Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 3: The Apology Answered from Page 26 to Page 31: The Councils, the Fathers and Princes on Ecclesiastical Judgement, Babylon, and the Briefs of Clement VIII; the Second Brief of Paul V
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).
The author of the Apology passes, on pages 26 and 27, from the Fathers to the councils; and he is not content to demonstrate that civil obedience is owed to kings by their subjects, but adds that even whole councils of bishops were subject to kings. And in the first place he adduces the Council of Arles, held in the time of Charlemagne, whose words in the last canon are these: “These things, then, we have decreed are to be presented to the lord emperor, begging his clemency that, if anything here is lacking, it be supplied by his prudence; if anything is otherwise than reason requires, it be amended by his judgement; if anything has been reasonably determined, it be carried into effect by his help, with the aid of the divine clemency.” I answer that the bishops of the Council of Arles, at Charles’s own request, dealt in that assembly not only with ecclesiastical but also with political affairs, and made very many enactments in common concerning clergy and laity which could not be carried into execution without the emperor’s providence. There are in that council canons four and five, which reform the abuses of laymen who, having taken bribes, tried to remove priests established in parishes and put others in their place. There are canons twelve and thirteen, on peace between bishops and counts, and that counts and judges be obedient to the bishop, and agree together in doing justice, and take no bribes for judgement. There is canon fifteen, that weights and measures be equal everywhere. Likewise canon twenty-three, that counts, or deputies, or judges, or centenaries not, under an evil pretext or device, buy the goods of the poor, or take them by force, or steal them by any contrivance; but if anyone has any possession to buy or sell, he shall do it in public before the count and the judges and the nobles of the city. It is of these things, then, and the like, that the Fathers speak when they ask the emperor that, if anything is lacking in these decrees, it be supplied by his prudence; if anything is otherwise than reason requires, it be amended by his judgement; if anything has been reasonably determined, it be carried into effect by his help.
The author of the Apology then adds that the councils of Frankfurt, Arles, Tours, Chalon, Mainz and Rheims likewise wholly surrendered themselves to Charles; and that the general councils, of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, submitted themselves in all things to the piety and providence of the emperor. But he could not be troubled either to quote the words of the councils or even to note the places. Nor out of so many councils has he alleged anything in particular except a few words from the letter of the Council of Ephesus to the emperors, in which the bishops testify that they were convoked by the emperor, and ask him that what was done against Nestorius may have its force. To which we answer very briefly. Councils of bishops were sometimes assembled by order of emperors, but in execution of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, to whom the convocation of general councils properly belongs, as is plain in the letter of the Council of Constantinople to Pope Damasus, in which they say that they met at Constantinople by the mandate of his letters given the year before to the Emperor Theodosius; but of this matter we shall speak below. This too we confess, that councils often asked the emperors to protect their decrees and to see that they were carried into execution by their authority. But that what the author of the Apology writes in this place is false, that the councils submitted themselves wholly and in all things to the piety and prudence of the emperors, as if the principal part and supreme power in ecclesiastical matters lay with an earthly prince, we shall show evidently from the plainest testimonies of holy bishops, and of kings or princes of this world.
Saint Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, in the letter to those leading the solitary life: “When,” he says, “from the foundation of the world was it heard that the judgement of the Church received its authority from the emperor? Or when was this acknowledged as a judgement?” Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, as Athanasius reports in the same letter: “Do not give us orders, emperor, in this kind of matter, but rather learn these things from us; for God has committed the empire to you, but to us he has entrusted the things that belong to the Church.” Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in letter 33 to his sister, writes that he said to the Emperor Valentinian: “Do not burden yourself, emperor, by thinking that you have any imperial right in the things that are God’s; the right over the public walls has been committed to you, not over sacred things.” The same also, in the oration on the surrender of the basilicas, teaches at length that the emperor is in the Church, not above the Church, and that ecclesiastical judgements belong not to emperors but to bishops. Saint Martin, Bishop of Tours, said to the face of the Emperor Maximus that it was a new and unheard-of wickedness that a judge of this world should judge a cause of the Church; Sulpicius is witness in book 2 of the Sacred History. Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in letters 46, 50 and 165, does indeed teach that it belongs to pious kings to defend the Church, and to restrain by severe laws and penalties heretics condemned by the Church; but in the same place he gravely rebukes the Donatists for having carried an ecclesiastical cause to an earthly king for judgement, and not to the bishops. Saint Gelasius, Roman Pontiff, in the letter to the Emperor Anastasius: “You know, most clement son, that although you preside over the human race in dignity of earthly things, yet you devoutly bow your neck to those who preside over divine things”; and a little after: “You know, therefore, that you depend on their judgement, and that they cannot be brought under your will.” Saint Gregory the Pope, book 5, letter 21: “We know,” he says, “that our most pious lords love discipline, keep order, reverence the canons, and do not meddle in priestly affairs.”
I come now to the princes of this world. Constantine the Great, when the Donatists, not content with the bishops’ judgement, had carried the Church’s cause to him, is reported to have exclaimed thus: “O the mad audacity of fury! As is usually done in the causes of the heathen, they have lodged an appeal.” Optatus of Milevis reports these words of Constantine in book 1 against Parmenian. Of the same, Saint Augustine writes thus in letter 165: Constantine did not dare to judge the cause of a bishop. The elder Valentinian, emperor, as Sozomen reports in book 6 of the History, chapter 7: “For me,” he says, “who am of the rank of the laity, it is not lawful to examine such matters,” that is, ecclesiastical ones; “let the priests, whose concern these things are, meet among themselves in whatever place they wish.” The younger Theodosius, emperor, in the letter to the Synod of Ephesus: “It is unlawful,” he says, “for one who is not of the order of the most holy bishops to meddle in ecclesiastical deliberations.” The Emperor Basil, in an oration delivered in the eighth Synod: “To investigate and inquire into these things,” he says, “belongs to the patriarchs, bishops and priests, who have received the office of government, who have the power of sanctifying, of loosing, of binding, who have obtained the keys of the Church; not to us, who need to be fed, to be sanctified, to be bound or loosed from the bond.” Charlemagne did indeed add some laws to the common law; but in them he testified to a plainly admirable reverence and subjection towards the Apostolic See of Rome in these words: “Though a yoke scarcely to be borne be imposed by that holy See, yet let us bear it, and endure it with pious devotion.” Gratian reports this sentence, from a council of Charlemagne, in distinction 19, canon 3; and the same sentence, received from Charles, the bishops of the Council of Tribur also made their own, in chapter 30. We add lastly the testimony of King Theodoric, who, although he was an Arian heretic, nevertheless did not assume to himself the primacy in councils; for so we read in the fourth synod under Symmachus, Roman Pontiff: “To this the most serene king, by God’s inspiration, answered thus: that it was for the synod to decide and prescribe what was to be followed in so great a matter, and that nothing in ecclesiastical affairs pertained to him except reverence.” We have it, then, from the testimony of princes both of the Church and of the world, that they stray very far from the truth who attribute to an earthly king the primacy in spiritual and ecclesiastical things.
The author of the Apology then goes on, page 27, and says: “Nay, I read that Christ said that his kingdom was not of this world, and commanded that we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” These words, as they are true and divine, so anyone will easily be able to judge that their application is foolish and beside the point. The kingdom of Christ was indeed not of this world; but still it was, and is, in this world; and so obedience is owed to the Vicar of Christ the King on earth by all who wish to have a part in the kingdom of Christ. And as we do not deny that the things that are Caesar’s are to be rendered to Caesar, that is, tribute, honour and obedience in the things and affairs of this world, so also we desire that the things that are God’s be rendered to God; among which is to be placed in the first rank the whole and inviolate profession of the Catholic faith, and faithful and pure obedience to the Vicar of Christ. And as for what the author of the Apology adds, that according to theology it is not repugnant to the faith and the salvation of souls if civil obedience is rendered to the civil magistrate, it is true; but what follows is altogether false, that the contrary is contained in the Apostolic brief. This author, who repeats this so often, ought certainly to have noted at least in one place those words of the brief where it is said that to show civil obedience to the civil magistrate is a thing contrary to the Catholic faith and to salvation; but he neither noted them nor could note them, unless he had wished to corrupt the words of the brief and substitute his own words for the words of the brief.
Finally on page 28, after trifles and abuse, which we gladly pass over as most unworthy of a grave theologian, such as the author of the Apology boasts himself to be, he concludes with this dilemma: “Either it is lawful to obey the prince in temporal things, or it is not. If it is lawful, which no one can doubt, why is he so unjust and cruel towards his Catholics as to command them not to obey the lawful command of their king? If it is not lawful, why does he not give a reason, why does he not state the cause, from which he forbids it?” But the answer is easy. For I admit that it is lawful for subjects to obey their prince in temporal things, provided that what the prince commands is not contrary to God, who is the great King over all princes; but I deny that the Supreme Pontiff was so unjust and cruel towards the Catholics as to command them not to obey the lawful command of their king. For to take the proposed oath can under no colour be called a lawful command, since by that oath the Catholics are compelled to deny the Catholic faith, as has been demonstrated above. From which also what the author adds about the exhortation to undergo martyrdom is manifestly refuted. For the author contends, page 29, that that exhortation lacks a solid foundation, since a Catholic can both ardently profess the Roman religion, which the Pope commands, and at the same time render civil obedience to his prince, which the king commands. But we have already demonstrated more than once that the king is not content with civil obedience, but has this chiefly at heart, to turn the Catholics from the Catholic faith and make heretics out of Catholics. For the oath which he calls one of allegiance is a preparation and disposition for the oath concerning the king’s primacy in spiritual things. And that perhaps is the reason why he does not release the Archpriest from prison, although he has taken the first oath: because he hopes that by the weariness of prison and hardships he can bring the same man to the second oath, which oath contains, not covertly and obscurely, but openly and manifestly, the new heresy concerning the royal primacy even in sacred and spiritual things.
Lastly, the author of the Apology, pages 30 and 31, pretends that the Supreme Pontiff was moved by false rumours of the king’s excessive severity towards the Catholics to write this brief so rashly; and he says that the same happened to Pius V, when he passed the sentence of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth, and to Clement VIII, when a little before Elizabeth’s death he sent two briefs into England, by which he excluded from the kingdom both the present king and anyone else whatsoever who did not profess the Catholic religion; which two briefs he says are contrary to the faith so often given, and to the various protestations by which he offered his services and promised all the good offices that could conduce to placing this very king on the throne. So the author of this Apology in a few words censures three Supreme Pontiffs, Paul V and Pius V for levity and rashness, Clement VIII not only for rashness but for perfidy. But the very truth of the matter, simply set out, without any labour of ours added, and without any rhetorical art, will convict the author of the Apology of falsehood and vanity. For Paul V was led to write the brief not by uncertain rumours, but by a most notorious and most grievous persecution, to which the published edicts bear witness, and by the very form of the oath transmitted to us. So there was no need for the author to play upon the name of Babylon and the City of Seven Hills, to which rumours and messengers are carried from every side; nor to prove from the testimonies of the Fathers that what Saint Peter wrote of Babylon in his first letter, chapter 5, is to be understood of Rome. For we confess that Rome is signified by Babylon not only in the letter of Saint Peter but also in the Apocalypse of Saint John; but pagan Rome, not Christian Rome; that Rome which was drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, not that which honours Jesus the Son of God and his martyrs; that, in short, which had blasphemy written on its forehead, not that which, as Saint Jerome writes in book 2 against Jovinian, blotted out the blasphemy written on its forehead by the confession of Christ. Pius V too was not rashly carried away by the empty accusations of certain persons to excommunicate the queen, but by her known and public crimes; and especially because, after the manner of Julian the Apostate, from a feigned Catholic she had turned out a manifest heretic and a sworn enemy of Catholics. Finally, Clement VIII sent two briefs to the Catholics in the year 1600, three years before the queen’s death, one to the clergy, the other to the people; by which briefs he did not, as this man lies, exclude James, then king of Scotland, from the throne, but gave such counsel as it befitted the Supreme Pontiff to give, namely that the Catholics should take care, so far as in them lay, that a king well disposed to the Catholic religion should be chosen. For we have copies of those briefs in our hands, and having inspected them carefully we nowhere find the name of King James or of any other particular person, but only in general, as we said, an exhortation to set up an orthodox and pious king. By which words James, king of Scotland, was not only not excluded, but rather included; since his ministers had raised the greatest hope that he was not averse to embracing the Catholic faith, especially as the king himself had written letters full of courtesy to the Pontiff himself, and also to Cardinals Aldobrandini and Bellarmine, in which among other things he asked that someone of the Scottish nation be created a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, so that he might have at Rome one through whom he could more easily and safely transact his business with the Pontiff. Wherefore the Pontiff could not be accused of perfidy, but could rightly be said to have been disappointed of his hope. At the end the author of the Apology adds that there were some in England who suspected that this brief was fictitious, and composed and spread abroad out of hatred of the Pope, “because they saw it to be so far removed from all reason of theology, from political prudence, and in short from common sense; but that the Pontiff preferred by a second brief to confirm the credit of the first, so as knowingly and deliberately to double his fault.” We indeed are not unaware that there were some in England who thought that first brief a forgery. But this did not come about because it seemed to be removed from theology or prudence, but because certain persons wished by this fraud to impose on the Catholics, and to bring it about that they should not hesitate to take the proposed oath. When this fraud was discovered, the Supreme Pontiff wished by another brief to give credit to the former, lest the spiritual medicine should be rendered useless by this art of the Devil; and by so doing he did not double a fault, but exposed a fraud, dispelled the darkness, and opened the way to truth and sincerity.
The second brief
Beloved sons, health and Apostolic benediction. It has been reported to us that there are found some among you who, although we declared sufficiently by our letters given last year in the form of a brief on the tenth day before the Kalends of October, that you cannot with a safe conscience take the oath which was then exacted of you, and moreover strictly commanded that you should in no way take it, now dare to say that these letters concerning the prohibition of the oath were not written from our own mind and our own proper will, but rather at the instance and contrivance of others; and for that reason the same men strive to persuade you that our commands in the said letters are not to be heeded. This report has indeed disturbed us, and the more because, having had experience of your obedience, our singularly beloved sons, who, that you might obey this holy See, have piously and generously counted as nothing wealth, means, dignity, liberty, and life itself, we should never have suspected that the credit of our Apostolic letters could be called in doubt among you, so that under this pretext you might exempt yourselves from our commands. But we recognise the cunning and fraud of the adversary of human salvation, and we attribute this resistance to him rather than to your will. Therefore we have resolved to write to you again, and to signify to you anew that our Apostolic letters given last year on the tenth day before the Kalends of October concerning the prohibition of the oath were written not only of our own motion and of our certain knowledge, but also after long and grave deliberation employed upon all the things contained in them; and that for this reason you are bound to observe them entirely, every interpretation persuading otherwise being rejected. And this is our pure, plain and entire will, who, being anxious for your salvation, always think of the things which are more expedient for you; and we pray without ceasing that he by whom our lowliness was set over the guarding of the Christian flock may enlighten our thoughts and counsels; whom we also continually beseech to increase in you, our most dearly beloved sons, faith, constancy, and mutual charity and peace among yourselves. On all of whom, with every affection of charity, we most lovingly bestow our blessing. Given at Rome at Saint Mark’s, under the ring of the Fisherman, the tenth day before the Kalends of October 1607, in the third year of our pontificate.
Thus far we have answered what the author of the Apology thought should be written against the first brief. Now, as he himself despatched the second brief in about a single little page, so we too shall reject his cavils with equal brevity. Since, then, the Supreme Pontiff attributed those false rumours of a forged brief to the cunning of the Devil, so the author of the Apology himself attributes this second brief to the cunning of the same Devil. For he writes that the Devil could not have harmed the Catholics so much by any other fraud, even if he had laboured at this work for a thousand years, as he did by this one brief; and he gives the reason, that those who have taken the oath will now have to abjure it, which is a greater evil than if they had not sworn before; since before, if they had refused to swear, they could have been excused on account of some scruples of mind arising from particles of the oath, but now they have no excuse if they abjure the allegiance which they have twice sworn to their king: once, when they were first born, by a certain tacit and inborn oath; and then, when in express words they confirmed that first oath.
To this we answer that it is no evil to abjure what was wrongly sworn. For so runs the rule approved by all: “In evil promises, break faith.” But the adversary will say that an oath cannot be evil which is natural and inborn from birth itself, or the confirmation and expression of this natural and inborn oath. I answer that the oath which is called inborn, if there is any such, is nothing else than a simple obligation to obey the superior under whom one is born, in lawful and honest things. Nor can it be understood, or even imagined, how at his very birth a man is naturally bound to deny the power of the Supreme Pontiff; therefore the second oath, which contains this denial, cannot rightly be called a confirmation or expression of the former oath. Moreover, just as in the natural birth it seems possible to understand a tacit and inborn oath to obey the political prince, so also in the supernatural birth 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; and so it is in no way lawful afterwards to take an oath by which the oath rendered in baptism seems to be abjured. And so much for these matters.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Transit Auctor Apologise pag. 26. et 27. (a) Adversarius fingit quod oppugnet. — ( b ) Scripturce testimonia non spiritualem sed civilem obedientiam erga regem docent. — (c) Idem sancti 1’atres affirmant. (d) Quomodo Pontifices paruerint quibusdam tyrannis. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 224 a Patribus (a) ad concilia T neque contentus est demonstrare civilem obedientiam regi¬ bus a subditis deberi : sed addit, tota etiam Episcoporum concilia regibus fuisse subje¬ cta. Ac primo loco adducit Concilium Arela- tense, Caroli Magni temporibus celebratum, cujus haec sunt verba in ultimo canone : « Haec igitur Domino imperatori praesentan¬ da decrevimus, poscentes ejus clementiam, ut si quid hic minus est, ejus prudentia sup¬ pleatur, si quid secus quam ratio habeat, ejus judicio emendetur, si quid rationabiliter taxatum est, ejus adjutorio, divina opitu¬ lante clementia, perficiatur. » Respondeo ( b ) Episcopos , concilii Arelatensis, Carolo ipso petente, non solum de negotiis Ecclesiasti¬ cis, sed etiam de politicis in eo conventu egisse : permulta in communi quoque de clericis, et laicis statuisse, quae sine impe¬ ratoris providentia executioni mandari non poterant. Exstant in eo concilio canones quartus et quintus, quibus abusus laicorum reformantur, qui acceptis muneribus, pres¬ byteros in parochiis constitutos amovere, et eorum loco alios introducere tentahant. Ex¬ stant Canones, duodecimus, et decimus ter¬ tius, de pace inter episcopos, et comites, et ut comites et judices obedientes sint Episco¬ po, et invicem consentiant ad justitias fa¬ ciendas, et munera pro judicio non acci¬ piant. Exstat canon quintus decimus, ut pon¬ dera, et mensurae ubique aequalia sint. Item canon vigesimus tertius, ne comites, vel vi¬ carii, seu judices, vel centenarii, sub mala occasione, vel ingenio, res pauperum emant, vel per vim tollant, aut quolibet argumento surripiant : sed si cui afiquid possessionum emendum, aut vendendum sit, id in publico coram comite, et judicibus, et nobilibus ci¬ vitatis facere debebit. De his igitur et simili¬ bus Patres loquuntur, cum imperatorem ro¬ gant, ut si quid minus est in his decretis, ejus prudentia suppleatur ; si quid secus quam ratio habeat, ejus judicio emendetur; si quid rationabiliter taxatum est, ejus ad¬ jutorio perficiatur. Addit deinde auctor Apologiae, concilia quoque Francfordiense, Arelatense, Turo- nense, Cabilonense, Moguntinum, ac Rhe- mense, penitus sese Carolo tradidisse : Ge¬ neralia vero Concilia, Nicaenum, Constanti- nopolitanum, Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense imperatoris pietati et providentiae sese in omnibus submisisse. Piguit vero illum non solum, conciliorum verba referre, sed etiam loca notare. Neque ex tot conciliis aliud in specie allegavit, nisi ex Epistola concilii Ephesini ad Augustos pauca quaedam verba, quibus Episcopi se ab imperatore convocatos testantur, et ab eo petunt, ut quae gesta sunt contra Nestorium, robur suum habeant. Ad quae nos brevissime respondemus. ( c ) Concilio Episcoporum, jussu quidem inter¬ dum imperatorum congregata fuisse, sed in executionem mandati summi Pontificis, ad* quem proprie generalium conciliorum con¬ vocatio pertinet, ut perspicuum est in episto¬ la concilii Constantinopolitani ad Pontificem Damasum, in qua dicunt se Constantinopoli convenisse , ex mandato litterarum ipsius, anno superiore ad imperatorem Theodosium datarum, sed de hac re' inferius dicemus. Illud etiam fatemur (d) Concilia saepe ab im¬ peratoribus petiisse, ut decreta sua protege¬ rent, et executioni mandari auctoritate sua curarent. Falsum autem esse, quod Auctor Apologiae hoc loco scribit, concilia se peni¬ tus, et in omnibus submisisse imperatorum pietati, atque prudentiae ; (e) quasi praecipuae partes et summa potestas in rebus Ecclesia¬ sticis penes principem terrenum esset : evi¬ denter ostendemus ex apertissimis testimo¬ niis Episcoporum sanctorum, et regum, sive principum saeculi. Sanctus Athanasius Patriarcha Alexandri¬ nus, in Epistola ad solitariam vitam agentes : « Quando, ait, a condito aevo auditum est, quod judicium Ecclesiae suam auctoritatem ab imperatore accepit ? aut quando hoc pro judicio agnitum -est ? » Hosius Cordubae Episcopus, referente Athanasio in eadem Epistola : « Ne praecipe, inquit, nobis impe¬ rator in hoc genere, sed ea potius a nobis disce : tibi enim Deus imperium commisit, nobis autem ea, quae sunt Ecclesiae concre¬ didit. >» S. Ambrosius Mediolanensis Episco¬ pus in epist. 33. ad sororem, scribit se Va¬ lentiniano imperatori dixisse : « Noli te gra¬ vare, imperator, ut putes te in iis quae Domi¬ ni sunt, aliquod imperiale jus habere : pu- (a) An concilia subsint imperatoribus, et regibus. — (b) Qua in re Patres concilii Arelat. Impe¬ ratoris auctoritate indiguerint. — (c) Concilia generalia jussu Impp. aliquando coacta sunt : id mandante summo Pontifice. — ( d ) Concilia aliquando protectionem et executionem decretorum petierunt ab Impp. — (e) Judicium ch rebus Religionis ad sceculares Principes non pertinere osten¬ ditur ex SS. Episcopis. RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM blicorum tibi moenium jus commissum est, non sacrorum. » Idem etiam in oratione de tradendis Basilicis, multis docet, imperato¬ rem in Ecclesia esse, et non super Ecclesiam : et judicia Ecclesiastica non ad imperatores, sedad Episcopos pertinere. Sanctus Martinus Turonensis Episcopus maximo imperatori in faciem dixit, novum esse, et inauditum ne¬ fas ut causam Ecclesia? Judex sseculi judi¬ caret, testis est Sulpitius lib. n. sacrae histo- r i s£.\S anctus Augustinus Episcopus Hippo¬ nensis, in epist. 46, 50 et 165. docet quidem piorum regum esse Ecclesiam defendere, severi que legibus , ac poenis haereticos ab Ecclesia damnatos coercere. Sed ibidem Donatistas graviter reprehendit, quod cau¬ sam Ecclesiasticam ad regem terrenum ju¬ dicandam, non ad Episcopos detulissent. Sanctus Gelasius Romanus Pontifex, in epi¬ stola ad Anastasium imperatorem : « Nosti, inquit, fili clementissime, quod licet praesi¬ deas humano generi dignitate rerum terre¬ narum ; tamen praesulibus divinarum devo¬ tus colla submittis » : et paulo post : « Nosti taque ex illorum te pendere judicip, non illos ad tuam redigi posse voluntatem. » San¬ ctus GregoriusPapa lib.v. epist. 21. «Scimus, inquit, piissimos dominos disciplinam dili¬ gere, ordinem servare, Canones venerari, et se sacerdotalibus negotiis non miscere. » Yenio nunc ad principes saeculi, (a) Con¬ stantinus Magnus, cum Donatistae non con¬ tenti Episcopali judicio, ad ipsum causam Ecclesiae detulissent, ita exclamasse fertur : « 0 rabida furoris audicia : sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interpo¬ suerunt. » Refert haec verba Constantini Op¬ tatus Milevitanus lib. i. contra Parmenianum. De eodem ita scribit S. Augustinus in epist. 165. Constantinus non est ausus de causa Episcopi judicare. Valentinianus senior im¬ perator, referente Sozomeno lib. vi. hist. cap. vii : « Mihi, inquit, qui sum in sorte plebis, fas non est talia negotia, » videlicet Ecclesiastica , « perscrutari . Sacerdotes, quorum ista cura? sunt, inter se ipsos, quo¬ cumque voluerint loco conveniant. » Theo¬ dosius Juniorimperator in epist. ad Synodum Ephesinam : « Illicitum, inquit, est, illum, qui non sit ex ordine sanctissimorum Epi¬ scoporum, Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractati¬ bus. » Basilius imperator oratione habita in octava Synodo : « ftsec, inquit, investigare, et quserere, Patriarcharum, Episcoporum et Sacerdotum est, qui regiminis officium sor¬ titi sunt, qui sanctificandi, qui solvendi, qui ligandi potestatem habent, qui Ecclesiasticas adepti sunt claves ; non nostrum qui pasci debemus, qui sanctificari, qui ligari, vel a ligamento solvi egemus. » Carolus Magnus leges quidem aliquas juri communi addidit ; sed in eis reverentiam, et subjectionem ad Sedem Apostolicam Romanam plane admi¬ rabilem, his verbis testatus est : « Licet vix ferendum ab illa sancta Sede imponatur ju¬ gum, tamen feramus, et pia devotione tole¬ remus. » Refert hanc sententiam, ex concilio Caroli Magnis, Gratianus distinet. 19. can. 3. et eamdem sententiam a Carolo acceptam, suam quoque fecerunt Episcopi concilii Ti- buriensis cap. 30. Addimus ultimo testimo¬ nium regis Theodorici, qui, quamvis hsereti- cus Arianus esset, non tamen sibi primatum in conciliis assumebat : sic enim legimus in synodo quarta, sub Symmacho Pontifice Romano : « Ad hsec serenissimus rex taliter, Deo aspirante, respondit, in Synodi esse ar¬ bitrio, in tanto negotio sequenda prsescribere, neque aliquid ad se, prseter reverentiam, de Ecclesiasticis negotiis pertinere. » Habemus igitur ex testimonio principum, tum Ecclesise tum sseculi, longissime a vero aberrare, qui regi terreno primatum in rebus spiritualibus, et Ecclesiasticis tribuunt. Pergit deinde auctor Apologise pag. 27. atque ait : « Quin etiam Christum dixisse lego, regnum suum non esse de hoc mundo, jusisseque ut quse suntCsesaris Csesari tribu¬ amus, etquse Dei, Deo. » Quse verba ut vera, et divina sunt, ita applicationem ineptam, et ad rem nihil facientem, quivis facile judicare poterit. (4) Regnum quidem Christi non fuit ex hoc mundo ; sed tamen in hoc mundo fuit, et est : ac per hoc Vicario Christi regis in terris obedientia debetur ab omnibus, qui partem in regno Christi habere volunt, et quemadmodum nos reddenda Csesari, quse Csesaris sunt, non negamus, id est, tributa, honorem, et obedientiam in rebus, et nego¬ tiis sseculi : sic etiam optamus, ut quse Dei sunt, Deo reddantur : inter quse primo loco ponenda est fidei Catholicse integra inviola- taque professio, et ad Christi Vicarium fide¬ lis, et pura obedientia. Quod autem auctor (a) Idem ostenditur testimonio Principum saecularium. — ( b ) Regnum Christi non fuit ex hoc mundo , tamen in hoc mundo fuit , et est. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 223 Apologise subjungit, secundum theologiam non repugnare fidei, et animarum saluti, si civilis obedientia, civili Magistratui defera¬ tur, verum est: sed falsum omnino est quod sequitur , in brevi Apostolico contrarium contineri. Debuisset omnino iste auctor, qui toties hoc repetit, vel uno in loco annotare verba illa Brevis, ubi dicatur, civilem obe- dientiam civili Magistratui exhibere, rem es¬ se fidei Gatholicse, salutique contrariam, sed neque annotavit, neque annotare potuit, ni¬ si verba brevis corrumpere, et sua verba pro verbis brevis substituere voluisset. Denique pag. 28 post nugas, et convicia, quse libenter omittimus, ut quae gravi theo¬ logo, qualem se auctor Apologise jactat, in¬ dignissima sunt, concludit hoc dilemmate : (a) « Aut licet principi obtemperare in tem¬ poralibus, aut non : si licet, quod nemini dubium esse potest, cur tam iniquus est, et crudelis in Catholicos suos, ut imperet iis, ne legitimo regis sui mandato obtemperent ? si non licet, cur rationem non reddit, causam non exprimit, unde id prohibet? » Sed faci¬ lis est responsio. Admitto enim licere subdi¬ tis principi suo obtemperare in temporalibus, modo quse princeps jubet, non sint contraria Deo, qui est rex magnus super omnes prin¬ cipes : sed nego Pontificem summum, tam fuisse iniquum, et crudelem in Catholicos, ut eis imperaret, ne legitimo regis sui man¬ dato obtemperarent : (b) neque enim Jura¬ mentum propositum suscipere, legitimum mandatum, dici ullo colore potest, cum eo juramento cogantur Catholici fidem Catholi¬ cam abnegare, ut supra demonstratum est. Ex quo etiam manifeste refellitur, quod au¬ ctor subjungit de exhortatione ad Martyrium subeundum. Contendit enim auctor pag. 29. exhortationem illam solido fundamento ca¬ rere, cum possit Catholicus, et Religionem Romanam ardenter profiteri, quod Papa ju¬ bet, et simul civilem obedientiam principi suo praestare, quod rex jubet. Jam enim non semel demonstravimus regem civili obedien¬ tia non esse contentum ; sed id praecipue in votis habere, ut a Catholica fide Catholicos avertat , et ex Catholicis haereticos faciat : Nam juramentum, quod fidelitatis appellat, praeparatio et dispositio est ad juramentum de primatu regis in spiritualibus. Et ea forte causa est, Cur archipresbyterum e carcere non dimittat, quamvis primum juramentum praestiterit, quia sperat eumdem ad alterum juramentum taedio carceris, et aerumnarum, se posse perducere : quod juramentum non tecte et obscure, sed aperte et manifeste no¬ vam haeresim de primatu regio, in rebus etiam sacris, et spiritualibus continet. Postremo, Apologiae auctor pag. 30 et 31. fingit Pontificem Maximum ex falsis rumo¬ ribus de nimia regis severitate in Catholicos, permotum fuisse ad hoc breve tam temere conscribendum, quod idem dicit accidisse Pio Y, quando sententiam excommunicationis in reginam Elisabetham tulit : et Clementi VIII quando paulo ante obitum Elizabethee duo brevia in Angliam misit, quibus tum regem, praesentem, tum alium quemcumque a regno exclusit, qui Religionem Catholicam non profiteretur, quae duo Brevia contraria esse dicit fidei saepius datae, et variis prote¬ stationibus, quibus operam suam obtulit, omniaque officia pollicitus est, quae condu¬ cere possint ad hunc ipsum regem in solio collocandum, (c) Itaque auctor hujus Apo¬ logiae paucis verbis tres summos Pontifices Paulum Y et Pium V levitatis et temeritatis, Clementem VIII non solum temeritatis, sed etiam perfidiae reprehendit. At ipsa rei veri¬ tas simpliciter exposita, nullo nostro labore addito, et sine ulla arte rhetorica, auctorem Apologiae falsitatis vanitatisque convincet. Paulus enim V non ex incertis rumoribus adductus est ad breve scribendum, sed ex notissima, et gravissima persecutione, quam edicta publicata testantur, et ex ipsa jura¬ menti formula ad nos transmissa. Itaque non erat opus, ut auctor luderet in nomine Ba¬ bylonis, et septicollis Urbis, ad quam undi¬ que rumores, etnuncii deferuntur; neque, ut probaret ex Patrum testimoniis, de Romain- telligi, quse sanctus Petrus de Babylone scri¬ psit in priore epist. cap. v. (d) Fatemur enim Romam non solum in epistola sancti Petri, sed etiam in Apocalypsi sancti Joannis per Ba¬ bylonem significari ; sed Romam Ethnicam, non Roman Christianam, et illam, quse ebria erat de sanguine Martyrum Jesu : non illam, quse Jesum Filium Dei, et Martyres ejus ho¬ norat. Denique illam, quse habebat in fronte inscriptam blasphemiam ;* non illam, quse, (a) Insulsum Cdlemma Apologiae. — [b) Jurament. Anglice abnegationem continet fidei Catholicae . — (c) Refelluntur varice calumniae. — [d) Roma Ethnica, non Christiana , dicta est Babylon in sacris litteris. 224 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM ut scribit sanctus Hieronymus lib. n. in Jo- vinianum, scriptam in fronte blasphemiam, Christi confessione delevit. Pius etiam V non vanis quorumdam delationibus temere abre¬ ptus est ad excommunicandam Reginam, sed ex notis et publicis ejus criminibus : ac prae¬ sertim quod instar Apostatae Juliani, ex ficta Catholica, manifesta haeretica, et jurata Ca¬ tholicorum hostis evaserit. Denique (a) Cle¬ mens VIII duo brevia anno 1600 tribus annis ante obitum reginae ad Catholicos misit,- unum ad Clerum, alterum ad populum : qui¬ bus brevibus non, ut iste mentitur, Jacobum tunc Scotiae regem a solio exclusit, sed con¬ silium dedit, quale dare decebat summum Pontificem, videlicet, ut Catholici operam darent, quantum in ipsis est, ut rex ad Reli¬ gionem Catholicam bene affectus eligeretur. Habemus enim exemplaria brevium illorum in manibus, et iis diligenter inspectis, nus¬ quam invenimus nomen Jacobi regis, aut al¬ terius particularis personae ; sed solum ge- neratim , ut diximus , cohortationem ad regem orthodoxum, et pium constituendum. (b) Quibus verbis non solum Jacobus Scotiae rex non excludebatur, sed includebatur po¬ tius : quoniam ministri ejus maximam spem fecerant, eum non abhorrere a fide Catholica suscipienda ; praesertim cum rex ipse ad Pontificem ipsum, necnon ad Cardinales Al- dobrandinum, et Bellarminum litteras scri¬ psisset plenas humanitatis, quibus praetre caetera petebat, ut aliquis e gente Scotorum Cardinalis S. R. E. crearetur, ut haberet Romae, per quem facilius et tutius cum Pon¬ tifice negotia sua tractaret. Quare Pontifex non perfidiae accusari, sed spe sua frustratus dici merito potuit. Ad extremum addit au¬ ctor Apologiae, non defuisse in Anglia, qui breve hoc, ficti tium et in odium Papae compo¬ situm , et disseminat um fuisse suspicarentur ; « Quod viderent illud tam longe ab omni theologiae ratione prudentia, politica, sensu denique communi abhorrere perspicerent, sed Pontificem maluisse altero brevi fidem prioris confirmare , ut culpam suam sciens prudensque geminaret. Nos vero non igno¬ ramus fuisse in Anglia, qui primum illud breve confictum existimaverint. Sed id non accidit ex eo, quod a theologia, vel pruden¬ tia abhorrere videretur , sed ex eo, quod nonnulli cuperent hac fraude Catholicis im¬ ponere, atque efficere, ut juramentum pro¬ positum suscipere, non dubitarent. ( b ) Qua fraude comperta, summus Pontifex alio brevi, fidem priori facere voluit, ne phar¬ macum spirituale per hanc Dsemonis artem, inutile redderetur, quo facto, non culpam geminavit, sed fraudem detexit, tenebras dissipavit, et veritati, ac sinceritati aditum patefecit. SECUNDUM BREVE. Dilecti filii salutem, et Apostolicam benedictionem. Renuntiatum est nobis, reperiri nonnullos apud vos, qui, cum satis declaraverimus per literas nostras anno superiore 10. Kalend. Octobr. in forma Brevis datas, vos tuta conscientia praestare non posse juramentum, quod a vobis tunc exigebatur ; et praeterea stricte praeceperimus, ne ullo modo illud praestaretis : nunc dicere audent hujus¬ modi litteras de prohibitione juramenti, non ex animi nostri sententia, nostraque propria voluntate scriptas fuisse, sed potius aliorum intuitu, atque industria, eaque de causa iidem persuadere nituntur, mandata nostra dictis litteris non esse attendenda. Perturbavit sane nos hic nuncius, eoque magis, quia experti obe- bientiam vestram, filii nostri unice dilecti, qui, ut huic sanctae Sedi obediretis, opes, facultates, dignitatem, libertatem, vitam denique ipsam, pie ac generose nihili fecistis ; numquam suspicati essemus, potuisse vocari apud vos in dubium, fidem litterarum nostrarum Apostolicarum, ut hoc praetextu vos ex mandatis no- (a) Jacobus rex significavit se non abhorrere a fide Catholica. — (b) Cur Paul. V. secundum breve ad Anglos scripserit.) PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 225 stris eximeretis. Verum agnoscimus versutiem atque fraudem adversarii humanas salutis, eique potius, quam vestrae voluntati tribuimus hanc renitentiam. Eapro¬ pter iterum ad vos scribere decrevimus, ac denuo vobis significare, litteras no¬ stras Apostolicas, anno praeterito 10. Kalend. Octobr. datas de prohibitione ju¬ ramenti, non solum motu proprio, et ex certa nostra scientia, verum etiam post longam, et gravem deliberationem de omnibus, quae in illis continentur adhibi¬ tam, fuisse scriptas, et ob id .teneri vos, illas omnino observare, omni interpre¬ tatione secus duadente rejecta. Haec autem est mera, pura, integraque voluntas nostra, qui de vestra salute solliciti, semper cogitamus ea, quae magis vobis expediunt, et ut cogitationes, et consilia nostra illuminet is, a quo Christiano gregi custodiendo nostra fuit praeposita humilitas, indesinenter oramus, quem etiam jugiter precamur, ut in vobis filiis nostris summopere dilectis, fidem, con¬ stantiam, mutuamque inter vos charitatem, et pacem augeat. Quibus omnibus cum omni charitatis affectu, peramanter benedicimus. Datum Romae apud S. Marcum, sub annulo piscatoris 10. Kalend. Octobr. M. DC. VII. Pontificatu nostri anno tertio. Hactenus respondimus ad ea, quae adver¬ sus primum Breve auctor Apologi ae scribenda esse putavit. Nunc, ut ipse a secundo Brevi una fere pagella se expedivit ; sic et nos ejus cavillationes pari brevitate rejiciemus. Quo¬ niam igitur summus Pontifex versutiae dia¬ boli tribuit falsos illos rumores de conficto 'Brevi : sic ipse auctor Apologiae versutiae ejusdem diaboli tribuit boc secundum Breve. Scribit enim, diabolum non potuisse tantum nocere Catholicis, aliqua alia fraude, etiam si mille annos in hoc opus incubuisset, quam fecit hoc uno Brevi ; et rationem reddit, quoniam oportebit eos qui juramentum sus¬ ceperunt, nunc illud abjurare; quod majus est malum, quam si antea non jurassent, an¬ tea siquidem si jurare noluissent, excusari poterant ob scrupulos aliquos mentis, ex par¬ ticulis juramenti obortos : at nunc nullam habent excusationem, si abjurent fidelitatem quam regi suo bis jurarunt : semel, cum primum nati sunt, tacito quodam, et conge¬ nito juramento ; deinde cugi verbis conceptis primum illud juramentum confirmarunt. Ad haec respondemus, non esse malum abjurare, quod male juratum est. Sic enim habet regula ab omnibus approbata : ( b ) In (a) Iniqua Jurafoenta non obligare. Tom. Xit male promissis rescinde fidem :sed dicet ad versarius, non potest esse malum juramen¬ tum, quod est naturale, et congenitum ab ipso ortu, vel hujus naturalis, et congeniti confirmatio et expressio. Respondeo, jura¬ mentum quod dicitur congenitum, si quod est, non esse aliud, nisi simplicem obligatio¬ nem ad obediendum superiori, sub quo quis nascitur, in rebus licitis atque honestis. Ne¬ que intelligi vel etiam fingi potest, quomodo in ipso ortu homo naturaliter obligetur ad negandam summi Pontificis potestatem : proinde juramentum secundum, quod hanc abnegationem continet, non potest recte dici confirmatio, vel expressio juramenti prioris. Praeterea, quemadmodum in ortu naturali videtur posse intelligi juramentum tacitum, et congenitum ad obediendum principi po¬ litico : sic etiam in ortu supernaturali, quem habemus ex baptismo, intelligi debet jura¬ mentum tacitum, et congenitum ad obedien- dum principi spirituali, qui est Christi Vica¬ rius : ac per hoc non licet ullo modo postea juramentum suscipere, quo abjurari videa¬ tur juramentum praestitum in baptismo. Ac de his hactenus. 15 226 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM