Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 17: The Five New Dogmas the King Noted, with the Answer
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).
There follow the new dogmas which the king noted in my little book.
The first new dogma, page 9
It is agreed among men that the Supreme Pontiff can by right depose heretical princes and free their subjects from obedience to them.
Confutation. “On the contrary, so far is it from being agreed among all on this point, that you might more truly say that before the pontificate of Hildebrand it never came into anyone’s mind; he was the first of all to put forth this new doctrine, plainly unheard of before, as many learned men both of his own and of the following century testify (to omit witnesses of later ages); on which matter see the Letter of the Clergy of Liège to Paschal II, and the opinion of the bishops of those times in Aventinus, book 5, folio 579, and so on.”
Answer. When I said that it is agreed among all, I was speaking of Catholic theologians and jurists, not of schismatics, such as those the king alleges. For I knew well enough that during the schism of Henry IV there were many who wrote for and against. But if this dogma had its beginning from the time of Gregory VII, whom the king calls Hildebrand, why after about five hundred years am I accused as if I were the inventor or follower of a new dogma? Certainly that cannot be called new which has flourished for so many centuries. But neither is it true that this doctrine was unheard of before the times of Gregory VII, since it is certain that by Gregory the younger, who preceded Gregory VII by about three hundred years, the Emperor Leo the Isaurian was excommunicated and deprived of the revenues of Italy, as Zonaras and Cedrenus witness. Of the authors the king cites, only two are not to be despised, Otto of Freising, book 6, chapter 35, and Godfrey of Viterbo, part 17. But these write only that they had not read of an emperor excommunicated by a Pope and deposed from the empire before the times of Gregory VII; they do not say that it cannot be done or is not lawful, as the schismatics say.
And that the king may see that I said truly that it is agreed among all Catholic theologians and jurists that heretical princes can by right be deposed by the Supreme Pontiff and their subjects freed from obedience to them, let him read the general Council of the Lateran under Innocent III, chapter 3, whence comes the chapter Excommunicamus, on heretics; and the Council of Lyons under Innocent IV, whence comes the chapter Ad Apostolicae, on sentence and the thing judged, in the Sext. For no one truly Catholic can contradict these Councils; and so it is agreed among all Catholics that a heretical prince can by right be deposed. Nor is it against this that in the Council of Lyons cited Frederick was deposed for various causes; for one of the chief was that he was held suspect of heresy on evident grounds; and if one evidently suspect of heresy was judged by the Pope in a general council worthy of deposition, how much more may a manifest heretic be deposed by right? Moreover, among particular authors I found many who expressly confess it; one who expressly denies it I found none; so it was not without reason that I affirmed it is agreed among all. Let the king consult Saint Thomas, Secunda Secundae, question 10, article 10; and lest he perhaps suspect that Saint Thomas is speaking only of pagans or Jews when he says that an infidel prince can by the authority of the Church be deprived of the dominion he has over the faithful, let him read article 6 of the same question, and he will find the holy Doctor speaking of pagans, Jews and heretics, and above all of heretics, whom he affirms to be infidels absolutely and simply worse than pagans and Jews. The same opinion, on the right the Supreme Pontiff has of excommunicating and deposing heretical princes, he will find in Saint Raymund in the Summa, title on heretics, paragraph 7; Saint Bonaventure on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, part 2, chapter 1; Saint Antoninus in the Summa, part 3, title 22, chapter 3, paragraph 7, and chapter 5, paragraph 7; Joannes Andreae on the chapter Ad Apostolicae, on sentence and the thing judged, in the Sext; Hostiensis in the Summa, title on heretics, paragraph “With what penalty he is punished,” number 11; Panormitanus on the chapter Excommunicamus, number 2, title on heretics; John of Torquemada, book 2 of the Summa on the Church, chapter 114, conclusion 4, at the end; John Driedo, book 1 On Christian Liberty, chapter 14; Domingo de Soto on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 25, question 2, article 1, conclusion 5; Alfonso de Castro, On the Just Punishment of Heretics, book 2, chapter 7; Jacobo Simancas in the treatise On Catholic Institutions, title on the Pope, number 25; and others whom it would be long, and not necessary, to bring in here.
The second new dogma, page 51
In the supernatural birth which we have in baptism there must be understood a tacit and inborn oath to obey the spiritual Prince, who is the Vicar of Christ.
Confutation. “It is a wonder whence this man drew this new and utterly unknown theology, which could have been born nowhere but in his own rotten brain; unless he enumerates for us his authors, who teach and affirm that all Christians, or adults, by virtue of some tacit oath taken in baptism, are bound to render absolute obedience to the Vicar of Christ, or are baptised into any other name than the name of Christ.”
Answer. Bellarmine nowhere said that those who are reborn in Christ through baptism are baptised into any other name than the name of Christ. But that those who receive the baptism of Christ are bound to render obedience to the Vicar of Christ is taught by all who confess that through baptism men are admitted into the household of Christ, and that the Vicar of Christ is he whom the Lord has set over his household, Matthew 24 and Luke 12. But it is strange that the king wonders whence this theology was born, since it could easily enough have been gathered from his own words in the Apology for the oath of allegiance, page 76. For there the king taught that there are two oaths of subjects, one tacit and inborn, from the moment we are born, the other declaratory, applied in confirmation of the former, which is nothing else than the expression and a certain public proclamation of the former inborn one. From this admirable doctrine of the king it follows: if in the natural birth there must be understood a tacit and inborn oath to obey the political prince, then in the supernatural birth also, which we have from baptism, there must be understood a tacit and inborn oath to obey the spiritual prince, who is the Vicar of Christ. So let the king either condemn his own doctrine of a tacit and inborn oath in the natural birth, or approve ours also of a like tacit and inborn oath in the supernatural birth; and let him either count up the authors of his own doctrine himself, or cease to ask for the authors of ours.
The third new dogma, page 94
But since Catholic doctrine does not permit the secret of sacramental confession to be disclosed for the avoiding of any evil, he chose rather to suffer a most bitter death than to violate the seal of so great a sacrament.
Confutation. “That the secret of sacramental confession cannot be disclosed for the avoiding or preventing of any evil whatever, even indirectly at least, or in general, provided that the person who makes the confession is concealed: besides being a thesis most pernicious to all princes and commonwealths, is a new dogma, and so on. Consult Alexander of Hales, Thomas, Scotus, and so on.”
Answer. There is no reason for the king to weary himself in citing authors or in attacking this doctrine, for it never came into Bellarmine’s mind to teach what the king thinks he taught. What he said, therefore, that according to Catholic doctrine the seal of confession cannot be loosed for the avoiding of any evil whatever, is to be understood thus: that it is not lawful in any way to betray the person of the one confessing, for this properly falls under the seal. Otherwise no one doubts that the sins themselves can be disclosed, whether to take counsel, or to guard against evils, or for other reasons, provided that from the disclosure of the sin there is no danger that the person who confessed the sin be disclosed. Now it has already been shown above that Garnet could not disclose the treason known in sacramental confession without also disclosing the traitors; and so he chose rather to lose his life by a cruel execution than to violate the most sacred secret.
The fourth new dogma, page 102
I indeed dare to say that the Catholics have a better cause for refusing the oath than Eleazar had for not tasting swine’s flesh.
Confutation. “This assertion really contains a new dogma, namely that a Pontifical brief is to be preferred to the law of Moses, and that Catholics are more bound by the Pontiff’s decree than the Jews of old were bound by the law delivered through Moses.”
Answer. But Bellarmine on that page 102 in express words compared the precept of not eating swine’s flesh with the precept of refusing the king’s oath as to the matter, not as to the lawgivers. So he said only this, that the Catholics have a better cause for refusing an oath by which the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is violated than Eleazar had for not tasting swine’s flesh, since the violation of the Supreme Pontiff’s authority is a far greater matter than the eating of swine’s flesh. In vain, therefore, does the king compare a Pontifical brief with the law of Moses. But neither is it true that the precept of not admitting the oath we are dealing with rests only on the authority of a Pontifical brief; for it rests on divine authority declared through the Pontiff’s brief. Therefore in the same place Bellarmine said that the authority of the one commanding is the same in both cases, namely of God, who through Moses in Leviticus commanded the Jews to abstain from swine’s flesh, and through the same Moses in Deuteronomy commanded that all should obey the high priest.
The fifth new dogma, page 135
That clerics are exempt from the jurisdiction of secular princes, and therefore are not subject to kings; but that they ought nevertheless to observe their laws about temporal things, not by force of the law but by force of reason, that is, not because they are subjects, but because reason dictates that for the common good and the peace of the commonwealth those laws are to be kept by all.
Confutation. “How friendly to kings is the Cardinal, and he who is chaplain to the Cardinal, who would have so many subjects exempt from their power, the Premonitory Preface teaches, pages 23 and 24.”
Answer. I was expecting that the king would demonstrate the novelty of this dogma, according to that title of his, New Dogmas, together with a declaration of their novelty. But because he saw that this dogma is found in all the theologians and jurists, and indeed in the sacred Canons of the Pontiffs themselves and the decrees of the Councils, he prudently turned aside to stirring up ill will against the Cardinal among kings, as though he himself were the first author of the exemption of clerics. But as he has taught nothing new, so he hopes that this manifest calumny will do him no harm among Catholic kings and princes.
The end of the Apology of Cardinal Bellarmine.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVII. Sequuntur nova dogmata , quae rex notavit in meo libello. Primum Dogma novum pag. 9. Inter homines convenit, posse Pontificem maximum haereticos principes jure deponere, et subditos ab eorum obedientia liberare. Confutatio. <i Imo vero tantum abest, ut inter omnes de hoc conveniat, verius ut dicas, ante Hil- debrandi Pontificatum, id nemini unquam venisse in mentem, qui primus omnium hanc novam doctrinam, planeque ante inauditam prodidit, ut multi viri docti, cum illius, tum subsequentis saeculi testantur ( ut alios infe¬ riorum setafum testes omittam ) ; qua de re vide Epistolam Cleri Leodiensis ad Pascha¬ lem II. sententiam Episcoporum horum tem¬ porum apud Aventinum, lib. v. fol. 579. etc. » Responsio. Cum dixi, inter omnes convenire, de theo¬ logis, et jureconsultis Catholicis loquebar ; non de schismaticis, quales sunt quos rex allegat. Satis enim sciebam durante schi¬ smate Henrici quarti, multos fuisse, qui pro, vel contra scriberent. Sed si hoc dogma a tempore Gregorii VII. (quem rex Hildebran- dum vocat) initium habuit : cur post annos circiter quingentos, ego quasi novi dogma¬ tis inventor aut sectator accusor ? Certe non potest dici novum, quod ante tot saecula vi¬ guit. Sed neque verum est, ante tempora Gregorii VII. hanc doctrinam fuisse inaudi¬ tam ; cum conslet, a Gregorio juniore, qui trecentis circiter annis Gregorium VII. ante¬ cessit, excommunicatum fuisse, et vectiga¬ libus Italiae privatum Leonem Isauricum im¬ peratorem, testibus Zonara, et Cedreno. Ex, auctoribus, quos rex citat, duo soli sunt non contemnendi, Otho Frigensensis lib. vi. c. 35. et Godefridus Viterbiensis par. 17. Sed hi scribunt solum se non legisse ante tem¬ pora Gregorii VII. imperatorem a Papa ex¬ communicatum, et ab imperio depositum fuisse , non tamen dicunt id lieri non posse, aut non licere, ut schismatici dicunt. Ut autem rex videat, vere a me dictum esse convenire inter omnes Catholicos theologos, et jureconsultos, posse a Pontifice maximo principes haereticos jure deponi, et subditos ab eorum obedientia liberari : legat conci¬ lium generale Lateranense sub Innocentio III. cap. 3. unde exstat cap. Excommunica¬ mus, de haeret, et Lugdunense sub Innocen¬ tio IV. unde exstat cap. Ad Apostolicae, de sent. et re judic. in 6. His enim Conciliis nemo vere Catholicus contradicere potest : ac per hoc inter omnes Catholicos convenit, haereticum principem jure posse deponi. Neque his repugnat, quod in concilio Lug¬ dunensi citato Fridericus variis (de causis depositus fuerit : nam una ex praecipuis fuit, quia suspectus de haeresi argumentis evi¬ dentibus habebatur, et si suspectus eviden¬ ter de haeresi depositione dignus a Papa in generali concilio judicatus est, quanto ma¬ gis haereticus manifestus jure deponi pote- 202 APOLOGLE CAP. XVII. rit ? Porro ex auctoribus particularibus mul¬ tos inveni, qui expresse id fateantur ; qui expresse neget, nullum inveni : ideo non sine ratione affirmavi, inter omnes conve¬ nire. Consulat rex S. Thomam 2. 2. qusest. 10. art. 10. ct ne forte suspicetur, S. Tho¬ mam loqui solum de Paganis, aut Judaeis, cum dicit, posse infidelem principem aucto¬ ritate Ecclesiae privari dominio, quod habet super fideles; legat articulum sextum ejusdem quaestionis, et inveniet sanctum Doctorem loqui de Paganis, Judaeis, et haereticis, ac potissimum de haereticis, quos affirmat esse infideles, Paganis, et Judaeis absolute, et simpliciter deteriores. Eamdem sententiam de jure quod habet summus Pontifex ex¬ communicandi, et deponendi Principes hae¬ reticos inveniet apud S. Raymundum in Summa tit. de Haereticis §. 7. S. Bonaven- turam de Hierarchia Ecclesiastica, part. 2. cap. 1. S. Antonium in Summa part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 3. §. 7. et cap. 5. §. 7. Joannem Andream in cap. Ad Apostolicae de sent. et rejudic. in 6. Ostiensem in Summa tit. de Haereticis, §. Qua poena puniatur, num. ll. Abbatem in cap. Excommunicamus num. 2. titul. de Haereticis, joannem de Turrecre- mata lib. ii. Summa de Ecclesia cap. 114. conclus. 4. in sine. Joannem Driedonis lib. i. De libertate Christiana cap. 14. Dominicum a Soto in 4. Sent. dist. 25 quaest. 2. art. 1. conclus. 5. Alphonsum de Castro De justa haereticorum punitione lib. n. cap. 7. Jaco- bum Simancam in tract. de Catholicis insti¬ tutionibus tit. de Papa, num. 25. et alios, quos longum esset, et non necessarium huc adferre. II. Novum dogma pag. 51. In ortu supernaturali, quem habemus in baptismo, intelligi debet juramentum taci¬ tum, et congenitum ad obediendum Piincipi spirituali, qui est Christi Vicarius. Confutatio. Vicario praestandam, aut in aliud quam in Christi nomen baptizari. » Responsio. Nusquam dixit Bellarminus, eos, qui per baptismum renascuntur in Christo, in aliud quam in Christi nomen baptizari. Obligari autem eos, qui baptismum Christi suscipiunt, ad obedientiam Vicario Christi praestandam ; docent omnes, qui fatentur, per baptismum admitti homines ad familiam Christi : et Christi Vicarium esse illum, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam, Matth. xxiv. et Luc. xii. Sed mirum est, cur rex miretur, unde haec theologia nata sit, cum satis facile colligi potuerit ex verbis ipsius in Apologia pro juramento fidelitatis pag. 76. Ibi enim rex docuit, duo esse juramenta subditorum, unum tacitum, et congenitum, cum primum nati sumus, alterum declaratorium in con¬ firmationem prioris adhibitum, quod nihil aliud est, quam prioris ingeniti expressio, et publica quaedam praedicatio. Ex hac admi¬ randa regis doctrina sequitur : Si io ortu na¬ turali debeat intelligi juramentum tacitum, et congenitum ad obediendum principi po¬ litico, in ortu quoque supernaturali, quem habemus ex baptismo, intelligi debere juramentum tacitum, et congenitum ad obe¬ diendum principi spirituali, qui est Christi Vicarius. Itaque vel damnet rex doctrinam suam de juramento tacito, et congenito in ortu naturali , vel probet etiam nostram de simili juramento tacito, et congenio in ortu supernaturali , et vel numeret ipse auctores doctrina? suse, vel desinat quaerere auctores doctrinae nostrae. III. Novum dogma pag. 94. Sed cum Catholica doctrina non permittat ad ullum malum vitandum secretum sacra- mentalis confessionis detegi, maluit ille mortem acerbissimam pati, quam tanti sa¬ cramenti sigillum violare. « Mitum est unde iste hauserit hanc no- Confutatio, v&m, et prorsus incognitam Theologiam, qu& tion aliunde quam ex ipsius putido ce- « Quod secretum sacramentalis confessio- rebro nasci potuit : sin minus suos nobis au- nis ad nullum malum quantumcumque vi¬ ctores enumeret, qui doceant, et affirment ti.ndmn, vel prsevenien Ium possit detegi, Christianos omnes, sive adultos, virtute ju- vel indirecte saltem, aut in genere, modo ramenti cujusdam taciti in baptismo susce- persona, qua? confessionem edit, celetur, pti, teriebi ad obedientiam absolutam Christi praeterquam quod thesis est cunctis principi- APOLOGLE CAP. XVII. 203 bus, et rebus publicis perniciosissima, novum est dogma etc. Consule Alex. Alensem, Tho- mam, Scotum, etc. » Responsio. Non est cur rex fatigetur in auctoribus ci¬ tandis, aut hac doctrina impugnanda, num- quam enim venit Bellarmino in mentem docere, quod rex existimat eum docuisse : quod igitur dixit secundum Catholicam do¬ ctrinam, non posse solvi sigillum confessio¬ nis, ad quodcumque malum evitandum, in- telligendum est, non esse licitum ullo modo prodere personam confitentis, hoc enim proprie cadit sub sigillum : alioqui nemini dubium est posse detegi peccata ipsa vel ad capiendum consilium, vel ad praecavenda mala, vel aliis de causis, dummodo ex ma¬ nifestatione peccati non sit periculum, ne manifestetur persona, quae peccatum con¬ fessa est. Jam autem supra demonstratum est, non potuisse Garnettum detegere prodi¬ tionem in confessione sacramentali cogni¬ tam, nisi etiam detegeret proditores : ideo maluisse crudeli supplicio vitam amittere, quam sacrosanctum secretum violare. IV. Novum dogma pag. 102. Ego vero audeo dicere, meliorem causam habere Catholicos juramenti recusandi, quam Eleazarus habuerit carnis porcinae non gustandae. Confutatio. « Haec assertio revera novum dogma con¬ tinet, breve scilicet Pontificium legi Mosaicae praeferendum esse : et Catholicos magis te¬ neri Pontificis decreto, quam Judaei olim lege per Mosem tradita tenebantur. » Responsio. At Bellarminus in illa pag. 102. disertis verbis comparavit praeceptum non come¬ dendae carnis porcinae cum praecepto recu¬ sandi juramenti regii quo ad materiam, non quo ad legislatores. Itaque hoc solum dixit, meliorem causam habere Catholicos jura¬ menti recusandi, quo summi Pontificis au" ctoritas violatur, quam Eleazarus habuerit non gustandae carnis porcinae ; quoniam longe major res est, violatio auctoritatis summi Pontificis, quam esus carnis porcinae : frustra igitur rex comparat breve pontifi¬ cium cum lege Mosis. Sed neque verum est, praeceptum non admittendi juramentum, de quo agimus, niti solum auctoritate brevis pontificii : nititur enim auctoritate divina per breve Pontificis declarata. Ideo in eodem loco dixit Bellarminus auctoritatem impe¬ rantis in utroque loco eaindem esse, videlicet Dei, qui per Mosem jussit in Levitico, ut Ju¬ daei a carne suilla se abstinerent ; et per eundem Mosem in Deuteronomio jussit, ut omnes summo Sacerdoti obtemperarent. V. Novum dogma pag., 135. Clericos exemptos esse a jurisdictione principum saecularium, ac per hoc, non esse subjectos regibus : sed debere tamen leges eorum de temporalibus rebus observare non vi legis, sed vi rationis, id est, non quia subditi sunt, sed quia ratio dictat ob commune bo¬ num, et pacem Reipub. eas leges ab omni¬ bus esse servandas. Responsio. « Quam sit amicus regibus Cardinalis, et qui Cardinali a sacellis est, qui tot subditos ab eorum potestate exemptos velint docet monit. Prsef. pag. 23, 24. » Confutatio. Expectabam, ut rex novitatem hujus do¬ gmatis demonstraret, juxta titulum illum, Nova dogmata, una cum novitatis ipsorum declaratione. Sed quia vidit, dogma istud inveniri apud omnes theologos, et jurecon¬ sultos ; immo ipsis sacris Pontificum Cano¬ nibus, et Conciliorum decretis : prudenter divertit ad invidiam Cardinali apud reges constandam, quasi ipse primus sit auctor exemptionis Clericorum. Sed sicut ipse nihil novi docuit, ita sperat , manifestam istam calumniam, nihil ei apud Catholicos reges, et principes nocituram. finis apologij: card. bellarmini. . 4’ - < • . , • . ■ i v>. •; ( I ."i N • • V: :ih - A ■ • 1 IJI/ MI. t IU fi! / i !.f«| l- . t ttOi! ijnkr' >i T.f' -< ■■ iiljHiA. «ftf-ffi* t*t ,*i« ■ ‘ :run -.'i-' . , 1 i:-* 'i' l&v r ft::: • i- • h '-r:. o! m>. -'i, . . «b ,«> ,«:• :• ' . r> . / ’* • ' u- ; to. ■> . -i- • ■ .v, -V ./ ■' i' ... ■■ ■’ ■ ■ w . , , * 0J-K.O1,- ’ -Ii • f nt(! ! ■■■ i nvfil OthDJ- ■ ■ " iit ! » - •. ■ b. i’v. 5 ; •: . ,'•>! .i .-wb. ■ >ii0biijfi *• //n! - : n- * -