : cum contra Papas ipsi creave¬ rint, in ordinem redegerint, adeoque de sede dejecerint. » Haec ille, qui multas paginas consumit in describendis historiis imperatorum, et regum, qui cum Pontificibus Romanis inimicitias gesserunt. Sed quorsum, quaeso, ista narran¬ tur, si nihil aliud rex demonstrare intendit, nisi in juramento fidelitatis solam civilem, et temporalem obedientiam contineri ? Qualis obsecro haec argumentatio esset : (a) Multi reges nullum jus in se habere Pontificem Romanum crediderunt ; sed contra potius eum quando libuit deposuerunt : Ergo rex Anglorum in juramento suo fidelitatis, nihil aliud, nisi civilem, et temporalem obedien¬ tiam requirit? Nam ne ipse quidem Aristo¬ teles medium terminum in hac argumenta¬ tione reperiret : sive enim Pontifex in reges jus habeat, sive non habeat, debetur regi¬ bus obedientia civilis a subditis. Itaque longa digressione opus non erat, ut probaret quod nemo negat. Sed quemadmodum rexAngli® sub specie civilis obedienti® adigere voluit subditos suos Catholicos ad abjurandam Pon¬ tificiam potestatem : sic in hoc suo libro sub specie Apologite pro juramento fidelitatis, persuadere cupit regibus, et principibus Ca¬ tholicis; ut exemplo suo ab Apostolica Sede, et Orthodoxa religione discedant. Videamus tamen quid tandem adferat, et cum illo, quando ita placet, et nos digre¬ diamur, Evangelicum illud implentes : Qui¬ cumque te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum illo et alia duo Mntth. v. Primum igitur pag. 26. probat certum jus, ac inviolatum apud imperatores mansisse Romanos Ponti¬ fices creandi, ex eo quod ( b ) « Adrianus Papa in concilio 153. Episcoporum Abba¬ tumque decrevit, ut Carolo Magno impera¬ tori jus, ac potestas esset eligendi Papam et ordinandi Sedem Apostolicam : dignitatem¬ que Patriciatus ei concessit : Insuper Archi- episcopos, et Episcopos per singulas Provin¬ cias, ab eo investituram accipere definivit. Et quicumque contra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit, et nisi resipisceret, bona ejus publicari praecepit. » Haec ille, et allegat Sigebertum, Valthramum, et alios posteriores. Ad haec respondemus ; si haec omnia vera sint, sequi multa contraria iis, quae rex pro- bar conatur. Nam si Pontifex concedit im¬ peratori jus eligendi, et investiendi Episco¬ pos : non igitur imperator ex se caput est Ecclesiae in ditione sua, ac per hoc neque rex est caput, vel supremus gubernator Ec¬ clesiae in regno suo ; cum Episcopos eligere, vel investire non possit, sine privilegio Ro¬ mani Pontificis. Deinde si Pontifex dona Ca- rolum regem dignitate Patricialus Romani, quae erat dignitas temporalis, et imperato¬ ri® proxima : ergo Pontifex jus magnum in imperio temporali habebat, quippe qui ipsos etiam reges ornare, ct augere poterat digni¬ tatibus ad imperium pertinentibus. Pr®terea si Pontifex jubet eos, qui contra decretum ipsius agerent, non solum anathematis vin¬ culo alligari ; sed etiam bona ipsorum tem¬ poralia publicari ; jus igitur Pontitex habet non spirituale solum, sed etiam temporale, in eos qui decretis ipsius obtemperare no¬ lunt. Addo secundo (c) historiam illam confi¬ ctam videri, non veram. Nam Sigebertus, qui primus illam mandavit litteris, trecentis cir¬ citer annis posterior fuit Carolo, atque A- driano : ii vero qui cum Carolo vixerunt, et res ejus gestas accuratissime conscripserunt, ut Eginarthus, et annalium Francorum au¬ ctor, nullam hujus privilegii mentionem fece¬ runt. Deinde quo pacto verum esse potest, dedisse Adrianum privilegium aliquod Ca- (a) Mira argumentio. — (b) An Adrianus Papa concesseret Carolo Magno potestatem creandi Romanum Pontificem. — (c) Historia Sigeberti de privilegiis Carolo Magno ab Adriano Papa concessis , videtur conficta, I 440 APOLOGLE GAP. VI. rolo Magno imperatori , cum tempore A- driani Carolus imperator non esset? Adria- nus enim obiit anno salutis 795. Carolus au¬ tem imperare coepit anno Domini 800. ut Eginarthus et alii tradunt. Praeterea si Ca¬ rolus Magnus Pontifices Romanos creandi jus habebat, cur nullum omnino creavit, ne¬ que ipse, neque multi ex successoribus ejus ? nam Anastasius Bibliothecarius scripsit ac¬ curate vitam, et creationes duodecim Ponti¬ ficum, qui sibi invicem post Adriani primi Pontificatum successerunt ; et nusquam Ca- roli, vel successorum ejus meminit ; sed a solo Clero, et populo electos, et creatos fuisse tradit. Porro Gulielmus item Biblio¬ thecarius, qui Anastasio successit, scripsit vitam Adriani II. a Clero pariter, et populo solum electi. Et cum forte Legati impera¬ toris tum Romae adessent, et quererentur se ad electionem Pontificis invitatos non fuisse : reponsum eis fuisse scribit Gulielmus, id ea ratione factum esse, ne legatos principum in electione romanorum Pontificum expectandi mos inolesceret : qua ratione accepta, inquit Gulielmus, «Legati omnem sute mentis indi¬ gnationem medullitus sedavere, et ad salutan¬ dum electum etiam ipsi humiliter accesse¬ runt.» Haec certe apertissima demonstratio, vel nullum ejusmodi privilegium datum fuisse Carolo, vel certe ab illo admissum non fuisse, manifestissimum reddit. Quod etiam inde confirmatur, quod et Carolus in Capitulari suo lib. 1 cap. 84. Et habetur etiam apud Gratianum dist. 64. can. sacrorum ; decer¬ nit, liberas esse debere electiones Cleri, et populi : et Hadrianus II. in concilio generali octavo can 22. prohibet omnino Principes, ne se electionibus Episcoporum admisceant; et habetur hoc decretum etiam apud Gra¬ tianum dist. 63. can. 2. Et tamen neque Ca¬ rolus neque Adrianus II. mentionem ullam faciunt privilegii concessi ab-Adriano I. quam mentionem omnino facere debuissent, vel ut ei privilegio Carolus renunciare se di¬ ceret, vel ut illud abrogari novo decreto A- drianus in generali synodo declararet. Addo postremo nihil praejudicari summae Summi Pontificis auctoritati, etiam si verum esset (a) Pontifices aliquando ab imperatori¬ bus fuisse creatos ; tum quia id imperatores non ex proprio jure, sed ex privilegio Ponti¬ ficis Maximi fecissent : tum quia Electores auctoritatem aliquam exercent in personam designandam, cui Pontificatus dignitas con¬ ferenda est nullam exercere possunt in Pon¬ tificem electum; alioqui etiam Electores im¬ peratoris jus haberent in imperatorem ele¬ ctum, cum revera nullum ipsi habeant in imperatorem, et magnum in eos habeat imperator : quemadmodum et S. R. E. Car¬ dinales, quamvis Electores Pontificis sint : tamen ubi electus est, non subjicitur ille Cardinalibus, sed Cardinales illi, ut Pastori, et principi subjiciuntur. Pergit deinde rex pag. 27. et addit :« Quod imperatoris assensus, longo annorum decur¬ su, eligendis Pontificibus intervenerit, Pla- tina multique alii ex Pontificiis scriptoribus testes sunt, atque ipse Bellarminus in suo controversiarum opere hoc commode elu¬ dere non potest, quin et certam pecuniam, ut confirmationem obtinerent, Pontifices in Imperatorium fiscum dependere cogeban¬ tur, quem morem pene ad septingentesimum Christi annum durasse, Sigebertus, et Luit- prandus, aliique Pontificiae sectae historici testes sunt. » Haec ille. Negare non possumus quin principes Ariani (b) Gothi videlicet, cum multis aliis rebus Ecclesiam Catholicam afflixerint, tum hoc ipso, quod absque consensu suo, ali¬ quando etiam absque numerata pecunia Pontificem creari non permittebant, quem morem sequuti sunt aliquandiu Graeci impe¬ ratores, qui Gothis expulsis Italiam recupe¬ raverunt. Sed haec tyrannis ab initio anni quingentesimi initium accepisse, et anno Domini 684. Desiisse videtur, hoc enim anno scribit Anastasius, Constantinum imperato¬ rem concessisse Benedicto II. Summo Pon¬ tifici, ut deinceps consensus principis non expectoretur. Fuisse autem tyrannicam le¬ gem illam sive Gothorum, sive Graecorum, sanctus Gregorius Papa disertis verbis testa¬ tur in explicatione Psalmi Lquarti pceniten- tialis. Quid autem mirum est, si principes illi electioni Summorum Pontificum se ad¬ miscuerint, qui personas ipsas Pontificum vel exilio, vel carceribus, vel morte mulcta- bant ? non enim judicandum est de potestate Principum in Summos Pontifices ex eo, quod aliquando fecerunt, sed ex eo, quod juste acere potuerunt. Sed si per annos circiter (a) Electio Pontificis si per imperatorem facta faisset , summee potestati Pontificis minime prae- judicasset. — ( b ) Gothi reges , et Graeci imperatores Romanam Ecclesiam diu vexarunt. APOLOGIS GAP. VI. 141 ducentos, ac fortasse minori tempore substi- nuit Ecclesia tyrannidem illam partim a Go¬ this, partim a Graecis; per annos mille qua¬ dringentos libertatem suam obtinuit. Pergit rex pag. eadem, et ait : « Sed passim occurrunt imperatorum exempla, qui Romanis Pontificibus suam potestatem abrogarunt. Otho imperator Joannem XII. Pontificatu abdicavit, quod esset variis cri¬ minibus, ac praecipue libidine infamis. Hen¬ ricus III. imperator exiguo temporis spatio Benedictum IX., Sylvestrum III. et Grego- rium YI. synodaliter deposuit, cum insimu¬ latos avaritiae, tum quod hanc in principes extraordinariam potestatem proterve, et procaciter usurpassent. » Haec ille. Sed facilis est responsio ; nam (a) neque Otho Joannem XII. neque Henricus Benedi¬ ctum,. Sylvestrum, et Gregorium propria, vel imperiali potestate deposuerunt : sed per Synodum Episcoporum Ecclesiastica au¬ ctoritate deponi curarunt. Id Rhegino, et alii citati testantur. Neque facile concedi¬ mus, justam fuisse depositionem eorum Pon¬ tificum ; sed hoc ad rem praesentem non pertinet. Illud autem quod rex adjungit, de¬ positos fuisse Benedictum, Sylvestrum, et Gregorium, quod hanc in principes extra¬ ordinariam potestatem proterve, et procaci¬ ter usurpassent : aliquo testimonio probari oportuisset. Siquidem hic solum allegari vi¬ deo Marianum Scotum, Sigebertum, Abba¬ tem Urspergensem, etPlatinam : poterat et¬ iam addere Othonem Frisengensem, et Her- mannum Contractum. Marianus ad annum 1045. sic loquitur : « Henricus rex Italiam ingressus pacifice a Romanis suscipitur, Pa¬ pas tres non digne constitutos synodaliter deposuit » : neque causam particularem ex¬ plicat. Abbas Urspergensis eadem verba re¬ petit, quae videlicet a Mariano Scoto accepit. Sigebertus sic ait : «Romse uno contra duos, et duobus contra unum de Papatu conten¬ dentibus, rex Henricus contra eos Romam vadit, et eis canonica, et imperiali censura depositis, Suidegerus Bambergensis Episco¬ pus, eligitur, qui et Clemens Romanae Ec¬ clesiae CLIU, praesidet. » Hermannus Con¬ tractus sic loquitur : « Juxta Natalem Do¬ mini non longe ab urbe Roma apud Sutrium synodo item acta, causaque erroneorum Pon¬ tificum diligentius ventilata, Gratianum Pa¬ pam convictum baculo pastorali privavit Dein omnium tam Romanorum, quam alio¬ rum consensu Suidegerum Episcopum Ro¬ manae Ecclesiae elegit Pontificem. » Otho Frisengensis, auctor gravissimus lib. vi Chronici cap. 36. sic ait : « Porro Gratianus regi apud Sutrium occurrens ad leniendum ipsius animum diadema pretiosum obtulisse dicitur : quem rex primo, ut decuit, honori, fice suscepit : postmodum autem collecto Episcoporum conventu a Pontificatu pro nota simoniae cedere persuasit». Haec Otho, qui verissime scribit ( b ) Gregorium VI. qui ante Pontificatum Gratianus dicebatur, per¬ suasum fuisse ab imperatore, ut se ob notam simoniae abdicaret Pontificatu, proinde non proprie Gregorius depositus fuit, vel ab im¬ peratore, vel a synodo ; sed sponte cessit, eo quod de crimine simoniae convictum sese cerneret. Non desunt tamen viri gravissimi, qui Gregorium YI. nullius criminis convictum fuisse defendant : sed ad rem nostram non facit, qui boc loco solum demonstrare volu¬ mus, a nullo auctore scribi, quod rex hoc loco dicit, depositos fuisse Pontifices tres, eo quod extraordinariam potestatem in prin¬ cipes proterve, ac procaciter usurpassent. Id enim nullus omnino scribit. Porro Plati- na, qui ultimo loco adducitur, nullam cau¬ sam reddit, cur hi Pontifices in Concilio de¬ positi fuerint, nisi quod essent mali. Jam vero si ex his duobus exemplis Otho¬ nis, et Hernici imperatorum aliquid efficere¬ tur ad probandum, habere jus aliquod im¬ peratores ad Pontifices deponendos : multo facilius probaretur ex plurimis exemplis, habere Pontifices jus ad deponendos impe¬ ratores. Isti enim duo Otho, et Henricus Pontifices deposuerunt, non auctoritate sua, sed synodi, id est, Ecclesiastica potestate : (c) Pontifices vero imperatores deposuerunt, non laica Principum potestate, sed sua, ac propria. Exempla sunt ad manus. Gregorius junior imperatorem Leonem Isauricum, hse- reticorum Iconoclastarum principem excom- municatum privavit vectigalibus Italiae, ac per hoc imperii parte mulctavit. Testantur hoc, et laudant Graeci scriptores Cedrenus, et Zonaras in vita Leonis Isaurici. Leo III. transtulit imperium totum occidentale a Graecis ad Francos, ac per hoc privavit di- (a) An ab imperatoribus ulli Romani depositi. — ( b ) Gregorius VI. Papa non depositus fuit , sed, ipse se Pontificatu abdicavit, — (c) Imperatores a Pontificibus depositi. 142 APOLOGLE CAP. VI. midia imperii parte Graecos imperatores, et ea donavit Francos ; de qoa re testes sunt innumerabiles, quos adduximus in primo li¬ bro ex tribus, quos de Imperii translatione conscripsimus. Gregorius VII. imperatorem Hernicum IV. publica atque solemni caere¬ monia excommunicatum privavit imperio, quod recte factum fuisse, quicquid pauci schismatici contra dicant, testantur omnes graves historici, et caeteri ejus temporis au¬ ctores, quos, verbis singulorum in medio al¬ latis, produximus in lib. iv. de Pontif. cap. 13. Innocentius III. Othonem IV. imperato- . rem deposuit, teste Flavio Blondo lib. vi. Decadis '1 . Innocentius IV. in generali con¬ cilio Lugdunensi assentientibus omnibus publice deposuit Fridericum II. Imperato¬ rem, Ecclesiae persecutorem maximum. Ex¬ stat adhuc sententia, cap. Ad Apostolicae, de sententia, ^et re judiratain 6. Clemens VI. Ludovicum IV. imperatorem a Joonne XXII et Benedicto XII. excommunicatum imperio privavit. VideAlbertum Pighium lib. v. Ilie- rarch. Eccles. cap. 14. et 15. Pergit deinde pag. ".8, et adfert exempla (a) regum, qui Pontificibus strenue restite¬ runt. Primum ex Walthramo in lib. de inve¬ stituris Episcoporum, probat Episcopos Hi¬ spaniae, Scotiae, Angliae, Hungariae per re¬ ges introisse cum pace temporalium pure, et integre, et antiqua institutione usque ad modernam novitatem. Vocat autem Wal- thramus modernam novitatem decretum Gregorii VII. prohibentis investituras Eccle¬ siarum accipi a regibus, et principibus sae¬ culi. Respondemus, verum esse per non breve tempus consuevisse Episcopos a regi¬ bus investiri : sed Gregorium VII. fortissi¬ mum Ecclesiae Dei vindicem, Dei auxilio fretum, ncn timuisse veteres, et sanctas Ec¬ clesiasticas leges renovare, atque defendere. Scribit enim in Epist. ad Hugonem Diensem Episcopum, ut in concilio habendo, cui ipse ut Legatus Apostolicae Sedis praesessurus erat, canonem vicesimum secundum octavae synodi generalis renovati curaret, quo pro¬ hibetur principibus omnibus, etiam regibus, et imperatoribus, ne se in Episcoporum ele¬ ctione admisceant, quam Gregorii senten¬ tiam de tollendis investituris principum, de¬ fenderunt non solum successores ejus Victor III., Urbanus II., Paschalis II. et alii : sed etiam viri sancti, qui eo tempore floruerunt, ut duo sancti Anselmi, alter Cantuariensis, alter Lucensis et alii. Deinde rex pag. eadem cx annalibus Fran- ciae Nicolai Gillii refert initium Epistolae Philippi Pulchri regis Francorum adBonifa- cium VIII. Pontificem, quae epist. ridiculam continet salutationem, qualem scribere po¬ tuit iracundia potius, quam consideratio. Scimus enim gravissimam inimicitiam ges¬ sisse Philippum regem cum Bonifacio Pon¬ tifice ; neque esse mirum, si iratis animis quaedam exciderint, quae sedatis numquam excidissent. Addit postea ( b ) sanctum Ludovicum re¬ gem publica pragmatica sanctione omnes curiae Papalis exactiones intra regnum suum prohibuisse; et citat ad marginem, ex arre- stis Senatus Parisiensis. Ego vero legi qui¬ dem apud Nicolaum Gillium, inter alias san¬ cti Ludovici ordinationes, haec verba : « Item exactiones, et onera gravissima per Curiam Romanam Ecclesiae regni nostri imposita, vel impositas, quibus regnum nostrum mi¬ serabiliter depauperatum existit, sive etiam imponendas, aut imponenda, levari, aut colligi nullatenus volumus, nisi pro rationa¬ bili, pia, et urgentissima inevitabili necessi¬ tate, et de spontaneo expresso consensu no¬ stro, et ipsarum Ecclesiarum regni nostri. » Et fortasse haec eadem verba habentur in arresto Senatus Parisiensis, quod mihi no¬ tum non est. Caeterum legi pragmaticam sanctionem ejusdem sancti Ludovici, quae habetur ad finem tomi sexti Bibliothecae sanctorum Patrum editae Parisiis anno 1589. ubi habentur eaedem ordinationes, demptis verbis suprascriptis, quae videntur postea addita in odium Ecclesiae Romanae. Legi etiam similes ordinationes tum apud Paulum Himilium, tum apud Robertum Ga- guinum in vita S. Ludovici, et verba illa a Nicolao Gillio recitata non reperio : sed contra potius legi apud eosdem auctores (c) sanctum Ludovicum Romanae Ecclesiae Pon¬ tificibus, Innocentio IV., Alexandro IV., Ur¬ bano IV., et Clementi IV. quorum tempori¬ bus vixit, fuisse addictum, et obedientem. Nam Innocentio IV. in Concilio Lugdunensi excommunicanti, et deponenti imperatorem (a) De investituris Episcoporum a regibus usurpatis. — (b) An S. Ludovicus rex Francorum Papules exactiones in regno suo prohibuerit. — (c) tS. Ludovicus rex Francorum Ecclesice Romance addictissimus. APOLOGLE CAP. VI. 143 Fridericura, astitit sanctus Ludovicus, atque, ut verbis vEaiilii utar : « Se viresque regni sui, ac consilium sacrosancta? potestati tu¬ tandae paratum esse professus, Innocenti causa? dignitatem, roburque addidit» . Et infra : « interea Francus (sanctus Ludovi¬ cus) auctoritate nominis Franci tegens Pon¬ tificem, sacram insuper militiam in barba¬ ram religionem professus erat. » Denique in vita sancti Ludovici, quae exstat apud Lau¬ rentium Surium a confessario ejus ut credi¬ tur scripta, inter a ia monita, quae sanctus moriens filio suo, regnique haeredi dedit; haec verba habentur : « Semper sis addictus, et devotus Romanae Ecclesiae, ejus Pontifici haud secus atque spirituali patri te morige¬ rum praebeas. » Refert postea rex eadem pag. et seq. ex Joanne Majerio in lib. de schismate, etcon- cil. quid actum sit inter Pium II Pontifi¬ cem, et Ludovicum XI regem Francorum, circa pragmaticam sanctionem, quam ex sententia concilii Basileensis Carolus VII. rex Francorum edidit. Sed non est opus, ut in hac re diutius immoremur : quod enim Pius II Ludovici temporibus efficere non potuit, ut (b) pragmatica illa sanctio omnino de medio tolleretur; effecit postea Leo X, Francisco primo regnante. Itaque in conci¬ lio Lateranensi sess. 11. pragmatica illa sanctio publico decreto sublata est. Sed hunc exitum pagmaticse sanctionis, quia causae suae parum favebat, rex facile praeter- iri passus est. Addit ultimo rex pag. 30. et quatuor se¬ quentibus exempla (c) regnum Angliae, prae¬ decessorum suorum. Siquidem llenricus primus Episcopatum Wintoniensem Willel- mo Gifferd contulit, eumque contra novi Concilii decretum, de possessionibus cunctis ad Episcopatum pertinentibus investivit. Idem quoque Hernicus Archiepiscopatum Cantuariensem Rodulpho dedit, eumque per baculum, et annulunf investiv.t. Idem Tur- stano Eboracensi Archiepiscopo electo ad Callixtum Pontificem proficiscenti manda¬ vit, ut a Pontifice benedictionem non acci¬ peret : quod cum ille neglexisset, rex illi omnem suae dominationis locum interdixit ; atque haec ex Matthaei Paris historia proban¬ tur. RexEdwardus primus inhibuit Abbati de Waltam, et Decano sancti Pauli, ne deci¬ mas colligerent in sumptus belli Hierosoly¬ mitani, quamvis ad hoc delegati essent a Pontifice Romano. Et quoniam Abbate in- terim mortuo Decanus Edwardo regi pari¬ turum se pollicitus est; rex Jacobus trium¬ phat et dicit : « Hic hominem Ecclesiasticum teneo, qui Papae non paruit, ut regi suo pareret, in rebus quoque Ecclesiasticis, nondum scilicet nova haec Jesuitarum theo¬ logia orbi innotuerat. » Idem Edwardus tres viros Ecclesiasticos punivit, ex quo in- telligitur, non esse Ecclesiasticos a principis temporalis potestate exemptos. Edwardus II. patrem imitatus viros Eccle-iasticos in custodiam duci jussit. Edwardus III. ma¬ jorum vestigiis insistens Ecclesiasticos non¬ nullos vel carceri mancipavit, vel bonis temporalibus, et spiritualibus spoliavit. De¬ nique sub Richardo II. publicorum ordinum , decreto cautum est, ne quis beneficium a Pontifice Romano impetraret : qui secus faxit, extra regis fidem, et tutelam censeretur. Ilcec ex archiviis regiis deprompta esse di¬ cuntur. Ego vero admiror intra spatium quingen¬ torum annorum tam paucos inobedientes a rege numerari potuisse : cum constet a re¬ gibus An glire per hoc tempus plurimos san¬ ctissimos episcopos, vel archiepiscopos, ob eam causam vexatos ; quod mallent Pontifi¬ ci potius obedire, quam regi ; et libertatem Ecclesiasticam fortissime tuerentur. Theo¬ logia enim haec. Jesuitarum non est nova, sed antiquissima apud veros Catholicos; nisi forte plus valeat exemplum unius de¬ cani, quam plurimorum Episcoporum, san¬ ctitate, doctrina, et miraculis illustrissimo¬ rum, et salutis aeternae regis, et gregis sui cupidissimorum. Notum est quanta passus sit (d) sanctus Anseimus Archiepiscopus Gantuariae a rege Willelino, quot annis exulaverit, quoties ad Romanum Pontificem confugerit, et quanta devotione quocumque iret, ab omnibus, ut Angelus Domini reciperetur. Dedit illi tamen Deus post mortem Willelmi regis gloriosam victoriam, sic enim scribit Edinerus Anglus in lib. n. de vita S. Anselmi : Eo igitur tem¬ pore adunato in palatio regis Londini eun¬ tis primoribus Anglia? victoriam de libertate Ecclesiae, pro qua diu laboraverat, Anseimus adeptus est; rex enim antecessorum suo.ium (a) Pragmatica sanctio sublata . — ( b ) An antiqui regis Anglice Romanus Pontificibus obedien es , an refractarii fuerint. — (c) Episcopi Angli sanctate conspicui a regibus vexati. APOLOGLE GAP. VI. IU usu relicto, nec personas, quae in regimen Ecclesia? sumebantur, per se elegit ; nec eas per dationem virgae pastoralis Ecclesiis, qui¬ bus praeficiebantur, investivit. Non minus notum est, quanta, et quam gravia passus sit sanctus Thomas Archiepi- scopus Gantuariae* et Martyr ab Henrico II. rege, cujus persecutionem fugiens aci Ponti¬ ficem Romanum ipse quoque se contulit, sed is etiam victoriam praeclaram obtinuit, cum post ejus obitum clarificante eum Do¬ mino signis et virtutibus ; idem rex publi¬ cam poenitentiam egerit. Huic adjungi potest sanctus Edmundus Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis, qui ob defen¬ sionem Ecclesiasticae libertatis, multa tum a rege, tum a regni proceribus passus est. Ita¬ que ipse quoque in exilium voluntarium con¬ cedens apud Pontiniacum obiit, ubi recepta¬ culum, et refugium erat omnium ab Anglia propter justitiam exulantium Praelatorum. Sed ante hos omnes S. Dunstanus Archie¬ piscopus item Cantuariensis de manu summi Pontificis Joannis XIII. pallium, insigne ar- chiepiscopalis dignitatis accepit; et admi¬ randae sanctitatis, et miraculorum gloria clarissimus fuit : nec tamen effugere potuit, quin ab Eduino rege mulierum amore cor¬ rupto in exilium pelleretur. Sed postea ta¬ men ab exilio revocatus maxima constantia semper regum scelera redarguit, et optimo fine in pace quievit, cujus vitam ab Osberto Monacho Cantuariensi sancti Dunstani aequa¬ li fideliter scriptam habemus. Sanctus Hugo Episcopus Lincolniensis non pauca sustinuit a Richardo rege, sed con¬ stantia, et virtute omnia superavit. Adscri- bani verba, quae habentur cap-. 18. vitae ipsius : a Cum aliquando rex contra regem Franciae extra fines regni sui alacriter dimi¬ caret, et militi pecuniam multam erogasset, archiepiscopum patriam remisit cum man¬ dato, ut Episcopis, et Praelatis in unum con¬ vocatis indicaret, se pecunia habere opus, cupereque ab illis adjuvari ; sed vir sanctus accuratius rem ipsam examinans, cum repe- risset pauperculam plebem hac ratione gra¬ vari ; respondit, etiamsi omnes regi consen¬ seritis : at ego nequaquam illi consentiam. Unus etiam ex Episcopis auditis rationibus, quas B. Hugo copiose contra illam exactio¬ nem afferebat, illi adhaesit. Graviter hoc Ar¬ chiepiscopus accepit, et gradu concito ad regem abiit, multa ei de sancto Episcopo conquesturus. Audiens rex solum Lincol- niensem, suum retardasse conatum, et alium etiam Episcopum in suam sententiam per¬ traxisse, prae ira insaniens cuidam amico suo dixit: Sicut tu meam diligis salutem ; ita ego tibi praecipio, ut Hugonem cum adhae- rente ei Episcopo penitus extirpare festines. Ejectus est ergo alter ille, et omnia quae pos¬ sidebat, fisco regis addicta sunt. Sed justus tamquam leo confidens absque terrore erit etc. Et tandem rex videns constantiam viri, et quod minas universaque pericula pro nihilo duceret, eum ex animo venerari coe¬ pit. » Addam et pauca ex cap. 20: «Hortan¬ tibus quandoque amicis, ut majoris periculi vitandi causa in quadam re parvi momenti regi contra jus Ecclesiae consentiret ; sic fer¬ tur dixisse : Absit, ut personae laicae, cujus- cumque etiam dignitatis, et eminentiae, pri¬ vilegium Ecclesiasticae libertatis infringant. Mihi vero non contingat, ut timore potesta¬ tis alicujus, aut formidine difficultatis quan- taecuinque, jus Ecclesiae Dominae meae sanctae Mariae, quantum in me est, deperire sinam etc. Hic nos quoque Ecclesiasticum hominem tenemus, cui nota erat theologia, quam Je- suitae hodie docunt, non esse obediendum regi, in praejudicium Ecclesiaisticae liber¬ tatis. » Sanctus Richardus Episcopus Cicestrensis claudat hunc locum. « Is electus fuit Episco¬ pus contra sententiam regis : propterca Rex furore percitus res Ecclesiae Cicestrensis jussit confiscari. Episcopus multas injurias, contumeliasque perpessus ad Apostolicam Sedem se contulit, cui tunc Innocentius IV. praesidebat : praevenerant autem eum Legati regii, ut etiam apud Summum Pontificem sanctum virum Iiichairdum fatigarent : sed Pontifex partibus auditis Beati Richardi ele¬ ctionem sua auctoritate confirmavit, atque eumdem sacrarum manuumimpositione Epi¬ scopum consecravit. Reversus in Angliam Episcopus, non solum bona Ecclesiae suae recuperare non potuit, sed etiam proposito edicto publico rex omnibus interdixit, ne quis ei pecuniam mutuo daret. Caeterum vir sanctus memor verborum sancti Jacobi, quod Deus elegit pauperes in hoc mundo, divites in fide, et haeredes regni, quod re¬ promisit diligentibus se, egestate sua gau¬ dens partes omnes boni pastoris imple¬ vit. » Hinc habemus, quod rex quaerebat exem¬ pla Regum, qui bona non tantum tempora¬ lia, sed etiam spiritualia Ecclesiasticis per I APOLOGLE GAP. VI. vim eripiebant, sed habemus etiam, quod rex non quaerebat, exempla sanctorum Episco¬ porum, qui pro libertate Ecclesiastica tum agendo, tum patiendo fortissime dimica¬ bant. Sed hoc loco praetereundum non est, hos ipsos (a) quinque Anglicos reges, quicquid tandem egerint, fuisse fide Catholicos; ne¬ que unquam ab obedientia Summi Pontificis, ut supremi capitis Ecclesiae, defecisse. Nam Henricum primum post longas dimicationes pro investituris Episcoporum, constat cessisse Pontificum decretis. Id praeter testimonium Edineri supra allatum, testatur Florentius Vigorniensis in Chronico anni 1 107. his ver¬ bis : a Statuit rex, ut ab eo tempore in re¬ liquum numquam per dationem baculi pasto¬ ralis, et annuli quisquam de Episcopatu, aut Abbatia per regem, vel quamlibet laicam manum in Anglia investiretur. » Idem testa¬ tur Gulielmus Malmesberiensis lib. v. histo¬ riae his verbis : « Investituras Ecclesiarum post multas controversias Deo, et sancto Petro remisit. » Edovardus primus sine dubio Catholicus fuit et Summum Pontificem caput Ecclesiae confessus est. Exstat enim Epistolaejus apud Thomam Valsingamum in anno 13012. ad Bonifacium VIII. cujus hsec est inscriptio : « Sanctissimo in Christo Patri, Domino Bo- nifacio Sanctse Romanae, et universalis Ec¬ clesiae Summo Pontifici, Edovardus Dei gra¬ tia rex Angliae salutem, et devota pedum oscula beatorum. » Certe qui Bonifacium universalis Ecclesia} Summum Pontificem vocat, non potest ei negare obedientiam, et subjectionem, nisi ab Ecclesia universali alienum se esse profiteatur. Et qui pedum devota oscula Pontifici offert, numquam pro¬ fecto diceret, quod Jacobus rex dicit, se nulla in re Pontifice inferiorem esse. Edovardus II. vel ex eo Pontificis aucto¬ ritatem agnovisse se testatus est, quod cum illo egit, ut Scotiae regem censuris Ecclesia¬ sticis coerceret, audita prius causa, quai inter utrosque reges contro vertebatur. Edovardus III. epistolam scripsit ad Cle¬ mentem V. Pontificem eodem Valsingamo teste, cum eadem inscriptione, videlicet : « Sanctissimo in Christo Patri, Domino Cle- 145 menti divina providentia sanctae Romanae, et universalis Ecclesiae Summo Pontifici, Edovardus eadem gratia rex Angliae et Fran- ciae, etc. devota pedum oscula beatorum : » Et infra : « Pensata etiam devotionis pleni¬ tudine, qua domus nostra regia, et clerus, et populus dicti regni perstiterunt hactenus in obedientia Sedis Apostolicae etc. Denique de Richardo II, quod fuerit etiam ipse Catholicus dubitari non potest, nam cum ejus tempore, schisma factum esset in Ecclesia, creato Antipapa Clemente VII. contra Urbanum Papam VI. Richardus rex legem tulit, ut qui alium Pontificem, praeter Urbanum, quem unicum, et verum Ecclesiae caput appellat, agnoverit, bonis omnibus, et regis protectione privetur. Sed esto, quinque isti reges alieni a Sede Apostolica fuissent : an non deberet rex Ja¬ cobus imitari potius ducentos circiter reges praedecessores suos, partirn Anglos, partirn Scotos, quam quinque? Constat enim ex Joanne Lesleo(^) reges Scotorum a Donaldo primo, qui anno salutis 197. a sancto Victore Pontifice fidem Christianam accepit, usque ad Mariam hujus regis matrem, Catholicos, et Romanae Apostolicae Sedi obedientes fuisse. Numerantur autem 84. reges, vel, ut alii volunt, supra 90. Nec minus constat ab anno salutis 600 ( c ) reges Angliae ab Ethelberto,qui primus fidem Christianam a S. Augustino suscepit, usque ad S. Edovardum, id est, usque ad annum salutis 1066. non solum Catholicos, sed etiam Romanae Sedis devotissimos fuisse, ut tra¬ dunt Beda, Polydorus, et alii ; numerantur autem reges isti circiter octoginta. Itaque solum supersunt post conquestum reges vi- ginti, a Willelmo primo usque ad Henricum VIII, ex quibus quinque solos rex Jacobus sibi ad imitandum proposuit, omissis quin¬ decim, vel potius ducentis et quindecim, quos et Catholicos, et Apostolicae Sedis obedientes fuisse negare non potuit. (a) Quinque Reges Angliae, quos Jacobus pro causa sua adduxit, Pontificem romanuin, ut caput Ecclesiae urciversce venerabantur. — (b) Reges Scotice a Donaldo primo usque ad Mariam hujus a- cobi sexti matrem, per annos mille trecentos, Catholici fuerunt. — (cj Reges Angliae abLthel etto usque ad Henricum octavum per annos nongentos Catholici fuerunt. Tom. XII 10 APOLOGLE GAP. VII. \ 46