Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 8: The Apology Answered from Page 83 to Page 96: Images and Idols, Eleazar, Saul's Oath, Saint Basil, Saint Marcellinus, and Gregory the Apostle of the English
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 that the author calls the veneration of the images of Christ and the saints idolatry is not to be wondered at, since, as he himself confesses, this is one article among many on account of which the Protestants are counted heretics by us Catholics. For the veneration of sacred images cannot be called idolatry except by those who wish the images of Christ and the saints to be regarded as idols. And since an idol is the image of a false god, on which account the Apostle pronounced in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 8, that an idol is nothing, because, that is, it is the image of a thing existing nowhere, the adversaries cannot call the images of Christ and the saints idols unless they think that Christ is a false god, and his saints the friends and servants of a false god; and in short that Christ and the saints exist nowhere and are nothing; and whether this opinion is heretical or not we leave to the adversaries themselves to judge. Certainly the seventh general synod, about nine hundred years ago, pronounced anathema on those who should presume to call the images of Christ and the saints idols.
I come now, omitting the abuse and trifles which do not pertain to the matter, to the example brought from the second book of Maccabees. The author of the Apology speaks thus, page 83: “And first,” he says, “as regards Eleazar, if the Archpriest had a reason for refusing the oath offered by the king as good and as constant as Eleazar had for abstaining from tasting swine’s flesh, this example could not unskilfully be applied by the Cardinal to prove his purpose.” And below: “But since the foundation is bad and faulty, the building set upon it cannot in any way be lasting. For what example, I ask, is found in the whole of sacred Scripture by which the refusal of an oath offered by a king, or the withdrawal of the obedience to be rendered to a king, is established?” I indeed dare to say that the Catholics have a better cause for refusing the oath than Eleazar had for not tasting swine’s flesh. For although the authority commanding is the same in both cases, yet the matter about which the precept is given is altogether different; for there the law is given about not tasting swine’s flesh, here about not denying the power of the head of the Church; and, I think, the adversary will not deny that the power of the head of the Church is a thing far more sublime than swine’s flesh. But in this the adversary is always either deceived or strives to deceive others, that he affirms that nothing else is contained in the oath proposed by the king except that civil obedience is to be rendered to the king. For this is the reason why he seeks an example in divine Scripture by which the withdrawal of obedience is established. For if he were willing to notice that by that oath the power of the Supreme Pontiff is shaken and overthrown, he would easily find an example; and not only an example, but even a divine precept, by which the power of the high priest is most evidently established. For in Deuteronomy 17 we read plainly enough: “He that shall be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest who ministers at that time to the Lord thy God, by the sentence of the judge that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel.” And in Numbers 16 we see the horrible judgement of God on Korah, Dathan and Abiram, whom together with their families the earth swallowed up, and they went down alive into hell, on account of schism and defection from Moses and Aaron, who were then the high priests and lawfully governed the Church of the Lord. And in the New Testament we know that it was said by Christ himself, not to an emperor or king, but to the Apostle Peter, whom Christ set as his Vicar over his household: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven,” Matthew 16; and when he commanded the same Peter, in the last chapter of John, to feed the sheep of his flock, and that is all of them, it must be believed that at the same time he also commanded the sheep to allow themselves to be fed and ruled by him humbly and obediently.
And what the adversary adds about the oath of Saul, 1 Kings 14, is nothing to the purpose. For first, we are not treating of keeping an oath, but of taking an oath. Next, the oath of Saul had been altogether rash; and therefore, by the judgement of the whole people, Jonathan, who had not kept it, escaped death. But nevertheless it pleased God that Jonathan should be brought into danger of his life on account of the oath not kept, so that Saul himself, suffering the loss of his own son, might pay the penalty for an oath rashly taken.
On page 88 the author of the Apology passes to the example of Saint Basil, which Bellarmine had set down in his letter, and by saying much says nothing. He cavils first that Bellarmine omitted, as contrary to himself, those words of Theodoret about Saint Basil, that he valued greatly the emperor’s friendship joined with piety, but said that without piety it was ruinous. But Bellarmine wished not to transcribe the book of Theodoret, but to adduce what served his purpose; and so far is he from judging that opinion contrary to himself that he most gladly and gratefully accepts it. For he too values greatly the friendship of the king of the English joined with piety, but says that without it it is ruinous. But let us see by what reasons the adversary refutes Bellarmine as regards the example of Saint Basil, omitting the long narrative which was employed only to make the book bigger. “Now,” he says, “let whoever wishes compare the cause of Saint Basil with the cause of the Archpriest. For otherwise he did not learn to compare an orthodox king with so Arian and heretical an emperor. Basil was tempted to be willing to be an Arian; no suit was raised against the Archpriest about causes of faith. Basil, had not the divine word stood in his way, would gladly have obeyed the emperor; with the Archpriest the point is that he should not be unwilling to obey, although the word of God requires it of him. Basil valued very highly the emperor’s favour, if he could have deserved it with piety safe; the Cardinal exhorts the Archpriest to reject it, though it is agreeable to piety that he should embrace it.” But Bellarmine did not set an orthodox king beside a heretical emperor; but he thought that a king could rightly be compared with an emperor, not a Catholic with an Arian, but one harassing Catholics with a persecutor of Catholics. Moreover Basil was indeed tempted to be willing to be an Arian, but he was tempted under colour of a subtlety of dogmas. For it was not said to Basil: Be an Arian, or, Do not be a Catholic; but, Do not resist the emperor for the sake of a slight subtlety of dogmas. So then the Archpriest too was not openly tempted to deny the Apostolic primacy, but secretly, and under colour of civil obedience to be rendered to the king. And that no suit was raised against the Archpriest about a cause of faith, I do not know with what face he dares to say, who knows that he was arrested for the cause of the Catholic faith, and after the oath taken is still detained in prison; to pass over that in the oath itself there are very many clauses which pertain to the shaking of the power of the Supreme Pontiff. Nor is it true that with the Archpriest the only point is that he should not be unwilling to obey, although the word of God requires it of him. For the Archpriest has already obeyed, even though the word of God required the contrary of him. For the word of God is: “We ought to obey God rather than men,” Acts 4. Finally, that too is false, that Bellarmine exhorted the Archpriest to reject the king’s favour, though it is agreeable to piety that he should embrace it. For Bellarmine said not even a word in his letter about embracing or rejecting the king’s favour, but exhorted the Archpriest to do penance for an oath too easily taken, which could not be taken with conscience and piety safe.
The author of the Apology goes on, page 91, and censures Bellarmine for having compared the fall of the Archpriest with the fall of Saint Peter the Apostle and of Saint Marcellinus the Pontiff; of whom the one denied Christ, the other sacrificed to idols. He adds too that the history of the fall of Saint Marcellinus is called into doubt by Cardinal Baronius, not without great cause. But Bellarmine testified that the fall of the Archpriest was much less by those words: “You who seem in some measure to have imitated the fall of Saint Peter and of Saint Marcellinus,” and so on. Nor did he place the likeness in the fall, but in the cause; for as those holy men fell from weakness of mind and fear of punishments, so it could happen that the Archpriest fell from some similar weakness. And it matters little whether the history of the fall of Saint Marcellinus is of certain credit or of doubtful; for it is enough for the exhortation that that history has been received by common consent, as Baronius himself also testifies.
He then passes, page 94, to the authority of Saint Gregory, which Bellarmine adduced in his letter to prove of how great moment it is to deny the Apostolic primacy. And first he wonders why he called Saint Gregory the Apostle of the English. “Why he called Gregory our apostle,” he says, “I do not know.” He rightly wonders, and says he does not know it, since the English Protestants have not Saint Gregory for their apostle, but the apostates Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr as the authors of their sect. But Bellarmine followed the Venerable Bede, who in the History of his nation named Saint Gregory the Apostle of the English. He adds that the successors of Saint Gregory ought to follow in the footsteps of their predecessor in this, that those sent by Saint Gregory exercised no part of their office except with the peace and permission of the king; as also those sent by Saint Eleutherius obtained their place in this province by royal authority. “And if,” he says, “the Pontiffs of today were willing to follow in these footsteps of their forefathers, they would certainly neither receive abroad the fugitives of another prince, nor send the same back home (not only without any leave of the prince, but even manifestly against his laws) with counsels and doctrine breathing sheer rebellion, to absolve subjects from their obedience towards their lawful king and prince.” Would that the English Protestants had so retained the doctrine of Saint Gregory and Saint Eleutherius, as the modern Pontiffs diligently follow in the footsteps of their predecessors. But to the matter. We do not deny that the Gospel is to be preached with the good leave of princes, and with their favour and peace, when that can be had; but if princes resist, the divine Scriptures and the examples of our forefathers teach us that preaching is not therefore to be omitted. Certainly when Christ the Lord commanded the Apostles that, going into the whole world, they should preach the Gospel, and Paul from Jerusalem round about as far as Illyricum ordained Churches everywhere and appointed bishops, it is not read that he sought or received authority from princes; and the same can be said of the other Apostles. And when Diocletian and Maximian, imitating their predecessors, forbade the Gospel to be preached and men to become Christians, not on that account did the preaching of the Gospel, or the conversion of the nations, or the building up of the Church cease, though the emperors opposed. And when heretical princes, Constantius, Thrasamund, Huneric and others, suffered Catholics to exist in no place, the Catholics nevertheless, against their will and resistance, preached the Catholic faith either openly or secretly. And to relate even one example from antiquity: Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, as is written in the Tripartite History, book 7, chapter 16, when he had been carried off into exile in Thrace by an Arian prince, seeing the Churches bereft of their shepherds, put on a soldier’s dress and travelled through Syria, and likewise Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining priests and deacons, and performing the other offices of the Church. This holy bishop is imitated by those whom you call fugitives; who indeed, that they may obey God rather than men, do not hesitate to return to their country at the peril of their lives, although the prince has by a law laid down forbidden their return. For that holy bishop also had been carried far from his country into exile, that he might cease from preserving the Catholic faith; but despising the commands of the impious prince he returned in changed dress and performed the ecclesiastical offices, that he might fulfil the precepts of Christ the King. And what the adversary says about treasonable counsels and doctrine breathing rebellion belongs to calumnies. For although there were some who entered into counsels of treason, yet they drew these not from Catholic doctrine, nor from right reason, but from despair, as we said above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Quod autem auctor cultum imaginum Christi, et Sanctorumidololatriam vocat, non est mirandum, cum, ut ipse confitetur, unus hic articulus sit inter multos, quorum causa haeretici Protestantes a nobis Cptholicis cen¬ seantur ( b ). Neque enim imaginum sacra¬ rum cultus idololatria dici potest, nisi ab iis, qui imagines Christi et Sanctorum idola vi¬ deri volunt. Et quoniam idolum est# imago falsi Dei, propter quod Apostolus, nihil esse idolum, pronunciavit in Epist. I ad Cor. c. viii. quia videlicet imago est rei nusquam existentis, non possunt adversarii idola vo¬ care imagines Christi, et Sanctorum, nisi existiment Christum falsum esse Deum, et Sanctos ejus falsi Dei amicos, et servos esse ; et denique Christum, et Sanctos nusquam esse, et nihil esse, quae existimatio sitne haeretica necne, ipsis adversariis judicandum relinquimus. Certe synodus septima genera¬ lis ante annos circiter nongentos anathema dixit iis, qui Christi, et Sanctorum imagines idola nominare praesumpserint. Venio nunc, omissis conviciis, et nugis quae ad rem non pertinent, ad exemplum allatum ex lib. II Macchabaeorum. Sic igitur Auctor Apologiee loquitur pag. 83 : « Ac primo, inquit, (c) quod ad Eleazarum atti¬ net, si Archipresbytero ratio esset recusan¬ di juramentum a rege oblatum, tam bona, tamque constans, quam fuit Eleazaro, cur a porcinis carnibus gustandis abstineret ; ' ad¬ hiberi a Cardinale non sane inscite posset hoc exemplum ad suum institutum compro¬ bandum. » Et infra : « Sed cum fundamen¬ tum malum sitae vitiosum, eedificiuin super impositum non potest ullo modo esse diutur¬ num. Quod enim exemplum, quaeso, reperi- tur in universa sacra Scriptura, quo recusa¬ tio juramenti a rege oblati, vel detractio obedientiae erga regem praestandae stabilia¬ tur?» Ego vero audeo dicere, meliorem causam habere Catholicos juramenti recu¬ sandi, quam EleazaruS habuerit carnis por¬ cinae non gustandae. Quamvis enim auctori¬ tas imperandi utrobique sit eadem : tamen materia, de qua praeceptum traditur, omni¬ no diversa est; ibi enim de carne porcina non gustanda, hic de potestate capitis Ec¬ clesiae non abneganda lex datur, et, opinor, — (b) Quid sit idolum proprie , et idololatria. 244 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM adversarius non negabit potestatem capitis Ecclesiae rem esse longe sublimiorem carne porcina, sed in eo semper adversarios vel decipitur, vel decipere alios nititur, quod affirmat in juramento a rege proposito, nihil aliud contineri , nisi civilem obedientiam regi esse praestandam. Haec er.im causa est, cur quaerat exemplum in Scriptura divina, quo detractio obedientiae stabiliatur. Nam si advertere vellet eo juramento potestatem summi Poutificis labefactari, et everti ; facile exemplum inveniret : nec solum exemplum, sed etiam praeceptum divinum, quo potestas summi sacerdotis evidentissime stabilitur. Nam Deuteron. xvn. satis aperte legimus ( a ): Qui super bierit , nolens obedxre sacerdotis im¬ perio , qui eo tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo , sententia Judicis morietur , et auferes malum de Israel; et Num xvi. videmus hor¬ rendum judicium Dei in Core, Dathan, et Abiron, quos una cum familiis ipsorum ter¬ ra absorbuit, et descenderunt vivi in infer¬ num propter schisma, et defectionem a Moyse, et Aaron, qui tunc summi Sacerdo¬ tes erant, et Ecclesiam Domini legitime gu¬ bernabant. In novo autem Testamento non imperatori vel regi, sed Apostolo Petro, quem Vicarium suum super familiam suam Christus constituit, ab ipso Christo dictum scimus : Quodcumque ligaveris super terram , erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcumque solve - ris super terram , erit solutum et in coelis , Matth. xvi. (1), et cum eidem mandavit Joari. ultimo, ut oves gregis sui utique omnes pa¬ sceret, simul etiam ovibus mandasse cre¬ dendum est, ut ab eo se pasci, regique hu¬ militer, obedienterque permitterent. Quod autem adversarius adjungit de ju¬ ramento Saiilis I Regum xiv. ad rem nihil facit. Frimum enim non tractamus de jura¬ mento servando, sed de juramento susci¬ piendo. Deinde juramentum Saiilis omnino temerarium fuerat; et ideo judicio totius populi mortem evasit Jonathas, qui illud non servaverat. Sed tamen placuit Deo, ut Jo¬ nathas propter juramentum non servatum in vitee discrimen adduceretur, ut Saiil ipse proprii filii jacturam faciens, de juramento temere suscepto panas daret. Pag. 88. transit auctor Apologiae ad ( b ) exemplum sancti Basilii, quod Bellarminus in epistola sua posuerat, et multa dicendo nihil dicit. Cavillatur primum a Bellarmino omissa esse tamquam sibi contraria, verba illa Theodoreti de sancto Basilio, imperato¬ ris quidem amicitia magni se pendere cum pietate, qua remota perniciosam esse dicere. Sed Bellarminus non librum Theodoreti de¬ scribere, sed quod ad rem suam faciebat, adducere voluit : tantum autem abest, ut eam sententiam sibi contrariam esse judicet, ut eam libentissime, gratissimeque suscipiat. Nam et ipse amicitiam regis Anglorum ma¬ gni pendit cum pietate, sed ea remota per¬ niciosam esse dicit, sed videamus quibus ra¬ tionibus adversarius Bellarminum refellit, quod ad exemplum sancti Basilii pertinet, omissa longa narratione, quae ad id solum adhibita est, ut liber grandior redderetur : « Jam, inquit , comparet qui vult causam sancti Basilii cum causa Archipresbyteri. Nam alioqui nec orthodoxum regem docuit cum tam Ariano atque heeretico imperatore conferre. Basilius tentatus est, ut Arianus esse vellet : Lis nulla mota est Archipresby- tero de causis fidei. Basilius, nisi verbum ei divinum obstitisset, imperatori libens ob- temperasset : cum archipresbytero illud agitur, ut obtemperare non nolit, quamvis id ab eo verbum Dei exigat. Basilius perma¬ gni fecit gratiam imperatoris, si salva pie¬ tate eam promereri potuisset, Archipresby- terum hortatur cardinalis, ut rejiciat, etsi consentaneum sic pietati, ut amplectatur. » At Bellarminus regem orthodoxum cum im¬ peratore heeretico non composuit (c)|, sed regem cum imperatore, non Catholicum cum Ariano, vexantem Catholicos cum per¬ secutore Catholicorum recte conferri posse existimavit. Porro Basilius tentatus quidem est, ut Arianus esse vellet, sed sub colore subtilitatis dogmatum tentatus est. Non enim Basilio dictum est : Esto Arianus, vel noli esse Caholicus, sed noli propter modicam dogmatum ^ubtihtatem imperatori resistere. Sic igitur et arcbipresbyter non aperte ten¬ tatus est, ut primatum Apostolicum abne¬ garet, sed occulte, et sub colore civilis obe- dientise regi praestandae. Quod autem lis nulla mota sit archipresbytero de causa fidei, nescio qua fronte dicere audeat, qui scit illum Catholicae fidei causa comprehen- (1) Matth. XVI, 19. (a) Exempla Scripturae de potestate Summi Pontificis , — (b) De exemplo S. Basilii. — (c) In quibus rex Anglice conveniat cum Juliano Apostata. PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 245 sum, et post juramentum praestitum adhuc in carceribus detineri ; ut omittam quod in ipso juramento plurimae sententiae sunt, nbae ad potestatem summi Pontificis labefa¬ ctantem pertinent. Neque verum est cum Archipresbytero id tantum agi, ut obtempe¬ rare non nolit, quamvis id ab eo verbum Dei exigat. Nam archipresbyter jam obtem¬ peravit, etiam si verbum Dei ab eo contra¬ rium exigeret. Verbum enim Dei est : Oportet obedire Deomagis, quam hominibus , Actor, iv. Denique falsum est etiam illud, quod Bellar- minus hortatus sit archipresbyterum, ut gratiam regis rejiciat, etsi consentaneum sit pietati, ut eam amplectatur. Bellarminus enim de gratia regis amplectenda vel reji¬ cienda, ne verbum quidem fecit in epistola sua, sed hortatus est archipresbyterum, ut pcenitentiam agat de juramento nimis facile suscepto, quod salva conscientia, et pietate suscipi non poterat. Pergit auctor Apologiae pag. 91. etBel- larminum reprehendit, quod lapsum (a) ar- chipresbyteri cum lapsu S. Petri Apostoli, et sancti Marcellini Pontificis comparaverit: quorum ille Christum negavit; iste idolis sacrificavit. Addit etiam historiam de lapsu sancti Marcellini a Cardinale Baronio non sine magna causa in dubium revocari. Sed Bellarminus Archipresbyteri lapsum multo fuisse minorem illis verbis testatus est : Qui sancti Petri, et sancti Marcellini casum ali¬ qua ex parte imitatus videris, etc. Neque similitudinem posuit in lapsu, sed in causa, quomodo enim ex imbecillitate animi, et ti¬ more poenarum sancti illi viri ceciderunt ; ita fieri potuit, ut archipresbyter ex aliqua si¬ mili imbecillitate caderet. Parum autem refert utrum historia de lapsu S. Marcellini certee fidei sit, an dubiae, satis enim est ad exhorta¬ tionem, quod ea historia communi consensu recepta sit, ut etiam Baronius ipse testatur. Transit deinde pag. 94. ad auctoritatem sancti Gregorii, quam Bellarmipus in epi¬ stola sua adduxit, ut probaret quanti mo¬ menti sit primatum Apostolicum denegare. Ac primum miratur, cur sanctum Gregorium Apostolum Anglorum < nominaverit. « Cur Gregorium, inquit, apostolum nostrum vo- carit, nescio. » Recte miratur, ac dicit se id nescire, quoniam Protestantes Angli non sanctum Gregorium Apostolum, sed Mar- tinum Bucerum, et Petrum Martyrem apo¬ statas sectae suae auctores habent. Sed Bel¬ larminus Venerabilem Bedam secutus est, qui sanctum Gregorium in Historia gentis suce Anglorum Apostolum nominavit. Addit, debere sancti Gregorii successores vestigiis praedecessoris insistere in eo, quod missi a sancto Gregorio nullam exercuerunt mune¬ ris sui partem, nisi pace, permissu que regis : quomodo etiam missi a sancto Eleutherio locum suum in hac provincia Itegia auctori¬ tate obtinuerunt : « Quod si, inquit, hodierni Pontifices his insistere vellent majorum su orum vestigiis , equidem nec fugitivos alieni principis foris exciperent, nec eosdem rur¬ sus domum remitterent (non solum absque ulla venia principis, verum etiam manifesto contra ipsius leges) cum consiliis, et doctrina meram rebellionem spirante, ad subditos absolvendos ab obedientia sua erga legiti¬ mum regem suum et principem. » (b) Uti- nam sic Angli Protestantes retinuissent do¬ ctrinam sancti Gregorii, et sancti Eleutherii, ut moderni Pontifices praedecessorum suo¬ rum vestigiis diligenter insistunt. Sed ad rem. Non negamus cum bona venia princi- pum, et cum ipsorum gratia, et pace praedi¬ candum esse Evangelium, quando ea potest haberi : sed si principes resistant, non ideo praedicationem omittendam esse docent nos Scripturae divinae , et exempla majorum. Certe quando Christus Dominus jussit Apo¬ stolis, ut euntes in mundum universum prae¬ dicarent Evangelium ab Hierusalem per circuitum usque ad Illyricum, et ubique or¬ dinavit Ecclesias, Episcoposque constituit; non legitur auctoritatem a Principibus quae¬ sivisse, vel accepisse, quod idem de aliis Apostolis dici potest. Quando autem Diocle¬ tianus, et Maximiamus imitati praedecesso¬ res suos, praedicari Evangelium, et Christia¬ nos fieri prohibuerunt; non ob id tamen praedicatio Evangelii, vel gentium conver¬ sio, aut Ecclesiae aedificatio, repugnantibus licet imperatoribus cessavit. Et quando prin¬ cipes haeretici, Constantius, Trasimundus, Hunnericus, et alii Catholicos nullo loco esse patiebantur ; Catholici tamen illis invitis, et resistentibus, vel palam, vel occulte fidem Catholicam praedicabant. Atque ut vel ( c ) unum exemplum antiquitatis referam, Eu- sebius Samosatenus Episcopus, ut scribitur (a) Comparatio lapsus Archipresbyt. cum lapsu S. Petri. — ( b ) Anglice conversio a S. Gregorio . — (c) Exemplum insigne. 246 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM in Historia tripartita lib. vii. cap. 16. in Thraciam exilio deportatus ab Ariano Prin¬ cipe, cum videret Ecclesias pastoribus deso¬ latas, habitu militari suscepto, Syriam pera¬ grabat, et Phoenicem pariter, et Palsestinam, presbyteros ordinans atque diaconos, alia¬ que Ecclesise obibat officia. Hunc sanctum Episcopum imitantur illi, quos vos fugitivos appellatis : qui quidem, ut Deo magis obe- diant quam hominibus, non dubitant cum periculo vitee in patriam redire, quamvis princeps lege posita reditum interdixerit. Nam et ille sanctus Episcopus longe a patria in exilium deportatus fuerat, ut a fide Catho¬ lica conservanda cessaret ; sed principis im¬ pii mandata contemnens mutato habitu redi¬ bat, et ecclesiastica obibat officia, ut regis Christi praecepta compleret. Quod autem dicit adversarius de consiliis proditoriis, et doctrina rebellionem spirante, ad calumnias pertinet. Nam etsi fuerunt, qui proditionis consilia inierint ; ea tamen non ex doctrina Catholica, neque ex recta ratione, sed ex desperatione, ut supra diximus, hauserunt.