Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 13: Various Calumnies Are Dissolved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The disputation on Antichrist dispatched, the king adds many things against Catholics, which are to be briefly refuted. Page 109: “And certainly,” says the king, “I believe that is no small trafficking in souls, when men are so bewitched by the hope and promise of eternal salvation that a little friar is easily persuaded to stab his king and lord; a beardless youth desperately to attack the life of the next successor; many to conspire again and again for the death of the most serene queen lately dead; lastly, while I hold the rule, to overthrow utterly by the force of gunpowder the kingdom and the estates of the kingdom, and so to make shipwreck both of mind and of soul.” This is an altogether grave censure, and the graver it is, the graver testimonies it ought to have been confirmed by. For if from the particular deeds of men judgment were to be made of doctrine, not only the doctrine of the more recent Catholics, but also of all the ancient doctors, whether in the ancient commonwealth of the Jews or in the Church of Christians, could suffer this calumny. This one thing I find in the ecclesiastical books: that an indulgence of sins was granted by the Supreme Pontiffs in general councils to those who, having taken the Cross, had taken up arms in the wars of Christian princes against unbelievers. And this indulgence I read was preached both by other learned and holy men, and especially by Saint Bernard, the Lord cooperating and confirming the word with signs following, as he himself briefly and modestly witnesses in the preface of the second book on Consideration; and this same thing is written more fully in the third book of the life of the same Saint Bernard, chapter 4. But that the hope of eternal life was promised to assassins if they plotted against the life of a king, I have nowhere read, never heard. But on the contrary I have read that in the council of Constance, session 15, that article was publicly condemned: Any tyrant can and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be killed by any vassal or subject of his whatever, even by secret ambushes, subtle flatteries or blandishments, notwithstanding any oath rendered or confederation made with him, without waiting for the sentence or command of any judge whatever. This article the council so condemned that it decreed that those are to be counted heretics, and punished as heretics, who should wish pertinaciously to defend an article of that kind. But that those whom the king brings forward as examples were persuaded by some ecclesiastical prelate, under the promise and hope of eternal life, to do what they did, the king does not prove, nor can it be established from their own confession or other indications. But if it pleases the king to hear or read true things, he will easily find that the doctrine which he objects to Catholics is proper to the innovators. Certainly of John Wycliffe the Englishman, whom the Protestants hold in esteem, and whose praises Foxe and Crespin, writers of the history of the new Gospel in England, have set at the head of their book, those articles were condemned in the council of Constance, session 8: No one is a civil lord, no one is a prelate, while he is in mortal sin. Likewise: the common people can at their discretion correct sinning lords. These are the articles of your patriarch or prophet Wycliffe, who not for tyranny only, but for any adultery whatever, or sacrilege, or unjust killing, or any other deadly crime whatever, deprives lords of their dominions, and hands them over as unjust possessors to the common people to be corrected at their discretion. And from this doctrine seems to have been born the error of which we spoke a little before. And who in Luther's times was the author to so many thousands of peasants that they should take up arms against princes? was it not the ministers of the religion reformed, or rather deformed, by Luther? Certainly that Catholics were the authors of that sedition not even the adversaries have dared to write. And those who contrived, arms being taken up, to kill Francis II, king of the French, his brothers, mother and wife, were they not evangelical brethren, Beza being the author, Calvin the persuader? Surius tells this in the history of the year of salvation 1560. Who lastly are they who stirred up so many disturbances in Scotland against this very king, and wished to reduce him to order and introduce anarchy? were they not those very men who brought the reformed religion of Calvin, as they themselves call it, into Scotland? this the king himself openly witnesses in his Basilikon Doron. Let him cease, then, to brand Catholics with that mark which he cannot deny clings to his own doctors.
The king afterwards adds, page 116, some things on the excellence of the royal dignity above the cardinal's, all of which have been examined by us in the chapter on the comparison of the king and the cardinal. On page 120 he returns again to stirring up ill will against Catholics with kings on account of the exemption of clerics; but this he especially censures, that I wrote that Saint Gregory obeyed the emperor Maurice under compulsion. “Is the man not ashamed,” says the king, “to traduce the Christian humility of that holy man Gregory, as if that had been a violent and forced service on Gregory's part, either not strong enough or not daring to resist; in which matter he does injury not to Gregory only, but wholly stains with a foul and shameful blot that splendour of humility and patience which shone in that first and still rising Church, and especially under the savagery of persecutions, if this huge glory of martyrdom and Christian patience is ascribed not to a voluntary lowliness of mind, but to necessity; that, failing either in strength or in spirit (like Jewish or Turkish slaves), they yielded to stronger adversaries; against the precepts of Saints Paul and Peter, who order subjection for conscience' sake; against also that Apology of Tertullian for the Christians, and the open profession of the ancient Fathers, everywhere repeated.” So he, who first ought to remember that whatever I wrote, I wrote from the words of Saint Gregory; I cited the epistles, I cited the commentaries on the penitential Psalms, where Pope Gregory compares the emperor Maurice with Nero and Diocletian, and most gravely censures him for having wished to subjugate the Roman Church to himself, and to impose an unbearable yoke on the whole commonwealth. The king surely ought to have answered something to the passages cited from Saint Gregory's books, and if he could have convicted me of having cited anything falsely, then at last he would rightly have branded me with impudence. But I have greatly wondered to what purpose the examples of the martyrs and the testimonies of Saints Peter and Paul brought forward pertain, as if humility and patience could not be kept, and at the same time the violence and cruelty of persecutors censured. In the second book of Maccabees, chapter 7, most holy and most patient martyrs, whose patience Saint Cyprian proclaims in book 4, epistle 6, and Saint Gregory Nazianzen in a whole oration, Saint Augustine and others everywhere, say to King Antiochus: “Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us in this present life; but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.” Christ himself, the true pattern of humility and patience, did not fear to lose patience when he said to the servant striking him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me? John 18. Saint Stephen the first martyr did not depart from the footsteps of the Lord when he said to his persecutors: You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost, Acts 7. Nor did the Apostle Paul forget patience and humility when he said to the high priest ordering his mouth to be struck: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall, Acts 23. Like things we read in the histories of the holy martyrs, and even of the holy virgins Agatha, Agnes and others. Then, why, I ask, is the humility and patience of the martyrs stained if we say that they endured scourges, wounds, fires, wheels under compulsion? For he is humble and patient enough who, forced either to deny the faith or to undergo a cruel death, prefers to undergo death, however cruel and repugnant to nature, rather than deny the faith; although he would rather that there were no one to impose so hard a necessity on him; for (as Saint Paul speaks, 2 Corinthians 5) we would not be unclothed, but clothed upon, that that which is mortal may be swallowed up by life. And to Saint Peter martyrdom is foretold by Christ in those words of John 21: When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. “Who,” he says, “would wish to suffer troubles and difficulties? you order them to be borne, not loved. No one loves what he bears, even if he loves to bear it; for although he rejoices that he bears it, he would rather there were nothing to bear.” But it is most to be wondered at that the king, when he speaks of the patience of the martyrs, brings forward the precepts of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul ordering subjects to be subject to princes for conscience' sake. As if the holy martyrs acted against the precepts of the Apostles when, despising the orders of princes, they preferred to die rather than obey their laws and edicts, by which they were ordered to deny Christ and sacrifice to devils. For to the laws of princes which do not fight against the law of God none of us says that subjects are not to obey. But it is not a matter of laws of that kind when it is a matter of martyrdom.
On page 121 the king attacks a certain passage from the Recognition of my books, which I lately published. And although I know that the king is not so curious in others' affairs as to take care that pamphlets scarcely yet published be brought to him, and understand well enough who labours for the king in matters of this kind, yet I shall answer, and clear the charges objected with a brief answer. “In a recent treatise,” he says, “to which he gave the title Recognition of the books of Controversies, he wished the peoples and subjects of each of us to be superior to our fasces.” And a little below: “Among other things, to exempt clerics from all power of temporal princes, and to establish over us the rule not only of the Pontiff but even of the people itself, are almost the chief arguments of that famous recognition.” To these I answer that I taught the exemption of clerics from the power of temporal princes with all Catholic writers without exception, both theologians and jurists; for there is some question about the right by which clerics are exempt, but that they are exempt by some right all teach. Why then is that attributed to me alone which I have in common with all? But that I made the subjects of kings superior to the kings themselves the king will not be able to prove from my books, since on the contrary in the book on the laity I taught in a long disputation that peoples ought to obey the laws of temporal kings not only of necessity but also in conscience, and to be under and subject to them. But let us hear the king's excellent argument against the exemption of clerics. “And indeed,” he says, “in that question of exempting clerics he fights with such zeal and such contention that he even denies that Caesar was the lawful judge of Paul, against the very words of the context, and Paul's appeal, by which he confessed that Caesar was his judge.” I altogether deny that Caesar was the lawful judge of Paul; for since that question which was then being handled between the Apostle and the Jews, who had delivered him into the hands of the Romans, was a question of religion, certainly an unbelieving and lay prince could not be a lawful judge. And that that cause was one of religion is clear from chapter 22 of Acts, where, Paul saying that he was sent by Christ to teach the Gentiles, the cry of the people arose: Away with such a one from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live; and from chapter 23, where Paul himself says: Concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged; and from chapter 24, where the Jews accuse him as the author of the sect of the Nazarenes; and from chapter 25, where the Roman governor himself says: When the accusers stood up, they brought no accusation of things which I thought ill of; but had certain questions of their own superstition against him, and of one Jesus deceased, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. So the chief question was of the resurrection of Christ; of which question whether Caesar was the lawful judge or not, let the king himself judge. Then, the very words of the context nowhere say that Caesar was the lawful judge of Paul, which nevertheless the king affirms, and thence censures me, as if I had denied something against the very words of the context, unless perhaps the English codices differ from the Latin and Greek. This only we read: I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged; and a little after: I appeal to Caesar, Acts 25. And again: I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar, Acts 28. Here I nowhere read that Caesar was the lawful judge of Paul, but only that on account of the importunity of the Jews Paul was constrained to appeal to Caesar, not that he might judge a cause of religion, but that he might snatch him from the hands of the Jews, from whom he could not easily be snatched by the governor of Judea. For Paul had already experienced the weakness, not to say the wickedness, of the governor Felix, who had plainly acknowledged his innocence, and yet to please the Jews left him bound when he went out of office, as we read in Acts 24.
The king goes on, page 123: “But where he disputes that the royal fasces ought to be submitted to the people, he uses this foundation of seditions, to prove that authority is not granted to kings by God immediately, as it is to Pontiffs. For any king whatever, he says, is elected by his people; nay, and the people never so transfers its power to the king but that it keeps it to itself in habit, so that in certain cases it can even receive it back in act.” So he, who, if he had deigned to recite my words as they are set down in my book, would have had no need of the labour of answering. I say, then, that I have nowhere disputed that the royal fasces ought to be submitted to the people. The little book which the king notes in the margin is small, and the passage which he cites from that book very short; namely the recognition on the third book, which is on the laity; let the reader consult the passage noted; he will find nothing of the kind. I say besides that those words are not in my book which the king cites as mine: any king whatever is elected by his people. For this proposition is neither mine, nor anyone else's that I know, and is most openly false, since there are so many successive kingdoms in the world, in which succession, not election, has place; some also elective, but by designated electors, not by the people. Lastly, neither is that opinion properly mine, that the people never so transfers its power to the king but that it keeps it to itself in habit. For I said thus: “So Navarrus, in the place noted on the chapter Novit, on judgments, notable 3, does not hesitate to affirm that the people never so transfers its power to the king but that it keeps it to itself in habit, so that in certain cases it can even receive it back in act.” These are the words of a most well known author, and read and considered for a long time by very many through all Christian provinces; and yet no one ever wrote that Navarrus laid the foundations of sedition. Why then now at last is a calumny built against me alone, reporting the words of Navarrus? But what both Navarrus and we say, that the power of the people has been transferred to the king, is found in the emperor Justinian, Institutes, on natural, national and civil law, paragraph, But also what has pleased the prince. But it is understood of the beginnings of kingdoms, not of every acquisition of a kingdom whatever. For at the beginning it was free to peoples either to create for themselves a magistrate with limited power and for a fixed time, as free commonwealths do; or to elect a king with absolute power and perpetual, and to transfer their whole power to him, as we see was done in successive kingdoms; but after a magistrate, whether temporary or perpetual, has been created, the people has no rule over the magistrate, but the magistrate, and above all the royal one, over the people; nor is it lawful without a most grave crime to fall away from one's lawful prince, or to stir up sedition or rebellion.
He goes on then, page 124, and what I said in the same Recognition, that Saul, David and Jeroboam, although anointed kings by a prophet, yet did not begin to reign without the assent of the people, he tries to refute from this, that Saul was elected king by lot, as Saint Matthias was elected an Apostle by lot; for as Saint Matthias is believed to have been elected immediately by God, without the consent of the Apostles, because the lot fell upon Matthias, so also Saul is to be believed to have been elected king immediately by God, without the assent of the people. I answer that both Saint Matthias and Saul, although they were elected by lot, were nevertheless elected not immediately by God, but through the consent of men. For as to Saint Matthias, the history is clear, Acts 1. For Saint Peter, the assembly of the brethren being called together, who were about a hundred and twenty, taught from prophecy that it was necessary that one be elected in the place of Judas; then by common consent two were chosen, who seemed the best of all; but because it was not established which of the two was to be preferred, they had recourse to prayer, and to the counsel of lots, which the Jews were wont to use in doubtful matters, to understand the will of God. For that is the best election by which men elect him whom they persuade themselves has been chosen beforehand by God. So they gave them lots, praying God to direct the lots, and to show by that sign whom he himself had chosen beforehand; and when the lot fell upon Matthias, they themselves also elected him; for what we read, he was numbered with the eleven Apostles, in the Greek text is, he was elected by votes, as also the translator of Chrysostom renders it. So God elected Saint Matthias, and the Apostles elected the same. And the Apostles elected partly by their own judgment and counsel, partly by the help of lots. And as to Saul, the matter is still clearer; for Saul was chosen by lot that the people might have a sign of the divine will, and know whom it could safely elect, and on whom it could securely transfer its power. And indeed, the lot falling upon Saul, many of the people cried, Long live the king; many also refused to consent to that election; but a little after, when Saul had proved his valour by a certain notable deed, he was elected by unanimous consent, as is found in 1 Kings 11: All the people went, says the Scripture, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. And that it may be understood that the judgment of lots was among the Hebrews rather an indication, or a prejudgment, than an absolute judgment, the divine Scriptures are to be consulted, Joshua 7, 1 Kings 14 and Jonah 1. For in these three passages it is investigated by lots who out of many was guilty of the offence committed. But he on whom the lot fell is not punished before he himself confesses the offence with his own mouth. What the king afterwards adds about the election of the Supreme Pontiff, not by lots thrown into an urn, but by huge money into the jaws of cardinals, belongs to calumnies. We certainly have twice been present at the election of Pontiffs, and yet have heard nothing of that huge money; but it is customary with the adversaries to transfer to all Catholics that in which one man once perhaps sinned; for so happily is their Gospel propagated. But what he says on pages 125 and 126, that he wonders that, my memory slipping, I fight against myself in the same small work, because I said that Saul and David, anointed by a prophet, needed the consent of the people to obtain the kingdom, and yet in the same work wrote that in Cyprian's age the power of electing bishops was not with the people: I wonder at his wonder; for these are not contrary to each other: a king was elected by the people in the time of Samuel, and a bishop was not elected by the people in the time of Cyprian. For what contrariety, I ask, what repugnance is here, where the persons and times are most different? And if those are contraries, these too will be contraries, and he will fight against himself who says: the king of Poland is elected by the people, the emperor is not elected by the people but by the princes; the king of the French is elected neither by the people nor by the princes, but acquires the kingdom by hereditary succession. What was the manner of electing bishops in Cyprian's time he himself witnesses in these words, book 1, epistle 4: “Among us, and through almost all the provinces, it is held that for celebrating ordinations rightly, all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should come together to that people for whom a prelate is ordained, and the bishop be chosen in the presence of the people, which most fully knows the life of each, and has looked into the conduct of each from his behaviour.” And a little before: “That in the presence of the people,” he says, “either the crimes of the bad may be uncovered, or the merits of the good proclaimed.” So he, from which we understand that the election of bishops belonged to the people by way of testimony of life and morals, but to the bishops of the same province by way of judgment and authority. But, says the king, when it is a matter of a king, Bellarmine would have the power of electing designated by the consent of the people; when it is a matter of a bishop, by that same consent he understands not the right of electing, but of confirming an election made by others. I answer that here too there is no repugnance; for that the consent of the people was necessary for the election of a king the words of Scripture show, which say: there they made Saul king before the Lord; that the consent of the people was used for bearing testimony of the life and morals of those to be elected, or elected, by the bishops, the words of Saint Cyprian cited a little before show.
The king goes on, and from page 127 to 133 says much about the gunpowder conspiracy against Garnet and Oldcorne, Jesuits; of which matter, since it consists for the greatest part in fact, and there exists the publicly printed proceeding against Garnet, full of lies, and shortly there will exist an answer, which is now wholly written, and has also been carefully read through by me, I refer the reader to it. This only I shall briefly refute, which in going over that history is said properly against Bellarmine. Bellarmine had written that Henry Garnet the Jesuit had indeed known of that gunpowder treason, but in sacramental confession, which he could by no means disclose. The king on the contrary strives to show both that Garnet was privy to that treason outside sacramental confession, and that treasons of that kind heard in sacramental confession can and ought to be disclosed, provided the person of the one confessing is not disclosed. To these two I answer thus. That Garnet, not only at his trial, but even on the scaffold itself, now on the point of death, openly pronounced that he had not been privy to that treason except in sacramental confession, there are many witnesses, but one especially, a grave man, not a priest, not a Jesuit, not a student of a seminary, who, being on the scaffold itself close to Garnet himself, solemnly affirmed to me that he received this from the mouth of the same Garnet; which I easily believed, who, having enjoyed Garnet's acquaintance for many years, knew very well the supreme probity and innocence of that man, joined with the highest wit and learning of every kind. But that the seal of sacramental confession can be disclosed to avert a huge harm, provided the person of the one confessing is kept silent, I am not ignorant. But I ask the king: if Garnet had reported that he knew that death threatened the king from traitors, would he have allowed, out of reverence for the sacrament of confession, the person of the traitor to be passed over in silence? Certainly he who believes there is no sacrament of confession, and who, that a seal of that kind, as most pernicious to the commonwealth, might be averted, would at once have ordered Garnet to be hurried into chains and examined by the most exquisite tortures, and would not have ceased until he had come to the knowledge of the traitor and of all his accomplices. So it is lawful to open a treason known in sacramental confession, in general words, to a Christian and godly prince, that he may prepare a remedy for the impending evil, because it is held for certain that that prince will ask nothing beyond what is right; but to a prince a stranger to the true religion, who laughs at the seal of confession divinely commanded, and who it is well enough established will not allow the person of the one confessing to lie hid, it is in no way lawful.
Lastly the king, on pages 134, 135 and 136, tries to remove from himself the reputation of cruel savagery toward Catholics. “And first,” he says, “I constantly assert this, that no one here, whether in my times or in those of the dead queen, has suffered the last punishment for the cause of conscience and religion. For however devoted to his religion a man may be, however openly and constantly he professes it, no danger of his life hangs over him from the laws, unless it is found that he has offended against the laws by some external act, or entered into a conspiracy or counsel pernicious to the state; only the mass-priests excepted, and the others of the papal party who are initiated in regions beyond the sea.” To these the answer is easy; for even if it were true that no one in England suffers the extreme punishment for the cause of religion unless he has offended against the laws by some external act, yet because the laws forbid receiving Catholic priests into the house, forbid being reconciled with the Catholic Church, forbid being present at the sacrifice of the Mass, order the oath to be rendered on the primacy of the king in spiritual things, or certainly order the oath to be taken about not regarding the excommunication of the Supreme Pontiff, and many other things of that kind which pertain to religion; therefore those who suffer the last punishment for the transgression of laws of that kind can deservedly be said to suffer the last punishment for religion. Then, those who are punished because they have been initiated in holy orders in regions beyond the sea, since in their own country holy orders of that kind are not conferred, are they not punished for religion? do not holy orders pertain to religion? Hence namely so many martyrs are counted in the book on the English persecution, and in the other on the English schism of Nicholas Sander, and in other books of Catholics. For it matters little to martyrdom whether someone is killed because he is a Catholic Christian, or because he has transgressed a law which orders the Catholic faith to be abjured. For the pagan emperors set forth edicts that it should be lawful for no one to confess Christ as God, or that those suspected of Christianity should be ordered to sacrifice publicly to the gods. Then, as disobedient to the laws of the emperors, they punished them. And as the king in this same place says that the mass-priests are kept from the borders of England under pain of treason, because they are infamous for conspiracies and treasons either conceived or praised; so also the pagan princes imputed to Christians whatever crime was publicly done; as even for the fire of which Nero himself had been the author, on the witness of Suetonius, and by which a great part of the City was burned, the emperor Nero destroyed very many Christians, as its authors, with the most exquisite tortures, as Tacitus has recorded in book 15 of the Annals. Certainly the hatred of the gunpowder conspiracy has been turned on the Jesuits, although neither the Jesuits nor anyone of the number of priests was a partaker of that conspiracy. And let these things be said on the supposition that what the king in this place so constantly affirms were true. But that it is manifestly false is established both from book 3 on the English schism, and from the book of Andreas Philopater, section 4, page 266 and following, where from the very histories of the English heretics it is openly shown that very many, both clerics and laymen, were put to death for the cause of the Catholic religion alone; so that it is a wonder the king wished to write things which are refuted from the words or writings of his own subjects. But since the king, page 136, defames the times of Queen Mary, a Catholic and godly princess, with the mark of savagery, saying: “Then no atrocity of punishments was omitted against men, against women, against infants professing our religion; nay, against the laws of God and nature, death was most monstrously inflicted on pregnant women, and an infant leaping from its mother's womb was thrown into the same flames with its mother”; it must be known that this whole tragedy is raised over the obstinacy of one little harlot, who, being pregnant, would never confess that she was pregnant. She was therefore given to the fire, after the manner of pertinacious heretics; and that not only her heresy but her lie too might be laid open, there came from her womb not an infant, but a shapeless and lifeless piece of flesh, which it is no wonder was thrown into the fire; as it would truly be a wonder, and a thing to be execrated, if a living infant had come forth. But this monstrousness was as far from the morals of those who presided over the courts in Mary's reign as those who invent these things are far from the love of truth. This history, if however it is a history, I have received by report, not read in any book. But I know also that it is held for a fable by grave men, invented namely by Foxe, a most skilled craftsman of things of that kind. Let the reader consult Harding against Jewel, or the author of the Threefold Conversion of England against Foxe.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Diluuntur variae calumniae. Expedita disputatione de Antichristo, rex multa addit adversus Catholicos, quae brevi¬ ter refellenda sunt pag. 109 : « Et certe, inquit rex, credo, non est illa mediocris ani¬ marum negotiatio, cum homines, usque eo spe et promissione aeternae salutis fascinan¬ tur, ut facile persuadeatur fraterculo, regem dominum suum confodere; imberbi adole- scentulo in vitam proximi successoris per¬ dite invadere ; multis in serenissimae reginae nuper defunctae necem saepius conjurare ; denique me imperium obtinente nitrati pul¬ veris impetu regnum, regnique ordines fun¬ ditus evertere, atque ita tam animi, quam animae jacturam facere. » (c) Haec gravis omnino reprehensio est, et quanto est gravior, tanto gravioribus testi¬ moniis confirmari debuisset. Nam si ex particularibus hominum factis de doctrina judicandum esset, non solum doctrina recen- tiorum Catholicorum, sed etiam veterum omnium Doctorum, sive in Republica anti¬ qua Judaeorum, sive in Ecclesia Christiano- (1) Apo. XVII, 7. (a) Mulier , quce insidet bestice , non est Antichristus. — (b) Inepte adversarii equitem cum equo confundunt. — (c) Atrocissima calumnia apertissime refutatur. 182 APOLOGLE GAP. XIII. rum hanc calumniam pali posset. Illud unum in libris Ecclesiasticis invenio; indulgentiam peccatorum a Summis Pontificibus in gene¬ ralibus conciliis concessam fuisse iis, qui Cruce suscepta in bellis Christianorum prin- cipum adversus infideles arma sumpsissent. Atque hanc indulgentiam pr;e dicatam lego, tum ab aliis viris doctis, et sanctis, tum prae¬ cipue a S. Bernardo, Domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis ; ut ipse breviter modesteque testatur in prae¬ fatione libri secundi de Consideratione : et fusius hoc ipsum scribitur in tertio libro de vita ejusdem S. Bernardi cap. 4. At quod sicariis promissa sit spes aeternae vitae, si regnum vitee insidientur, nusquam legi, numquam audivi. Sed contra potius legi in concilio Constantien i sess. 15. pu¬ blice damnatum articulum illum, Uuihbet Tyrrannus potest, et debet licite, et merito¬ rie occidi per quemcumque vassallum suum, et subditum, etiam per clamculares insidias, subtiles blanditias, vel adulationes, non ob¬ stante quocumque praestito juramento, seu confoederatione factis cum eo, non expectata sententia, vel mandato judicis cujuscumque. Hunc articulum ita damnavit concilium, ut haereticos censendos, et ut haereticos punien¬ dos esse decreverit, qui ejusmodi articulum pertinaciter defendere voluerint. Illos autem, quos in exemplum rex addu¬ cit, fuisse persuasos ab aliquo Ecclesiastico Antistite sub promissione, et spe vitae aeter¬ nae, ut facerent quod fecerunt, rex non pro¬ bat, neque ex confessione ipsorum, aut aliis indiciis constare potest. Sed si regi placeat vera audire, vel legere, facile inveniet do¬ ctrinam, quam objicit Catholicis, propriam esse novatorum. Certe Joannis Wicleffi Angli, quem Pro- testantes in pretio habent, et ejus laudes in capite libri posuerunt Foxius, et Crispinus historiae novi Evangeliiin Anglia scriptores, illi articuli sunt in concilio Constantiensi damnati sess. 8. Nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est praelatus, dum est in peccato mor¬ tali. (a) Item populares possunt ad suum ar¬ bitrium Dominos peccantes corrigere. Hi sunt articuli Patriarchae, vel Prophetae vestri Wicleffi, qui non ob tyrannidem so¬ lum, sed ob quodlibet adulterium, vel sacri¬ legium, vel injustam caedem, vel ob quod- cumque aliud lethale crimen dominos pri¬ vat dominiis suis ; et quasi injustos possesso¬ res tradit popularibus pro arbitrio corrigen¬ dos. Atque < x hac doctrina natus qsse vide¬ tur error, de quo paulo ante diximus. Quis autem Lutheri temporibus auctor fuit tot millibus rusticorum, ut adversus principes arma sumerent? nonne Ministri reformatae vel deformatae potius a Luthero re igionis? Catholicos 'certe fuisse sed itionis illius auctores, ne adveisarii quidem scri¬ bere a isi sunt. (Jui vero Franciscum regem Francorum secundum, fratres, matrem, et conjugem sumptis armis interficere moliti sunt; nonne Fratres evangel ci fuerunt, au¬ ctore Beza. suasore Calvino? Id Surius nar¬ rat in historia anni salutis 1560. (Jui denique sunt, qui tot tur. as in Scotia adversus hunc ipsum regem excitarunt, quique eum in or¬ dinem redigere, et anarchiam introducere voluerunt, nonne illi ipsi, qui reformatam Calvini religionem, ut ipsi eam vocant, in Scotiam introduxerunt? hoc rex ipse in suo Basilico Doro aperte testatur. Desinat igitur notam illam Catholicis inurere, quam in Do- ctoribus suis inhaerere negare non potest. Subjungit postea rex pag. 116. nonnulla de excellentia regiae dignitatis supra Cardinali- tiam, quae omnia sunt a nobis excussa in capite de comparatione regis, et Cardinalis. Pag. 120. iterum revertitur ad invidiam conflandam Catholicis apud reges ob exem¬ ptionem Clericorum : sed illud praecipue re¬ prehendit, quod scripserim S. Gregorium Mauritio imperatori coactum paruisse. « Non pudet, inquit rex, hominem, Christianam Sancti illius viri, Gregorii, humilitatem tra¬ ducere, quasi id fuisset violentum, coactum¬ que obsequium Gregerio, vel non satis va¬ lente, vel non auso repugnare, qua in re non injuriam Gregorio tantum facit, sed om¬ nino humilitatis, ac patientiae splendorem illum, qui in prima illa, et adhuc oriente Ecclesia, ac praesertim sub persecutionum saevitia nituit, foeda, turpique labe maculat; si haec ingens martyrii, et Christianae pa¬ tientiae gloria non dimissioni animi sponta¬ neae, sed necessitati adscribatur; quod aut viribus, aut animis defecti (instar Judaeo¬ rum, aut Turcicorum mancipiorum) fortio¬ ribus adversariis cederent : contra SS. Pauli Petrique praecepta, qui propter con¬ scientiam subditos esse jubent, contra illam etiam Tertulliani pro Christianis Apologiam, (a) Haereticorum proprium est in proprios dominos arma sumere. APOLOGIS CAP. XIII. 183 et antiquorum Patrum apertam professio¬ nem, et ubique repetitam. » Haec ille, qui(fl) primum meminisse debe¬ ret, me quicquid scripsi, ex verbis S. G ego- rii scripsisse, citavi epistolas, c tavi Com¬ mentaria in Psal. poenitent. ubi Mauritium imperatorem Gregorius Papa cum Nerone, et Diocletiano comparat : cumque gravis¬ sime reprehendit, quod Ecclesiam Romanam sibi subjugare, quodque jugum importabile toti reipubheae imponere voluisset. Oportuis¬ set sane regem ad loca cilata ex S. Gregoiii libris aliquid respondere, et si me falso ali¬ quid citasse convincere potuisset, tum de¬ mum jure me impudentiae notasset. Miratus autem valde sum, quorsum exem¬ pla Martyrum, et testimonia SS. Petri, et Pauli allata pertineant, quasi non possit hu¬ militas, et patientia servari, et simul violen¬ tia, et crudelitas persecutorum reprehendi. In secundo libro Machab. cap. vn. Martyres sanctissimi, et patientissimi, quorum patien¬ tiam, praedicat S. Cyprianus lib. iv. epist. 6. et sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus integra oratione, S. Augustinus, et alii passi m, An¬ tiocho regi dicunt : « Tu quidem scelestis¬ sime in praesenti vita nos perdis, sed rex mundi nos pro suis legibus defunctos, in aeternae vitae resurrectione suscitabit. » Chri¬ stus ipse humilitatis, et patientia; verum exemplar, non timuit patientiam amittere, si servo caedenti se diceret, Si male locutus sum , testimonium perhibe de malo : sin autem bene , cur me caedis? Joan. xvm. S. Stepha- nus primus Martyr a vestigiis Domini non recessit, cum persecutoribus suis dixit, Dura cervice , et incircvmcisi cordibus , et auribus , vos semper Spiritui sancto resistitis. Act. vii. Neque Apostolus Paulus oblitus est patien¬ tiae, et humilitatis, cum Pontifici jubenti percuti os ejus dixit : Percutiet te Deus pa¬ ries dealbate (I). Act. xxm. Similia legimus in historiis sanctorum Martyrum, et ipsarum etiam sanctarum Virginum Agathae, Agne- tis, et aliarum. Deinde, cur, quaeso, maculatur humilitas, et patientia Martyrum, si dicamus, eos coa¬ ctos subiisse flagella, vulnera, ignes, rotas? Satis enim humilis, et patiens est, qui coa¬ ctus fidem negare, aut crudelem mortem subire, mavult subire mortem, quantumvis crudelem, et naturae repugnantem, quam negare fidem : quamvis magis vellet, nemi¬ nem esse, qui tam duram ei necessitatem imponeiel: nam (ut loquitur S. Paulus II Corinth. v.) Nolumus expoliari, sed super¬ vestiri, ut absorbeatur quod mortale est a vita. Et S. Petro praedicitur a Christo Marty¬ rium, per ea verba Joan. xxi. Cum senueris , extendes manus tuas , et alius cinget te , et du¬ cet quo tu non vis (2i. « Quis, inquit, velit molestias, et difficultates pati? tolerare jubes eas, non amare. Nemo quod tolerat, amat, etsi tolerare amat, quamvis enim gaudeat se tolerare, mavult tamen non esse quod tole¬ ret. » Sed maxime admirandum est, quod rex cum loquitar de patientia Martyrum, addu¬ cat praecepta SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli jubentium propter conscientiam subditos esse principibus. Quasi Martyres Sancti con¬ tra praecepta Apostolorum facerent, quando contemnentes jussa principum malebant mo¬ ri, quam eorum legibus, edictisque parere, quibus Christum abnegare, et daemonibus immolare jubebantur. Legibus enim princi¬ pum, quae contra legem Dei non pugnant, nemo nostrum dicit, parendum non esse a subditis. Sed de ejusmodi legibus non agi¬ tur, cum de martyrio agitur. Pag. 121. exagitat rex locum quemdam ex Recognitione librorum meorum, quam nu¬ per edidi. Et quamvis sciam regem, non tam esse curiosum in alienis rebus, ut libel¬ los vix dum editos ad se deferri curet : et satis intelligam, quis in ejusmodi rebus regi laboret : respondebo tamen, et objecta cri¬ mina brevi responsione purgabo. « Nupero, inquit, tractatu, cui titulum fecit, Recognitio librorum de controversiis : uniuscujusque nostrum populos, ac subditos nostris fascibus superiores esse voluit. » Et paulo infra : « Inter caetera, eximere Clericos ab omni temporalium Principum potestate : et non modo Pontificis, sed et ipsius populi supra nos imperium stabilire pene praecipua sunt egregiae illius recognitionis argumenta. » Ad haec ego respondeo, exemptionem cle¬ ricorum a temporalium principum potestate, docuisse me cum omnibus omnino scripto¬ ribus Catholicis, tam theologis, quam jure¬ consultis ; quaestio enim aliqua est de jure, quo clerici sunt exempti, sed aliquo jure exemptos esse omnes docent. Cur ergo mihi (1) Joan. XVIII, 23 ; Act. VII, 51 ; Act. XXIII, 3; —(21 Joan. XXI, 18. (a) Refellitur nova calumnia , circa sancti Gregorii , et Beatorum Martyrum patientiam. * APOLOGLE GAP. XIII. 181 uni tribuitur, quod est mihi cum omnibus commune? quod autem subditos regum ipsis regibus superiores fecerim, non poterit rex ex libris meis probare, cum contra potius in lib. de laicis, debere populos legibus regum temporalium, non solum ex necessitate, sed etiam in conscientia obedire, eisque subesse, et subjacere longa disputatione docuerim. Sed audiamus egregium argumentum re¬ gis adversus clericorum exemptionem. « Et quidem, inquit, in illa eximendorum Cleri¬ corum quaestione, eo studio, caque conten¬ tione depugnat, ut et Caesarem neget legiti¬ mum judicem Pauli fuisse contra ipsa con¬ textus verba, et provocati oti em Pauli, qua Caesarem suum esse judicem fatebatur. # (a) Omnino nego Caesarem legitimum judi¬ cem Pauli fuisse : nam cum ea quaestio quae tunc agebatur inter Apostolum, et Judaeos, qui eum tradiderant in manus Romanorum, esset quaestio de Religione; certe non pote¬ rat judex legitimus esse princeps infidelis, et laicus. Causam autem illam fuisse Reli¬ gionis perspicuum est ex cap. 22. Act. ubi Paulo dicente, se missum esse a Christo, ut gentes doceret, clamor populi ortus est : Tolle de terra hujusmodi: non enim fas est eum vivere ; et ex cap. xxm. ubi Paulus ipse dicit, quoniam de spe, et resurrectione mor¬ tuorum ego judicor; et ex cap. jxxiv. ubi accusant eum Judaei, tamquam auctorem sectae Nazarenorum ; et ex cap. xxv. ubi praeses ipse Romanus dicit : t um stetissent accusatores , nullam causam deferebant , de quibus ego suspicabar malum : quaestiones ve¬ ro quasdam de sua superstitione habebant ad¬ versus eum, et de quodam Jesu de functo , quem affirmabat Paulus vivere. Itaque praecipua quaestio erat de resurrectione Christi : cujus quaestionis esset ne Caesar judex legitimus, an non, rex ipse judicet. Deinde ipsa verba contextus nusquam di¬ cunt Caesarem fuisse legitimum judicem Pauli, quod tamen rex affirmat, et inde me reprehendit, quasi negaverim aliquid contra ipsa contextus verba, nisi forte codices An- glicani a Latinis, Graecisque dissentiant. Id solum nos legimus, Ad tribunal Caesaris sto , ubi me oportet judicari; et paulo post, Caesa¬ rem appello. Act. xxv. Et rursum, Coactus sum appellare Caesarem. Act. xxvm. Hic nus¬ quam lego, Caesarem fuisse judicem legiti¬ mum Pauli, sed solum ob importunitatem Judaeorum, coactum fuisse Paulum appel¬ lare Caesarem, non ut judicaret causam reli¬ gionis, sed ut eriperet eum de manibus Ju¬ daeorum, a quibus non facile eripi poterat per praesidem Judaeae. Jam enim expertus fuerat Paulus debilitatem, ne dicam impro¬ bitatem felicis Praesidis, qui plane agnove¬ rat innocentiam ipsius, et tamen in gratiam Judaeorum reliquit eum vinctum, cum ma¬ gistratu abiret, ut legimus Act. xxiv. Pergit rex pag. -123. «Ubi vero, inquit, fasces regios populo submitti debere dispu¬ tat, hoc seditionum fundamento utitur, ut prohet non regibus auctoritatem a Deo im¬ mediate, perinde ac Pontificibus, esse con¬ cessam. Nam rex quilibet, inquit, a populo suo eligitur ; immo et populus numquam ita suam potestatem in regem transfert, quin illam sibi in habitu retineat, ut in certis ca¬ sibus etiam actu recipere possit. » Haec ille, qui ( b ) si dignatus fuisset verba mea, ut in libro meo posita sunt recitare , respondendi labore opus non esset. Aio igi¬ tur me usquam disputasse, fasces regios po¬ pulo submitti debere. Libellus quem rex ad marginem notat exiguus est, et locus quem ex eo libro, citat brevissimus ; recognitio videlicet in librum tertium, qui est de lai¬ cis : consulat lector locum notatum, nihil ejusmodi reperiet. Aio praeterea, non esse in meo libro illa verba, quae rex citat ut mea ; rex quilibet a populo suo eligitur. Haec enim propositio nec mea est, neque ullius alterius, quod sciam, et apertissime falsa est ; cum tam multa sint in orbe terrarum regna successi¬ va, in quibus successio non electio locum habet: nonnulla etiam electiva, sed per ele¬ ctores designatos, non per populum. Denique neque illa sententia est proprie mea, quod populus numquam ita transferat potestatem suam in regem, quin illam sibi in habitu retineat. Ego enim sic dixi : « Ita¬ que Navarrus loco notato in cap. Novit, de Judic. notab. 3. non dubitat affirmare, num¬ quam populum ita potestatem suam in re¬ gem transferre, quin illam sibi in habitu re¬ tineat, ut in certis casibus etiam actu reci¬ pere possit. )> Haec verba auctoris notissimi sunt, et per omnes Christianas provincias, a plurimis lecta, et considerata longo tem- j a) Etiam in controversia de Religione Paganum imperatorem adversarii judicem faciunt. — ( b\ Non bona fide referuntur verba Beltarmini. \ APOLOGLE CAP. XIII. 185 pore : et tamen nemo unquam scripsit, Na¬ vamini jecisse fundamenta seditionis. Cur igitur nunc tandem mihi soli verba Navarri referenti calumnia struitur? Quod autem et Navarrus, et nos dicimus, populi potestatem in regem esse translatam, habetur apud Justinianum imperatorem In- stitut. de jure natui-, gent. et civili, §'. sed et quod principi placuit. Sed intelligitur de primordiis regnorum, non de quacumque regni adeptione. Initio enim liberum fuit populis, vel Magistratum cum determinata potestate, et ad certum tempus sibi creare, ut respublica! liberae faciunt ; vel regem cum absoluta potestate, et perpetuum eligere, atque in eo totam suam potestatem trans¬ ferre ; ut in regnis successivis factum esse videmus : sed posteaquam magistratus sive temporalis, sive peipetuus creatus est : non habet imperium populus in magistiv u, sed magistratus, ac regius potissimum in populum : neque licet sine gravissimo cri¬ mine a legitimo principe suo deficere, aut seditionem, rebellionemve agitare. Pergit deinde pag. 124. et quod in eadem Recognitione dixi, Saulem , Davidem, et Hieroboam, quamvis a Propheta inunctos in reges, tamen non sine populi assensu re¬ gnare coepisse; conatur refellere ex eo quod Saul sorte electus fuit in regem, ut S. Mat- thias sorte electus est in Apostolum, quem- a*dmodum enim S. Matthias immediate a Deo, sine Apostolorum consensu, electus creditur, quia cecidit sors super Matthiam; sic etiam Saul immediate a Deo, sine populi assensu, fuisse credendus est electus in re¬ gem. Respondeo et S. Matthiam, et Saulem, quamvis sorte electi sint, non tamen imme- * diate a Deo, sed per consensum hominum electos esse. Quod enim attinet ad (a) S. Matthiam, historia perspicua est Actor, i. S. enim Petrus convocato coetu fratrum, qui erant ad centum viginti, docuit ex pro¬ phetia necesse esse eligi unum in locum Ju- dae : tum communi consensu electi sunt duo, qui videbantur omnium optimi : sed quo¬ niam non constabat ex duobus uter esset praeferendus, confugerunt ad orationem, et ad consilium sortium, quo in rebus dubiis uti solebant Judaei, ut intelligerent volunta^ tem Dei. Illa enim optima est electio, qua homines eligunt eum, quem a Deo praeele- ctum sibi persuadent. Itaque dederunt sortes eis, orantes Deum, ut sortes dirigeret, et ostenderet eo signo, quem ipse praeelegisset, ubi autem cecidit sors super Matthiam, ipsi quoque eum elegerunt, quod enim nos legi¬ mus annumeratus est cum undecim Aposto¬ lis, in graeco textu est auvxaUJ/7]©i<j9/), id est, suffragiis electus est, ut etiam interpres Chrysostomi vertit. Itaque Deus elegit S. Matthiam, et Apostoli eumdem elegerunt. Elegerunt autem Apostoli partim judicio, et consilio proprio, partim sortium auxilio. Quod autem ad Saulem attinet, res est adhuc clarior : ( b ) sorte enim electus est Saul, ut haberet populus signum divina! vo¬ luntatis, et sciret quem tuto eligere, et in quem potestatem suam transferre secure posset. Et quidem cadente sorte super Sau¬ lem, multi de populo clamaverunt, vivat rex ; multi etiam recusarunt consentire in eam electionem : sed paulo post cum Saul facto quodam egregio virtutem suam pro- basset, unanimi consensu electus fuit, ut habetur I Reg. xi. Perrexit , inquit Scriptura, omnis populus, et fecerunt ibi regem Saul co¬ ram Domino in Galgala (1). Ut autem intel- ligatur, (c) judicium sortium fuisse apud Hebrams indicium potius, sive praejudicium, quam absolutum judicium : consulendae sunt Scripturae divinae Josue vii. I Reg. xiv. et Jonae i. In his enim tribus locis investigatur per sortes, quis ex multis reus esset com¬ missi delicti. Sed ille in quem sors cecidit, non prius punitur, quam ipse delictum ore proprio confiteatur. Quod postea rex addit de electione summi Pontificis, non conjectu sortium in urnam, sed praegrandi pecunia in Cardinalium fauces, ad calumnias perti¬ net. Nos certe electioni Pontificum bis inter¬ fuimus, nec tamen de praegrandi ista pecu¬ nia quidquam audivimus, sed solemne est adversariis id, in quo unus aliquando forte peccavit, ad omnes Catholicos transferre : sic enim feliciter ipsorum Evangelium pro¬ pagatur. Quod vero pag. 125. et 126. dicit , mirari se quod lapsus memoria, in eodem parvo (1) I Reg. II,. 15. (a) S. Matthias non sola sorte , sed etiam suffragio Apostolorum electus fuit. — (b) Saul Rex et forte , et suffragiis electus fuit. — (c) Apud Hebraeos judicio fortium investigabantur occulta cri¬ mina* 186 APOLOGLE CAP. XIII. opusculo mecura ipse pugnem, quod Sau- lem, et Davidcm a Propheta inunctos dixe¬ rim eguisse populi consensu, ut regnum adipiscerentur : et tamen in eodem opu¬ sculo scripserim, Cypriani arate potestatem eligendi Episcopos non fuisse apud popu¬ lum : Ego admirationem ejus miror; haec enim inter se contraria non sunt, rex elige¬ batur a populo tempore Samuelis, et, Epi¬ scopus non eligebatur a populo tempore Cy¬ priani. Quae enim, rogo, hic contrarietas, quae repugnantia est, ubi persome, et tem¬ pora diversissima sunl?qu d si illa contra ria sunt, etiam ista erunt contraria, et secum ipse pugnabit, qui dixerit, rex Polouiae eligitur a populo, imperator non eligitur a populo, sed a principibus ; rex Francorum neque a populo, neque a prin¬ cipibus eligitur, sed haereditaria successione regnum acquirit. (a) Quae fuerit Cypriani tempore ratio electionis Episcoporum, ipse his verbis tes¬ tatur lib. i. epist. 4. « Apud nos, et fere per provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordina¬ tiones rite celebrandas, ad eam plebem cui praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, et Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente, quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, et unius¬ cujusque actum de ejus conversatione pers¬ pexit. » Et paulo ante: «Ut plebe praesente, inquit, vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur. » Haec ille, ex quo intelligimus ad plebem perti¬ nuisse Episcoporum electionem per testimo¬ nium vitae, et morum; ad Episcopos autem provinciae ejusdem per judicium, et aucto¬ ritatem. At, inquit rex, cum agitur de rege, Bel- larminus vult per consensum populi eligendi potestatem designari : cum agitur de Epi¬ scopo, eodem illo consensu non jus eligendi, sed electionem ab aliis factam confirmandi intelligit. Respondeo, nullam hic quoque esse repugnantiam : nam consensum po¬ puli fuisse necessarium ad regis electionem demonstrant verba Scripturae, quae dicunt, tecerunt ibi regem Saul coram Domino : consensum populi adhibitum fuisse ad tes¬ timonium ferendum de vita, et moribus eli¬ gendorum, vel electorum ab Episcopis, de¬ monstrant verba S. Cypriani paulo ante cita ta. Pergit rex, et a pag. 127. ad 133. multa dicit de conjuratione pulveraria adversus Garnettum, et Ouldcornium Jesuitcls, de qua re, quoniam maxima ex parte in facto consistit, et exstat publice edita actio in Gar¬ nettum, plena mendaciis; et brevi exstabit responsio, quae jam tota conscripta est, atque a me quoque diligenter perlecta ; ad illam lectorem remitto. Id solum paucis re¬ fellam, quod in historia ista percensenda, adversus Bellarminum proprie dicitur. Seri | serat Bellai minus, \b) Henricum Garnettum Jesuitam , proditionem illam pulverariam novisse quidem, sed in confes¬ sione sacram entali, quam detegere nulla ra¬ tione poterat. Rex contra demonstrare niti¬ tur, et Garnettum ejus proditionis extra confessionem sacramentalem conscium fuis¬ se : et proditiones ejusmodi in sacramentali confessione auditas, posse ac debere detegi, modo persona confitentis non detegatur. Ad haec duo ita respondeo. Quod Garnettus, non solum in judicio, sed etiam in ipso Theatro jam jam moriturus aperte pronun- ciaverit, se proditionis illius conscium non fuisse, nisi in confessione sacramentali; te¬ stes multi sunt, sed unus praecipue vir gravis, non Sacerdos, non Jesuita, non seminarii Alumnus, qui in ipso theatro prope ipsum Garnettum cum esset, ex ore ejusdem Gatr- netti id se accepisse mihi sancte affirmavit, quod ego facile credidi, qui multorum anno¬ rum Garnetti consuetudine usus, optime no¬ vi summam illius viri probitatem, et inno¬ centiam, cum summa ingenii, . et omnis generis eruditione conjunctam. (c) Sigillum vero confessionis sacramen- talis posse detegi ad ingens detrimentum avertendum, modo persona confitentis reti¬ ceatur, non ignoro. Sed quaero a rege, si Garnettus retulisset, scire se regi a prodito¬ ribus mortem imminere : an passus fuisset ob religionem sacramenti confessionis, per¬ sonam proditoris silentio praeteriri? certe qui confessionis sacramentum nullum esse credit, quique ejusmodi sigillum, ut reipu- blicae maxime perniciosum avertatur, mox Garnettum rapi in vincula, et exquisitissi¬ mis tormentis examinari j ussisset, neque (a) Quos fuerit electionis forma, tempore S. Crypiani .— (6) Henricus Garnettus in sacramentali tantum confessione proditionem pulverariam novit. — (c) An liceat sigillum confessionis sacr amen¬ tatis detegere in aliquo casu. APOLOGIS GAP: XIII. 187 destitisset donec in cognitionem Proditoris, et omnium ejus consciorum devenisset : licet igitur proditionem in sacramentali confes¬ sione cognitam verbis generalibus Chri¬ stiano, et pio principi aperire, ut remedium imminenti malo paret, quia pro comperto habetur, eum principem nihil ultra fas in¬ terrogaturum : sed principi a vera Religione alieno qui sigillum confessionis divinitus imperatum irridet, etquem satis constat non passurum, ut persona confitentis lateat, nullo modo licet. . Denique rex pag. 134. 13o. et 136. opi¬ nionem crudelis saevitiae in Catholicos a se removere conatur. « Ac primum, inquit, id constanter assevero, hic neminem sive meis sive defunctae reginae temporibus, conscien¬ tiae, ac Religionis causa ultimo supplicio af¬ fectum. Nam quantumvis Religioni suae de¬ ditus sit , quantumvis eam aperte , et constanter profiteatur, nullum ei a legibus impendent capitis periculum, nisi comperto contra leges, externo aliquo actu deliquisse : aut conjurationem, consilliumve summae rei perniciosum iniisse : exceptis tantummodo sacrificulis, caeterisque Pontificiarum par¬ tium, qui in transmarinis regionibus initian¬ tur. » Ad haec facilis est responsio : nam (a) ta¬ metsi verum esset, neminem in Anglia reli¬ gionis causa extremo supplicio aftici, nisi contra leges externo aliquo actu deliquerit : tamen quia leges prohibent recipere sacer¬ dotes Catholicos in domum, prohibent re¬ conciliari cum Ecclesia Catholica, prohibent interesse sacrificio Missae, jubent praestari juramentum de primatu regis in spirituali¬ bus, vel certe jubent suscipi juramentum de non curanda excommunicatione summi Pontificis, et alia id genus multa, quae ad Religionem pertinent : idcirco qui ultimo supplicio afficiuntur propter transgressionem ejusmodi legum, merito dici possunt ultimo supplicio affici propter religionem. Deinde qui plectuntur, quia sacris ordini¬ bus in transmarinis regionibus initiati sunt, cum in patria ejusmodi sacri ordines non conferantur ; nonne propter religionem plectuntur? nonne sacri ordines ad Religio¬ nem pertinent? Hinc videlicet tam multi numerantur Martyres in libro de persecu¬ tione Anglicana, et in altero de schismate Anglicano Nicolai Sanderi, et in aliis Catho¬ licorum libris. Parum enim refert ad Marty¬ rium utrum quis occidatur, quia Christianus Catholicus est, an quia legem transgressus est, quae jubet fidem Catholicam abjurare. Nam imperatores Pagani edicta proponebant, ne cui liceret Christum Deum confiteri, vel ut suspecti de Christianismo juberentur diis pub'ice sacrificare. Deinde tanquam inobe- dientes legibus imperatorum supplicio affi¬ ciebant. Et quemadmodum rex in hoc eodem loco dicit (6), sacrificulos sub poena perduel¬ lionis a finibus Anglise arceri, quia conj i ra¬ tionibus, et proditionibus vel conceptis, vel laudatis infames sunt. Sic etiam Pagani principes quicquicl sceleris publice ageba¬ tur, Christianis imputabant; ut etiam ob incendium, cujus auctor Nero ipse fuerat, teste Suetonio, et quo magna pars Urbis conflagravit, Nero imperator Christianos plurimos, tanquam auctores exquisitissimis suppliciis interemit, ut libro annalium xv. Tacitus prodidit. Certe pulveratiae conjura¬ tionis odium in Jesuitas conversum est, cum neque Jesuitse, neque ullus ex numero Sa¬ cerdotum particeps ejus conjurationis fuerit. Atque haec dicta sint, si verum esset, quod rex hoc loco tam constanter affirmat, Sed id manifeste falsum esse, constat tum lib. m. de schismate Anglicano : tum ex libro Andreae Philopatri section. 4. pag. 266. et sequentibus, ubi ex ipsis historiis haeretico- rum Anglicanorum, aperte demonstratur, plurimos tum clericos, tum laicos, solius Re¬ ligionis Catholicae causa necatos fuisse, ut mirum sit regem ea scribere voluisse, quae ex ipsis subditorum suorum aut verbis, aut scriptis refutantur. Quia vero rex pag. 136. reginae Mariae, Catholicae ac piae principis tempora saevitiae nota infamat dicens : «Tunc nulla suppli¬ ciorum atrocitas in viros, in feminas, in in¬ fantes nostram Religionem profitentes, est omissa : immo contra Dei, naturaeque leges, gravidis mulieribus mors immanissime illa¬ ta, infan>que e materna alvo exiliens in easdem cum matre flammas injectus (c). » Sciendum est hanc omnem tragoediam exci¬ tari propter unius meretriculae obstinatio- (a) An verum sit neminem in Anglia extremo supplicio affectum esse propter religionem. — (b) Sic imputantur hodie proditiones in Anglia sacerdotibus : ut imputabantur olim publica scelera Christianis in terris Paganorum. — (c) Defenditur regina Maria a nota barbarae crudelitatis. 188 APOLOGLE CAP. XIV. nem, quse gravida cum esset, gravidam esse se numquam fateri voluit. Igitur igni tra¬ dita, more pertinacium hsereticorum, est . ac ut non solum hseresis, sed et mendacium etiam patefieret, ex ejus alvo prodiit non infans, sed informis, ac sine anima caro, quam in ignem fuisse conjectam mirandum non est : quemadmodum vere mirandum, et execrandum esset, si vivus infans pro- diisset. Sed haec immanitas tantum aberat a mo¬ libus illorum, qui regnante Maria judiciis praeerant, quantum absunt, qui ista confin¬ gunt, a studio veritatis. Hanc historiam, si tamen historia est, fama accepi, non in libro aliquo legi. Sed scio etiam a viris gravibus pro fabula haberi, conficta videlicet a Foxio ejusmodi rerum artifice peritissimo. Consu¬ lat lector Hardingum adversus I vellum, vel auctorem triplicis conversionis Angliae ad¬ versus Foxium.