Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 0: Notice to the Reader; That the Oath of Allegiance Requires a Denial of the Catholic Faith, Not Civil Obedience Only
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Responsio ad Librum Inscriptum Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, an answer of 1608, published under the name of Matthaeus Tortus. 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).
Notice to the reader
Since James, King of Great Britain, has joined to his Premonitory Preface his Apology for the oath of allegiance, which he had published two years before without his name, Cardinal Bellarmine has thought it necessary to join to his own Apology against the king’s Premonitory Preface the answer he had sent out the year before, under the name of Matthaeus Tortus, a member of his household, to the king’s Apology. For so it will come about that neither part of the king’s book is left without an answer, and the fair reader, having carefully weighed the writings on both sides, may pass a surer judgement on the whole matter.
Answer to the book entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology, and so on
There appeared last year, from the city of London, a book written in the English tongue against two briefs of the Supreme Pontiff and a certain letter of Cardinal Bellarmine, without the name of its author indeed, but printed by royal authority, and on its very title page singing triumph before the victory. For it bore the inscription: “Then all the people cried out and said, Great is truth, and it prevails.” This book, turned into Latin, reached us also a few days ago. But he who took care to apply three wedges to split the knots seems to have gone wrong chiefly in this, that he did not apply the wedges rightly to the knots. So with a great but empty effort he beat the air, and then all the people cried out and said, Great is truth, and it prevails, which, bound with a threefold cord, could not be undone. And, to speak without circumlocution, he who wrote the Apology for the oath of allegiance against the two briefs of Paul V, the Supreme Pontiff, and the letter of Cardinal Bellarmine seems to have understood neither the oath, nor the briefs, nor the letter. For he affirms that the oath of allegiance, which the king of the English has proposed to his Catholic subjects, contains only civil obedience. He adds that civil obedience is forbidden by the Pontifical briefs and the Cardinal’s letter. Neither is true, as will be shown most plainly a little further on. He then frames various arguments from the Scriptures, the Councils and the Fathers, to prove that civil obedience is owed to kings by their subjects; and since this is not denied in the briefs and the letter, the arguments conclude no more than those which in logic are said to be drawn from disparate terms. Yet although it would be enough to have given this warning in general, still, so that even the slower may be satisfied, we shall first show that the oath proposed to Catholics requires not only civil obedience but also the denial of the Catholic faith; for this is the principal question that is at issue between us at this time. Then we shall examine the parts of the Apology one by one.
The author of the Apology, then, affirms that the oath of allegiance, which is found in the royal edict of the year 1606 after the tenth article, and is recited in this very Apology from the Apostolic brief, contains only a profession of civil obedience; for these are his words on page 4: “The king gave a certain specimen and pattern of himself, that he was attempting and meditating nothing against the Papists for the sake of conscience, and desired nothing more than to be made secure of their faith and constancy, which they were bound for conscience’ sake to render to his majesty.” These are his words in the Latin edition; but in the English, which had come out earlier, it was said more plainly that the king desired nothing except to be made secure of their civil obedience also. Likewise on pages 6 and 7 the same author speaks thus: “Why does the Pontiff meddle in a work not his own, and thus put his sickle into another’s harvest, especially in a civil matter, which in no way concerns him?” In the English edition it reads more openly: in matters purely and solely concerning civil obedience. Likewise on page 26 he says that the Pontiff by his brief forbade a thing lawful and purely civil. Likewise on page 29, when he had proved by testimonies of the Fathers, the Scriptures and the Councils that civil obedience is owed to kings by their subjects, he adds that the Pontiff’s exhortation to the English Catholics to undergo martyrdom constantly for refusing the oath is beside the point, since in this oath nothing is at issue but civil obedience, which does not conflict with the Catholic faith: “As if,” he says, “to profess the Roman religion and to render civil obedience to the prince were two things that could in no way be joined together, but were mutually at war and contrary.” So he. And on page 49: “This oath,” he says, “touches only the civil obedience of subjects towards their prince, in causes purely temporal.”
But we shall easily prove the contrary, that in this same oath the matter at issue is not civil obedience alone, but the Catholic faith, that is, the primacy of the Apostolic See, which all Catholics hold as a most certain dogma of the orthodox faith, most plainly founded in the holy Scriptures.
We prove it first from the royal edict, in which the form of this oath is contained and prescribed. For the title of the edict is this: “For the discovering and repressing of Papists.” Why is it not said, for the discovering and repressing of rebels? Unless because the end for which the oath was devised is not the discovery of those who deny civil obedience, which belongs to rebels, but the discovery of those who deny the spiritual primacy of the king and confess the spiritual primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, which is known to be proper to Catholics, whom you call Papists.
Secondly we prove it from the very words of the oath, first from these: “And that the Pope, neither of himself nor by any other authority of the Church or See of Rome, has any power or authority to depose the king, and so on, or to discharge any of his subjects from their obedience and subjection to his Majesty, and so on.” Here it is already manifestly seen that this oath does not contain civil obedience alone in matters purely temporal, as the author of the Apology has so often repeated, but contains a denial of the Pontifical power, which is not a thing purely temporal but a sacred thing, given from heaven, which no mortal can take away or diminish. Nor is it necessary in this place to dispute in what way this power is to be understood, or for what causes it may be exercised, a matter on which theologians and jurists dispute; since it is agreed among all that the Supreme Pontiff can by right depose heretical princes and free their subjects from obedience. For on this condition the kings of the earth are admitted to the Church, that they subject their sceptres to Christ, and that they ought not to overthrow but to protect the faith and religion, not to attack but to defend it. And if they will not, he who presides over the whole Church in the place of Christ has the right to separate them from the communion of the faithful, and to forbid their subjects to obey them.
The same is proved from the words that follow: “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, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the said king, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience, I will nevertheless bear faith and true obedience to his majesty, his heirs and successors, and so on.” Here the Supreme Pontiff is openly denied the power of excommunicating kings, even heretical ones. For how will a Catholic lawfully and justly swear that he will not obey the Supreme Pontiff when he excommunicates a heretical king, unless he believes that a heretical king cannot be excommunicated by the Pontiff? But the power of excommunicating is intrinsic to the Apostolic primacy and inseparable from it, since to blessed Peter, as the first spiritual primate, it was said by the Lord: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven,” Matthew 16. And since to the same Peter, and in him to all his successors, authority was given to feed and rule the whole flock of the Lord, in the last chapter of John, certainly either the king of the English in no way belongs to the Lord’s flock, or he is subject to blessed Peter and his successors and can be bound and loosed by him. Nor can any juster cause of excommunication be imagined than heresy, which takes away the foundation of the Catholic faith and of all justice. Therefore he who affirms that there is not in the Supreme Pontiff a power of excommunicating heretical kings, and that he is not to be obeyed if he does so, affirms outright that the Supreme Pontiff is not the head of the universal Church, and is thereby convicted of denying the Apostolic primacy. So it is not civil obedience alone that is sought by this oath, but a denial of the Catholic faith is sought, and that a man be obeyed against the obedience due to God.
But let us consider other words of the same oath: “And further,” he says, “I believe, and am resolved in my conscience, that neither the Pope nor anyone else whatsoever has power to absolve me from this oath or any part of it; which oath I acknowledge to have been lawfully administered to me by right and full authority.” In this place he who a little before had by swearing denied the power of binding in the Supreme Pontiff now denies the power of loosing. 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, when this is expedient for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. But besides this, while he affirms that this oath was lawfully administered to him by right and full authority, he affirms at the same time that his king, by whom the oath was proposed, has supreme power in spiritual things; since he acknowledges in him full authority to command that a Pontifical excommunication or declaration be despised.
Thirdly we prove the same from another similar and plainer oath, which this same author of the Apology recites word for word on page 49. These are the words of that oath: “I, A. B., openly testify and declare from my conscience that the king’s majesty is the only supreme governor of this kingdom and of all his majesty’s other dominions and territories, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as in temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate has, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this kingdom, and so on.” This form of oath differs from the one included in the Pontifical brief only in this, that this one contains in express and proper words the denial of the Apostolic primacy, and so is not easily proposed to those who openly profess themselves Catholics; whereas the other was framed in obscurer words, and through winding circumlocutions, to deceive the unwary, as in truth it has deceived many, and even the Archpriest himself. But from this clearer form prudent men can easily understand where that other form tends, which, while it commands the denial of the power of excommunicating the king, at the same time commands the denial of the Apostolic primacy over the universal Church, and opens the way to setting up the king’s primacy in spiritual things.
Lastly I add a confirmation from the words of this author himself; for although he has repeated a thousand times that nothing is contained in this oath but civil obedience, yet on page 88 it slipped from him that this oath was instituted “so that the people might be kept from drinking so deep of that bitter cup of antichristian fornications.” For what are our adversaries accustomed to call antichristian fornications, except the veneration of the Pontifical power? So it is not civil obedience alone, but also a detestation of spiritual obedience, that is contained in this oath. Let us now look at the Pontifical briefs written to the English Catholics.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
ADMONITIO AD LECTOREM Quoniam rex Magnae Britanniae Jacobus Praefationi suae monitoriae adjunxit Apologiam suam pro juramento fidelitatis, quam ante duos annos tacito nomine suo ediderat ; necessarium esse duxit Cardinalis Bellarminus Apologiae siiae adversus monitoriam regis Praefationem, adjungere responsionem suam ad Apologiam regis, quam anno supe¬ riore, sub nomine Matthaei Torti, sui familiaris, emiserat : sic enim fiet, ut ad neutram partem libri regii responsio desideretur ; et equus lector scriptis contrariis diligenter expensis, certius de re tota judi¬ cium ferat. ■ .3*CO‘.a .t 1 ( A o m • ; r'J_ . . . ->i * • &i< r h t.v) ■ a t:r'r.i cutaqxo ..n : ) tAvmiUuvj .terta i miri ' RESPONSIO AD LIBUM SCRIPTUM TRIPLEX NODO, TRIPLEX CUNEUS, SIVE APOLOGIA, etc. Prodiit anno superiori, ex Urbe Londino, liber Anglicano idiomate scriptus, adversus duo brevia summi Pontificis , et epistolam quamdam Cardinalis Bellarmini, sine nomine quidem auctoris, sed regia tamen auctoritate impressus, et in ipsofrontispicio, triumphum canens ante victoriam. Scriptum gerebat : « Tunc omnes populi clamaverunt, et dixe¬ runt magna est veritas, et praevalet. » Hic liber, in latinam linguam conversus, ad nos quoque ante paucos dies pervenit. Sed qui cuneos ad scindendos nodos tres adhibere curavit, hoc uno maxime peccasse videtur, quod non recte cuneos ad nodos applicuit. Itaque magno, sed inani conatu aerem ver¬ beravit, et tunc omnes populi clamaverunt, et dixerunt, magna est veritas, et praevalet, quae funiculo triplici colligata, dissolvi non potuit. Ac, ut sine ambagibus loquamur, qui Apologiam scripsit pro Juramento fidelitatis, adversus duo brevia Pauli V, summi Pon¬ tificis, et Epistolam Cardinalis Bellarmini : neque juramentum, neque 'brevia, neque Epistolam intellexisse videtur. Affirmat enim juramento fidelitatis, quod rex Anglorum subditis fuis Catholicis praestandum propo¬ suit, solam civilem obedientiam contineri. Addit, Brevibus Pontificiis, et Cardinalis Epistola civilem obedientiam prohiberi. Neu¬ trum est verum, ut paulo ^ost apertissime demonstrabitur. Format deinde varia argu¬ menta ex Scripturis, Conciliis, et Patribus, quibus probet deberi regibus obedientiam civilem a subditis : quod quia in brevibus et epistola non negatur, argumenta non magis concludunt, quam ea, qu® in dialectica duci dicuntur a disparatis : quamvis autem hoc generatim admonuisse sufficeret, tamen, ut etiam tardioribus fiat satis, (1) Primum ostendemus, juramentum Ca¬ tholicis propositum, non solum civilem obe¬ dientiam, sed etiam Catholic® fidei abnega- tionem requirere : heec enim est prindipalis qusestio qu® inter nos hoc tempore tur. Deinde singulas partes Apologi® discu-‘ tiemus. Igitur juramento fidelitatis, quod habetur in edicto regio anni 1606, post articulum de¬ cimum, et in hac ipsa Apologia ex brevi Apostolico recitatur, auctor Apologi® con¬ tineri affirmat solam civilis obedienti® pro¬ fessionem, h®c enim sunt verba ejuspag. 4 : « Rex specimen quoddam, atque exemplar sui pr®buit, se nihil in Pontificios moliri, nec meditari conscienti® causa, nec ultra quid desiderare, quam ut de eorum fide, et constantia securus fieret, quam propter con¬ scientiam sum majestati pr®stare teneban¬ tur. » H®c sunt ejus verba in latina editione; sed in Anglicana, qu® antea prodierat, cla¬ rius dicebatur, regem nihil desiderare, nisi ut securus de civili etiam obedi entia redde¬ retur. Item pag. 6. et 7. idem auctor sic lo¬ quitur : « Quare Pontifex se immiscet operi non suo, et falcem sic mittit suam in messem alienam, in re pr®sertim civili, et qu® eum nullatenus spectat? » In Anglicana editione legitur apertius, in rebus mere, et solum ad civilem obedientiam spectantibus. Item pag. 26. dicit, Pontificem prohibuisse per suum brevem, rem licitam, mereque civilem. Item pag. 29. cum testimoniis Patrum, Scriptura¬ rum, et Conciliorum probasset civilem obe¬ dientiam deberi regibus a subditis, subjungit ; 14 (a) Summa totius operis duobus capitibus comprehensa. Tom. Xlt 210 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM cohortationem Pontificis ad Catholicos An- glos, ut pro juramenti recusatione marty¬ rium constanter subeant, ad rem non facere, cum in hoc juramento non agatur nisi de civili obedientia, quae cum fide Catholica non pugnat : « Quasi, inquit, Romanam Reli- . gionem profiteri , et civilem obedientiam principi praestare, duse quaedam res essent, nullo pacto consociabiles, sed invicem com¬ pugnantes, atque contrariae. » Haec ille. Et pag. 49: « Hoc, inquit, juramen tum tantum¬ modo civilem obedientiam attingit subdito, rnm erga principem, in causis mere tempo¬ ralibus. » (a) At nos facile contra probabimus in hoc eodem juramento non agi de sola civili obe¬ dientia, sed agi de Fide Catholica, id est, de primatu Sedis Apostolicae quem in Scripturis sanctis apertissime fundatum, Catholici om¬ nes ut fidei Orthodoxae dogma certissimum habent. Id probamus primum ex edicto regio, in quo hujps juramenti formula continetur at¬ que praescribitur. Nam ( b ) titulus edicti hic est : « Ad detegendos, et reprimendos Papi- stas. » Cur non dicitur, ad detegendos, et reprimendos rehelles? nisi quia finis, cujus gratia excogitatum est juramentum, non est detectio negantium civilem obedientiam, quod rebellibus convenit, sed detectio ne¬ gantium primatum spiritualem regis, et con- fitentium primatum spiritualem summi Pon¬ tificis, quod Catholicorum, quos vos Papistas appellatis proprium esse dignoscitur. Secundo probamus ( c ) ex ipsis juramenti verbis, primum ex illis : « Et quod Papa nec per seipsum, nec per ullam aliam auctori¬ tatem Ecclesiae, vel sedis Romanae ullam potestatem, vel auctoritatem habeat regem deponendi etc., vel ullos subditorum suo¬ rum, ab eorum suae Majestatis obedientia, et subjectione exonerandi, etc. » Hic jam manifeste perspicitur, hoc juramentum non continere solam civilem obedientiam in rebus mere temporalibus, ut auctor Apologiae tam saepe repetivit, sed continere abnegationem Pontificiae potestatis, quae non est res mere temporalis, sed res sacra, et coelitus data, quam nullus mortalium tollere, vel minuere potest. Sed neque hoc loco necessarium est disputare, quo modo sit accipienda haec po¬ testas, aut quibus de causis exerceri possit, de qua re theologi, et jureconsulti disputant, siquidem inter omnes convenit, posse Ponti¬ ficem maximum haereticos principes jure de¬ ponere, et subditos eorum ab obedientia liberare, cum hac enim conditione reges terrae ad Ecclesiam admittuntur, ut sceptra sua Christo subjiciant, et fidem ac religionem non evertere, sed protegere; defendere, non oppugnare debeant. Quod si nolint, jus est illi, qui toti Ecclesiae vice Christi praeest, eos a communione fidelium segregare, sub- ditisque interdicere, ne illis pareant. Idem probatur (d) ex verbis sequentibus : « Juro ex corde, quod non obstante aliqua declaratione, vel sententia excommunicatio¬ nis, aut deprivationis facta, vel concessa, aut facienda, vel concedenda per Papam, vel successores suos, vel per quamcumque auctoritatem derivatam, vel derivari prae- tensam ab illo, seu a sua Sede contra di¬ ctum regem , haeredes , aut successores suos, vel quacumque absolutione dictorum subditorum ab obedientia; fidelitatem ta¬ men, et veram obedientiam suce majestati, haeredibus, et successoribus suis praesta¬ bo, etc. » Hic aperte, negatur summo Pon¬ tifici potestas excommunicandi reges etiam haereticos. Quo modo enim licite et juste Catholicus jurabit, se non pariturum summo Pontifici regem haereticum excommunicanti, nisi credat non posse a Pontifice regem hae¬ reticum excommunicari ? Atqui potestas ex¬ communicandi intrinseca est primatui Apo- stolico, atque ab eo inseparabilis, cum B. Petro ut primo spirituali primati dictum sit a Domino : Quodcumque ligaveris super ter¬ ram , erit ligatum et in caelis. Matth. xvi. Et cum (e) eidem Petro, atque in eo successo¬ ribus omnibus auctoritas data sit totum gre¬ gem Dominicum pascendi, et regendi, Joan. ult., certe vel rex Anglorum ad gregem Do¬ minicum nullo modo pertinet, vel B. Petro ejusque successoribus subditus est, atque ab eo ligari, et solvi potest. Neque ulla ju¬ stior causa excommunicandi fingi potest, quam hseresis, quae fidei Catholicae, et omnis justitiae fundamentum tollit. Quare is, qui affirmat, non esse in summo Pontifice pote¬ statem excommunicandi reges haereticos , neque illi esse parendum, si id faciat ; is, (a) In juramento Anglicano primatus Apostolici abnegationem quaeri probatur. — (b) Ex titulo edicti. — (c) Ex ipsis juramenti verbis. — ( d ) Item ex aliis formulae verbis. — (e) Omnes Chri¬ stiani etiam Reges subditi sunt 15. Petri successoribus. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 211 omnino affirmat, non esse summum Ponti¬ ficem Caput Ecclesiae universae, ac per hoc primatum Apostolicum negare convincitur. Non igitur hoc juramento sola civilis obe- dientia quaeritur, sed quaeritur abnegati o fidei Catholicae, et ut obediatur homini con¬ tra obedientiam Dei. Sed alia verba ejusdem juramenti conside¬ remus : «Et alterius, inquit, credo, et in con¬ scientia mea resolvor, (a) nec Papa, nec alius quicumque potestatem habet me ab hoc juramento, aut aliqua ejus parte absolvendi ; quod juramentum agnosco recta, ac plena auctoritate , esse mihi legitime ministra¬ tum. » Hoc autlm loco qui paulo ante ju¬ rando negaverat potestatem ligandi in sum¬ mo Pontifice, idem nunc potestatem solvendi negat. Nam ex verbis illis Dominicis : Quod- cumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis , Catholici omnes colligunt, ad Pon¬ tificis maximi auctoritatem pertinere, non solum potestatem absolvendi a peccatis, sed etiam a poenis, censuris, legibus, votis, atque juramentis, quando *id expediat ad gloriam Dei, atque animarum salutem. Sed praeterea dum affirmat hoc juramentum sibi recta, ac plena auctoritate legitime ministratum, simul affirmat regem suum, a quo juramentum propositum est, potestatem supremam ha¬ bere in spiritualibus ; cum agnoscat in illo plenam auctoritatem jubendi, ut Pontificia excommunicatio , sive declaratio contem¬ natur. Tertio probamus hoc idem, ex alio simili juramento apertiore, quod hic 'idem auctor Apologiee ad verbum recitat pag. 49. Hujus juramenti haec sunt verba ( b ) : « Ego A. B. palam testor, et ex conscientia mea declaro, quod majestas regia unicus est supremus gubernator hujus regni, omniumque aliorum suae majestatis dominiorum, ac territoriorum, tam in omnibus spiritualibus, sive Ecclesia¬ sticis rebus, aut causis, quam in temporali¬ bus : et quod nullus extraneus princeps, per¬ sona praelatus, status, aut potentatus habet, aut habere debet ullam jurisdictionem, pote¬ statem, superioritatem, praeeminentiam vel auctoritatem Ecclesiasticam, sive spiritua¬ lem infra hoc regnum, etc. » Haec juramenti formula hoc solum distat ab illa, quae inclusa est in Brevi Pontificio, quod ista verbis ex¬ pressis, et propriis continet abnegalionem primatus Apostolici, et ideo non facile pro¬ ponitur iis, qui aperte se profitentur Catho¬ licos ; illa vero formata est verbis obscurio¬ ribus, et per ambages circumloquutionum, ad decipiendos incautos, ut vere multos, at¬ que adeo archipresbyterum ipsum decepit. Sed ex hac formula clariore facile possunt viri prudentes intelligere, quo tendat illa formula, quae dum jubet abnegari potesta¬ tem excommunicandi regem, simul jubet abnegari primatum Apostolicum in Eccle¬ siam universam, et aperit aditum ad consti¬ tuendum primatum regis in spiritualibus. Addo postremo confirmationem ex verbis hujus auctoris, quamvis enim millies repe¬ tierit, in hoc juramento non contineri, nisi civilem obedientiam ; tamen pag. 88. excidit illi, (c) hoc juramentum institutum esse, quo populus arceretur, ne ita alte amarum illud populum ebiberet antichristianarum scorta¬ tionum. » Quid enim vocare solent adver¬ sarii antichristianas fornicationes, nisi vene¬ rationem Pontificiae Potestatis? Non ergo sola civilis obedientia, sed etiam detestatio spiritualis obedientise hoc juramento conti¬ netur. Inspiciamus nunc brevia pontificia ad Catholicos Anglos perscripta.