Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 5: The Apology Answered from Page 64 to Page 73: Articles of Faith and Succession, Whether Popes Have Commanded the Killing of Princes, Sixtus V on Henry III, and the First Seven Alleged Contradictions
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).
As for what he adds on page 64, that heaven is not further from earth than a profession of civil obedience towards a civil king is from everything that in any way borders on the Catholic faith or the primacy of Saint Peter, it has already been refuted often enough above, and I do not care to repeat the same things so often.
Now on page 65 the author of the Apology has taken very ill those words of Bellarmine: “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.” And first, to stir up ill will against the Roman Pontiff, he says that his king has never presumed to make a new article of faith, or to set himself up as judge of any article of faith, but has submitted himself to all the articles of faith with no less humility and modesty than anyone of the common people of the whole kingdom. Then he adds that his king can much more easily prove that he has succeeded his ancestors, both as to person and as to virtues, than the Pope can prove that he succeeds Saint Peter, whether as to person or as to doctrine.
As to the first, we too deny that new articles of faith can be made by the Supreme Pontiffs, if by articles of faith are understood the immediate revelations of God. For so the Church is said to be founded upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Ephesians 2, since to them the mysteries of our faith were immediately revealed; they committed the word of God to writing, and preached it also by the living voice, as they had received it immediately from the Lord himself. If, however, by articles of faith are meant whatever dogmas ought to be believed by Catholic faith, whether they are conclusions deduced from the word of God and from the first articles of faith, or explanations of the primary articles, then indeed we do not doubt that many articles of faith have been made by the Supreme Pontiffs with the assistance of councils of bishops; such articles are the definitions of the general councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and the rest. So too we also deny that the Roman Pontiff has ever set himself up as judge of the articles of faith in the sense which the heretics object to us, as if the Roman Pontiff presumed to judge whether an article of faith is to be accepted or not. And we know that all the Roman Pontiffs have been accustomed to submit their judgement to all the articles of faith with no less humility and modesty than anyone of the common people. But if to judge of the articles of faith is, when it is doubtful whether some opinion belongs to the faith or does not, to discern on which side the truth lies, then we wholly believe that the Supreme Pontiff judges of the articles of faith. Let the equivocation be removed, and all calumny and ill will will cease. And as regards succession, we believe by Catholic faith that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Saint Peter in the Apostolic dignity and power, where no room at all is left for hesitation; but that James I succeeds Henry VIII in the possession of the English kingdom, I do not think anyone is so shameless as to say is to be held by Catholic faith, so that whoever denies it ought to be held a heretic. And if this is so, it is proved with much more certainty that the Roman Pope succeeds Saint Peter than that James I succeeds Henry VIII. “But,” says the adversary, “if no one can hesitate about the succession of the Roman Pontiff in the chair of blessed Peter, why does Bellarmine himself, in book 2 On the Roman Pontiff, chapter 12, and book 4, chapter 6, say that this is piously believed, and concluded with moral certainty only?” I answer that this is a mere calumny and falsehood; for in book 2, chapter 12, Bellarmine proves that it is to be held by Catholic faith that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Saint Peter in the supreme primacy of the whole Church; nor in that whole chapter is it read that this is piously believed or concluded with moral certainty. And in book 4, chapter 6, the question is not of succession but of firmness in faith; and it is asserted that it is piously believed that the Pontiff, even as a particular person, cannot be a heretic, since it had been demonstrated in the earlier chapters of that book that the judgement of the Supreme Pontiff speaking from the chair to the Church can in no way be liable to falsehood or error. So the author of the Apology deals with us in bad faith, that he may impose on his readers by fair means or foul.
The author of the Apology passes, page 66, to refuting that part of the letter in which Bellarmine wrote that it has never been heard, from the beginning of the infant Church down to these our times, that any Pontiff commanded any prince, however heretical, however pagan, however much a persecutor, to be killed, or approved a killing perhaps carried out by someone. He contends that this is false, from the fact that it is well enough known that many wars were stirred up against emperors by the Supreme Pontiff, in which, if the emperors had been defeated, they could also have been killed. I answer that Bellarmine was not speaking of a killing which might happen in battle, but of a parricide carried out by traitors and assassins. And although many wars of emperors against Pontiffs are read of, hardly any of Pontiffs against emperors, except for the sake of defence, will be found in the histories.
The adversary adds that the Emperor Henry V was rebuked by the Pontiff for having buried his father Henry IV. I answer that this is nothing to the purpose; for the Pontiff rebuked the honourable burial of an emperor who had died in heresy, schism and excommunication, and who, it was certain, had been carried off not by sword or poison but by a natural disease. He adds secondly that there is extant an oration delivered in Consistory by Pope Sixtus V, in which the killing of Henry III, king of the French, is praised, and the monk himself who carried out the killing. I answer that no oration of Sixtus V is extant, except among the enemies of the Church, who published the Anti-Sixtus. And although credit ought not to be given to an enemy, neither, even if he were not an enemy, could credit be given him, since Sixtus delivered that oration in a secret consistory, with no one taking it down, and neither published that oration himself nor ordered it to be published by anyone else. But grant, as you wish, that the oration of Pope Sixtus V is that which is read in the Anti-Sixtus: what will you find in it except praise and admiration of the wisdom and providence of God? This one thing Sixtus admires and extols with praises to heaven, that a simple monk, without changing his dress, and armed with neither sword nor shield, freely penetrated to a most mighty king sitting in the midst of his army and hedged about with many guards, and killed him with a single stroke of a little knife. By which oration Pope Sixtus wished kings to be warned that he who said, “Touch not my anointed,” often by unexpected events takes vengeance on those who seem inaccessible and inviolable. That king had commanded a consecrated man, shining with the episcopal and cardinalitial dignity, and joined to James, king of the English, by the closest bond of blood, to be slaughtered; God avenged his anointed, when through another consecrated man, otherwise unskilled in war and unarmed, he slew that same king, not without a manifest miracle of divine providence. Therefore Pope Sixtus neither commanded the king to be killed, nor approved the killing as done by that private man; but he celebrated with praises the judgement and providence of God. For whether that monk acted rightly or otherwise, and whether he deserved punishment or reward with God, the Pontiff did not define in his oration; because he had undertaken to proclaim the work of God, not the work of man. And God can, and is accustomed to, use both the good and the evil wills and works of men most justly and most wisely for accomplishing his own works. Certainly in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4, it is written: “For of a truth there assembled together in this city against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do what thy hand and thy counsel decreed to be done.” The passion of Christ, then, was the work of the divine hand and the divine counsel, and yet was perpetrated by the impious hands and wills of wicked men. On the other hand, by the hand of Judith, a holy and most religious woman, the same God cut off the head of the prince Holofernes; and by the hands of Phinehas, to his great praise and not without an immense reward, the same God took out of the way the daughter of the prince of Midian together with the fornicating Jew. And these things which have been said, that the justice and providence of God alone were commended by Pope Sixtus, have the testimony of those who heard Sixtus speaking, and who briefly noted down the acts of the Consistory. And as for what the author of the Apology adds, that Pope Sixtus would readily have entered that monk in the roll of the saints, had not certain more prudent cardinals prevented it: since it is said without any authority and lacks all likelihood, it will have to be entered in the roll of lies.
On page 71 and the two following, the author of the Apology sets out contradictions which he boasts he has found in the books of Cardinal Bellarmine on the controversies of faith; and he says he does this to the end that no one may wonder if in this cause, concerning the Pontiffs neither commanding nor approving the killing of princes, Bellarmine fights with himself. I shall therefore report in good faith all the adversary’s words, and then subjoin the answer, and leave the reader free to judge whether Bellarmine contradicts himself, or whether the author of the Apology deserves to be called a shameless calumniator.
The first contradiction. Bellarmine, in book 5 On Justification, chapter 7, affirms that on account of the uncertainty of our own righteousness and the danger of vainglory, it is safest to place our whole trust in the mercy and goodness of God alone. Which assertion of his is directly contrary to the whole treatment, and so to speak the torrent, of those five books On Justification; in which books, nevertheless, the words I have just cited are contained.
Answer. This first contradiction might deservedly have been despised, since the author does not indicate to which opinion that opinion just recited is contrary. But I choose briefly to point out that in that very chapter 7 there is a reconciliation of the contradiction, which Bellarmine himself foresaw might occur to a reader not very attentive. For there he taught that trust is not so to be placed in the mercy of God alone as if there were no true merits of the justified man, or as if no trust could be placed in good works; but only because, to avoid pride, it is useful to look not at our own merits but at the mercy of God; since about our own merits, whether we have them, we are uncertain, but about the mercy of God, that it is infinite, we cannot doubt. Let the reader see that whole chapter and the opinions of the Fathers which are cited in it, and especially that of Saint Bernard, sermon 68 on the Canticles: “A ruinous poverty is the want of merits; but presumption of spirit is deceitful riches; and therefore, says the Wise Man, give me neither riches nor poverty, O Lord. Happy the Church which lacks neither merits without presumption nor presumption without merits; she has merits, but for meriting, not for presuming.”
The second. God does not incline man to evil, either physically or morally, book 2 On the State of Sin and the Loss of Grace, chapter 13; soon he affirms the contrary in the same place a little after, that God does incline to evil, not physically, but nevertheless morally.
Answer. Bellarmine declares in that very chapter what he understands by a physical or moral inclination to evil, saying that to incline physically is to move the will immediately to the act; to incline morally is to command or counsel that the act be done; by which declaration all contradiction is removed. For when he says that God does not incline physically, by moving the will, but occasionally and morally, by sending in some good thought from which the evil man, through his own vice, takes occasion to judge it better to harm this man than that, or to serve this iniquity rather than that, he does not mean that God inclines the will morally by commanding or counselling evil, which would be contrary to the former opinion; but that God inclines of himself to good, by sending in a good thought, from which there follows occasionally a moral inclination to evil, in so far as that man, evil by his own vice, is moved by that thought to evil. An example is given in the same place from those words of Psalm 104, “He turned their heart to hate his people”; which words Saint Augustine and Theodoret so explain as to say that God did this, not by perverting the hearts of the Egyptians, but by doing good to his own people; which the Egyptians, seeing and considering, took as an occasion of greater hatred.
The third. That bishops succeed the Apostles, and priests the seventy disciples, all the Fathers constantly teach, says Bellarmine in book 1 On Clerics, chapter 14. But he affirms the contrary, that bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles, in book 4 On the Pontiff, chapter 25.
Answer. That bishops succeed the Apostles in so far as they were the first bishops of particular Churches, as James of the Church of Jerusalem and John of Ephesus, Bellarmine affirms in the book On Clerics. But that bishops do not properly succeed the Apostles in so far as they were Apostles, that is, sent into all the earth with the fullest power, the same Bellarmine teaches in book 4 On the Pontiff. Moreover, in the former place it is said that bishops succeed the Apostles and priests the seventy disciples; in the latter place this is explained, and it is shown how they succeed and how they do not properly succeed; which two things are not contrary or contradictory, except among those who are ignorant of logic or lack common sense.
The fourth. Judas did not believe, says Bellarmine in book 1 On the Pontiff, chapter 12. But he contradicts this in book 3 On Justification, chapter 14, where he says: Judas was just, and certainly good.
Answer. Distinguish the times, and you will reconcile the Scriptures. Judas believed, and was just and good, at the beginning of his election; but afterwards he yielded to the tempter, and not only did not believe, but also began to be a thief, and betrayed the Lord, and at last hanged himself with a noose.
The fifth. The observance of the law according to the substance of the work requires that the precept be so observed that sin is not committed, and the man is not made guilty for the precept not fulfilled, book 5 On Grace and Free Will, chapter 5. On the contrary: it must be known that it is not altogether the same thing to do a morally good deed and to observe a precept according to the substance of the work; for a precept can be kept according to the substance of the work even with sin. Same book, chapter 9.
Answer. He who keeps a precept according to the substance of the work does not commit the sin of transgressing that precept, nor is he guilty for that precept not fulfilled; but he can nevertheless at the same time sin against another precept, and be guilty of another precept not observed. But he who does a morally good deed commits no sin by that action. For example: he who gives alms when he is bound by precept, but gives them to be seen and praised by men, fulfils the precept according to the substance of the work; yet he does not do a morally good deed, because although he is not guilty of the precept about giving alms, as Bellarmine teaches in the former opinion, still he commits the sin of vainglory, and so does not do a morally good deed but an evil one, as he teaches in the latter opinion. But the author of the Apology does not care much about the sense, provided the words seem to sound contrary; in which way he will find many contradictions in all books, and even in the divine Scriptures themselves. In the Gospel we read, “None is good but God alone,” Luke 18; and again we read, “Well done, good servant,” and so on, Luke 19; and, “a counsellor, a good and just man,” Luke 23. Let the author of the Apology say, then, that Saint Luke also wrote contradictions in his Gospel. So too Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 says, “There is no God but one,” and in the same place says, “For there are many gods and many lords.” So our adversary can cry out that the Apostle contradicts himself in the same letter and the same chapter; but prudent Christians would charge not Luke or Paul with contradiction, but the author of the Apology with ignorance and levity.
The sixth. Peter did not lose that faith by which one believes with the heart unto justice, book 4 On the Pontiff, chapter 3. On the contrary: the sin of Peter was mortal, book 3 On Justification, chapter 14.
Answer. Among the Lutherans, who teach that men are justified by faith alone, it would be a contradiction if anyone said that Peter lacked justice and did not lose faith; but among Catholics, who know that faith without works is dead, and that not any faith whatever, but that which works by love, justifies, there is no contradiction. So then Bellarmine taught that Saint Peter, when he denied Christ three times, did not lose the faith of the heart, but the confession of the mouth; and therefore did indeed sin mortally, but was not a heretic or an unbeliever. But, says the adversary, Bellarmine wrote that Peter did not lose the faith by which one believes unto justice; therefore he thought that Peter did not lose justifying faith, which does not cohere well with his having sinned mortally. It is true, so Bellarmine wrote; but the faith by which one believes unto justice is indeed a justifying faith by way of disposition, but is not a faith absolutely and perfectly justifying, such as is that which works by love. For if the Apostle thought that the faith by which one believes unto justice sufficed for perfect justification without charity, he would not add, “but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” So Saint Peter had in his heart the faith which disposed to justice; but from a defect of charity he lacked the confession of the mouth unto salvation; and so he could not be saved unless the fire of charity were kindled, to call forth the tears of true repentance.
The seventh. Antichrist will be a great magician, and after the manner of other magicians will secretly worship the Devil himself, On the Pontiff, book 3, chapter 14. But on the contrary, he will abhor idolatry, will execrate and attack idols, and finally will rebuild the temple. Same book, chapter 12.
Answer. He who noted the contradiction has also indicated the reconciliation. For Antichrist, as is said in the former opinion, will worship the Devil, but secretly, as magicians do; while publicly, in the sight of men, he will execrate idols and fight against all the gods.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Quod autem addit pag. 64. Non coelum a terra longius distare, quam professio obe- dientiae civilis erga civilem regem, distat ab omnibus, quae fidei Catholicae, aut Primatui S. Petri, quoquo modo sunt finitima ; jam supra saepius refutatum est, neque libet ea¬ dem tam saepe repetere. Jam vero pag. 65. valde moleste tulit Apo- logiae Auctor verba illa Bellarmini : « Certe enim quibuscumque verbis, juramentum ab adversariis fidei concipiatur in regno isto, eo tendit, ut auctoritas capitis Ecclesiae, a suc¬ cessore S. Petri ad successorem Henrici oc¬ tavi in Anglia transferatur. » Ac primo ad (a) Cqlumnice in Qard, Bcllarm. de proditionis participatione. — (b) Catholici conscientiae causae in Anglia plectuntur. 2o2 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM invidiam Pontifici Romano conflandam, dicit regem suum non praesumpsisse unquam no¬ vum articulum fidei condere, aut de aliquo articulo fidei se judicem constituere ; sed omnibus articulis fidei se submississe, non minori humilitate, et modestia, quam quem¬ vis ex plebe totius regni; deinde addit, Multo facilius posse regem suum probare, se majoribus suis, tam quoad personam, quam quoad virtutes successisse; quam probare possit Papa se sancto Petro succedere, sive quoad personam, sive quoad doctrinam. Quod ad primum attinet, nos quoque (a) negamus a summis Pontificibus novos arti¬ culos fidei condi posse, si per articulos fidei intelligantur immediatae revelationes Dei. Sic enim Ecclesia fundata dicitur supra funda¬ menta Apostolorum, et Prophetarum Ephes. ii. quoniam illis immediate revelata sunt my¬ steria nostrae fidei, illi verbum Dei litteris mandaverunt, et voce etiam viva praedica¬ verunt, ut ab ipso Domino immediate acce¬ perunt. Si tamen per articulos fidei signifi¬ centur quaecumque dogmata, quae fide Ca¬ tholica credi debent, sive sint conclusiones ex verbo Dei, atque ex primis articulis fidei deductae, sive explicationes primariorum ar¬ ticulorum : tum vero non dubitamus a summis Pontificibus, coadjuvantibus conciliis Epi¬ scoporum, multos articulos fidei conditos fuisse, quales articuli sunt definitiones gene¬ ralium conciliorum, Nicaeni, Constantinopo- litani, Ephesini, et aliorum. Sic etiam nos quoque negamus Pontificem Romanum, ju¬ dicem se articulorum fidei unquam consti¬ tuisse, in eum sensum, quem haeretici nobis objiciunt, quasi Pontifex Romanus judicare praesumat, an articulus fidei accipiendus sit an non. Et scimus omnes Romanos Pontifices non minori humilitate, et modestia, judicium suum subjicere solitos omnibus articulis fi¬ dei, atque unumquemque ex plebe. Sed si judicare de articulis fidei, sit, quando du¬ bium est, an aliqua sententia ad fidem per¬ tineat, vel non pertineat, discernere a qua parte sit veritas ; tum omnino credimus summum Pontificem de articulis fidei judi¬ care : tollatur eequivocatio, et omnis calum¬ nia, invidiaque cessabit. Quod autem attinet ad successionem, Romanum Pontificem S. Petro in Apostolica dignitate, et potestate succedere, fide Catholica credimus, ubi nullus omnino haesitandi relinquitur lo¬ cus : Jacobum autem primum Henrico octavo succedere in Anglicani regni possessione, non arbitror ullum esse tam impudentem, qui dicat fide Catholica esse tenendum, ut qui id negaverit, haereticus haberi debeat. Quod si ita est (6), multo certius probatur S. Petro Papam Romanum succedere, quam Henrico octavo Jacobum primum : « At, inquit adversarius, si de successione Romani Pontificis in Cathedra Beati Petri nullus haesitare potest; cur Bellarminus ipse lib.n. de Rom. Pontifice cap. 12. et lib. iv. cap.6. dicit id pie credi', et certitudine morali tan¬ tum concludi ? » Respondeo : hanc meram esse calumniam, et falsitatem : nam lib. ii. cap. 12. probat Bellarminus, fide Catholica esse tenendum, Romanum Pontificem S. Petro in supremo totius Ecclesiae primatu succedere; neque in toto illo capite legitur illud pie credi, vel morali certitudine con¬ cludi, in lib. autem 4. cap. 6. non agitur de successione, sed de firmitate in fide ; et asseritur pie credi. Pontificem etiam,, ut personam particularem, haereticum esse non posse, eum in superioribus ejus libri capiti¬ bus demonstratum esset, judicium summi Pontificis ex Cathedra dicentis Ecclesiam, nullo modo falsitati aut errori obnoxium esse posse. Itaque Auctor Apologiae mala fide nobiscum agit, ut lectoribus per fas, et nefas imponat. Transit auctor Apologiae pag. 66. ad eam partem Epistolae refellendam, in qua Bellar¬ minus scripsit, non esse auditum ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae, usque ad haec nostra tempora, quod ullus Pontifex principem ul¬ lum, quamvis haereticum, quamvis ethnicum, quamvis persequutorem caedi mandaverit, aut caedem ab aliquo forte patratam appro¬ baverit. Id vero falsum esse demonstrare contendit, ex eo, quod satis constat a sum¬ mo Pontifice multa bella imperatoribus mota fuisse, in quibus si imperatores victi fuissent, occidi etiam potuissent. Respondeo} Bellar- minum non esse loquutum de caede quae in praelio accidere potuisset, sed de parricidio, quod per proditores, et sicarios patraretur. Quamquam bella imperatorum adversus Pontifices multa legantur ; (c) Pontificum adversus imperatores, nisi defensionis causa, vix in historiis ulla reperientur. (a) An Papa novos fidei articulos condat , et quos. — ( b ) Successio Pontificum in sede S. Petri certior successione Principum. — (c) An summi Pontifices ccedes Principum mandaverint. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 233 Addit adversarius, Henricum quintum im¬ peratorem a Pontifice reprehensum fuisse, quod Henricum quartum Patrem sepelivis¬ set. Respondeo, nihil hoc ad rem facere, reprehendit enim Pontifex honorificam se¬ pulturam imperatoris in haeresi, et schi- mate, et excommunicatione defuncti, quem non gladio aut veneno, sed naturali morbo extinctum esse constabat. Addit secundo, exstare orationem in Consistorio a Sixto V. Pontifice Maximo habitam, in qua laudatur caedes Henrici tertii Francorum Regis, et ipse monachus caedis patrator. Respondeo Sixti Y. orationem nullam exstare, nisi apud hostes Ecclesiae, qui Antisixtum ediderunt, quamvis autem hosti fides haberi non de¬ beat ; neque etiam si hostis non esset, fides ei haberi posset, cum Sixtus orationem illam in consistorio secreto, nullo excipiente, ha¬ buerit : neque eam orationem vel ipse edide¬ rit, vel ab aliquo alio edi jusserit : esto ta¬ men, ut vis, sit oratio Sixti V. Pontificis ea, quae in Antisixto legitur ; quid in ea repe- ries, nisi laudes, et admirationem sapientiae, et providentiae Dei ? Hoc unum admiratur, et laudibus in coelum Sixtus extollit, quod ad regem Maximum in medio exercitus sui sedentem, multisque custodiis circumvalla¬ tum, simplex monachus, non mutato habi¬ tu, neque gladio clypeove armatus, libere penetraverit, eumque unico cultelli ictu neca¬ verit. Qua oratione admonitos voluitreges Six tus Pontifex, eum qui dixit : Nolite tangere Christos meos, saepe per inopinatos eventus poenas de illissumere, qui inaccessibiles, etin- violabiles videntur. Imperaverat rex ille, vi¬ rum sacratum Episcopali, et Gardinalitia di¬ gnitate fulgentem , et Jacobo regi Anglorum arctissimo sanguinis vinculo conjunctum mactari, ultus est Deus Christum suum, dum per alium sacratum virum, alioqui mi¬ litiae imperitum, et inermem, regem eum- dem non sine manifesto divinae providentiae miraculo interfecit. Ergo Sixtus Pontifex, neque regem caedi imperavit, neque caedem, ut a privato illo homine factam approbavit ; sed judicium Dei, providentiamque laudibus celebravit. Utrum enim monachus ille recte, an secus egerit, et poenam, an praemium apud Deum meruerit, Pontifex in oratione sua non definivit : quia opus Dei, non opus hominis praedicandum susceperat. Deus au¬ tem, et bonis et malis hominum voluntati¬ bus, et operibus, justissime, et sapientissi¬ me ad opera sua perficienda uti potest, et solet : certe in Actis Apostolorum c. iv. scriptum est : Convenerunt vere in civitate ista adversus sanctum puerum tuum , Jesum , quem unxisti , Herodes, et Pontius Pilatus , cum gentibus , et populis Israel , facere quae manus tua , et consilium tuum decreverunt fie¬ ri. Fuit igitur Christi passio opus divinae manus, divinique consilii : et tamen per ma¬ nus, et voluntates impias scelestorum homi¬ num perpetratum. Contra autem per ma¬ num Judithae, sanctae videlicet, et religiosis¬ simae feminae, idem Deus Holofernis princi¬ pis caput amputavit ; et per manus Phinees, magna cum ipsius laude, nec sine ingenti praemio, Deus idem filiam principis Madian, una cum fornicante Judaeo, de medio sustu¬ lit. Atque haec, quae dicta sunt de sola Dei justitia, providentiaque a Sixto Pontifice commendata, testimonium habent ab iis, qui Sixtum concionantem audierunt, et qui acta Consistorii breviter annotarunt. Quod autem auctor Apologiae subjungit, Sixtum Pontificem facile fuisse monachum illum in album Sanctorum relaturum, nisi Cardinales quidam prudentiores impedivissent ; quia sine auctore dicitur, et omni verisimilitu¬ dine caret, in album mendaciorum referen¬ dum erit. Pag. 71. et duabus sequentibus, describit auctor Apologi® contradictiones, quas in libris Cardinalis Bellarmini, de controver¬ siis fidei se reperiisse gloriatur ; atque ad eum finem se facere dicit, ut nemo miretur, si in hac causa de Pontificibus, c®des prin- cipum non jubentibus neque approbantibus, secum ipse pugnat. Referam igitur bona fide omnia verba adversarii, ad deinde re¬ sponsionem subjiciam, et lectori liberum relinquam, ut judicet, an Bellarminus sibi contradicat, an auctor Apologi® impudens calumniator dici mereatur. (a) Prima contradictio. Bellarminus lib. v. ds justificatione cap. 7. affirmat, quod propter incertitudinem propri® justiti®, et periculum inanis glori®, tutissimum est, fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia et benignitate reponere. Qu® ejus assertio e regione contraria est toti tractationi, et ut sic dicam torrenti illorum quinque de Justi- (1) Act. iv, 27. (a) Respondetur ad contradictiones Card. Bellarm. falso objectas. 234 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM ficatione librorum, in quibus tamen libris, ea quae jam citavi verba continentur. Responsio : Hsec prima contradictio me¬ rito contemni potuisset, cum auctor non in¬ dicet cui sententiae contraria sit ea sententia quae paulo ante recitata est. Sed placet bre. viter admonere in illo ipso c. 7. haberi con¬ ciliationem contradictionis, quam ipse Bellar- minus praevidit occurrere potuisse lectori parum attento, (a) Ibi euim docuit, non sic esse fiduciam in sola misericordia Dei con¬ stituendam, quasi nulla sint vera merita ho¬ minis justificati, vel quasi nulla possit fidu¬ cia in bonis operibus collocari : sed solum quia ad superbiam evitandam utile sit, non respicere propria merita, sed Dei misericor¬ diam : quoniam de propriis meritis an illa habeamus, incerti sumus, de misericordia vero Dei, quod infinita sit, dubitare non possumus. Videat lector totum illud caput, et sententias Patrum, quae in eo citantur, ac praesertim illam S. Bernardi serm. 68. in Cantica : « Perniciosa paupertas, inopia me¬ ritorum : praesumptio autem Spiritus, falla¬ ces divitiae, et ideo divitias, et paupertatem ne dederis mihi Domine, ait Sapiens. Felix Ecclesia cui nec merita sine praesumptione, nec praesumptio absque meritis deest : ha¬ bet merita, sed ad promerendum, non ad praesumendum. » Secunda : Deus non incli¬ nat hominem ad malum, neque physice neque moraliter, lib. n. de statu peccati, et amissione gratiae cap. 13 ; mox contrarium affirmat ibidem paulo post, quod Deus in¬ clinat quidem ad malum, non physice, sed tamen moraliter. Responsio : Bellarminus declarat in illo ipso capite, quid intelligat per inclinationem ad malum physicam, vel moralem, dicens : physice inclinare, esse immediate movere voluntatem ad actum ; moraliter inclinare, esse imperare vel consulere ut actus fiat, ex qua declaratione tollitur omnis contradictio. Nam cum dicit, ( b ) Deum non inclinare physice, movendo voluntatem, sed occasio- naliter, et moraliter immittendo cogitatio¬ nem aliquam bonam, ex qua malus ob suum vitium occasionem sumat judicandi melius esse huic nocere, quam illi, sive huic potius iniquitati servire, quam illi : non significat, Deum inclinare voluntatem moraliter, im¬ perando vel consulendo malum, quod esset contrarium superiori sententiae ; sed Deum inclinare per se ad bonum, immittendo bo¬ nam cogitationem, ex qua sequatur occasio- naliter inclinatio moralis ad malum, quate¬ nus ille vitio suo malus, ex illa cogitatione movetur ad malum. Exemplum ponitur ibi¬ dem ex verbifcr illis Psalm. civ. Convertit cor eorum , ut odirent populum ejus (l) : quae ver¬ ba sic exponunt S. Augustinus, et Theodo- retus, ut dicant, Deum id fecisse, non per¬ vertendo corda Egyptorum, sad benefacien¬ do populo suo ; quod videntes, et cogitantes ^Egyptii, majoriis odii occasionem accepe¬ runt. Tertia : Episcopos Apostolis succedere, presbyteros septuaginta discipulis, docent constanter omnes Patres, ait Bellarminus lib. i. de Clericis cap. 14. Sed contrarium affirmat ; quod Episcopi non proprie succe¬ dunt Apostolis lib. iv. de Pontifice cap. 25. Responsio : (c) Episcopos succedere Apo¬ stolis, quatenus illi fuerunt primi Episcopi particularium Ecclesiarum, ut Jacobus Hie- rosolimitanae Ecclesiae, Joannes, Ephaesinae, affirmat Bellarminus in lib. de Clericis. Epi¬ scopos autem non proprie succedere Apo¬ stolis, quatenus Apostoli erant, id est, missi in omnem teram cum plenissima potestate, docet idem Bellarminus in lib. iv. de Ponti¬ fice. Praeterea in priore loco dicitur episco¬ pos Apostolis, et presbyteros septuaginta discipulis succedere : in posteriore loco id explicatur, et ostenditur, quomodo succe¬ dant, et quomodo proprie non succedant : quae duo non sunt contraria, vel contradi¬ ctoria, nisi apud eos, qui logicam ignorant, vel sensu communi carent. Quarta : Judas non credidit, inquit Bel¬ larminus lib. i. de Pontifice cap. 12. At contradicit lib. m. de Justificat, cap. 14. ubi ait, Judas justus fuit, et certe bonus. Responsio : Distingue tempora, et concor¬ dabis Scripturas, (d) Judas credidit, et ju¬ stus ac bonus fuit initio electionis suae ; sed postea tentatori succubuit , et non solum non credidit, sed etiam fur esse coepit, et Dominum prodidit, et tandem laqueo se suspendit. (1) Psalm. CIV, 25. (a) Qualiter fiduciam constituamus in Dei misericordia , et in bonis operibus. — (b) Quomodo Deus inclinet ad malum moraliter. — (c) Modus quo Episcopi succedunt Apostolis, cf Presbyteri ceteris Discipulis. — (d) Judas aliqumdo bonus. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 235 Quinta : Observatio legis secundum sub¬ stantiam operis requirit, ut sic preeceptum observetur, ut peccatum non committatur, et non fiat homo reus ob praeceptum non impletum, lib. v. de gratia, et libero arbi¬ trio cap. 5. Contra, sciendum est, non esse omnino idem, facere bonum morale, et ob¬ servare praeceptum secundum substantiam operis : potest enim servari praeceptum se¬ cundum substantiam operis, etiam cum pec¬ cato. Ibid. cap. 9. Responsio : Qui servat praeceptum secun¬ dum substantiam operis, non committit pec¬ catum praevaricationis illius praecepti, neque reus est ob illud praeceptum non impletum ; sed tamen potest simul peccare contra aliud praeceptum, et esse reus alterius praecepti non observati : qui autem facit opus bonum morale, nullum peccatum illa actione com¬ mittit ; exempli gratia : (a) Qui facit elee¬ mosynam, quando tenetur ex praecepto, sed facit eam, ut videatur, et laudetur ab homi¬ nibus, is implet praeceptum secundum sub¬ stantiam operis ; tamen non facit opus bo¬ num morale, quia quamvis non sit reus praecepti de eleemosyna facienda, ut Bel- larminus docet in priori sententia : tamen peccatum inanis gloriae committit, et ideo non facit opus bonum morale, sed malum, ut docet in posteriore sententia. Sed auctor Apologiae non multum curat de sensu, dum¬ modo verba contrarium sonare videantur, quomodo in omnibus libris, et in ipsis etiam Scripturis divinis multas contradictiones in¬ veniet. In Evangelio legimus : Nemo bonus , nisi solus Deus , Lucae xvm. et rursum legi¬ mus : Euge , serve bone , etc. Lucae xix, et, Decurio vir bonus et justus , Lucae xxm. Di¬ cat igitur Auctor Apologiae sanctum etiam Lucam contradictiones in Evangelio suo scri¬ psisse. Sic etiam S. Paulus I Corinth. vm. dicit, Nullus est Deus, nisi unus : et ibidem ait : Siquidem sunt dii multi , et Domini multi (1). Proinde clamare potest adversa¬ rius noster, Apostolum in eadem Epistola, et eodem capite sibi contradicere ; sed pru¬ dentes Christiani non Lucam, aut Paulum contradictionis, sed auctorem Apologiae im¬ peritiae, et levitatis arguerent. . Sexta : Petrus non amisit eam fidem, qua corde creditur ad justitiam, lib. iv. de Pon- tif. cap. 3. Contra, peccatum Petri fuit le- thale, lib. iii. de Justificat, cap. 14. Responsio : Apud Lutheranos, qui sola fide justificari homines docent, contradictio esset, si quis diceret Petrum caruisse justi¬ tia, et non amisisse fidem ; sed apud Catho¬ licos, qui sciunt fidem sine operibus mor¬ tuam esse, et fidem non quamcumque, sed illam, quae per dilectionem operatur, justi¬ ficare, nulla contradictio est. Sic igitur et Bellarminus docuit, ( b ) S. Petrum, quando is Christum ter negavit, non amisisse fidem cordis, sed confessionem oris ; et ideo pec¬ casse quidem lethaliter, sed non fuisse hae¬ reticum, vel infidelem. At, inquit adversa¬ rius, Bellarminus scripsit, Petrum non ami¬ sisse fidem, qua creditur ad justitiam ; ergo existimavit, Petrum non amisisse fidem ju¬ stificantem , cum quo non bene cohaeret quod peccaverit lethaliter. Yerum est, ita scripsit Bellarminus ; sed fides, qua creditur ad justitiam, est quidem fides justificans per modum dispositionis, sed non est fides absolute perfecteque justificans, qualis est illa, quae per dilectionem operatur. Nam si Apostolus existimaret fidem, qua creditur ad justitiam, sufficere ad perfectam justifica¬ tionem sine charitate, non adderet, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Itaque S. Petrus habuit in corde fidem, quse disposuit ad ju¬ stitiam ; sed ex defectu charitatis caruit confessione oris ad salutem : proinde salvus esse non poterat, nisi accenderetur ignis charitatis , qui verae poenitentiae lacrymas excitaret. Septima : Antichristus magnus futurus est, et more aliorum magorum occulte Dia¬ bolum ipsum adoraturus, d§ Pontif. lib. m. cap. 14. At contra, abhorrebit ab idolola¬ tria , execrabitur atque oppugnabit idolola, denique templum denuo aedificabit. Ibidem cap. 12. Responsio : Qui contradictionem notavit, conciliationem etiam indicavit, (c) Nam An¬ tichristus, ut in priore sententia dicitur, Dia¬ bolum adorabit, sed occulte ut magi faciunt, publice autem in conspectu hominum idola execrabitur, et contra omnes Deos pugnabit.