Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 7: That King James Can by No Reasoning Be Excused from Heresy
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).
These digressions dispatched, the king from page 35 to 40 strives to prove that he is neither an apostate nor a heretic. That he is not properly an apostate can easily be granted. For those are called apostates who wholly desert the Christian faith and religion, so that they do not wish even to be called Christians; such was the emperor Julian, who, made a pagan from a Christian, earned himself the surname of Apostate. But as to what the king says, that his father and paternal grandfather thought the same as he about the faith; that by his mother too he was invited to the papal religion in none of the letters which he frequently received from her; nay, that in her last words, through the steward of her household, it was enjoined on him by her that he could persevere in the religion which he practised, provided he lived uprightly and holily, and governed the peoples committed to him prudently and piously; lastly that the same mother ordered that in the baptism of her son they should not use the recent ceremony of spittle, for she would not have an impure priest spit into the mouth of her little child: I answer, as to the ceremony of spittle, that it is not recent, since Saint Ambrose mentions it in book 1 on the sacraments, chapter 1, Saint Gregory in the Sacramentary, Bede in the homily on the Gospel of the twelfth Sunday after Trinity, Rabanus in book 1 on the institution of clerics, chapter 27, Hugh of Saint Victor in book 1 on the sacraments, chapter 18. Nor is it true that in that ceremony the priest's spittle is spat into the mouth of the little child; but only the ears and nostrils are touched with spittle, as the Fathers cited say, and the Church observes; for these are the words of the venerable Bede: “Whence I believe it soon became frequent in the Church that her priests, for those whom they prepare for receiving the sacraments of baptism, first among the other beginnings of consecration touch the nostrils and ears with the spittle of their mouth, saying Ephphatha.” So it is not credible that that ceremony was forbidden by a Catholic queen. As to the king's parents, I say there is no lack among us of those who saw the king's father and mother, perhaps also his paternal grandfather, and who say they hold it for certain that the king's father and grandfather were Catholics; and that the queen his mother was not only herself a Catholic, but also gave every effort to bring her son over from the errors of the innovators to the ancient and true faith. Nay, there are shown here at Rome not a few letters written in the same queen's own hand, which sufficiently witness her zeal for the conversion of her son to the Catholic religion. Nor do we give credit to the steward Melville, who, being a heretic, it is no wonder if he invents things as said to him by the dying queen which serve to commend his own heresy.
Further, the king says he is not a heretic, because he believes the canonical Scriptures; because he gladly swears the three Creeds, the Apostles', the Nicene and Saint Athanasius's; because he venerates the first four general councils as Catholic and orthodox; because whatever the Fathers in the four hundred years after Christ (five hundred is read in the English book) determined by unanimous consent to be necessary to eternal salvation, he either so thinks with them, or keeps silent with modest silence, certainly does not dare to censure. But that these things are not enough for him not to be able to be called a heretic we shall show with easy labour. For first, the king believes the canonical Scriptures without a certain foundation, and thereby properly does not believe. For he says there are two orders of Scriptures, as he affirms Bellarmine hands down in book 1 on the Word of God, chapter 4; and that the Scriptures of the second order are not of such authority that any head of the faith can be established from them. Now Bellarmine does indeed make two orders of Scriptures, one of those of whose authority there has never been doubt, the other of those of which some of the ancients doubted; but nevertheless of both orders Bellarmine affirms that the Scriptures are divine and canonical, and that from both orders of Scriptures the heads of the faith can be drawn and established. And this he proves most fully in the following chapters. The Scriptures of the second order are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees and certain others; and these are they from which the king and the other Calvinists deny that dogmas of the faith can be drawn or established. Of whom I would gladly ask: whence have you that the Scriptures of the first order are divine and canonical, and the Scriptures of the second order are not such? For certainly from the Scriptures themselves neither can be proved; for nowhere is it written that the books of Genesis and Exodus are divine, and the books of Tobit and Judith are not; that the book of Isaiah is canonical, the book of Baruch not; that from the books of Proverbs, from Ecclesiastes, from the Canticles dogmas of the faith can be drawn, from the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus not; lastly that the books of Maccabees are apocryphal. They will say that the books of the first order are found written in the Hebrew tongue, those of the latter are not found written except in Greek or Latin. But Scripture nowhere teaches that books written in Hebrew are canonical, and others not. Nor is it fair to wish to bind the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of the Scriptures, to the Hebrew tongue, as the Jews do, as if he could not even in the time of the Old Testament dictate a book in the Greek or Latin tongue. So rightly Saint Augustine, book 18 of the City of God, chapter 36: “The books of Maccabees,” he says, “not the Jews, but the Church holds for canonical.” They will say that the books of the first order were always undoubted among all; of the books of the second order some writers sometimes doubted. But not on that account are the books of the former order to be held divine, because particular writers did not doubt of them; otherwise our faith would depend on the doubting or not doubting of men. But those alone are to be held canonical and divine books which Mother Church, who has the Spirit of God, and is the pillar and ground of the truth, through the mouth of the supreme Shepherd or of lawful councils says are truly canonical and divine. For truly Saint Augustine wrote: “I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me,” in the book against the epistle of the Foundation, chapter 5. As therefore we Catholics believe the Church teaching that the books of the first order are divine, so we believe the same teaching that the books of the second order are divine; for all those books Pope Innocent I enumerates among the sacred, canonical and divine in the decree on the sacred books published in a council of 70 bishops; the third council of Carthage, canon 47; lastly the general councils of Florence and Trent. But the Church learned, not from the written word of God, but from the word of God handed down by the forefathers through the successions of times, which are the canonical books, which the apocryphal. But the king, who cannot bring forward the written word of God, since none exists on this matter; who does not receive the word of God handed down, because the innovators forbid it to be received; who does not admit the judgment of the Church, that is, of the supreme Shepherd and of councils (beyond the first four); what remains, but that he rest on his own will, or on the opinions of the innovators; and thereby believe, concerning the very word of God, not the word of God, but human judgment? And what I have said of the holy Scriptures, the same can be said of the understanding of the Scriptures. For the innovators, where Scripture speaks in proper and express words, count it as nothing to change those words into tropes and figures, whenever they do not favour their opinion; so those words of the Supper, round, clear, plain, For this is my body, the Calvinists wrap in a thousand figures, so that they seem to signify anything else than what they truly and properly signify; so that passage of Apocalypse 11, on the two prophets who are to fight with Antichrist and be killed by him, and a little after raised up by God, the literal, plain, proper and clear sense being left aside, they altogether labour to obscure with metaphors, and to transfer to other things which we Catholics judge most foreign to the proper sense. But of these so far.
I come to the three Creeds and the first four councils. We know that to the Lutherans the Sacramentarians, and to the Sacramentarians the Lutherans, are heretics; we know that the Pelagians and Monothelites are heretics to Catholics and Protestants; we know that very many others are heretics to all others besides the men of their own sect; and yet all these receive the canonical Scriptures, the three Creeds and the first four councils, and by no means despise the Fathers of the first four hundred years. Either, then, the Pelagians, Monothelites and other men of that kind are not heretics, or it is not enough for escaping the name of heretic to receive and admit those things which the king of the English says he receives and admits. Nor does it much matter that Pelagius the heresiarch was older than the third and fourth councils; for the new Pelagians, who in the time of Saint Prosper and Saint Fulgentius renewed the Pelagian heresy, were later than the four councils, nor did they deny them. As also at this time the Greeks, in the article on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, are held heretics even by the Lutherans and Calvinists; and yet they venerate the Scriptures, the three Creeds, the four councils and the ancient Fathers; therefore these things do not suffice. Then I ask the king why he receives only the first four general councils? why not also the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth; then the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance, Trent? Perhaps the Church of Christ perished after the five hundredth year? But of the kingdom of Christ, which is the Church, there shall be no end, Luke 1. And against the Church the gates of hell shall not prevail, Matthew 16. Perhaps the Church remained after the five hundredth year, but invisible, and lurking in caves and dens? But the Church is a city set upon a mountain, which cannot be hid, Matthew 5. And that can always be fulfilled: If he will not hear thee, tell the Church, Matthew 18. And rightly Saint Augustine expounds of the Church that of Psalm 18: “He hath set his tabernacle in the sun, that is,” he says, “his Church in manifestation, not in a hidden place, not one that lurks, not as if covered, lest perhaps it become as one covered over the flocks of the heretics. In the sun, then, he has set his tabernacle; why do you, heretic, flee into darkness?” So Saint Augustine. Perhaps after the five hundredth year no new heretics arose, against whom new councils would have to be called? But there arose the Monothelites, who taught that there is one will in Christ; which heresy the Fathers condemned in the sixth council. There arose others and others, against whom at various times various councils had to be gathered; for the wars of heretics have never been lacking, nor will they ever be lacking, as long as the Church is called militant. Perhaps something was lacking to the other councils which could be found only in the first four? But what is that? Compare the first council with the sixth. In the first were present bishops summoned from every side; they were present also in the sixth. In the first were present the legates of the Apostolic See; they were present also in the sixth. In the first was present the emperor Constantine; in the sixth also was present an emperor of the same name. In the first anathema was pronounced on the Arians, and thenceforth the whole Church detested the Arians as manifest heretics. In the sixth anathema was pronounced on the Monothelites, and thenceforth the whole Church detested the Monothelites as manifest heretics. In the first it was believed that the Holy Spirit was present as teacher, and that by the Fathers gathered in Christ's name it could be said, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us. But this same thing was believed in the sixth, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit is to be said to have deserted the Church, who was sent to teach her all truth. And what we have said of the comparison of the first council with the sixth, the same can be said of the comparison of the first with the rest gathered in the same manner and order. Wherefore either it must be said that there are no councils, not even those first ones, in which there was authority for condemning new heresies; or the same authority is to be given to all general councils rightly gathered; and thereby he receives the first four in vain who does not receive the others following.
But I come to the several things which the king says he admits and venerates after the holy Scriptures. I deny that the Apostles' Creed is fully received by him. The fifth article is: He descended into hell; which is also repeated in the Creed of Saint Athanasius, and is found everywhere in the catechisms of Luther and Calvin and of all others, both Catholics and heretics. Yet this article the Calvinists, such as are in England both Protestants and Puritans, confess in word and deny in deed. For in Calvin, book 2 of the Institutes, chapter 16, in the small Catechism, in the Psychopannychia and elsewhere, Christ descended into hell and endured the punishments of the damned; and Calvin says that Christ endured the punishments of the damned first in the garden, when he asked that the cup of the passion be taken from him; then on the Cross, when he says: My God, why hast thou forsaken me? But the Apostles' Creed hands down that Christ descended into hell after death, not while he lived in the garden or on the Cross; and this is the tradition of all the ancient Fathers who flourished in the first five hundred years, namely that Christ after death, according to his soul, descended to the subterranean place of souls, according to his body lay in the tomb. Consult among the Greeks Saint Ignatius in the epistle to the Trallians, Saint Justin in the dialogue with Trypho, Saint Irenaeus at the end of book 5, Clement of Alexandria in book 6 of the Stromata, Origen, homily 15 on Genesis, Eusebius of Caesarea, book 4 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, chapter 12, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 4, Saint Athanasius in the book on the incarnation of the Word which begins, It is the custom of a godly man, Saint Basil on Psalms 44 and 48, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, oration 1 on the resurrection of Christ, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, oration 2 on Easter, Saint Epiphanius in the Ancoratus before the middle, Saint John Chrysostom, homily 2 on the Creed, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, book 12 on John, chapter 36, and in the book on the right faith to Theodosius. Among the Latins, Tertullian in the book on the soul, chapters 31 and 32, Saint Hippolytus the martyr in the oration on Antichrist, Saint Hilary, book 10 on the Trinity, and on Psalm 138, Saint Philastrius in the book on heresies, chapter on the descent of Christ into hell, Saint Gaudentius, tract 6 on Exodus, Saint Ambrose, book 3 on the faith, chapter 3, Saint Jerome on chapter 4 of Ephesians, on chapter 9 of Zechariah, and on chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, Prudentius in hymns 1 and 9 of the Cathemerinon, Rufinus in the explanation of the Creed, Saint Augustine, epistle 57 to Dardanus and 99 to Evodius, and tract 78 on John, and on Psalm 135, and book 17 of the City of God, chapter 11, and book 20, chapter 15, Saint Leo, sermon 1 on the Resurrection, Saint Fulgentius, book 3 to King Thrasimund, chapter 23, Saint Vigilius the martyr, book 2 against Eutyches, Saint Gregory, book 13 of the Morals, chapter 20. Of these there is none who did not live in the first five hundred years, Saint Gregory excepted, whom I wished to add as the apostle of the English. Let the king consult these ancient Fathers, and if he gives them credit, let him understand that about the Apostles' Creed he with his own wanders far from the opinion of the ancient Church. And not only in this article, but also in the article on the Catholic Church, and in the article on the remission of sins, the king of the English holds the words, not the sense. For he cannot believe the Church to be Catholic, while he has no Church except a particular one, which does not go beyond the kingdom of England, as we showed at the beginning. Nor can he believe a true remission of sins who believes with the innovators that sins always cling to a man however justified, although they are not imputed. But the Apostles did not put in the Creed, I believe the non-imputation of sins, but, I believe the remission, true surely and full; otherwise the fault of the first man would have been more powerful, which truly and properly defiled all begotten of Adam, than the grace of the second man, which could not truly and properly cleanse those reborn in Christ; but of these we have said much in the Controversies, which is not to be repeated.
Further, as to the Nicene Creed, if the king admits it with the addition of the second general council, as it is read everywhere in all Churches, he will find in it these words: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins”; which words are wont to be recited, but are not wont to be believed by the Calvinists, whose doctrine the king himself, the English and the Scots follow. For first, that the children of the faithful are born holy, and can be saved without baptism, and therefore are not baptized for the remission of sins, see Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 16, and in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 5. And as to adults, they in their opinion are justified by faith, not baptized for the remission of sins. This is the reason why Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 14, in the definition of a sacrament set down nothing else than a sealing of the promises of God's goodwill toward us, and a protestation of our piety toward God; of the remission of sin, or of the infusion of inherent grace, no mention. Lastly, in the Antidote to the council, session 5: “Sin,” says Calvin, “truly remains in us, nor is it extinguished at once in one day by baptism; but because the guilt is blotted out, by imputation it is nothing.” So he. So by the opinion of the innovators sin is never truly remitted so that it is not, but only so that it is not imputed; and this remission by non-imputation befalls infants because they are the children of the saints, but adults by their own faith. So among them the article of the Creed can be blotted out: “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.” But that this article is true, and to be understood of a proper and true remission, all the ancient Fathers of the first five hundred years teach, to whom if the king gave credit, he would give no credit to his Protestants. And to bring forward one testimony out of many, Saint Augustine in book 3 on the soul and its origin, chapter 9: “Do not believe,” he says, “do not say, do not teach that infants overtaken by death before they are baptized can attain the forgiveness of original sins, if you wish to be a Catholic.” The same in epistle 156, otherwise 157, to Optatus: “The remission of sins even in the baptism of little ones is not false, nor is it said in word only, but truly done. For (to use now the words) which are read in the epistle of the most blessed Zosimus: The Lord is faithful in his words, and his baptism holds the same most fully in deed and words, that is, in work, confession and true remission of sins, in every sex, age and condition of the human race; for no one is made free unless he is a slave of sin, nor can be called redeemed unless he was truly before a captive through sin, as it is written: If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. For through him we are reborn spiritually, through him we are crucified to the world; by his death that bond, contracted by propagation, of the death introduced by Adam to us all and transmitted to every soul, is broken, in which no one at all of those born is not held liable before he is freed through baptism. For in these words of the Apostolic See the Catholic faith is so ancient and founded, certain and clear, that it is a crime for a Christian to doubt of it.” So Saint Augustine.
I come to the third Creed, in which these words are read: “From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead; at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account of their own works; and they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.” In which words we confess the last judgment, in which the just Judge, according to the quality of deeds, will render to some the crown of justice, to others reproach and everlasting punishment. For if not according to the merits of works, but by favour of faith, or of the justice of Christ mercifully imputed to the faithful, eternal life were given, there would be no need of a judgment, nor of an examination of deeds; nor would it be fitting for a just Judge to come, but a merciful Father; nor should we have to give account of our own deeds, but to show the justice of Christ imputed to us and laid hold of by faith. This article, then, the king cannot believe, if he believes with Calvin and the Protestants that all the works of the just are sins. For these are Calvin's words, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 14: “No work can come from the saints which does not deserve the just reward of reproach.” For what account will the just give of their own deeds to Christ the Judge, if all their works are faulty, and deserve the just reward of reproach? And if the just cannot give account of their own deeds, certainly much less can the unjust give account; to what purpose, then, shall we all stand before the tribunal of Christ, that each may give account of his own deeds? They will say perhaps, as they are wont, that the works of the just are indeed all filthy and unclean, but that the uncleanness is to be covered by the mercy of God, and reckoned to the faithful for Christ's sake as if they were clean. But if it were so, there would be need not of the justice of a Judge, but (as I said above) of the mercy of a Father, or the liberality of a Prince. To what purpose, then, does the article of the Creed say: “He shall come to judge the living and the dead, and all shall give account of their own works”? And why does the Apostle in 2 Timothy, chapter 4, cry: There is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just Judge will render to me in that day? why does his fellow Apostle Peter, in the first epistle, chapter 1, likewise cry: And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work, converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here? why does the Lord himself, who is to come as Judge, foretell in Matthew 16 that he will come with his angels to render to every man according to his works? But I do not wish to be longer, lest I seem to dispute of dogmas, not to write an Apology.
I come to the first four councils. The council of Nicaea, which is the first of the general councils, was called chiefly for two causes: that the question of the faith of the divinity of the Son of God, and the dissensions about celebrating Easter, might be defined. This Saint Athanasius witnesses in the book on the synods of Rimini and Seleucia, not far from the beginning; and also Constantine in the epistle which Eusebius relates in book 3 of the life of Constantine. So Saint Epiphanius, heresy 70, writes that the emperor Constantine conferred two great benefits on the Church: one, that he took care that the synod of Nicaea be gathered; the other, that in that synod he took care that the question of Easter be ended. Now both questions that sacred synod defined not so much from the Scriptures as from unwritten tradition. Of the question of the faith Theodoret is witness, book 1 of the history, chapter 8, that it was ended from unwritten discourses; for although Scriptures were brought forward for each side in the disputing, yet the Arians twisted them to their own opinion, and there would have been no end of disputing, unless the bishops who had come together from the whole world, gathering the true understanding of Scripture from the tradition of the forefathers, had decreed that that faith was to be held which it was established had been preached and received from the forefathers in the Churches of the whole world before the question was raised. But the decree about celebrating Easter on the Lord's day could not even be deduced from any Scriptures, but was formed from tradition alone, received from the Apostles, and above all from Saint Peter, and kept in the City. Which being so, let the king see how well the Calvinist and Lutheran ministers agree with the Fathers of the synod of Nicaea, who reject unwritten traditions, and make questions interminable. There exists besides the third canon of the council of Nicaea, that women be not permitted to dwell in the houses of bishops, priests and deacons, except a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, from whose cohabitation no suspicion of carnal intercourse can arise. How then, if in the kingdom of England the rules of the council of Nicaea have place, are wives and daughters found in the houses of bishops, with flocks of maidservants, in no less number or licence than in the houses of laymen? They will say perhaps that it is found in the history of Sozomen that in the same council of Nicaea, Paphnutius intervening, it was left to the discretion of bishops and other churchmen to use their wives at pleasure. But that history of Sozomen is proved false from the canon of the council cited a little before; for if it had been left to their discretion to use wives or not, certainly the council would have excepted wives and daughters too, where it excepted mothers and sisters. Then, Saint Epiphanius, heresy 59, and Saint Jerome in the book against Vigilantius, openly write that it is against the canons, and not lawful for a bishop, priest and deacon to beget children. And certainly the holy Fathers Epiphanius and Jerome are worthier of credit than Sozomen, who was later in time, and inferior in learning and holiness. Add that, on Sozomen's authority, Paphnutius wished the use of wives to be free to those bishops and other churchmen only who had received them before holy Orders; but that it was unlawful to be joined in marriage after holy Orders. But the English bishops, the law of the council despised, against the custom not only of the Latins but even of the Greek Christians, marry wives even after obtaining the episcopate. So they have no excuse, unless perhaps they are willing freely to confess, what is most true, that they cannot be true bishops, since they are not rightly ordained, nor have anything of the episcopate except what they unjustly usurp, the name and the wealth. But this is to be very far from the rules of the council of Nicaea, where in canon 4 bishops are ordered to be ordained by at least three bishops, who themselves have been rightly ordained by others; for no one can give what he has not before received. But the Protestant bishops, ordained by no true bishop, are mere laymen. Now of the second council there is nothing that I should add here, since a little before, from the Creed published in this council, I showed that the faith of the Protestants and of the king himself is foreign to the faith of the Fathers of this council. From the third general council, which is the first of Ephesus, I shall bring forward nothing else than part of the epistle of the emperor Theodosius the Younger sent to this very synod; that the king may understand what are the parts of kings in councils, and whose properly is the office of sitting and judging in councils. And the epistle exists in Greek and Latin. “Therefore,” says Theodosius, “we have ordered Candidian, the most illustrious count of the religious household, to go to your sacred synod; but on this law and condition, that he have nothing whatever in common with the questions and controversies which arise about the dogmas of the faith; for it is unlawful that one who is not enrolled in the catalogue of the most holy bishops be mixed in ecclesiastical business and consultations; but that he remove by every means from that same city the monks and seculars, and lastly all others who for the sake of this spectacle have either now flocked there, or perhaps will flock in future; and also that he diligently see to it that no dissension, forced by a zeal of mutual opposition, and raging like a savage storm, in any way disturb the consultation of your most holy synod.” So it stands there. The king certainly sees that in the lawful councils of the Church, such as this third was, not all churchmen came together, but bishops alone. He sees besides that ecclesiastical business does not belong to the kings of the world, except perhaps that they protect the bishops, and consult for their tranquillity, for which cause Theodosius sent Candidian, and in the first and fourth council the emperor himself wished to be present. He sees lastly that from these things it is most plainly gathered that the king is not head of the Church; for how would the head of the Church herself be kept away from ecclesiastical business? Therefore the king, who says that he is head, or, what is the same, general governor of the Church of his kingdom, and who thinks that general councils belong chiefly to kings, and who lastly would have all churchmen present, except Puritans and Jesuits, is busy introducing a new form of councils, and one wholly foreign to those first four.
From the fourth council the king, if he wished, could learn much, whence he might know that the faith and religion which he himself calls reformed, and which he is busy defending and propagating, is far from the faith and religion of the synod of Chalcedon, which is the fourth general. First of all, the true ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the universal Church is manifestly gathered from this council. There exist very many epistles to Pope Leo and the council of Chalcedon, and always the name of the Pontiff is set before the name of the council, in this way: “To the most holy and most beloved of God, and universal Archbishop and Patriarch of great Rome, Leo, and to the holy and universal synod of Chalcedon, which has been gathered by the will of God.” There exists the epistle of the whole general council to the same Leo, where among other things the Fathers say: “Over all which bishops gathered, you indeed presided as the head over the members.” Where they openly call the Pontiff the head of the council representing the universal Church. Likewise they say: “And after all these things, moreover, he stretched out his madness even against him to whom the custody of the vineyard was committed by the Saviour, that is, against your Apostolic holiness too.” Where they confess that the custody of the whole vineyard, that is, the Church, was committed by Christ himself, not by the emperor or by a council, to the Roman Pontiff. There exists likewise among the canons of this council the sixteenth canon in these words: “A virgin who has consecrated herself to God the Lord, and likewise a monk, may not contract the rights of marriage; and if they are found doing this, let them be excommunicated.” Let the king see whether that canon, so ancient, so holy, established by six hundred bishops of the ancient Church, is observed in England; or on the contrary, if any monks or virgin nuns perhaps turn to them, whether they are forced or persuaded to marriage. There exists the twenty-fourth canon, in these words: “Monasteries which have once been dedicated with the will of the bishop are by the council of bishops to remain monasteries perpetually, and the things which pertain to them to be reserved to the monasteries; nor can they further become secular dwellings.” Let the king consider how well Henry VIII observed that canon, who profaned all the monasteries. There exists lastly in the eleventh action of this council the public invocation of the holy martyr Flavian, which alone would be enough to show that the faith of the king does not agree with the faith of a general council. Therefore let him either deny the authority of this council, or grant that holy men can piously be invoked. And these things on the four councils. It remains that we speak of the veneration of the holy Fathers who flourished in the first five hundred years; and, to pass over that no certain reason can be given why Saint Gregory, the venerable Bede, Saint Anselm, Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas, Saint Bonaventure and others are not also to be admitted, who wrote in later centuries, but with the same spirit and no less knowledge, from those things which the king censures in the following pages I shall try to show that the faith of the king has nothing in common with the faith of the Fathers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII.
Jacobum regem ab hseresi excusari nulla
ratione posse.
His digressionibus expeditis, rex a pag. 35,
usque ad 40, probare nititur, se neque Apo¬
statam esse, neque haereticum. Apostatam
proprie non esse facile concedi potest. Illi
enim dicuntur Apostatae, qui Christianam
fidem, et religionem omnino deserunt, ut ne
Christiani quidem dici velint : qualis fuit
Julianus imperator, qui ex Christiano paga¬
nus factus cognomen Apostatae sibi peperit.
Quod autem rex dicit patrem suum, et avum
paternum idem de fide secum sensisse; a
matre quoque nullis litteris, quas frequenter
ab ea accipiebat, invitatum ad Pontificiam
religionem : quin etiam supremis verbis per
praefectum domus ab ea sibi mandatum ,
posse se in religione, quam colebat perse¬
verare, modo probe, sancteque viveret ; et
commissos populos, prudenter, et pie guber¬
naret : denique matrem eamdem jussisse, ut
in Baptismo filii sui, caeremonia sputi nupera
non uterentur : nolle enim se, ut impurus
presbyter in os infantuli sui inspueret.
Respondeo, quod ad (a) caeremoniam spu¬
ti attinet, illam non esse nuperam, cum ejus
meminerint S. Ambrosius lib. i de sacra-
ment. cap. 1, sanctus Gregorius in Sacra -
mentario, Beda in homil. in Evangelium Do¬
minicae J -2, post Trinitatem, Rabanus lib. i,
de instit. cleric. cap. 27. Hugo de sancto
Victore lib. i. de sacram, cap. 18.
Neque verum est, ea caeremonia salivam
presbyteri in os infantuli inspui : sed solum
aures, et nares saliva tangi, ut Patres citati
dicunt, et Ecclesia servat : haec enim sunt
verba venerabilis Bedae : « Unde credo mox
increbuerit Ecclesiae ; ut sacerdotes illius his
quos percipiendis baptismi sacramentis prae¬
parant; prius inter caetera consecrationis
exordia, de saliva oris sui nares tangant,
et aures, dicentes Epheta. » Itaque credi¬
bile non est, eam caeremoniam a Catholica
regina fuisse prohibitam.
Quod ad parentes regis attinet, dico, non
deesse apud nos, qui regis patrem et ma¬
trem, fortasse etiam avum paternum vide¬
runt, quique pro comperto habere se dicant,
Patrem, et avum regis fuisse Catholicos;
reginam vero matrem, non solum ipsam
fuisse Catholicam, sed etiam dedisse omnem
operam, ut filium a novatorum erroribus ad
antiquam, et veram fidem traduceret. Quin
etiam ostenduntur hic Romae Epistolse non
paucae manu propria ejusdem reginae exa¬
ratae, quae satis testantur zelum ejus de con¬
versione filii ad Catholicam Religionem.
Neque fidem habemus praefecto domus Mel-
vino, qui cum haereticus sit, mirum non est,
si ea sibi a regina moriente dicta esse con¬
fingat, quae ad haeresim suam commendan¬
dam pertinent.
Porro haereticum se non esse rex dicit,
quia scripturis Canonicis credat ; quia tria
fidei Symbola Apostolicum, Nicaenum, et S.
Athanasii libens juret; quia prima quatuor
concilia generalia, tamquam Catholica, et
orthodoxa veneretur ;quia quicquid quadra-
gentis post Christum annis (quingentis in An-
glicano libro legitur) unanimi consensu Pa¬
tres ad aeternam salutem esse necessarium,
statuerunt; aut cum iis ita sentiat, aut mo¬
desto silentio obmutescat , reprehendere
certe non audeat. Sed haec non satis esse, ut
haereticus dici non possit, facili negotio de¬
monstrabimus.
Primum enim, scripturis Canonicis, sine
certo fundamento rex credit, ac per hoc pro¬
prie ( b ) non credit. Dicit enim duos esse or¬
dines scripturarum, ut a Bellarmino tradi
affirmat lib. i. de Verbo Dei c. 4. et quidem
scripturas secundi ordinis, non esse tantae
auctoritatis, ut fidei ullum caput inde stabi¬
liri possit. Porro Bellarminus facit quidem
duos ordines scripturarum, unum earum, de
quarum auctoritate numquam dubitatum
est : alterum earum, de quibus a nonnullis
veterum dubitatum est; sed tamen utriusque
ordinis Bellarminus affirmat, scripturas esse
divinas, et canonicas, et ex utroque ordine
scripturarum posse elici, et stabiliri capita
fidei. Idque probat fusissime in sequentibus
capitibus. Scriptura} secundi ordinis sunt
Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Sapientia, Eccle¬
siasticus, Machabai, et alia quaedam, atque
•haec sunt ex quibus rex et caeteri Calvi-
niani negant posse elici, vel stabiliri dogmata
fidei.
(a) Caeremonia illa , qua tanguntur saliva nares , et aures baptizandorum antiquissima est. —
(b) Haeretici scripturis sacris non vere crvdunt.
APOLOGLE CAP. VII.
147
A quibus ego libenter quaererem, unde
habetis scripturas primi ordinis esse divinas
et Canonicas : scripturas secundi ordinis
non esse tales ?Nam certe ex ipsis Scripturis
neutrum probari potest , nusquam enim
scriptum est, libros Genesis, et Exodi esse
divinos; libros Tobiae, et Judith non esse :
librum Isaiae esse Canonicum ; librum Ba-
ruch non esse : ex libris Proverbiorum, ex
Ecclesiaste, ex Canticis, posse elici dogmata
fidei; ex libris Sapientiae, et Ecclesiastici
non posse : denique libros Machabaeorum
apocryphos esse. Dicent prioris ordinis li¬
bros hebraica lingua scriptos inveniri, poste¬
rioris non inveniri scriptos nisi graece aut
latine. At Scriptura nusquam docet, libros
hebraice scriptos esse Canonicos ; alios non
esse. Neque aequum est Spiritum sanctum,
qui est verus auctor seri [durarum alligare
velle ad linguam hebraicam, ut Judaei fa¬
ciunt, quasi non potuerit etiam tempore te¬
stamenti veteris librum dictare lingua graeca,
aut latina. Itaque recte S. Augustinus lib.
xviii. de Civit. Dei cap. 36 : « Libros, » in¬
quit, « Machabaeorum, non Judaei, sed Ec¬
clesia pro Canonicis habet. » Dicent, (a) li¬
bris primi ordinis apud omnes indubitatos
semper fuisse : de libris secundi ordinis ali¬
quos scriptores aliquando dubitasse. At non
ideo prioris ordinislibri sunt habendi divini,
quia de illis scriptores particulares non du¬
bitarunt, alioqui tides nostra ab hominum
dubitatione, vel non dubitatione penderet.
Sed illi soli sunt habendi libri canonici, et
divini, quos Mater Ecclesia, quae spiritum
Dei habet, et est columna, et lirmamentum
veritatis per os summi Pastoris, vel Conci¬
liorum legitimorum dicit, vere esse Canoni¬
cos, et divinos. Vere enim scripsit S. Augu¬
stinus : « Evangelio non crederem, nisi me
Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas, » lib. con¬
tra Epist. fundamenti cap. 5.
Quemadmodum igitur Ecclesiae credimus
nos Catholici docenti, libros primi ordinis
esse divinos ; ita eidem credimus docenti,
libros secundi ordinis esse divinos, omnes
enim istos libros enumerat inter Sacros, ca¬
nonicos, et divinos Innocentius primus Pon¬
tifex in decreto de libris sacris edito in con¬
cilio 70. Episcoporum; Concilium Carthagi¬
niense tertium can. 47. concilia denique
generalia Florentium, et Tridentinum. Ec¬
clesia vero, non ex verbo Dei scripto, sed ex
verbo Dei a majoribus per temporum succes¬
siones tradito didicit, qui sint libri Canonici,
qui sint apocryphi. Rex autem qui verbum
Dei scriptum proferre non potest, cum nul¬
lum exstet de hac re ; verbum Dei traditum
non recipit, quia novatores recipi prohibent;
Ecclesiae judicium, id est, summi Pastoris,
et conciliorum ( extra prima quatuor) non
admittit ; quid superest, nisi ut arbitrio suo,
aut novatorum opinionibus acquiescat; ac
per hoc de ipso verbd Dei, non verbo Dei,
sed humano judicio credat?
Quod autem dixi de Scripturis sanctis,
idem de intelligentia scripturarum dici po¬
test. ( b ) Novatores enim ubi Scriptura pro¬
priis disertisque verbis loquitur ; pro nihilo
ducunt, ea verba in tropos, et figuras trans¬
mutare, si quando opinioni suae non favent :
sic verba illa Ccenae rotunda, clara, perspi¬
cua, Hoc est enim corpus meum , mille figuris
involvunt Calviniani, ut quidlibet aliud sig¬
nificare videantur, quam quod vere, pro-
prieque significant : sic illud Apoc. ii. de
duobus Prophetis cum Antichristo pugna¬
turis atque ab eo interficiendis, et paulo
post a Deo resuscitandis ; omisso litterali,
plano, proprio, ac perspicuo sensu, omnino
laborant, ut metaphoris obscurent, atque ad
alia transferant, quse nos Catholici a proprio
sensu alienissima esse censemus, sed de his
hactenus.
Venio ad tria symbola, et quatuor prima
concilia. Scimus Lutheranis Sacramenta-
rios, et Sacramentariis Lutheranos haereti-
cos esse : Scimus Pelagianos, et Monothe-
litas Catholicis, et Protestantibus haereticos
esse : Scimus alios plurimos aliis omnibus,
praeterquam suae sectae hominibus, haere¬
ticos esse : et tamen isti omnes recipiunt
Scripturas canonicas, tria Symbola, et qua¬
tuor prima concilia, et patres primorum
quadringentorum annorum minime sper¬
nunt. Vel igitur Pelagiani , Monothelitae,
aliique id genus homines haeretici non sunt,
vel (c) non satis est ad haereticum nomen
fugiendum illa recipere atque admittere,
quae rex Anglorum recipere atque admittere,
se dicit.
Neque multum refert quod Pelagius hae-
(a) Qui sint libri canonici , et qui apocryphi., ad Ecclesiae judicium pertinet. — (b) Non minu8
de sensu , quam de numero librorum divinorum incerti sunt Novatores. — (c) Non satis est admit¬
tere tria symbola fidei, et quatuor prima concilia , ut quis Catholicus dici possit.
APOLOGLE GAP. VII
Pitt
resiarcha antiquior fuerit tertio, et quarto
concilio : nara Pelagiani novi, qui tempore
sancti Prosperi, et sancti Fulgentii pelagia-
nam hseresim renovarunt , posteriores qua-
tuor conciliis fuerunt, neque ea negabant.
Ut etiam hoc tempore Grceci in articulo de
Processione Spiritus sancti a Patre, et Filio,
haeretici habentur a Lutheranis etiam, et
Cafvin istis ; et tamen Scripturas, tria sym¬
bola, quatuor concilia, et Patres veteres
venerantur, non igitur ista sufficiunt.
Deinde queero a rege, (a) cur quatuor
tantum prima Concilia generalia recipit ?
cur non quintum etiam, sextum, septimum,
octavum ; deinde Lateranensia, Lugdu¬
nensia, Viennense, Constantiense , Triden-
tinum? fortasse Ecclesia Christi post annum
quingentesimum periit ? At regni Christi,
quod est Ecclesia non erit finis. Luc. i. Et
adversus Ecclesiam portee inferi non prseva-
lebunt. Matth. xvi. Fortasse mansit Ecclesia
post annum quingentesimum, sed invisibilis,
et in antris, ac speluncis delitescens ? At
Ecclesia civitas est supra montem posita,
( b ) quse abscondi non potest, Matth. v. Et
semper illud impleri poterit : Si te non au¬
dierit, dic Ecclesiae (1). Matth. xvm. Et recte
S. Augustinus de Ecclesia exponit illud
Psalm. xviii. « In sole posuit tabernaculum
suum, id est, inquit, in manifestatione Ec¬
clesiam suam, non in occulto, non quie la¬
teat, non velut operta, ne forte fiat sicut
operta super greges haereticorum. In sole
ergo posuittabernaculum suum, quid tu, hae¬
retice, fugis in tenebras? » Heec S. Augusti¬
nus.
Fortasse post annum quingentesimum
nulli extiterunt haeretici novi, adversus quos
concilia nova convocanda essent? At extite¬
runt Monothelitae, qui unam in Christo vo¬
luntatem esse docebant : quam hseresim
condemnarunt Patres in concilio sexto. Ex¬
titerunt et alii, atque alii, adversus quos va¬
riis temporibus varia concilia cogenda fue¬
runt, numquam enim bella haereticorum de¬
fuerunt , neque deerunt unquam, donec
Ecclesia militans appellabitur.
Fortasse defuit aliquid conciliis reliquis,
quod in solis primis quatuor inveniri potuit?
At quid illud est ? Confer (c) concilium pri¬
mum cum sexto. In primo adfuerunt Epi¬
scopi undique evocati : adfuerunt et in sexto.
In primo adfuerunt Legati Apostolicee Sedis:
adfuerunt et in sexto. In primo adfuit impe¬
rator Constantinus : adfuit et in sexto im¬
perator nominis ejusdem. In primo dictum
est anathema Arianis, atque inde tota Ec¬
clesia Arianos, ut manifestos haereticos
detestata est. In sexto dictum est ana¬
thema Monothelitis, atque inde tota Eccle¬
sia Monothelitas, ut manifestos haereticos
detestata est. In primo creditum est adfuisse
doctorem Spiritum sanctum, et a Patribus
in Christi nomine congregatis, dici potuisse,
visum est Spiritui sancto, et nobis. At hoc
idem creditum est in sexto, nisi forte Spiri¬
tus sanctus Ecclesiam deseruisse dicendus
sit, qui missus est ut eam doceret omnem
veritatem. Quod autem diximus de compa¬
ratione concilii primi cum sexto, idem dici
potest de comparatione primi cum reliquis
eodem modo, et ordine congregatis. Quare
vel dicendum est, nulla esse concilia, ac ne
prima illa quidem, in quibus fuerit auctori¬
tas novarum heeresum damnandarum ; vel
eadem auctoritas tribuenda est omnibus
conciliis generalibus rite congregatis: ac per
hoc frustra recipit quatuor prima, qui non
recipit alia subsequentia.
Sed venio ad singula, quee rex post Seri
pturas sanctas admittere, et venerari se di¬
cit. (d) Nego symbolum Apostolicum ab eo
plene recipi. Articulus quintus est : Descen¬
dit ad inferos : qui etiam repetitur in sym¬
bolo S. Athanasii, et habetur passim in ca-
techismis Lutheri, et Calvini, et aliorum
omnium tum Catholicorum, tum haeretico¬
rum. Hunc tamen articulum Calviniani,
quales sunt in Anglia tum Protestantes, tum
Puritani, verbo confitentur, re ipsa negant.
Siquidem apud Calvinum lib. ii. Instit. c.
16. in parvo Cathechismo, in psychopanny-
chia, et alibi, Christum descendisse ad infe¬
ros, et poenas damnatorum pertulisse ; per¬
tulisse autem poenas damnatorum Christum
Calvinus dicit, primum in horto, cum calicem
passionis transferri a se rogavit : deinde in
Cruce, cum ait : Deus meus , ut quid dereli¬
quisti me?
At symbolum Apostolicum tradit, Cfiri-
(1) Matth. XVIII, 17.
(a) Nulla ratio reddi potest , cur primis quatuor Conciliis fides haberi debeat, et reliquis non
debeat. — ( b ) Ecclesia semper est visibilis. — (c) Collatio Conciliorum primi , et sexti. — [d) Hae¬
retici non integre recipiunt symbolum Apostolorum.
APOLOGLE CAP. VII. 149
. . i . i .. •• «
stum ad inferos descendisse post mortem, catorum, rex Anglorum verba, non sensum
non dum viveret in horto, vel in Cruce : et tenet. Neque enim credere potest Ecclesiam
haec est traditio omnium veterum Patrum, esse Catholicam ; dum Ecclesiam non habet,
qui primis quingentis annis floruerunt. Chri¬
stum videlicet post mortem, (a) secundum
animam descendisse ad locum subterra¬
neum animarum, secundum corpus jacuisse
in sepulcro.
Consule ex Graecis sanctum Ignatium in
epist. ad Trallianos, S. Justinum in dialogo
cum Triphone, S. Ireneum lib. v. extremo,
Clementem Alexan. lib. vr. Strom. Origenem
hom. 15. in Genesim, Eusebium Caesarien¬
sem lib. iv. de demonstr. Evang. c. 12. S.
Cyrillum Hierosolym. Cathechesi 4. S. Atha-
nasium lib. de incarnatione Yerbi, qui inci¬
pit : Mos pii hominis. S. Basilium in Psalm.
xliv. etXLvm. S. Gregorium Nissenum orat,
i. de Resurrectione Christi. S. Gregorium
Nazianzenum orat. 2. de Pascha, S. Epipha-
nium in Ancorato ante medium. S. Joan.
Chrysostom. hom. 2. de Symbolo, S. Cyril¬
lum Alex. lib. xii in Joan. cap. 36. et in lib.
de recta fide ad Theodosium.
Ex latinis Tertullianum in lib. de anima
cap. 31. et 32. S. Hippolytum Martyrem in
orat, de Antichristo. S. Hilarium lib. x. de
Trinitate, et inPsal. cxxxvm. S. Philastrium
in lib. de haeresibus cap. de descensu Chri¬
sti ad inferos. S. Gaudentium tract. 6. de
Exod. S. Ambrosium lib. ni. de fide cap. 3.
S. Hieronymum in cap. iv. ad Ephes. in
cap. ix. Zacharise, et in cap. ni. Ecclesiastae.
Prudentium in hymno i. et 9. Xa6v)g£vwv
Ruffinum in explicatione Symboli. S. Au¬
gustinum epistol. 57. ad Dardanum, et 99.
ad Evodium, et tract. 78. in Joan. et in
Psal. cxxxv. et lib. xvn. de Civit. Dei cap.
11. et lib. xx. cap. 15. S. Leonem serm. 1.
de Resurrectione. S. Fulgentium lib. m. ad
Trasimundum regem cap. 23. S. Vigilium
Mart. lib. ii. adversus Eutychetem. San¬
ctum Gregorium lib. xm. Moral. c. 20. Ex
his nullus est qui non vixerit primis quin¬
gentis annis, S. Gregorio excepto, quem ad¬
dere volui, ut apostolum Anglorum.
Consulat rex hos veteres Patres, et si illis
fidem habet, intelligat, circa Symbolum
Apostolicum multum se cum suis a veteris
Ecclesiae sententia aberrare. Neque solum in
hoc articulo, sed etiam in articulo de Eccle¬
sia Catholica, etin articulo de remissione pec-
msi particularem, quae regnum Angliae non
egreditur, ut initio demonstravimus. Neque
veram peccatorum remissionem credere po¬
test, qui cum Novatoribus credit, peccata
semper haerere in homine quamtumvis justi¬
ficato, quamvis non imputentur. Non autem
posuerunt Apostoli in Symbolo, credo non
imputationem peccatorum ; sed credo re¬
missionem, veram utique et plenam, alioqui
potentior fuisset culpa primi hominis, quae
omnes ex Adamo genitos vere, ac proprie
inquinavit ; quam gratia secundi hominis,
quae renatos in Christo , non potuit vere,
proprieque purgare : sed do his multa in
controversiis diximus, quae repetenda non
sunt.
Porro quod attinet ad [b) Symbolum Ni¬
caenum, si rex illud admittat cum additione
concilii secundi generalis, ut passim in Ec¬
clesiis omnibus legitur, inveniet in eo haec
verba : « Confiteor unum baptisma in remis¬
sionem peccatorum : » quae verba recitari
solent ; sed credi non solent a Calvinianis,
quorum doctrinam rex ipse, Angli et Scoti
sequuntur. Primum enim fidelium nasci
sanctos, et sine baptismo posse salvari,
proinde non baptizari in remissionem pec¬
catorum, vide Calvinum lib. iv. Institut.
cap. 16. 6t in Antidoto concilii Trid. sess. 6.
cap. 5. Quod vero attinet ad adultos, illi
per fidem, eorum opinione, justificantur,
baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum.
Haec causa est, cur Calvinus lib. iv. Instit.
c. 14. in definitione Sacramenti nihil aliud
posuerit, nisi obsignationem promissionum
benevolentiae Dei erga nos : et protestatio¬
nem pietatis nostrae erga Deum, remissionis
pecccati, aut infusionis inhaerentis gratiae
nulla mentio. Denique in Antidoto concilii
sess. 5. « xManet, inquit Calvinus, vere pec¬
catum in nobis, neque per baptismum sta-
tim uno die extinguitur ; sed quia deletur
reatus, imputatione nullum est. » Haec ille.
Itaque ex sententia Novatorum, peccatum
numquam vere remittitur, ut non sit, sed
solum ut non imputetur : haec autem remis¬
sio, per non imputationen infantibus contin¬
git, quia Sanctorum sunt filii : Adultis vero
per propriam ipsorum fidem. Potest igitur
(a) Christus secundum, animam vere descendit ad inferos : secundum corpus vere jacuit in se -
pulchro. — (b) Hceretici non integre recipiunt symbolum Niccenum , sive Constantinopolitanum.
150
APOLOGLE CAP. VII.
apud eos deleri articulus Symboli : « Con¬
fiteor unum baptisma in remissionem pecca¬
torum. »
Verum autem esse hunc articulum, ac de
propria, et vera remissione intelligendum
docent omnes veteres Patres primorum
quingentorum annorum, quibus si Re\ fi¬
dem haberet, Protestantibus suis fidem nul¬
lam haberet. Atque, ut unum de multis te¬
stimonium proferam, S. Augustinus in lib.
m. de anima, et ejus origine c. 9. « Noli,
inquit, credere, noli dicere, noli docere in¬
fantes, antequam baptizentur morte pree-
ve/itos, pervenire posse ad originalium in¬
dulgentiam peccatorum, si vis esse Catho¬
licus. » Idem in epist. 156. alias 157. ad Op¬
tatum : « Non est,' inquit, falsa etiam in
parvulorum baptismate remissio peccato¬
rum, nec verbotenus dicitur, sed veraciter
agitur. » Nam <ut jam verbis utar) quae in
Epistola beatissimi Zozimi leguntur, Fidelis
Dominus in verbis suis, ejusque baptismus
re, ac verbis, id est, opere, confessione, et
remissione vera peccatorum in omni sexu,
aetate, conditione generis humani eamdem
plenissime tenent : nullus enim, nisi qui
peccati servus est, liber efficitur, nec red¬
emptus dici potest, nisi qui vere per pec¬
catum fuerit ante captivus : sicut scriptum
est : Si vos Filius liberavit, vere liberi eritis.
Per ipsum enim renascimur spiritu aliter,
per ipsum crucifigimur mundo, ipsins morte,
mortis ab Adam omnibus nobis introductae,
atque transmissae universae animae, illud
propagatione contractum chirographum
rumpitur, in quo nullus omnino natorum
antequam per baptismum liberetur, non te¬
netur obnoxius. In his enim verbis Aposto-
licae Sedis tam antiqua, atque fundata, certa,
et clara est Catholica fides, ut nefas sit de
illa dubitare Christiano. Haec S. Augusti¬
nus.
Venio ad tertium ( a ) Symbolum, in quo
verba illa leguntur : « Inde venturus est ju¬
dicare vivos, et mortuos, ad cujus adventum
omnes homines resurgere habent cum cor¬
poribus suis, et reddituri sunt de factis pro¬
priis rationem : Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt
in vitam aeternam, qui vero mala, in ignem
aeternum. » In quibus verbis confitemur ju¬
dicium novissimum, in quo justus Judex
pro qualitate factorum, reddet aliis coro¬
nam justitiae, alius opprobrium, etsupplicium
sempiternum Nam si non pro meritis
operum, sed in gratiam fidei, vel justitiae
Christi misericorditer imputatae fidelibus
vita aeterna daretur, non esset opus judicio,
neque discussione factorum : neque opor¬
teret Judicem justum, sed Patrem mise¬
ricordem advenire ; neque rationem de
factis propriis reddere, sed Christi justitiam
nobis imputatam, et fide apprehensam o-
stendere deberemus : hunc ergo articulum
credere non poterit rex, si cum Calvino,
et Protestantibus credet, omnia opera ju¬
storum esse peccata. Haec enim sunt ver¬
ba Calvini lib. m. Instit. cap. 14. «Nul¬
lum a Sanctis exire potest opus, quod non
mereatur justam opprobrii mercedem.
Quam enim rationem reddent justi de factis
propriis Judici Christo, si omnia opera ipso¬
rum vitiosa sunt, et merentur justam op¬
probrii mercedem? Etsi justi rationem red¬
dere non poterunt de factis propriis, certe
multo minus rationem reddere poterunt in¬
justi : quorsum igitur stabimus omnes ante
tribunal Christi, ut reddat unusquisque de
factis propriis rationem ? »
Dicent fortasse, quod solent, opera qui¬
dem justorum esse omnia sordida, et immun¬
da, sed per misericordiam Dei tegendam
esse immunditiam , et reputanda fidelibus
propter Christum, ac si munda essent. At
si ita esset, non justitia Judicis, sed (supra
dixi) misericordia Patris, vel liberalitate
Principis opus esset. Quorsum igitur articu¬
lus Symboli dicit : « Venturus est judicare
vivos, et mortuos, et reddituri sunt omnes
de factis propriis rationem ? » Et cur Apo¬
stolus in II. ad Timoth. cap. iv. clamat :
Reposita est mihi corona justitiae , quam red¬
det mihi in illa die justus Judex (1)? cur et coa-
postolus ejus Petrus, in priore epist. cap. i.
similiter clamat : Et si Patrem invocatis
eum , qui sine acceptione personarum judicat
secundum uniuscujusque opus , in timore inco¬
latus vestri tempore conversamini ? cur
ipse Dominus, qui Judex venturus est, Matth.
xvi. prasdicit, venturum se cum Angelis suis,
ut reddat unicuique secundum opera ejus ?
Sed nolo esse longior, ne videar de dogma¬
tibus disputare, non Apologiam scribere.
(I) II Timoth. IV, 8.
(a) Neque symbolum S. Athmusii integre recipiunt .
APOLOGUS CAP. VII.
151
Venio ad quatuor prima concilia, (a) Con¬
cilium Nicaenum, quod est primum genera¬
lium Conciliorum, duabus potissimum de
causis convocatum est ; ut quaestio de fide
divinitatis filii Dei, et dissensiones de cele¬
brando Paschate definirentur. Id testatur
sanctus Athanasius in lib. de Synodis Ari¬
mini, et Seleuciae, non procul ab initio : nec-
non Constantinus in Epistola, quam refert
Eusebius lib. m. de vita Constantini. Itaque
S. Epiphanius heeresi 70. scribit, Constan¬
tinum imperatorem duo magna bona contu¬
lisse in Ecclesiam unum quod congregari
curaverit synodum Nicaenam, alterum quod
in ea synodo curaverit terminari quaestio¬
nem de Pascbate. Porro quaestionem utram¬
que sacra illa Synodus, non tam ex scriptu¬
ris, quam ex traditione non scripta definivit.
De quaestione fidei testis est Theodoretus
lib. i. hist. cap. 8. eam ex sermonibus non
scriptis fuisse terminatam , quamvis enim
scripturae pro utraque parte adducerentur
inter disserendum ; tamen Ariani ad suam
sententiam illas detorquebant, nequ6 finis
disputandi ullus fuisset, nisi Episcopi, qui
de toto orbe convenerant, ex traditione ma¬
jorum veram intelligentiam scripturae col¬
ligentes, eam fidem tenendam esse decre¬
vissent, quam ante motam quaestionem in
Ecclesiis totius mundi a majoribus praedica¬
tam, et receptam esse constabat. Decretum
autem de Paschate celebrando die Dominico,
ne poterat quidem exscripturis ullis deduci,
sed ex sola traditione ab Apostolis, atque in
primis a sancto Petro accepta, et in Urbe
custodita, formatum est. Quae cum ita sint,
videat rex, quam bene cum Patribus Nicae¬
nae synodi Ministri Calviniani, et Lutherani
conveniant , qui traditiones non scriptas re¬
jiciunt, et quaestiones interminabiles red¬
dunt.
Extat praeterea canon tertius Nicaeni con¬
cilii ut non permittantur in domibus episco¬
porum , presbyterorum , et diaconorum
mulieres habitare, excepta matre, sorore,
amita, vel Matertera, ex quarum cohabita-
tione carnalis commercii suspicio oriri non
potest. Quomodo igitur, si in regno Angliae
Nicaeni concilii regulae locum habent, in do¬
mibus Episcoporum inveniuntur uxores, et
filiae cum gregibus ancillarum, non minore
numero, vel licentia, quam in domibus lai-
corum? Dicent fortasse ex historia Sozome-
ni haberi, in eodem Nicaeno concilio, inter¬
veniente Paphnutio,inarbitrio Episcoporum,
atque aliorum Ecclesiasticorum relictum
esse, ut uxoribus pro libito uterentur.
At (b) historia illa Sozomeni convincitur
esse falsa ex canone concilii paulo ante ci¬
tato : Si enim in arhitrio relictum esset uti
uxoribus , vel non uti ; certe concilium
excepisset etiam uxores, et filias, ubi matres,
et sorores excepit. Deinde S. Epiphanius
haeresi 59 et sanctus Hieronymus in lib.
adversus Vigilantium, aperte scribunt, esse
contra canones, neque esse licitum episcopo»
et presbytero, ac diacono liberos gignere.
Et certe sancti Patres Epiphanius, et Hiero¬
nymus, majori fide digni sunt, quam Sozo-
menus, qui posterior tempore, et inferior
doctrina, et sanctitate fuit. Adde quod, So-
zomeno auctore, Paphnutius iis solis Episco¬
pis ac reliquis Ecclesiasticis usum conjugum
liberum esse volebat, qui eas ante sacros
Ordines accepissent : illicitum autem esse,
post ordines sacros conjugio copulari. At
Episcopi Anglicani contempta lege concilii,
contra morem non modo Latinorum, sed
etiam Graecorum Christianorum, uxores du¬
cunt etiam post adeptum Episcopatum. Ita¬
que nullam habent excusationem , nisi forte
velint libere confiteri, quod verissimum est,
se veros Episcopos non esse posse, quippe
qui rite ordinati non sint, neque aliquid de
Episcopatu habere, nisi quae sibi injuste usur¬
pant, nomen, et opes. Atqui hoc est longis¬
sime abesse a regulis Nicaeni concilii, ubi
can. 4. Episcopi ordinari jubentur a tribus
saltem Episcopis, qui et ipsi ab aliis rite or¬
dinati sint : nemo enim dare potest quod
antea non accepit. Episcopi autem Prote-
stantes a nullo vero Episcopo ordinati meri
laici sunt.
Jam (c) de secundo concilio nihil est, quod
hic addam, cum paulo ante ex Symbolo in
hoc concilio edito demonstraverim fidem
Protestantium, et ipsius regis alienam esse
a fide Patrum hujus concilii.
Ex tertio concilio generali, quod estEphe-
sinum primum, nihil aliud adducam, nisi
partem Epistolee Theodosii junioris impera¬
toris ad hanc ipsam synodum missae ; ut rex
intelligat, quas sint partes Regum in conci¬
liis, et quorum proprie munus sit in conci-
(a) Deconcilio Nicceno , quod non magni fiat ab hereticis hujus temporis. — (b) Historia Sozo~
meni de conjugio sacerdotum falsa convincitur. — (c) De secundo , et tertio concilio generali.
152
Af>OLOGLE GAP. VII.
iius sedere, et judicare. Exstat autem Episto¬
la graece, et latine. « Igitur, » inquit Theo¬
dosius, « Candidianum praeclarissimum re¬
ligiosorum domesticorum comitem ad sa¬
cram vestram synodum abire jussimus :
sed ea lege, et conditione, ut cum quaestio¬
nibus, et controversiis, quae circa fidei dog¬
mata incidunt , nihil quiequam commune
habeat, nefas est enim qui sanctissimorum
Episcoporum catalogo adseriptus non est,
illum Ecclesiasticis negotiis, et consultatio-
uibus admisceri; verum, ut Monachos, et
saeculares, ac caeteros denique omnes, qui
hujus spectaculi causa vel eo nunc confin¬
xerunt, vel in posterum forte confluent, ab
eadem illa civitate modis omnibus submo¬
veat : tum etiam, ut diligenter prospiciat,
ne qua dissensio exmutuo repugnandi studio
coacta, et saevae tempestatis instar debac¬
chata , sanctissimae synodi vestrae consulta¬
tionem , quovis modo perturbet : » haec
ibi.
Videt certe rex in conciliis Ecclesiae legiti¬
mis, quale hoc tertium fuit, non convenisse
omnes Ecclesiasticos, sed solos Episcopos.
Videt praeterea negotia Ecclesiastica ad re¬
ges saeculi non pertinere; nisi ut forte pro¬
tegant Episcopos, atque eorum tranquilli¬
tati consulant, qua de causa Theodosius
candidianum misit ; et in primo, et quarto
concilio imperator ipse adesse voluit. Videt
postremo ex his apertissime colligi, regem
non esse caput Ecclesiae : quomodo enim ab
Ecclesiasticis negotiis arceretur Ecclesiae
ipsius caput? Proinde rex, qui caput, vel,
quod idem est , gubernatorem generalem
Ecclesiae regni sui se esse dicit, quique Con¬
cilia generalia ad reges potissimum pertinere
existimat, qui denique omnes Ecclesiasticos
adesse vellet, exceptis Puritanis, et Jesuitis,
novam conciliorum formam, atque ab iliis
primis quatuor penitus abhorrentem intro¬
ducere satagit.
{a) Ex quarto concilio posset rex si vellet
multa perdiscere , unde cognosceret, fidem,
et religionem, quam ipse reformatam vocat,
et quam defendere, et propagare satagit,
longe abesse a fide, et religione synodi Chal-
cedonensis, quae est quarta generalis. Pri¬
mum omnium verus Ecclesiasticus primatus
Romani Pontificis in Ecclesia universa, ex
hoc concilio manifeste colligitur. Exstant
epistolas plurimae ad Leonem Pontificem, et
concilium Clmlcedonense, et semper nomen
Pontificis nomini concilii anteponitur, hoc
modo. « Sanctissimo, et Deo amantissimo,
et universali Archiepiscopo, et Patriarchae
magnae Romae Leoni, et sanctae, et universali
Chalcedonensi synodo, quae voluntate Dei
congregata est. » Exstat Epistola totius con¬
cilii generalis ad eumdem Leonem, ubi prae¬
ter alia dicunt Patres : « Quibus omnibus,
Episcopis congregatis, tu quidem sicut mem¬
bris caput praeeras. » Ubi aperte vocant
Pontificem caput concilii universam Eccle¬
siam repraesentantis. Item dicunt : « Et post
haic omnia insuper, et contra ipsum, cui
vineae custodia a Salvatore commissa est,
extendit insaniam, id est, contra tuam quo¬
que Apostolicam sanctitatem. » Ubi faten¬
tur totius vineae, id est, Ecclesiae custodiam
ab ipso Christo, non ab imperatore, vel a
concilio , commissam esse Romano Ponti¬
fici.
Exstat item inter canones hujus concilii,
canon sextus decimus in haec verba : « Vir¬
ginem, quae se Deo Domino consecravit , si¬
militer et Monachum non licere nuptialia
jura contrahere, quod si hoc inventi fuerint
perpetrantes, excommunicentur. » Videat
rex an iste canon tam antiquus, tam sanctus
a sexcentis Episcopis veteris Ecclesiae con¬
stitutus, observetur in Anglia : an contra,
si qui Monachi aut virgines sanctimoniales
ad eos forte divertant, an ad matrimonium
cogantur, vel suadeantur.
| j Exstat canon vicesimus quartus, in haec
verba : « Quae semel ex voluntate Episcopi
dedicata sunt Monasteria, Concilio Episcopo¬
rum perpetuo manere monasteria et res quae
ad ea pertinent, monasteriis reservari : nec
posse ultra fieri saecularia habitacula. » Cogi¬
tet rex,. quam bene canonem istum observa¬
verit Henricus VIII. qui omnia monasteria
profanavit.
Exstat denique in actione undecima hujus
concilii publica invocatio sancti Martyris
Flaviani, quae vel sola satis esset ad osten¬
dendum, fidem regis non convenire cum
fide concilii generalis. Proinde, vel neget
hujus concilii auctoritatem, vel concedat,
sanctos homines pie invocari posse. Atque
haec de quatuor conciliis.
Restat, ut de sanctorum Patrum, qui pri¬
mis quingentis annis floruerunt, veneratione
dicamus : ac ut omittam, non posse reddi
(a) Ex quarto concilio generali convincuntur haeretici hujus temporis.
APOLOGLE GAP. VIII.
158
certam rationem, cur non sint etiam admit¬
tendi sanctus Gregorius, venerabilis Beda,
sanctus Anselmus, sanctus Bernardus, san¬
ctus Thomas , sanctus Bonaventura, et alii,
qui posterioribus seeculis, sed eodem spiri¬
tu, nec minore scientia scripserunt, ex iis
qua? rex in sequentibus paginis reprehendit,
conabor ostendere , fidem regis cum fide
Patrum nihil habere commune.