Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 2: The Apology Answered from Page 8 to Page 25: The Charge of Falsehood, the Edicts of 1606, and the Scriptures on Obedience
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).
He wrote a letter to serve in the place of an edict; and a prince would truly deserve to be held imprudent if he believed he could not forbid an unjust action without writing a whole book in the manner of the philosophers. “But,” he says, “if the Pontiff had noted what displeased him in the oath, perhaps the king would either have allowed that part of the oath to be deleted, or would have softened it by a kindly interpretation.” I answer that it was not some particle of the oath that displeased the Supreme Pontiff, but the very substance of the oath, so to speak, its very end and, as it were, the mark to which all the words are directed. And when was it to be hoped that some principal part of this oath would be allowed to be deleted by that king who ordered another oath, concerning his own primacy in spiritual things, to be taken under pain of death? For from that oath not only Catholics but even the Calvinist Puritans shrink, and yet the king has never been willing to allow any part of that oath to be deleted or softened. As for what the author of the Apology adds about the Pontiff’s injustice towards the Catholics, it can easily be refuted. “It is injustice,” he says, “in respect of the Catholics; for if it had seemed good to his majesty that anything in the oath should be altered or interpreted, the Catholics would have been wholly relieved of that burden and at once discharged; and if not, if the king had firmly resolved with himself to keep everything as it was and change nothing, still the Catholics could have gained this much from it, that their resistance could be covered by this shadow, this wrapping as it were, that they abstained from the oath not as halting in their loyalty to their prince, but only as perplexed by a certain anxiety and scruples with which their tender conscience was tormented; which anxiety and tenderness the Pontifical condemnation of certain words in the form of the oath would have produced.” So he. But we have already said that there could be no hope at all that those parts of the oath would be removed which contain the denial of the Catholic faith concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Pontiff. And if anxiety of conscience could help the Catholics with the king, all persecution would long since have ceased. For the king knows that the English Catholics showed civil obedience at his very coronation, and that they do not shrink from an oath of allegiance except where the Catholic faith is endangered.
On page 16, after he had transcribed the Pontiff’s brief with the form of the oath in full, from page 9 to page 15, the author of the Apology sets about refuting the brief; and first he charges the Supreme Pontiff with the crime of falsehood, because at the beginning of the brief he says that he is affected with great grief at the tribulations and calamities which the Catholics in England suffer for keeping the Catholic faith. And to convict the Pontiff of falsehood outright, he begins from the vast clemency of Queen Elizabeth, which he affirms was far surpassed by the clemency of King James. “Here,” he says, “the Pontiff expresses grief and great sorrow of mind on account of the tribulations and calamities which his sons continually endure for keeping the Catholic faith. Where, besides the crime of falsehood, which redounds so greatly to the reproach of our most serene lord the king, I cannot dissemble, but as the matter requires I openly profess, and declare what I certainly know, that Queen Elizabeth never called any Papist into court for the cause of religion, never condemned any to punishment, until their crimes and outrages wrung from her, as it were against the queen’s will, the punishments they suffered; which will be manifest to any fair judge of affairs who prudently weighs the actions themselves with their circumstances.” So he; who, after he had with the same felicity of writing, repeating and hammering in many similar things, made his offering to the shades of the dead queen, as he himself puts it, or, as the English edition seems to mean, offered a sacrifice, passes to the king and says: “I cannot indeed but confess, for the love with which I am carried towards the truth, that whatever the queen’s praise may have been for clemency towards the Papists, which was most ample, yet those examples of mildness and kindness towards the same which we have seen in the most serene king have surpassed the past mildness of the queen by a long interval,” and so on. The author of the Apology will grant us leave in this place, that as he thought himself free to accuse the Lord’s anointed, that is the Supreme Pontiff, of the crime of falsehood without any colour of truth, so we in turn may be free to throw his lies truly back upon himself. In the first place, the Pontiff did not write that he was grieved at the calamities which the Catholics suffered in England for keeping the orthodox faith in the time of Queen Elizabeth, or at the beginning of King James’s reign, but at the calamities which they suffer at this time. Therefore, that not even a slight trace of the crime of falsehood may cling to the Pontifical brief itself, it is enough if we prove that the Catholics were driven to bear enormous hardships for religion in the year of the Lord 1606, the time when the Apostolic brief was being written. Now in this very year we know that two edicts were promulgated in England of such a kind that they alone would suffice to refute all the lies of this Apology. The substance of the former edict is this. Its title, as I noted above, is “For the discovering and repressing of Popish recusants.” In the first article the laws of Elizabeth, long ago established against the Catholics, are confirmed. In the second it is ordered that the magistrates of each place inquire into Catholics of every rank and age who refuse to go to the churches of the heretics, with a fine of twenty florins imposed if they prove negligent in searching out Catholics. In the third it is enacted that Catholics who refuse to receive the communion, or supper, after the manner of the heretics be sharply punished. In the fourth it is decreed that whoever refuses to be present at the heretics’ services, if convicted in court, pay two hundred florins for every month. In the fifth it is laid down that the fine of two hundred florins a month, which Elizabeth had established against those who refused to go to the heretics’ churches, is a light burden to wealthy men, and so it is added that the king may seize two thirds of all their goods, only a third part being left to such recusants. In the sixth it is enacted that whoever refuses to receive the Calvinist supper pay two hundred florins the first year, four hundred the second, six hundred the third. In the seventh it is added that whoever had begun to frequent the heretics’ churches and afterwards relapses into the crime of not frequenting them pay six hundred florins at once. In the eighth it is decreed that those who refuse to take that oath which we are now dealing with be thrown into the prison of cut-throats and robbers. In the ninth it is added that the oath be proposed a second time to the same man while held in prison, and if he refuses, that he lose all his goods and be delivered to perpetual imprisonment. In the tenth it is added that if he refuses the oath proposed to him a third time, he suffer the loss of head and life. In the eleventh it is declared that those records in which anyone is found accused of having been absent from the heretics’ churches keep their force, notwithstanding any error that may have occurred in framing the accusation or otherwise. In the twelfth it is enacted that whoever wishes to serve foreign princes in war shall first take the aforesaid oath, otherwise he will be held a traitor. In the thirteenth it is enacted that a nobleman who wishes to serve in foreign countries bind himself to the king with two sureties, under a penalty of two hundred florins, that he will never at any time be reconciled to the Roman Pontiff; and if he does not give this security before setting out, he shall be guilty of death. In the fourteenth it is enacted that whoever, after the tenth day of June of this year 1606, draws or tries to draw any subject of the king of the English to the faith of the Roman Church, be held guilty of treason and lese-majesty, and in fact undergo that penalty, unless he return to England and, within six days of his return, having confessed the crime, take two oaths, one of the king’s primacy in spiritual things, the other against the Pope’s power over Christian princes.
This, plainly, is that incredible clemency of the king towards the Catholics, on account of which the Supreme Pontiff has incurred the crime of falsehood for writing that he is affected with no light grief at the calamities which the Catholics are compelled to bear for keeping the orthodox faith. What greater calamity can be imagined than to be stripped of one’s goods for avoiding sacrilegious rites; to be delivered to perpetual prison for refusing an oath of perfidy; to be punished with death as guilty of treason for an exhortation to the Catholic faith? And if the king requires nothing but civil obedience, and attempts nothing for the sake of conscience, why are the Archpriest and others, who have professed civil obedience by taking the oath, still detained in prison?
But I wish to compel the author of the Apology himself, whether he will or not, to bear witness to this truth. He, then, in this book of his on page 20, extolling the prince’s mildness, speaks thus: “By a gracious edict all priests not apprehended, and then living out of custody, were permitted to leave the kingdom within a certain appointed day.” A wonderful favour indeed, to permit exile to priests who, though long sought, could not be apprehended. If exile seems to you a favour, by what name will you call true punishments? Is it not a great calamity, if you are compelled to forestall penalties heavier than exile?
But, you will say, those edicts were published after the conspiracy was discovered. It is true; but they do not pertain to the punishing of traitors, but to the harassing of all Catholics for the cause of religion. And besides, before that conspiracy was conceived, in the very first year of his reign and his first Parliament, the king confirmed all the queen’s edicts, and increased them not a little. But the queen herself published those edicts, exasperated by the sentence of excommunication passed against her by Pius V. Nay, even before that; for in the year of the Lord 1558, in the first year of her reign, long before the pontificate of Pius V, she proposed to her subjects an oath to be taken concerning her ecclesiastical primacy, that is, concerning the new heresy devised by her father Henry; and the penalty for one refusing the oath was, the first time, loss of goods and perpetual prison, the second time, the capital punishment which traitors are made to suffer. Nicholas Sander relates all this in book 3 On the English Schism, and he wrote what he saw and what he was present at. In the following year, that is 1559, a heavy fine was imposed on those saying or hearing Mass, or performing any other ecclesiastical office by the old rite, or administering any sacrament after the Roman manner: namely the first time two hundred gold pieces or six months’ prison, the second time four hundred gold pieces or a year’s prison, the third time loss of all goods and perpetual prison. According to this law very many bishops were soon thrown into prison, whose names the same Sander sets down in the same book 3 On the English Schism, to whom he adds in book 7 On the Visible Monarchy, at the year of the Lord 1560, very many noble laymen also delivered to prison for the same cause, all of whom died either in prison or in exile. And yet the author of the Apology dares to say that he certainly knows that Queen Elizabeth called no one into court for the cause of religion, and condemned no one. Likewise, that it is plain that before the sentence of Pius V no heavier fine was imposed on Catholics by Queen Elizabeth, nor severer laws or any capital penalty established against Catholics. For how did the queen call no Catholic into court for the cause of religion and condemn none, if she shut up in prison so many bishops and so many illustrious laymen for this cause alone, that they refused to acknowledge her as head of the Church? Is it perhaps not a cause of religion, whether the ecclesiastical government, and that the supreme, can be transferred from the Supreme Pontiff to an earthly king, nay even to a woman? Or is it not a heavy penalty to be judged and condemned to exile, or delivered to perpetual prison? How, too, did the queen before the sentence of Pius V impose no heavier fine on Catholics, nor pass any severer laws, nor establish any capital penalty, if in 1558, that is nine years before the pontificate of Pius V, she passed a law concerning the oath of her primacy in spiritual things, to be taken first of all by the bishops, and established for those refusing it the first time the loss of goods and perpetual prison, and the second time the penalty of traitors; and in the following year instituted against Catholics practising the exercises of the Catholic religion those laws and fines which we described above? But no doubt the author of the Apology believes that we have either read nothing at all of English affairs, or have forgotten what many illustrious writers have committed to writing about the English persecution, for the everlasting memory of posterity. I deliberately pass over the very many edicts which Elizabeth at various times promulgated against Catholics for the cause of religion alone, all of which King James confirmed, and to which he added not a few, which, being printed, can be seen openly.
The author of the Apology then goes on, page 22, and says that the Pontiff in his brief unjustly forbade the subjects of the king’s majesty to profess their obedience to him; but where this prohibition is found in the Pontifical brief he does not say, nor can he say, since no such prohibition is read anywhere in the brief itself; so let this be counted among the falsehoods with which the Apology is brimful. He adds at once, and quotes word for word, those words of the brief: “It ought to be plain to all Catholics that an oath of this kind cannot be taken without hurt to the Catholic faith and the salvation of their souls, since it contains many things which are openly contrary to salvation and faith.” Having recited these few words he says: “Here the old saying fits, which is told of the Philosopher: he says much but proves little; nay rather, he proves nothing at all.” But I have already answered above that the Pontifical brief contains not a theological disputation but a brief fatherly admonition, where there is no need to add proofs. But it is fitting that a heretic should say of the Vicar of Christ what it is certain a pagan said of Christ himself. For Galen, in book 3 On the Differences of Pulses, chapter 4, wrote that Christ said many things but demonstrated nothing; and they report that Averroes used to say the same of the same our Lord and Saviour. And lest he himself should seem to labour under the same fault, of saying much and proving nothing, he confutes the above words of the Apostolic brief with this unanswerable argument: “For,” he says, “how a profession of allegiance towards the prince in subjects can be directly contrary to religion and the salvation of souls so far exceeds my theology, however small it may be, that I cannot but think it an utterly new and plainly exotic assertion, and one not to be uttered from the mouth of him who rather absurdly advertises himself as universal bishop and ecumenical shepherd of Christian souls.” So he. His abuse and the barbarity of his language I knowingly pass over. This I affirm, that the author of the Apology invents for himself propositions to attack, and from them, as if they were openly contained in the brief itself, constructs arguments; and so his argumentation exceeds all the bounds and laws not of theology but of logic. For he assumes that a profession of allegiance towards princes is forbidden by the Pontifical brief, as if that were in conflict with religion and the salvation of souls. But nothing of the kind is found in the Apostolic brief; and what there is in the royal oath that conflicts with religion and the salvation of souls, and on account of which the Supreme Pontiff judges and warns that such an oath is to be abstained from, has been demonstrated by us a little before. For we showed that by that oath the Apostolic power both of binding and of loosing is denied, and thereby the Catholic faith is denied, without which eternal salvation cannot be obtained; and that by an oath of this kind allegiance to the king is not so much sworn as allegiance to the Vicar of Christ is abjured. Wherefore the testimonies of divine Scripture which the author of the Apology adds at once do not prove false what the Pontiff wrote, but what the author of the Apology invented for himself. It is written, he says, in Joshua 1: “As we obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey thee.” So the prophet Jeremiah in chapter 27 exhorted the people to listen to the king of Babel, saying: “Put your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people.” Likewise the Israelites behaved with Pharaoh, whom they even petitioned, Exodus 5, to grant them leave to depart freely. Likewise with Cyrus, Ezra 1, from whom they obtained leave to return for the building of the temple. Finally the Apostle in Romans 13 exhorted all mortals to be subject for conscience’ sake.
To all these testimonies we answer very briefly. By these testimonies obedience is proved to princes, even pagan ones, when it is not contrary to obedience to God; which we most gladly confess; but it is not proved that kings, even Christian ones, are to be obeyed when they command to be done what is not lawful for Christians. And this answer the author of the Apology cannot reject, who on page 24 alleges Saint Augustine on Psalm 125 saying thus: “Christian soldiers served an infidel emperor; when it came to the cause of Christ, they acknowledged none but him who was in heaven; when he wished them to worship idols, to offer incense, they preferred God to him.” So then we also admonish the English Catholics to serve and obey their earthly king, so long as he does not command what displeases the heavenly King. And it displeases the heavenly King that the power of his Vicar, whom he left on earth and set over his household, should be either wholly denied or transferred to another.
He goes on then, pages 24 and 25, and brings forward the testimony of Augustine, Tertullian, Justin, Ambrose, Optatus and Gregory, by which is proved what we by no means deny, that obedience is owed even to infidel princes by faithful subjects. But the words of Saint Gregory from the book of Letters, letter 61, he thought especially to be noted and observed, and compared with the brief of Pope Paul V: namely that Gregory confessed himself subject to the Emperor Maurice and obeyed him, whereas Paul does not permit the king’s subjects to show their prince even civil and lawful obedience. But as regards Saint Gregory, he himself in the Commentary on Psalm 101 testifies that Maurice was a tyrant rather than an emperor, such as Diocletian and Nero had been before, to whom, willing or unwilling, even the Supreme Pontiffs themselves were compelled to be subject. And that Paul V turned the king’s subjects away from civil obedience is nowhere read in his brief, set out word for word in this very book; for the sum of the whole brief is that Catholic Christians should not abjure the power of Christ’s Vicar and the Catholic faith; and such an abjuration is certainly neither civil nor lawful.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Epistolam scripsit, quae vicem edicti reprae¬
sentaret : tunc autem vere imprudens prin¬
ceps haberi deberet, si iniquam actionem
prohibere se non posse crederet, nisi librum
integrum philosophorum more conscriberet,
« At, inquit, si Pontifex notasset quid in ju¬
ramento displiceret, fortasse rex partem il¬
lam juramenti vel deleri passus fuisset, vel
eam benigna interpretatione mollivisset. »
Respondeo, non particulam aliquam jura¬
menti summo Pontifici displicuisse, sed ip¬
sam juramenti substantiam, ut sic loquar,
finem ipsum, et quasi scopum, quo verba
omnia diriguntur, quando autem sperandum
eiat , ut partem aliquam principalem hujus
juramenti deleri rex ille pateretur, qui jura¬
mentum alterum sub poena capitis suscipi
jussit de Primatu suo in spiritualibus? [d)
I' am ab eo juramento non soli Catholici, sed
(a) Discrime. i inter bullam Pii et breve Pauli V. - (b) Paulus V. prohibuit suscipi juram . in.
fidei. — (c) Edicta non solent yaiionihuf. co.nprd > i: i. — ( d ) Etiam Calvinistce Puritani respuunt
jurament. de Primatu regis in spiritualibus .
PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS
217
etiam Calvinistae Puritani abhorrent, ettamen
rex partem ullam ejus juramenti deleri, vel
mitigari numquam pati voluit. Quod autem
auctor Apologiae adjungit de injustitia Pon¬
tificis in Catholicos, facile refutari potest :
« Injustitia, inquit, est, Catholicorum re¬
spectu : Nam si ita visum fuisset majestati
suae, in juramento quippiam vel mutari, vel
interpretari, eo labore penitus sublevati fuis¬
sent Catholici, et exonerati illico : si secus,
omnia rex, ut erant, tenere velle, et nihil
immutare, firmiter secum statuisset : tamen
hoc inde lucri percipere potuissent Catholici,
ut eorum renitentia, hac umbra, hoc veluti
involucro posset obtegi, quod non tanquam
claudicantes in fide sua erga principem a
juramento abstinerent, sed tantum ab an¬
xietate , et scrupulis quibusdam perplexi,
quibus tenera ipsorum conscientia torquere¬
tur : quam anxietatem, ac teneritmlhvm
Pontificia damnatio verborum quorumdam
in formula juramenti, peperisset : « Haec
ille. Sed jam diximus nullam omnino spem
haberi potuisse, ut partes illae juramenti tol¬
lerentur, quae continent abnegationem fidei
Catholicae, de primatu ecclesiastico Romani
Pontificis, quod si anxietas conscientiae ju¬
vare posset Catholicos apud regem, omnis
jamdudum persecutio cessasset. (a) Scit enim
rex Catholicos Anglos, civilem obedientiam
in ipsa ejus coronatione exhibuisse; neque
juramentum fidelitatis abhorrere, nisi ubi
fides Catholica periclitatur.
Pag. 16. posteaquam breve Pontificum
cum juramenti formula, a pagina 9. usque
ad 15. integre descripserat, aggreditur au¬
ctor Apologiae refutationem brevis; ( b ) ac
primo adscribit summo Pontifici crimen fal¬
si, quia initio brevis dicit, magno se moero¬
re affici, ab tribulationes, et calamitates,
quas pro retinenda fide Catholica, Catholici
in Anglia patiuntur. Ut autem falsitatis Pon¬
tificem omnino convincat, orditur ab ingenti
clementia Elisabethae reginae, quam a cle¬
mentia regis Jacobi longe superatam affir¬
mat. « Hic, inquit, Pontifex dolorem, et ma¬
gnum animi sui moerorem exprimit, propter
tribulationes et calamitates , quas pro reti¬
nenda fide Catholica jugiter sustinent filii
sui. Ubi praeter crimen falsi, quod in sere¬
nissimi Domini nostri regis contumeliam
tantopere redundat ; dissimulare non pos¬
sum, sed ut res postulat, palam profiteor,
et quod certo scio prae me fero, reginam Eli-
zabetham neminem ex Pontificiis, religionis
causa, in judicium vocasse, neminem ad
supplicium condemnasse, antequam eorum
scelera et flagitia, veluti invita regina, poe¬
nas quas pertulerant, ei extorquerent : quod
cuivis aequo rerum aestimatori, et actiones
ipsas cum eorum circumstantiis prudenter
pensiculanti manifestum fiet. » Haec ille, qui
posteaquam eadem felicitate scribendi, mul¬
ta similia repetens, et inculcans, defunctae
reginae manibus, ut ipse loquitur, parentas-
set ; vel, ut Anglicana editio significare vi¬
detur, sacrificium obtulisset : transit ad re¬
gem, atque ait : « Non possum sane non
confiteri, pro amore, quo in veritatem feror,
quod qualiscumque fuerit reginae laus, a
clementia in Pontificios, quae fuit amplissi¬
ma; tamen ea mausuetudinis, ac pietatis in
eosdem exempla, quae conspeximus in sere¬
nissimo rege, longo praeteritam reginae man¬
suetudinem superarint intervallo etc. » Da¬
bit hoc loco nobis veniam auctor Apologiae,
ut sicut ipse sibi licere existimavit, criminis
falsi Christum Domini, idest Pontificem ma¬
ximum, sine ullo veritatis colore accusare;
ita nobis vicissim liceat, mendacia sua in ip¬
sum vere regerere. Principio, non scripsit
Pontifex, se moerore affici ob calamitates,
quas tempore reginae Elisabethae, aut initio
regni Jacobi regis in Anglia, pro retinenda
orthodoxa fide Catholici patiebantur : sed
ob calamitates, quas hoc tempore patiuntur.
Ergo, ut criminis falsi ne leve quidem vesti¬
gium in ipso Pontificio brevi adhaereat ; sa¬
tis est si probemus, ingentes aerumnas pro¬
pter Rehgionem fere coactos esse Catholicos
anno Domini 16U6. quo tempore breve Apo-
stolicum scribebatur, (c) Hoc autem ipso
anno scimus duo Edicta in Anglia promul¬
gata ejusmodi, ut vel sola sufficiant, ad
omnia hujus Apologiae coarguenda menda¬
cia. Edicti prioris summa haec est : titulus
ut supra admonui est.
« At detegendos, et reprimendos recusan¬
tes Papistas. » In primo articulo confirman¬
tur leges Elisabethae, adversus Catholicos
jam olim stabilitae. In 2. jubetur, ut Praefe¬
cti locorum inquirant in Catholicos omnis
{ a ) Catholici Angli civilem obedientiam professi sunt in conoratione regis. — ( b ) Num falsum
sij Catholicos in Anglia religionis causa persecutionem non sustinere. — (c) Leges a rege Jacobo in
Catholicos latae.
218
RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM
ordinis et se tatis, qui templa haereticorum
adire recusant : imposita mulcta viginti flo-
renorum, si negligentes in Catholicis per¬
quirendis extiterint. In 3. satuitur, ut acri¬
ter puniantul* Catholici, qui communionem,
seu ccenam haereticorum more, sumere re¬
cusaverint. In 4. sancitur, ut qui recusaverit
sacris haereticorum interesse, si convictus
in judicio fuerit, solvat in menses singulos
florenos ducentos. In 5. statuitur, mulctam
ducentorum florenorum in singulos menses
(quae ah Elisabetha constituta fuerat, in re¬
cusantes adire templa haereticorum) leve
onus esse copiosis hominibus, ideo additur,
ut rex invadar duas tertias partes bonorum
omnium, tertia parte sola relicta ejusmodi
recusantibus. In 6. statuitur, ut qui recusa¬
verit ccenam Calvinisticam sumere, solvat
primo anno florenos ducentos, secundo qua¬
dringentos, tertio sexcentos. In 7. additur,
ut qui templa haereticorum frequentare coe¬
perat, et postea relabitur in crimen non
frequentandi, solvat statim florenos sexcen¬
tos. In 8. decernitur, ut qui recusant jura¬
mentum illud suscipere, de quo nunc agi¬
mus, conjiciantur, in carcerem sicariorum
atque latronum. In 9. additur, ut eidem in
carceribus detento, proponatur iterum jura¬
mentum : quod si recusaverit, amittat omnia
bona, et carceri perpetuo mancipetur. In
10. additur, ut si tertia vice propositum sibi
juramentum recusaverit , capitis vitseque
dispendium patiatur. In 11. declaratur, ut
tabulae illae, in quibus aliquis accusatus re-
peritur, quod a templis haereticorum abfue¬
rit, vim suam obtineant, non obstante quo¬
cumque errore, qui in accusatione formanda,
aliterve contigerit. In 12. statuitur, ut qui
principibus externis militare voluerit , is
prius juramentum praefatum praestet, alioqui
perduellis habebitur. In 13. statuitur, ut no¬
bilis qui in externis regionibus servire vo¬
luerit, cum duobus fidejussoribus regi se
obliget sub pcena ducentorum florenorum,
quod nullo unquam tempore Romano Pon¬
tifici reconciliabitur : quam cautionem nisi
proficiscens dederit, reus mortis erit. In 14.
statuitur, ut qui post decimum diem Junii
hujus anni 1006. subditum aliquem regis
Anglorum ad fidem Romanae Ecclesiai per¬
trahet, aut pertrahere conabitur ; is perduel¬
lionis, et laesae majestatis reus habeatur, et
re ipsa poenam illam subeat, nisi inAngliam
revertatur, et intra sex dies a reditu crimen
confessus, duo juramenta suscipiat; unum
de Primatu regis in spiritualibus, alterum
contra potestatem Papae in principes Chri¬
stianos.
Haec videlicet est incredibilis illa clemen¬
tia regis in Catholicos, ob quam summus
Pontifex crimen falsi incurrit, quod scripse¬
rit, se non levi dolore affici, ob calamitates,
quas Catholici pro fide orthodoxa retinenda
tolerare coguntur. Quae major calamitas
excogitari potest, quam propter vitanda sa¬
cra sacrilega, opibus spoliari; pro recusando
juramento perfidiae, carceri perpetuo man¬
cipari ; pro exhortatione ad Catholicam fi¬
dem, quasi Majestatis reum morte mulctari ?
et si nihil, nisi civilem obedientiam rex re¬
quirit , neque aliquid molitur conscientiae
causa; cur archipresbyter, et alii, qui civi¬
lem obedientiam suscepto juramento profess i
sunt, adhuc carceribus detinentur?
Sed volo ipsum etiam Apologiae auctorem,
velit nolit, adigere, ut pro hac veritate testi¬
monium dicat. Ipse igitur in hoc libro suo
pag. 20. extollens Principis mansuetudinem,
sic ait (a) : « Gratioso edicto permissum est
sacerdotibus omnibus, non comprehensis, et
tum extra custodiam degentibus, intra cer¬
tum, et constitutum diem e regno migrare. »
Admiranda profecto gratia, exilium permit¬
tere sacerdotibus, qui comprehendi, quam¬
vis diu quaesiti, nequiverant. Si tibi exilium
gratia videtur, quo nomine vera supplicia
appellabis ? An non est magna calamitas, si
cogaris poenas graviores exilio praevenire ?
At, inquies, edicta ista edita sunt post
conjurationem detectam. Yerum est, sed
non pertinent ad puniendos proditores (6),
sed ad Catholicos omnes, religionis causa,
divexandos. Sed praeterea ante conjuratio¬
nem illam conceptam in ipso primo anno
regi, et primo parlamento confirmavit omnia
edicta reginae, eaque non parum auxit. At
ipsa etiam reginae edicta illa edidit exacer¬
bata ob excomunicationis sententiam in se a
Pio V. latam. Imo etiam antea, nam anno
domini *1558. in primo regni sui anno, diu
ante Pii Y. Pontificatum, juramentum sub¬
ditis suis suscipiendum proposuit de prima¬
tu suo ecclesiatico, id est, de nova heeresi ab
Henrico parente suo excogitata, poena au-
( a ) Sacerdotibus in Anglia diu ad carceres , et mortem quaesitis , nec inventis , gratia fit ut e£u-
lent. — (b) Ante conjurationem conceptam primo anno sui regni Jacobus vexavit Catholicos.
/ .
/
PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS
219
tem recusantis juramentum,, prima vice fuit
amissio bonorum, carcerque perpetuus, alte¬
ra vice, poena capitis, quam perduelles su¬
stinere coguntur. Refert Nicolaus Sanderus
Ub. in. de schismate Anglicano hoc totum :
et quae vidit, et quibus interfuit scripsit.
Anno sequenti, id est 1559, Missam facienti¬
bus, vel audientibus, aliudve quodcumque
officium Ecclesiasticum, ritu veteri procu¬
rantibus, sacramentumque aliquod Romano
more administrantibus, gravis indicitur mul-
cta; nimirum prima vice ducentorum aureo¬
rum aut carceris ad sex menses : secunda
vice quadringentorum aureorum, aut carce¬
ris ad annum : (a) tertia vice omium hono¬
rum et perpetuorum carcerum, secundum
quam legem mox in carceres conjecti sunt
Episcopi plurimi, quorum nomina idem San¬
derus describit in eodem lib. m. de Schis¬
mate Anglicano, quibus addit lib. vii. De
visibili Monarchia ad annum Domini 1560.
permultos etiam nobiles laicos eadem de
causa carceribus mancipatos, qui omnes vel
in carcere, vel in exilio extincti sunt. Et ta¬
men auctor Apologiae dicere audet, se certo
scire, Elisabetham reginam neminem reli¬
gionis causa in judicium vocasse , neminem-
que damnasse. Item ante sententiam Pii Y.
palam esse, nullam a regina Elisabetha gra¬
viorem mulctam Catholicis impositam, ne¬
que severiores leges, aut ullam capitalem
poenam in Catholicos constitutam. Quomodo
enim nullum Catholicum regina, religionis
causa, vocavit in judicium, nullumque dam¬
navit ; si tot Episcopos, totque laicos illu¬
stres, ea solum de causa carceribus inclusit,
quod ipsam caput Ecclesiae agnoscere recu¬
sarent? Non est fortasse causa Religionis,
utrum regimen Ecclesiasticum, idque supre¬
mum, a summo Pontifice ad regem terre¬
num, immo etiam ad feminam transferri
possit? aut non est gravis mulcta judicari et
damnari exilio, aut carceri perpetuo manci¬
pari? Quomodo etiam ante sententiam Pii Y.
nullam graviorem mulctam Catholicis regina
imposuit, neque ullas serveriores leges tulit
neque ullam capitis poenam constituit ; si
anno 1558. id est, annis novem ante Pii V.
Pontificatum, legem tulit de juramento Pri¬
matus sui in spiritualibus, ab Episcopis in
primis suscipiendo, et prima vice recusanti¬
bus amissionis bonorum, et carceris perpetui :
secunda autem perduellium poenam consti¬
tuit, et anno frequenti leges illas et mulctas
instituit in Catholicos, Religionis Catholicae
exercitia usurpantes, quas supra descripsi¬
mus? sed nimirum Auctor Apologise, vel
nihil omnino legisse nos de rebus Anglicis,
vel oblitos esse credit eorum, quae de perse-
quutione Anglicana multi illustres scripto¬
res litteris mandaverunt ad memoriam poste¬
ritatis sempiternam. Omitto de industria
plurima edicta, quee variis temporibus Eli¬
sabetha adversus Catholicos, solius Religio¬
nis causa, promulgavit, quee omnia Jacobus
rex confirmavit : et quibus non pauca addi¬
dit, quee typis mandata palam cerni pos¬
sunt.
Pergit deinde auctor Apologiee pag. 22.
ac dicit : Pontificem injuste in suo brevi
prohibuisse subditis regiee majestatis , quo
minus de obedientia sua erga ipsum profi¬
teantur, sed ubi heee prohibitio in brevi
Pontificio habeatur, non dicit, neque dicere
potest : cum nulla talis prohibitio usquam
in ipso brevi legatur : proinde hoc inter
falsa, quibus Apologia plenissima est, refe¬
ratur : subjicit continuo, et ad verbum re¬
fert verba illa Brevis : Perspicuum esse de¬
bet omnibus Catholicis, quod hujusmodi
juramentum, salva fide Catholica, et salute
animarum suarum prsestari non possit, cum
multa contineat, quee saluti et fidei aperte
adversantur. His paucis recitatis, ait : « Huc
vetus dictum quadrat, quod de Philosopho
circumfertur ( b ) , Multa dicit, sed pauca
probat : immo vero nihil omnino probat. »
At jam supra respondi, in brevi Pontificio,
non theologicam disputationem, sed pater¬
nam ac brevem admonitionem contineri,
ubi nihil necesse sit probationes adjungi,
sed bene habet quod haereticus de Vicario
Christi dicit, quod de ipso Christo paganum
dixisse constat. Certe (c) Galenus in lib. m.
de differentiis pulsuum cap. 4. scripsit, Chri-
tum multa dixisse, sed nihil demonstrasse,
quod idem de eodem Domino et Salvatore
nostro Averroem dicere solitum ferunt : ac
ne ipse eodem vitio laborare videatur, ut
multa dicat, et nihil probet, supra scripta
verba brevis Apostolici, hac insolubili argu¬
mentatione confutat. « Nam, inquit, quo-
(a) Quid sub Elisabetha sunt passi Catholici , et quee sub Jacobo. — [b) Dictumimpium Galeni
et Averrois de Christo. — (c) Apologiee auctor loquitur de Pont. Max. sicut olim Ethnici de
Christo.
220
RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM
modo professio fidelitatis erga Principem in
subditis, possit e regione religioni, et saluti
animarum adversari, tam longe excedit
meam theologiam, quantulacumque illa sit?
ut prorsus novam, et exoticam plane asser-
tionem esse, non possim quin existimem :
nec ex ejus ore proferendam, qui se univer¬
salem Episcopum, et Christianarum anima¬
ram oecumenicum Pastorem satis insulse
venditat. » Hsec ille. Cujus convicia, et ser¬
monis barbariem sciens prsetereo. Illud af¬
firmo, auctorem Apologise sibi fingere pro¬
positiones, quas oppugnet ; et ex iis, quasi
in ipso brevi aperte continerentur, argu¬
menta conficere : proinde argumentationem
ejus, non theologiae, sed dialecticae terminos
omnes ac leges excedere (a). Assumit enim
brevi pontificio prohiberi professionem fi¬
delitatis erga principes, quasi ea cum Reli¬
gione et animarum salute pugnaret. At ni¬
hil ejusmodi habetur in Apostolico brevi ;
quid autem sit in regio juramento, quod
cum Religione, et salute animarum pugnet,
et propter quod ab ejusmodi juramento ab¬
stinendum esse summus Pontifex censeat, et
moneat, a nobis est paulo ante demonstra¬
tum. Ostendimus enim, eo juramento negari
potestatem Apostolicam, tum alligandi, tum
absolvendi ; ac per hoc, negari fidem Ca¬
tholicam, sine qua salus seterna obtineri
non potest, et per hujusmodi juramentum,
non tam jurari fidelitatem ad regem, quam
abjurari fidelitatem ad Christi Vicarium.
Quocirca testimonia Scripturse divinae quae
Apologise auctor statim adjungit, non probant
falsum esse quod Pontifex scripsit, sed quod
ipse sibi Apologise auctor finxit. Scriptum,
inquit, est Josue i., quemadmodum Moysi
obedivimus in omnibus , ita et tibi obedie-
mus. Sic Propheta Hieremias cap. xxvn.
hortatus est populum, ut aucultarent regi
Babel, dicens : Submittite colla vestra sub¬
ter jugum regis Babylonis, eique et populo
ejus servite. Similiter Israelitae se gesserunt
apud Pharaonem , cui etiam supplicarunt
Exod. v. Ut veniam daret libere disceden¬
di. Similiter apud Cyrum Esdr. i. a quo im¬
petrarunt veniam reditus, aedificandi templi
gratia. Denique Apostolus ad Rom. xm.
Omnes mortales hortatus est, ut subjecti es¬
sent propter conscientiam.
Ad haec omnia testimonia brevissime re¬
spondemus ( b ). His testimoniis probari obe-
dientiam ad principes etiam paganos, quan¬
do ea non est contraria obedientiae ad
Deum; quod nos libentissime confitemur,
sed non probari obediendum esse regibus
etiam Christianis, quando jubent fieri quod
non licet Christianis, quam responsionem
rejicere non potest auctor Apologise quipag.
24. allegat sanctum Augustinum tract. in
Psal. cxxv. ita dicentem : « Milites Christia¬
ni servierunt Imperatori infideli; ubi venie¬
batur ad causam Christi, non agnoscebant
nisi illum, qui in coelis erat : quando vale¬
bat ut idola colerent, ut thurificarent ; prae¬
ponebant illi Deum. » Sic igitur et nos Ca¬
tholicos Anglos admonemus, ut regi terreno
serviant, atque obediant, dum non jubet
quse displiceant Regi coelesti. Displicet au¬
tem regi coelesti, ut potestas Vicarii sui,
quem reliquit in terris, et quem constituit
super familiam suam, vel penitus abnege¬
tur, vel in alium transferatur.
Pergit deinde pag. 24 et 25 (c). et profert
testimonium Augustini , Tertulliani, Justini,
Ambrosii, Optati, et Gregorii, quibus proba¬
tur, quod nos minime negamus deberi prin¬
cipibus etiam infidelibus obedientiam a sub¬
ditis fidelibus, sed verba S. Gregorii ex libro
Epistolarum, epist. 61. prsecipue notanda et
observanda, et cum brevi Pauli V. Pontifi¬
cis comparanda censuit ; quod videlicet Gre-
gorius Mauritio Imperatori subjectum se
fatebatur, eique obediebat : Paulus autem
subditos regis, ne civilem quidem, et licitam
obedientiam, principi suo exhibere permit¬
tit. Sed quod attinet ad S. Gregorium, ipse
idem in Commentario Psal. ci. testatur ( d )
Mauritium tyrannum potius , quam impera¬
torem fuisse, quales antea fuerant Diocletia¬
nus, et Nero, quibus, vellent nollent, ipsi
etiam summi Pontifices subjecti esse coge¬
bantur. Quod autem Paulus V. a civili obe-
dientia subditos regis averterit , in brevi
ejus ad verbum, in hoc ipso libro exposito,
nusquam legitur, summa enim totius brevis
est, ut Christiani Catholici potestatem Chri¬
sti Vicarii, fidemque Catholicam non adju¬
rent : quse certe adjuratio, neque civilis,
neque licita est.