Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 8: That the Intercession of the Saints, Private Mass, Transubstantiation and the Other Things Which the King of England Calls Novel and Recent Are Not Recent Dogmas, but Most Ancient
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).
So on pages 40 and 41 the king writes many things of the most blessed Virgin Mother of God which, taken from the Colloquies of Erasmus, serve only to stir up ill will; such as that we Catholics make her a saint and a goddess; that we ask her to command and rule her Son, God and Lord; that she lies open to the absurd prayers of any silly man whatever; that she comes down to earth to the kisses and embraces of priests; and he concludes: “In heaven, in the eternal receptacle of the souls of the saints, she is placed in everlasting happiness, never to be called away from such joys by any care or anxiety for earthly things.” But prudent and well instructed Catholics call her neither a saint in the pagan sense nor a goddess; nor do they ask her to command and rule her Son; nor do they say that she comes down to the kisses and embraces of priests; nor do they think that she is called away from the joys of heaven when she takes care of human affairs, whether she acts by prayer alone before God, or deigns to show her presence to mortals. For neither are the angels called away from the joys of heaven when they are sent by God into ministry for those who receive the inheritance of salvation, as is said in Hebrews 1. But that the most holy and most clement Virgin does not hear the prayers of the wretched, or does not sometimes come down to men, is openly at odds with the holy Fathers who flourished in the first five hundred years. I shall bring forward a few out of many, which none of the ancients contradict. Saint Athanasius in the sermon on the most holy Mother of God: “Incline,” he says, “your ear to our prayers, and do not forget your people”; and below: “Intercede for us, Mistress and Lady and Queen and Mother of God.” Saint John Chrysostom in the public Liturgy itself prescribes to be said before clergy and people: “By the intercession of our immaculate Lady, Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, make me worthy to receive without condemnation your immaculate gift,” and so on; and below: “Confirm us in your fear, guard our life, make firm our steps by the prayers and supplications of the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and of all the saints.” Saint Gregory of Nyssa in the life of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker writes that to the same Saint Gregory the most blessed Virgin appeared by night with a huge light, and together with her Saint John the Evangelist, and that at the Virgin's own bidding Saint Gregory was instructed by the same Evangelist concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity; these things are written by an ancient and holy Father of another Father more ancient and no less holy; and they are told not as dreams or fictions, but as a true apparition made to one awake, and there still exists the confession of faith delivered by Saint John to Saint Gregory face to face, and most celebrated in that whole region. Saint Gregory of Tours also relates, in the book on the Glory of the Martyrs, chapter 9, that when by order of Constantine the Great a basilica was being built to the most blessed Virgin Mary, and columns so huge had been prepared that they could not be raised by the strength of men without the greatest labour, the Virgin herself appeared to the architect, and taught the method of raising the columns. And not the Virgin Mother of God alone, but other saints too have openly appeared to men, the ancient Fathers everywhere witness, as Saint Basil in the oration on Saint Mamas, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, oration 1 against Julian, Sulpicius in the life of Saint Martin, Theodoret, book 5 of the history, chapter 24, Saint Paulinus in the eighth birthday of Saint Felix. But let us hear Augustine alone, in the book on the care for the dead, chapter 16: “Not only by the effects of benefits,” he says, “but even to the very sight of men we have heard that Felix the Confessor appeared, not by uncertain rumours, but by certain witnesses.” Lastly, to pass over much, the same Constantine the Great would never have dedicated the city of Constantinople to the most holy Mother of God, which Nicephorus writes that he did, book 8, chapter 26, unless he had believed that the patronage of so great a Virgin would greatly profit the same city.
The king goes on, and writes of the intercession of the saints: “I know that Christ commanded us to come to him, whoever of us are burdened with sins, for he will refresh and relieve us. I know that Paul forbade the humility and religion of angels, and every such cult of veneration in superstition and humility, not to the sparing of the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh; but with what confidence, or on whose authority recourse is had to those household gods, or titular ones, as it were courtiers and familiars of God most good and most great, I do not know.” But we in this place have not undertaken to dispute controversies, but wished to show with what honour the king treats the ancient Fathers of the first five hundred years. And we showed a little before, that is, in the first chapter of this Apology, that the ancient Fathers, Greek and Latin, with great agreement taught the intercession of the saints by word and example. Wherefore it is false what the king adds on page 42, that these articles, unheard of and unseen before the five hundredth year of Christ, have lately been struck in the Roman workshop. But to what the king objects, that Christ commanded us to come to him, I answer that we come to Christ whether we approach him by ourselves or through others. For the Evangelist Matthew, chapter 8, wrote: A centurion came to him; although he did not come by himself, but through others, the same centurion saying, in Luke, chapter 7: I did not think myself worthy to come to thee; for truly he had not himself come in person, but had sent the elders of the Jews; and when he had heard that the Lord was coming to him, he sent friends again, saying: Lord, trouble not thyself, for I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof. Nor on that account is it false what Matthew says: A centurion came to him. So then we too truly come to Christ when we come to him through the intercession of the saints; we also truly always come to the Father through Christ when we pray the saints to obtain for us from God the Father through Christ the things we need. For we do not give the saints the place of God or of Christ; nor do we hold them for gods, or for Christ; but we ask them that what we desire and ask from God through Christ, the same they, who are nearer and more pleasing to God, may deign to obtain for us from God through Christ. But as to that about the religion of angels, I answer with the Fathers explaining that passage of the Apostle, that it was the doctrine of heretics that no one could come to God through Christ, but through angels, who had both made the world and spoken through the Prophets; the religion, then, of these fictitious angels Paul forbids. There are some, says Saint John Chrysostom, homily 7 on the epistle to the Colossians, who say that we ought not to be reconciled through Christ and come to the Father, but through angels; therefore Paul turns over up and down the things that are of Christ. Saint Jerome in the epistle to Algasia, question 10, adds that those are reproved by the Apostle who sacrificed to angels as to gods. But that Christians sacrificed to angels or saints no one can show.
The king goes on, page 42, and says: “But if the workshop of the Roman Church has lately struck articles of faith unheard of and unseen before the five hundredth year of Christ, I am not, I believe, to be condemned as a heretic if I do not agree to these novel and recent things. Among these articles I count those private Masses, in which the sacrificer at once sustains the person of the people and of the priest. Among these too is the mutilation of the sacrament, by which they have withdrawn from the laity half of it; transubstantiation; elevation for the sake of adoration; the carrying about of the sacrament in processions; works of supererogation, to which they have with the best right fitted the name of the ecclesiastical treasury; the baptizing of bells, and a thousand trifles besides, and indeed above all those the veneration paid to statues and images.” That these are not novel and recent, and that most of them were not unheard of before the five hundredth year of Christ, I shall easily show; but even if they were novel and recent, not on that account would the king who denies them be free from heresy. For the Catholic Church, when new controversies arise, has the right of explaining and ending them, and of declaring those who do not obey heretics, and casting them out of her communion. Nor can a true reason ever be given why it was lawful for the first council of Nicaea to define the question raised by Arius, and to call the Arians heretics; for the first council of Constantinople to explain the question brought by Macedonius and Eunomius, and to declare the Macedonians and Eunomians heretics; for the first council of Ephesus to rout the question introduced by Nestorius, and to proclaim Nestorius a heretic; for the council of Chalcedon to settle the question stirred by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and to number Eutyches and Dioscorus among heretics; and not lawful afterwards for the second council of Constantinople to define the question raised about the three chapters, and to call those who thought otherwise heretics; nor for the third council of Constantinople to explain the question brought by the Monothelites Cyrus and Sergius, and to declare the Monothelites heretics; nor for the second council of Nicaea to rout the question introduced by the Iconoclasts, and to proclaim the Iconoclasts heretics; nor for the Lateran council to settle the question stirred by Berengar about the truth of the Lord's body, and to number Berengar among heretics; nor (to pass over others) for the Council of Trent to examine and judge the questions disputed by Luther and Calvin, and to enrol the Lutherans and Calvinists in the number of heretics. For the Church is always the same, endowed with the same authority and power; and with her will always be he who said: Behold, I am with you even to the consummation of the world.
But let us come to private Masses, which the king called novel and recent. That private Masses, that is, in which none partake of the Eucharist except the priest, are not novel and recent, Saint John Chrysostom witnesses, who in homily 3 on the epistle to the Ephesians complains of his people, who most rarely came to communion, although Mass was celebrated daily: “In vain,” he says, “is the daily oblation held, when there is no one who partakes together.” But, you will say, if it was done in vain, it ought not to have been done; but our question is not whether it was rightly done, but only whether it was done. For the king says the thing is novel, and unheard of and unseen before the year of the Lord five hundred. And yet Chrysostom, who lived before the five hundredth year, witnesses that in his time the oblation was daily celebrated, and no one partook together with the priest. Nor yet do we grant that the oblation ought not to have been made without partakers; for otherwise Saint John, a wise and learned man, would not have made it. What therefore he says is done in vain signifies that it is done in vain in relation to the communicants, not in vain in relation to God. For Chrysostom desired, as the synod of Trent also says it desires, session 22, chapter 6, that at the same time the sacrifice be offered to God and the people be refreshed by communion; but if the people neglected to be refreshed by communion, not on that account was the sacrifice of the Lord to be omitted. We have besides other examples of the ancients, who sometimes offered the sacrifice for a cause so particular, and in a place so narrow, that it is in no way credible that any communicants were present. Saint Augustine writes, book 9 of the Confessions, chapter 12, that while his mother was being buried at Ostia on the Tiber, the sacrifice of the Lord's body was offered for her soul, the body being set beside the tomb. He writes also, book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, that one of his priests offered the sacrifice of the Lord's body in a certain country house, to purge the same house from the vexation of evil spirits. Certainly the place and the cause sufficiently show that there were none present to communicate. Sozomen also witnesses, book 7 of the history, chapter 5, that Saint Gregory Nazianzen was accustomed to celebrate the oblation in a small cell with an oratory built in it, the narrowness of which place did not admit a communicating people. But the chief reason why the innovators wonder that in the Catholic Church the mystery of the Eucharist is celebrated without partakers is that they do not believe the Eucharist was instituted by the Lord to be offered to God in sacrifice, but only to be a sacrament of communion, and to be offered to the people for spiritual nourishment; for if they admitted the sacrifice, they would easily understand that the sacrifice can be offered to God for the people, even if the people do not partake of the sacrifice by eating, provided they partake by obtaining. And because the king knew that the sacrifice of the Mass is most ancient, and that mention of it is made by all the Fathers, as one who wrote in his Basilikon Doron, book 3, that antiquity without truth is the oldness of error, and affirms that this can be said also of the Mass, therefore he did not dare to set the sacrifice, or the Mass, among new things, but only private Mass, which he thought could not easily be found in the books of the ancient Fathers. But when he pronounced the Mass to be the oldness of error, he could not divine that in this preface he would write that he would not dare to censure what the Fathers of the first five hundred years teach with unanimous opinion. For not the oldness of error, but rather the testimony of truth ought to be called what the most holy, most learned and most ancient Fathers proclaim with unanimous consent. See, if you please, on the sacrifice of the Mass, that is, on the oblation of the Eucharist to God in sacrifice, Saint Justin in the dialogue with Trypho, Saint Irenaeus, book 4, chapters 32, 33 and 34, Tertullian in the book on the soldier's crown, and book 3 against Marcion, Saint Cyprian, book 1, epistle 9, and book 1 against the Jews, chapter 16, Eusebius of Caesarea, book 1 of the Demonstration of the Gospel, last chapter, Saint Ambrose, book 2, epistle 8, and on Psalm 38, Saint Gregory of Nyssa in the oration on the Resurrection, Saint Basil in the Liturgy, Saint John Chrysostom, homily 24 on the first epistle to the Corinthians, and homily 17 on the epistle to the Hebrews, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, fifth mystagogical catechesis, Saint Jerome on the first chapter of Malachi, Saint Augustine, book 4 on the Trinity, chapter 14, and book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the book on adoration in spirit and truth, Saint Leo, sermon 8 on the passion of the Lord, Saint Fulgentius, book 2 to Monimus, chapter 2.
In the second place among novel and recent things the king sets the mutilation of the sacrament, namely that among us the people communicate under one kind. But we know of no mutilation of the sacrament made in the Church, nor that half has been withdrawn from the laity. For the two kinds of the Eucharist are necessarily required for the sacrifice, and if in the sacrifice one were lacking, the sacrifice could rightly be called mutilated. But for the essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist either of the two suffices; therefore the sacrament under the kind of bread is a true and whole sacrament, and the sacrament under the kind of wine is a true and whole sacrament; nor yet are they two sacraments when they are taken together by way of one refreshment; but otherwise if one should take the Eucharist under the kind of bread, and another under the kind of wine; or if one and the same should take it today under the kind of bread, on another day under the kind of wine. It is like in baptism: if someone is baptized with a single immersion, he receives a whole baptism; and if he is baptized with three immersions, he also receives a whole baptism. But if one is baptized with a single immersion, and another with a threefold immersion; or one and the same today with a single immersion, tomorrow with another, and on the third day with a third immersion, there will be many baptisms. And as the Catholic Church had the right at one time to order that baptism be given with a threefold immersion, at another that it be done with a single immersion only; so also the same Church had the right at one time to leave it free that the Eucharist be received under one kind or under two, at another to order that it be received under one only. And that from the beginning of the Church there were not lacking those who communicated under one kind only, and yet were not said to mutilate the sacrament, we can prove by many testimonies of antiquity. First, at the beginning of the Church the ceremonies of the law were still kept, as is known from chapter 21 of the Acts of the Apostles, among which one was the vow of the Nazarites not to drink wine. Now it is not credible that these, against their vow, drank of the chalice of the Lord; for although in the chalice of the Lord the substance of wine is not present, yet the accidents are present, taste, colour, warmth and the like; and the Nazarites abstained from wine, and from everything that can intoxicate, with such scrupulousness that they could not taste even dried grapes, Numbers 6. So on account of this so great rigour of religion it is altogether credible that the Nazarites at that time did not dare to taste the savour of wine. Nor yet is it credible that they wholly abstained from communion. It remains, then, that they communicated under the kind of bread only. And this is the reason why Saint Luke, Acts 2, wrote: And they were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Where he added nothing about the chalice, but mentioned only the breaking of bread, since from that kind none abstained. Nor do the adversaries deny that in this place by the breaking of bread the distribution of the Eucharist is understood. This certainly John Calvin admits, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17, paragraph 35. The same perhaps is the reason why the Apostle wrote of the chalice, 1 Corinthians 10: The chalice of benediction, which we bless; but of the bread: The bread which we break. For the chalice was always blessed, but not always distributed to all; but the bread was always broken, that is, handed out by dividing. Whence a little below: We are one bread, he says, and one body, who partake of one bread; nor did he add anything about the chalice, since, that we may be one body, this suffices, that we partake of one bread. Then, the Manichaeans took the Eucharist under the kind of bread only, as Saint Leo writes in express words, sermon 4 on Lent, where he also adds that they, so as not to be distinguishable at Rome from Catholics, were wont to take the bread of the Eucharist with Catholics, but to abstain from the chalice. But if it had been necessary at that time to take the Eucharist under both kinds, and all the faithful had always received it under both kinds, neither could the Manichaeans have lain hid, who always abstained from wine, and Saint Epiphanius and Saint Augustine would have numbered among the errors of the Manichaeans the taking of the Eucharist under one kind, and the mutilating of the sacrament in that way. Since therefore it was never set among the errors of the Manichaeans, and the Manichaeans long lay hid among Catholics on account of communion, it is clear that in the ancient Church there were not lacking those who communicated under one kind only. Besides, it was the custom in the most ancient times that those who wished took the Eucharist in their hands, and carried it home to be taken when it seemed opportune to them. This Tertullian witnesses, book 2 to his wife, Saint Cyprian in sermon 5, which is on the lapsed, Clement of Alexandria, book 1 of the Stromata, Saint Basil in the epistle to Caesaria, Saint Jerome in the Apology for the books against Jovinian. But it is certain that the Eucharist was never given into the hands except under the kind of bread; for under the kind of wine it was either offered to be drunk by mouth, or omitted. Nor were there any sacred chalices in the houses of laymen for preserving the Eucharist under the kind of wine, as is plainly gathered from Saint Athanasius, Apology 2 against the Arians; it follows, then, that very often the Christians of the primitive Church communicated under one kind only. Nor is one of the adversaries to be heard who judges it absurd to communicate under one kind in church, and not absurd in a private house. As if indeed it were lawful to mutilate sacraments in private houses, and in church alone not lawful; or as if the mutilation of a sacrament were not evil except by reason of the place. Lastly (to pass over many other things) it is beyond controversy that among the ancients the Eucharist was wont to be carried to the sick under the kind of bread only, as is known from the epistle of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book 6 of the history, chapter 36, from the life of Saint Ambrose written by Paulinus, from the life of Saint Basil written by Amphilochius. Nor yet did the ancient Fathers think the sacrament was mutilated by that carrying.
In the third place among novel and recent things the king counts transubstantiation. And if the question is of the word, the name of transubstantiation is found in the Lateran council, the most numerous of all, celebrated under Pope Innocent III about four hundred years ago; and what was in use about four hundred years ago, let the king see whether it is rightly called novel and recent; but if it is a matter of the thing itself, certainly transubstantiation, that is, substantial change, began to be used by the Fathers not only four hundred years ago, but twelve hundred. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, fourth mystagogical catechesis: “He once changed water into wine,” he says, “and will he not be worthy that we believe him to have changed wine into blood?” So he. The change of water into wine made at Cana of Galilee by the omnipotence of Christ the king surely will not deny to have been true, real and substantial; but a most grave author who lived before the four hundredth year of Christ says that the change of wine into the blood of Christ by the same omnipotence of Christ is like it. Saint Ambrose, almost a contemporary of Cyril, in the book on those who are initiated into the mysteries, chapter 9: “How many examples do we use,” he says, “to prove that this is not what nature formed, but what the blessing consecrated; and that the force of the blessing is greater than that of nature, because by the blessing even nature itself is changed.” So he; and if the consecrated bread is not the bread which nature formed, but is the body of Christ, the consecration changing the nature of the bread, then a change of the substance of bread into the substance of the Lord's body has been made by the virtue of the consecration; and what can a change of substance into substance more aptly be called than transubstantiation? for in this way the change of figure into figure is called transfiguration in the Gospels, Matthew 17. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, an author of the same time, in the great catechetical oration, chapter 37: “Rightly,” he says, “do we believe the bread sanctified by the word to be changed into the body of God the Word”; and below: “And these things the virtue of the blessing bestows on it, changing the nature of the things which are seen, of the bread and wine.” Saint Gaudentius, a writer of the same century, tract 2 on Exodus: “He himself,” he says, “the creator and Lord of natures, who produces bread from the earth, from bread again, because he both can and has promised, makes his own body; and he who from water made wine, from wine makes his own blood.” Saint John Chrysostom, who also flourished before the five hundredth year, homily 83 on Matthew: “The works set before us,” he says, “are not of human power; we hold the place of ministers, but he who sanctifies and changes them is he”; and in the homily on the Eucharist at the Encaenia: “Do you see bread? do you see wine? do they go into the privy like other foods? Far be it, do not think so; for as, if wax is applied to fire, it is assimilated to it, nothing of the substance remains, nothing is left over; so here too think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body.” I shall add also one writer who bears the name of Saint Cyprian, but although he is not that most well known Cyprian the martyr, he is nevertheless grave and very ancient, even by the witness of the adversaries. Cyprian, then, or whoever is the author of the sermons on the cardinal works of Christ, in the sermon on the Lord's Supper: “This bread,” he says, “which the Lord handed to his disciples, changed not in appearance but in nature, by the omnipotence of the Word was made flesh.” So he, who, while he says that the nature, that is, the substance, is changed, and the appearance, that is, the accidents, are not changed, and that that change is made by the omnipotence of the Word, not by a voluntary signification, most openly teaches a true and real transubstantiation. I pass over the other authors, whom he who desires to see will find both in our books of Controversies and in other most learned writings of others.
In the fourth place the king sets among novel and recent dogmas the adoration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, that is, the adoration of Christ our Lord present in the sacrament of the Eucharist in a wonderful but true manner; although if the king believed what Catholics believe, that Christ, God and Lord, is truly present in the Eucharist, he would not deny, I think, that he is to be adored. And that we may briefly show that this adoration was not unknown to the ancient Church, hear the words of Saint Ambrose, book 3 on the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, treating that of Psalm 98, Adore his footstool: “By the footstool,” he says, “the earth is understood, and by the earth the flesh of Christ, which today also we adore in the mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in the Lord Jesus, as we said above.” Hear Saint Gregory Nazianzen in the oration on the death of his sister Saint Gorgonia, where, praising the piety of Gorgonia, he writes thus: “She fell down before the altar, and with a great cry calling to witness him who is worshipped upon it,” and so on; and what is worshipped upon the altar Saint Optatus of Milevis teaches, who in book 6 against Parmenian calls the altar the seat of the body and blood of Christ, where at a certain time the members of Christ are placed upon it. Hear Saint John Chrysostom, homily 61 to the people of Antioch: “If your garments are clean,” he says, “adore and communicate.” Hear Saint Augustine in the tract on Psalm 98: “No one,” he says, “eats that flesh unless he has first adored it.” What the king adds about the carrying about of the sacrament in public processions was instituted by Pope Urban IV more than three hundred years ago, so that it cannot be called a novel and recent thing; and since this pertains to rites, not to dogmas, it ought not to seem a wonder if in the first four hundred years this thing was not in use. Yet because this institution in its very beginning was wonderfully approved by most learned and most holy men, and not long after confirmed in the general council of Vienne, and propagated through the whole Church of Christ, of it can rightly be said what Saint Augustine warns in epistle 118 to Januarius: when the whole Church throughout the world frequents something, to dispute whether it ought to be so done is a most insolent madness.
In the fifth place it pleased the king to count among novel and recent things works of supererogation, to which he says the name of the ecclesiastical treasury has with the best right been fitted. But it is a wonder whence the king says works of supererogation are novel and recent, since they have always been in the Church, not only of the New Testament, but also of the Old. For those are called by us works of supererogation which are not commanded by God, and yet are most pleasing to him. All the vows which are read in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, Leviticus 27, Numbers 6 and 30, Deuteronomy 12 and 23, were of things nowhere commanded, and yet were most pleasing to God, as is gathered from this, that their payment was most severely exacted, Deuteronomy 23: If thou hast vowed a vow, thou shalt not delay to pay it, because the Lord will require it; and if thou delay, it shall be imputed to thee for a sin; if thou wilt not promise, thou shalt be without sin. See how clearly Scripture says that a vow is made freely, and thereby is a work of supererogation; and yet, after it is made, is severely exacted by God as a thing pleasing to him. But let us add the testimonies of ancient writers who lived in the first five hundred years. Origen in the commentary on chapter 15 of Romans: “What we do above what is owed, we do not do by precept; for example, virginity is not paid out of debt, for it is not required by precept, but is offered above what is owed.” Saint John Chrysostom, homily 8 on penance: “By no means accuse the Lord; he does not command impossible things; many even surpass the commands themselves.” Saint Augustine, book on holy Virginity, chapter 30, speaking of precepts and counsels: “In those,” he says, “the Lord commands you what is owed; but in these, if you supererogate anything more, on his return he will repay you”; the same Saint Augustine, sermon 18 on the words of the Apostle: “Virgins have sought that greater beauty of their heart, as if they said: what do you command? that we be not adulteresses? this you command? by loving you we do more than you command.” So he, who declared plainly enough what that is which he had said before, if you supererogate anything more; for that is to supererogate, to do more than God commands. I could add many other testimonies, but in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand.
In the sixth place he sets among novel and recent things the baptizing of bells, and a thousand trifles besides; but it irks me to answer these, since no one is ignorant that bells in the Catholic Church are blessed, not baptized, as very many other things are blessed, and as the Apostle speaks of foods, 1 Timothy 4, are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. And if commonly in some places the blessing of a bell is called baptism, this comes about because names are in some places given to bells when they are blessed. Certainly the adversaries will nowhere find that in the blessing of bells it is said: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; without which words baptism properly so called cannot stand. But those thousand trifles are a thousand calumnies of the innovators, such as is that about the baptism of bells, which I have often read in the innovators, not without wonder at their impudence.
In the seventh place the king counts among novel and recent things the adoration of relics and images, which he says is intolerable idolatry. And indeed of the antiquity of the veneration of relics we said much in the first chapter of this our Apology; of the antiquity of the veneration of sacred images let us now say a few words. The apostate emperor Julian will give us a most abundant testimony; for he writes thus, as Saint Cyril relates, book 6 against the same Julian: “O wretched men, when the arms are preserved which great Jupiter sent down, that is, the father of Mars, a pledge being given, not in word but in deed, that he will perpetually protect our city, do you cease to adore and worship them? and meanwhile you adore the wood of the Cross, painting its images on your foreheads and before your houses.” So he, who certainly would not have objected to Christians that they adored the wood of the Cross, which is nothing else than an image of the Crucified, and painted its figure for protection on their foreheads and before their houses, unless he had himself seen this done everywhere at the time when he was a Christian. With this testimony agrees Tertullian, who in the Apologeticus against the nations, chapter 16, witnesses that Christians were called by the pagans worshippers of the cross. But let us hear the holy Fathers. Saint Ambrose in the oration on the death of Theodosius: “Wisely,” he says, “did Helena act, who raised the cross of Christ upon the head of kings, and placed it there, that the Cross of Christ might be adored in kings.” Saint Jerome in the epistle to Eustochium on the death of Paula: “Prostrate,” he says, “before the Cross, she adored as if she saw the Lord hanging.” Saint John Chrysostom in the Liturgy: “The priest,” he says, “bows his head to the image of Christ.” Saint Basil, as Pope Hadrian relates in the epistle to the emperors which was read in the seventh synod, action 2: “The histories of their images,” he says, “I honour, and openly adore; for this has been handed down to us by the holy Apostles.” There exists a poem of Lactantius Firmianus on the Cross, where among other things he says: “Bend the knee, and adore the venerable wood of the Cross.” With whom Sedulius agrees in book 5 of the Paschal poem, saying: “Nor let anyone be ignorant that the form of the Cross is to be worshipped.” Saint Augustine, book 3 on the Trinity, chapter 10, speaking of holy signs, such as are sacraments, images and the like, and in particular naming the brazen serpent, which was an image of Christ crucified: “But,” he says, “because these things are known to men, because they are made by men, they can have honour as religious things, they cannot have amazement as wonders.”
But these things left aside, since the king has deigned to object some things against the cult of relics and images, which he did not do against private Masses, transubstantiation and the rest, let us briefly answer what he objects. First he says of relics: “As to the relics of the saints, if I had any of that kind which were established to be parts of the bodies of the saints, I would solemnly lay them in honourable tombs; nor would I allow that, after the last rites of the dead, they be kept after the likeness of that infamy which we have appointed for abandoned men condemned by public judgment, as a punishment to last beyond death.” I answer that there is a great difference between the infamy of limbs which are exposed under the open sky to be harried by the injuries of the weather and the bites of birds, and the honour of holy relics which, wrapped in precious linens and enclosed in silver caskets, are preserved in holy basilicas. The king goes on: “But the adoration both of relics and of images I hold and abominate as intolerable idolatry; yet I am certainly not an Iconoclast. I do not blame anyone who wishes either to make statues or to paint images, whether for public splendour or for the domestic uses of private men. But that they should be adored, that they should be supplicated, that some opinion of holiness should be fastened on them, that indeed is unheard of among the ancients, and so opposed to the Scriptures, which most openly and diametrically fight against it, that I do not cease to wonder what wit of men, what fraud of Satan has attempted to thrust so bold a fiction on the Christian Church.” I answer: idolatry is to worship the creature for the Creator, and to pay to the image of a false and fictitious god (for that is an idol) that honour which is owed to God alone. But no one has ever thought or said that the relics and images of the saints are images of fictitious gods; nor thought or said that they are to be held for the Creator, or adored with that worship with which God ought to be adored. Let the king see, then, by what reasoning he holds the veneration of the relics and images of the saints for intolerable idolatry, when neither relics nor images are idols, nor is their veneration latria. Further, those were called Iconoclasts, not who threw down any statues and images whatever, and from any place whatever, but who took away or broke the images or statues of Christ and the saints from the churches; which it is most well known has been done everywhere by the Calvinists; nor does the king allow, as I think, crosses or images to stand openly in the churches of England. But Catholics, who hold the Iconoclasts for heretics, do indeed adore images, but with that adoration of which it is written, Adore his footstool, Psalm 98, where by the footstool of the Lord the wooden ark is understood; not that of which we read, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve, Matthew 4. They do not supplicate images, since they know they have no sense of hearing; but, prostrate before images, they supplicate the saints reigning in heaven with Christ, whose images they are; they attribute some holiness to the images of the saints, but relative, that is, which they have from the fact that they represent the saints themselves; of which kind of holiness it is written, Exodus 3, The place whereon thou standest is holy ground; and Joshua 5, The place whereon thou standest is holy; and Psalm 98, Adore his footstool, for it is holy. From which we understand that it is false what the king says, that all these things are unheard of among the ancients, and diametrically contrary to the Scriptures; nay rather they were most well known to the ancients (as we showed a little before), and most consistent with the Scriptures; so that it was not the fraud of Satan that thrust these on the Church, but the piety of the ancients that preserved them, and the impiety of the innovators that overthrew them, so that all the memorials of salvation might be handed over to oblivion among the Christian people.
The king goes on: “Yet all these things are excused by clever evasions of this kind, and sophistical little distinctions: namely that an idol is nothing; but that they venerate images of things that are, and of the true God. But Scripture forbids the likeness of every thing made by God to be worshipped; that, then, was not nothing to which God forbade worship to be paid. But neither the brazen serpent nor the body of Moses was nothing; yet the former was broken in pieces, the latter hidden, lest it afford matter and cause for idolatry.” I answer: that an idol is nothing is the opinion of the Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 8; which opinion does not signify that an idol is nothing at all, since it is a bodily thing, and exposed to the senses; but that it is nothing by reason of representation, because it represents a fictitious and vain, or imaginary, not a real and true god. From this we rightly gather that images of Christ are not idols, because they represent the true God made man; that images of the saints are not idols, because they represent true friends and servants of God. As also images of kings and emperors are not idols, because they represent true men; in which sense an image of Jupiter, if it represented only that man who has a tomb in the island of Crete, would not be an idol; but since it is thought to represent Jupiter sitting in heaven and thundering, it is an idol, and is nothing, because Jupiter is not in heaven, but in hell, nor does he hurl lightning or thunder, but endures scourges and torments. Further, Scripture does not forbid the likeness of every created thing to be worshipped absolutely, but of every created thing which is taken for God; for in Exodus 20, where likenesses of all things which are in heaven, or on earth, or in the waters are forbidden to be worshipped, they are first forbidden to be made, and afterwards forbidden to be worshipped: Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any likeness, and so on; and afterwards: Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them; but the making is not forbidden absolutely, unless they are made to be held for gods; for the Lord himself ordered likenesses of Cherubim to be made for the adornment of the Propitiatory, Exodus 25; and elsewhere he ordered the likeness of a serpent to be made, Numbers 21; and again Solomon made in the temple likenesses of oxen, lions and many other things. Likewise God declared the precept, thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any likeness, when he says in Exodus 20: You shall not make gods of silver, nor shall you make to yourselves gods of gold; that is, you shall not make a graven thing or a likeness which is to you in place of God, so that I am not your only God, but there are others with me. And the king himself confesses it is lawful to make statues and paint images. As therefore the prohibition of making images is not absolute, but is restricted to images which are held for gods, so also the prohibition of worshipping images is not absolute, but is restricted to images which are worshipped as gods. For otherwise the Jews were accustomed to venerate, prostrate on the ground, the images of the Cherubim and the other things which were in the Propitiatory. For so Saint Jerome speaks in the epistle to Marcella, in which he exhorts her to move to Bethlehem: “The Jews once venerated,” he says, “the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubim and the ark,” and so on. And what I said, that that veneration was with prostration to the ground, is gathered from the Hebrew word in those places, Psalm 5, I will adore toward thy holy temple, and Psalm 98, Adore his footstool; for the Hebrew word sounds, bow yourselves down, or prostrate yourselves toward the temple, and toward his footstool. Now the brazen serpent and the body of Moses, as long as they were not held for gods, were not idols, and thereby were not nothing, but something. But when the children of Israel began to sacrifice to the brazen serpent, they began to hold it for God, and then it turned into an idol, and nothing, because it represented a fictitious god; and therefore the zeal of the holy King Hezekiah broke it in pieces, 4 Kings 18. The body of Moses was hidden lest it be turned into an idol among those who were most prone to idolatry; therefore it was never an idol, and so was always something.
The king goes on, and labours much to prove that an image of God is forbidden not only to be worshipped, but even to be made. But there is no need of labour. For if it is a question of an image which should represent God himself as he is in himself, an image of that kind can by no means be made; and this the king's arguments prove, whom no one in this part contradicts; but if it is a question of an image which should represent God incarnate, not by reason of the deity, but by reason of the flesh; or should represent God, not as he is in his nature and essence, but as he appeared in the form of an old man in Daniel, chapter 7, or in the form of one sitting on a high and lofty throne in Isaiah, chapter 6, or in the form of a dove, Mark 1 and John 1; or in the way the virtues are painted to signify their properties, which can be called metaphorical images, not proper: in these ways nothing forbids an image of God to be painted, nor have the king's arguments any strength against images of that kind. He passes afterwards to the true Cross of the Lord, and denies that any veneration is owed it by reason of the touch of the most sacred body; and brings certain arguments of John Wycliffe, that if the Cross is to be venerated for its touch, the lips of Judas which kissed Christ would also have been to be venerated, and the hand of that servant who struck Christ with blows, and of the other who nailed him to the Cross; which arguments of the English heretic Thomas of Walden, a distinguished English Catholic, long ago refuted. But that the king may see how far he is from the piety of the holy Fathers who flourished in the first five hundred years, let him read Saint Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, catecheses 10 and 13, and he will see that from the wood of the most holy Cross found by Saint Helena almost the whole world was at once filled, all eagerly seeking its particles; let him read Saint Paulinus, epistle 12 to Severus, where he says that he sends him a particle of the true Cross enclosed in gold, as the highest and most precious gift; let him read the same in the tenth birthday of Saint Felix, and he will see that a very great fire was suddenly extinguished when a particle of the holy Cross was shown. Let him read Saint John Chrysostom in the homily That Christ is God, and he will know the ardour of the faithful in searching out particles of the holy Cross and enclosing them in gold. Let him read Saint Augustine, book 22 of the City of God, chapter 8, where he writes that at holy earth brought from Mount Calvary into Africa miracles were wont to be done, and that he with another bishop buried it, and set up a place of prayer over it. With what honour, I ask, did Saint Augustine treat the Cross of the Lord, who so honoured the earth which had touched the Cross itself? And since the king adds that miracles were also done by the shadow of Saint Peter, and yet Saint Peter would not have allowed that his shadow, nay, not even his person, be adored, let him hear what the same Saint Augustine says of the shadow and of the chains of Saint Peter. For he speaks thus in sermon 5 on the holy Apostles Peter and Paul: “Deservedly through all the Churches of Christ is that iron of the penal chains held more precious than gold; for if the overshadowing of him visiting was so healing, how much more the chain of him bound? If the empty appearance of a hollow image could have in itself a power of healing, how much more healthfulness have the chains of the passion, pressed with iron weight on the sacred limbs, deserved to draw from the body?” And although Saint Peter, out of the virtue of humility, would not have allowed, while he lived on earth, that his person, much less his shadow, be adored, yet on account of this very humility he is most worthy not only to be adored with that adoration which befits the saints, not that which is proper to God alone, but that his chains be esteemed more precious than gold, and religiously venerated in the universal Church.
After the Cross of the Lord despised, the king passes to laughing at purgatory. “Now,” he says, “purgatory, now those frivolous things which follow that fiction, I think unworthy that labour and time be spent on them. Certainly Bellarmine could build no foundation for it from the Scriptures. This only I would ask him, whether that green and pleasant field which stretches out in purgatory in flowering spaces is divided by a river flowing through it, so that if perhaps I come into that region I may beguile the time and leisure with fowling.” I indeed, unless I had resolved to despise these things, would answer what I thought should be answered. But now this only I shall not keep silent, which truth itself forbids to pass over. It is false in the first place that no foundation for purgatory could be built by Bellarmine from the Scriptures. For in book 1 on Purgatory Bellarmine built up purgatory with twenty testimonies of sacred Scripture. He added also the testimonies of the Fathers, even the most ancient, both Latin and Greek. And in the same book 1, chapter 15, against Peter Martyr, who had written that purgatory does not belong to the dogmas of the faith, Bellarmine showed that purgatory so clearly belongs to the dogmas of the faith, as any other most certain dogma of the faith, that he who denies purgatory can by no colour be excused from manifest heresy. Then, because the king calls frivolous the things which follow purgatory, and among them counts satisfactions for the dead, let him read in the same Bellarmine, book 1 on Purgatory, chapter 10, the clear testimonies of all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, and let him consider whether those things ought to be called frivolous which the most ancient Fathers teach with unanimous consent, by one who in this very preface witnessed that he would not dare to censure what the Fathers teach with unanimous consent. Then, as to the green and pleasant field of purgatory, let him know that these things are related by Bellarmine, book 2, chapter 7, which place the king cites in the margin, from the venerable Bede, a most noble English doctor, and that it is from him that he must ask whether it is divided by a river flowing through it. Although it is a superfluous thought how purgatory stands among those who deny purgatory, since it is well enough established that not purgatory, but hell awaits them.
In the last place the king sets the primacy of Saint Peter among those things which he judges not to be admitted by him; and says this is the chief article in which he dissents from us. For he speaks thus on page 48: “But in all this reckoning we have not yet touched the citadel of the Roman religion, that is, the head of the Church, and the primacy of Peter; for those who deny this article, by Bellarmine's opinion deny the Catholic faith. That there ought to be bishops in the Church, as an Apostolic institution and therefore a divine ordinance, I have always held, against the Puritans, and against Bellarmine, who denies that bishops have received their jurisdiction immediately from God; but no wonder that he stands with the Puritans, since the Jesuits are nothing else than Puritan-papists. And with what zeal I have always applied myself to the defence of bishops and of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (for the sake of political order only), with the same I have inveighed against that confused anarchy and parity of the Puritans, as is well enough established even from my Basilikon Doron.” It is altogether so: those who deny that Saint Peter was the head of the Church, and had the primacy over the Apostles, and that in the same primacy the Roman Pontiffs succeed Saint Peter, deny the Catholic faith. This not Bellarmine alone has left proved in many books, but very many other Catholic doctors, and among others Nicholas Sander the Englishman, in the books on the visible monarchy of the Church, which we have seen hitherto refuted by no writer. That there ought to be bishops in the Church, and that by divine ordinance, we too know and teach. But it is one question whether bishops ought necessarily to be in the Church, and another whether they receive jurisdiction immediately from God, or from the successor of Peter. For priests too and deacons ought necessarily, and by divine ordinance, to be in the Church; and yet they receive jurisdiction not from God immediately, but from bishops. So those two do not fight with each other: bishops are in the Church by divine ordinance, and receive jurisdiction immediately from the Supreme Pontiff; nor does that question among us pertain to the faith, but is freely disputed among doctors. But that the king compares the Puritans with the Jesuits is altogether wonderful, since the Puritans defend anarchy, the Jesuits ecclesiastical monarchy, with all their strength. Nor is it less wonderful that the king in this place confesses that anarchy and a certain parity are introduced by the Puritans, and yet in this very volume, where he refutes the fourth lie of Tortus, says that the Puritans do not shrink from the oath of the primacy, but take it daily, and have never refused. But if the Puritans do not shrink from the oath of the primacy, what anarchy and parity do they introduce? Lastly, it is also a wonder that the king takes it so ill that Bellarmine wrote that King James in Scotland was a Puritan, so as even to call this a cardinal's lie on page 49; when nevertheless there exists the Scottish Confession, written by Puritan ministers and subscribed by the king at Edinburgh on the 28th of January in the year of the Lord 1581, and the 14th of his reign; which confession the bishop of Vaison, a Scot by nation, refuted in a published book, and printed his book at Avignon in the year 1601; to pass over now the other conjectures which I related above. For about that matter I am not anxious, nor does it belong to me; yet I wrote in good faith what I heard from witnesses worthy of credit, and what I read in the books of others.
The king goes on, page 50, and says he admits an order among the bishops themselves, and that the Roman bishop is the first of all bishops, and adds, page 51, that no earthly man is monarch of the universal Church; since Christ is the Monarch of his Church, and the Holy Spirit, whom he had promised would come, fills the place of Christ. Here indeed the king with the same light of truth denied that the Roman Pontiff is monarch of the universal Church, with which he affirmed that the Holy Spirit holds the place of Christ, that is, is the Vicar of Christ. For since ordinarily he who holds the place of another is inferior to him whose place he holds (for viceroys are inferior to kings, and vicars of bishops to bishops), certainly if the Holy Spirit holds the place of Christ in ruling the Church, he will be inferior to Christ, and at Christ's nod will either take up or lay down the office. And what is this else than, in order to deprive the Pontiff of the Vicariate of Christ, to deprive the Holy Spirit of true divinity? and, that the Supreme Pontiff may not rise to the height owed him, to cast the Holy Spirit too from his height? But, says the king, Christ promised the Holy Spirit, John 14, not Peter, to direct and teach the Apostles. Nay rather, he promised the Holy Spirit as an invisible and internal teacher and comforter; Saint Peter he left on earth in his place as a visible ruler and shepherd. For that he did not promise the Holy Spirit as a future teacher or ruler in his stead is openly shown from the same place; for when the Lord had said, John 14: I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete; a little after he adds: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. And a little after: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him. But let us hear Saint Augustine explaining these words, and refuting the king's opinion, tract 75 on John; Saint Augustine speaks thus: “After the promise of the Holy Spirit, lest anyone should think that the Lord was going to give him as it were in place of himself, so that he himself would not be with them too, he added and said: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.” So the Holy Spirit promised by the Son teaches all truth, but not without the Father and the Son, whose works are undivided, as their substance is one; but that the visible body of the Church might have a visible vicarious head, the Lord said before all to Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? and afterwards: Feed my lambs. Which he repeated a third time, first commending to him the lambs, then the little sheep, third the sheep; for so Saint Ambrose reads and expounds on the last chapter of Luke, so that no one at all should be excepted, whether beginner, or advancing, or perfect; or whether layman, or priest, or bishop, who should not be subjected to Peter the Shepherd.
But, says the king, those words of Christ, I will give to thee the keys, Matthew 16, and Feed my sheep, John 21, belong to all the Apostles; otherwise how could Paul have been the author to the Church of the Corinthians of excommunicating that incestuous man with his own spirit? it should surely have been said, with the spirit of Peter. I deny that those words belong to all the Apostles, since they were properly said to Peter alone, who by them was appointed the true and ordinary ruler and shepherd of the Apostles and of the whole Church; and this the adversaries ought to admit, who in all controversies require an express word; for what could be said more expressly than that: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven; and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys, and so on; and that: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? feed my sheep. For these are said to Peter alone, the son of Jona, as he is distinguished from the other Apostles who were present; but the heretics not in this place only, but wherever the express word does not favour their error, flee to figures and tropes. Yet we do not deny that the other Apostles had full power over the Churches, but far otherwise than Saint Peter had; for he had an ordinary power, which he should transmit to successors; they an extraordinary, which should end with themselves; he had power even over the Apostles; they had none over the Apostles. But of these we have said much in the Controversies, which is not to be repeated. But the Apostle Paul, even if he had not been an Apostle, but a simple bishop, could easily excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian through the Church of the Corinthians, his spirit being present. But, says the king: “In the council which was held at Jerusalem it is expressly written: It hath seemed good to the Apostles and elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men; but a wonderful silence about the head of the Church. So also in their letter mention is made of the Apostles, elders and brethren; of Peter not a word.” I answer that in that council Peter first of all began to speak, and James and the others went over to his opinion, which is enough for Peter to be acknowledged president of the council. See Saint Jerome in the epistle to Augustine, which is the 11th among the epistles of Augustine, and Theodoret in the epistle to Pope Leo. But the king objects again the passage of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 1, that some said, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas; for if Cephas, that is, Peter, had been the visible head of the Church, those who did not stand with him would have withdrawn from the Catholic faith. I answer: if from this passage it could be gathered that Peter was not the head of the Church, it could also be gathered that Christ too is not the head of the Church; for this is the whole sentence of that passage: I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ; those, then, who said they were of Paul or of Apollo were not withdrawing from Christ or from Peter; but some gloried that they had been baptized by Paul, others by Apollo, others by Peter; others, more prudent, referred their baptism to its principal author, that is, Christ; for it is he who baptizes all through the ministry of his servants, whoever they are; therefore there is one baptism, whether Peter, or Paul, or another of lesser rank, or holiness, or dignity baptizes. The king adds: “But it is most openly established that Paul was not well enough instructed in this recent and novel doctrine, who dealt so little courteously with Peter that he not only made himself equal to him, but even set himself before him.” I answer that I have read the second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians, for this passage alone the king cites; but neither in that chapter, nor anywhere else, have I read that Paul set himself before Peter; unless perhaps the king gathers that preference from this, that Paul rebuked Peter, as if superiors were not sometimes rebuked by inferiors. Peter himself certainly began to rebuke Christ, saying: Lord, be it far from thee; this shall not be unto thee, Matthew 16. Nor yet can we on that account suspect that Peter set himself before his Lord. But since the king calls the doctrine of the primacy of Saint Peter recent and novel, I am forced to write down a few testimonies of the most ancient Fathers. Origen on chapter 6 of Romans speaks thus: “When the sum of things concerning the feeding of the sheep was handed to Peter, and upon him as upon the earth the Church was founded, the confession of no virtue is required of him except charity.” Saint Cyprian in the book on the Unity of the Church makes Peter the head, spring and root of the whole Church. And in the epistle to Quintus: “Peter,” he says, “whom the Lord chose first, and upon whom he built the Church,” and so on. Where Cyprian not only said that Peter was chosen first, which the king admits in this place, but adds that the Church was built upon him, and thereby that he is the foundation of the Church; and what the foundation is in a building, the same is the head in a body. Saint Basil in the sermon on the Judgment of God: “That blessed man,” he says, “who was set before the other disciples, to whom the keys of the heavenly kingdom were committed.” Saint Hilary on chapter 16 of Matthew: “O happy foundation of the Church in the naming of a new name, and rock worthy of that building, which should dissolve the laws of hell.” Saint Gregory Nazianzen in the oration on the moderation to be kept in disputations: “You see,” he says, “how of the disciples of Christ, all of them indeed great and lofty and worthy of the choice, this one is called the Rock, and has the foundations of the Church entrusted to his faith, and the other disciples bear with a tranquil mind that they are set after him.” Saint Maximus, sermon 3 on the Apostles: “Of how great merit,” he says, “was Peter with his Lord, that to him, after the rowing of a small boat, the helm of the whole Church was handed?” Saint John Chrysostom, homily 55 on Matthew: “He appointed Peter,” he says, “shepherd of the future Church.” And a little after: “God alone can grant that the future Church remain unmoved amid so many and so great waves rushing in with violence, whose shepherd and head is a fisherman and a man of no rank,” and so on. Here we openly read that Saint Peter was the head of the Church, as also in the following testimony. Saint Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian: “Among the twelve,” he says, “one is chosen, that by the appointment of a head the occasion of schism might be taken away.” Where, if by the name of head were understood first in order, not in power, the occasion of schism would not have been taken away. Saint Augustine, sermon 142 on the season, which is the first of the Wednesday after Palm Sunday: “He cures the sickness of the whole body,” he says, “in the very head of the Church, and in the very crown composes the health of all the members.” Where Saint Augustine openly calls Saint Peter the head of the body of the Church. And let these suffice on the primacy of Saint Peter. The rest which the king adds the reader will easily understand of himself to belong to reproaches, or to be repetitions of what had been said before more than once.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VIII.
Non esse recentia dogmata, sed antiquissima ,
intercessionem Sanctorum , Missam priva¬
tam , transsubstantiationem , et alia , quse rex
Anglise novitia et nupera vocat.
Igitur pag. 40. et 4!. De Beatissima Vir¬
gine Dei Matre scribit multa, quse ex collo¬
quiis Erasmi petita, ad solam invidiam con¬
ciliandam pertinent, qualia sunt, quod nos
Catholici divam, et deam faciamus ; quod
ab ea petamus, ut filio suo Deo, et Domino
imperet, et dominetur ; quod absurdis cu-
juslibet inepti hominis orationibus pateat ;
quod in terras ad Sacerdotum oscula , et
complexus descendat, et concludit : « In
coelis, in seterno Sanctorum animarum re¬
ceptaculo, in seternam est felicitatem collo¬
cata, numquam a tantis gaudiis ulla terre¬
narum rerum cura, aut sollicitudine avo¬
canda. »
At prudentes, et bene instituti Catholici,
(a) neque divam, neque deam vocant : ne¬
que ab ea petunt, ut filio imperet, et domi¬
netur : neque dicunt, eam ad oscula, et
complexum Sacerdotum descendere ; neque
sentiunt eam a coeli gaudiis avocari, quan¬
do curam gerit rerum humanarum, sive sola
prece apud. Deum agat, sive praesentiam
suam mortalibus exhibere dignetur. Nam
neque Angeli a Coeli gaudiis avocantur,
quando a Deo in ministerium mittuntur
propter eos, qui haereditatem capiunt salu¬
tis, ut dicitur ad Heb. i.
Quod autem virgo sanctissima et clemen-
tissima non audiat preces miserorum, vel
aliquando non descendat ad homines, repu¬
gnat aperte sanctis Patribus, qui primis
quingentis annis floruerunt. Adferam pauca
de multis, quibus nulli veterum contradi¬
cunt.
Sanctus Athanasius in serm. de sanctis¬
sima Deipara : « Inclina, inquit, aurem tuam
ad preces nostras , et ne obliviscaris populi
tui i) : et infra: « Intercede h sera, et Domina,
et Regina, et Mater Dei pro nobis. »
Sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus in ipsa
publica Liturgia coram Clero, et populo di¬
cendum praescribit : « Intercessione imma¬
culatae Dominae nostrae Deiparae, et semper
Virginis Mariae, dignum me fac, ut sine con¬
demnatione accipiam immaculatum tuum
donum etc. » Et infra : « Confirma nos in
timore tuo, custodi vitam nostram, stabili
gressus nostros precibus, et supplicationibus
sanctae Deiparae, et semper Virginis Mariae,
et omnium Sanctorum. »
Sanctus Gregorius Nyssenus in vita sancti
Gregorii Taumaturgi scribit, eidem sancto
Gregorio ( b ) apparuisse noctu beatissimam
Virginem cum ingenti lumine, et una san¬
ctum .loannem Evangelistam, et ipsa Vir¬
gine jubente, institutum fuisse sanctum Gre-
gorium ab eodem Evangelista circa myste¬
rium sanctissimae Trinitatis : haec scribuntur
a Patre antiquo, et sancto de alio Patre an¬
tiquiore, nec minus sancto; et non referun¬
tur somnia, aut figmenta, sed apparitio vera
vigilanti facta, et exstat adhuc confessio fi¬
dei a S. Joanne S. Gregorio coram tradita,
et tota illa regione celebratissima.
Refert quoque sanctus Gregorius Turoni-
cuslib. de Gloria Martyr, cap. 9. cum jussu
Magni Constantini Basilica aedificaretur Bea¬
tissimae Virgini Mariae, et columnae adeo im¬
manes paratae essent, ut hominum viribus,
non sine maximo labore erigi possent, ip¬
sam Virginem apparuisse architecto , ac
docuisse rationem columnarum erigenda¬
rum.
Neque solam Virginem deiparam , sed
etiam alios Sanctos palam apparuisse homi¬
nibus, testantur passim veteres Patres, ut
sanctus Basilius, in orat, de sancto Maman-
te, sanctus Gregoris Nazianzenus orat. 1. in
Julianum, Sulpitius in vita sancti Martini,
Theodoretus lib. v. hist. cap. 24. sanctus
Paulinus Natali 8. sancti Felicis. Sed
unum Augustinum audiamus in lib. de cura
pro mortuis, cap. 16. : « Non solum, inquit,
beneficiorum effectibus, verum etiam ipsis
(b) Apparitio admiranda, et ve-
< a) Refelluntur calumniae circa cultum B. Virginis Mariae. —
rissima B. Virginis Mariae.
154
APOLOGIS GAP; VIII.
hominum aspectibus Confessorem apparuis¬
se Felicem audivimus, non incertis rumori¬
bus, sed testibus certis. » Denique ut multa
omittam, numquam idem Constatinus Ma¬
gnus Urbem Constantinopolim sanctissimae
Deiparae dedicasset, quod eum fecisse scri¬
bit Nicephorus lib. vm. cap. 26. nisi cre-
disset multum eidem Urbi patrocinium tan¬
tae Virginis profuturum.
Pergit deinde rex , ac de intercessione
sanctorum scribit : « Scio ego Christum prae¬
cepisse, ut ad ipsum veniamus, quicumque
peccatis oneramur, illum quippe nos refe¬
cturum, et levaturum. Scio Paulum, humi¬
litatem, et religionem Angelorum prohibuis¬
se, omnemque ejusmodi venerationis cultum
in superstitione, et humilitate, non ad par¬
cendum corpori, non in honore aliquo ad sa¬
turitatem carnis, sed qua fiducia, quove au¬
ctore decurratur ad Deos penates istos, sive
titulares, quasi aulicos, et familiares Dei Opti¬
mi Maximi nescio. »
Sed nos hoc loco non controversias dispu¬
tandas suscepimus, sed quo honore veteres
Patres primorum quingentorum annorum
rex afficiat, demonstrare voluimus. Ostendi¬
mus autem paulo ante, id est, in primo cap.
hujus Apologiae, veteres Patres Graecos, et
latinos magno consensu intercessionem San¬
ctorum verbo, et exemplo docuisse. Quare
falsum est quod rex subjungit pag. 42. istos
articulos ante Christi quingentesimum an¬
num inauditos, et invisos in Romana officina
recenter esse excusos.
Ad id vero quod rex objicit, Christum re¬
cepisse, ut ad ipsum veniamus ; («) respon¬
deo, ad Christum nos venire, sive ad ipsum
per nos, sive per alios adeamus. Nam et
Evangelista Matthseus cap. vm. scripsit :
Accessit ad eum centurio : cum tamen non
per se accesserit, sed per alios, dicente eo¬
dem centurione, apud Lucam cap. vii. me
ipsum non sum dignum arbitratus , ut venirem
ad te; vere enim non ipse per se acces¬
serat, sed miserat seniores Judaeorum : et
cum audisset Dominum ad se venire, misit
iterum amicos dicens : Domine noli vexari ,
non enim sum dignus , ut sub tectum meum in¬
tres. Neque ideo falsum est, quod ait Mat¬
thaeus : Accessit ad eum centurio (1). Sic igi¬
tur et nos vere ad Christum accedimus, cum
ad eum per intercessionem Sanctorum acce¬
dimus : vere quoque semper ad Patrem per
Christum accedimus, cum Sanctos oramus,
ut a Deo Patre per Christum nobis impe¬
trent ea, quibus indigemus. Neque enim
Sanctis locum Dei, aut Christi damus ; neque
eos pro diis, aut pro Christo habemus, sed
eos rogamus, ut quae nos a Deo per Chri¬
stum optamus, et petimus; eadem ipsi, qui
Deo propinquiores, et gratiores sunt, nobis
a Deo per Christum impetrare dignentur.
Ad illud autem de Religione Angelorum [b)\
Respondeo cum Patribus eum locum Apo¬
stoli explicantibus, doctrinam fuisse haereti¬
corum , neminem posse per Christum ad
Deum accedere, sed per Angelos, qui et
mundum fecissent, et per Prophetas loquu-
ti essent : horum igitur fictitiorum Angelo¬
rum religionem Paulus prohibet. Sunt non¬
nulli, inquit sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus
homil. 7. in epist. adColoss. qui dicunt, non
oportere de Christum reconciliari, et ad
Patrem accedere, sed per Angelos : propter-
ea Paulus, sursum ac deorsum quae de
Christo sunt versat. Sanctus Hieronymus in
epist. ad Algasiam quaest. 10. addit, repre¬
hendi ab Apostolo eos, qui Angelis, ut Diis
sacrificabant. Christianos autem Angelis, vel
Sanctis sacrificasse nemo demonstrare po¬
test.
Pergit rex pag. 42. et ait : « Quod si Ro¬
manae Ecclesiae officina fidei articulos, ante
quingentesimum Christi annum inauditos, et
invisos recenter excudit ; non sum credo
damnandus pro haeretico, si ad haec novitia,
et nupera non accedam. In his articulis pri¬
vatas illas Missas numero, in quibus sacri¬
ficus simul, et populi personam, et sacerdo¬
tis sustinet. In his quoque est sacramenti
mutilatio, qua laicis partem illius mediam
subtraxerunt , transubstantiatio , adorandi
causa elevatio, in supplicationibus Sacra¬
menti circumgestatio, supererogationis ope¬
ra, quibus thesauri Ecclesiastici nomen jure
optimo accommodaverunt, baptizatio Campa¬
narum, et mille praeterea nugae, et quidem
super omnia illa veneratio statuis, imagini¬
busque delata. »
Non esse haec novitia, et nupera, et ho¬
rum pleraque,non esse ante quingentesimum
Christi annum inaudita, facile demonstrabo :
(I) Matth. VIII, 3; Luc. VII, 7.
(a) Solvitur objectiuncula adversus invocationem Sanctorum. — ( b ) Solvitur alia objectiun-
cula.
APOLOGLE CAP. VIII.
155
sed etiam si novitia, et nupera essent, non
ideo rex qui ea negat, ab haeresi immunis
esset (a). Habet enim Ecclesia Catholica, cum
novae controversiae exoriuntur, jus eas ex¬
plicandi, et terminandi ; et eos qui non obe-
diunt, haereticos declarandi, et a commu¬
nione sua ejiciendi. Neque poterit unquam
vera ratio reddi, cur licuerit Nicaeno primo
concilio quaestionem ab Ario motam defini-
re, et Arianos haereticos dicere ; concilio
Constantinopolitano primo quaestionem a
Macedonio, et Eunomio allatam, explicare,
et Macedonianos, atque Eunomianos haereti¬
cos declarare ; concilio Ephesino primo
quaestionem a Nestorio introductam profli¬
gare, et Nestorium haereticum proclamare ;
concilio Chalcedonensi quaestionem ab Eu-
tychete, et Dioscoro agitatam componere,
et Euthycbetem, et Dioscorum inter haere¬
ticos numerare : et non licuerit postea con¬
cilio secundo 'Constantinopolitano quaestio¬
nem de tribus capitulis motam definire, et
qui contra sentiebant haereticos dicere; ne¬
que concilio tertio Constantinopolitano quae¬
stionem a Cyro, et Sergio Monothelitis alla¬
tam explicare, et Monothelitas haereticos de¬
clarare. Neque concilio Nicaeno secundo
quaestionem ab Iconomachis introductam
profligare, et Iconomachos haereticos pro¬
clamare; neque concilio Lateranensi quae¬
stionem de veritate corporis Domini a Be-
rengario agitatam componere, et Berenga-
rium inter haereticos numerare ; neque (ut
alia omittam) concilio Tridentino quaestio¬
nes a Luthero, et Calvino disputatas exami¬
nare, et judicare, et Lutheranos, et Calvi-
nianos in haereticorum numerum referre.
Eadera enim est semper Ecclesia, eadem au¬
ctoritate, et potestate praedita; et cum ea
semper erit ille qui dixit : Ecce ego vobis-
cum sum usque ad mundi consummationem.
Sed veniamus ad missas privatas, quas
rex novitias, et nuperas dixit (b). Missas pri¬
vatas, id est, in quibus nulli participant Eu¬
charistiam, praeter Sacerdotem, non esse
novitias, et nuperas, testatur sanctus Joan-
nes Chrysostomus, qui homil. 3. in epist. ad
Ephesios queritur de populo suo, qui raris¬
sime ad communionem accedebat, cum quo¬
tidie Missa celebraretur : « Frustra, inquit,
habetur quotidiana oblatio, cum nemo sit,
qui simul participet. » At, inquies, si frustra
fiebat, non debuisset fieri : sed quaestio no¬
stra non est, au recte fieret, sed tantum an
fieret. Rex enim dicit rem esse novitiam, et
ante annum Domini quingentesimum inau¬
ditam, et invisam. Et tamen Gbrysostomus
qui vixit ante annum quingentesimum testa¬
tur quotidie suo tempore celebratam fuisse
oblationem, et neminem cum Sacerdote si¬
mul participasse.
Nec tamen concedimus non debuisse fieri
oblationem sine participantibus ; alioqui e-
nim sanctus Joannes vir sapiens, et doctus
eam non fecisset. Quod ergo dicit frustra
fieri, significat, frustra fieri in ordine ad
communicantes, non frustra in ordine ad
Deum. Optabat enim Chrysostomus, ut etiam
optare se dicit Tridentina synodus sess. 22.
cap. 6. ut simul offerretur sacrificium Deo,
et populus communione reficeretur : sed si
populus communione refici negligeret; non
ideo sacrificium Domini omittendum erat.
Habemus praeterea alia exempla veterum,
qui interdum sacrificium offerebant pro cau¬
sa tam particulari, et in loco tam angusto ;
ut non sit ullo modo credibile adfuisse ullos
communicantes. Scribit sanctus Augustinus
lib. ix. Confess. cap. 12. dum mater ejus
apud Ostia Tyberina sepeliretur, oblatum
fuisse sacrificium corporis Domini pro ani¬
ma ejus, cadavere juxta sepulchrum consti¬
tuto. Scribit etiam lib. xxii. de Civit. Dei
cap. 8. Unum e suis presbyteris sacrificium
cdrporis Domini obtulisse in domo quadam
rustica ad eamdem domum a malignorum
spirituum vexatione purgandam. Certe lo¬
cus, et causa satis arguunt, non adfuisse qui
communicarent. Sanctum quoque Grego-
rium Nazianzenum in exigua cellula extructo
Oratorio oblationem celebrare solitum testa¬
tur Sozomenus, lib. vn. hist. cap. 5, quae loci
angustiae populum communicantem non ad¬
mittebant.
Sed ratio praecipua, cur Novatores miren¬
tur, quod in Ecclesia Catholica celebretur
mysterium Eucharistiae sine participantibus,
est, quia non credunt Eucharistiam institu¬
tam fuisse a . Domino, ut offerretur Deo in
sacrificium ; sed solum, ut sacramentum
communionis esset, et populo offeretur in
alimoniam spiritualem : si enim sacrificium
admitterent, facile intelligerent, posse sacri¬
ficium offerri Deo pro populo, etiam si po~
(a) Ecclesia Catholica jus habet novas hcereses damnandi. - (b) Missa privata non est res , sed
antiquissima.
APOLOGLE GAP. VIII.
456
pulus de. sacrificio non participet manducan¬
do, modo participet impetrando.
Et quoniam sciebat rex sacrificium Missae
esse antiquissimum, et mentionem ejus a
Patribus omnibus fieri, quippe, qui scripsit
in suo Basilico Doro lib. m. antiquitatem si¬
ne veritate, esse vetustatem erroris ; idque
etiam de Missa dici posse affirmat ; ideo
non fuit ausus inter res novas ponere sacri¬
ficium, sive Missam, sed solum Missam pri¬
vatam, quam non facile arbitrabatur in li¬
bris veterum Patrum inveniri posse. Sed
cum Missam, vetustatem erroris esse pro¬
nuntiavit, non potuit divinare, in hac prae¬
fatione scripturum se fuisse, se reprehendere
non ausurum, quod Patres primorum quin¬
gentorum annorum unanimi sententia do¬
cent. Neque enim vetustas erroris, sed potius
testimonium veritatis dici debet, quod san¬
ctissimi, doctissimi et antiquissimi Patres
unanimi consensu praedicant.
Vide si placet de sacrificio Missae, id est,
de oblatione Eucharistiae Deo in sacrificium,
S. Justinum in dialogo cum Triphone, S.
Irenaeum lib. iv. cap. 32. 33. et 34. Tertul¬
lianum lib. de Corona militum, et lib. m.
contra Marcionem, S. Cyprianum lib. i.
epist. 9. et lib. i. contra Judaeos cap. 16.
Eusebium Caesariensem lib. i. de demonst.
Evang. cap. ult. S. Ambrosium lib. ii. epist,
8. et in Ps. xxxviii. S. Gregorium Nyssenum
in orat, de Resurr. S. Basilium in Liturgia,
S. Joannem Chrysostomum hom 24. in pri¬
orem ad Corinth. et hom. 17. in epist. ad
Hebraeos, S. Cyrillum Hierosolymitanum
Catechesi 5. mystagogica, S. Hieronymum
in primum cap. Malachiae. S. Augustinum
lib. iv. de Trinit. cap. 44.etlib.xxn.de
Civit. Dei cap. 8. S. Cyrillum Alexandrinum
in lib. de adoratione in spiritu, et veritate.
S. Leonem serm. 8. de passione Domini. S.
Fulgentium lib. ii. ad Monimum cap. 2.
Secundo loco inter novitia, et nupera rex
ponit Sacramenti mutilationem, quod vide¬
licet apud nos populus sub una specie com¬
municet. Sed nos nullam scimus in Ecclesia
fieri sacramenti mutilationem, neque par¬
tem dimidiam laicis esse subtractam. Siqui¬
dem duae species Eucharistiae necessario re¬
quiruntur ad sacrificium, et si in sacrificio
altera deesset, recte dici posset sacrificium
mutilatum (a). At ad essentiam sacramenti
Eucharistiae quaelibet ex duabus sufficit;
proinde sacramentum sub specie panis, est
verum , atque integrum sacramentum ; et
sacramentum sub specie vini verum atque
integrum sacramentum est : nec tamen sunt
duo Sacramenta, quando simul sumuntur
per modum unius refectionis ; secus autem
si unus sumeret Eucharistiam sub specie pa¬
nis, et alius sub specie vini ; vel si unus, et
idem sumeret, hodie sub specie panis, alio
die sub specie vini.
Simile est in baptismo, si quis unica mer-
sione baptizetur, integrum baptismum reci¬
pit ; et si baptizetur tribus mersionibus, in¬
tegrum etiam baptismum recipit. Si vero
unus unica mersione, et alius trina mersione
baptizetur ; vel unus, et idem hodie unica
mersione, cras altera, et tertia die tertia
mersione baptizetur, multa baptismata erunt.
Et quemadmodum Ecclesia Catholica jus
habuit, aliquando jubere, ut frina mersione
baptismus daretur ; aliquando, ut unica tan¬
tum mersione id fieret; sic etiam eadem Ec¬
clesia jus habuit aliquando liberum relinque¬
re, ut sub una specie, vel sub duabus Eucha¬
ristia reciperetur ; aliquando jubere, ut sub
una tantum reciperetur. Quod autem ab ini¬
tio Ecclesiae non deessent, qui sub una tan¬
tum specie communicarent, nec tamen Sa¬
cramentum mutilare dicerentur , multis
testimoniis antiquitatis probare possumus.
Primum initio Ecclesiae adhuc servaban¬
tur caeremoniae legis, ut notum est ex cap.
xxi Actorum Apostolorum, inter quas una
erat (6) votum Nazarseorum non bibendi vi¬
num. Non est autem credibile, hos contra
votum suum bibisse de calice Domini :
quamvis enim in calice Domini non adsit
vini substantia : adsunt tamen accidentia,
sapor, color, calor, et similia : Nazaraei au¬
tem tanta religione abstinebant a vino, et
omni quod inebriare potest, ut ne uvas qui¬
dem passas gustare possent, Num. vi. Itaque
propter hunc tantum Religionis rigorem
omnino credibile est, Nazaraeos eo tempore
non fuisse ausos vini saporem gustare. Neque
tamen credibile est, eos omnino a commu¬
nione abstinuisse. Restat igitur, ut sub sola
specie panis communicaverint. Atque haec
ratio est cur sanctus Lucas Act. ii. scripse¬
rit : Erant autem perseverantes in doctrina
Apostolorum , et communicatione fractionis
(a) Sumptio Eucharistiae sub una specie , non . est sacramenti mutilatio, neque res nova. —
(b) Primum exemplum antiquitatis pro communione sub una tantum specie. j
APOLOGLE GAP. VIII.
157
panis , et oratione. Ubi non addidit quidquam
de calice, sed solum meminit fractionis pa¬
nis, quoniam ab ea specie nulli se abstine¬
bant. Neque negant adversarii, in huc loco
per fractionem panis intelligi distributionem
Eucharistiae. Id certe admittit Joannes Cal¬
vinus lib. iv. Instit. cap. 17. §. 35. Eadem
lortasse causa est, cur Apostolus de calice
scripserit I Corinth. x. Calix benedictionis ,
cui benedicimus : de pane autem, Panis quem
frangimus (2). Calix enim semper benedice-
b atur : sed non semper omnibus distribue¬
batur ; panis autem semper frangebatur, id
est, divideudo porrigebatur. Unde paulo
infra : Unus panis , inquit, et unum corpus
sumus, qui de uno pane participamus : neque
de calice aliquid addidit, quoniam ut unum
corpus simus, hoc sufficit, ut de uno pane
participemus.
(a) Deinde Manichaei sub sola specie panis
Eucharistiam sumebant, ut disertis verbis
scribit sanctus Leo serm. 4. de Quadragesi¬
ma, ubi etiam addit, eos ut Romae a Catho¬
licis internosci non possent, solitos cum Ca¬
tholicis panem Eucharistiae fumere, a calice
autem abstinere. Quod si necessarium fuis¬
set eo tempore Eucharistiam sub utraque
specie sumere ; et omnes fideles eam
sub utraque specie semper accepissent : ne¬
que Manichaei latere potuissent, qui a vino
semper abstinebant; et S. Epiphanius, et S.
Augustinus inter errores Manichaeorum nu-
merassent, Eucharistiam sumere sub una
specie, et eo modo Sacramentum mutilare.
Cum ergo numquam inter errores Manichae¬
orum in positum fuerit, et diu inter Catho¬
licos Manichaei ob communionem latuerint,
perspicuum est in veteri Ecclesia non de¬
fuisse, qui sub una tantum specie commu¬
nicarent.
( b ) Praeterea mos erat antiquissimis tem¬
poribus, ut qui vellent, Eucharistiam in ma¬
nibus sumerent, ac domum deferrent sumen¬
dam, cum eis opportunum videretur. Id te¬
statur Tertullianus lib. ii. ad uxorem, S. Cy¬
prianus in serm. 5 qui est delapsis, Clemens
Alexandrinus lib. i. Stromatum, S. Basilius
in epist. ad Caesariam, S. Hieronymus in
Apologia pro libris adversus Jovinianum.
Certum autem est, Eucharistiam numquam
fuisse datam in manibus, nisi sub specie
panis : nam sub specie vini, aut offerebatur
ore bibenda, aut omittebatur. Neque ulli
erant in domibus laicorum calices sacri ad
Eucharistiam sub vini specie conservandam,
ut aperte colligitur ex sancto Athanasio Apo¬
logia 2. adversus Arianos ; efficitur igitur,
ut saepissime Christiani Ecclesiae primitivae
sub una tantum specie communicarent. Ne¬
que audiendus est quidani ex adversariis,
qui absurdum esse judicat in Ecclesia com¬
municare sub una specie, in domo privata
non esse absurdum. Quasi vero liceat, in do¬
mibus privatis mutilare Sacramenta, in sola
vero Ecclesia id non liceat, vel quasi mutila-
tio Sacramenti, non sit mala, nisi ratione loci.
(c) Deniqne (ut alia multa praeteream) ex¬
tra controversiam est, apud veteres consue¬
visse deferri ad aegrotos Eucharistiam sub
sola specie panis, ut notum est ex epist.
Dionysii Episcopi Alexandrini apud Euse-
bium lib. vi. hist. cap. 36. ex vita S. Am¬
brosii a Paulino scripta, ex vita S. Basilii
scripta ab Amphilochio. Neque tamen Sa¬
cramentum mutilari veteres Patres ea de¬
portatione censebant.
Tertio loco inter novitia, et nupera nu¬
merat rex transubstantiationem. Et siqui¬
dem de voce quaestio sit, (d) nomen transub-
stantionis invenitur in concilio Lateranensi
omnium frequentissimo, sub Innocentio III.
Pontifice ante annos circiter quadringentos
celebrato, quod autem aute annos circiter
quadringentos in usu fuit, \ideat rex, an
recte novitium, ut nuperum appelletur; sed
si de re ipsa agatur, certe transubstantiatio,
id est, substantialis transmutatio, non solum
ante annos quadringentos, sed ante mille et
ducentos a Patribus usurpari coepit.
S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catechesi iv.
mystagogica : « Aquam, inquit, aliquando
in unum commutavit ; et non erit dignus,
cui credamus, quod vinum in sanguinem
transmuta verit? » Haec ille. Mutationem
aquae in vinum factam in Cana Galileae per
Christi omnipotentiam, veram, realem, sub-
stantialemque fuisse rex prolecto non nega¬
bit, at illi similem esse dicit auctor gravis¬
simus, qui ante annum Christi quadringen¬
tesimum vixit, mutationem vini in sangui¬
nem Christi, per ejusdem omnipotentiam
Christi.
(1) Luc. II, 12 ; I Corinth. X, 16.
(a) Alterum exemplum antiquitatis. — (b) Tertium exemplum. — (c) Quartum exemplum,
(d) Dogma de transubstantiatione antiquissimum est.
188
APOLOGLE CAP. VIII.
Sanctus Ambrosius Cyrilli fere sequatis
lib. De iis, qui initiantur mysteriis cap. 9.
« Quantis, inquit, utimur exemplis, ut pro¬
bemus nou hoc esse quod natura formavit,
sed quod benedictio consecravit? majorem-
que vim esse benedictionis, quam naturse,
quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa muta¬
tur. » Hsec ille, quod si panis consecratus
non est panis, quem natura formavit, sed est
corpus Christi, consecratione naturam panis
mutante : ergo transmutatio substantiae pa¬
nis in substantiam corporis Dominici conse¬
crationis virtute facta est : transmutatio au¬
tem substantiae in substantiam quid aptius,
quamtransubstantiatio dici potest? hoc enim
modo figurae in figuram transmutatio in
Evangeliis transfiguratio dicta est, Matth.
XVII.
Sanctus Gregorius Nyssenus ejusdem tem¬
poris auctor in oratione magna Catechetica
cap. 37. « Recte, inquit, verbo sanctificatum
panem in 1 ei Verbi corpus credimus immu¬
tari » ; et infra : « Haec autem tribuit virtus
benedictionis in illud, rerum quae videntur,
panis, et vini naturam mutans. »
Sanctus Gaudentius ejusdem saeculi scri¬
ptor tract. 2. de Exodo : « Ipse, inquit, na¬
turarum creator, et Dominus, qui producit
de terra panem, de pane rursus, quia et pot¬
est, et promisit, efficit proprium corpus; et
qui de aqua vinum fecit, de vino sanguinem
suum facit. »
Sanctus Joannes Chrysostomus, qui et
ipse ante annum quingentesimum floruit :
homil. 83. in Matthaeum : a Non sunt, inquit,
humanae virtutis opera proposita : nos mi¬
nistrorum locum tenemus, qui vero sanctifi¬
cat ea, et immutat, esse est » : et hom. de
Eucharistia in Enceniis : « Num vides pa¬
nem? num vinum? num sicut teliqui cibi in
secessum vadunt? absit, ne sic cogites ; sic¬
ut enim si cera igni adhibita illi assnnilatur,
nihil substantiai remanet, nihil superfluit :
sic et hic puta mysteria consumi corporis
substantia. »
Addam, et unum scriptorem, qui nomen
sancti Cypriani gerit, sed quamquam non
est ille Cyprianus Martyr notissimus, est ta¬
men gravis, et valde antiquus, etiam adver¬
sariis testibus. Cyprianus igitur, sive qui¬
cumque est auctor Sermonum de operibus
Cardinalibus Christi, in serm. de Ccena Do¬
mini : « Panis, inquit, iste, quem Dominus
discipulis porrigebat, non effigie, sed natura
mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro » :
hsec ille, qui dum naturam, id est, substan¬
tiam mutari dicit, et effigiem, id est, acci¬
dentia non mutari, eamqne mutationem fieri
omnipotentia verbi, non voluntaria signifi-
ficatione, veram ac realem transubstantiatio-
nem apertissime docet. Omitto cseteros au¬
ctores, quos qui videre cupit, tum in nostris
libris de controversiis, tum in aliis aliorum
doctissimis scriptis inveniet.
Quarto loco rex ponit inter novitia, et nu¬
pera dogmata (a), adorationem sacramenti
Eucharistise, id est, adorationem Christi Do¬
mini nostri in sacramento Eucharistise miro,
sed vero modo praesentis : quamquam si rex
crederet, quod Catholici credunt, Christum
Deum, ac Dominum in Eucharistia vere esse
prsesentem ; non negaret opinor esse ado¬
randum. Ac ut breviter ostendamus, hanc
adorationem non fuisse ignotam Ecclesise
veteri, audi verba S. Ambrosii lib. m. de
Spiritu sancto cap. 12. tractantis illud Psal.
xcviii. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus :
«Per scabellum, inquit, terra intelligitur,
per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie
quoque in mysteriis adoramus, et quam Apo¬
stoli in Domino' Jesu, ut supra diximus, ado¬
raverunt. ))
Audi sanctum Gregorium Nazianzenum
in oratione de obitu sanctae Gorgoniee soro¬
ris suae, ubi laudans pietatem Gorgoniae ita
scribit : « Ad altare procubuit, eumque qui
supra illud colitur, magno cum clamore ob-
testans etc., » quid autem super altare cola¬
tur, docet sanctus Optatus Milevitanus, qui
lib. vi. contra Parmenianum, vocat altare
sedem corporis, et sanguinis Christi ; ubi
certo tempore membra Christi superponun¬
tur.
Audi S. Joannem Chrysostomum hom.
61. ad populum Antiochenum : « Si pura,
inquit, sunt vestimenta, adora, et commu¬
nica. »
Audi sanctum Augustinum tract, in Psalm.
xcviii. « Nemo , inquit , illam carnem
manducat, nisi prius adoraverit. »
Quod rex addit de Sacramenti circumge-
statione in publicis supplicationibus (A); in¬
stitutum fuit ab Urbano IV Pontifice ante
annos plus trecentos, ut non possit dici res
(a) Mos adorandi sacramentum Eucharistico , Ecclesiae veteri non fuit incognitus. — (b) Circum-
gestatio Eucharistiae ad pietatem excitandam rite instituta est.
APOLOGIS CAP. VIII.
159
novitia, ac nupera, et cum hoc ad ritus, non
ad dogmata pertineat ; mirum videri non
debet, si primis quadringentis annis haec res
in usu non fuerit. Quia tamen haec institutio
in ipso suo et exordio viris doctissimis, et
sanctissimis mirifice probata est ; et non diu
postea in concilio Viennensi generali confir¬
mata, et per omnem Christi Ecclesiam pro¬
pagata; de ea recte dici potest quod monet
sanctus Augustinus in epist. 118. ad Janua¬
rium, cum aliquid per orben tota frequentat
Ecclesia ; quin hoc ita faciendum sit, dispu¬
tare, insolentissimne insanise est.
Quinto loco placuit regi inter novitia, et
nupera numerare opera supererogationis,
quibus dicit thesauri Ecclesiastici nomen
jure optimo esse accommodatum. Sed mi¬
rum est, unde rex opera supererogationis
novitia, et nupera esse dicat, (a) cum fuerint
semper in Ecclesia, non solum testamenti
novi, sed etiam veteris. Illa enim dicuntur
a nobis opera supererogationis, quse non
sunt imperata a Deo, et tamen illi gratissi¬
ma sunt. Vota omnia quse leguntur in scri¬
pturis testamenti veteris, Levit, xxvn. Num.
vi. et xxx. Deuter. xil et xm. erant de re¬
bus nusquam prseceptis, et tamen gratissima
erant Deo, ut ex eo colligitur, quod severis¬
sime eorum solutio exigebatur. Deuter. xxm.:
Si votum voveris , non tardabis reddere , quia
requiret illud Dominus ; et si moratus fueris ,
reputabitur tibi in peccatum : si nolueris pol¬
liceri absque peccato «m(l). En ut perspicue
Scriptura dicit, votum libere fieri, ac per hoc
esse opus supererogationis. et tamen post¬
quam factum est, severe a Deo exigi, utrem
sibi gratam.
Sed adjiciamus testimonia veterum scri¬
ptorum, qui primis quingentis annis vi¬
xerunt. Origenes in comra. ad cap. xv. ad.
Rom. : « Ea quse supra debitum facimus,
non facimus ex prsecepto : verbi causa, Vir¬
ginitas, non ex debito solvitur, non enim
per prceceptum expetitur, sed supra debitum
otfertur. y, S. Joannes Chrysostomus hom.
8. de poenitentia « Nequaquam Dominum
incuses, haud mandat impossibilia, multi et
ipsa superant mandata. » Sanctus Augusti¬
nus lib. de sancta Virginitate cap. 30. lo-
quens de prseceptis, et consiliis : « In illis,
inquit, Dominus debitum imperat vobis : in
his autem si quid amplius supererogaveritis,
in redeundo reddet vobis » : idem sanctus
Augustinus serm. 18. de verbis Apostoli :
« Ambierunt Virgines illam majorem pul¬
chritudinem cordis sui, tamquam dicerent,
quid jubes? ne adulteroe simus? hoc prseci-
pis? amando te plus facimus, quam praeci-
pis. » Hsec ille, qui satis aperte declaravit,
quid sit quod antea dixerat, si quid amplius
supererogaveritis : id enim est supererogare,
plus facere, quam Deus praecipiat. Multa alia
testimonta possem addere, sed in ore duo¬
rum, vel trium testium stabit omne ver¬
bum.
. Sexto loco ponit inter ( b ) novitia, et nu¬
pera, baptizationem Campanarum, et mille
praeterea nugas : sed piget ad ista respon¬
dere, cum nemo nesciat, campanas in Ec¬
clesia Catholica benedici, non baptizari, ut
pleraque alia benedicuntur, et ut Apostolus
de cibis loquitur I Timoth. iv. per verbum
Dei, et orationem sanctificantur. Quod si
vulgo aliquibus in locis campanae benedictio
baptismus dicitur; id est eo fit, quod nomina
campanis, dum benedicuntur, alicubi impo¬
nantur. Certe nusquam adversarii reperient,
in campanarum benedictione dici : Ego te
baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
sancti, sine quibus verbis baptismus proprie
dictus constare non potest. Ille autem mille
nugae, mille Novatorum calumniae sunt: qua¬
lis est ista de baptismo campanarum, quam
saepe apud Novatores, non sine admiratione
impudentiae ipsorum legi.
Septimo loco rex numerat inter novitia et
nupera, reliquiarum, atque imaginum ado¬
rationem ; quam intolerabilem idololatriam
esse dicit. Et quidem de antiquitate venera¬
tionis reliquiarum multa diximus in primo
capite hujus nostrae Apologiae : ( c ) de anti¬
quitate venerationis imaginum sacrarum,
nunepauca dicamus. Julianus imperator apo¬
stata locupletissimum testimonium nobis
praebebit: sic enim scribit, referente sancto
Cyrillo lib.vi.in eumdem Julianum : «Omi-
seri homines, cum serventur arma, quae
magnus demisit Jupiter, hoc est, pater Mar¬
tis, pignore dato, non verbo, sed re, quod
civitatem nostram perpetuo protecturus sit,
cessatis adorare, et colere? et interim Crucis
lignum adoratis, imagines illius in fronte, et
(1) Deut. XXIII, ii.
(a) Opera supererogationis in Scripturis sanctis fundamentum habent. — ( h ) Vetus calumnia de
baptismo Campanarum. — (c) Imaginum sacrarum veneratio antiquissima est,
160
APOLOGLE CAP. VIII.
ante domos pingentes » . Haec ille, qui certe
non objiceret Christianis, quod lignum Cru¬
cis, quod nihil est aliud, nisi imago Crucifixi,
adorarent, ejusque figuram ad protectionem
in fronte, et ante domos pingerent, nisi hoc
ipse passim fieri vidisset, quo tempore Chri¬
stianus erat. Hinc testimonio consonat Ter¬
tullianus, qui in Apologetico adversus gentes
cap. 16. Christianos a paganis Religiosos
crucis appellatos fuisse testatur.
Sed sanctos Patres audiamus. Sanctus
Ambrosius in orat, de obitu Theodosii :
« Sapienter, inquit, Helena egit, quae cru¬
cem Christi in capite regum levavit, et loca¬
vit, ut Crux Christi in regibus adoretur. »
Sanctus Hieronymus in epist. ad Eustochium
de obitu Paulae : « Postrata, inquit, ante
Crucem, quasi pendentem Dominum cerne¬
ret, adorabat.» Sanctus Joannes Chrysosto-
mus in Liturgia : « Sacerdos, inquit, ad
imaginem Christi caput inclinat. » Sanctus
Basilius, referente Adriano Pontifice in epist.
ad imperatores, quae lecta est in septima sy¬
nodo act. 2. : « Historias, inquit, imaginum
illorum honoro, et palam adoro : hoc enim
nobis a sanctis Apostolis traditum. » Exstat
carmen Lactantii Firrniani de Cruce, ubi
inter caetera ait : « Flecte genu, lignumque
Crucis venerabile adora. » Cui concinit Se¬
dulius lib. v. carminis Paschalis dicens :
<( Neve quis ignoret speciem Crucis esse co¬
lendam.» Sanctus Augustinus lib. m. de
Trinit. cap. 10. loquens de signis sanctis,
qualia sunt sacramenta, imagines, et similia;
et in specie nominat serpentem feneum, qui
imago Christi crucifixi erat : « Sed, inquit,
quia haec hominibus nota sunt, quia per ho¬
mines fiunt, honorem tamquam rqligiosa
possunt habere, stuporem tamquam mira non
possunt. »
Sed his omissis, quoniam rex dignatus est
aliqua objicere adversus reliquiarum , et
imaginum cultum , quod adversus missas
privatas , transubstantiationem, et caetera
non fecit : ad ea qiue objicit breviter re¬
spondeamus.
Primum de reliquiis dicit : (a) « (Juod ad
reliquias Sanctorum, si quas ejusmodi ha¬
berem, quas constaret Sanctorum corpo¬
rum partes esse, eas ego honorificis tumulis
solemniter inferrem : nec committerem , ut
supremis defunctse funeribus ad ejus infa¬
miae imaginem servarentur, quam perditis
hominibus, publicoque judicio damnatis
constituimus in p cenam ultra mortem dura¬
turum. »
(b) Respondeo, multum interesse inter in¬
famiam membrorum, quae sub dio exponun¬
tur injuriis coeli, et morsibus avium dive¬
xandae : et honorem Sanctarum reliquiarum
quae pretiosis linteis obvolutae, et argenteis
thecis inclusae, in sanctis basilicis asser¬
vantur.
Pergit rex : ( c ) a Sed cum reliquiarum,
tum imaginum adorationem pro intolerabi¬
li idololatria habeo, atque abominor ; Icono-
maehus sane non sum. Non arguo si quis,
aut fingere statuas, aut imagines pingere,
sive ad publicum splendorem, sive ad pri¬
vatorum hominum domesticos usus volet.
Sed quod illas adorari, quod illis supplica¬
ri, quod aliquam Sanctitatis opinionem af¬
fingi illis oporteat, id quidem antiquis in¬
auditum, scripturis vero in contrarium aper¬
tissime, atque ex diametro pugnantibus ita
est oppositum, ut mirari non desinam, quod
hominum ingenium, quae Satanae fraus hoc
tam audax commentum Ecclesiae Christianae
obtrudere attentarit. t
(, d ) Respondeo : Idololatria est colere cre¬
aturam pro creatore, et imagini falsi, atque
fictiiii Dei (id enim est idolum) eum hono¬
rem habere, qui soli debetur Deo. Reliquias
vero et imagines Sanctorum nemo unquam
sensit, aut dixit esse imagines ficti tiorum
deorum : neque sensit, aut dixit habendas
esse pro creatore, aut eo cultu adorandas ,
quo adorari debet Deus. Yicleat ergd rex
qua ratione habeat pro intoleranda idolola¬
tria reliquiarum, et imaginum Sanctorum
venerationem, cum neque reliquiae, neque
imagines sint idola, neque earum veneratio
sit latria.
Porro Ichonomachi dicti sunt, non qui
statuas, atque imagines quascumque, et ex
quocumque loco deturbabant; sed qui ex
templis, imagines , aut statuas Christi et
Sanctorum sustulerunt, aut confregerunt;
(e) quod a Calvinianis passim factum esse,
notissimum est : neque rex patitur, ut opi¬
nor, in templis Angliae cruces, aut imagines
palam exstare. Catholici vero, qui Ichonoma-
chos pro haereticis habent, imagines quidem
adorant, sed ea adoratione, de qua scriptum
(a) Prima objectio adversus cultum reliquiarum , et imaginum. — (b) Solutio. — (c) Altera ob¬
jectio. — (d) Solutio. — [e) Calviniani verissimi Iconomachi.
m
APOLOGLE GAP. Vili*
ost : Adorate scabellum petlum ejus. Psalm.
xcviii., ubi per scabellum pedum Domini,
arca lignea intelligitur : non ea de qua legi¬
mus : Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi
soli servies (1), Matth. iv. Imaginibus non
supplicant, quippe qui sciunt eas sensum
audiendi non habere, sed ante imagines
prostrati supplicant Sanctis in coelo cum
Christo regnantibus, quorum illae sunt ima¬
gines : sanctitatem aliquam imaginibus San¬
ctorum tribuunt, sed relativam, id- est, quam
habent ex eo, quod Sanctos ipsos repraesen¬
tant ; de quali sanctitate scriptum est, Exo¬
di in. Locus , in quo stas , terra sancta est , et
Josue v. Locus in quo stas sanctus est , et Ps.
xcvm. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus, quoniam
sanctum est (2). Ex quo intelligimus falsum
esse quod rex dicit, haec omnia antiquis esse
inaudita, et scripturis e diametro contraria
quin potius antiquis (ut paulo ante ostendi¬
mus) notissima erant, et scripturis maxime
cohaerentia : ut non Satanae fraus haec Ec¬
clesiae obtruserit, sed pietas veterum con-
servarit, et impietas Novatorum everterit,
ut omnia monimenta salutis oblivioni apud
Christianum populum traderentur.
Pergit rex : (a) « Quae tamen omnia excu¬
santur argutis hoc genus effugiis, et sophi¬
sticis distinctiunculis. Idolum scilicet nihil
esse : se autem rerum, quae sunt, et veri Dei
imagines venerari. At Scriptura omnis rei a
Deo conditae similitudinem coli vetat, non
igitur nihil fuit, cui Deus cultum deferri in¬
terdixit. Sed nec serpens aeneus, nec corpus
Moysis nihil erant : ille tamen contritus est,
hoc absconditum, ne idololatriae materiam
causamquc praeberet. »
Respondeo : ( b ) Idolum nihil esse senten¬
tia Apostoli Pauli est I Corinth. x. quae sen¬
tentia non significat, idolum nihil omnino
esse, cum sit res corporalis, et sensibus ex¬
posita ; sed (c) nihil esse ratione repraesen¬
tationis, quia Deum fictitium, et vanum, si¬
ve imaginarium, non realem, ac verum re¬
praesentat. Inde recte nos colligimus, ima¬
gines Christi non esse idola quia verum
Deum humanatum repraesentant imagines
Sanctorum non esse idola, quia veros Dei
amicos, et servos repraesentant. Quomodo et¬
iam imagines regum, etimperatorumidolanon
sunt, quia veros homines repraesentant: quo
sensu imago Jovis, si solum hominem illum re¬
praesentaret, qui sepulcrum habet in insula
Creta, idolum non esset; sed cum existima¬
tur repraesentare Jovem in coelo sedentem,
et tonantem, idolum est, et nihil est, quia
Jupiter neque in coelo est, sed in gehenna,
neque fulminat, aut tonat, sed flagella, et
supplicia sustinet.
Porro Scriptura non vetat coli similitudi¬
nem omnis rei creatae, absolute ; sed om¬
nis rei creatae, quae pro Deo accipiatur, nam
Exodi xx. ubi prohibentur coli similitudines,
omnium rerum, quae sunt in caelo, vel in
terra, vel in aquis ; prius prohibentur fieri,
et postea prohibentur coli : Non facies , in¬
quit, tibi sculptile , neque omnem similitudi¬
nem ete ., et postea : Non adorabis ea, neque
coles : at fieri absolute non est prohibitum,
nisi fiant, ut habeantur pro diis : nam ipse
Dominus jussit fieri ad ornatum Propitiato-
rii similitudines Cherubim, Exodi xxv. Et
alias jussit fieri similitudinem serpentis,
Num. xxi. Et rursum Salomon fecit in tem¬
plo similitudines boum, leonum, et aliarum
multarum rerum. Item declaravit Deus prae¬
ceptum, non facies tibi sculptile, et omnem
similitudinem, cum ait Exodi xx : Non facie¬
tis mecum deos aureos, et argenteos (3), id est,
non facietis sculptile, vel similitudinem ,
quae sit vobis pro Deo, ita ut non sim ego
vobis solus Deus, sed sint alii mecum. Et
rex ipse fatetur licitum esse fingere statuas,
et pingere imagines. Quemadmodum igitur
prohibitio imaginum faciendarum non est
absoluta, sed restringitur ad imagines, quee
habentur pro diis ; sic etiam prohibitio ima¬
ginum colendarum, non est absoluta, sed
restringitur ad imagines, quae coluntur ut
dii. Nam alioqui solebant Judeei venerari
prostrati ad terram imagines Cherubim, et
alia quee erant in Propitiatorio. Sic enim lo¬
quitur sanctus Hieronymus in epist. ad Mar¬
cebam, qua exhortatur, ut commigret Beth-
lehem : « Venerabantur, inquit, quondam
Judaei Sancta Sanctorum, quia ibi erant Che-
rubim, et arca, etc. »
Quod autem dixi venerationem, istam fu¬
isse cum prostratione ad terram, colligitur
ex voce hebraica in illis locis Psalm. v.
(1) Psalta. XCVIII. 5; Matth. IV, 10. — (2) Exod. HI, 5; Jos- V, 16 ; Psalm. XCVIII, 5. —
(3) Exod. XX, 23.
(a) Tertia objectio. — (b) Solutio. — (c) Quo tensu dicatur ab Apostolo Idolum nihil esse.
Tom. Xli
\ 62
APOLOGIS CAP. VIII.
Adorabo ad templum sanctum tuum , et Psal.
xcvm. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus : vox
enim hebraica linn©’’ sonat, incurvate vos,
sive prosternite vos ad templum ; et ad sca¬
bellum pedum ejus.
Jam vero serpens aeneus, et corpus Mosis,
quamdiu non habebantur pro diis, idola
non erant, ac per hoc non nihil, sed aliquid
erant. Sed cum coepissent filii Israel sacrifi¬
care serpenti seneo ; coeperunt illum habere
pro Deo, et tunc idolum evasit, et nihil ;
quia Deum fictitium repraesentabat ; et ideo
zelus sancti regis Ezechiae illum confregit
IV Reg. xviii. Corpus Mosis absconditum
fuit, ne in idolum verteretur apud eos, qui
ad idololatriam propensissimi erant, proin¬
de non fuit unquam idolum, ideo semper
aliquid fuit.
Pergit rex, et multum laborat, ut probet,
(a) prohibitum esse imaginem Dei non so¬
lum coli, sed etiam fingi. Sed labore opus
non est (b). Si enim agatur de imagine,
quae Deum ipsum, ut est in se, repraesentet,
ejusmodi imago nulla ratione fieri potest :
et hoc probant argumenta regis, cui nemo
in hac parte contradicit, at si agatur de ima¬
gine, quae repraesentet Deum incarnatum,
non ratione deitatis, sed ratione carnis :
vel repraesentet Deum, non ut est in sua na¬
tura, et essentia, sed ut apparuit in specie
hominis senis apud Danielem cap. vn. vel
in specie sedentis in solio sublimi, et elevato
apud Isaiam cap. vi. vel in specie columbae
Marci 1. et Joan 1., vel quomodo pinguntur
virtutes ad significandas earum proprieta¬
tes, quae dici possunt imagines metaphoricae
non propriae : his modis imaginem Dei nihil
prohibet pingi, neque regis argumenta ad¬
versus ejusmodiimagines ullas vires habent.
Transit postea ad crucem Domini veram,
ac negat ratione contactus sacratissimi cor¬
poris ullam ei venerationem deberi ; et ad-
fert argumenta quaedam Joannis Wiclefi,
quod si Crux ob contactum veneranda est,
veneranda etiam fuisse labia Judae quae Chri¬
stum osculata sunt; et manus illius mini¬
stri, qui Christum alapis caecidit; et alterius,
qui eum Cruci affixit, quae argumenta haere¬
tici Angli jam olim refutavit Thomas Val-
densis, insignis Catholicus Anglus.
Sed ut rex videat, (c) quantum absit a
pietate sanctorum Patrum, qui primis quin¬
gentis annis floruerunt, legat sanctum Cy-
rillurn Hierosolymae Episcopum Catechesi 10
et 13, et videbit, ex ligno sanctissimae Cru¬
cis a sancta Helena invento , mundum pene
totum continuo fuisse repletum, certatim
ambientibus omnibus ejus particulas, legat
sanctum Paulinum epistol. 12. ad Severum
ubi dicit, se ad illum mittere p arti c Jam ve¬
rae Crucis auro inclusam, ut summum, et
pretiosissimum donum: legat eumdem Na¬
tali lo sancti Felicis, et videbit incendium
maximum particula sanctae Crucis ostensa
subito fuisse restinctum . Legat sanctum
Joannem Chrysostomum in homil. Quod
Christus sit Deus : et cognoscet ardorem fi¬
delium in perquirendis particulis sanctae
Crucis, atque auro includendis. Legat san¬
ctum Augustinum lib. xxn. de Civit. Dei,
cap. 8. ubi scribit, ad terram sanctam ex
monte Calvariae allatam in Africam, miracu¬
la fieri solita, et se cum alio Episcopo eam
infodisse, et orationis locum supeream con¬
stituisse. Quo, quaeso, honore sanctus Augu¬
stinus prosequebatur crucem Domini, qui
sic honoravit terram, quae crucem ipsam at¬
tigerat?
Et quoniam rex adjungit, (d) etiam per
umbram sancti Petri facta esse miracula, et
tamen sanctum Petrum non fuisse passurum
ut sua umbra, immo nec sua persona adora¬
retur, (e) audiat quid idem sanctus Augusti¬
nus dicat de umbra, et de vinculis sancti
Petri. Sic enim loquitur in serm. 5. de SS.
Apostolis Petro et Paulo : « Merito per om¬
nes Christi Ecclesias auro pretiosius habetur
ferrum illud poenalium vinculorum : si enim
tam medicabilis fuit obumbratio visitantis,
quanto magis catena vincientis ? Si inanis
quaedam species vacuse imaginis habere po¬
tuit in se vim salutis, quanto plus de corpo¬
re meruerunt attrahere salubritatis ferreo
pondere sacris impressa membris vincula
passionis ? Quamvis autem sanctus Petrus
ex virtute humilitatis non fuisset passurus,
dum in terris viveret, ut sua persona, ne¬
dum umbra sua adoraretur ; tamen ob hanc
ipsam humilitatem dignissimus est, qui non
solum adoretur adoratione illa, -quae Sanctis
convenit, non ea quae soli Deo propria est ;
sed ut ejus vincula, auro pretiosiora aesti¬
mentur, religioseque in Ecclesia universa
colantur. »
(a) Quarta objectio. — (fc) Solutio. — (c) Pietas veterum Catholicorum in colendis particulis Cru¬
cis Dominicae. — ( d ) Quinta objectio. — (e) Solutio.
APOLOGIS GAP. VIII.
163
Post Crucem Domini spretam, transit rex
ad purgatorium irridendum. « Jam, inquit,
purgatorium, jam illa frivola, quae id com¬
mentum consequuntur indigna existimo, in
quibus opera ac tempus impendatur. Sane
Bellarminus, nullum ei ex Scripturis funda¬
mentum astruere potuit. Hoc eum tantum¬
modo percontari velim, an viridis ille amoe-
nusque campus, qui in purgatorio florenti¬
bus spatiis extenditur, interfluente rivo dis¬
tinctus sit, ut si forte in eam regionem per¬
venero, aucupio tempus, ac otium fallam. »
Ego vero nisi ista contemnere decrevis¬
sem : responderem quod respondendum esse
existimarem. Sed jam hoc solum non tace¬
bo, quod praeterire veritas ipsa prohibet.
Falsum est in primis a Bellarmino, nullum
fundamentum purgatorio ex Scripturis astrui
potuisse. Siquidem lib. i. de Purgatorio
Bellarminus, (a) viginti scripturae sacra; te¬
stimoniis purgatorium astruxit. Addidit et¬
iam testimonia Patrum etiam antiquissimo¬
rum, tum Latinorum, tum Graecorum. Et
eodem lib. i. cap. 15. adversus Petrum Mar¬
tyrem, qui scripserat purgatorium non perti¬
nere ad dogmata fidei, demonstravit Bellar¬
minus, purgatorium ad fidei dogmataita per¬
spicue pertinere, ut quodlibet aliud certissi¬
mum dogma fidei, ut nullo colore a manifesta
haeresi excusari possit, qui purgatorium negat.
Deinde quia rex frivola vocat, quae purga¬
torium consequuntur, et in eis numerat sa¬
tisfactiones pro defunctis : legat apud eum-
dem Bellarminum lib. i. de Purgatorio cap.
10. perspicua testimonia omnium Patrum
Graecorum, et Latinorum, et cogitet, an fri¬
vola dici, debeant, quse unanimi consensu
Patres antiquissimi docent, ab eo, qui in
hac ipsa praefatione testatus est, se non au¬
surum reprehendere quae Patres unanimi
consensu docent. Deinde quod attinet ad vi¬
ridem amcenumque campum purgatorii, sciat
liaec a Bellarmino lib. n. c. 7. quem locum
rex citaUad marginem, relata esse ex vene¬
rabili Beda, nobilissimo Anglico Doctore,
atque ab illo petendum esse, an interfluente
rivo distinctus sit Quamquam supervacanea
cogitatio est, quemadmodum se habeat pur¬
gatorium apud eos qui purgatorium negant,
cum satis constet, eos non purgatorium, sed
gehennam manere.
Ultimo loco rex ponit Primatum S. Petri
inter ea, quae sibi admittenda non esse judi¬
cat; atque hunc praecipuum articulum esse
dicit, in quo a nobis dissentiat. Sic enim lo¬
quitur pag. 48. « Sed in hac omni ratione
nondum Romanae Religionis arcem attigi¬
mus, id est, caput Ecclesiae, Petrique prima¬
tum, nam qui hunc articulum negant, ex
Bellarmini sententia Catholicam fidem ne¬
gant. Episcopos esse in Ecclesia debere,
tanquam institutionem Apostolicam ac or¬
dinationem proinde divinam contra Purita-
nos, contraque Bellarminum semper sensi,
qui negat Episcopos a Deo immediate suam
jurisdictionem accepisse ; sed nihil mirum a
Puritanis eum stare, cum Jesuitae nihil aliud,
quam Puritanopapistae sint. Et quo studio in
Episcoporum, et Ecelesiasticse Hierarchiee
(politici dumtaxat ordinis causa) defensionem
semDer incubui, eodem inconfusam illam
anarchiam, et parilitatem Puritanorum in¬
vectus sum, ut vel ex Basilico meo Doro sa¬
tis constat. »
Ita est omnino ; qui negant ( b ) caput Ec¬
clesiae S. Petrum fuisse, eumdemque Prima¬
tum in Apostolos habuisse, atque in eodem
Primatu Romanos Pontifices S. Petro succe¬
dere, ii fidem Catholicam negant. Id multis
libris non Bellarminus solus probatum reli¬
quit, sed plurimi alii Doctores Catholici, at¬
que inter alios Nicolaus Sanderus Anglus,
in libris de visibili monarchia Ecclesiae,
quos hactenus a nullo scriptore refutatos vi¬
dimus.
Episcopos esse in Ecclesia debere, idque
divina ordinatione ; nos etiam scimus et do¬
cemus. Sed alia quaestio est. Utrum Episcopi
necessario esse debeant in Ecclesia , alia
vero, Utrum immediate jurisdictionem a
Deo accipiant, an a Petri successore. Nam
presbyteri quoque et diaconi necesssario, et
divina ordinatione debent esse in Ecclesia :
et tamen jurisdictionem non a Deo imme¬
diate, sed ab Episcopis accipiunt. Itaque
duo ista non pugnant inter se, Episcopi di¬
vina ordinatione sunt in Ecclesia, et jurisdi¬
ctionem immediate a Pontifice summo acci¬
piunt, neque ista quaestio apud nos ad fidem
pertinet, sed inter Doctores libere disputas
tur.
Quod vero rex (c) Puritanos cum Jesuitis
(a) Purgatorium in divinis litteris fundamentum habet. — (b) Primatus S. Petri , ejusque suc¬
cessoris Rom. Pontificis , ad fidem Catholicam pertinet. — (c) Inepta comparatio Jesuilarum cum
Puritanis secum ipsa pugnat'
164
APOLOGLE GAP. VIII.
comparet, omnino mirabile est, cum Puritani
anarchiam , Jesuitae monarchiam Ecclesia¬
sticam pro viribus defendant. Neque minus
admirabile est, quod rex hoc loco fateatur a
Puritanis anarchiam, et paritatem quamdam
introduci : et tamen in hoc ipso volumine,
ubi quartum mendacium Torti refellit, dicat,
Puritanos non abhorre a juramento prima¬
tus, sed quotidie suscipere, nec unquam re¬
cusasse. At si Puritani non abhorrent a ju¬
ramento primatus, quam anarchiam, et pa¬
ritatem introducunt? Denique mirum quo¬
que est, quod rex tam iniquo animo ferat,
quod Bellarminus scripserit, regem Jacobum
in Scotia fuisse Puritanum, ut etiam hoc
mendacium Cardinalitium vocet pag. 49.
cum tamen exstet confessio Scotica a Puri¬
tanis ministris conscripta, et a rege subscri¬
pta Edemburgi die 28. Januarii anno Domini
1581. et regni ejus 14. quam confessionem
scripto libro refutavit Episcopus Vasionen-
sis, natione Scotus, et librum suum edidit
Avenioni anno 1601. ut nunc omittam con¬
jecturas alias; quas supra retuli. Nam de
ista re sollicitus non sum, neque ad me per¬
tinet : scripsi tamen bona fide, quod a testi¬
bus fide dignis audivi, et quod in libris alio¬
rum legi.
Pergit rex pag. 50. atque admittere se
dicit ordinem inter ipsos Episcopos, et Ro¬
manum Episcopum primum esse omnium
Episcoporum, et addit pag. 51 non esse ul¬
lum terrestrem hominem Ecclesiae universae
monarcham ; cum sit Christus Ecclesiae suae
Monarcha, Christi que vices expleat, quem
venturum promiserat, Spiritus sanctus.
Hic vero rex eadem luce veritatis negavit,
Pontificem Romanum Ecclesiae universae
esse monarcham, qua (a) Spiritum sanctum
affirmavit, Christi vices gerere, id est, Chri¬
sti Vicarium esse. Nam cum ordinario infe¬
rior sit, qui alterius vices gerit, eo cujus
vices gerit (nam et pro reges regibus, et vi¬
carii Episcoporum Episcopis sunt inferiores)
certe si Spiritus sanctus Christi vices gerit
in Ecclesia regenda, Christo inferior erit,
atque ad nutum Christi officium vel sumet,
vel deponet. Et quid hoc est aliud, nisi ut
Pontificem privet Vicariatu Christi, Spiritum
sanctum vera divinitate privare? atque ut
summus Pontifex ad celsitudinem sibi debi¬
tam non assurgat, Spiritum quoque sanctum
a celsitudine sua dejicere ?
At, inquit rex, Spiritum sanctum Christus
promisit Joan. xiv. non Petrum, qui Apo¬
stolos dirigeret, ac doceret. Immo vero pro¬
misit Spiritum sanctum, ut invisibilem, ac
internum doctorem, et consolatorem; san¬
ctum Petrum, ut visibilem rectorem, atque
pastorem, in terris loco suo reliquit. Quod
enim Spiritum sanctum non promiserit vice
sua doctorem, aut rectorem futurum, ex
eodem loco aperte monstratur, nam cum
dixisset Dominus Joann. xiv. Ego rogabo Pa¬
trem. , et alium Par aclitum dabit vobis ; paulo
post subjungit : Non vos relinquam orphanos ,
veniam ad vos. Et paulo post : Si quis diligit
me , sermonem meum servabit, et Pater meus
diliget eum , et ad eum veniemus , et mansionem
apud eum faciemus { 1). Sed audiamus sanctum
Augustinum hsec verba explicantem, et regis
sententiam refellentem tractat. 75. in Joan-
nem ; sic loquitur sanctus Augustinus :
« Post promissionem Spiritus sancti, ne quis¬
quam putaret, quod ita eum Dominus da¬
turus fuerit velut pro se ipso, ut non et ipse
cum eis esset futurus, adjecit atque ait :
Non relinquam vos ophanos , veniam ad vos. »
Itaque Spiritus sanctus promissus a filio do¬
cet omnem veritatem; sed non sine Patre?
et Filio quorum indivisa sunt opera, quem¬
admodum est eorum una substantia : sed ut
Ecclesiae corpus visibile , caput Vicarium
haberet visibile, dixit Dominus coram om¬
nibus Petro : Simon Joannis diligis me plus
his ? ac postea : Pasce agnos meos. Quod
ipsum tertio repetivit, primo commendans
illi agnos, deinde oviculas, tertio oves : sic
enim legit, et exponit sanctus Ambrosius in
caput ultimum Lucae, ut nullus omnino exci¬
peretur, sive incipiens, sive proficiens, sive
perfectus : vel sive laicus, sive presbyter,
sive episcopus, qui Petro Pastori non sub¬
jiceretur.
At, inquit rex, (b) verba ista Christi : Tibi
daboclaves , Matth. xvi. et Pasceoves meas (2),
Joan. xxi. ad omnes Apostolos pertinent,
alioqui quomodo potuisset Paulus Corinthio¬
rum Ecclesiae auctor esse incestum illum
excommunicandi cum spiritu suo? dicendum
sane fuerat cum spiritu Petri, (c) Nego verba
illa ad omnes Apostolos pertinere ; cum
(1) Joan. XIV, 46, 18, 23. - (2) Matth. XVI, 49; Joan. XXI, 47.
(a) Protestantis Angli Spiritum sanctum Christi Vicarium , ac per hoc inferiorem Christo fa¬
ciunt. — ( b ) Objectio prima contra primatum S. Petri. — (c) Solutio.
APOLOGLE GAP. VIII.
165
proprie dicta sint uni Petro, qui per ea con¬
stitutus est verus, atque ordinarius rector et
pastor Apostolorum , atque Ecclesiae totius :
(a) atque hoc adversarii admittere deberent,
qui in omnibus controversiis expressum ver¬
bum requirunt : quid enim potuit expressius
dici, quam illud : Beatus es Simon Bar-Jona ,
quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi , sed Pater
meus qui in Coelis est : Et ego dico tibi , quia
tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo
Ecclesiam meam , et portae inferi non praeva¬
lebunt adversus eam , et tibi dabo claves ,
etc., et illud : Simon Joannis diligis me plus
his? pasce oves meas. Hsec enim dicuntur
uni Petro filio Jona, ut distinguitur ab aliis
Apostolis, qui praesentes erant : sed haere¬
tici non hoc loco solum, sed ubicumque ex¬
pressum verbum eorum errori non favet, ad
figuras troposque confugiunt.
Non tamen negamus quin Apostoli caeteri
plenam habuerint potestatem in Ecclesias,
sed longe aliter, quam habuerit S. Petrus :
hic enim habuit ordinariam, quam transmit¬
teret ad successores ; illi extraordinariam,
quae cum ipsis finiretur ; hic et super Apo¬
stolos potestatem habuit ; illi super Aposto¬
los nullam habuerunt. Sed de his multa dixi¬
mus in controversiis, quae repetenda non
sunt. Apostolus vero Paulus etiamsi Aposto¬
lus non fuisset, sed simplex Episcopus, facile
poterat incestum Corinthium per Ecclesiam
Corinthiorum, spiritu suo praesente excom¬
municare.
« At inquit rex : ( b ) « In concilio quod
Hierosolymis actum est, diserte scribitur :
Visum est Apostolis, et Presbyteris totique
Ecclesiae mittere lectos viros, sed mirum de
Ecclesiae capite silentium. Sic et in eorum
litteris, Apostolorum, seniorum, et fratrum
fit mentio : de Petro nec verbum. »
(c) Respondeo in eo concilio primum om¬
nium loqui ccepisse Petrum, atque in ejus
sententiam ivisse Jacobum, et alios, quod
satis est, ut Petrus praeses concilii agnosce¬
retur. Vide S. Hieronymum in epist. ad Au¬
gustinum, quae est 11. inter epist. Augustini,
et Theodoretum in epist. ad Leonem Papam.
(d) At objicit iterum rex locum Apostoli, I
Corinth. i. alios dixisse, ego sum Pauli, ego
Apollo, ego Ccephae : nam si Goephas, id est,
Petrus visibile caput Ecclesiae fuisset, qui
non ab eo stabant, a fide Catholica recessis;?
sent.
(e) Respondeo, si ex hoc loco colligi posset,
Petrum non fuisse caput Ecclesiae, posse
etiam colligi, Christum quoque non esse ca¬
put Ecclesiae, haec enim est integra sententia
ejus loci. Ego quidem sum Pauli, ego vero
Apollo, ego vero Coephae, ego autem Christi :
non igitur qui dicebant, se esse Pauli, aut
Apollo, recedebant a Christo, vel a Petro ;
sed gloriabantur alii se baptizatos a Paulo,
alii ab Apollo, alii a Petro ; alii prudentiores,
baptismum suum ad principalem auctorem
referebant, id est, Christum : hic est enim
qui omnes baptizat per ministerium famulo¬
rum suorum, quicumque illi sint; proinde
unum est baptisma, sive Petrus, sive Pau¬
lus, sive alius inferioris gradus, aut sanctita.
tis, aut dignitatis baptizet.
Addit rex : (f) « Sed apertissime constat,
Paulum non satis in hac nupera, ac novitia
doctrina fuisse institutum, qui cum Petro
tam parum comiter egit, ut illi se non sequa-
ret modo, sed etiam anteferret. »
(g) Respondeo legisse me caput secundum
Epistolae ad Galatas, hunc enim solum lo¬
cum rex citat : sed neque in eo capite, ne¬
que usquam alibi me legisse, Paulum se
antetulisse Petro; nisi forte praelationem
istam colligat rex ex eo, quod Paulus Petrum
reprehendit, quasi non soleant aliquando su¬
periores ab inferioribus reprehendi. Ipse
certe Petrus Christum increpare coepit dicens:
Absit Domine , non erit tibi hoc. Matth. xvi.
Nec tamen ideo suspicari possumus, Petrum
Domino suo antetulisse se. Sed quoniam rex,
nuperam, et novitiam doctrinam appellat de
Primatu S. Petri, cogor adscribere pauca
testimonia Patrum antiquissimorum.
(A) Origenes in cap. 6. ad Romanos, sic
ait : <i Petro cum summa rerum de pa¬
scendis ovibus traderetur, et super ipsum
veluti super terram fundaretur Ecclesia,
nullius confessio virtutis ab eo nisi oharita-
tis exigitur. » S. Cyprianus in lib. de uni¬
tate Ecclesiae facit Petrum caput, fontem,
et radicem totius Ecclesiae,- Et in epistol. ad
(Juintum : « Petrus, inquit, quem primum
Dominus elegit, et super quem aedificavit
Ecclesiam etc. » Ubi non solum dixit Cypria¬
nus, Petrum primum electum, quod rex hoc
(a) Haeretici verbum expressum quaerunt , inventum rejiciunt. — (b) Objectio secunda. — (c) So¬
lutio. — ( d ) Objectio tertia. — (e) Solutio. — (f) Objectio quarta. — fj) Solutio. — \h) Testimonia
Patrum de primatu S. Petri.
IGG
APOLOGIS GAP. IX
loco admittit, sed addit, super eum aedifica¬
tam esse Ecclesiam, ac per hoc esse funda¬
mentum Ecclesiae : quod autem est funda¬
mentum in aedificio idem est caput in cor¬
pore. S. Basilius in serm. de Judicio Dei :
« Ille, inquit, beatus, qui caeteris praelatus
discipulis fuit, cui claves regni coelesti com¬
missae. » S. Hilarius in cap. xvi, Matth. « 0
in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae
fundamentpm, dignaque aedificatione illius
Petra, quae inferorum leges dissolveret. »
S. Gregorius Nazianzenus orat, de modera¬
tione in disputationibus servanda : « Vides,
inquit, quemadmodum ex Christi discipulis,
magnis utique omnibus et excelsis, atque
electione dignis, hic Petra vocetur, atque
Ecclesiae fundamenta fidei suae credita ha¬
beat, ac reliqui discipuli posthaberi se tran¬
quillo animo ferant. » S. Maximus serm. 3.
de Apostolis : « Quanti, inquit, meriti apud
Dominum suum Petrus erat, ut ei post na¬
viculae parvae remigium, totius Ecclesiae gu¬
bernacula traderentur ? » S. Joannes Chry-
sostomus hom. 35. in Matth. « Petrum, in¬
quit, Ecclesiae futurae Pastorem constituit. »
Et paulo post : « Deus concedere, solus po¬
test, ut futura Ecclesia tot tantisque flucti¬
bus impetu irrumpentibus immobilis maneat,
cujus Pastor, et caput homo piscator, atque
ignobilis, etc. » Hic aperte legimus, caput
Ecclesiae S. Petrum fuisse, ut etiam in se¬
quenti testimonio. S. Hieronymus lib. i, in
Jovinianum : « Inter duodecim, inquit, unus
eligitur, ut capite constituto schismatis occa¬
sio tolleretur. » Ubi si nomine capitis intel-
ligeretur primus ordine, non potestate, non
fuisset sublata schismatis occasio. S. Augu¬
stinus serm. 142. de tempore qui est primus
feriae 4. post Dominicam Palmarum : « To¬
tius corporis, inquit, morbum in ipso capite
curat Ecclesiae, et in ipso vertice componit
membrorum omnium sanitatem. » Ubi san¬
ctus Augustinus aperte vocat sanctum Pe¬
trum, caput corporis Ecclesiae. Atque haec
satis sint de Primatu sancti Petri. Caetera
quae rex addit, ad convicia pertinere, vel re¬
petitiones esse eorum, quae antea non semel
dicta fuerant, facile ex se lector intelliget.
\