Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 7: The Apology Answered from Page 80 to Page 83: The Stanley Case, the Powder Plot and Garnet, Whether the King Feared, and Julian Compared with James
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 what is added about the Stanley treason is not faithfully nor truly related; for after his manner the author of the Apology has foully corrupted the history by adding many lies. For there is extant the answer of Cardinal Allen (for it is he whom he calls the fugitive theologian) to Stanley’s letter, which this same author notes in the margin. And this is the sum of the history. The English had taken from the king of Spain the city of Deventer, situated in the Low Countries, and had handed it over to Stanley to guard. This Stanley, wishing to be reconciled to the Catholic Church, restored that city to the king as to its proper lord, and that without any reward bargained for or received. This restitution Cardinal Allen approved as just. The rest are not the counsels of Allen, but the lies of the author of the Apology.
In the last place he adds the example of James, who now reigns in England, and brings forward three things from which King James had the greatest occasion to be on his guard against the Pontiff. “First,” he says, “by the publication of those bulls of which I made mention long ago, by which he was to be barred from all entrance to the kingdom and the crown.” To this first point I have already answered above, that two briefs of Pope Clement VIII in the year 1600 were directed to the English Catholics, by which, without the designation of any particular person, they were admonished to help as far as they could that a Catholic man should obtain that kingdom, which would shortly fall vacant; than which counsel none more Christian, more pious, or more useful could have been given by the Supreme Pontiff, on whom above all the care of the Catholic Church rests. And if by this general admonition James was excluded, he himself was the cause, who wished to disappoint the hope not obscurely given to the Pontiff; or at least his ministers deserve blame, who still more openly promised that James, then king of Scotland, would become a Catholic when he had obtained the English kingdom.
He adds secondly: “Then,” he says, “when he had entered and obtained full possession, by that horrible Powder conspiracy, which would have utterly stripped the king, with his family, of both kingdom and life. And however much the Pontiff labours by every means to clear himself, that the conspiracy may not seem to have been supported by his help, yet he cannot deny that his chief ministers in this kingdom, and his principal bondmen the Jesuits, were the very authors and designers of it; for which crime he who was the leader of the band died in confession of the deed, conscience drove others to flight, and some even penetrated into Italy itself.” To this second point I answer that so many lies are heaped up here without any testimony or proof that the author of the Apology must have put off all shame and conscience whatsoever. For as regards the Pontiff, there is no need for him to labour to clear himself, since no one has bespattered him with even the suspicion of any stain. And as regards the Jesuits, that very man who was the leader of the band, as the author has chosen to speak, Henry Garnet, the provincial superior, will easily refute those lies. For it is certain that Henry, at his public trial, the king himself looking on, who if he wished could even be a witness, being examined for a very long time, constantly and always said that neither he nor any Jesuit had in any way been the author, accomplice, adviser or consenting party of this conspiracy; and that when he had come to know of that plot in general in sacramental confession, he had done all he could that such a conspiracy should be given up; nay, that he and his had been gravely admonished from the city of Rome by their superiors to keep the Catholic laity by their exhortations aloof from all tumult. And what Henry Garnet had often said at his trial, the same at the point of death, before an innumerable people, he protested in a long speech; in which speech, as he professed the Catholic faith and most freely detested the English heresies, so with the same freedom he denied that he had been the author, or accomplice, or adviser, or in any way consenting to the crime. And yet the author of the Apology dares, against his own conscience and against the testimony of many thousands of men who were present at that most cruel spectacle, to say: “He who was the leader of the band died in confession of the deed,” when he ought to have said that he died in denial and detestation of the deed. Why, then, you will say, was Henry put to death, if he did not confess the crime? Because he did not reveal what the judges, by a certain wonderful cunning, had discovered that he had heard in sacramental confession. But since Catholic doctrine does not permit the secret of sacramental confession to be disclosed for the avoiding of any evil, he chose rather to suffer a most bitter death than to violate the seal of so great a sacrament. Therefore those judges, who are strangers to the Catholic faith and doctrine, made Henry guilty of treason for not revealing the conspiracy. But God, for the divine sacrament not violated, and for the confession of the Catholic faith and the detestation of the Protestant heresies, has crowned the same Henry, as we piously believe, with a crown of glory. Moreover, the other Jesuits who are said to have provided for themselves by flight followed the counsel of Christ, who warned his disciples that when they suffered persecution in one place, they should flee into another. For what greater persecution can be conceived than to be hunted for prison and punishment without consciousness of any crime, and without the evidence of witnesses? The author of the Apology adds lastly: “Nor, however, have either those who deserted this kingdom by flight, or Baldwin, who, although he stayed in the Low Countries, nevertheless laboured under the consciousness of the crime, ever been called into court by the Pontiff, much less punished by him, for having consented to so base and wicked a business.” To this third head the answer is easy and ready. It is not the custom of the Supreme Pontiff to call men into court, and much less to punish them, whom no one accuses, or of whose crimes there exist no evidence and no witnesses. If Baldwin, whom alone you name (for who the others are, though there are some, we cannot divine), had laboured under the infamy of this crime, he certainly would not have been permitted by the most serene Archduke Albert, an excellent and most just prince, to live publicly in the Low Countries, and in its very chief cities. But since neither those who, being put to death as the authors of the crime, after long and repeated examination named Baldwin among the accomplices or those privy to it, nor was anything proved against him in England, therefore neither the Supreme Pontiff nor any other Catholic princes judged that he should be called into court. Wherefore the author of the Apology cannot be excused from great rashness and levity, in that without any reasonable cause he chose to censure the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, the supreme and wisest prince, for crimes the suspicion of which does not cling even to private men unless probable causes are produced.
These matters despatched, the adversary passes to another paradox. For whereas hitherto he has tried to prove that very many emperors or kings feared for themselves from the Pontiff, and that King James had many causes of fear, now, because fear argues degenerate minds, as the poet says, he contends that it is false that his king ever feared. “Nor,” he says, “however much he stands amazed and wonders, will he ever prove that this is a panic terror under which the king labours. For has the king ever begged the Pope for his security? Has he ever exhorted the other Christian princes, his friends and kinsmen, to intercede for him with the Pope? Has he begged any protection from them by which he might seem to have taken sufficient thought for his safety? Nothing less.” So he, who should see that, while he wishes his king to seem constant, he does not make him rash. For if so many great kings and emperors feared the Pope, as he tried a little before to demonstrate by so long a digression, will not his king be rash if he will not fear what such great kings feared? But the proposed oath, in which it is exacted of each that he swear that the Pope cannot grant to anyone to offer any violence or hurt to the person of his majesty; likewise that they swear that, notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication or declaration, they will defend the person of the king, and will reveal all conspiracies and treasons against him; and other similar things which are contained in that oath, show plainly enough that after the Powder conspiracy the king was seized with great fear. And enough of these matters.
On page 81 the author passes to another part of Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, and examines the comparison taken from the oration of Saint Gregory Nazianzen; and he says there is no likeness between Julian and James, except that the one was an emperor and the other is a king. But Bellarmine did not place the sum of the likeness in a comparison of Julian with James, but in a comparison of thing with thing, of fraud with fraud, of business with business. Yet since the author of the Apology has chosen to compare the persons also, let us follow in his footsteps and consider the unlikenesses of the Emperor Julian and King James. “In the first place,” he says, “Julian was an apostate, and renounced the whole Christian faith which he had once professed, and was turned again into a heathen, or rather into an atheist; our king is a Christian, and has never deserted that religion which he drank in almost with his milk, nor has he ever been ashamed of his profession.” So he. But it is not true that Julian was turned into an atheist, since on the contrary he passed from the worship of one God to the veneration of many gods, so that he ought to be called a polytheist rather than an atheist. And James, since he is not a Catholic, is not a Christian either. For so Saint Augustine speaks in the book On the Grace of Christ, chapter 10: “This grace Pelagius ought to confess, if he wishes not only to be called but to be a Christian.” By which words he declares plainly enough that he is not a Christian who is a heretic. And more clearly and at greater length Saint Athanasius, in the second oration against the Arians, not far from the beginning, proves by many arguments that no heretic can properly be called, or be, a Christian. And much earlier Saint Cyprian, in book 4, letter 2, to Antonianus, had written: “He is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.” And that King James is not a Catholic, the author of the Apology is witness, who in almost every page of this book leaves the name of Catholic to those who follow the religion of the Roman Pontiff; and he who is not a Catholic is by that very fact a heretic. For Catholic and heretic are contraries, as day and night, as light and darkness. Nor is it at all true that James never deserted the religion which he had first received. For, born of Catholic parents, he received baptism by the Catholic rite, and thereby the Catholic religion and faith. But by the injury of the times he fell into the hands of sectarian tutors, who made him from a Christian into a Calvinist. And if what is related is true by those who knew him intimately, whereas in Scotland he was a Puritan and an enemy of the Protestants, now in England he is a Protestant and bears himself as an adversary of the Puritans. He goes on: “Julian turned against the Christians only because they persisted in the confession of the cause of Christ; our king, dealing with his subjects in this matter, looks only to this, that there may be some mark by which faithful subjects can be distinguished from treacherous ones.” But we have shown above more than once that, as Julian harassed the Christians for the sake of the Christian religion, so too King James harasses the Catholics with fines in money, prisons, exiles and capital punishment, because they will not desert the Catholic religion; and that this very oath tends to the denial of the Catholic faith concerning the power of the Supreme Pontiff. He goes on: “Julian’s end was the overthrow of the Christians; to our king no other end is proposed than to preserve the Christian faith in a state of tranquillity and peace.” But we on the contrary see that the end proposed to King James is to preserve the Protestant sect in a state of tranquillity and peace, and to obtain that end, to oppress first all the Catholics, and then the Puritans also. He goes on: “Julian aimed at leading men to commit idolatry; our king only at leading his subjects to a manifest promise of their natural allegiance and civil obedience, to be sealed by this token, as it were.” Why then, in the whole oath, are civil obedience and natural allegiance not named even once, while the denial of the power of the Supreme Pontiff is perpetually proposed? He goes on: “Julian adopted this method above others, to creep upon the unwary and to ensnare the unthinking; our king’s whole method which he follows in this matter is plain and evident, and far from every covering of obscurity; since he has never denied to any of those who were called to swear leave to deliberate with themselves at leisure and to consider what they were about to swear to. And if anyone perhaps required an interpretation, he likewise supplied all that anyone asked.” But that plainness and evidence we, who are duller and simpler, by no means perceive. For the oath is pretended to be exacted for civil obedience in matters purely temporal, and yet the words of the oath are for the greater part directed to overthrowing the Pontifical power. Nor is it said plainly, I swear that the Roman Pontiff is not the head of the Church, or, I swear that the king of England is the head of the Church of England in spiritual things. For if this were said, no one would be deceived. But it is said: I swear that a Pontifical excommunication is not to be obeyed; I swear that the Pontiff cannot absolve subjects from obedience to the king; I swear that the Pontiff cannot release me from this oath, because it has been administered to me by lawful and full authority. And at the same time, that these things may give less offence, many things are mixed in about treasons, about conspiracies, about freeing the royal person from violence and killings; which, since all men naturally abhor them, it comes about that the whole oath is taken incautiously, lest whoever refuses it should fall under suspicion of treason or conspiracy. He goes on: “But the chief unlikeness turns on this, that Julian drove them to commit idolatry by worshipping statues and images. Our king, and all his subjects who agree with him in religion, are so far from this fault that we are counted heretics by you on this very account, that we flee so far from committing idolatry.” Nay rather, in this very point the likeness is greatest. For Julian did indeed wish to draw the Christians to idolatry, but secretly, and under colour of civil honour. For the image of the emperor was honoured by the Christians without crime, because they knew that civil worship was paid to the image of the emperor, as it was paid to the emperor himself. But Julian had ordered his image to be so painted that on the panel or canvas the image of Jupiter crowning the emperor should also be seen; so that whoever honoured the image of the emperor honoured at the same time the image of Jupiter. And since to Jupiter, who was believed by the heathen to be a god, and to his image, not civil but divine worship was accustomed to be paid, by this fraud Julian led the Christians, under colour of the civil honour due to the emperor, to pay divine worship to the image of Jupiter, that is, to commit idolatry, and to deny worship to the true God. And this is exactly what the king of the English has imitated. For he proposed an oath by which, under colour of the civil obedience due to the king in temporal things, sacred obedience should be rendered to the same king as primate in spiritual things, and the same obedience be denied to the true primate of the whole Church, as has been demonstrated plainly enough above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Quod autem additur de Stanleiana prodi¬ tione, non fideliter, nec vere narratur : si¬ quidem more suo auctor Apologiae historiam multis additis mendaciis foede corrupit. Ex¬ stat enim responsio Cardinalis Alani (hunc enim fugitivum theologum vocat) ad litteras Stanlei, quam hic ipse a.uctor ad marginem notat. Haec est autem summa historiae. Ab¬ stulerant Angli a rege Hispaniae Daventriam civitatem in Belgio sitam, eamque Stanleio custodiendam tradiderant. Is Stanleius, cum reconciliari vellet Ecclesiae Catholicae, eam civitatem regi restituit, tamquam pro¬ prio domino, idque nulla mercede pacta, vel recepta. Hanc restitutionem approbavit Cardinalis Alanus, ut justam. Ceetera non Alani consilia, sed auctoris Apologiae men¬ dacia sunt. r Ultimo loco addit exemplum (a) Jacobi, qui nunc in Anglia regnat, ac tria quaedam adducit, unde Jacobus rex cavendi sibi a Pontifice maximam habuit occasionem : « Primo, inquit, Bullarum divulgatione ea¬ rum, quarum feci jamdudum mentionem, quo omni prohiberetur et regni aditu, et coronae. » Ad hoc primum jam supra re¬ spondi, duo Brevia Pontificis Clementis VIII. anno 1600. ad Catholicos Anglos directa fuisse quibus sine ullius certae personae desi¬ gnatione admonebantur, ut quoad possent juvarent, ut vir Catholicus regno illo prope- diem vacaturo potiretur, quo consilio nul¬ lum aliud a Pontifice maximo, cui Catholicae Ecclesiae cura potissimum incumbit, magis Christianum, magis pium, et utile dari po¬ tuit. Quod si hac generali admonitione Ja¬ cobus excludebatur, ipse erat in causa, qui spem non obscure datam Pontifici fallere volebat, vel certe ejus administri reprehendi debent, qui magis adhuc aperte Jacobum tunc Scotiae regem, adepto Anglicano regno, Catholicum futurum promittebant. Addit secundo : « Deinde, inquit, ubi in- trasset, plenamque possessionem adeptus esset, horrenda illa conjuratione pulveraria, quae regem cum suis, et regno, et vita pce- nitus spoliatura fuisset. Ut ut autem Pontifex omni ratione se purgare laborat, quo minus ejus adminiculis fulta illa conjuratio fuisse videatur : tamen negare non potest prima¬ rios ejus in hoc regno administros, et praeci¬ pua mancipua jesuitas, ipsississimos illius auctores, designatoresque fuisse, quo etiam crimine, iis qui Princeps fuit cohortis, mor¬ tuus est in confessione facinoris, alios con¬ scientia egit in fugam, nonnulli etiam ipsam in Italiam penetrarunt. » Ad hoc secundum respondeo, tam multa hic mendacia sine ullo testimonio, vel probatione congeri, utnecesse sit auctorem Apologiae omnem omnino pudo¬ rem, et conscientiam exuisse. Quod enim atti¬ net ad Pontificem, non est curse purgare la¬ boret, cum nemo illum vel suspicione maculae alicujus asperserit. ( b ) Quod autem attinet ad Jesuitas, ille ipse qui dux erat cohortis, ut auctori loqui placuit, Henricus Garnettus praepositus provincialis facile mendacia ista refutabit. Constat enim Henricum in publico judicio, rege ipso spectante, qui si vellet te¬ stis etiam esse posset, longissimo tempore examinatum, constanter semper dixisse; ( c ) neque se, neque ullum Jesuitam hujus conspirationis auctorem, vel complicem, vel consultorem, consentientem ullo modo fuisse, seque, cum eum tractatum in confessione Sacramentali generatim cognovisset , de¬ disse omnem operam, ut a^tali conspiratione desisteretur : immo etiam se, et suos ex ur¬ be Roma a superioribus suis graviter admo¬ nitos, ut laicos Catholicos ab omni tumultu alienos suis cohortationibus continerent. Quod autem Henricus Garnettus in judicio saepe dixerat, id ipsum instante morte, co¬ ram innumerabili populo, longa oratione protestatus est : qua oratione sicut fidem Catholicam prdfessus, ethaereses Anglicanas liberrime detestatus est, ita eadem libertate negavit se auctorem, aut complicem, aut consultorem, aut ullo modo consentientem sceleris fuisse. Et tamen audet auctor Apo¬ logiae contra conscientiam propriam, et con¬ tra testimonium multorum millium homi¬ num, qui crudelissimo spectaculo interfue- (a) Jacobus V. Angliw rex. — (b) Calumnia in Jesuitas . — *(c) Henrici Garnetti protestatio. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 241 runt, dicere : « Is, qui princeps fuit cohor¬ tis, mortuus est in confessione facinoris, » cum dicere debuisset eum mortuum fuisse in abnegatione, et detestatione facinoris. Cur igitur, inquies, Henricus ultimo supplicio affectus est, si neque scelus confessus est ? quia non revelavit, quod in Confessione sa- cramentali eum audivisse, Judices mira qua¬ dam versutia cognoverunt. Sed cum Catho¬ lica doctrina non permittat, ad ullum malum vitandum, secretum sacramentalis Confes¬ sionis detegi , (a) maluit ille mortem acer¬ bissimam pati, quam tanti sacramenti sigil¬ lum violare. Proinde judices illi, qui a Ca¬ tholica fide, et doctrina alieni sunt, Henri- cum reum laesa? majestatis ob non revelatam conspirationem fecerunt. Deus autem eum- dem Henricum ob sacramentum divinum non violatum ; et fidei Catholicae confessio¬ nem, atque haeresum Protestantium dete¬ stationem corona gloriae, ut pie credimus, redimi vit. Porro alii ex Jesuitis, qui fugam sibi consuluisse dicuntur, consilium Christi secuti sunt , qui suos admonuit , ut cum persecutionem uno loco paterentur, fuge¬ rent in alium. Quae major enim persecutio cogitari potest, quam quaeri ad carceres, et supplicia sine conscientia facinoris, et sine testium indiciis ? Addit postremo auctor Apologiae : « Neque tamen, inquit, aut illi, qui regnum hoc fuga deseruerunt, nec Bal¬ duinus, is, qui quamquam substitit in Bel¬ gio, laboravit tamen nihilominus conscientia sceleris, unquam sunt in jus a Pontifice vo¬ cati, ne dum poena ab eo affecti, quod in tam turpe, et nefarium negotium consensis¬ sent. » Ad hoc tertium caput facilis est et expedita responsio. Non est consuetudo summi Pontificis homines in jus vocare, et multo minus poenis afficere, quos nullus ac¬ cusat, vel de quorum criminibus nulla exstant indicia, nulli testes, (b) Si Balduinus, quem unum nominas (nam caeteros, qui sint, tamen aliqui sunt, divinare non possumus) infamia hujus criminis laborasset, is certe a Sere¬ nissimo Archiduce Alberto optimo et justis¬ simo principe non fuisset permissus publice in Belgio, et in ipsis primariis civitatibus de¬ gere, sed quoniam neque ii, qui tamquam auctoritates sceleris ultimo supplicio affecti^ diu saepeque examinati Balduinum nomina¬ runt inter complices, aut conscios, neque aliquid adversus eum in Anglia probatum erat ; ideo neque summus Pontifex, neque ulli alii Catholici principes illum in jus vo¬ candum esse censuerunt. Quare auctorApo- logiae excusari non potest a magna temeri¬ tate, et levitate, quod sine ulla rationabili causa summum Pontificem Christi vicarium, supremum, et sapientissimum principem reprehendere voluerit eorum criminum, quorum suspicio ne privatis quidem homi¬ nibus adhseret, nisi probabiles causae profe¬ rantur. His expeditis, transit adversarius ad aliud paradoxum. Nam cum hactenus probare co¬ natus sit plurimos imperatores, aut reges sibi a Pontifice timuisse, et Jacobum regem multas timoris causas habuisse ; nunc tamen quia degeneresanimos timor arguit, ut poeta dicit, "contendit falsum esse quod rex suus unquam timuerit : « Neque tamen, inquit, quantumcumque stupens admiretur , pa¬ nicum hunc terrorem esse, quo rex labo¬ rat, unquam evicerit. Ecquidem enim Pa¬ pam pro securitate sua rex obsecravit ? Ec- quidnam alios principes Christianos amicos suos, et necessarios cohortatus est, ut apud Papam pro ipso interpellarent? Ecquid aut praesidium ab ipsis ullum emen dicavit, quo incolumitati suee satis consultum videri pos¬ set? nihil minus. » Hsec ille, qui videat ne regem suum, dum constantem videri vult, temerarium faciat, (c) Nam si tot magni re¬ ges, et imperatores Papam timuerunt, ut paulo ante tam longa digressione demon¬ strare conatus est ; an non erit rex suus temerarius, si timere nolit, quod tanti reges timuerunt ? sed juramentum propositum, quo exigitur a singulis ut jurent, non posse Papam ulli coucedere, ut aliquam violentiam aut damnum personae majestatis suae infe¬ rant. Item ut jurent se, non obstante quali¬ bet sententia excommunicationis, vel decla¬ rationis, personam regis defensuros, et reve¬ laturos omnes conspirationes, et proditiones contra ipsum, et alia similia, quae in eo ju¬ ramento continentur, satis aperte ostendunt, post pulverariam conjurationem regem ma¬ gno timore fuisse correptum, ac de his sa¬ tis. Pag. 81. Transit auctor ad aliam partem Epistolae Cardinalis Bellarmini, et examinat similitudinem desumptam ex oratione S. (a) Garnettus maluit mori , quam revelare confessionis secretum. — (b)P. Guilielmm Balduinus. — (c) Auctoris Apologice inconstantia. To M. XJl 16 242 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM Gregorii Nazianzeni : dicit autem nullam esse similitudinem inter Julianum, et Jaco- bum, nisi quod ille erat imperator, iste est rex. At Bellarminus (a) non posuit summam similitudinis in comparatione Juliani cum Jacobo, sed in comparatione rei cum re, fraudis cum fraude, negotii cum negotio. Sed tamen quia placuit auctori Apologise conferre etiam personas, insistamus ejus vestigiis, et consideremus dissimilitudines Juliani imperatoris, et Jacobi regis : « Prin¬ cipio, inquit, Julianus fuit Apostata, totique fidei Christianae renunciavit, quam olim professus fuerat, et denuo in Ethnicum, vel potius in Atheum conversus est : rex noster Christianus est, nec unquam deseruit eam religionem, quam propemodum cum lacte imbibit, nec professionem suam aliquando erubuit. » Haec ille; sed non est verum, Ju¬ lianum in Atheum fuisse conversum, cunp e contrario ab unius Dei cultu, ad multorum Deorum venerationem transierit, ut potius polytheus, quam atheus dici debuerit. ( b ) Jacobusautem, cum Catholicus nonsit, neque Christianus est. Sic enim loquitur sanctus Augustinus lib. de gratia Christi, cap. !0 : « Hanc debet Pelagius gratiam confiteri, si vult non solum vocari, verum etiam esse Christianus. » Quibus verbis satis aperte declarat, eum Christianum non esse, qui hsereticus est. Et clarius ac fusius sanctus Athanasius orat. 2. in Arianos, non procul ab initio, multis argumentis probat, nullum heereticum proprie dici posse, vel esse Chri¬ stianum. Et multo antea sanctus Cyprianus lib. iv. epistol. 2. ad Antonianum scripse¬ rat : «Christianus non est, qui in Christi Ecclesia non est. » Jacobum autem regem non esse Catholicum testis est auctor Apolo¬ gise, qui in singulis ferme paginis hujus libri nomen Catholici illis relinquit, qui Romani Pontificis Religionem sequuntur : qui autem Catholicus non est, hoc ipso hsereticus est. Catholicus enim atque hsereticus contraria sunt, ut dies et nox, ut lumen et tenebrae. Neque omnino verum est, Jacobum num- quam deseruisse Religionem, quam primo susceperat. Nam ex parentibus Catholicis natus, Catholico ritu Baptismum, ac per hoc Catholicam Religionem, fidemque suscepit. Sed injuria temporum in educatores secta¬ rios incidit, qui eum ex Christiano Calvini- stam fecerunt. Et si vera sunt, quse narran¬ tur ab iis, qui eum intime noverunt, cum in Scotia Puritanus, et Protestantium inimicus esset; nunc in Anglia Protestans est, et Puritanorum adversarium se gerit. Pergit : « Julianus contra Christianos se convertit tantummodo quod in confessione causae Christi perstarent : rex noster hac in re cum subditis agens, id tantum spectat, ut nota exstet aliqua, qua distingui possit inter sub¬ ditos fideles, et perfidos. » At nos supra non semel ostendimus, quemadmodum Julianus Christianos vexabat Religionis Christianae causa : sic etiam regem Jacobum mulctis pecuniariis, carceribus, exiliis, extremo supplicio Catholicos vexare, quod religionem Catholicam nolint deserere, et hoc ipsum Juramentum eo tendere, ut fides Catholica de potestate summi Pontificis abnegetur. Pergit : « Juliani finis luit Christianorum eversio : regi nostro finis non alius proposi¬ tus est, quam ut fidem Christianam in statu tranquillitatis atque otii tueatur. » At nos contra videmus Jacobo regi finem proposi¬ tum esse, sectam Protestantium in statu tran¬ quillitatis et otii tueri, et ad eum finem ob¬ tinendum, primum Catholicos omnes, deinde etiam Puritanos opprimere. Pergit : « Julia¬ nus eo tendebat, ut homines adduceret ad idololatriam patrandam : rex noster eo tan¬ tum, ut subditos suos adducat ad manife¬ stam promissionem naturalis suae fidei ac civilis obedientiie, hac velut tessera obsi¬ gnandam. » Cur igitur in toto juramento ci¬ vilis obedientia, et naturalis fides ne semel quidem nominatur, perpetuo autem potestas summi Pontificis abneganda proponitur ? Pergit : « Julianus eam rationem prae caete- ris inivit, ut subreperet incautis, et non co¬ gitantes illaquearet : regis nostri tota ratio, quam sequitur hac in re, plana est et evi¬ dens, omnique procul obscuritatis integu¬ mento ; siquidem nec veniam ulli unquam negavit eorum, qui ad jurandum vocaren¬ tur, deliberandi secum per otium commen- tandique de eo, in quod juraturus esset. Et si quis forte interpretationem requireret, suppeditavit item omnem, quantam quisque postularet. » Sed istam planitiem, et evi¬ dentiam nos crassiores, et simpliciores mini¬ me cernimus. Fingitur enim juramentum ad civilem obedientiam in rebus mere tem¬ poralibus exigi, et tamen verba juramenti ad potestatem Pontificiam evertendam ma- (a) An rex Anglits possit Juliuno Apostatae componi. — ■ (b) Quod haereticus non sit Christianus • PEO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 243 xima ex parte referuntur. Neque dicitur manifeste, Ego juro Pontificem Romanum non esse caput Ecclesiae, vel, Ego, juro regem Angliae caput esse Ecclesiae Anglica- nae in spiritualibus. Si enim hoc diceretur, nemo deciperetur : sed dicitur : Juro non esse parendum excommunicationi Pontificiae. Juro Pontificem non posse absolvere subdi¬ tos ab obedientia regis. Juro Pontificem ab hoc juramento me liberare non posse, quia legitima, plenaque auctoritate mihi mini¬ stratum est, et simul, ut haec minus offen¬ dant, permiscentur multa de proditionibus, de conspirationibus, de regia persona a vio¬ lentia, et caedibus liberanda : quae cum om¬ nes naturaliter horreant, fit, ut totum jura¬ mentum incaute suscipiatur, ne qui illud recusaverit, in suspicionem proditionis vel conspirationis incidat. Pergit : « Sed summa dissimilitudo in eo vertitur, quod Julianus eos impulit, ut idololatriam perpetrarent statuis, imaginibusque colendis. Rex noster, omnesque ejus subditi, qui quidem de Reli¬ gione cum eo sentimus, adeo longe absumus ab hac culpa, ut a- vobis haeretici, vel eo nomine censeamur, quod ab idololatria pa¬ tranda tam longe refugiamus. » Immo vero in hoc ipso maxima similitudo est : (a) nam Julianus voluit quidem Christianos ad idolo¬ latriam pertrahere, sed occulte, et sub co¬ lore civilis adorationis. Imago enim impera¬ toris sine crimine a Christianis adorabatur ; quia sciebant imagini imperatoris cultum civilem exhiberi, ut ipsi imperatori exhibe¬ batur. Sed Julianus imaginem suam ita pingi jusserat, ut in tabula sive linteo Jovis quo¬ que imperatorem coronantis imago cerne¬ retur : ut qui imaginem imperatoris adora¬ bat, simul Jovis imaginem adoraret. Et quo- niam Jovi, qui Deus a gentibus credebatur et ejus imagini non civilis cultus, sed divinus exhiberi solebat ; hac fraude Julianus Chri¬ stianos, sub colore civilis honoris imperatori debiti, ad cultum divinum imagini, Jovis ex¬ hibendum, id est, ad idololatriam patrandam, et vero Deo cultum denegandum adducebat. Atque hoc est omnino, quod rex Anglorum imitatus est. Proposuit enim juramentum, quo sub colore civilis obedientiae in tempo¬ ralibus regi debitae, eidem regi obedientia sacra ut primati in spiritualibus praestare-- tur, et eadem obedientia vero Ecclesiae to- (a) Aptissima similitudo Regis cum Juliano. (c) De exemplo Eleazari. tius primati denegaretur, ut supra satis aper¬ te demontratum est. r