Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 42: The Sixth Example Is Defended; with the Epilogue
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus adversus Gulielmum Barclaium, a treatise of 1610. 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 sixth example is that of Pope Zachary, who deposed Childeric, king of the Franks, and put Pepin in his place. To this example Barclay opposes many things, which must be refuted part by part. First he contends that Childeric was king in name only, such as is, as he himself speaks, the king in chess. I answer: it cannot be denied that Childeric did nothing at all in the kingdom by himself, but administered the kingdom and the business of the kingdom through the princes, and chiefly through the Mayor of the Palace, as Aimoin hands down, book 4, chapter 61; but it is not true that he was king in name only; for he was king by right of succession, and had been anointed and crowned as a true and lawful king, and had received the oath of fidelity from the peoples. Nor can Barclay deny this, unless he wishes to contradict himself; for a little after he writes that a most grave injury was done to Childeric by Pope Zachary and by Prince Pepin when he was cast down from the kingdom. But what injury could be done to him, if without any right he bore the false name of king? and why had Pepin burned with hope of the kingdom, and openly aspired to the royal name (as Barclay speaks a little below), if Childeric had nothing but an empty name?
Second, Barclay says that Childeric was unjustly deposed; in which matter he has for companion John Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 7, and Illyricus in the Magdeburg history, century 8, chapter 10. But we prove that he was justly deposed, first from the testimonies of all the writers; for all tell this history with praise. See Cedrenus in the life of Leo the Isaurian, Paul the Deacon, book 6, chapter 5, on the deeds of the Lombards, Einhard in the life of Charlemagne, Regino, book 2 of the Chronicle, Marianus Scotus, book 3 of the Chronicle, Otto of Freising, book 5 of the history, chapter 22, Ado of Vienne in the Chronicle, Aimoin, book 4, chapter 61, the Abbot of Ursperg and Sigebert in the Chronicle, Biondo, book 10 of the first Decade, Paulus Aemilius, books 1 and 2 on the deeds of the Franks, Robert Gaguin, Papirius Masson, and all others, heretics excepted. Second, from the cause; for not only did Childeric and some of his predecessors care for no business of the kingdom, but also on account of their sloth the Christian religion in that kingdom was labouring greatly, as Saint Boniface, bishop of Mainz, writes in the epistle to Pope Zachary. Third, from the virtue of the author and the executor; for Zachary, by whose authority this thing was done, was by the consent of all a most holy and most wise man. And Saint Boniface, who by his order anointed and crowned Pepin, was not only an eminent doctor, but also a most glorious martyr. Lastly, from the outcome; for that transfer of the kingdom of the Franks from Childeric to Pepin was, God blessing it, most fortunate, and most useful to the kingdom and the Church. “But,” says Barclay, “in no case is it lawful to do evil that good, however great, may follow from it; but that a lawful king be deposed by his own subjects, or that one consent to those deposing him, since he has God alone above him, to whom alone he is bound to render account of his deeds, we have already shown above to be of itself and simply evil.” I answer: Childeric was by right deposed not by his subjects, but by the Pontiff, who was his superior; for Zachary did not merely give assent to the deposition of Childeric, but deposed him by his authority, as we shall soon show. Nor did Barclay prove above by any solid argument that kings have no one above them but God, to whom alone they are bound to render account of their deeds. Let the reader see what was said above, and judge.
Third, Barclay laughs at that argument which I drew from the happy outcome, to prove that Childeric was justly deposed; and he says it is a vulgar and childish argument, and alleges the poet saying: I wish that he may lack success who thinks deeds are to be judged by the outcome. He adds also that the transfer of the kingdom of the Franks from the Carolingians to the Capetians had the same happy outcome; and yet it is established that Hugh Capet by the greatest crime stripped the Carolingians of the kingdom, and transferred it to his Capetians. I answer: an argument from a merely fortuitous outcome is without doubt worth little, as if someone should condemn the prudence or skill of a general only because he was not victor in a battle; for the loss of victory often happens from some other source than the imprudence or unskilfulness of the general; but an argument from a happy outcome by the providence of God is worth not a little, especially when it is joined to other arguments; for God is wont to favour justice, unless for some cause it seems to his wisdom that it should be done otherwise. But as to Barclay's charging Hugh Capet with the greatest crime and a usurped kingdom, and bringing forward Gaguin as author, we set against him Cardinal Baronius, who in the tenth volume of the Annals, at the year of the Lord 987, proves by many arguments that Hugh was a lawful king, and that in him the stock of Charlemagne did not fail, but was propagated. Nor are others lacking who defend that Hugh, such as Papirius Masson and others; and Gaguin does not say that this was done by Hugh by the greatest crime. And certainly a great argument of this matter can be that Robert the Pious, who reigned together with his father Hugh and after him, was a most godly and most holy man; for so great piety could not have gone together with the unjust usurpation of another's kingdom.
Fourth, Barclay says that Saint Boniface did not sin in carrying out the command of Pope Zachary, although Zachary sinned in commanding; and he gives the reason: because, he says, he was bound to carry out the Pope's sentence, even if he had known it to be unjust, and therefore, although the iniquity of commanding made Zachary guilty, the order of serving and the necessity of obeying showed Boniface innocent; and he alleges the chapter Pastoralis, paragraph Quia vero, on the office of the delegated judge, and the canon Quid culpatur, cause 23, question 1, and the canon Miles, cause 23, question 5. I answer: this saying is not vulgar or childish, but plainly heretical; for it is repugnant to the express word of God: We ought to obey God rather than men, Acts 5; which Saint Augustine himself declared, and the other Fathers who are cited in cause 11, question 3, canon Julianus, and many other canons of the same question. But in that chapter Pastoralis, paragraph Quia vero, where it is said that an unjust sentence is to be carried into execution by an inferior, the gloss rightly teaches that what is there called an unjust sentence is absolutely just, because it has been justly brought in by the law that against him who has not appealed within the prescribed time sentence be pronounced, even if otherwise he had a just cause; and in the same place the same gloss most rightly declares that a command of a superior evidently unjust is not to be obeyed. And in the canon Quid culpatur, cause 23, question 1, Saint Augustine speaks against Barclay when he says that a superior is to be obeyed when it is either certain that what is commanded is not unjust, or not certain that it is unjust; from which it follows that when it is certain that it is unjust, it is in no way to be obeyed. Lastly, in the canon Miles, cause 23, question 5, it is not a question of the justice or injustice of the command, and this only is defined, that to kill a man by private authority is a sin, but otherwise if it is done by public authority. Wherefore Barclay, blinded by love of his own opinion, either would not understand the laws, or could not.
Fifth, he says that Pope Zachary consented to the Franks wishing to depose Childeric and make Pepin king, but did not by his own power or authority either depose Childeric from the kingdom or transfer the kingdom to Pepin; and therefore that nothing can be drawn from this example to show the authority of the Roman Pontiff in deposing or making kings. But this is too great rashness, since the contrary is manifestly proved by the testimonies of all the historians. First, the most ancient Annals of the Franks have thus: “Having given his authority (Zachary) ordered Pepin to be made king.” Second, Einhard in the life of Charlemagne: “Pepin,” he says, “by the authority of the Roman Pontiff was made king from Mayor of the Palace.” Third, Aimoin, book 4, chapter 61, on the deeds of the Franks: “The Pontiff,” he says, “having given his authority, ordered Pepin to be set up as king.” Fourth, Regino, book 2 of the Chronicle: “Zachary,” he says, “by Apostolic authority ordered Pepin to be made king, and to be anointed with the oil of holy unction.” Fifth, Lambert of Hersfeld, in the history: “Pepin,” he says, “by decree of Pope Zachary, through the unction of Saint Boniface, was called king.” Sixth, Sigebert in the Chronicle: “In the year 750,” he says, “Prince Pepin, by Apostolic authority and the election of the Franks, is consecrated king by Saint Boniface; and in the year 752 is again anointed king by Pope Stephen.” Seventh, Hermann the Lame, in the Chronicle: “In the year 752,” he says, “Pepin, by the authority of Pope Stephen, King Childeric being shorn and deposed, was made king of the Franks.” Eighth, Marianus Scotus, book 3 of the Chronicle: “Pope Zachary,” he says, “by the authority of Saint Peter the Apostle commands the people of the Franks that Pepin, who used the royal power, should also enjoy the dignity of the name. So King Childeric, who as the last of the Merovingians ruled the Franks, was deposed and sent into a monastery.” Ninth, the Abbot of Ursperg in the Chronicle: “In the year 750,” he says, “Pepin, by the authority of Pope Zachary, elected to the kingdom after the manner of the Franks, was raised to the throne of the kingdom by the hands of Saint Boniface.” And below: “Pope Stephen confirmed Pepin by sacred unction in the honour of the royal dignity.” Tenth, Otto of Freising, book 5 of the history, chapter 22: “By the authority of Pope Zachary,” he says, “Pepin is elected to the kingdom.” Eleventh, Albert Krantz, book 1 of the Metropolis, chapter 14: “Deservedly,” he says, “do the Supreme Pontiff and the king of the Gauls raise each other by mutual favours, since from the beginning this See rendered to the house of Charles this service, that it should have the royal dignity.” Twelfth, Paulus Aemilius on Childeric: “Zachary,” he says, “released the Franks from the oath given to Childeric; and they, an assembly being held, saluted Pepin as king.” We have twelve witnesses, of whom some testify that by Apostolic authority, others by the authority of the Pontiff, others by the authority of Saint Peter, others by the decree of the Pope, Childeric was deposed and Pepin raised up; the last writes that the Franks did not dare to salute Pepin as king unless they were first released by the Pontiff from the oath by which they were held to King Childeric; and yet Barclay with his usual rashness denies that this was done by the authority or decree of the Pontiff. This alone remained, that he should say with Matthias Illyricus, the most notorious heretic of our time and most lying historian, that it is a lie and a fiction which our writers affirm, that the kingdom of the Franks was transferred by Pope Zachary from Childeric to Pepin. See Illyricus at the beginning of the book on the transfer of the empire.
Epilogue. When Barclay had tried in vain to refute six examples, the remaining six, which were left, he either willingly passed over, because he understood them to be too clear to be darkened by the shadows of his cavils; or, overtaken by death, he was forced unwillingly to leave the work begun. However it may be, having finished with the work and with life, he has been set before that judge whom no one can deceive, and before whom the favour of princes helps no one. And I, who am shortly to be brought before the tribunal of the same supreme judge, trust that I can with a good conscience testify this, that nothing has been written by me for favour, nothing for hatred. I have written what I thought true, what I learned from the Church, what before me very many, not only learned but also holy men, have written. Nor did I of my own accord come down into this arena, but, provoked by a man unknown to me, I have been forced to defend as an old man what I wrote as a young man. And if I have defended the pontifical power and my writings as I ought, which I have most earnestly desired to do, I give most humble thanks to God, in whose hand are we and our words; but if it has turned out otherwise, and in some one thing, or in many, through human weakness I have failed, I ask pardon of him who is sweet and mild, and plenteous in mercy to all that call upon him. To the censure of the Church also, and of the Supreme Pontiff himself, the Vicar of Christ, I willingly and gladly submit not only the present little work, but all my writings.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XLII. Defenditur exemplum sextum Sextum exemplumestZachariae Pontificis, qui Ghildericum regem Francorum deposuit, et Pipinum substituit. IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS Ad hoc exemplum Barclaius opponit multa, queo per partes singillatim refellenda sunt. Primum contendit , Childericum fuisse solo nomine regem, qualis est, ut ipse loqui¬ tur, rex Schaccorum. Respondeo : Negari non potest, quin Chil- dericus nihil omnino in regno per se gere¬ ret, sed regnum, et regni negotia per prin¬ cipes, ac potissimum per praefectum Palatii administraret, ut Aimoinus tradit lib. iv, cap. 61, cseterum verum non est, eum solo nomine regem fuisse, fuit enim rex jure suc¬ cessionis, et tamquam verus, ac legitimus rex innunctus, et coronatus erat, et a popu¬ lis juramentum fidelitatis acceperat. Neque hoc negare Barclaius potest, nisi ipse sibi repugnare velit : nam paulo post scribit, gravissimam injuriam Childerico factam esse a Zacharia Pontifice, et a Pipino principe cum regno dejectus est. At quae injuria fieri poterat ei, si absque ullo jure falsum regis nomen gerebat? et cur Pipinus in spem re¬ gni exarserat, et regium nomen non dissi¬ mulanter affectabat (ut paulo infra Barclaius loquitur) si Childericus nihil praeter inane nomen habebat? Secundo Barclaius dicit, Childericum in¬ juste depositum fuisse, in qua re socium habet Joannem Calvinum, lib. iv instit. cap. 7 et Illiricum in historia Magdeburgensi Centuria 8, cap. 10. Sed nos juste fuisse depositum probamus primo ex testimoniis omnium scriptorum : omnes enim cum laude hanc historiam nar¬ rant. Yide Cedrenum in vita Leonis Isaurici, Paulum Diaconum lib. vi, c. v, de gestis Longobardorum, Eginarthum in vita Caroli Magni, Rhegionem lib. ii. Chronie. Maria¬ num Scotum lib, ni. Chron. Othonem Fri- singensem lib. v, historiae cap. 55. Adonem ■Viennensem, in Chronie. Aimoinum lib. iv, cap. 61. Abbatem Ursperg. et Sigebertum in Chron. Blondum lib. x. Decadis primae, Paulum iEmilium lib. i et ii de gestis Fran¬ corum, Robertum Gaguinum, Papirium Mas- soniurn, et alios omnes, haereticis exceptis. Secundo ex causa : nam non solum Chil¬ dericus, et aliquot ejus praedecessores nulla regni negotia curabant, sed etiam ob eorum socordiam Christiana Religio in eo regno maxime laborabat, ut scribit S. Bonifacius Episcopus Moguntinus in Epistola ad Zacha- riam Pontificem. Tertio ex virtute auctoris, et exeeutoris : nam Zucharias, cujus auctoritate haec res 111 gesta eSt, omnium consensu vir sanctissimus, et sapientissimus fuit. Sanctus vero Bonifa¬ cius, qui jussu Pipinum unxit, et coronavit, non solum Docfcor eximius, sed etiamMartyr gloriosissimus fuit. Denique ab eventu, nam translatio ista regni Francorum a Childerico ad Pipinum Deo benedicente faustissima, et Regno, atque Ecclesiae utilissima fuit. « At, inquit Barclaius, nullo casu licet malum facere, ut bonum inde quantumvis magnum consequatur : deponi autem regem legitimum a propriis subditis, aut deponen¬ tibus consentire, cum ille solum Deum supra se habeat, cui soli gestorum suorum rationem reddere tenetur, per se et simpliciter malum esse jam supra ostendimus. » Respondeo : Childericum non subditi ejus, sed Pontifex, qui superior erat, jure depo¬ suit : non enim Zacharias solum assensum praebuit in depositione Childerici, sed ex au¬ ctoritate eum deposuit, ut mox ostendemus. Neque ullo solido argumento supra Barclaius probavit, reges non habere supra se nisi Deum, cui soli gestorum suorum rationem reddere teneantur. Videat lector, quae supra dicta sunt, et judicet. Tertio Barclaius ridet argumentum illud, quod ab eventu felici duxi, ut probarem, juste Childericum fuisse depositum : ac dicit, plebeium, et puerile argumentum esse, et allegat Poetam dicentem. Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putet, x\ddit etiam , eumdem felicem eventum habuisse translationem regni Francorum a Carolovingis ad Capevingos ; et tamen con¬ stat Hugonem Capetum per summum sce¬ lus exuisse Carolovingos regno, et illud ad Capevingos suos transtulisse. Respondeo : Argumentum a solo eventu fortuito sine dubio parum valet, ut si quis damnaret prudentiam, vel peritiam impera¬ toris ex eo solum, quod victor in praelio non fuisset : saepe enim aliunde accidit amissio victoriae, quam ex imprudentia, vel imperi¬ tia imperatoris : argumentum tamen a felici eventu ex providentia Dei, non parum valet, praesertim cum adjungitur aliis argumentis : solet enim Deus justitiae favere, nisi ob ali¬ quam causam sapientiae ipsius videatur aliter esse faciendum. Quod autem Barclaius reprehendit Hugo¬ nem Capetum summi sceleris, et regni usur¬ pati ; et Gaguinum auctorem adducit : nos ei DE POTESTATE PAP.E 112 Cardinalem Baronium opponimus, qui tomo Annalium decimo ad annum Domini 987, multis argumentis probat, Hugonem fuisse legitimum regem, et in eo non defecisse, sed propagatam esse Caroli Magni stirpem. Nec desunt alii, qui Hugonem istum defendunt, ut Papirius Mastonus, et alii : et Gaguinus non dicit per summum scelus id ab Hugone factum fuisse. Et certe magnum argumen¬ tum hujus rei esse potest, quod Robertus Pius, qui una cum Patre Hugone, et post eum regnavit, vir piissimus, et sanctissimus fuerit : neque enim tanta pietas cum injusta usurpatione alieni regni cohaerere potuisset. Quarto dicit Barclaius, sanctum Bonifa- cium non peccasse exequendo mandatum Zacharise Pontificis, quamvisZacharias man¬ dando peccaverit : reddit autem rationem, quia tenebatur, inquit, Papae sententiam exequi, licet scivisset illam esse injustam, et ideo licet fecisset Zachariam reum iniquitas imperandi, innocentem esse ostendisset Bo- nifacium ordo serviendi, et necessitas pa¬ rendi, et allegat cap. Pastoralis, §. Qui vero, de offic. Judic. deleg. et can. Quid culpatur, 23. quaest. 1 et canon. Miles, 23. quaest. 5. Respondeo : Hoc dictum non plebeium. aut puerile, sed plane hmreticum est; re¬ pugnat enim cum expresso verbo Dei, Opor¬ tet obedire magis Deo, quam hominibus, Actor v ; quod ipsum declaravit sanctus Au¬ gustinus, et alii Patres, qui citantur, 1 1 , quaest. 3. can. Julianus, et aliis multis ca¬ nonibus ejusdem quaestionis. In illo vero cap. Pastoralis §. quia vero, ubi dicitur, sententiam injustam ab inferiore exequutioni mandandam esse ; glossa recte docet, quae ibi dicitur sententia injusta, absolute justam esse, quia juste a lege inductum est, ut is qui in tempore praescripto non appellavit, adversus eum sententia proferatur, etiamsi alioqui justam causam habuisset, et ibidem rectissime eadem glossa declarat, non esse obediendum mandato superioris evidenter injusto. Et can. Quid culpatur, 23, q. 1. S. Augustinus contra Barclaium loquitur, cum dicit, esse obediendum superiori quando vel certum esse injustum , esse vel non est certum esse injustum quod jubetur, ex quo sequitur, ut quando certum est esse inju¬ stum non sit ullo modo parendum , de¬ nique in can. Miles , 28 quaest. 1 , non agitur de justitia, vel injustitia mandati, atque id solum definitur, privata auctoritate hominem interficere peccatum esse, secus autem si publica auctoritate id fiat. Quare Barclaius sententiae suae amore caecatus, vel noluit jura intelligere, vel non potuit. Quinto dicit Zacharium Pontificem con¬ sensisse Francis volentibus Childerum depo¬ nere, et Pipinum regem creare ; non autem potestate, vel auctoritate sua, vel Ghilderi- cum a regno deposuisse, vel in Pipinum re¬ gnum transtulisse; et propterea nihil ex hoc exemplo trahi posse ad ostendendam Romani Pontificis auctoritatem in regibus, vel depo¬ nendis, vel creandis. Sed haec nimia temeritas est, cum testi¬ moniis historicorum omnium contrarium manifeste probetur. 1. Annales Francorum vetustissimi sic habent : « Data auctoritate sua (Zacharias) jussit Pipinum Regem constitui. » 2. Eginarthus in vita Caroli Magni : « Pi- pinus, inquit, per auctoritatem Rom. Ponti¬ ficis, ex Praefecto Palatii rex constitutus est. » 3. Aimoinus lib. iv, cap. 61, de gestis Francorum : « Pontifex, inquit, data aucto¬ ritate sua, jussit Pipinum regem institui. » 4. Rhegino lib. ii Chronici : « Zacharias, inquit, per auctoritatem Apostolicam jussit Pipinum regem creari, et sanctae unctionis oleo inungi. » 5. Lambertus Schaphnaburgensis, inhist. « Pipinus, inquit, decreto Zachariae Papae per unctionem sancti Bonifacii rex appella¬ tus est. )> 6. Sigebertus in Chronico : « Anno, in¬ quit, 750. Pipinus Princeps auctoritate Apo- stolica, et Francorum electione a S. Bonifa- cio in regem consecratur, et anno 752, ite¬ rum inungitur in regem a Stephano Papa. » 7. Hermannus Contractus, in Chronico : « Anno, inquit, 752. Pipinus auctoritate Stephani Papae detonso ac deposito rege IJilderico rex Francorum factus est. 8. Marianus Scotus lib. m. Chronici : « Za¬ charias, inquit, Papa ex auctoritate S. Petri Apostoli mandat populo Francorum, ut Pipi¬ nus, qui potestate regia utebatur, etiam no¬ minis dignitate frueretur. Ita Hildericus rex, qui ultimus Merovingorum Francis im¬ perabat, depositus, et in monasterium mis¬ sus est. » 9. Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico : « Anno, inquit, 750, Pipinus per auctorita¬ tem Zachariee Papee more Francorum ele¬ ctus ad regnum per manus sancti Bonifacii elevatus est in regni solium. » Et infra : IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 113 « Stephanus Papa Pipinum sacra unctione in regiae dignitatis honore confirmavit. » 10. Otho Frisingensis lib. v Hist. cap. 22 : « Auctoritate, inquit, Zachariee Papie Pipi- nus ad regnum eligitur. » 11. Albertus Krantzius lib. I. Metropolis cap. 14:« Merito, inquit, Summus Pontifex, et Gallorum rex mutuis se attollunt favori¬ bus : quando ab initio haec sedes domui Caroli hoc preestitit, ut regiam haberet di¬ gnitatem. » 12. Paulus vEmilius in Ghilderico : « Za- charias, inquit, Francos sacramenti Childe. rico dicto solvit : hique conventu habito regem Pipinum salutaverunt. »• Habemus duodecim testes, quorum aliqui auctoritate Apostolica, alii auctoritate Pon¬ tificis, alii auctoritate Apostolica, alii aucto¬ ritate sancti Petri, alii decreto Papae Childe- ricum depositum , et Pipinum exaltatum testantur, postremus scribit, non ausos Francos Pipinum regem salutare, nisi prius sacramento per Pontificem solverentur, quo regi Childerico tenebantur : et tamen Bar- claius solita temeritate negat, auctoritate, vel decretu Pontificis id esse factum. Hoc solum supererat, ut cum Matthia Illyrico, nostri temporis haeretico notissimo, et histo¬ rico mendacissimo diceret, mendacium, ac figmentum esse, quod nostri affirmant, a Zacharia Pontifice regnum Francorum a Childerico in Pipinum esse translatum. Vide Illyricum initio libri, de translatione im¬ perii. EPILOGUS Cum exempla sex Barclaius frustra refu¬ tare testasset ; reliqua sex, quae supererant, aut volens praetermisit, quod ea clariora esse intelligeret, quam ut cavillationum suarum tenebris obscurari possent : aut morte prae¬ ventus inchoatum opus dimittere coactus est invitus. Utcumque sit, defunctus opere, et vita apud eum judicem constitutus est, quam nemo potest fallere, et apud quem princi- pum gratia neminem juvat. Ego vero, qui ad tribunal ejusdem supremi judicis brevi sistendus sum, hoc bona conscientia testari me posse confido, nihil a me scriptum in gratiam, nihil in odium. Scripsi quod verum existimavi, quod ab Ecclesia didici, quod ante me plurimi non solum docti, sed etiam Sancti scripserunt. Neque ultro in hanc are¬ nam descendi, sed lacessitus ab homine mihi ignoto, coactus sum defendere senex, quod scripsi juvenis. Quodsi Pontificiam po¬ testatem, et scripta mea ita defendi, ut opor¬ tebat, quod efficere vehementer optavi, Deo, in cujus manu sumus nos, et sermones no¬ stri, gratias humillimas ago : sin contra ac¬ cidit, et in aliquo, aut in multis, pro hu¬ mana imbecillitate defeci, ab illo veniam peto, qui suavis, et mitis est, et multus in misericordia omnibus invocantibus eum. Ecclesiae quoque, et ipsius Summi Pontificis, Christi Vicarii, censurae non solum praesens opusculum, sed omnia scripta mea libens, et volens submitto. FINIS HUJUS TRACTATUS Tom. XII 8 — ■ . . . . ' - ' : ' • . • ; i APOLOGIA ROBERTI BELLARM1NI S. R. E. CARDINALIS PRO RESPONSIONE SUA AD LIBRUM JACOBI MAGN® BRITANNI® REGIS CUJUS TITULUS EST TRIPLICI NODO TRIPLEX CUNEUS IN QUA APOLOGIA REFELLITUR