Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 6: The Apology Answered from Page 73 to Page 80: Contradictions Eight to Eleven, and the Emperors and Kings Said to Have Feared the Pope
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).
And Bellarmine himself openly warned of this in book 3, chapter 14, the place cited.
The eighth. By the words of consecration the true and solemn oblation is celebrated, book 1 On the Mass, chapter 27. On the contrary: the oblation of the sacrifice consists more in the thing than in the words; and that action by which the Lord’s body is placed upon the altar is the true and real oblation, book 2 On the Mass, chapter 12.
Answer. There was no need to search different places for the author of the Apology to find an apparent contradiction. For in that same chapter 27 of book 1 On the Mass both things are said: that by the words of consecration the solemn oblation is celebrated, and that the true and real oblation consists in the thing rather than in the words, namely in that action by which the body of Christ is placed on the altar as a victim sacred to God. But in the same place also it is declared what it is for the solemn oblation to be celebrated by the words of consecration, namely that by the words of consecration it comes about that the true and real victim begins to be on the altar. So the words of consecration concur in the oblation not formally but efficiently; and therefore Bellarmine did not say that the words of consecration are the oblation, as if the oblation were verbal, but that by those words the oblation is celebrated, because the victim which is really offered is produced by the words of consecration and placed on the altar of the Lord.
The ninth. The end of the world cannot be known, On the Soul of Christ, book 4, chapter 5. On the contrary: after the death of Antichrist there will be only forty-five days until the end of the world, book 3 On the Pontiff, chapter 17.
Answer. If this is a contradiction, it is in the divine Scripture itself; for both are found in the divine Scripture. But it is not a contradiction, for this reason, that no one knows when Antichrist will come. For the Lord too said in the Gospel, Matthew 24: “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come”; and yet, because no one knows when the preaching of the Gospel is to be completed in the whole world, neither does anyone know when the consummation will come.
The tenth. Rome will be the seat of Antichrist, and the ten kings will burn the purple harlot, that is, Rome, book 3 On the Pontiff, chapter 14. On the contrary: Antichrist will hate Rome, and will fight against her and burn her. Same place.
Answer. This indeed is a wonderful art of hunting contradictions. For in chapter 14 nothing at all is said about the seat of Antichrist. But by a printer’s error the numbers went wrong, and the figure 14 was put for 13, so I suppose; and in chapter 13 it is said, and proved by many arguments, that the seat of Antichrist will be Jerusalem, not Rome. By what licence, then, has the adversary changed Jerusalem into Rome? Even the very words he adduces could have warned him, had he wished to be wise and not to calumniate. For if the ten kings will burn the purple harlot, that is, Rome, and if Antichrist will hate her and will burn her through those ten kings, how will she be his seat? But perhaps because in the English book there was no “Rome will be the seat of Antichrist,” and with that removed no contradiction appeared, the Latin translator, to bring out a contradiction, added those few words. But why did he so shamelessly commit the crime of falsehood? Because in that chapter 13 it is reported by Bellarmine that in the opinion of the Lutherans the seat of Antichrist will be Rome, the adversary wished to attribute to Bellarmine what he read in his book, caring little whether it was said as the opinion of Bellarmine or of others; by which reasoning he could say that Christ was called a deceiver by the Evangelist, since it is read in the Gospel: “We have remembered that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise again,” Matthew 27.
The eleventh. The name of universal bishop can be understood in two ways: in one way, so that he who is called universal is understood to be the only bishop of all Christian cities, so that the rest are not bishops but only vicars of him who is called universal bishop; in which sense the Pope is not universal bishop, book 2 On the Pontiff, chapter 31. On the contrary: all ordinary jurisdiction of bishops descends immediately from the Pope, and is in him, and is derived from him to others. Same work, book 4, chapter 24.
Answer. I do not understand what contradiction there is in these places. For in the former opinion it is said that the Pope is not universal bishop in the sense that he alone is bishop, and the others are not bishops but his vicars. In the latter it is not said that the Pope alone is bishop, or that no one else is a bishop, or that all the rest who are called bishops are nothing but vicars of the Pope; but only that the jurisdiction of bishops descends from the Pope, in whom all ecclesiastical jurisdiction is found in its fullness; for although the other bishops receive jurisdiction from the Supreme Pontiff, yet they are true bishops, and receive episcopal, not vicarial, jurisdiction. But the adversary, as he himself has the spirit of contradiction, and thinks of nothing but contradictions, so imagines and dreams that he sees contradictions where there is no contradiction.
On page 74, having finished his long digression, he returns to Bellarmine’s letter, and sets himself to worry the following words: “Now,” he says, “to return to the point from which we digressed: since, he says, the Pontiffs have never attempted anything against kings, why, I ask, does the one king of England fear what out of so many Christian princes none fears, none has feared? What do I hear? Have no emperors or Christian kings ever feared for themselves from the Pontiff? How then were those wretched emperors, whom I shall now name, tossed about and harassed by Pontiffs, and at last wholly overthrown and destroyed by the same?” So he, who, that he may always remain like himself, when he has nothing to censure with right, himself invents and adds words, and fastens them on Bellarmine, so as to have an occasion for fencing and for uselessly displaying his erudition. For those words, “since the Pontiffs have never attempted anything against kings,” are not found in Bellarmine’s letter; and yet they are not only recited as Bellarmine’s words, but also refuted by a very long historical disputation. What Bellarmine affirmed is only this, that no killing of princes, namely by assassins, was commanded or approved by a Pontiff; and of this one fear, namely of killing, he said: why does the one king of England fear what out of so many Christian princes none fears? But since he had said something on this subject above, and saw how slight those things were which he had then brought forward, and nothing else occurred to him that bore the appearance of a stronger argument, he invented more general words, and refuted them through many pages as though uttered by Bellarmine.
First, then, he brings forward the history of Henry IV. “Did not that emperor fear,” he says, “who waited three days at the Pontiff’s door in the deepest frost and snow before entrance was opened to him?” I answer that he did indeed fear, not bodily killing, of which Bellarmine spoke, but the bond of excommunication, in order to deserve to be absolved from which he of his own accord cast himself down to that humiliation.
Secondly, he brings forward Frederick I. “Did not that emperor fear,” he says, “who lay prone on his belly while a certain other Pontiff trod on his neck?” But this history is of doubtful credit; for Genebrard does not touch it in his Chronicle, as this man of ours falsely noted in the margin; nor Platina, nor Sigonius, nor Sabellicus. And Cardinal Baronius refutes it expressly, volume 12, page 720. But suppose it true. What else did Frederick fear except excommunication? For these are the words of Genebrard, whom the adversary cited for himself: “Frederick fell at his (Alexander III’s) feet, seeking absolution from excommunication.” So Genebrard, who of the trodden neck makes not even a word of mention.
Thirdly, he produces Henry VI. “What,” he says, “did that emperor too fear little, from whose head a certain third Pontiff knocked the diadem of the kingdom with his feet?” But this history is little likely. For that third Pontiff whom the adversary mentions was Celestine III, who, being decrepit at eighty-five years of age, and endowed by the consent of all with the greatest courtesy and kindness, and bearing no grudge against Henry, certainly no reason allows us to believe that he could or would have knocked the royal diadem from Henry’s head with his feet. But, says the adversary, Ranulph writes this in the Polychronicon, book 7. But how much credit this Ranulph deserves, let the fair reader judge, when he has seen that this history was unknown to Sigonius, and Sabellicus, and Platina, and Genebrard, and all the German historians, even those who are accustomed to favour the Roman Pontiff little. Add that if perhaps the history is true, as Cardinal Baronius admits, the emperor did not on that account fear, nor was he angry with the Pontiff; since he understood that at the coronation itself the diadem was placed on him, and then cast from his head, and again replaced on his head, in order that by that act he might be warned that the crown of so great a dignity could be lost by evil deserts, and that he should therefore not imitate his father, namely Frederick I, who long harassed the Church, and by the divine judgement, when he least expected it, lost the empire with his life.
Fourthly, he brings forward Philip. “Did not Philip also fear,” he says, “of whom, when he had been created emperor against the will of Innocent III, the Pontiff burst out into this saying: Either the Pontiff will take the diadem from Philip, or Philip will take the Apostolic insignia from the Pontiff. By which saying the Pontiff incited Otto against Philip, who afterwards killed him. And Otto, the killing done, came to Rome, and was crowned emperor by the Father, although afterwards he was deprived of the empire by the same.” So he, who would seem in this place to have said something to the purpose, had he not mixed in a manifest falsehood of history. For it is false that Philip was killed by that Otto who afterwards reigned as emperor. For the weightiest authors, Albert Krantz in his Saxony, book 7, chapter 28, John Nauclerus in his History, page 82, and Carlo Sigonio in book 15 of the Appendix, write that Philip was killed by a certain Otto, a private man and an intimate familiar of the emperor, without the knowledge of the Emperor Otto. Palmieri indeed says Philip was killed by the Count Palatine; but I have read no one who wrote that Philip was killed by Otto, Duke of Saxony, who contended with Philip for the empire and was crowned after his death, except the author of this Apology, who adduced no witness for his opinion, and either was deceived by the equivocation of the name, or wished to deceive his readers by a false narrative. And that Innocent said either that he would take the diadem from Philip, or that the Apostolic insignia would be stripped from him by Philip, the Abbot of Ursperg does indeed write, but adds that he received this from others, and that it is hard to relate and scarcely to be believed.
Fifthly, he brings forward Frederick II. “Did not Frederick fear,” he says, “when Innocent excommunicated him, deprived him of the kingdom, absolved the princes from the oath of allegiance given him, and finally suborned a certain man in Apulia to destroy him with poison? Which, however, when he had thrown it up and recovered, he hired a certain Manfred to give him poison; which being taken, he died.” So he, who, while he wishes to show himself well versed in histories, shows himself a corrupter of histories and an impostor. For all the historians agree that Frederick, when gravely ill, was suffocated by Manfred, the bastard son of the same Frederick, with a pillow thrust upon his mouth; but that poison was administered to Frederick by Manfred no historian says. And that the Pontiff meddled in this matter, only Cuspinian, who is a recent author, reports doubtfully from the letters of Peter de Vinea: “whether,” he says, “he did it corrupted by the enemies or by the Pontiff.” But all the others who narrate the death of Frederick are wholly silent about the Pontiff, as hardly any even mentions poison. And these are the authors whom the reader can consult: John Nauclerus in the Chronography, volume 2, generation 42; Platina in the life of Innocent IV; Giovanni Battista Egnazio in the life of Frederick II; Sabellicus, Ennead 9, book 6; Biondo, Decade 2, book 7; Albert Krantz, book 8 of Saxony, chapter 18; Matteo Palmieri in the Chronicle at the year 1250; Jacob Wimpheling in the Epitome of German Affairs; Paul Lang in the History of the Church of Zeitz at the year 1250; and others. But the author of the Apology proclaims it as a settled matter: “He hired,” he says, “a certain Manfred to give him poison; which being taken, he died.” And, as appears from his manner of speaking, he has read no histories. For if he had read them, he would surely have known that Manfred was not some assassin who could easily be hired, but a son of Frederick and a great prince; and he would not have said “he hired a certain Manfred,” as if he were some obscure little man; nor would he have made mention of poison administered by Manfred, since no one at all reports this. Finally, he would not have spoken so confidently, since only Cuspinian, ill disposed towards the Pontiffs, touched this matter, and that doubtfully, from the sole conjecture of grudge and enmity.
Sixthly, he produces the letters of Alexander to the Sultan. “And what,” he says, “did Alexander write to the Sultan? That if he wished to live without trouble, he should take care by some means to remove the emperor out of the way.” And he alleges as author Paolo Giovio, book 2 of the Histories. But in the book published in English Alexander III is designated. Giovio, however, writes the histories of his own time, and so does not touch the deeds of Alexander III. The translator, that he might lie hid more safely, named Alexander, omitting the number. And indeed Giovio in book 2 of the History describes the deeds of Alexander VI; but he does not say that any letter was written by Alexander to the Sultan. So let the author of the Apology teach us of which Alexander he speaks, and what author he has for what he writes, and then, if need be, he shall receive an answer from us.
Seventhly, he adduces Alexander VI. “What,” he says, “of that Alexander VI? Did he not receive two hundred thousand gold pieces from Bajazet the Turk, that for that price he might kill his brother Djem, or as some call him Zizim, whom he then held captive at Rome? Did he not embrace the conditions offered, and when the killing was done receive the money?” Whence the author of the Apology received this history I long to know. He notes in the margin only the name of Cuspinian. But Cuspinian in the life of the younger Bajazet does indeed write that Zizim, Bajazet’s brother, was removed by poison in the camp of the king of the French, not without the Pontiff’s knowledge; but that it was done by the Pontiff’s order, or that after the killing two hundred thousand gold pieces were paid to the Pontiff, he does not write. But the author of the Apology has power to add whatever he likes to histories. Add that, as we said above, we cannot give much credit to Cuspinian in those things which pertain to the Pontiffs, especially when he is unsupported by the testimonies of other historians.
Eighthly, he adduces Henry II, king of the English. “What,” he says, “of our Henry, the second of that name? Did he not fear after the killing of Saint Thomas? Who, besides walking barefoot on pilgrimage, also paid the penalty with rods in the sanctuary like a schoolboy, and consoled himself with this, that he suffered nothing heavier.” Most truly, and with the best right, Henry feared, not the killing of the body, of which we are treating, but the judgement of God and the censures of the Church; since not like a schoolboy, as this man chatters, but as a true penitent, he preferred to be scourged on earth by men rather than tormented after death by demons.
Ninthly, he adduces the father of Henry, king of the French. “Was there not cause for fear,” he says, “to the father of the present king of the French, when the Pontiff alienated the kingdom of Navarre, which had been his by right, and gave it to the king of Spain? Of which kingdom the king of Spain holds the half to this day.” But it is false that the father of Henry IV, the Most Christian King, was he who first lost the kingdom of Navarre; for he was called John, while the king’s father was called Antony. But as for the title by which the kings of Spain possess the greater part of the kingdom of Navarre, it is not our business to discuss it in this place; let the reader consult those historians who treat of Spanish affairs by profession.
Tenthly, he adduces Henry IV, the Most Christian King. “Did not he,” he says, “who now reigns, his son, rightly fear, when he so humbly begged to be released from the bonds of excommunication that he suffered his ambassador to be beaten with rods at Rome after the manner of penitents?” These things show well enough that the author of the Apology not only wanders outside the matter, since he passes from the fear of the sword and of temporal death to the fear of spiritual penalties, but also mocks shamelessly enough at the sacred ceremonies which are used in the reconciliation of penitents. But if it seems to him a great thing that the king’s ambassador, while the king was being absolved from the sentence of excommunication according to the custom of the Church, was lightly struck with the priestly rod, not for pain but for signification, what, I ask, would he have said if he had seen Theodosius the Great, emperor of the world, dread the sentence of Saint Ambrose his bishop, and not dare, when he forbade it, to enter the church unless he did public penance; and then, when permitted to enter, not stand, but lie prone with his whole body on the pavement, tear his hair with his hands, strike his forehead heavily, and sprinkle the pavement with tears, and this with his diadem laid aside and the whole people looking on? See the Tripartite History, book 9, chapter 30. The Most Christian King, then, imitating this so great emperor, because with holy fear he feared the judgements of God and the sentence of the supreme Shepherd, God stood by him, so that he happily escaped dangers neither few nor light; and hereafter too, with the same Lord helping, he will not fear the attempts of such wicked men.
Eleventhly, he brings the example of Queen Elizabeth. “What,” he says, “of her who was lately our queen? Was there not reason for her to look about her and be on her guard, when she had been excommunicated by Pius V, her subjects absolved from the faith and obedience they owed her, the kingdom of Ireland transferred from her to the king of Spain, and finally that noble fugitive theologian, adorned with the same purple hat which Bellarmine now wears, was not afraid to publish an apology for the Stanley treason, in which he defended this, that since the queen was excommunicated and a heretic, it was not only lawful now for her subjects, but necessary by obligation of conscience, to strip her of every defence they could, and whether they held armies or towns or castles and fortresses of hers, to hand them over to the king of Spain, her enemy, the queen thenceforth having nothing of her own?” Without doubt Elizabeth had great cause for fear, had she been wise. For she who at once broke the faith given to God and the Catholic Church at her consecration certainly ought to have feared the just wrath of God, and lest the faith given to her also by her subjects should be broken by the just judgement of God.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Quod ipsum Bellarminus aperte monuit, lib. m. citato capr 14. Octava : Verbis consecrationis, vera et so¬ li) Lucae XVIII, 19; Id. XIX, 19 ; Id. XXIII, 50; I Cor. vili, 4. (a) Quo sensu potest servari substantia praecepti cum peccato. — (b) Petrus non amisit fiuem per peccatum. — (c) Antichristus Diabolum occulte colet, publice execrabitur Idola. 236 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM lemnis oblatio celebratur lib. i. de Missa, cap. 27. Contra, sacrificii oblatio magis in re quam in verbis consistit ; et illa actio qua corpus Domini super altare ponitur, vera et realis oblatio est lib. n. cie Missa cap. 12. Responsio : Non erat opus quaerere diver¬ sa loca, ut contradictionem apparentem A po_ logiae auctor inveniret. Nam in eodem capi- te 27. lib. i. de Missa, utrumque dicitur, (a) et verbis consecrationis celebrari solcm- nem oblationem, et oblationem veram atque realem in re potius, quam in verbis consi¬ stere; nimirum in ea. actione, qua Christi corpus ponitur in altari, ut victima Deo sa¬ cra. Sed in eodem etiam loco declaratur quid sit per verba consecrationis celebrari solcm- ncm oblationem, nimirum per verba conse¬ crationis fieri, ut vera, et realis victima in altari esse inciperet. Itaque verba consecra¬ tionis non formaliter, sed efficienter ad obla¬ tionem concurrunt : et ideo non dixit Bel- lanninus, verba consecrationis esse oblatio¬ nem, quasi oblatio esset verbalis ; sed per ea verba celebrari oblationem, quia victima, quse realiter offertur, per verba consecratio¬ nis efficitur, et in ara Domini collocatur. Nona : Mundi finis non potest sciri, De anima Christi lib. iv. cap. 5. Contra, post Antichrisli mortem non futuri sunt nisi qua¬ draginta quinque dies usque ad mundi finem, lib. in. de Pontif. cap. 17. Responsio : Si haec contradictio est, in ip¬ sa scriptura divina est : utrumque enim in Scriptura divina habetur sed ideo non est contradictio, quia nemo scit, quando Anti- christus veniet. Nam et Dominus dixit in Evangelio Matth. xxiv. Praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe, in te¬ stimonium omnibus gentibus, et tunc veniet consummatio : et tamen quia nemo scit quando in toto orbe praedicatio Evangelica complenda sit, nemo etiam scit, quando ve¬ niet consummatio. Decima : Roma sedes erit Antichristi, et decem reges comburent purpuream mere¬ tricem, id est, Romam, lib. m. de Pontifice cap. 14. Contra, Antichristus Romam odio habebit, et pugnabit contra eam, et combu¬ ret. Ibidem. Responsio : Haec vero mirabilis est ars venandi contradictiones. Nam in cap; 14. nihil omnino de sede Antichristi dicitur. Sed errore typographi erratum est in nume¬ ris, et posita est nota arithmetica 14. pro 13. ita opinor : sed cap. 13. dicitur, et proba¬ tur multis argumentis Sedem Antichristi fu¬ turam esse Hierusalem, non Romam : ( b ) qua igitur licentia transmutavit adversarius Hierusalem in Romam? sed et ipsa verba, quse adducit, poterant illum admonere, si sapere, et non calumniari voluisset. Nam si decem reges comburent purpuream mere¬ tricem, id est, Romam, et si Antichristus il¬ lam odio habebit, et per illos decem reges comburet; quomodo Sedes illius erit? sed fortasse quia in libro Anglico non habebatur, Roma Sedes erit Antichristi, et eo dempto, nulla apparebat contradictio, interpres lati— nus ad exprimendam contradictionem, ad¬ didit illa pauca verba. At cur tam impuden¬ ter falsi crimen admisit ? quia in illo cap. 13. refertur a Bellarmino, Sedem Antichristi ex sententia Lutheranorum futuram esse Ro¬ mam, adversarius Bellarmino tribuere vo¬ luit, quod in ejus libro legit, parum labo¬ rans, an ex sententia Bellarmini, an aliorum id diceretur, qua ratione dicere posset ab Evangclista Christum vocatum esse seducto¬ rem, quoniam in Evangelio legatur : Recor¬ dati sumus , quia seductor ille dixit adhuc vi¬ vens, , post tres dies resurgam. Matth. xxvii. Undecima : Duobus modis intelligi potest nomen universalis Episcopi : uno modo, ut ille, qui dicitur universalis, iritelligatur esse solus Episcopus omnium urbium Christiana¬ rum, ita ut caeteri non sint Episcopi, sed Vi¬ carii tantum illius, qui dicitur Episcopus universalis : quo sensu Papa non est univer¬ salis Episcopus, lib. n. de Pontifice cap. 31. Contra, omnis ordinaria jurisdictio Episco¬ porum descendit immediate a Papa, et est in eo, et ab eo in alios derivatur. Ibid. lib iv. cap. 24. Responsio : non intelligo quae sit in his locis contradictio. ( c ) Nam in priore sententia dicitur, Papam non esse episcopum univer¬ salem in eo sensu, quod solus ipse sit epi¬ scopus, et alii non sint episcopi, sed ejus vi¬ carii. In posteriore autem non dicitur solum Papam esse Episcopum, vel nullum alium esse episcopum, vel caeteros omnes, qui di¬ cuntur episcopi, non esse nisi vicarios Papae, sed solum dicitur jurisdictionem episcopo¬ rum descendere a Papa, in quo omnis juris- (a) Victima quoe realibr offertur per verba consecr ationis. — (b) Apologice Auctoris commentum. — (c) Papa non est Episcopus universalis adeo quod solus • sed quod omnis jurisdictio ab eo. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 237 dictio Ecclesiastica plenissime reperitur; quamvis enim episcopi caiteri jurisdictionem accipiant a summo Pontifice : tamen veri, episcopi sunt, et jurisdictionem Episcopa¬ lem, non vicarialem accipiunt. Sed adversa¬ rius, ut ipse habet spiritum contradictionis, et nihil nisi contradictiones cogitat; ita con¬ tradictiones se videre imaginatur, et som¬ niat, ubi nulla est contradictio. Pag. 74. Expedita longa digressione re¬ vertitur ad Epistolam Bellarmini, et verba sequentia exagitanda sibi proponit : «Nunc, inquit, ut eo redeamus, unde digressi su¬ mus : Cum, inquit, Pontifices nihil unquam attentarint contra reges, cur quaeso unus rex Anglise timet, quod ex tot Christianis principibus nullus timet, nullus timuit ? Quid audio? Nulline unquam imperatores, aut reges Christiani sibimet a Pontifice ti¬ muerunt? quomodo igitur miseri imperato¬ res isti, quos jam dicam, jactati sunt per Pontifices, atque inquietati, tandem etiam per eosdem penitus subversi perierunt? » Haec ille, qui ut semper sui similis perseve¬ ret, cum non habet, quod jure reprehendat, ipse fingit, et addit verba, eaque Bellarmino affingit, ut occasionem habeat digladiandi, et eruditionem suam inutiliter ostentandi. Illa enim verba. Cum Pontifices nihil un¬ quam attentarint contra reges, non habentur in Epistola Bellarmini : et tamen non solum recitantur ut verba Bellarmini, sed etiam longissima disputatione historica refellun¬ tur. Quod Bellarminus affirmavit, id tantum est, (a) nullam principum cmdem, per sica¬ rios videlicet, a Pontifice imperatam, vel approbatam, et de hoc uno timore, csedis videlicet, dixit : Cur unus rex Anglite timet, quod ex tot Christianis principibus nullus timet ? Sed quoniam de haere supra aliquid dixerat, et videbat quam levia illa essent, quee tunc attulerat, neque aliud occurrebat, quod speciem argumenti firmioris pr£e se ferret; finxit verba magis generalia, eaque tamquam a Bellarmino prolata, per multas paginas refutavit. Primum igitur, profert in medium histo¬ riam ( b ) Henrici IV. « Numquid, inquit, non timuit imperator ille, qui triduum expecta- vit ad januam Pontificis summo gelu et ni- vibus ; antequam ei aditus pateret? » Re¬ spondeo, timuisse illum quidem, non cae¬ dem corporalem, de qua Bellarminus locu¬ tus est, sed vinculum excommunicationis, a quo ut absolvi mereretur, ad illam humilita¬ tem se ipse sponte dejecit. Secundo, profert (c) Fridericum I : « Num¬ quid, inquit, illo imperator non timuit, qui pronus in ventrem procubuit, dum alius quidam Pontifex cervices ei conculcaret? » Haec vero historia dubiae fidei est, neque enim eam attingit Genebrardus in Chronico, ut hic noster falso in margine adnotavit ; ne¬ que Platina, neque Sigonius, neque Sabelli¬ cus. Cardinalis autem Baronius ex instituto refellit tom. xn. pag. 720. Sed sit vera. Quid aliud Fridericus timuit, nisi excommunica¬ tionem? haec enim sunt verba Genebrardi, quem adversarius prose citavit : « Ad ejus (Alexandri III. ) pedes procubuit Fridericus, petens absolutionem excommunicationis. » Haec Genebrardus, qui de calcata cervice, ne verbo quidem meminit. Tertio, producit, ( d ) Henricus VI. « Quid, inquit, ille etiam imperator parum ne ti¬ muit, cui tertius quidam Pontifex regni dia¬ dema de capite pedibus deturbavit? Haec autem Historia parum verisimilis est. Siqui¬ dem ille tertius Pontifex, cujus adversarius meminit, fuit Ccelestinus III. qui decrepitus annorum octoginta quinque cum esset, et summa comitate atque humanitate omnium consensu praeditus, neque cum Henrico si¬ multatem gereret ; certe nulla ratio patitur, ut credamus eum potuisse, aut voluisse re¬ gium diadema de Henrici capite pedibus de¬ turbare. At, inquit adversarius, scribit hoc Ranulphus in Polychronico lib. vn. sed Ra- nulphus iste quantum fidei mereatur, aequus lector aistimet, cum viderit eam historiam incognitam fuisse Sigonio, et Sabellico, et Piatinse, et Geuebrardo, et omnibus Germa¬ nicis historicis, illis etiam, qui Pontifici Ro¬ mano parum favere solent. Adde, quod si forte vera sit Historia, ut Baronius Cardina¬ lis admittit, non inde timuit imperator, ne¬ que Pontifici iratus fuit : quoniam intellexit in ipsa coronatione diadema sibi impositum, ac deinde dejectum ex capite, ac rursum in caput repositum, ut eo facto admoneretur coronam tantaj dignitatis posse malis meri¬ tis amitti, et ideo Pa*trem, Fridericum I. vi¬ delicet, non imitaretur, qui Ecclesiam diu vexavit, et divino judicio, quando minus id (a) An Reges sibi a summo Pontifice timere debeant. — (b) Henric. IV. — (c) Frederic. I. — ( d)Henric . VI. 238 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM expectabat, imperium cum vita amisit. Quarto, profert (u) Philippum : «Aii non, inquit, et Philippus timuit, de quo, cum im¬ perator invito lnnocentio tertio creatus es¬ set, Pontifex in hanc vocem erupit : Aut Pon¬ tifex Philippo diadema, aut Philippus Pon¬ tifici insigne Apostolicum adimet. Quo dicto, Pontifex Othonem in Philippum incitavit, qui eum postea interemit. Otho autem caede facta Romam venit, et imperator a Patre inauguratus est, quamvis postea imperio ab eodem privatus est. » Haec ille, qui videre¬ tur hoc loco aliquid dixisse, quod ad rem faceret, nisi manifestafn falsitatem historiae miscuisset. Falsum enim est Philippum ab Othone illo interfectum fuisse, qui postea imperavit. Scribunt enim gravissimi aucto¬ res, Albertus, Crantzius in sua Saxonia lib. vii. cap. 28. Joannes Nauclerus in Historia sua pag. 82. et Garolus Sigonius lib. xv. Appendicis, Philippum occisum fuisse ab Othone quodam privato homine, et impera¬ toris intimo familiari, inscio Othone impe¬ ratore. Palmerius quidem interfectum dicit Philippum a comite Palatino : ab Othone autem duce Saxoniae, qui de imperio cum Philipppo contendit, et post ejus mortem coronatus est, neminem legi, qui Philippum necatum scripserit ; praeter auctorem hu¬ jus Apologiae, qui nullum pro sua opinione testem adduxit ; et vel nominis sequivocatio- ne deceptus est, vel falsa narratione lectores decipere voluit. Quod autem Innocentius di¬ xerit, aut Phiilppo se diadema ablaturum, aut sibi a Philippo insigne Apostolicum de¬ trahendum , scribit quidem Abbas Usper- gensis, sed addit, id se ab aliis accepisse, et difficile esse relatu, et vix credendum. Quinto, profert (b) Fridericumll. « Fride- ricus, inquit, an non timuit, cum eum Inno¬ centius excommunicaret, regno privaret , Principes a juramento fidelitatis ei dato ab¬ solveret, denique in Apulia quemdam subor¬ naret, qui eum veneno extingueret? Quo ta¬ men exhausto, cum convaluisset, conduxit Manfredum quemdam, qui venenum ei da¬ ret : quo sumpto mortuus est. » Haec ille, qui dum se in historiis valde versatum ostendere cupit, corruptorem Historiarum se, impostoremque demonstrat. Conveniunt enim omnes historici a Manfredo filio notho ejusdem Friderici, Fridericum graviter ae¬ grotantem, pulvino in os injecto suffocatum, venenum autem a Manfredo propinatum Fri" derico, nullus Historicus dicit. Quod autem Pontifex in hac re se miscuerit, solus Cuspi- nianus, qui recens est auctor, ex epistolis Petri de Vineis, sub dubio refert : Sive, in¬ quit, ab hostibus, sive a Pontifice corruptus id fecerit. Sed omnes alii, qui mortem Fri¬ derici narrant, omnino de Pontifice silent, ut etiam veneni vix ullus meminit : sunt au¬ tem hi auctofes, quos lector consulere pote¬ rit, Joannes Nauclerus in Chronographia vol 2. generatione 42. Platina in vita Inno- centii IV. Joannes Baptista Egnatius in vita Friderici II. Sabellicus Enneadis nonse lib.vi. Blondus Decadis secundae lib. vn. Albertus Crantzius lib. vm. Saxoniae cap. 18. Matthae¬ us Palmerius in Chronico anni 1250, Jaco- bus Wimphelingius in epitome rerum Ger¬ manicarum, Paulus Langius in historia Ec¬ clesiae Citicensis anno 1250. et alii. Sed Au¬ ctor Apologiae quasi rem exploratam praedi¬ cat : Conduxit, inquit, Manfredum quemdam, qui venenum ei daret, quo sumpto, mortuus est. Atque, ut apparet ex modo loquen¬ di , nullas historias legit. Si enim legis¬ set, scivisset profecto Manfredum non fuisse sicarium aliquem, qui facile conduci posset; sed filium Friderici, magnumque principem ; et non dixisset, conduxit Manfredum quem¬ dam, quasi obscurum homuncionem, neque veneni a Manfredo propinati mentionem fe¬ cisset, cum hoc nullus omnino referat. De¬ nique non tam asseveranter locutus fuisset, cum solus Cuspinianus male affectus erga Pontifices, ex sola conjectura simultatis et inimicitiarum, et dubitanter rem hanc atti¬ gerit. Sexta, producit litteras ( c ) Alexandri ad Sultanum : « Quid autem, inquit, Alexander scripsit Sultano ? ut si absque molestia vellet degere, aliqua ratione tollendum de medio imperatorem curaret. » Et auctorem allegat Paulum Jovium lib. ii. Historiarum. Sed in libro Anglice edito designatur Alexander III. Jovius autem scribit historias temporis sui, ac per hoc res gestas Alexandri III. non at¬ tingit. Interpres, ut tutius lateret, Alexan¬ drum nominavit, omisso numero. Et quidem Jovius in ii. lib. Historiae, Alexandri VI. res gestas describit ; sed nullam Epistolam scri¬ ptam esse dicit ab Alexandro ad Sultanum. Itaque Auctor Apologiae doceat nos, de quo Alexandro loquatur, et quem auctorem ha- (a) Phil. Imp. — ( b ) Frider. II. — (c) Papa Alexander. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 239 beat eorum, quae scribit, et tunc, si opus erit, responsum a nobis accipiet. Septimo, adducit (a) Alexandrum VI. « Quid, inquit, Alexander ille sextus? nonne ducenta millia aureorum a Bajazeto turea accepit, ut ea mercede, fratrem ejus Gemen, vel, ut quidam appellant Zizimum necaret, quippe quem Romae tunc captivum tenuerat? Nonne conditiones oblatas amplexus est, et peracta caede pecunias accepit ?w» Hanc hi¬ storiam unde auctor Apologiae acceperit, aveo scire. Annotat ad marginem solum no¬ men Cuspiniani. Guspinianus autem in vita Bajazetis junioris scribit quidem Zizimum Bajazetis Fratrem in castris regis Franco¬ rum veneno sublatum, haud ignorante Pon¬ tifice ; sed jussu Pontificis id factum, aut post caedem ducenta millia aureorum Ponti¬ fici numerata, non scribit. Sed auctor Apo- logise po testatem habet addenbi quidlibet ad historias. Adde quod , ut supra diximus, Cuspiano non magnam fidem habere possu¬ mus in iis, quae ad Pontifices pertinent, praesertim quando aliorum Historicorum testimoniis destituitur. Octavo, adducit ( b ) Henricum' II regem Anglorum : « Quid, inquit, Henricus noster ejus nominis secundus, nonne timuit post occisum sanctum Thomam? qui praeterquam quod nudis pedibus in peregrinatione inces¬ sit, virgis etiam poenas dedit in sacrario tamquam scholae discipulus, solatusque eo se est, quod nihil gravius pateretur. » Vere omnino Henricus, et jure optimo timuit, non caedem corporis, de qua nos agimus, sed ju¬ dicium Dei, et censuras Ecclesiae ; siquidem non ut scholae discipulus, ut iste garrit, sed ut vere poenitens, maluit in terris cum ho¬ minibus flagellari qiidm post mortem cum daemonibus cruciari. Nono, adducit patrem Henrici regis Fran¬ corum : « An non, inquit, timendi causa fuit Patri regis Galbarum, qui nunc est, , cum regnum Navarrae; quod ejus jure fuerat, Pontifex abalienaret, regique Hispano do¬ naret ? cujus regni dimidium rex Hispanus hodieque obtinet. » At falsum est patrem Henrici IV. reges Christianissimi fuisse il¬ lum, qui Navarrae regnum primus amisit ; ille enim Joannes dicebatur. Pater autem regis Antonius dictus est. De titulo vero, quo reges Hispaniae regnum Navarrae magna ex (a) Alexand. VI. — Elizabetha. parte possident, non est nostrum hoc loco disserere : consulat lector eos historicos, qui res Hispanas ex instituto tradunt. Decimo, adducit (c) Henricum IV. regem Christianissimum : « An non, inquit, is qui nunc regnat filius ejus, jure timuit, cum se ab excommunicationis vinculis relaxari tam suppliciter obsecraret, ut Legatum suum Romae virgis caesum poenitentium more passus sit ? » Haec vero satis ostendunt au¬ ctorem Apologiae non solum extra rem eva¬ gari, cum a timore gladii, et mortis tempo¬ ralis, ad timorem spiritualium poenarum transeat, sed etiam satis impudenter irridere sacras caeremonias, quae in reconciliatione poenitentium adhibentur ; sed si magnum ei videtur, Legatum regium, dum ab excom¬ municationis sententia de more Ecclesiae rex absolveretur, virga sacerdotali leviter per¬ cussum, non ad dolorem, sed ad significa¬ tionem : quid, quaeso, dixisset, si Magnum Theodosium imperatorem orbis terrarum vidisset sancti Ambrosii Episcopi sui senten¬ tiam pertimescere, neque audere, illo inter¬ dicente, templum intrare, nisi publicam poe¬ nitentiam ageret, ac deinde ingredi permis¬ sum non stetisse, sed toto corpore pronum in pavimento jacuisse, manibus capillos vul¬ sisse, frontem graviter percussisse, et pavi¬ mentum lacrymis aspersisse, idque deposito diademate, et toto populo inspectante ? Vide Tripartit. Histor. lib. ix. cap. 30. Hunc igi¬ tur tantum imperatorem rex Christianissi- mus imitatus, quia sancto timore judicia Dei, et summi Pastoris sententiam timuit, adstitit illi Deus, ut pericula non pauca, nec levia feliciter evaderet, et deinceps quoque ejusmodi nefariorum hominum conatus, eo¬ dem adjuvante Domino non timebit. Undecimo, affert exemplum ( d ) reginae Elizabethee : « Quid, inquit, quae nuper ex- titit regina nostra, nonne erat, quod cir¬ cumspiceret, sibique caveret, cum a Pio V. excommunicata esset, subditi ejus a fide et obedientia absoluti, quam ei debebant, re¬ gnum Hyberniae ab ea ad regem Hispaniae translatum, atque denique nobilis ille fugi¬ tivus theologus, eodemque purpureo deco¬ ratus galero, quo nunc Bellarminus, non est veritus Stanleianae proditionis Apologiam publicare, in qua illud defendit, quod quan¬ doquidem excommunicata esset regina et (c) Henric. IV. rex Gallorum. — ( d ) Regina ( b ) Henricus II. rex Anglice. — 240 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM haeretica ; non solum liceret jam ejus subdi¬ tis, verum etiam necesse essetab obligatione conscientiae, nudare eam omni, quo possent praesidio, et sive exercitus, sive oppida, sive arces, et propugnacula ejus obtinerent, regi Hispano hosti tradere, regina deinceps nihil habente proprium, aut suum? » Magnam sine dubio causam timendi Elisabetha, si sapuisset, habuit. Nam quae fidem datam Deo, et Ecclesiae Catholicae in sua consecra¬ tione statim fregit ; certe timere debuit ju¬ stam iram Dei, et ne sibi etiam a subditis fides data, justo Dei judicio frangeretur.