Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 4: The Letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to the Archpriest; the Apology Answered from Page 47 to Page 63: the Fourteen Propositions, the Councils of Toledo, Campion and Hart, Blackwell
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 letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to the Archpriest of England
Venerable lord and brother in Christ. It is almost forty years since we saw each other. But I for my part have never forgotten our old friendship; and, when I could do nothing else, I have not ceased to commend you to God in my prayers as you laboured strenuously in the Lord’s vineyard; and I do not doubt that I too have lived in your memory all this time, and have had some place in your prayers at the altar of the Lord. So then, up to this time, not in word or in letters but in deed and in truth, as Saint John says, we have each remained in the love of the other. But this silence has been broken by the news which came to us in these days of your chains and imprisonment; which news, although it might have seemed sad, on account of the loss of pastoral care which that Church has suffered, yet seemed also joyful, since you were drawing near to the glory of martyrdom, than which no gift of God is more blessed; so that you who for so many years had fed your flock with words and teaching might now feed it more gloriously by the example of your patience. But this joy was in no small measure disturbed, and almost destroyed, by another sad report which followed, of your constancy in refusing the unlawful oath having been assailed by the adversaries, and perhaps even shaken and overthrown. For, dearest brother, that oath could not become lawful because it was offered in some way tempered and modified. You know that modifications of this kind are nothing else than the wiles and cunning of Satan, that the Catholic faith concerning the primacy of the Apostolic See may be assailed either openly or obscurely; a faith for which so many renowned martyrs in that very England have fought even to blood. For certainly, in whatever words an oath may be framed by the adversaries of the faith in that kingdom, it tends to this, that the authority of the head of the Church be transferred from the successor of Saint Peter to the successor of Henry VIII in England. For what is pretended about danger to the king’s life, if the Supreme Pontiff has in England the power he has in all other Christian kingdoms, all who are endowed with any prudence easily see to be wholly empty. For it has never been heard, from the beginning of the infant Church down to these our times, that any Supreme Pontiff commanded any prince, however heretical, however pagan, however much a persecutor, to be killed, or approved a killing that some one had perhaps carried out. And why, I ask, does the one king of England fear what out of so many Christian princes none fears, none has feared? But, as I said, those empty pretexts are traps and stratagems of Satan, of which not a few are found in the histories of ancient times; which I could easily relate if I had undertaken to write not a letter but a whole book. One only, by way of example, I will recall to your memory. Saint Gregory Nazianzen writes, in his first oration against the Emperor Julian, that he, in order to impose on simple Christians, mixed images of the false gods into the imperial images, which the Romans by custom honoured with a certain civil kind of honour; so that no one could honour the emperor’s image without at the same time paying worship to the idols of the gods. Hence it came about that very many were deceived; and if any, perhaps scenting the fraud, refused to honour the emperor’s image, they were most severely punished, as having despised Caesar in his image. Something of this kind I seem to see in the oath offered to you, which has been composed with such fraud that no one can detest treason against the king and profess civil subjection without being compelled perfidiously to deny the primacy of the Apostolic See. But the servants of Christ, and especially the chief priests of the Lord, where there can be danger to the faith, ought to be so far from taking an unlawful oath that they ought to guard even against every suspicion of pretending to have taken it, lest they seem to have left the faithful people any example of prevarication. This that famous Eleazar excellently performed, who would neither eat swine’s flesh nor pretend to have eaten it, although he saw the most grievous torments hanging over him; lest, as he himself says in the second book of Maccabees, many of the young should be encouraged by that pretence to transgress the law. And no less bravely, and with an example better fitted to our affairs, the great Basil bore himself with the Emperor Valens; for, as Theodoret writes in his History, when the prefect of the heretical emperor urged Saint Basil not to resist the emperor for the sake of a small subtlety of dogmas, that most holy and most prudent man answered that it was not to be borne that even one syllable of the divine dogmas should be corrupted, but rather that every kind of punishment should be embraced in their defence. I think indeed that there are not lacking among you those who say that the things contained in the oath proposed to Catholic men are a subtlety of dogmas, and that the king’s command is not to be resisted for so small a matter. But there will not be lacking either holy men, like the great Basil, who will openly affirm that not even the least syllable of the divine dogmas is to be corrupted, even if torments and death itself are set before them to be endured. Among these it is fitting that you should be one, or rather their prince and standard-bearer. And although either your unexpected arrest, or the bitterness of the persecution, or the weakness of old age, or something else may have been the cause that your constancy faltered, yet we trust in the goodness of the Lord and in your long-tried virtue that you, who seem in some measure to have imitated the fall of Saint Peter and of Saint Marcellinus, will happily imitate their fortitude in recovering your strength and asserting the truth. For if you are willing to think the whole matter over carefully with yourself, you will surely see that it is no small thing that is brought into danger by that oath, but one of the chief heads of our faith and foundations of the Catholic religion. Hear what your Apostle, Gregory the Great, writes in letter 2 of book 11: “Let the reverence due to the Apostolic See be disturbed by no one’s presumption; for then the state of the members remains whole, if the head of the faith is struck by no injury.” So, on Saint Gregory’s testimony, when men busy themselves with disturbing, diminishing or removing the primacy of the Apostolic See, they busy themselves with cutting off the very head of the faith, and with scattering the state of the whole body and of all its members. The same Saint Leo confirms, in sermon 3 on his elevation to the pontificate, when he says: “A special care of Peter is undertaken by the Lord, and prayer is made for the faith of Peter in particular, as though the state of the others would be more secure if the mind of the prince were not overcome.” Whence the same does not hesitate to affirm, in the letter to the bishops of the province of Vienne: “It is necessary that he be excluded from the divine mystery who dares to withdraw from the solidity of Peter”; who again says: “Whoever thinks that the primacy is to be denied to this See can in no way diminish its dignity, but, puffed up with the spirit of his own pride, plunges himself into hell.” And these things indeed, and many others of the same kind, I know for certain are very well known to you, who besides other books have often read the Visible Monarchy of your Sander, a most diligent writer who deserved excellently of the English Church; and who cannot be ignorant that those most holy and equally most learned men, John of Rochester and Thomas More, were within our memory leaders to martyrdom for very many others, for this one most weighty dogma, to the vast glory of the English nation. But I wished to recall them to your memory, that you may collect yourself, and, considering the greatness of the matter, may not trust too much to your own judgement, nor be wiser than you ought to be; and if perhaps your fall proceeded not from inconsideration but from human weakness, from fear of prison and punishments, that you may not prefer temporal liberty to the liberty of the glory of the children of God, nor, to escape a momentary and light tribulation, be willing to lose the eternal weight of glory which that very tribulation works in you. You have long fought the good fight, you have almost finished the course, you have kept the faith for so many years; do not, then, lose so easily the rewards of such great labours; do not deprive yourself of the crown of justice which has long been prepared for you; do not put to confusion the faces of so many of your brethren and your sons. On you at this time are fixed the eyes of the whole Church; nay, you have been made a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men. Do not in the last act so bear yourself as to leave grief to your own and joy to the enemies; but rather, on the contrary, which we wholly hope, and for which we pour out prayers continually to our God, gloriously raise the standard of the faith, and make glad the Church which you had made sad; and earn from the Lord now not only pardon but a crown. Farewell; act manfully, and let your heart be strengthened. Rome, 28 September 1607.
Answer to the objections against the letter of Cardinal Bellarmine
Let us come now to what the author of the Apology has chosen to write against Cardinal Bellarmine. And although the author both extols the same Bellarmine with great praises and loads him with great abuse, so as to fulfil that saying of Saint James, “Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing,” yet he neither recognises the praises as his own nor is much moved by the abuse. So, passing these over, we shall pursue only those things which can prejudice the truth of Catholic dogmas and the sincerity of the faith. On pages 47, 48 and 49, then, he writes that Bellarmine strayed from the state of the question, and that although he wished to refute the form of the oath of allegiance, he is wholly taken up with refuting the oath concerning the king’s primacy in spiritual things. And that we may know the difference between these two oaths, he transcribes in this place the form of the oath of primacy; for the form of the oath of allegiance is contained in the Pontiff’s brief written above. To this we answer that Bellarmine did not stray from the state of the question, but exposed the frauds of the heretics. For he saw that the second oath was being proposed as if it were an oath of simple allegiance and civil obedience, by which name it is very frequently called in this very Apology; for in this very place where we now are, namely page 49, he says: “This latest oath touches only the civil obedience of subjects towards the prince, in causes purely temporal.” But that this is false, and said only to cover the snare, the form of the oath itself cries out. For the Catholics are compelled to swear not only what subjects ought to render to the king, but also what the Supreme Pontiff of the Church can or cannot do. This, then, is the reason why Bellarmine said in his letter that by this oath, however tempered and modified, the Catholic faith concerning the primacy of the Apostolic See is assailed. But enough has been said of this matter at the beginning of the answer.
The author then goes on, pages 51 and 52, and sets out fourteen propositions which he says those must necessarily concede who refuse to take the proposed oath. But from these very propositions it is most plainly demonstrated that by that oath not only civil obedience in matters purely temporal is touched, as the author of the Apology said a little before, but the sacrosanct power and authority of the Vicar of Christ is touched. For of the fourteen propositions very many are about the power of the Pope. And it is false that those who refuse the oath cannot but concede these fourteen propositions, which are contrary to all the parts of the oath. For by the common opinion, good is constituted by the whole cause, but evil by any single defect. Wherefore, for an oath to be forbidden or refused, it is not necessary that all and every part of it be evil; it is enough if even one is evil. On the contrary, for an oath to be taken, it must be stained by no fault, and be found just and lawful in all and every part. The Supreme Pontiff, therefore, could condemn this oath, and the Catholics can and ought rightly to refuse this same oath, even if some clause of it is true or just; nor are they bound to admit all fourteen propositions as true or just.
But it is a wonder with what face the author of the Apology adds: “These are the true parts, these the natural members of the body of this oath; to all which negatives the opposed affirmative parts neither touch in any way the Pontiff’s primacy in spiritual causes, nor have ever been concluded or defined in any general council thoroughly examined to belong to the Pontiff’s authority; and finally their own Scholastic Doctors themselves, in a certain inexplicable quarrel, disagree among themselves about them to this day.” For, as I warned a little before, and as the propositions themselves cry out, of the fourteen there are eleven which touch the Pontiff’s primacy in spiritual causes; for it is certainly a spiritual cause whether a heretical prince can be excommunicated by the Pontiff, and whether Catholic peoples can be loosed from obedience to a heretical prince on account of the danger of heresy. Nor are there any controversies among the Scholastic Doctors about this matter; otherwise let the adversary produce even one Catholic author who writes that it is not lawful for the Supreme Pontiff to excommunicate a heretical king or prince, and to free the Catholic people from obedience to him. Moreover, in general councils, not one but many, it has been concluded and defined that the Supreme Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Church, the ruler and shepherd of all Christians; from which it manifestly follows that he can direct and correct all Christians, even if they are kings or princes, when they err. See the Council of the Lateran under Innocent III, chapter 5; the Council of Lyons under Gregory X, whence comes the chapter Unde periculum, on election, in the Sext; the Council of Lyons under Innocent IV, whence comes chapter 1, on homicide, in the Sext; the Council of Vienne under Clement V, whence comes the first Clementine, on the Most High Trinity and the Catholic faith; the Council of Constance, sessions 8 and 15; and the Council of the Lateran under Leo X, session 11. And in the Council of the Lateran under Innocent III, which was the greatest and most celebrated of all, besides the place cited, it is laid down in the third chapter that temporal lords are to be warned to purge their dominions by punishing heretics condemned by the Church; and if they neglect to do so, they are to be excommunicated; and if, being excommunicated, they still refuse to obey, this is to be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, who will free their subjects from obedience and grant their lands to others to invade. But the adversary notes in the margin that Platina is to be seen in the life of Innocent III as regards this Lateran council; since Platina seems to indicate that nothing certain could be concluded in this council after long disputations. But Platina speaks only of the recovery of the Land of Promise, which the Saracens had occupied; for on this article, after many things had been disputed among the Fathers and the ambassadors of kings, nothing certain could be defined. But since the adversary has referred us to Platina, it will not be beside the point to note that it is Platina who, in the place alleged by the adversary, relates that John, king of the English, subjected England itself and Ireland to the Supreme Pontiff and wished them to be tributary; and that by Pope Innocent, a holy man, the Emperor Otto was excommunicated and most justly deprived of the empire. Let the adversary go on, then, and frequently bring forward such authors to convict us.
The author goes on, pages 54, 55, 56 and 57, and teaches that the oath proposed by King James contains nothing new, but was received in use and approved in councils a thousand years ago. For he recites these words of the fourth Council of Toledo, canon 74: “Hear our sentence: whoever of you, or of the peoples of all Spain, by any conspiracy or design shall violate the oath of his fidelity which he has promised for the preservation of the country or of the king’s safety, or shall lay hands on the king to slay him, or shall strip him of the power of the kingdom, or by tyrannical presumption shall usurp the height of the kingdom, let him be anathema in the sight of God the Father and of the holy angels, and let him be made a stranger to the Catholic Church, which he has profaned by perjury, and an alien from every assembly of Christians, together with all the companions of his impiety; because it is fitting that one penalty hold those guilty whom a like error has found entangled.” To the same effect he alleges the fifth, sixth and tenth Councils of Toledo; and finally he adds the Council of Aachen, canon 12, whose words are these: “If any of the bishops, or anyone of the following ecclesiastical order, by any persuasion shall fall away from the lord and orthodox Emperor Louis, or shall even violate the oath of fidelity promised to him, so as to join himself with malevolent intent to his opponents, let him lose his own rank by canonical and synodal sentence.”
To these places we answer that in these councils an oath of allegiance towards Catholic and orthodox princes is approved, which no one can deny to be most just. But we censure an oath which a king estranged from the Church, and who busies himself with drawing his subjects from the true and ancient religion to new heresies, tries to extort from Catholics and orthodox men. Next, in the two councils alleged, the question is not of taking a new and unlawful oath, but of not violating a just and lawful oath; and we detest a new and unlawful oath. Moreover, in the oaths which are approved in the ancient councils it is not prescribed that the Supreme Pontiff, when he excommunicates a king for heresy, is not to be obeyed; nor is anything else added that touches in any way the power of the Vicar of Christ. So there is no reason why we should not venerate those oaths together with those holy Fathers; but the oath we are dealing with is for the greater part taken up with denying the Pontifical power, and for that reason we judge it unlawful and unjust, and that it can in no way be taken by Catholic men. Finally, if some Catholic prince should perhaps fear treason or rebellion, and should ask a council of bishops, or the Supreme Pontiff himself, to command under pain of excommunication to be incurred by the very fact that no one presume to violate an oath rendered to the prince, or to conspire against the same prince, or to aid his enemies or rebels, we shall say that the petition is most just and altogether to be granted. I add also that if King James himself had confined the oath proposed by him within these limits, so as to make no mention of Pontifical excommunication, nor to touch in any way the power of the same Pontiff, but had directed the words of the oath only against traitors and assassins, or invaders of his kingdom, the Apostolic See would not have disapproved or forbidden such an oath. Wherefore it is plain that oaths of allegiance are not interdicted or censured by the Supreme Pontiff, unless they have the mark of perfidy joined to them.
On page 58, taking occasion from the friendship which Bellarmine relates at the beginning of his letter to have existed between himself and the Archpriest, the author of the Apology digresses to calumnies; and among others he brings forward this, that Bellarmine was privy to, or the author of, the treasons against Queen Elizabeth. And he proves it thus: because Campion and Hart, in the conference held in the Tower of London, did not hesitate to celebrate Robert Bellarmine as one of their chief authors or oracles. I answer what is the fact: if Campion and Hart did not hesitate to celebrate Bellarmine as one of their chief authors or oracles, this is to be understood of his theological lectures, and especially of those which pertain to the controversies of the heretics, upon which perhaps those two good men had happened; for at the time when Campion and Hart were thrown into prison, Bellarmine had taught publicly six years at Louvain and likewise six others at Rome, and his lectures, written down by the students, were in circulation. Nor indeed would Bellarmine be ashamed or sorry if the friendship of Campion had fallen to him. For he knows that Campion conspired only against heretical impiety, that he went to England for the sake of enlarging the divine glory and procuring the salvation of his countrymen; and he does not doubt that his death, piously undergone for religion, is precious in the sight of the Lord. But it is well that the conference held between Hart and John Rainolds was afterwards printed, and in it there is nothing except that Hart, while disputing about the controversies of faith, alleged Bellarmine’s lectures given at Louvain and at Rome.
On page 61, after various trifles and calumnies which the author of the Apology has chosen to babble, he adds a splendid lie, saying: “It never came into our king’s mind to decree anything against Blackwell, as he has hitherto done against no one else for the sake of conscience.” So he. To what purpose, then, so many fines in money against those who refuse to go to the churches of the heretics? To what purpose so many prisons full of recusants? To what purpose so many priests driven into exile? To what purpose is Blackwell himself imprisoned in so long an imprisonment, when he has both taken the oath and has never been held guilty of conspiracy, nor can anything else be objected to him except that he exercised the functions of a Catholic priest in England? Why have not a few been already strangled by hanging and cut in pieces, except because for the sake of conscience they would not take the oath? Why, finally, to pass over much, was Henry Garnet, a man of learning of every kind and of incomparable holiness of life, put to death, except because he would not reveal what he could not reveal with a safe conscience? But we shall say more of this most holy man a little below. It is truly an admirable impudence to commit to writing lies which are openly refuted with derision by the very common people.
On page 62 the author of the Apology carps at what is said in Bellarmine’s letter, that that oath could not become lawful because it was offered in some way tempered and modified; and he pretends that the tempering and modification consists in this, that the oath was drawn up in fair and moderate words excellently suited to the matter; and from this exposition he digresses to calumnies. But Bellarmine said that this second oath was tempered and moderated by comparison with the first. For the first oath, which is quoted in this Apology on page 49, asserts the royal primacy in spiritual things rigidly enough, and no less rigidly denies the Apostolic primacy; but this second can be called tempered and modified, most aptly for deceiving, because it does not openly introduce the royal primacy in spiritual things or reject the Apostolic primacy, but under the pretext and colour of allegiance tends to the same end, that the Apostolic primacy be denied and the royal primacy in spiritual things be set up. And this is what Bellarmine attributes to the frauds and stratagem of Satan; which I wished to explain most plainly for this reason, that the author of the Apology on page 63 says he cannot divine why Bellarmine thought there were wiles of Satan in that oath.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
EPISTOLA CARDINALIS BELLARMINI AD ARCHIPRESBYTERUM ANGLLE. (a) Venerabilis in Christo domine Frater. Anni sunt fere quadraginta, quod invincem non viderimus. Sed ego tamen veteris nostras consuetudinis numquam oblitus sum ; teque in vinea Domini strenue laborantem, quando aliter non potui, orationibus Deo commendare non destiti : me quoque in tua memoria toto hoc tempore vixisse, et in tuis orationibus ad altare Domini locum aliquem habuisse non dubito. Ita igitur ad hoc usque tempus, non verbis aut litteris, sed opere et veritate, ut sanctus Joannes loquitur, alter in alterius dilectione permansimus, sed hoc silentium rumpere coegit nuncius, qui diebus istis de tuis vinculis et carcere ad nos venit; qui quidem nuncius, etsi tristis videri poterat, ob jacturam pastoralis tum sollicitudinis, quam Ecclesia ista fecit, tamen laetus quoque vide¬ batur, quoniam ad Martyrii gloriam, quo dono Dei nullum est felicius, propin- l quabas : ut qui tot annis gregem tuum verbis et doctrina pavisses, nunc exem¬ plo patientiae gloriosius pasceres. Verum hanc laetitiam non mediocriter intertur- bavit, ac fere corrupit tristis alius nuncius, qui de constantia tua in recusando illicito juramento, ab adversariis tentata, forte etiam labefactata, et prostrata successit. Neque enim, frater charissime, juramentum illud ideo licitum esse po¬ tuit, quod aliquo modo temperatum, et modificatum offerebatur. Scis enim hu¬ jusmodi modificationes nihil esse aliud, quam Satanas dolos atque versutias, ut fides Catholica de primatu Sedis Apostolicas, vel aperte vel obscure petatur : pro qua fide tot inclyti Martyres in ista ipsa Anglia ad sanguinem usque pugnarunt. ' Certe enim quibuscumque verbis juramentum ab adversariis fidei concipiatur in regno isto, eo tendit, ut auctoritas capitis Ecclesias a successore sancti Petri, ad successorem Henrici VIII. in Anglia transferatur. Quod enim obtenditur de peri¬ culo vitae regis, si summus Pontifex eam in Anglia potestatem habeat, quam in omnibus aliis Christianis regnis habet, inane prorsus esse, omnes qui sunt aliqua prudentia praediti, facile vident. Neque enim auditum est unquam ab initio nascen¬ tis Ecclesiae, usque ad haec nostra tempora, quod ullus Pontifex maximus principem ullum, quamvis haereticum, quamvis ethnicum, quamvis persecutorem, caedi mandaverit, aut caedem forte ab aliquo patratam probaverit. Et cur quaeso unus rex Angliae timet, quod ex tot Christianis Principibus nullus timet, nullus ti¬ muit? sed ut dixi, vani isti praetextus decipulae sunt, e^ stratagemata Satanae, qualia non pauca in historiis veterum temporum inveniuntur ; quae facile referre possem, si, non episiolam, sed librum integrum scribendum suscepissem. Unum tantum, exempli gratia, ad memoriam tibi revocabo. Scribit sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus in prima oratione in Julianum imperatorem, illum, ut simplicibus Christianis imponeret, in imaginibus imperatoriis, quas Romani civili quodam (a) Continet exhortationem ut Archiprexbyter, qui Juvamentum acceperat., recipiscat. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 227 genere honoris, pro more adorabant, imagines Deorum falsorum admiscuisse, ut nemo posse Imperatoris imaginem adorare , quin simul Deorum simulacris cultum adhiberet : hinc nimirum fiebat, ut plurimi deciperentur : et si qui forte fraudem subodorati imperatoris imaginem venerari recusarent, ii gravissime pu¬ nirentur, ut qui Caesarem in sua imagine contempsissent. Tale aliquid in jura¬ mento vobis oblato, mihi videre videor, quod ea fraude compositum est, ut nemo possit proditionem in regem detestari, civilemque subjectionem profiteri, quin primatum Sedis Apostolicae perfide obnegare cogatur ; sed Christi servi, ac prae¬ sertim primarii Domini Sacerdotes, ubi periculum fidei subesse possit, tantum abesse debent a susceptione illiciti juramenti, ut ab omni etiam suspicione simu¬ lationis praestiti juramenti cavere debeant, ne fidelibus populis ullum praevari¬ cationis exemplum reliquisse videantur. Quod egregie praestitit insignis ille Eleazarus, qui neque porcinas carnes comedere, neque simulare comedisse voluit, quamvis gravissima tormenta sibi cerneret imminere ; ne, ut ipse ait in ii. lib. Machabaeorum, multi juvenum per eam simulationem, ad legis praevaricationem animarentur. Neque minus fortiter Magnus Basilius, et exemplo ad res nostras magis accommodato, cum Valente Imperatore se gessit : nam ut in historia scri¬ bit Theodoretus, cum praefectus imperatoris haeretici hortaretur S. Basilium, ut non vellet propter parvam dogmatum subtilitatem imperatori resistere : respon¬ dit vir ille sanctissimus, et prudentissimus, Non esse ferendum, ut de divinis dogmatibus, vel una syllaba corrumpatur, sed potius pro eorum defensione, omne genus supplicii amplectendum. Equidem arbitror non deesse apud vos, qui do¬ gmatum subtilitatem esse dicant, quas in juramento Catholicis hominibus propo¬ sito continentur, et non esse propter rem tam parvam regis imperio reluctandum. Sed non deerunt etiam viri Sancti, ac magno Basilio similes, qui palam affir¬ mabunt, non esse de divinis dogmatibus vel minimam aliquam syllabam corrum¬ pendam, etiamsi tormenta, et mors ipsa "toleranda proponantur. Inter hos unum, vel potius horum principem, atque antesignanum te esse par est. Et quamvis, vel inopinata comprehensio, vel acerbitas persequutionis, vel senectutis imbe¬ cillitas, vel quid aliud in causa fuerit, ut constantia titubaverit; confidimus tamen de Domini pietate, et de diuturna tua virtute, fore, ut qui S. Petri, et S. Marcellini casum aliqua ex parte imitatus videris, eorumdem fortitudinem in reparandis viribus, et veritate asserenda feliciter imiteris. Nam si rem totam diligenter apud te cogitate volueris, videbis profecto non esse rem parvam quae ob juramentum istud in discrimen adducitur, sed unum ex praecipuis fidei no¬ strae capitibus, ac Religionis Catholicae fundamentis. Audi enim quid Apostolus vester Magnus Gregorius in epist. 2. libri xi. scribat : « Apostolicae Sedis reve¬ rentia nullus praesumptione turbetur : tunc enim status membrorum integer perseverat, si caput fidei nulla pulsetur injuria. » Itaque S. Gregorio teste, cum de primatu Sedis Apostolicae vel turbando, vel minuendo, vel tollendo satagitur, de ipso capite fidei amputando, ac de totius corporis, omniumque membrorum 228 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM statu dissipando satagitur. Quod idem S. Leo confirmat serm. 3. de assumptione sua ad Pontificatum, cum ait : « Specialis cura Petri a Domino suscipitur, et pro fide Petri proprie supplicatur, tamquam aliorum status certior sit futurus, si mens Principis victa non fuerit. » Ex quo idem ipse in Epistola ad Episcopos Viennensis provinciae affirmare non dubitat : « Necesse esse exortem illum my¬ sterii esse divini, qui ausus fuerit a Petri solididate recedere : » qui rursum ait: « Quisquis huic Sedi Principatum existimat esse denegandum, illius quidem nullo modo potest minuere dignitatem, sed inflatus spiritu superbiae suae, semet- ipsum in inferna demergit. » Atque haec quidem, et alia ejusdem generis multa tibi notissima esse certo scio, qui praeter caeteros libros, visibilem monarchiam Sanderi tui, scriptoris diligentissimi, et de Ecclesia Anglicana optime meriti saepe legisti : quique ignorare non potes sanctissimos viros, eosdemque doctissi¬ mos Joannem Roftensem, et Thomam Morum, pro hoc uno gravissimo dogmate duces ad Martyrium plurimis aliis, cum ingenti Anglicae nationis gloria, nostra memoria fuisse : sed in memoriam tibi revocare volui, ut colligas te, et magni¬ tudinem rei considerans, non tuo judicio nimium fidas, neque plus sapias, quam oportet sapere, et si forte lapsus tuus non ex inconsideratione, sed ex infirmi¬ tate humana, ex metu carceris, et suppliciorum profectus est; non anteponas libertatem temporalem libertati gloriae filiorum Dei : neque ob momentaneam, et levem tribulationem fugiendam, amittere velis aeternam gloriae pondus, quod ipsa tribulatio operatur in te. Bonum certamen diu certasti, cursum ferme consummasti, fidem tot annis servasti, noli igitur tantorum laborum praemia tam facile perdere : noli corona justitiae, quae tibi jamdudum paratur, te ipse privare : noli tot fratrum et filiorum tuorum vultus confundere : in te sunt hoc tempore conjecti oculi totius Ecclesiae, quin etiam spectaculum factus es mundo, angelis, et hominibus : noli in extremo actu ita te gerere, ut et tuis luctum, et gaudium hostibus relinquas; sed contra "potius, quod omnino speramus, et pro quo ad Deum nostrum assidue preces fundimus, vexillum fidei gloriose erigas, et quam contristaveras, laetam facias Ecclesiam : nec jam solum veniam merearis a Domino, sed Coronam. Vale, viriliter age, et confortetur cor tuum. Komae die 28. Septembris 1607. Responsio ad ea quse objiciuntur contra Epistolam Cardinalis Bellarmini. Nunc ad ea veniamus, quae Auctori Apo- logiae adversus Cardinalem Bellarminum scri¬ bere placuit, et quamvis auctor eumdem Bel¬ larminum magnis laudibus efferat, et magnis conviciis oneret, ut impleat illud S. Jacobi, Ex ipso ore benedictio, et maledictio proce¬ dit : ipse tamen, nec laudes in se agnoscit, neque conviciis multum movetur. Ideo iis praetermissis, illa solum persequemur, quae veritati dogmatum Catholicorum, et since¬ ritati fidei praejudicare possunt. Igitur pag. 47. 48. et 49. scribit, Bellarminum aberrasse a statu causae, et cum furmulam juramenti fidelitatis refutare vellet : tamen totum esse in refutando juramento de Primatu regis in spiritualibus. Atque, ut sciamus quid intersit inter haec duo juramenta, adscribit hoc loco formulam juramenti de Primatu. Nam for¬ mula juramenti fidelitatis in ipso Brevi Pon¬ tificis suprascripto continetur. Ad hoc re¬ spondemus, Bellarminum non aberrasse a statu causae, sed haereticorum fraudes de- PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 229 texisse. Vidit enim juramentum secundum proponi, quasi simplicis fidelitatis, civilisque obedientise juramentum esset, quo nomine in hac ipsa Apologia frequentissime appel¬ latur, nam in hoc ipso loco, in quo nunc versamur, videlicet pag. 49. sic ait : «No¬ vissimum hoc juramentum civilem tantum¬ modo obedientiam attingit subditorum erga Principem, in causis mere temporalibus». At id falsum esse, solumque ad tegendas in¬ sidias dici, juramenti formula per se clamat. Coguntur enim Catholici jurare, non solum quid subditi debeant prsestare erga regem ; sed etiam quid possit, vel non possit sum¬ mus Ecclesiae Pontifex. Haec igitur causa est, cur Bellarminus in Epistola sua dixerit, hoc juramento, quantumvis temperato, et modi¬ ficato, fidem Catholicam de primatu Sedis Apostolicae peti. Sed de hac re initio respon¬ sionis satis multa dicta sunt. Pergit deinde auctor pag. 51. et 52. et (a) exponit quatuordecim propositiones, quas dicit necesse esse, ut illi concedant, qui ju¬ ramentum propositum praestare recusant. Sed ex his ipsis propositionibus apertissime demonstratur, eo juramento, non civilem tantum obedientiam in rebus mere tempora¬ libus attingi, ut paulo ante auctor Apologiae dixit : sed attingi potestatem, et auctorita¬ tem sacrosanctam Vicarii Christi. Nam ex quatuordecim propositionibus plurimae sunt de potestate Papae. Falsum autem est, eos, qui juramentum recusant, non posse non concedere has quatuordecim propositiones, quae contrariae sunt omnibus partibus jura¬ menti. Nam ex communi sententia, Bonum ex integra causa constituitur, malum autem ex singulis defectibus. Quare, ut juramen¬ tum prohibeatur, vel recusetur, non est ne¬ cessarium, ut omnes et singulae partes ejus sint malae : satis autem est si vel una sit mala. Contra autem, ut juramentum susci¬ piatur, oportet, ut nullo vitio maculetur, et in omnibus et singulis partibus justum, et licitum reperiatur. Potuit igitur summus Pontifex juramentum hoc damnare, et pos¬ sunt, ac debent Catholici hoc idem juramen¬ tum merito recusare ; etiam si aliqua ejus sententia vera sit aut justa, neque tenentur omnes quatuordecim propositiones, ut veras, aut justas admittere. Sed mirum est, qua fronte auctor Apolo- gise subjungat : « Hae verse sunt partes, hsec naturalia membra hujus juramenti corporis, quibus omnibus negativis affirmativae partes oppositae, neque Pontificis primatum in cau¬ sis spiritualibus ullatenus attingunt, neque unquam conclusae, aut definitae sunt in ullo concilio generali penitus exacto, ad Pontifi¬ cis auctoritatem pertinere ; et ipsi denique eorum Doctores Scholastici , inexplicabili quodam litigio, de iis invicem dissident in hunc diem ». Nam, ut paulo ante monui, et ipsae propositiones clamant; ex quatuorde¬ cim, undecim sunt, quae primatum Pontificis in causis spiritualibus attingunt : causa enim utique spiritualis est; An princeps haereticus a Pontifice excommunicari, et ; An populi Catholici propter periculum haeresis ab obe- dientia principis haeretici solvi possint. Ne¬ que de hac re ullae sunt inter doctores Scho¬ lasticos controversiae : (b) alioqui proferat adversarius vel unum Catholicum auctorem, qui scribat, non licere summo Pontifici re¬ gem vel Principem haereticum excommuni¬ care, et populum Catholicum ab ejus obe- dientia liberare. Porro in conciliis generali¬ bus, non uno, sed multis conclusum, ac de¬ finitum est, summum Pontificem esse Vica¬ rium Christi, caput Ecclesiae, rectorem et ■ pastorem omnium Christianorum, ex quibus manifeste sequitur, ut omnes Christianos, etiam si reges, vel principes sint, errantes, dirigere et corrigere possit. Vide Concilium Lateranense sub Innocentio III. cap. 5. Lug¬ dunense sub Gregorio X. undeexsfat caput, Unde periculum de elect. in 6. Lugdunense sub Innocentio IV. unde exstat c. 1. De ho¬ micidio in 6. Viennense sub Clemente V. unde exstat Clementina prima de summa Trinit. et fid. Cathol. Constantiense sess. 8. et 15. et Lateranense sub Leone X. sess. ii. In concilio autem Lateranensi sub Innocen¬ tio III. quod fuit omnium maximum, et ce¬ leberrimum. praeter locum citatum, habetur capite tertio, dominos temporales monendos esse, ut ditiones suas purgent, puniendo hae¬ reticos ab Ecclesia damnatos, quod si facere neglexerint, excommunicentur; et si excom- municati adhuc parere recusent, significetur id summo Pontifici, qui subditos eorum ab obedientia liberabit, et terras eorum aliis in¬ vadendas concedet. Sed adversarius notat ad marginem, Videndum esse Platinam in (a) Juramentum ab Apologice auctore in 14. propositiones male divisum. — -(6 ) Papa reges hae¬ reticos excommunicare potest, et eximere populos ab eorum obedientia. 230 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM vita Innocentii III. quod attinet ad hoc Late¬ ranense concilium. Siquidem Platina indi¬ care videtur, nihil certi in hoc concilio post longas disputationes concludi potuisse, Cae- terum Platina loquitur solum de recuperanda Terra promissionis, quam Saraceni occupa¬ verant. De hoc enim articulo, cum multa in¬ ter Patres, et oratores regum disputata fuis¬ sent, nihil certi definiri potuit. Sed quoniam adversarius ad Platinam nos remisit, non erit ah re annotare, Platinam esse, qui loco ab adversario allegato refert, Joannem re¬ gem Anglorum ipsam Angliam, et Hybcr- niam summo Pontifici subjecisse, ac tributa¬ riam esse voluisse. Et a Pontifice Innocentio viro sancto, Othonem imperatorem excom- municatum, atque imperio justissime priva¬ tum fuisse. Pergat igitur adversarius, et si¬ miles auctores ad nos convincendos frequen¬ ter adducat. Pergit auctor, pag. 54. 55. 56. et 57. ac docet (a), Juramentum a rege Jacobo propo¬ situm, nihil novi continere, sed ante mille annos fuisse in Conciliis usu receptum, et approbatum. Recitat enim haec verba Con¬ cilii Toletani quarti, can. 74. Audi senten¬ tiam nostram : « Quicumque ex vobis, vel totius Hispaniae populis, qualibet conjura¬ tione, vel studio, sacramentum fidei suae,, quod pro conservatione patriae, vel regiae salutis pollicitus est, temeraverit, aut regem nece attrectaverit, aut potestate regni exu¬ erit, aut praesumptione tyrannica regni fasti¬ gium usurpaverit; anathema sit in conspectu Dei Patris, et sanctorum Angelorum, atque ab Ecclesia Catholica, quam perjurio pro- phanaverit, efficiatur extraneus, et ab omni coetu Christianorum alienus, cum omnibus impietatis suae sociis, quia oportet, ut una poena teneat obnoxios, quos similis error in¬ venerit implicatos. » In eamdem sententiam allegat concilium Toletanum, quintum, sex¬ tum, et decimum ; ac denique addit conci¬ lium Aquisgranense can. 12. cujus haec sunt verba : « Si quisquam Episcoporum, aut quilibet sequentis ordini Ecclesiasticis, quali¬ bet suasione, a Domino, et Orthodoxo Ludo- vico imperatore defecerit, aut etiam Sacra¬ mentum fidelitatis illi promissum violaverit, ut ejus contrariis malevola intentione se co¬ pulaverit ; gradum proprium Canonica atque Synodali sententia amittat. » Ad hfec loca nos respondemus, in his con¬ ciliis approbari juramentum fidelitatis erga principes Catholicos et orthodoxos, quod justissimum esse nemo negare potest. Nos autem reprehendimus juramentum quod a Catholicis, et orthodoxis extorquere conatur rex ab Ecclesia alienus, et qui a vera, et antiqua religione, ad novas haereses subditos pertrahere satagit. Deinde (a), in duobus conciliis allegatis, non agitur de novo, et il¬ licito juramento suscipiendo, sed de jura¬ mento justo et legitimo non violando : nos autem juramentum novum et illicitum dete¬ stamur. Praeterea in juramentis, quse in con¬ ciliis veteribus approbantur, non praescri¬ bitur, ut summo Pontifici regem propter hse- resim excommunicanti, non obediatur : ne¬ que aliquid aliud additur, quod potestatem Christi Vicarii ullo modo attingat. Proinde nulla causa est, cur juramenta illa cum san¬ ctis illis Patribus non veneremur, at jura¬ mentum de quo agimus, maxima ex parte consumitur in abneganda Pontificia potesta¬ te, eaque de causa illicitum et injustum, et nullo modo a Catholicis viris suscipi posse decernimus. Denique, si princeps aliquis Ca¬ tholicus proditionem, aut rebellionem forte timeat, et ab Episcoporum concilio, vel ab ipso summo Pontifice petat, ut sub excom¬ municationis pcena ipso facto incurrenda, praecipiat, ut nemo juramentum principi praestitum violare, aut adversus eumdem principem conjurare, aut hostes vel rebelles ipsius juvare praesumat; petitionem justissi¬ mam, et omnino admittendam esse dicemus. Addo etiam, si rex ipse Jacobus intra hos limites juramentum a se propositum conclu¬ sisset, ut nullam excommunicationis Pontifi¬ ciae mentionem faceret, neque potestatem ejusdem Pontificis ullo modo attingeret; sed solum contra proditores et sicarios, aut re¬ gni sui invasores juramenti verba dirigeret : ejusmodi juramentum Sedes Apostolica non improbasset, neque prohibuisset. Quare per¬ spicuum est, a summo Pontifice non inter¬ dici, aut reprehendi juramenta fidelitatem requirant, ut perfidiae notam adjunctam ha¬ beant. Pag. 58. occasione accepta ex necessitu¬ dine, quam cum Archipresbytero sibi inter¬ cessisse initio Epistolae Bellarminus narrat ; digreditur Auctor Apologiae ad calumnias, (a) Objectio ex conciliis pro juramento regis Anglios , — (h) Concilia non loquuntur de juramento quale est Anglicanum. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 231 atque inter alias, illam profert in medium (a), quod Bellarminus conscius vel auctor fuit proditionum adversus reginam Elizabetham : id autem probat, quia Campianus, et Hartus in colloquio in Turri Londinensi habito, Ro- bertum Bellarminum pro uno ex praecipuis suis vel auctoribus, vel oraculis celebrare non dubitaverint. Respondeo, quod res est : si Campianus et Hartus, Bellarminum pro uno ex suis vel auctoribus, vel oraculis prae¬ cipuis celebrare non dubitabant, id accipien¬ dum esse de lectionibus ejus theologicis, et iis praesertim quae ad controversias haereti¬ corum pertinent, in quas forte duo illi boni viri inciderant : nam, quo tempore Cam¬ pianus, et Hartus in carcerem conjuncti fue¬ runt, Bellarminus annos sex Lovanii, et alios item sex Romae publice docuerat, ejusque lectiones a scholasticis descriptae circumfe¬ rebantur. Neque vero Bellarminum puderet, aut poeniteret, si Campiani illi familiaritas contigisset. Scit enim Campianum contra haereticam impietatem solum conspirasse, divinae gloriae amplificandae, et civium suo¬ rum salutis procurandae causa in Angliam esse profectum ; et mortem ejus pro religio¬ ne pie susceptam, pretiosam in conspectu Domini esse non dubitat. Sed bene habet, quod collatio inter Hartum, et Joannem R'e- ginaldum habita typis postea excusa fuit, et in ea nihil habetur, nisi quod Hartus inter disputandum de controversiis fidei, Bellar- mini Lectiones Lovanii, Romaeque habitas allegabat. Pag. 61 . post varias nugasatque calumnias, quas Auctori Apologia effutire placuit, splen¬ didum mendacium adjungit, dicens : « Regi nostro numquam in mentem venit, aliquid in Blakuellum statuere, ut nec in alium quemquam conscientiae causa hactenus fecit.» Haec ille. ( b ) Quorsum igitur tot mulctae pe¬ cuniariae in recusantes adire templa haereti¬ corum ; quorsum tot carceres recusantium pleni? quorsum totSacerdotes in exilium acti? quorsum ipse Blakuellus tam longo carcere carceratur, cum et juramentum susceperit, et conjurationis reus numquam sit habitus ; noque aliud ei objici possit, nisi quod Sacer¬ dotis Catholici functiones in Anglia exercue¬ rit? cur jam non pauci suspendio suffocati, et in partes dissecti sunt, nisi quia conscien¬ tiae causa juramentum suscipere noluerunt? cur denique, ut multa praeteream, Henricus Garnettus, vir doctrina omnis generis, et vitae sanctitate incomparabilis, ultimo supplicio affectus est, nisi quia revelare noluit, quod salva conscientia revelare non poterat? sed plura de hoc sanctissimo viro paulo infra di¬ cemus : Admirabilis profecto impudentia est, ea mendacia litteris mandare, quae ab ipso vulgo palam cum irrisione refutantur. Pag. 62. carpit auctor Apologiae quod in Epistola Bellarmini dicitur. Neque juramen¬ tum illud ideo licitum esse potuit, quod ali¬ quo modo temperatum, et modificatum offe¬ rebatur : et fingit temperationem , et modi¬ ficationem in eo positam esse, quod jura¬ mentum sequis, et moderatis verbis optime rei consentientibus, descriptum sit : atque ex hac expositione digreditur ad calumnias : sed Bellarminus juramentum hoc secundum, temperatum, et moderatum esse dixit, facta comparatione ad primum. Siquidem jura¬ mentum primum, quod in hac Apologia re¬ fertur pag. 49. satis rigide primatum regium in spiritualibus asserit, et non minus rigide primatum Apostolicum abnegat; sed hoc secundum, temperatum et modificatum ap¬ tissime ad decipiendum dici potest, quia non aperte primatum regium in spiritualibus introducit, aut primatum Apostolicum reji¬ cit; sed sub praetextu et colore fidelitatis, ad finem eumdem tendit, ut primatus Apostoli- cus negetur, et primatus regius in spiritua¬ libus constituatur. Atque hoc est, quod Sa¬ tanae fraudibus et stratagemati Bellarminus attribuit : quod ideo apertissime explicare volui, quia auctor Apologia pag. 63. se divi¬ nare non posse dicit, cur Satanae versutias in eo juramento esse censuerit Bellarminus.