Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 10: The Apology Answered from Page 102 to Page 113: The Words of Consecration, Sander, Fisher and More, and the Scriptures Alleged for the King's Primacy
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).
On page 102 the author sets about another digression. “For one word, indeed,” he says, “which is put by him in the midst, as it were, of a crowd of examples, I cannot but heartily commend him. And that one is this: that martyrs ought to endure every kind of punishment, and even death itself, rather than allow one syllable of the divine law to be corrupted. And if he would measure himself by that rule, and the other professors of the same faith with him would conform themselves to it, the Eucharist would no longer be administered under one kind, against the most evident institution of Christ, against the practice of the Apostles and the custom of the whole primitive Church for not a few centuries; nor would private Masses have succeeded to the place of the Lord’s Supper, nor would the words of the canon of the Mass be set in opposition to the words of Saint Luke and Saint Paul; in which we have our adversary confessing himself guilty, and altogether denying that they can be reconciled with each other.” So he; and how truly he speaks in those things which he says without any proof about communion under one kind and about private Masses can be understood from the lie which he adds about the opposition of the words of the canon to the words of Saint Luke and Saint Paul. And since he says he has Bellarmine as an adversary confessing himself guilty, and denying that those things can be reconciled with each other, we shall set down Bellarmine’s own words from the place he himself alleges. Bellarmine, then, writes thus in book 4 On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, chapter 14: “Secondly, Chemnitz calumniates that those words have been taken away from the consecration of the bread, ‘which is given, or broken, for you.’ I answer that those words are not found in Matthew and Mark, nor in Justin in the second Apology, nor in Cyril in the fourth Mystagogical Catechesis, nor in Eusebius of Emesa in the fifth homily on Easter; although all these report the form of consecration. And as we cannot censure these authors, so neither ought anyone to censure ours, especially since our liturgy is older, if it came from Saint Peter (as Saint Thomas teaches, part 3, question 78, article 2, reply to the fourth, and before him Leo IX in the letter to Michael, chapter 3), than the Gospel of Luke and the Epistle of Paul, who added those words, ‘which is broken for you.’” These are the words in which the author of the Apology says there is contained an opposition of the words of the canon of the Mass to the words of Luke and Paul; and from which he boasts that he has an adversary confessing himself guilty, and denying that these things can in any way be reconciled with each other. But where in these words is there any mention of opposition? Where is the irreconcilable contradiction? Where the confession of guilt? Bellarmine teaches that the canon of the Mass stands excellently, even if those few words are lacking in it, “which is broken for you.” He proves it first, because the consecration of the bread is found in Matthew and Mark without those words, which is a most certain argument that those words are not of the essence of the consecration; for otherwise those who had the Gospel of Matthew alone, or of Mark alone, would not have performed the consecration rightly. He proves it secondly, because Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Emesa report the words of consecration without those words. He proves it thirdly, because our Latin liturgy is thought to have been handed down by Saint Peter; therefore the words of consecration which are in our canon cannot be censured, even if they lack those words which were added by Saint Luke and Saint Paul; which words are not contrary to the words of the canon, otherwise they would also be contrary to the words of Saint Matthew and Saint Mark; but there is no contrariety. For Matthew and Mark chose to write the same thing more briefly, Luke and Paul a little more fully.
Now since Bellarmine in his letter had mentioned Nicholas Sander, and had praised him as a man who deserved excellently of the English Church, the author of the Apology answers, page 104, that Sander did indeed deserve excellently of the Anglo-Roman Church, but deserved very ill of the English queen and the whole kingdom. To prove this he transcribes several sentences from his books, which he ironically calls golden; but those sentences seem to us truly golden; which nevertheless we omit to transcribe here, both because the adversary brought nothing to refute them, and because we did not wish to enlarge our book from the writings of others.
On page 106 he censures Bellarmine for having written, near the end of his letter, that John of Rochester and Thomas More met death for this one most weighty dogma of the primacy of the Pontiff; and he strives to prove that they met death not for this one dogma, but also because they would not approve the second marriage of King Henry; and he brings the very words of Thomas More to the judges: “I am not ignorant,” he says, “why you have adjudged me to death, namely because I would never consent in the business of the king’s marriage”; and at last the author of the Apology adds: “which in my judgement was a very carnal cause of martyrdom.” But Bellarmine did not say that John of Rochester and Thomas More met death for this sole cause of the primacy, but that for this one cause they were leaders to martyrdom for very many. For those who were put to death in the reign of Elizabeth were put to death not for the cause of the marriage but for the cause of the primacy; and to them Rochester and More were leaders to martyrdom. And that these two most illustrious men died for asserting the primacy of the Pontiff and detesting the primacy of the king, the author of the Apology cannot deny, unless he wishes to forget his own words, which are found in this very book on page 48: “Under Henry VIII,” he says, “the oath of primacy was first introduced; and Thomas More and Rochester were punished under it, and that partly for this cause, that they refused that oath.” But neither did the cause of the marriage differ so much from the cause of the primacy that it could not also be brought back to the cause of the primacy; for what was then in question concerning the marriage was this: whether the Supreme Pontiff could have dispensed so that Henry might marry Catherine, the wife of his brother Arthur, already dead. For, given a lawful dispensation, Catherine was Henry’s lawful wife; and while his lawful wife was living, Henry could not take Anne Boleyn as his wife. From which it follows that Rochester and More, who preferred to die rather than approve the second marriage, met death for the lawful power of the Supreme Pontiff in dispensing. And he to whom the cause of an unlawful marriage seems a carnal cause for undergoing martyrdom will be able also to mock the most holy Forerunner of our Lord, as having had a carnal cause of martyrdom; who, it is certain, was killed by Herod because he freely condemned his unlawful marriage. And what the author adduces against the blessed martyr of Rochester on page 109, the universal and Catholic consent of the English Church, saying that universality is in Bellarmine a mark of the true Church, is altogether ridiculous. As if the universality of the Christian Church ought to be reduced to the narrow bounds of a single island; and as if we did not know that that Catholic consent of the English Church was nothing else than the consent partly of flatterers, partly of men driven by force and fear; to which consent Rochester could have opposed the consent of the whole world, that is, of the Catholic Churches spread over the whole earth. Similar is what he adds on page 110, that there were very few of the common people, and none of the more distinguished men, who followed Rochester and More to martyrdom for this dogma. For we could adduce from the histories almost innumerable men of every kind who, from the year 1535 (the year in which those two lights fell) down to this year 1608, whether under Henry, or under Elizabeth, or under James, shed their blood for the faith of the Apostolic primacy. Let him who desires to behold that horrible butchery consult the seventh book of Nicholas Sander On the Visible Monarchy, the book of the same On the English Schism, the Commentary of Laurentius Surius on the things done in the world from the year 1509, the book On the Life and Martyrdom of the Carthusian Monks, and not a few other similar books.
At the end the author of the Apology sets about confirming from the words of God the royal primacy in spiritual things; and first he produces many arguments from the Old Testament, which, as they are produced by him cursorily, so also shall be refuted by us cursorily.
First: “Under the Old Testament,” he says, “kings were properly the governors of the Church, 2 Chronicles 19:4.” But not even the name of the Church is read in that place; and in the same chapter the office of the king is distinguished from the office of the high priest: “Amariah the priest and high priest shall preside in those things which pertain to God; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, who is ruler in the house of Judah, shall be over those works which pertain to the king’s office.” So the king did not have the primacy in spiritual things, since these did not pertain to his office.
Secondly: “Kings purged corruptions and removed abuses, 2 Samuel 5:6.” But nothing of the kind is read in the place cited, unless there is an error in the numbers; although we also do not deny that kings can and ought, by laws and punishments, to purge and remove corruptions and abuses, even in doctrine, after the Church’s declaration.
Thirdly: “They brought the Ark to its appointed place of rest, 1 Chronicles 13:12, and themselves danced before the same Ark as it was carried, 2 Samuel 6:14.” But not kings alone, but priests also, by common counsel, brought the Ark; and it was indeed lawful for King David to play and dance before the Ark, which was a matter of humility and reverence; but it was not lawful for him to touch the Ark, which was a matter of priestly power.
Fourthly: “They built the temple, 1 Chronicles 28; when built they dedicated it, and honoured the work of consecration with their bodily presence, 2 Chronicles 6.” But as we grant that to build temples and dedicate them to God belongs to the magnificence of kings, and to be present at the sacred solemnities by which temples are consecrated belongs to the piety of the same kings, so we deny that they can in any way be permitted to touch the pontifical office in the temple itself. From which it follows that the primacy in spiritual things in no way belongs to a king; of which King Uzziah can be witness, who, when he thought himself the head of the Church and wished to burn incense to the Lord, was at once repelled by the priests; and when he would not acquiesce in the priests, divine vengeance was straightway upon him. For, struck by God with leprosy, he not only deserved to be driven out of the temple, but was also compelled to dwell in a separate house, 2 Chronicles 26.
Fifthly: “They caused the book of the law newly found to be read to the people, 2 Kings 22:11.” But I do not know where this author found that the newly found book had to be read to the people by the king’s order. For in our Bibles, in the place noted by him, we have the book found in the temple by the high priest and read; then read also before the king, and the king sent some to consult the Lord about the words of the book. But what is there here for the primacy of the king in ecclesiastical and spiritual things?
Sixthly: “They renewed the covenant between God and the people, Nehemiah 9:38 and 2 Kings 8:4.” But there were no kings among the Jews in the time of Nehemiah; how then did kings renew the covenant between God and the people? So it was not kings, but the chief men of the Jews, both of the Levitical stock and of the other tribes, who struck the covenant again with God. Yet this we admit, although it is not written either in Nehemiah 9:38 or in 2 Kings 8:4, that it pertains to kings to renew the covenant between God and the people; since the kings themselves were the cause why the people departed from God through idolatry. I add that in 2 Kings 11 the high priest struck the covenant between God and the king and the people.
Eighthly: “They instituted public reformations, laymen being convoked and gathered for that purpose mixed with the priests, 2 Chronicles 17:8.” I do not find in the place noted any reformation of this kind; but only that Jehoshaphat sent many of the Levites and priests, and other learned men, to teach the people. That mission indeed shows the zeal and earnestness of the king; it does not show a primacy in spiritual things. For to the primacy properly belongs to teach, and to explain the doubtful points of the divine law, which office is attributed not to the king but to the high priest, Deuteronomy 17, whom all were bound to obey under pain of capital punishment.
Ninthly: “They deposed the high priest and put another in his place, 1 Kings 2:27.” But the high priest also not only deposed the queen, but even ordered her to be killed, and put another king in her place, 2 Kings 11. And it is one thing to relate the deeds of kings, another to prove authority and power; to pass over that that deed of Solomon in 1 Kings 2 is usually attributed to Solomon not as king but as a prophet, obtaining an extraordinary power from God.
Tenthly: “In sum,” he says, “they governed everything that in any way pertained to ecclesiastical government.” But here he ought to have alleged the word of God, not in those particular offices about which there is no controversy. For the question is this, whether ecclesiastical government belongs to a king; not whether it is lawful for a king to build temples, to dance before the Ark of the Lord, to kill idolaters, and other things of that kind. But here, where it was least fitting, the author of the Apology deserted the divine word. “But,” he says, “the Scriptures adorn kings with titles of honour which do not disagree with those actions; for they are called sons of the Most High, nay even gods, and the Lord’s anointed, sitting on the throne of God, servants of God, nay angels of God, made after the heart of God, lights of Israel, nursing fathers of the Church.” But the first title, for which the place 2 Samuel 7 is alleged, does not belong to kings in general, but only to Solomon, as he was a figure of Christ, of whom it was said by the angel, “and he shall be called the Son of the Most High,” Luke 1; although in Deuteronomy, chapter 32, it is said to the whole people, “Is not he thy Father, who made thee and created thee?” and we all say to God, “Our Father, who art in heaven.” The second title belongs not to kings alone, but to all judges, whether ecclesiastical or political. For so those words of the same Psalm teach that the place cited by the author, Psalm 82, “I have said, ye are gods,” is to be understood: “God stood in the synagogue of gods, and in the midst he judges gods: how long will you judge unjustly,” and so on. The place also alleged from the book of Exodus, chapter 22, is understood of judges, not of kings, because there were then no kings among the people of God. The third title is common to kings with high priests; for both among the Hebrews were anointed; but among us many kings are not anointed, while no bishops are consecrated without holy oil. The fourth title I do not know whence it crept in here. For in 2 Samuel, chapter 3, verse 10, the place alleged in the margin, “the throne of David” is read, “the throne of God” is not read. The fifth title is too common, since it belongs to all created things, of which it is said, Psalm 119, “for all things serve thee.” The sixth title, in the place alleged, 2 Samuel, chapter 14, is attributed to David alone, not on account of the royal power, but on account of the singular wisdom with which he was endowed. But of the priest in general Malachi writes, chapter 2: “The lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.” The seventh title is proper to David, not common to all kings; otherwise Saul too, and Jeroboam, and Ahab, and the rest would have been after the heart of God. The eighth belongs to priests rather than to kings; for they were the lamps, or, as the author speaks, the lights of Israel; and to them the Lord says, “You are the light of the world,” Matthew 5. The ninth title truly and properly belongs to kings, that they should be nursing fathers of the Church; but it is as much inferior to that title which belongs to priests, and especially to the Supreme Pontiffs, as a nursing father is inferior to a parent. For that the Supreme Pontiff is the father of the Christian people Saint Augustine says in letter 161, and the usage of the whole Christian world confirms. Wherefore, if the author of the Apology has nothing else from the word of God from which to establish the primacy of the king in ecclesiastical matters, we can truly affirm that this primacy was brought into England not from the word of God but from the word of Henry VIII.
But the author of the Apology, as if he had already laid the most solid foundations from the Old Testament, adds on page 112 the rest of the building from the New Testament. “What,” he says, “in the New Testament? Every soul is commanded to be subject to them, and that for conscience’ sake, Romans 13. Prayer is to be made indeed for all, but especially for kings and those set in authority, that under them we may lead a godly, peaceable and honest life, 1 Timothy 2. The magistrate is the minister of God, both to punish evildoers and to reward the innocent and upright, Romans 13. All indeed must obey the higher powers, but chiefly princes and those placed in eminence, 1 Peter 2. Render to every one what is his, fear to whom fear, love to whom love is rightly due, Romans 13. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s, Matthew 22. My kingdom is not of this world, John 18. Who made me a judge over you? Luke 12. The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, but you not so, Luke 22.” These are all the testimonies of the word of God which the adversary was able to allege from the New Testament for the primacy of the king in spiritual things. To which it can be answered in almost a single word: from these testimonies nothing is effected for the primacy of the king in spiritual things, unless we wish pagan kings and persecutors of the Church to have been made by God the supreme governors of the Church in spiritual things. For these testimonies pertain to pagan emperors, such as there were when the New Testament was written, namely to Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero. And although some of the sentences cited may apply also to Christian kings, and some also rightly pertain to all princes, both ecclesiastical and secular, such as this, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,” yet no one can deny that they apply also to pagan kings, as containing a doctrine common to all princes, whether pagan or Christian. Otherwise Peter and Paul would in vain have admonished the Christians of their time of their duty towards kings or emperors, whom they could not be ignorant were pagans. And there is no one who does not see how absurd it is that pagan kings, who are not of the Church, should have the primacy in the Church; and that those who are enemies of Christ should be vicars of Christ; and that those who command Christ to be denied and idols to be worshipped should be obeyed by Christians in spiritual things as supreme governors. Then, what kind of arguments are these, and by what rule of logic do they conclude: “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, but you not so”: therefore the king has the primacy in the Church in spiritual things? Or, “My kingdom is not of this world”: therefore the king is the supreme governor, even in ecclesiastical causes? Or, “Render the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar, the things that are God’s to God”: therefore the Pope has no right in England, not even as regards spiritual things? I believe indeed that if the adversary were to turn over the books of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics with the utmost diligence for many years, he would never find the middle term in these arguments. Since these things are so, let the adversary cease to play with the holy Scriptures, and to abuse their testimonies to establish that primacy which not only the Catholic Church has always detested, but which Calvin himself with the school of Geneva never approved; and which in England itself, as having sprung from royal cupidity, even the Puritans themselves have always borne with the greatest reluctance.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Pag. 102. aggreditur auctor aliam digres¬
sionem. « De uno vero verbo, inquit, quod
ab ea ponitur in media quasi turba exem¬
plorum, non sane possum, quin eum vehe¬
menter collaudem. Id autem unum, hoc est :
quod omne genus supplicii, ipsamque adeo
mortem Martyres tolerare oporteat, potius*
quam unam syllabam divinae legis corrum¬
pi sinant. Ad quam amussim si ipse se exi¬
geret, et reliqui ejusdem fidei cum illo pro¬
fessores sese componerent, nec Eucharistia
jam administraretur sub una specie contra
evidentissimam Christi institutionem, contra
praxim Apostolorum, institutumque totius
primitivae Ecclesiae-per non pauca saecula :
(a) Nec vero Missae privatae successissent in
locum Coenae Dominicae, nec verba canonis
Missae verbis opponerentur sanctorum Lucae
et Pauli ; in quo habemus adversarium no¬
strum confitentem reum, et omnino recon¬
ciliari ea posse negantem inter se » . Haec
ille, qui quam vere loquatur in iis, quae sine
ulla probatione dicit de communione sub
una specie, et de missis privatis; (6) intel-
ligi poterit ex mendacio, quod adjungit de
oppositione verborum Canonis ad verba
sanctorum Lucae et Pauli. Et quoniam ha¬
bere se dicit Bellarminum adversarium con¬
fitentem reum, et ea reconciliari inter se
posse negantem, adscribemus ipsa Bellar-
mini verba ex loco quem ipse allegat. Sic
igitur scribit Bellarminus lib. iv. de Sacra¬
mento Eucharistiae cap. 14. « Secundo ca¬
lumniatur Kemnitius detracta esse illa verba
ex consecratione panis, Quod pro vobis tra¬
ditur, vel frangitur. Respondeo, illa verba
non haberi apud Matthaeum, et Marcum, nec
apud Justinum Apologia secunda, Cyrillum
catechesi 4. Mystagogica, etEusebium Emis-
senum homil. 5. de Paschate : cum tamen ii
omnes referant formam consecrationis. Et
sicut hos auctores reprehendere non possu¬
mus; ita nec nostram reprehendere ullus de¬
beret, praesertim cum antiquior sit liturgia no -
stra, si a sancto Petro prodiit (ut S. Thomas
docet 3. p. quaest. 18. art. 2. ad 4. et ante
eum Leo IX. in epistola ad Michaelem
cap. 3.) quam Evangelium Lucae, et Epistola
Pauli, qui addiderunt illa verba : Quod pro
vobis frangitur. » Haec sunt verba, in quibus
auctor Apologiae dicit contineri oppositi¬
onem verborum canonis missae ad verba Lu¬
cae et Pauli; et ex quibus gloriatur se habere
adversarium confitentem reum, et negantem
ista posse ullo modo inter se conciliari. At
ubi est in his verbis ulla mentio oppositionis?
ubi est contradictio irreconciliabilis ? ubi
confessio rei ? Docet Bellarminus Canonem
Missae optime se habere, etiam si in eo de¬
sint pauca illa verba : Quod pro vobis fran¬
gitur. Probat primo, quia consecratio panis
est apud Matthaeum et Marcum sine illis ver¬
bis, quod est argumentum certissimum, ea
verba non esse de essentia consecrationis;
alioqui enim, qui habebant Evangelium so¬
lius Matthaei, vel solius Marci, non recte
consecrationem peregissent. Probat secundo,
quia Justinus Martyr, Cyrillus Hierosolymi¬
tanus, et Eusebius Emissenus referunt verba
consecrationis sine illis verbis. Probat tertio,
quia liturgia nostra latina censetur a sancto
Petro tradita; proinde verba consecrationis,
quae sunt in nostro Canone reprehendi non
possunt, etiamsi careant illis verbis, quae
sunt addita a sanctis Luca et Paulo : quae
verba non sunt contraria verbis Canonis, alio¬
qui essent etiam contraria verbis sancto¬
rum Matthaei et Marci, sed nulla est contra-
rietas. Nam Matthaeus et Marcus brevius;
Lucas et Paulus paulo fusius rem eamdem
scribere voluerunt.
Jam vero quoniam Bellarminus in Epistola
sua meminerat (e) Nicolai Sanderi, eumque
laudaverat, ut hominem de Ecclesia Angli-
cana optime meritum; auctor Apologiae re¬
spondet pag. 104. Sanderum fuisse quidem
optime meritum de Ecclesia Angloromana,
sed meritum pessime de regina Anglicana,
et universo regno. Id ut probet, describit
aliquot sententias ex libris ejus, quas ironice
(o) Mendacium circa Missas privatas . — (b) An Catholici discedant a verbo Dei. — (c) De Nicolao
Sandero.
250
RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM
aureolas vocat : sed ese sententiae nobis vere
aureae esse videntur : quas tamen omittimus
hic adscribere, quia nec adversarius ad eas
refellendas aliquid attulit ; et nos librum nos¬
trum ex alienis scriptis augere non voluimus.
Pag. 106. reprehendit Bellarminum, quod
prope finem Epistolae suae scripserit : (a)
Joannem Roffensem et Thomam Morum
mortem oppetiisse pro hoc uno gravissimo
dogmate de Primatu Pontificis : ac probare
nititur eos mortem oppetiisse, non pro hoc
uno dogmate, sed etiam quod approbare no~
luerint secundum matrimonium regis Hen-
rici : et affert ipsa verba Thomae Mori ad
judices : « Non ignoro, inquit, cur me morti
adjudicaveritis, videlicet ob id, quod num-
quam assentire voluerim in negotio matri-
moniii regis, et tandem subjicit Auctor Apo-
logiae : Quae meo judicio valde carnalis causa
Martyrii fuit. » At Bellarminus non dixit
Joannem Roffensem et Thomam Morum pro
hac sola causa Primatus mortem oppetiisse;
sed pro hac una causa duces fuisse plurimis,
ad martyrium. 111 enim, qui regnante Eliza-
betha necati sunt, non pro causa matrimo¬
nii, sed pro causa primatus necati sunt : illis
autem duces ad Martyrium Roffensis et Mo¬
rus fuerunt. Quod autem duo isti clarissimi
viri pro Primatu Pontificis asserendo, et pri¬
matu regis detestando mortui sint, auctor
Apologise negare non potest, nisi verborum
suorum oblivisci velit, quse in hoc ipso libro
pag. 48. habentur. « Sub Henrico, inquit,
octavo primum introductum est juramentum
primatus; sed eoque Thomas Morus et Rof¬
fensis supplicio affecti, idque partim ob eam
causam, quod juramentum illud recusarent. »
Sed neque causa matrimonii a causa prima¬
tus tantum differebat, ut non posset etiam
ad primatus causam revocari, quod enim in
quaestionem tunc vertebatur circa matrimo¬
nium, illud erat : Utrum summus Pontifex
dispensare potuisset, ut Henricus Cathaii-
nam uxorem fratris sui Arthuri jam defun¬
cti duceret. Posita enim legitima dispensa¬
tione, Catharina legitima Henrici uxor erat,
at vero legitima uxore vivente, non poterat
Henricus Annam Bolenam conjugem acci¬
pere. Ex quo sequitur ut Roffensis et Morus,
qui mori maluerunt, quam secundum matri¬
monium approbare, pro legitima potestate
summa Pontificis in dispensando mortem
(a) De Joanne Roffenei et Thoma Moro.
Anglia. — (c) Quce scripturae testimonia
oppetierint. Cui autem carnalis causa mar¬
tyrii suscipiendi videtur esse causa illegitimi
matrimonii, is poterit etiam irridere sanctis¬
simum Praecursorem Domini nostri, quod
carnalem causam martyrii habuerit, quem
constat ab Herode occisum, quod ejusillegi-
gitimum matrimonium libere improbaret.
*Quod vero contra B. Martyrem Roffensem
auctor adducit pag. 109. Universalem atque
Catholicum Ecclesiae Anglicanee consensum,
ac dicit universalitatem apud Bellarminum
esse notam verae Ecclesiae, omnino ridicu¬
lum est. Quasi Christianae Ecclesiae univer¬
sitas, ad unius Insulse angustias redigi de¬
beat : et quasi non sciamus Catholicum il¬
lum consensum Ecclesiae Anglicanse, nihil
fuisse aliud, nisi consensum partim homi¬
num adulatorum, partim vi, et metu com¬
pulsorum, cui consensui opponere Roffensis
4 potuisset consensum Orbis terrae, id est Ec¬
clesiarum Catholicarum toto terrarum orbe
diffusarum.
Simile est, quod addit pag. UO. Perpau¬
cos fuisse e popularibus, nullos autem ex in¬
signioribus viris, qui Roffensem et Morum
pro hoc dogmate ad Martyrium secuti sunt,
(i b ) Nos enim ex historiis prope innumera¬
biles omnium generum adducere possemus,
qui ab anno 1595. (quo tmno duo illa lumina
occubuerunt) usque ad hunc annum 1608.
tum regnante Henrico, tum regnante Eliza-
betha, tum regnante Jacobo, pro fide pri¬
matus Apostolici sanguinem effuderunt.
Consulat, qui carnificinam horribilem spe¬
ctare cupit, librum septimum Nicolai San-
deri de visibili Monarchia, librum ejusdem
de Anglicano schismate, Commentarium Lau¬
rentii Surii de rebus gestis in Orbe terrarum
ab anno 1509., librum de vita et Martyrio
Carthusiensium Monachorum, et alios simi¬
les libros non paucos.
Ad extremum auctor Apologise confir¬
mare aggreditur ex verbis Dei primatum
regium in spiritualibus ac primum producit
multa argumenta ex testamento veteri : quse
ut ab ipso cursim producuntur ; sic etiam a
nobis cursim refutabuntur.
Primo : (c) a Sub veteri, inquit, testa¬
mento reges proprie erant gubernatores Ec¬
clesiae. 2. Chron. 19. 4. » At ne nomen qui¬
dem Ecclesise eo loco legilur net in eodem
capite distinguitur officium regis ab officio
(b) Martyres qui secuti sunt Roffensem et Morum in
offerantur pro regis primatu.
PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS
251
Pontificis. Amarias Sacerdos et Pontifex in
his, quae ad Deum pertinent, praesidebit :
Porro Zabadias filius Ismael , qui est dux in
domo Juda, super ea opera erit, quae ad re¬
gis officium pertinent. Non igitur rex prima¬
tum habebat in spiritualibus, cum ea ad of¬
ficium ejus non pertinerent.
Secundo, « Reges corruptelas purgavere,*
abusus sustulere. II Sam. v. 6. » At nihil
ejusmodi legitur in loco citato, nisi sit error
in numeris, quamquam etiam non negamus,
posse ac debere reges corruptelas, et abu¬
sus, sive etiam in doctrina, post Ecclesiae
declarationem, legibus et suppliciis purgare
ac tollere.
Tertio : « Arcam ad constitutum quietis
locum perduxere. I. Chron. 13. 12. et eidem
Arcae deportandae ipsi praesulta vere. II.
Sam. vi. 14. » At non soli reges, sed etiam
Sacerdotes communi consilio Arcam de¬
duxerunt : et licuit quidem Davidi regi lu¬
dere ac saltare ante Arcam, quod humilitatis
et reverentiae erat : non tamen licuit illi Ar¬
cam contingere quod potestatis Sacerdotalis
erat.
Quarto : « Templum aedificavere, I. Chron.
28. aedificatum dedicavere, et suis corpori¬
bus opus consecrationis praesentes cohone¬
stavere, II. Chron. 6. » At sicut templa
aedificare, Deoque dicare, ad magnificentiam
regum, et sacris solemniis, quibus templa
consecrantur, interesse ad pietatem eorura-
dem regum pertinere concedimus : ita ne¬
gamus in ipso templo Pontificale munus at¬
tingere illis ullo modo posse permitti. Ex quo
sequitur, ut primatus in spiritualibus regi
nulla ratione conveniat, cujus rei testis esse
potest rex Ozias, qui cum se caput Eccle¬
siae esse arbitraretur, velletque incensum
adolere Domino , continuo a Sacerdotibus
non repulsus fuit : et cum Sacerdotibus
acquiesceret, mox adfuit vindicta divina.
Nam lepra divinitus percussus, non solum
ex Templo expelli meruit; sed etiam in domo
separata habitare coactus est. II Paral.
XXVI.
Quinto : « Librum legis de novo repertum
populo recitari fecere. II Iteg. xxn. 11. » At
nescio ubi invenerit auctor iste librum de
novo inventum, populo jussu regis legi de¬
buisse. Nam in nostris Bibliis loco ab ipso
notato, habemus librum in templo a ponti¬
fice inventum et lectum : deinde leclum
etiam coram rege, et regem misisse aliquos,
qui consulerent Dominum super verbis libri.
Sed quid hic est pro primatu regis in rebus
Ecclesiasticis, et spiritualibus ?
Sexto : « Foedus inter Deum, populumque
redintegravere. Nehem ix.38. et 11 Reg.vm.
4.» At nulli erant reges apud Judaeos tempore
Nehemiae : quomodo ergo reges foedus red¬
integravere inter Deum et populum ? Non
igitur reges, sed primores Judaeorum tum
Levitici generis, tum etiam aliarum tribuum
foedus iterum percusserunt cum Deo ; sed
illud tamen admittimus, quamvis scriptum
non sit neque Nehem. xi. 38 neque II Re¬
gum viii. 4. ad reges pertinere, redintegrare
foedus inter Deum, et populum : quoniam
ipsi reges fuerunt in causa, cur populus per
idololatriam a Deo recederet. Addo quod IV
Regum 15. Pontifex percussit foedus inter
Deum, ac regem, ac populum.
Octavo : « Reformationes publicas insti¬
tuere, convocatis eo fine, et congregatis
nrixtim cum sacerdote laicis. II. Chr. 17. 8. »
Non invenio loco notato ejusmodi reforma¬
tionem : sed solum quod miserit Josaphat
multos ex Levitis, et Sacerdotibus, aliisque
viris doctis, qui populos docerent. Ista vero
missio studium ac zelum regis ostendit ;
primatum in spiritualibus non ostendit. Ad
primatum enim proprie pertinet docere, et
legis divinae dubia explicare, quod munus
non regi, sed summo sacerdoti tribuitur.
Deut. xvii, cui omnes sub poena ultimi sup¬
plicii parere tenebantur.
Nono : « Pontificem summum exauctora-
vere, aliumque in ejus locum subrogavere.
I Regum ii. 27.» At Pontifex quoque reginam
non solum exauctoravit, sed etiam interfici
juSsit, et regem alium subrogavit. IV Regum
xi. et aliud est facta regum referre, aliud
auctoritatem , potestatemque probare , ut
omittam, quod factum illud Salomonis ex I
Reg. ii. tribui solet Salomoni, non ut regi,
sed ut prophetae, extraordinariam potesta¬
tem divinitus obtinenti.
Decimo : « In summa, inquit, cuncta mo¬
derati sunt, quae ad Ecclesiasticum regimen
quoquo modo pertinuere. » At hic oportuit
allegare verbum Dei, non in particularibus
illis officiis, de quibus non controvertitur.
De hoc enim quaestio est, an regi conveniat
regimen Ecclesiasticum ; non autem an li¬
ceat regi t,empla aedificare, ante Arcam
Domini saltare, idololatras interficere, et
alia id genus ; sed hic, ubi minime oportuit,
deseruit auctor Apologiae Verbum divinum.
« At, inquit, Scripturae ornant reges titulis
252
RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM
honorariis, qui ab actionibus illis non discor¬
dant, vocantur enim filii Altissimi, imo vero
dii, et uncti Domini, in Dei solio sedentes,
famuli Dei, imo Angeli Dei, facti juxta cor
Dei, lumina Jsraelis, nutricii Ecclesiae. » Sed
primus titulus, pro quo allegatur locus II.
Samuelis vii. non convenit regibus genera-
tim, sed solum Salomoni, ut figura Christi
erat, de quo dictum est ab Angelo : Et filius
Altissimi vocabitur , Lucec i., quamquam in
Deuteron, cap. xxxii. toti populo dicitur,
Nonne ipse est Pater tuus , qui fecit te , et crea¬
vit te ? et nos omnes Deo dicimus : Pater no¬
ster qui es in C celis ? Secundus titulus non so¬
lis regibus, sed omnibus judicibus convenit,
sive Ecclesiastici, sive politici sint. Sic enim
locum ab Auctore citatum. Psalm. Lxxxn.i^o
dixi dii estis , intelligendum esse docent illa
verba ejusdem Psalmi : Deus stetit in Syna¬
goga Deorum , in medio autem Deos dijudicat :
usquequo judicatis iniquitatem , ,ete. Locus
quoque ex libro Exodi allegatus cap. xxn, de
judicibus, non de regibus intelligitur, quia
nulli tunc erant reges in populo Dei. Tertius
titulus communis est regibus cum Pontifici¬
bus : utri que enim apud Hebraeos ungeban¬
tur, apud nos autem multi reges non ungun¬
tur, nulli autem Pontifices sine sacro oleo
consecrantur. Quartus titulus non scio unde
huc irrepserit. Nam in lib. II Samuelis cap.
m. 10. qui locus ad marginem allegatur,
thronus David legitur, Solium Dei non legi¬
tur. Quintus titulusnimis est vulgaris; quippe
qui convenit omnibus rebus creatis, de qui¬
bus dicitur. Psalm. cxvm. Quoniam omnia
serviunt tibi. Sextus titulus in loco allegato
lib. II Samuelis cap. xiv. soli Davidi tribui¬
tur, non ob regiam potestatem, sed ob sin¬
gularem sapientiam, qua praeditus erat. De
Sacerdote autem generatim scribit Malachias
cap. ii . Labia Sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam,
et legem requirent ab ore ejus , quia Angelus
Domini exercituum est . Septimus titulus pro¬
prius est Davidis, non communis omnibus
regibus; alioqui etiam Saul, et Ilieroboam,
etAchab, et caeteri fuissent secundum cor
Dei. Octavus magis convenit Sacerdotibus,
quam regibus : illi enim erant lucernae ; vel,
ut auctor loquitur, luminaria Israel : istis
autem Dominus dicit : Vos estis lux mundi { I),
Matth. v. Nonus titulus vere, proprieque
regibus convenit, ut sint nutricii Ecclesiae,
sed tanto est inferior eo titulo, qui convenit
Sacerdotibus, ac praecipue summis Pontifi-
bus ; quanto nutricius est inferior parente.
Summum enim Pontificem Patrem esse
Christianae plebis sanctus Augustinus dicite
in epistol. 161, et totius Orbis Christiani
usus confirmat. Quare, si nihil aliud habet
auctor Apologiae ex verbo Dei, unde Prima¬
tum regis in rebus Ecclesiasticis stabiliat ;
vere possumus affirmare, non ex verbo Dei,
sed ex verbo Henrici VIII. Primatum istum
in Angliam esse invectum.
Sed auctor Apologiae quasi jam ex Testa¬
mento veteri fundamenta solidissima jecisset,
addit pag. 112. (a) ex Testamento novo re¬
liquam aedificationem. «Quid, inquit, in novo
Testamento ? Omnis anima iis subjici jube¬
tur, idque propter conscientiam, Rom. xm.
Orandum quidem, et pro omnibus, sed prae¬
cipue pro regibus, et in auctoritate constitu¬
tis, ut sub iis piam et pacatam, honestamque
vitam degamus I. Tim. ii. Magistratus Dei
administer est, et ad ulciscendos facinorosos,
innocentes autem atque probos remuneran¬
dos, Rom. xm. Omnibus quidem obtempe¬
randum est superioribus potestatibus; sed
potissimum principibus, et in eminentia col¬
locatis, I. Petr. ii. Reddite unicuique quod
suum est, timorem cui timor, amorem cui
amor jure debetur, Rom. xm. Date Caesari
quae Caesaris sunt, Deo quae Dei sunt : Matth.
xxn. Regnum meum non est hujus mundi,
Joan. xvm. Quis me constituit judicem super
vos? Lucae xn. Reges gentium dominantur
eorum, vos autem non sic, Luc. xxn. »
Haec sunt omnia testimonia verbi Dei, quae
adversarius pro primatu regis in spirituali¬
bus ex novo Testamento allegare potuit. Ad
quae unico pene verbo responderi potest, (b)
Ex his testimoniis nihil effici pro primatu
regis in spiritualibus, nisi velimus reges Pa¬
ganos, et Ecclesiae persecutores factos esse
a Deo supremos Ecclesiae gubernatores in
rebus spiritualibus. Nam haec testimonia ad
imperatores Paganos pertinent, quales erant
cum Testamentum novum scriberetur, vide¬
licet ad Tiberium, Caium, Claudium, et Ne¬
ronem. Et quamvis aliquae sententiae ex ci-
(1) Luc. 1, 31; Deut. XXXII, 6; Psalm. LXXX1I. 6; Exod. XXII, \ ; Psalm. CXVIII, 91 ; Malach.
II, 7; Matth. V, 14.
(a) De eadem re ex Testamento novo. — (b) Reponsio ad loca testamenti novi allata pro regis
primatu.
PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS
253
tatis convenire possint etiam regibus Chri¬
stianis, aliquae etiam ad omnes principes
tum Ecclesiasticos, tum saeculares jure per¬
tineant, qualis illa est : Omnis anima subli¬
mioribus potestatibus subdita sit , tamen nemo
^ficiari potest, quin regibus quoque paganis
conveniant, ut quae doctrinam contineant
principibus omnibus communem, sive Paga¬
ni, sive Christiani sint. Alioqui frustra Petrus,
et Paulus Christianos sui temporis admonuis¬
sent officii ergareges, sive imperatores, quos
Paganos esse ignorare non poterant. Ac ne¬
mo est, qui non videat, quam sit absurdum,
ut reges Pagani qui non sunt de Ecclesia,
primatum habeant in Ecclesia : et qui Christi
hostes sunt, vicarii Christi sint : et qui Chri¬
sti abnegari, et idola coli jubent, iis a Chri¬
stianis in spiritualibus, ut summis guber¬
natoribus sit obediendum. Deinde quales ar¬
gumentationes istae sunt, et secu,ndum quam
regulam dialecticae concludunt, regesgentium
dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic : ergo
rex primatum habet in Ecclesia in rebus spi¬
ritualibus ? Vel, regnum meum non est hu¬
jus mundi : ergo rex est supremus guberna¬
tor, etiam in causis ecclesiasticis? Yel : Red¬
dite quae sunt Caesaris Cesari , quae sunt Dei
Deo : ergo Papa nullum jus habet in Anglia,
nec etiam quoad spiritualia? Credo equidem,
si adversarius libros Priorum Analyticorum
Aristotelis summa diligentia annis multis
evolveret : numquam medium terminum in
his argumentationibus inveniret. Quse cum
ita sint, desinat adversarius in Scripturis
sanctis ludere, earumque testimoniis abuti ad
eum Primatum stabiliendum, quem non so¬
lum Ecclesia Catholica semper detestata est ;
sed etiam Calvinus ipse cum schola Gene-
vensi numquam approbavit: et quem in ipsa
Anglia, ut a regia cupiditate exortum, ipsi
etiam Puritani molestissime semper tule¬
runt.