Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 15: Answer to the Twenty Lies the King Charged against the Book of Matthaeus Tortus
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
After the Premonitory Preface, King James sets out a table in which he notes twenty lies, five feigned histories, and likewise five new dogmas, which he says he has found in the book of Matthaeus Tortus; so that from these a judgement may be formed of the whole book. I too will set down that same table here, adding a brief answer, from which it will plainly appear that there is in that book no lie, no feigned history, no new dogma.
The first lie, page 9 of the Politan edition
Here, in the oath of allegiance, the power of the Supreme Pontiff to excommunicate heretical kings is openly denied.
Confutation. “The question of the Pontiff’s power to excommunicate kings is neither treated nor in any way defined in the oath of allegiance, but is deliberately avoided. Let the words of the oath be inspected, and the Premonitory Preface, pages 10 and 11.”
Answer. The author of the book did not write that the question of the Pontiff’s power to excommunicate kings is treated, or properly defined, in the oath of allegiance; he understood well enough that a form of oath is no place for disputing questions of theology. But he affirmed that in that form the Supreme Pontiff is denied the power of excommunicating kings, even heretical ones; and that this is true is evident from these words of the oath: “Likewise I swear from my heart that, notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his successors, and so on, I will bear faith and true obedience to his Majesty, his heirs and successors.” So it reads. Now does not he who swears that he will obey a heretical king notwithstanding the Pope’s excommunication swear at the same time that he does not acknowledge in the Pope a power to excommunicate heretical kings? Otherwise it would be not an oath but a sacrilege, to swear that he will not obey a sentence of excommunication passed by the Pope against a heretical king, if he believed there was in the Pope a true power of excommunicating heretical kings.
The second lie, page 10
For from those words of the Lord, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven,” all Catholics gather that there belongs to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff a power not only of absolving from sins but also from penalties, censures, laws, vows and oaths.
Confutation. “That not all Roman Catholics gather this from these words of Christ in Matthew 16 appears, to pass over other arguments in silence, from this: that in the opinion of very many, whatever Christ promised in Matthew 16 he actually performed in John 20 when he said, ‘Whose sins ye remit,’ and so on; whence it is plain that Christ understood that promised power of loosing to be of absolution from sins, no mention being made here of any absolution from laws, vows or oaths. So think Theophylact, Anselm, Hugh the Cardinal and Ferus on Matthew 16; and likewise the chief of the Schoolmen, Alexander of Hales in his Summa, part 4, question 79, members 5 and 6, article 3; Thomas on book 4, distinction 24, question 3, article 2; Soto on book 4, distinction 19, article 1; Pope Adrian VI on book 4, question 2 on the keys, page 302 of the Paris edition of 1530, who also cites Augustine and the interlinear gloss for this interpretation.”
Answer. I wrote that all Catholics gather from those words of the Lord, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose,” that to the Pontiff, Peter’s successor, belongs the power not only of remitting sins but also of loosing from penalties, censures, laws, vows and oaths, for this reason: that no Catholic denies that all these things belong to the Supreme Pontiff, and they can give no more effective reason for it than that most ample and universal privilege, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose.” And although it is true, as Theophylact and others say, that what was promised to Peter alone in Matthew 16 was given to all in John 20, yet it is not true of everything. For to Peter in Matthew 16 was promised the power not only of remitting sins but of loosing every bond that can hinder the attainment of the kingdom of heaven; whereas to the Apostles in John 20 was given the power of remitting sins, not in any manner whatever, but through the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, as the holy Chrysostom and Cyril teach on John 20, and Saint Jerome in the letter to Hedibia, question 9; to whom is added Saint Anselm, who writes on Matthew 16 that by those words of John 20, “Whose sins ye remit,” the power of remitting sins is given not only to the Apostles but to all bishops and priests. Now it is certain that priests have no power of remitting sins except through the sacraments, which is called the power of order. And it is no less certain that bishops, and much more the Supreme Pontiff, have the power of jurisdiction, of granting indulgences, of dispensing in laws, vows, oaths and the like; but that the Pontiff has it without limitation, as Prince and head of the universal Church, and bishops with limitation, as called into a share of the care.
If anyone asks where that was given to Peter which had been promised him in Matthew 16, I answer that it was given in the last chapter of John. For as the Lord in Matthew 16 named Simon and his father expressly, to distinguish him from the others, and promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and said he would build his Church upon him, so afterwards in the last chapter of John he named Simon and his father expressly and distinguished him from the others, and said to him, “Feed my sheep.” For it is the same thing to be the foundation of a building, the shepherd of a fold, the head of a body, and the prince of a city, to whom in sign of power are given the keys of that city, that he may admit or exclude.
But let us answer the authors one by one. Theophylact on Matthew 16 says only that what was promised to Peter in Matthew 16 was given to all the Apostles in John 20, which is true of the power of remitting sins through the sacraments; it is not true of every power of loosing and binding. Nor can Theophylact deny this, since Saint John Chrysostom, whose commentaries Theophylact abridged, writes on Matthew 16 that Peter was made by Christ the head of the whole Church and that the whole world was committed to him; for which office the power of remitting sins through the sacraments certainly does not suffice. Anselm on Matthew 16 does say that the same power of remitting sins which was promised to Peter in Matthew 16 was given in John 20 to the Apostles, and indeed to all bishops and priests; but he adds that Peter alone was made prince of the Apostles, that we might understand that there ought to be in the Church one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the various members of the Church might have recourse. Hugh the Cardinal on Matthew 16, following Anselm, speaks of the power of remitting sins, and rightly says that it was promised in Matthew 16 and given in John 20; but he does not deny that another power also was promised and given to Peter, which is not expressed in John 20. John Ferus on Matthew 16 does not compare this passage with John 20; so he is cited in vain, nor is he so great an author that his testimony ought to move us. Alexander of Hales does not say that what was promised in Matthew 16 was given in John 20; on the contrary he says the keys were given to Peter in Matthew 16, even though the words seem to be of the future: “I answer,” he says, “that the keys were given there, ‘I will give thee the keys’; and although ‘I will give thee the keys’ is expressed by way of a promise of a future event, nevertheless there, with the words that follow, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind,’ they were given chiefly to Peter”; and below: “To the others they were given in John 20, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit,’ and so on.” The same Alexander in the same article 3, a little before, speaks thus: “God willed that some should have power over many others, and then over those others fewer, and so always until one should be reached, namely the Pope, who is immediately under God.”
Saint Thomas, in the place the king cites, puts what the king cites for himself in the objection, and afterwards resolves that objection by saying that the power of binding and loosing was given first to Peter alone, and then given to the others, to show that the power ought to descend from him as from the head into the others. The same Saint Thomas also, on book 4, distinction 19, question 1, article 3, reply to the first objection, distinguishes the power of order and of jurisdiction, and says the former was given equally to all in John 20, not only to the Apostles but to all priests, which he proves from the rite of the Church, where at the ordination of priests these words are said, “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins ye remit,” and so on; but the latter power he says is not equally in all, but principally in Peter, as in Matthew 16, and descends through him into the others. And let the king be pleased to consult the same holy Doctor on Matthew 16, and he will find what I said above, that what was promised to Peter in Matthew 16 by “I will give thee the keys” was actually given to the same Peter in John 21 by “Feed my sheep.” He will also find these words: “The Pope, who is in the place of Saint Peter, has plenary power; the others have it from him.” Soto, in the place cited by the king, that is distinction 19, article 1, says nothing about this matter. But perhaps by the copyist’s fault distinction 19, article 1 is put for distinction 20, question 1, article 2; for in that place Soto treats of the keys and alleges two testimonies of Scripture, Matthew 16 and John 20 and 21, but he does not say, as the king would wish, that what was promised in Matthew 16 was given in its entirety in John 20; he says, with Cardinal Torquemada, that the power of order was conferred on the Apostles in John 20, but that the fullest power of order and jurisdiction was promised to Peter in Matthew 16 and actually conferred on the same Peter in John 21. There remains Adrian VI on book 4 of the Sentences, question 2 on the keys of the Church, where he says there are two keys, one of knowledge and the other of power, and proves this from Augustine and the interlinear gloss. But whether from this saying of Adrian, or from the other authors cited, Tortus is convicted of a lie, will be for the readers to judge.
The third lie, page 18
I hate parricides, I execrate conspiracies; but that occasions of despair were given no one can deny.
Confutation. “That no occasion of despair was given to the Powder traitors, as this man lies, but that they rushed into that bloody crime taught by the Jesuits, see the Premonitory Preface, pages 132 and 133, and the Action against the traitors.”
Answer. That an occasion of despair was most truly given to the traitors is witnessed by the very severe edicts against those who refused to attend the churches of the heretics, which are the heavier the more the Catholics had hoped that under a new prince the harshness of Queen Elizabeth’s persecution would be softened. And that the traitors were not taught by the Jesuits is clearer than the light of the sun. For the traitors themselves at the very point of death publicly professed that they had had no author or accomplice in that crime from among the Jesuits or the other Catholic priests. This was told me by a nobleman most worthy of credit, who was present at the execution of the traitors and heard with his own ears the protestation of one of the chief of them. Garnet too, publicly, both at his trial before many nobles and at the gallows before the people, protested that the treason was not known to him except in sacramental confession, and that when known it was condemned by him and hindered with all his strength. That the Action against the traitors, which the king cites, is full of the greatest and most obvious lies, is plain from the answer already published or shortly to be published, which I saw before it was printed; and I should have wondered that men could be found who dared to lie about matters so well known, had I not read in Eusebius, book 9 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 5, in Rufinus’s version, that by the persecutors of the Christians there were forged Acts before Pilate concerning the passion of Christ, and spread through all the provinces, full of blasphemies and lies. For what wonder is it if such acts are written about the little servants of Christ, when it cannot be doubted that they were written about the Lord himself?
The fourth lie, page 26
For not only Catholics but even the Calvinist Puritans abhor that oath.
Confutation. “The Puritans do not abhor the oath of supremacy, but take it daily and have never refused it. Calvin too defends the same supremacy, Institutes, book 4, chapter 20.”
Answer. That the Calvinist Puritans abhor the oath of supremacy we learned from the Premonitory Preface and from the Basilikon Doron of the same king; for in both books the king ascribes anarchy to the Puritans, and anarchy and monarchy, or supremacy, are contraries. Yet I will not deny that an oath of supremacy is admitted by the Puritans, but of a temporal supremacy, which belongs to protecting the Church, not to administering her spiritual affairs. For so the king’s supremacy is explained in the Scottish Confession published in 1581: “And since,” they say, “we perceive that the peace and stability of our Church and religion depends upon the safety and good government of the king’s majesty, as upon a comforting instrument of God’s mercy granted to this kingdom for the preservation of the Church and the administration of justice among us, we promise and pledge with our hearts, under the same oath, subscription and penalties, that we will defend his person, authority and dignity with our goods, bodies and lives, in defence of the Gospel of Christ, the liberty of our country,” and so on. And this is the supremacy which Calvin acknowledges in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 20, who never allowed a true and proper supremacy in spiritual things either to king or to Pontiff. And to bring the king a witness from his own house: there is extant a book by Richard Bancroft, who calls himself Archbishop of Canterbury, entitled The Pretended Discipline of the Puritans, in chapter 22 of which these words are read: “Hence it is (to confess the truth openly) that Calvin could in no way bear that King Henry VIII should be called head of the Church, or supreme governor on earth of the Churches of God which were in his dominions.” So says he, who in the same chapter and the two following tries above all to demonstrate that the denial of ecclesiastical supremacy in kings is common to the Puritans with the Papists, and that in this the Puritans chiefly differ from the Protestants.
The fifth lie, page 28
In the first place, the Pontiff does not write that he is grieved at the calamities which the Catholics suffered in England for keeping the orthodox faith in the queen’s time, or at the beginning of King James’s reign, but at the calamities which they suffer at this time.
Confutation. “To have recited the very words of the brief is to have confuted this lie; for the Pope writes thus: ‘The tribulations and calamities which you have continually borne for keeping the Catholic faith have always affected us with great grief; but since we understand that at this time everything is growing more bitter, our affliction is wonderfully increased.’”
Answer. To have recited the very words of the brief is indeed to have demonstrated that the lie was invented; for in the words of the brief no mention is made of the time of Queen Elizabeth or of the beginning of James’s reign; wrongly, then, are the words of the brief referred to those times, especially since Paul V was Pontiff neither in the queen’s time nor at the beginning of James’s reign. He writes, therefore, of the calamities of the English Catholics, which he had learned were very grievous at the beginning of his pontificate, and had grown not a little in the following year, in which the first brief was written.
The sixth lie, page 28
In the first article of the Statute the laws of Elizabeth are confirmed.
Confutation. “In the first article of that statute no mention is made of confirming the laws of Queen Elizabeth.”
The seventh lie, page 29
In the tenth article of the same statute it is added that if Catholics refuse the proposed oath a third time, they suffer the loss of head and life.
Confutation. “There is no such article in the whole of that statute, where any mention is made either of proposing this oath a third time, or of the loss of head and life.”
The eighth lie, page 30
In the twelfth it is provided that whoever wishes to serve foreign princes in war shall first take the aforesaid oath, otherwise he is held a traitor.
Confutation. “It is not said in the statute that he will be held a traitor, but that he will be held guilty of felony who wishes to serve a foreign prince before he has taken the oath.”
Answer to the three foregoing. The statute whose articles I described in my book is found in a Latin pamphlet published at Rouen in 1606, of which this is the title: A Summary of Two Acts Lately Passed in the Public Parliament of England, in the Year of Christ 1606, the Third of James King of England. In that pamphlet are found all the things the king denies. For these are the very words of the first article: “It has seemed good to the king’s majesty and to the peers and estates of the kingdom assembled in this Parliament, first of all to confirm and ratify all the laws established in the time of Elizabeth and of other kings against the Papists.” And these are the words of the tenth article: “Whoever shall refuse a third time the oath of the king’s supremacy in spiritual things, if it please the king that it be proposed to him, shall be punished with the loss of head and life.” And these are the last words of the twelfth article: “It is enacted by the aforesaid authority that whatever subject of this kingdom, after the tenth day of June next following, shall wish to serve foreign princes in war, shall first take the oath; otherwise let him be held a traitor.” These things are found word for word in that pamphlet. And to clear my credit the more surely, and because the pamphlet is very elegant, I will see to it that it is reprinted at the first opportunity.
The ninth lie, page 35
We have shown that by that oath the Apostolic power both of binding and of loosing is denied.
Confutation. “There is no assertive proposition in that oath, nor any word except a conditional one, about the Pontiff’s power of binding or loosing.”
Answer. Neither did the author say that the power of binding and loosing was denied to the Pontiff by an assertive proposition; but he affirmed that it was denied by the form of the oath. For he who swears, as this form prescribes, that he will obey the king notwithstanding a sentence of excommunication passed by the Pontiff, is held to deny the Pontifical power of binding by a sentence of excommunication; and he who swears, as this same form requires, and believes that he can be absolved by no one, not even by the Pontiff himself, from the obligation of this oath, denies in the Supreme Pontiff the power of loosing. And as for the king’s saying that there is no word but a conditional one in this oath about the Pontiff’s power of binding or loosing, it does not appear in what sense it rests on truth. For these words, “I truly believe and hold with certain conscience that neither the Pope nor anyone else can absolve me from this oath or any part of it,” are not conditional but absolute, and are expressly contained in this form of oath, and most plainly serve to deny the Pontifical power concerning absolution.
The tenth lie, page 37
To Diocletian and Nero, willing or unwilling, even the Supreme Pontiffs themselves were compelled to be subject.
Confutation. “That Christians without exception, not under compulsion but freely and for conscience’ sake, were subject to the heathen emperors, see our Apology, pages 23 and 24, and the Apologies of the ancients.”
Answer. That Christians who are subjects of kings or emperors, even heathen ones, ought to be subject for conscience’ sake, and to obey in those things which are not against God, we too teach; but if there are any who are not subject to their rule, even though they are Christians, they are certainly not bound to be subject and obey, unless perhaps driven to it by force and power. We have examples in the predecessors of the king of the English and Scots. For while the heathen Roman emperors were reigning, Lucius, a Christian king, reigned in England, and in Scotland Donald, likewise a Christian king. I ask King James, therefore, whether he thinks those Christian kings Lucius and Donald owed obedience and subjection for conscience’ sake to the heathen emperors? He will deny it, I suppose, and for no other reason than that they were sovereign princes in their own kingdoms, and therefore not subjects of the Roman emperors. In the same way, then, Christians who were subjects of the heathen emperors owed them obedience according to conscience; but the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ the King of kings, was not by right a subject of earthly emperors, and so did not owe them obedience; yet nevertheless, both because his power was not known to the pagan emperors, and because he was destitute of temporal strength, willing or unwilling, as I said, he was compelled to be subject.
The eleventh lie, page 47
By which words, of the briefs of Clement VIII, James king of Scotland was not excluded but rather included.
Confutation. “If Clement’s briefs did not exclude me from the kingdom but rather included me, why did Garnet commit them to the flames? Why did he not keep them for me to see, so as to win thereby greater favour with me for himself and his Catholics?”
Answer. Those Pontifical briefs neither excluded King James by name nor included him by name; but they exhorted the Catholic clergy and people of England to take care, so far as in them lay, that a king should be chosen not averse to the Catholic faith; and since the king of Scotland was thought to be such, he was by those briefs included rather than excluded, in our judgement at least. But whether, and why, Garnet burned those briefs I confess I do not know. Perhaps he saw that the words of the briefs could be taken in a bad sense; or he heard that King James was in truth utterly estranged from the Catholic faith. So he gave to the fire briefs which could then do no good, that they might do no harm.
The twelfth lie, page 60
Of the fourteen articles comprised in the oath of allegiance, eleven touch the Pontiff’s primacy in spiritual things.
Confutation. “Of these articles not even one touches the Pontiff’s primacy in spiritual things. For to what purpose should it, when there is extant elsewhere an express oath against the Pontiff’s primacy in spiritual things?”
Answer. Of the fourteen articles comprised in the oath, as the king himself divided and numbered them by fourteen opposed propositions in his Apology, pages 51 and 52, there are only three, the first, the thirteenth and the fourteenth, which speak of the Pope’s power of excommunicating or deposing princes; and that this power belongs to the primacy in spiritual things is not doubtful, since the Pope neither excommunicates nor deposes princes except by Apostolic power, and all confess that the Apostolic power is spiritual.
The thirteenth lie, page 64
Among other calumnies he brings forward this, that Bellarmine was either privy to, or the author of, the treasons against Queen Elizabeth.
Confutation. “I never said in the Apology that Bellarmine was either the author of, or privy to, the treasons against Queen Elizabeth; but that he was the teacher of the traitors, and had so imbued their minds with wicked and pernicious dogmas that it was very easy for them to carry the thesis over to the hypothesis, and to adapt what he dictated from the chair to their own machinations as occasion arose.”
Answer. The words of the Apology, page 58, are these: “Certain of that number of priests and Jesuits, who were themselves chief traitors and abettors of the gravest treasons undertaken against the late queen, did not hesitate to celebrate Father Robert Bellarmine as one of their chief authors or oracles”; and in the margin he notes who those traitors are, saying: “Campion and Hart; see the conference held in the Tower of London.” From these words who would not judge that Campion and Hart are called traitors, and Bellarmine made their author? But since Campion and Hart were convicted of no treason, and in the Tower of London, where Bellarmine’s writings were alleged, the dispute was not about treasons but about controversies of faith; and since Bellarmine never saw Hart, and greeted Campion only once at Rome in passing, and so had neither as a disciple; and finally since Bellarmine never said anything from the chair, nor wrote anything in his books, that pertains to treasons: let the king see with what conscience he says things which he will never be able to prove.
The fourteenth lie, page 64
Bellarmine knows that Campion conspired only against heretical wickedness.
Confutation. “That Campion was put to death was not because he had conspired against heretical wickedness, as this libeller wishes it to appear, but because he had conspired against Queen Elizabeth and the state of this kingdom, which was most evidently established from the judicial acts.”
Answer. The disputations held three times by the ministers with Campion on the Catholic faith in the Tower of London sufficiently show the true cause of his execution, especially since after the third disputation Campion was most cruelly racked. Yet I am not ignorant, nor do I deny, that crimes of conspiracy were invented, which he neither confessed himself nor was convicted of by others. What credit ought to be given to the judicial acts against Campion, the like acts against Garnet teach.
The fifteenth lie, page 65
Why was Henry Garnet, a man of learning of every kind and of incomparable holiness of life, put to death, except because he would not reveal what he could not reveal with a safe conscience?
Confutation. “That knowledge of this abominable crime came to Henry Garnet not from confession alone, as this man lies, but in other ways too, and not from the report of one but of several, so that he could have revealed it with a safe conscience, see the Premonitory Preface, page 131, and the book of the Earl of Northampton.”
Answer. I have seen the Premonitory Preface, I have also seen the Action against Garnet; but I have seen too the answer in which the lies of that Action are exposed, and from it I have been confirmed in the opinion which I had received from eyewitnesses and earwitnesses, that it was proved by no lawful evidence that the Powder treason came to Garnet by any way other than sacramental confession, which he himself confessed both at his trial and at the gallows.
The sixteenth lie, page 71
Therefore Pope Sixtus neither commanded the king to be killed, nor approved the killing done by that private man.
Confutation. “How splendid a lie this is appears from the very oration of Sixtus V.”
Answer. No oration of Sixtus V is extant among us; and the one published by our adversaries, though it deserves no credit, can nevertheless conveniently be explained in the sense which is read in our answer, pages 70, 71 and 72.
The seventeenth lie, page 91
And what is added about the Stanley treason is not faithfully nor truly related, since after his manner the author of the Apology has foully corrupted the history by adding many lies.
Confutation. “What was said about the Stanley treason was recited word for word from Allen’s apology for the Stanley case, as may be seen there.”
Answer. I have read that whole apology again, without omitting a word, and I did not find the words the king cited. Allen does say that the queen’s war, in which she had taken towns in Holland from the Catholic king, was unjust, and that therefore those towns ought to have been restored to the king; but he does not say: “That since the queen was excommunicated and a heretic, it was not only lawful now for her subjects, but necessary by obligation of conscience, to strip her of every defence they could, and whether they held armies or towns or castles and fortresses of hers, to hand them over to the king of Spain, her enemy, the queen thenceforth having nothing of her own.” These things, I say, Cardinal Allen does not say, and yet the king affirms that these very words were recited word for word from Allen’s apology for the Stanley case. That apology is extant in English, French and Italian; let the reader consult the apology and judge.
The eighteenth lie, page 39
It is certain that Henry Garnet at his public trial constantly and always said that neither he nor any Jesuit had in any way been the author, accomplice, adviser or consenting party of this conspiracy; and a little later, at the point of death, he protested the same thing in a long speech before an innumerable people.
Confutation. “The book entitled The Action against the Traitors, and our Premonitory Preface, pages 131 and 132, clearly prove the contrary.”
Answer. The Premonitory Preface narrates, it does not prove. The Action against the Traitors lies without shame about things which are very well known to all England; but it was published for this reason, that it might find credit among foreigners and deceive the unwary.
The nineteenth lie, page 97
But James, since he is not a Catholic, is not a Christian either.
Confutation. “On the contrary. I am indeed a Catholic, as one who professes the truly ancient Catholic and Apostolic faith; and therefore I am truly a Christian. See the confession of my faith in the Premonitory Preface, pages 37 and 38 and following.”
Answer. I have seen the king’s confession in the Premonitory Preface, and from it I have plainly and manifestly learned that the king is not a Catholic, for the king condemns and denies very many things which the Catholic faith, even the most ancient, has always taught. Now he cannot be called a Catholic who holds some part of the Catholic faith, but he who holds the whole; otherwise all heretics would be Catholics. And if the king is a Catholic, why throughout his Apology for the oath of allegiance does he call those Catholics whose faith and religion he detests?
The twentieth lie, page 98
And if what is related is true by those who knew him intimately, whereas in Scotland he was a Puritan and an enemy of the Protestants, now in England he is a Protestant and bears himself as an adversary of the Puritans.
Confutation. “On the contrary. What sort of Puritan I was in Scotland, see the Preface to the Basilikon Doron, and the Premonitory Preface, pages 48 and 49.”
Answer. I have seen those two places, but I have also seen the Scottish Confession of the Puritans, which the king subscribed; for the confession begins thus: “A Brief and General Confession of the Christian Religion, according to the Word of God and the Acts of Parliament, subscribed by the king’s majesty and his household, and by divers others, to the glory of God and the good example of all. Edinburgh, 28 January, in the year of the Lord 1580 and of his reign the 14th.” I have also read in the Basilikon Doron itself the king saying that he had certainly known the religion which flourishes in Scotland to be most true; and the religion which flourishes in Scotland the king confesses in the same place to have been introduced by a divine miracle through seditious Puritans, and so on.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. Responsio adea , quae sub nomine mendaciorum , ementitarum historiarum , et novorum do¬ gmatum , rex scripsit adversus librum Mat¬ thaei Torti , qui vere Cardinalis Bellarmini liber est , sed justis de causis alieno nomine editus. Post praefationem monitoriam Jacobus rex exponit tabulam, in qua notat mendacia vi- ginti, ementitas historias quinque, et nova dogmata item quinque, in libro Matthaei Torti a se reperta : ut inde de toto libro ju¬ dicium fiat. Eamdem ipsam tabulam ego quo¬ que hic adscribam, adjuncta brevi respon¬ sione, ex qua manifeste appareat, nullum in eo libro esse mendacium, nullam histo¬ riam ementitam, nullum dogma novum : Primum Mendacium pag. 9. edit. Politanae. Hic, in juramento fidelitatis, aperte nega¬ tur Summo Pontifici potestas excommunican¬ di reges haereticos. Confutatio. « Quaestio de Pontificis potestate in regi-? bus excommunicandis nec tractatur, nec ullo modo definitur in juramento fidelitatis ; sed ex proposito declinatur. Inspiciantur verba juramenti, et monitoria praefatio pag. 10. et 11. » Respontio, Auctor libri non scripsit, in juramento in¬ fidelitatis tractari, aut proprie definiri quae¬ stionem de potestate Pontificis in regibus ex¬ communicandis, satis enim intelligebat, in formula juramenti non esse locum quaestio¬ num Theologiae disputandarum. Sed affirma vit in ea formula negari Pontifici maximo potestatem excommunicandi reges etiam haereticos : quod verum esse, perspicuum est ex illis verbis juramenti : « Item juro ex corde, non obstante aliqua declaratione j vel sententia excommunicationis, aut depri- vationis facta, vel concessa, aut fienda, vel concedenda per Papam, vel successores ejus etc. fidelitatem, et veram obedientiam suae Majestati, haeredibus, et successoribus suis praestabo.» Haec ibi : qui vero jurat se obe- diturum regi haeretico, non obstante excom¬ municatione Papae, non jurat simul, se non agnoscere in Papa potestatem excommuni¬ candi reges haereticos? alioqui enim non ju¬ ramentum, sed sacrilegium esset, jurare se non obiturum sententiae excommunicationis a Papa latae in regem haereticum, si crede¬ ret esse in Papa veram potestatem excom¬ municandi reges haereticos. II. Mendacium pag . 10. Nam ex verbis illis Dominicis : Quodcumque solveris super terram , erit solutum et in coelis, Catholici omnes colligunt ad Pontificis Ma¬ ximi auctoritatem pertinere, non suium po¬ testatem absolvendi a peccatis, sed etiam a poenis, censuris, legibus, votis, atque a ju¬ ramentis. Confutatio. « Quod non omnes Romani Catholici ita colligant ex hisce Christi verbis Matth. xvi. ut alia argumenta tacitus prateream, vel inde apparet , quod ex plurimorum sententia 192 APOLOGldE GAP. XV. quicquid Christus promisit Matth. xvi. id actu praestitit Joan. 20. cum dixisset, Quorum remiseritis etc. unde constat, Christum po¬ testatem illam solvendi promissam sensisse de absolutione a peccatis, nulla hic mentione facta de absolutione aliqua a legibus, votis, juramentis. AtqueitasentiuntTheophylactus, Anselmus, Hugo Cardinalis, et Ferus in Matth. xvi. Sic etiam Scholasticorum pri¬ marii, Alexander Alensis in summa p. 4. q. 79. memb. 5. et 6. art. 3. Thomas in 4. d. 24. q. 3. art. 2. Sotus in 4. d. 19. art. i. Hadrianus sextus Papa in 4. d. q. 2. de cla¬ vibus p. 302. edit. Paris, anno 1530. qui etiam pro hac interpretatione citat Augusti¬ num, et glossam interii nearem. Responsio. Ea de causa scripsi, ab omnibus Catholi¬ cis colligi ex illis verbis Dominicis, Quod- cumque solveris etc., ad Pontificem Petri suc¬ cessorem pertinere potestatem, non solum remittendi peccata, sed etiam solvendi a poenis, censuris, legibus, votis, juramentis : quoniam nullus Catholicorum negat ha?c omnia ad Summum Pontificem pertinere ; neque rationem efficaciorem reddere pos¬ sunt, quam amplissimum, et universale pri¬ vilegium illud, Quodcumque solveris etc., et quamvis verum sit, quod Theophylactus, et alii dicunt, quod uni Petro promissum fuit Matth. xvi. datum esse omnibus Joan. xx. tamen non est verum quoad omnia. Siqui¬ dem Petro Matth. xvi. promissa fuit potestas, non solum remittendi peccata, sed etiam solvendi omnia vincula, quee impedire pos¬ sunt adeptionem regni coelorum : Apostolis autem Joann. xx. data potestas est remit¬ tendi peccata, non quomodocumque, sed per sacramenta Baptismi, et Poenitentiae, ut docent sancti Chrysostomus, et Cyrillus in cap. xx. Joann. et S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Hedibiam q. 9. quibus accedit S. Ansel¬ mus, qui in cap. xvi. Matth. scribit, per illa verba Joann. xx. Quorum remiseritis etc. (1), dari potestatem remittendi peccata, non so¬ lum Apostolis, sed etiam omnibus episcopis, et presbyteris. Constat autem presbyteros non habere potestatem remittendi peccata, nisi per sacramenta, quae vocatur potestas ordinis. Nec minus constat, habere episco¬ pos, et multo magis summum Pontificem, potestatem jurisdictionis, dandi indulgen¬ tias, dispensandi in legibus, votis, juramen¬ tis, et similibus ; sed Pontificem illam ha¬ bere absque limitatione , ut Principem, et caput Ecclesiae universae ; Episcopos autem cum limitatione, ut vocatos in partem solli¬ citudinis. Si quis autem quaerat, ubi datum sit Petro, quod ei promissum fuerat Matth. xvi. Respondeo datum fuisse Joann. ult. quemadmodum enim Dominus Matth. xvi. nominatim expressit Simonem, et patrem ejus, ut eum distingueret ab aliis, et pro¬ misit claves regni coelorum : et super eum Ecclesiam aedificaturum se dixit : ita post¬ ea Joann. ult. nominatim expressit Simo¬ nem, et patrem ejus, et distinxit ab aliis, at¬ que ei dixit: Pasce oves meas. Idem enim est esse fundamentum aedificii, et pastorem ovilis, et caput corporis, et principem civi¬ tatis, cui in signum potestatis dantur claves ejusdem civitatis, ut possit admittere, v.el excludere. Sed ad singulos auctores respon¬ deamus. Theophylactus in cap. xvi. Matth. solum dicit, quod promissum fuit Petro Matth. xvi. datum fuisse omnibus Apostolis Joann. xx. quod est verum de potestate re¬ mittendi peccata per sacramenta : non au¬ tem verum est, de omni potestate solvendi, atque ligandi : neque Theophylactus hoc negare potest, cum sanctus Joannes Chry¬ sostomus (cujus Commentaria Theophylactus in compendium redegit) scribat in caput xvi. Matthan, Petrum factum esse a Christo ca¬ put totius Ecclesia?, et totum orbem terra¬ rum illi esse commissum, ad quod officium certe non sufficit potestas remittendi peccata per sacramenta. Anselmus in cap. xvi. Matth. dicit quidem eamdem potestatem remittendi peccata, datum esse Apostolis, imo etiam omnibus episcopis, et presbyteris Joann. xx. quae promissa fuit Petro Matth. xvi. Sed ad¬ dit, unum Petrum factum esse principem Apostolorum, ut intelligeremus in Ecclesia esse debere unum principalem Christi Vica¬ rium, ad quem diversa Ecclesia? membra recurrant. Hugo Cardinalis in cap. xvi. Matth. secutus Anselmum loquitur de pote¬ state remittendi peccata, et recte dicit, eam promissam fuisse Matth. xvi. et datam Joan- n. xx. sed non negat, aliam quoque potesta¬ tem promissam, et datam Petro, quse non est expressa Joann. xx. Joannes Ferus in cap. xvi. Matth. non confert hunc locum (t) Joan. XX, 23; Joan. XXI, 17. APOLOGIS GAP. XV. 193 eum cap. xx. Joannis. Itaque frustra citatur, neque tantus est auctor, ut ejus testimonium movere nos debeat. Alexander Alensis non dicit, quod fuit promissum Matth. xvi. fuisse datum Joann. xx. sed contra, dicit, claves datas fuisse Petro Matth. xvi. etiam si videantur verba esse de futuro : « Respon¬ deo, inquit, quod claves fuerunt datse ibi, Tibi dabo claves , et licet, tibi dabo claves , exprimatur per modum promissionis even¬ tus futuri , nihilominus ibi cum verbis se¬ quentibus, quse sunt, Quodcumque ligaveris , datse fuerunt Petro praecipue » ; et infra : « Aliis fuerunt datse Joan.xx. Accipite Spiri¬ tum sanctum , quorum remiseritis peccata etc. » Idem Alex, in eodem art. 3. paulo ante, sic loquitur : « Yoluit Deus quosdam in alios plures habere potestatem, et deinde in illos, alios pauciores ; et sic semper quousque per¬ veniretur ad unum, scilicet Papam, qui sub Deo immediate est. » S. Thomas in loco ci¬ tato a rege, ponit in argumento contrario, quse rex pro se citat, et postea solvit illud argumentum dicens, datam esse primo soli Petro potestatem ligandi, et solvendi : dein¬ de datum esse aliis, ut ostenderetur, ab illo tamquam a capite descendere debere pote¬ statem in alios. Idem quoque S. Thomas in 4. dist. 19. q. 1. art. 3. ad primum, distin¬ guit de potestate ordinis, et jurisdictionis, et priorem dicit esse datum omnibus se qua¬ liter Joann. xx. non solum Apostolis; sed etiam omnibus Sacerdotibus, quod probat ex ritu Ecclesise, ubi in ordinatione presby¬ terorum dicuntur hsec verba: Accipite Spi¬ ritum Sanctum , quorum remiseritis peccata , etc., posteriorem potestatem dicit non esse sequaliter in omnibus, sed principaliter in Petro, ut habetur Matth. xvi. Et per illum in alios descendere. Dignetur autem rex consulere eumdem sanctum Doctorem in cap. xvi. Matthsei, et inveniet quod ego su¬ pra dixi, quod promissum fuit Petro Matth. xvi. per illud, Tibi dabo claves ; datum esse reipsa eidem Petro Joann. xxi. per illud, Pasce oves meas (1). Inveniet quoque hsec verba, Papa qui est loco sancti Petri, habet plenariam potestatem, alii vero ab ipso. So- tus in loco a rege citato, id est, dist. 19. art. 1. nihil de hac re dicit. Sed vitio scriptoris fortasse posita est distinctio 19. art. i. pro dist. 20 q. 1 . art. 2. in hoc enim loco tractat Sotus de clavibus, et allegat duo testimonia (1) Matth. XVI, 19; Joan. XXI, 17. Tom. XII Scripturse Matth. xvi. et Joann. xx. et xxi., sed non dicit, quod rex vellet, quod pro¬ missum fuit Matth. xvi. in totum datum fuisse Joann. xx. ; sed dicit cum Cardinali de Turrecremata, potestatem Ordinis colla¬ tum Apostolis Joann. xx., promissam autem Petro plenissimam potestatem ordinis, et jurisdictionis Matth. xvi. et re ipsa collatam eidem Petro Joann. xxi. Restat Hadrianus VI. in 4. sentent. q. 2. de clavibus Ecclesiae, ubi dicit, duas esse claves, alteram scientiae, alteram potestatis, et hoc probat ex Augu¬ stino, et glossa interlineari. Sed an ex hoc dicto Hadriani, vel ex aliis citatis auctoribus convincatur Tortus mendacii, lectorum erit judicium. III. Mendacium pag. 1 8. Odi parricidia, execror conspirationes : sed occasiones desperandi datas nemo infi- ciari potest. Confutatio. « Quod occasio desperandi pulverariis proditoribus non erat data, ut iste mentitur, sed quod a Jesuitis edocti irruebant in hoc sanguinarium facinus. Vide Monitor. Prsef. pag. 132. 133. et Actionem in proditores. » Responsio. Verissime datum fuisse occasionem de¬ sperandi proditoribus, testantur gravissima edicta in recusantes adire Ecclesias haereti¬ corum, quae tanto graviora sunt, quanto magis speraverant Catholici sub novo prin¬ cipe mitigandam fore acerbitatem persecu¬ tionis Elisabethae reginae. Quod autem a Je¬ suitis edocti non fuerint proditores, solis luce clarius est. Ipsi enim proditores sub ipsum mortis articulum publice professi sunt nullum se habuisse, vel auctorem, vel so¬ cium in eo facinore ex Jesuitis, vel aliis Ca¬ tholicis sacerdotibus. Id mihi retulit- vir no¬ bilis, et fide dignissimus, qui supplicio pro¬ ditorum interfuit, et auribus ipse suis audi¬ vit protestationem unius ex praecipuis pro¬ ditoribus. Ipse quoque Garnettus publice, et in judicio coram multis nobilibus, et ad pa¬ tibulum coram populo protestatus est, eam proditionem sibi non fuisse notam, nisi in 13 194 APOLOGLE CAP. XV. confessione sacramentali ; notam a se da n- natam, et totis viribus impeditam. Actionem in proditores, quam rex citat, plenam esse mendaciis maximis, et clarissimis perspi¬ cuum est ex responsione jam edita, vel brevi proditura, quam ego, antequam ederetur, vidi, et miratus fuissem inveniri homines, qui mentiri auderent de rebus notissimis : nisi legissem apud Eusebium lib. ix. hist. Eccles. cap. 5. ex versione Ruffini, a perse¬ cutoribus Christianorum conficta fuisse acta apud Pilatum de passione Christi, et per om¬ nes provincias disseminata plena blasphe- miis, et mendaciis. Quid enim mirum est, si de servulis Christi acta scribantur ejusmodi, si de ipso Domino scripta fuisse dubitari non potest ? IV. Mendacium pag. 26. Nam ab eo juramento non solum Catho¬ lici, sed etiam Calvinistae Puritani abhor¬ rent. Confutatio. « Puritani non abhorrent a juramento primatus, sed quotidie suscipiunt, nec un¬ quam recusarunt. Eumdem etiam primatum tuetur Calvinus Instit. lib. iv. cap. 20. » Responsio. Puritanos Calvinistas abhorrere a jura¬ mento primatus, ex Praefatione monitoria, et ex Basilico Doro ejusdem regis didicimus, nam in utroque libro rex Puritanis tribuit anarchiam. Anarchia enim, et monarchia, sive primatus contraria sunt. Non tamen negaverim, a Puritanis admitti juramentum Primatus, sed temporalis, qui ad Ecclesiam protegendam, non ad spiritualia ejus nego¬ tia administranda pertineat. Sic enim expli¬ catur Primatus regis in Confessione Scotica edita anno 1581. «Et quoniam, inquiunt, percipimus Ecclesiae, et religionis nostrae tranquillitatem, et stabilitatem, ex salute, et bono regimine regiae majestatis, tamquam instrumento consolatorio divinae misericor¬ diae, huic regno pro Ecclesiae conservatione, et justitiae administratione internos, conces¬ so pendere : spondemus, et promittimus cor¬ de, sub eisdem juramento, subscriptione, et poenis, defensuros ejus personam, auctori¬ tatem, et dignitatem bonis, corporibus, et vitis, in tutelam Evangelii Christi, libertatis Patriae etc. » Atque huic est primatus, quem Calvinus agnoscit lib. iv. Instit. cap. 20. qui primatum in spiritualibus verum, et proprium, neque regi neque Pontifici un¬ quam permisit. Ac ut regi domesticum te¬ stem adducam, exstat liber Richardi Brancol- ti, qui se Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum vo¬ cat, cui titulus est, Practensa Puritanorum disciplina, in quo libro cap. 22. haec legun¬ tur : « Hinc est ut veritatem aperte fatea¬ mur) quod Calvinus nullo modo ferre pote¬ rat, regem Henricum octavum caput Eccle¬ siae vocari, aut supremum gubernatorem in terris Ecclesiarum Dei, quae in suis ditioni¬ bus erant. ,) llaec ille, qui eodem capite, et sequentibus duobus id in primis demonstra¬ re conatur, negationem primatus Ecclesia¬ stici in regibus, communem esse Puritanis cum Papistis, et eo maxime differre a Pro- testantibus Puritanos. V. Mendacium pog. 28. * Principio non scribit Pontifex, se moerore affici ob calamitates, quas tempore reginae, aut initio regni Jacobi regis, in Anglia pro retinenda orthodoxa fide Catholici patieban¬ tur, sed ob calamitates, quas hoc tempore patiuntur. Confutatio. « Verba ipsius brevis recitasse, est hoc mendacium confutasse : sic enim scribit Papa : Magno moerore nos semper affece¬ runt, tribulationes, et calamitates, quas pro retinenda Catholica fide jugiter sustinuistis, sed cum intelligamus omnia hoc tempore magis exacerbari, afflictio nostra mirum in inodum aucta est. » Responsio. Omnino verba ipsius brevis recitasse, est confictum fuisse mendacium demonstrasse, nulla enim fit in verbis brevis mentio tem¬ poris reginae Elisabethae , aut initii regni Jacobi, perperam ergo verba brevis ad illa tempora referuntur, praesertim cum neque tempore reginae, neque initio regni Jacobi, Paulus V. Pontifex fuerit. Scribit igitur de calamitatibus Anglorum Catholicorum, quas APOLOGIS GAP. XV. initio Pontificatus sui gravissimas fuisse, et anno sequente, quo primum breve scriptum est, non parum crevisse acceperat. VI. Mendacium pag . 28. In primo articulo (Statuti) confirmantur leges Elisabethae. Confutatio. « In primo articulo istius statuti nulla fit mentio de confirmandis legibus reginae Eli¬ sabethae. D VII. Mendacium pag. 29. In 10. articulo (ejusdem statuti) additur, ut si tertia vice (Catholici) propositum jura¬ mentum recusaverint, capitis, vitaeque dis¬ pendium patiantur. Confutatio. « Nullus est ejusmodi articulus in toto illo statuto, ubi, vel de proponendo hoc jura¬ mento tertia vice, vel de capitis, vitaeque dispendio ulla mentio habeatur. » VIII. Mendacium pag. 30. In 12. habetur, ut qui principibus exter¬ nis militare voluerit, in prius juramentum praefatum praestet, alioqui perduellis habea¬ tur. Confutatio. « Non dicitur in statuo, ?quod perduellis habebitur, sed quod feloniae reus habebitur, qui principi extraneo militare voluerit, prius¬ quam juramentum susceperit. » Responsio ad tria praedicta. Statutum, cujus articulos in libro meo de¬ scripsi, habetur in libello latino edito Rho- tomagi anno 1606, cujus hic est titulus : Bre¬ viculus duorum nuper in publicis Comitiis Anglicanis actorum, anno Christi 1606. Ja- cobi Angliae regis tertio, in eo libello haben¬ tur omnia illa, quae rex negat : ha2C enim sunt verba ipsa articuli primi, « Visum est regise Majestati, regnique proceribus, et sta¬ 195 tibus. qui ad hoc Parlamentum convenerunt, omnes in primis leges tempore Elisabethae, et aliorum regum contra Papistas stabilitas confirmare, et ratas habere. » Articuli vero decimi haec sunt verba. « Qui vero tertia vice juramentum de primatu regis in spiri¬ tualibus recusaverit, si modo regi, ut illi proponatur, placuerit, capitis, vitaeque dis¬ pendio puniatur. » Articuli duodecimi haec sunt verba ultima : « Statuitur auctoritate praedicta, ut quicumque hujus regni subdi¬ tus, post decimum diem Junii insequentem, principibus externis militare voluerit, is prius juramentum praestabit : alioquin per¬ duellis habeatur. » Haec ad verbum in eo li¬ bello habentur. Ac ut fidem meam certius liberem, et quia libellus elegantissimus est, dabo operam ut primo quoque tempore re- cudatur. IX. Mendacium pag. 35. Ostendimus eo juramento, negari potesta¬ tem Apostolicam tum ligandi, tum solvendi. Confutatio. « Nulla est sententia assertoria in isto ju¬ ramento, nec ullum verbum, nisi conditio- nale de Pontificis potestate ligandi, vel sol¬ vendi. »' Responsio. Neque auctor dixit per assertoriam propo¬ sitionem negatam esse Pontifici potestatem ligandi, et solvendi : sed per jurationis for¬ mulam affirmavit esse negatam, qui enim jurat, ut hsec formula praescribit, pariturum se regi ; non obstante sententia excommuni¬ cationis a Pontifice lata, is negare censetur potestamem Pontificiam ligandi per senten¬ tiam excommunicationis : et qui jurat (ut ea¬ dem hsec formula jubet) et credit a nullo se posse absolvi, ac ne ab ipso quidem Pontifice, ab obligatione hujus juramenti, is negat in summo Pontifice potestatem solvendi. Quod autem rex dicit, nullum esse verbum nisi con- ditionale in hoc juramento de Pontificis pote¬ state ligandi, vel solvendi : non apparet in quo sensu veritate nitatur. Ista siquidem verba : « Vere credo, et certa conscientia teneo, quod neque Papa, neque quivis alius me ab hoc juramento, vel illius ulla particula ab- 196 APOLOGLE GAP. XV. solvere possit» : non sunt conditionalia, sed absoluta ; et in hac juramenti formula expresse continentur ; et ad potestatem Pontificiam negandam circa absolutionem, apertissime pertinent. X. Mendacium pag. 37. Diocletiano, et Neroni, vellent nollent, ipsi etiam Summi Pontifices subjecti esse cogebantur. Confutatio. « Quod Christiani sine exceptione, non coacte sed libere, et propter conscientiam, Ethnicis imperatoribus subjiciebantur : vide Apolog. nostram pag. 23. 24. et veterum Apologetica. » Responsio . Quod Christiani subditi regibus, vel impe¬ ratoribus, etiam Ethnicis propter conscien¬ tiam subjici debeant, et obedire in iis rebus, quae contra Deum non sunt, nos quoque do¬ cemus; sed si qui sint eorum imperio non subditi, etiamsi Christiani sint, certe subjici, et obedire non tenentur, nisi forte vi, et poten- tiaadacti. Exempla habemus in praedecessori¬ bus regis An glorum, et Scotorum. Romanis enim ethnicis imperatoribus, regnabat in An- glia Lucius rex Christianus: et in Scotia Do- naldus rex item Christianus, quaero igitur a Jacobo rege, utrum existimet reges illos Christianos Lucium, et Donaldum debuisse obedientiam, et subjectionem propter con¬ scientiam imperatoribus Ethnicis? negabit opinor, neque alia de causa, nisi quia summi principes erant in suis regnis, et ideo non subditi imperatoribus Romanis. Eodem igi¬ tur modo Christiani subditi imperatoribus ethnicis, obedientiam illis debeant secundum conscientiam : summus autem Pontifex Christi regis regum Vicarius imperatoribus terrenis jure subditus non erat, ac per hoc obedien¬ tiam illis non debebat: sed tamen, tum quia potestas ejus nota non erat imperatoribus paganis , tum quia viribus temporalibus destitutus erat, vellet nollet, ut dixi, subje¬ ctus esse cogebatur. XI. Mendacium pag. 47. Quibus verbis (brevium Clementis VIII) Jacobus Scotiae rex non excludebatur, sed includebatur potius. Confutatio. « Si brevia, Clementis non excludebant me a regno, sed includebant potius ; cur ea flammis tradidit Garnettus ? quare non mihi videnda asservavit, ut sibi, et suis Catholicis apud me majorem inde gratiam concilia¬ ret? » Responsio, Brevia illa Pontificia, neque nominatim Jacobum regem excludebant, neque nomi¬ natim includebant : sed hortabantur Clerum, et populum Anglicanum Catholicum, ut cu¬ rarent quantum in se esset, ut rex eligere¬ tur a fide Catholica non abhorrens : et quo¬ niam talis existimabatur rex Scotise, ideo per ea brevia includebatur potius, quam excludebatur, nostro saltem judicio. An au¬ tem, et cur ea brevia Garnettus cremaverit, ignorare me fateor. Vidit fortasse, posse verba brevium in malam partem accipi ; vel audivit Jacobum regem vere a Catholica fide alienissimum esse. Ideo brevia quae tunc prodesse non poterant, ignibus tradidit, ut non obessent. i . XII. Mendacium pag. 60. Ex quatuordecim artifculis in juramento fi¬ delitatis comprehensis, undecim sunt, qui primatum Pontificis in spiritualibus attin¬ gunt. Confutatio. « Ex hisce'articulis ne unus quidem Pon¬ tificis primatum in spiritualibus attingit. Quorsum enim attingeret, cum contra pri¬ matum Pontificis in spiritualibus expressum alibi juramentum exstet? » Responsio. Ex quatuordecim articulis in juramento comprehensis, ut rex ipse divisit, et nume¬ ravit per quatuordecim oppositas proposi¬ tiones in Apologia sua pag. 51. et 52. soli sunt tres, primus, tertius decimus, et quar¬ tus decimus, qui de potestate Papa in excom- APOLOGLE GAP. XV. 197 manicandis, vel deponendis principibus lo¬ quuntur, eam vero potestatem ad primatum in spiritualibus pertinere dubium non est, cum Papa non excommunicet, neque depo¬ nat principes, nisi Apostolica potestate • Apostolicam autem potestatem spiritualem esse omnes fateantur. XIII. Mendacium pag. 64. Inter alias calumnias, illam profert in me¬ dium, quod Bellarminus vel conscius, vel auctor fuit proditionum adversus reginam Elisabetham. Confutatio. « Numquam dixi (in Apologia) Bellarmi- num vel auctorem, vel conscium fuisse pro¬ ditionum adversus reginam Elisabetham ; sed proditorum Praeceptorem, eumque tam pravis, et perniciosis dogmatibus eorum mentes imbuisse, ut iis facillimum esset the- sim transferre ad hypothesim : et quae ille e Cathedra dictaret, ad suas machinationes pro renata accommodare. » Responsio. Apologiae verba pag. 58. haec sunt : « Qui¬ dam ex eo numero Sacerdotum, et Jesuita- rum, qui et ipsi praecipui proditores erant, et proditionum gravissimarum fautores in nuperam reginam initarum, Patrem Rober- tum Bellarminum pro uno ex praecipuis suis vel auctoribus, vel oraculis celebrare non dubitaverunt», et ad marginem notat, qui sint illi proditores dicens : « Campianus, et Hartus :vide colloquium in turri Londinensi habitum. » Ex his verbis quis non judicet, Gampianum, et Hartum vocari proditores, et eorum auctorem fieri Bellarminum? Sed quoniam Campianus, et Hartus nullius pro¬ ditionis convicti fuerunt, et in turri Londi¬ nensi, ubi Bellarmini scripta allegata sunt, non de proditionibus, sed de controversiis fidei disputabatur : et Bellarminus Hartum numquam vidit, Gampianum semel dumtaxat Romae in transitu salutavit ; ac per hoc neu¬ trum discipulum habuit : denique quia ne¬ que in cathedra Bellarminus aliquid unquam dixit, neque in libris aliquid scripsit, quod ad proditiones pertineat : videat Rex qua conscientia dicat ea, quae probare numquam poterit. XIV. Mendacium pag. 64. Scit Bellarminus, Gampianum contra hae¬ reticam pravitatem solum conspirasse. Confutatio 9 « Quod Campianus ultimo supplicio affe¬ ctus est, non in causa fuit, quod contra hae¬ reticam pravitatem, ut hic hbellator videri vult, sed quod contra reginam Elisabetham et hujus regni statum conspiraverit, id quod ex actibus judicialibus evidentissime consta¬ bat. » Responsio. Disputationes tertio habitae Ministrorum cum Campiano de fide Catholica in turri Londinensi, satis ostendunt causam veram supplicii : praesertim cum post disputationem tertiam acerrime tortus Campianus fuerit. Non tamen ignoro, neque nego conficta fuisse crimina conspirationum, quae neque ipse fassus est, neque de iis ab aliis convi¬ ctus fuit. Actis judicialibus in Campianum quae fides haberi debeat, docent acta similia in Garnettum. XV. Mendacium pag. 65. Cur Henricus Garnettus, vir doctrina om¬ nis generis, et vitae sanctitate incomparabi¬ lis, ultimo supplicio affectus est, nisi quia revelare noluit, quod salva conscientia re¬ velare non poterat? / Confutatio. « Quod hujus nefandi facinoris notitia non ex sola confessione, ad Henricum Gar¬ nettum pervenerit, ut iste mentitur, sed aliis etiam modis : nec ex unius, sed plurium re¬ latione, ita ut salva conscientia illud reve¬ lasse potuisset, vide Monit. Praei'. pag. 131. et Comitis Northamptoma librum. » Responsio. Vidi monitoriam praefationem, vidi etiam Actionem in Garnettum : sed vidi quoque responsionem, qua actionis illius mendacia deteguntur, et inde in sententia confirmatus sum, quam ab oculatis, et auritis testibus 198 APOLOGLE GAP. XV. acceperam, non fuisse ullo legitimo indicio probatum, proditionerq pulverariam alia via quam sacramentalis confessionis, ad Garnet- tum pervenisse, quod ipse et in judicio, et ad patibulum confessus est. XVI. Mendacium pag. 71. Itaque Syxtus Pontifex neque regem caedi imperavit, neque caedem a privato illo ho¬ mine factam approbavit. Confutatio. « Quam splendidum sit hoc mendacium, patet ex oratione ipsa Sixti Quinti. » Responsio. Nulla apud nos Sixti Y, exstat oratio : et quae ab adversariis edita est, quamvis fidem non mereatur, tamen in eam sententiam commode potest exponi, quae in responsione nostra legitur pag. 70. 71. 72. XVII. Mendacium pag. 91. Quod autem additur de Stanleiana prodi¬ tione, non fideliter, neque vere narratur, si¬ quidem more suo auctor Apologiae multis additis mendaciis historiam foede corrupit. Confutatio. « Quse dicta sunt de proditione Stanleiana, recitata erant ad verbum ex apologia Alani, pro causa Stanleiana, ut ibi videre est. » Responsio. Apologiam illam totam nullo verbo omis¬ so, denuo legi, nec inveni verba illa qua* rex citavit : dicit quidem Alanus bellum reginse, quo in Hollandia oppida regi Catholico eri¬ puerat, fuisse injustum, et ideo oppida illa regi debuisse restitui : sed non dicit : « Quod quandoquidem excommunicata esset regina, et haeretica, non solum liceret jam ejus subditis, verum etiam necesse esset ab obligatione conscientiae, nudare eam omni, quo possent, prae idio,et sive exercitus, sive oppida, sive arces, et propugnacula ejus ob¬ tinerent, regi Hispano hosti tradere, regina deinceps nihil habente proprium, velsuum, » haec, inquam, non dicit Cardinalis Alanus, et tamen rex affirmat haec ipsa ad verbum re¬ citata esse ex Apologia Alani, pro causa Stanleiana. Apologia illa exstat Anglice, Gal¬ lice, et Italice, consulat lector Apologiam, et judicet. XVIII. Mendacium pag. 39. Constat Henricum Garnettum in publico judicio constanter semper dixisse, neque se, neque ullum Jesuitam hujus conspirationis auctorem, vel complicem, vel consultorem vel consentiente mullo modo fuisse, et pau¬ lo post idipsum in stante morte coram in¬ numerabili populo longa oratione protestatus est. Confutatio, « Liber qui inscribitur, Actio in prodito¬ res, et nostra monitoria Praefatio pag. 131. 132 clare evincunt contrarium. » Responsio. Monitoria Praefatio narrat, non probat, Actio in proditores sine pudore, mentitur de iis rebus, qu.e notissimae sunt Angliae uni¬ versae : sed ideo edita est, ut apud exteros fidem inveniat, et fallat incautos. XIX. Mendacium pag. 97. Jacobus autem cum Catholicus non sit, neque Christianus est. Confutatio. « Contra. Ego vero Catholicus sum, ut qui fidem profitear vere antiquam Catholi¬ cam, et Apostolicam : ac proinde vere Chri¬ stianus sum. Vide confessionem fidei meae in Monit. Praes, pag. 37. 38. et deinceps. » Responsio. Vidi confessionem regis in monitoria Prae¬ fatione, et ex ea plane, manifesteque didici regem non esse Catholicum, plurima enim rex damnat, et negat, quae lides Catholica etiam antiquissima semper docuit. Non po¬ test autem dici Catholicus, qui aliquam par¬ tem Catholicae fidei tenet, sed qui totam te¬ net, a.iuqui omnes haeretici Catholici essent. Et si rex Catholicus est, cur in tota Apologia tr \ APOLOGI,® CAP. XVI. 199 pro juramento fidelitatis, eos Catholicos vo¬ cat, quorum fidem, et religionem detestatur? XX. Mendacium pag. 98. Et si vera sunt, quae narrantur ah iis, qui cum intime noverunt, cum in Scotia Purita- nus, et Progestantium inimicus esset, nunc in Anglia Protestans est, et Puritanorum ad¬ versarium se gerit. Confutatio. « Contra. Qualis Puritanus eram in Scotia, vide Praefationem in Basilicon Doron, et Monit. Praef. pag. 48. 49. » Responsio. Vidi ista duo , sed vidi etiam confes¬ sionem Scoticam Puritanorum, cui rex subscripsit , sic enim incipit confessio. Brevis, et generalis confessio Christianae Religionis, secundum Dei verbum , et acta parlamen torum : subscripta a regia majesta¬ te ejusque familia, et diversis aliis : ad Dei gloriam, et bonum exemplum omnium. Edernburgi 28. Januarii, anno Domini 1580. et regni ejus 14. Legi quoque in ipso Basi¬ lico Doro regem dicentem, se certo cogno¬ visse religionem, quce viget in Scotia, esse verissimam : Religionem autem, queo viget in Scotia, fatetur ibidem rex divino miracu¬ lo a Puritauis seditiosis introductam, etc.