Bellarmine · Responsio Matthaei Torti · Answer to the Book Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, or Apology for the Oath of Allegiance
Chapter 11: The Apology Answered from Page 114 to the End: Thirteen Sayings Charged against Bellarmine's Books, the Names Supreme Pontiff and Head of the Faith, and the Name Catholic
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).
I come now to those things which the author of the Apology, on pages 114 and 115, brought forward from Bellarmine’s writings to stir up ill will against him, as though they were little honourable, or even injurious, to princes, and contrary to the titles written above.
First. Bellarmine lays it down that kings are servants rather than lords, in the book On the Laity, chapter 7; in the book written in English, to increase the ill will, kings are named not servants of any sort, but bondslaves.
Answer. Bellarmine’s saying is taken from Augustine, who speaks thus in book 19 of the City of God, chapter 14: “Those who command serve those whom they seem to command.” Where those who command are called servants not as if they were subject to the peoples, but because they labour in ruling and commanding, not for their own advantage or desire, which is the way of tyrants, but for the advantage of the people and for the public good; as blessed Paul called himself the servant of the Corinthians, 2 Corinthians 4, because he laboured for their benefit; and yet he had power over them, and threatened them, saying, “What will you? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in the spirit of meekness?” 1 Corinthians 4. As also Gregory the Great named himself the servant of the servants of God; which title, as very honourable, all his successors have imitated.
Secondly. The same Bellarmine says that kings are subject not only to bishops but even to priests and deacons, book 1 On the Pontiff, chapter 7.
Answer. Bellarmine took this not out of his own head, but from Saint John Chrysostom, whose words are these in homily 83 on Matthew: “If any general, if any consul, if he who is adorned with the diadem approaches unworthily, restrain and check him; you have greater power than he.” So he, who was speaking to a deacon when he said this.
Thirdly. That the emperor ought without reluctance to drink not only after the bishop, but even after the priest. Same place.
Answer. Neither does Bellarmine affirm this of himself, but reports the judgement of Saint Martin reclining at table with the Emperor Maximus; which history Sulpicius relates in the life of Saint Martin.
Fourthly. That the authority and function of kings does not descend immediately from God, nor from divine law, but only from the law of nations. Same place, and the book On Clerics, chapter 28.
Answer. Bellarmine asserts this from the common opinion of almost all writers, and from usage itself. For we see kingdoms changed into commonwealths and commonwealths into kingdoms, and yet both governments held equally just; which could in no way be if the authority of kings depended not on human will but on divine law.
Fifthly. That many emperors have been deposed by Pontiffs, but no Pontiffs by emperors, book 3 On the Pontiff, chapter 15.
Answer. Bellarmine nowhere says that no Pontiff was deposed by an emperor; but if he had added that too, he would have spoken truly; since John XII and Gregory VI, and any others who are said to have been deposed by emperors, were deposed not properly by emperors, but by councils of bishops, the emperors procuring it. And that this was done not lawfully but by injury we could easily demonstrate, and that a lawful Pontiff could never by right be deposed by an emperor.
Sixthly. That it is lawful for bishops, who are the Pope’s bondslaves, to depose princes and rescind their laws.
Answer. Rightly is no place from Bellarmine’s books cited, because no such place exists in his books. Nor are bishops called bondslaves, but venerable brethren, by the Supreme Pontiffs.
Seventhly. That ecclesiastical men are as far above princes as the soul is above the body, the book On the Laity, chapter 18.
Answer. This is said not of any ecclesiastics whatever, but of the princes of the Churches; and that opinion is found in so many words in Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration to the people struck with fear and the angry governor.
Eighthly. That kings can be deposed by their subjects for many causes, book 5 On the Pontiff, chapter 8.
Answer. The adversary does not act in good faith. For Bellarmine in the place cited does not say that kings can be deposed by their subjects, but only produces twelve examples, partly from the Old Testament, partly from various histories or ecclesiastical decrees, from which it is plain that kings or emperors have sometimes been deposed by the Supreme Pontiffs; of deposition by subjects not even a word.
Ninthly. That Pontiffs can in no way be deposed, for it is permitted to no mortal to judge of them, book 2 On the Pontiff, chapter 26.
Answer. What Bellarmine wrote was written in express words many centuries ago in the general councils which he himself cited in that place; so the adversary, as in the foregoing he censured under Bellarmine’s name the holy Fathers Augustine, Chrysostom, Martin and Nazianzen, so in this place has presumed to pick a quarrel not with Bellarmine alone, but with several general councils.
Tenthly. That obedience is owed to the Pope for conscience’ sake, book 4 On the Pontiff, chapter 15.
Answer. The adversary advances happily enough in his accusation of Bellarmine; for he who has hitherto accused the holy Fathers and the sacred councils under Bellarmine’s name now at last accuses even the word of God itself and the Holy Spirit; as whoever is willing to read the following chapter, that is chapter 16 of book 4 On the Pontiff, will understand. For in that place it is shown by many and plain testimonies of divine Scripture that not only the Supreme Pontiff but the other bishops also can make laws which their subjects are bound to obey for conscience’ sake.
Eleventhly. That obedience is owed to the king in no other respect than on account of political order, the book On Clerics, chapter 28.
Answer. The adversary after his manner betrays himself a calumniator. For in that place Bellarmine does not dispute of the obedience which is owed to the king by his subjects; of that he disputes in the book On the Laity, where in chapter 3 and chapter 11 he proves from the divine writings that obedience is owed to kings and other political magistrates, and that before God and for conscience’ sake. But in the book On Clerics, chapter 28, he demonstrates that clerics are exempt from the jurisdiction of secular princes, and so are not subjects of kings; but that they ought nevertheless to observe their laws about temporal things, not by force of the law but by force of reason; that is, not because they are subjects, but because reason dictates that for the common good and the peace of the commonwealth those laws are to be kept by all.
Twelfthly. That those very ecclesiastical men who are both born and live in the kingdoms of princes are nevertheless not their subjects, nor can be judged by them; but that it is lawful for them to judge their princes. Same place.
Answer. The adversary, to stir up ill will against Bellarmine, always adds something which is not found in Bellarmine’s books. Bellarmine does indeed affirm, with the common opinion of Catholics, that ecclesiastics are exempt from the power of earthly princes; but those particles, “who are both born and live in the kingdoms of princes,” Bellarmine did not put in his book; not because he does not think them true, but because there was no need to descend to these things; but the adversary needed to express them to stir up hatred. And that clause, “but that it is lawful for them to judge their princes,” Bellarmine not only did not say, but believes to be false. For these words signify that it is lawful for any ecclesiastic, even the most private, to judge his prince, just as every ecclesiastic, even the most private, is exempt from subjection to a secular prince. But that it is lawful for every ecclesiastic, even a private one, to judge his prince, Bellarmine never said, never believed, never dreamed.
Thirteenthly. Finally, that the obedience which clerics render to kings, even in the least and purely civil affairs, is not from any necessary subjection, but only from discretion, and for the observance of good order and custom. Same place.
Answer. This is not the private opinion of Bellarmine, but of all Catholic Doctors, both theologians and jurists; for although Catholic writers dispute by what right the exemption was given to clerics, yet that it was given, and received in usage from the most ancient times, no Catholic calls in doubt.
Since these things are so, when the adversary gathers that there is a vast difference between the book of God and the Bellarminian volumes, and that God and Belial, light and darkness, heaven in short and hell, are not further apart than the Bellarminian judgement on royal majesty differs from the divine judgement on the same, he could with the same ease, but with greater rashness, have gathered that the holy Fathers and divine Scripture itself have pronounced contrary judgements on the majesty of kings; for Bellarmine has asserted nothing about the power of the Pontiffs, about the exemption of clerics, about the obedience of kings and princes, which he has not drawn from the word of God, the authority of councils, the doctrines of the Fathers, and the sense and consent of the Church.
There remains the last part of the Apology, which is contained in the three final pages. In it the adversary praises the words of exhortation which Bellarmine uses in his letter; but censures him for having mixed with such holy sentences taken from Scripture itself certain terms, some of which are profane, such as that of “Supreme Pontiff,” which is never read in the whole of Scripture; others belong to Christ alone, such as that of “head of the faith,” which the Apostles attributed to Christ alone.
But Bellarmine reads in the book of Judith, chapter 15: “Now Joakim the high priest”; which book, although you Calvinists with the Jews do not receive among the sacred books, we Catholics nevertheless, with the Synod of Nicaea, gladly receive. And although your masters deny that the book is divine, they do not dare to call it profane. But besides, is not the name of Pontiff read very frequently in the Scriptures of the Old Testament? And is not the same name, with the word “great” joined to it, read in the Epistle to the Hebrews? For so we have in chapter 4: “Having therefore a great high priest, who has passed into the heavens, Jesus.” With what face, then, do you dare to call profane a term which the Holy Spirit attributes to Christ himself? Unless perhaps you think there is so much difference between “great Pontiff” and “greatest Pontiff” that “great Pontiff” is to be called a sacred term and “greatest Pontiff” a profane one; as if Christ could not piously be called the greatest Pontiff, as he was called the great Pontiff. Then, so many holy Fathers have called the Roman Bishop the supreme or greatest Pontiff that their authority plainly suffices to refute the rashness of this man. See the letter of Stephen, Bishop of Carthage, to Saint Damasus; Gregory, book 1 of the Dialogues, chapter 4; Anselm in the preface of the book On the Incarnation of the Word to Pope Urban; Bernard in all his letters to the Roman Pontiffs Innocent II and Eugenius III.
As for the name “head of the faith,” I could have wished that the adversary, who affirms that this name was attributed by the Apostles to Christ alone, had noted even one place in the whole volume of the Bible where the Apostles attributed this name to Christ. I have read that Christ was called by the Apostles the author of the faith, and the head of the Church; but “head of the faith” I have not read. But neither did Bellarmine invent this term; he took it from Gregory. So let the adversary accuse not Bellarmine but Gregory, if he dares.
The author closes his Apology by asking his readers that, free from party spirit, they pass sentence on the truth, as he protests that he has candidly described it, to dispel that darkness of lies and calumnies which had been most unworthily heaped upon the most serene king against right and justice. I too close my answer; and since I hope that I have made the calumnies and lies of this Apology clearer than the very light of the sun, I shall not ask the readers to pass judgement, as on a doubtful matter, but only to bring the sense of their eyes to the writings, and, taught by the thing itself, to look upon the light of truth. This I have thought the reader should be reminded of at the end of my discourse, that one of the marks of the true Church has always been the name of Catholic; of which Saint Pacian in the letter to Sympronian says: “Catholic sounds neither of Marcion, nor of Apelles, nor of Montanus, nor takes heretics for its authors; Catholic is not borrowed from a man, which through so many ages has not fallen.” Likewise: “Christian is my name, Catholic my surname; the one names me, the other shows what I am.” Saint Cyril likewise, in Catechesis 18: “If you go into any city,” he says, “do not ask where the church is, or the house of God; for the heretics too say that they have a house of God and a church; but ask where the Catholic Church is; for that is the proper name of this holy Church, the Mother of us all.” Saint Augustine (that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand), in the book against the Epistle of the Foundation, chapter 4, describing the marks of the Church which kept him in the Catholic Church, says: “Lastly, the very name of Catholic holds me, which not without cause, among so many heresies, this Church alone has obtained.” When, therefore, the reader of the Apology sees at every third word those called Catholics in the Apology itself against whom the author of the Apology writes, and from whose communion he professes himself a stranger, he will certainly learn from the Apology itself that the author of this Apology is not a Catholic but plainly a heretic. From which, finally, he will easily judge how much credit is to be given him in other matters, who has condemned himself by his own judgement.
The end of the Answer to the Apology for the Oath of Allegiance.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Venio nunc ad ea, quae auctor Apologise pagina 114. et 115. ex Bellarmini scriptis at¬ tulit in medium, ad invidiam illi conflandam ; quasi parum honorifica, vel etiam injuriosa principibus, et suprascriptis titulis contraria sint. (a) Primo : Ponit Bellarminus, reges ser¬ vos potius esse quam dominos, lib. de laicis cap. 7. in lib. Anglice scripto, ad augendam invidiam, reges non servi qualescumque, sed mancipia nominantur. Respondeo, sententiam Bellarmini ex Au¬ gustino desumptam esse, qui sic ait lib. xix. de Civitate Dei cap. H. « Qui imperant, ser¬ viunt eis, quibus videntur imperare. » Ubi qui imperant, non dicuntur servi quasi sub¬ jecti sint populis, sed quia laborant regendo, et imperando, non propter suam vel utilita¬ tem, vel cupiditatem, quod tyrannorum est; sed propter populi utilitatem, et propter pu¬ blicum bonum : quomodo B. Paulus servum se Corinthiorum appellavit II Corinth. iv. quia in eorum commodum laborabat ; et ta¬ men in eos potestatem habebat, eisque mi¬ nabatur, dicens : Quid vultis ? in virga veniam ad vos , an in spiritu lenitatis ? I Corinth. iv. quomodo etiam Magnus Gregorius servum servorum Dei se nominabat : quem titulum, ut valde honorificum, successores omnes imitati sunt. Secundo : Dicit idem Bellarminus, reges subjectos esse non solum Pontificibus, sed etiam Presbyteris, et Diaconis, lib. i. de Pontif. cap. 7. Respondeo, id Bellarminus non ex capite suo, sed ex S. Joan. Chrysostomo accepisse, cujus hsec verba sunt homil. 83. in Matth. « Si Dux quispiam, si Consul, si is qui dia¬ demate ornatur indigne adeat, cohibe et coerce, majorem tu illo habes potestatem. » Hsec ille, qui ad diaconum loquebatur cum hsec diceret. lertio : Quod imperatorem non gravate bibere oporteat non solum post Episcopum, sed etiam post presbyterum. Ibidem. Respondeo, neque id Bellarminum ex se affirmare, sed referre judicium S. Martini apud Maximum imperatorem discumbentis : quam historiam refert Sulpitius in vita S. Martini. Quarto : Quod regum auctoritas, atque functio, non immediate ex Deo descendat, neque ex jure divino, sed dumtaxat ex jure gentium. Ibidem, et lib. de Clericis cap. 28. Respondeo, Bellarminum id asserere ex communisententia omnium penescriptorum, et ex ipso usu. Videmus enim regna in respu¬ blicas et' respublicas in regna mutari, et ta¬ men utrumque regimen seque justum haberi : quod nullo modo- fieret, si regum auctoritas (1) I Corinth. IV, 21. (a) Falsa Bellarmini ascripta , I 254 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM non ex humana voluntate, sed ex divino jure penderet. Quinto : Quod a Pontificibus imperatores inulti depositi fuerint ; nulli autem Pontifi¬ ces ab imperatoribus, lib m. de Pontif. cap. 15. Respondeo, Nusquam dicere Bellarmmum nullum Pontificem fuisse depositum ab Im¬ peratore : sed si illud etiam addidisset, ve¬ rum dixisset : siquidem Joannes XII. et Gregorius "VI. Etsi qui alii sunt, qui ab im¬ peratoribus depositi fuisse dicantur , non proprie ab imperatoribus, sed a Conciliis Episcoporum, imperatoribus procurantibus depositi fuerunt. Idque non legitime, sed per injuriam factum fuisse facile demonstrare possemus, et numquam legitimum Pontifi¬ cem jure ab imperatore potuisse deponi. Sexto : Quod Episcopis, qui mancipia sunt Papa, deponere licet principes, et eo¬ rum leges rescindere. Respondeo, merito non adscribi locum ex libris Bellarmini, quia ejusmodi locus non exstat in ejus libris. Neque Episcopi manci¬ pia, sed venerabiles Fratres a summis Pon¬ tificibus appellantur. Septimo : Quod Ecclesiastici homines tam longe supra principes sint, quam anima su¬ pra corpus, lib. de laicis cap. 18. Respondeo, id non de quibuslibet Eccle¬ siasticis, sed de Principibus Ecclesiarum dici; et eam sententiam apud S. Gregorium Nazianzenum in Oratione ad populum timore perculsum, et Prsesidem irascentem, totidem verbis haberi. Octavo : Quod reges deponi possunt per subditos suos ob multas causas, lib. v. de Pontif. cap. 8. Respondeo, non bona fide adversarium agere. Bellarminus enim in loco citato, non dicit Reges posse per sudbitos suos deponi, sed solum profert duodecim exempla, partim ex Testamento veteri, partim ex Historiis diversis, vel decretis Ecclesiasticis, ex quibus constat reges, vel imperatores aliquando a summis Pontificibus fuisse depositos, de de¬ positione per subditos ne verbum quidem. Nono : Pontifices nullo modo deponi posse : nemini enim mortalium permissum esse de iis judicare, lib. ii. de Pontifice cap. 26. Respondeo, quod Bellarminus scripsit, ante multa ssecula in generalibus Conciliis, quee ipse eo loco citavit, disertis verbis scri¬ ptum esse : proinde adversarius, ut in supe¬ rioribus, sub nomine Bellarmini, sanctos Pa¬ tres Augustinum, Chrysostomum, Martinum, Nazianzenum reprehendit; ita hoc loco non soli Bellarmino, sed etiam pluribus genera¬ libus conciliis litem movere praesumpsit. Decimo : Quod obedientia Papae debeatur propter conscientiam, lib. iv. de Pontif. cap. 15. Respondeo, adversarium satis feliciter pro¬ gredi in accusatione Bellarmini : qui enim sub nomine Bellarmini sanctos Patres, et sacra concilia hactenus accusavit; nunc tan¬ dem ipsum etiam Dei verbu m et Spiritum san¬ ctum accusat, quod intelliget, quicumque caput sequens, id est, caput sextum deci¬ mum libri iv. de Pontifice, legere voluerit. Nam eo loco multis, iisque perspicuis divinae Scripturae testimoniis ostenditur, non solum Pontificem summum, sed etiam Episcopos caeteros leges condere posse, quibus ob con¬ scientiam parere subditi teneantur. Undecimo : Quod obedientia regi non alio respectu debeatur, quam propter ordinem politicum, libro de Clericis cap. 28. Respondeo, adversarium more suo calum¬ niatorem se prodere. Neque enim eo loco Bellarminus disputat de obedientia, quae regi a subditis debetur, de ea enim disputat in libro de laicis ; ubi cap. 3. et cap. 11. probat ex divinis litteris non solum deberi regibus, aliisque politicis magistratibus obe- dientiam; verum etiam coram Deo , et pro¬ pter conscientiam. In libro autem de Clericis cap. 28. demonstrat Clericos exemptos esse a jurisdictione principum saecularium, ac per hoc non esse subditos regibus : sed debere tamen leges eorum de temporalibus rebus observare, non vi legis, sed vi rationis; id est, non quia subditi sint, sed quia ratio dictat, ob commune bonum et pacem rei- publicae, eas leges ab omnibus esse servan¬ das. Duodecimo : Quod ipsi illi homines Eccle¬ siastici, qui et nati sunt et degunt in regnis Principum ; non tamen sunt eorum subditi nec ab iis judicari possint : ipsis autem fas sit principes suos judicare. Ibidem. Respondeo, adversarium ad invidiam Bel¬ larmino conflandam semper aliquid addere, quod in libris Bellarmini non invenitur. Affirmat quidem Bellarminus cum communi sententia Catholicorum, Ecclesiasticos ex¬ emptos esse a potestate Principum terreno¬ rum : sed illas particulas (qui et natisunt,et degunt in regnis Principum) Bellarminus in libro suo non posuit ; non quod veras esse PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS 255 non existimet, sed quia non erat opus ad ista descendere ; sed Adversario opus fuit ista exprimere ad odium concitandum. Illud vero (ipsis autem fas sit Principes suos ju¬ dicare) non solum Bellarminus non dixit, sed falsum esse credit. Haec enim verba signifi¬ cant, Fas esse cuicumque Ecclesiastico, etiam maxime privato, principem suum judicare : quemadmodum unusquisque Ecclesiasticus, etiam maxime privatus, exemptus est a sub¬ jectione principis saecularis. At unicuique Ecclesiastico, etiam pjivato, fas esse Principem suum judicare, Bellarminus num- quam dixit, numquam credidit, numquam somniavit. * Decimo tertio : Denique quod obedientia, quam clerici tribuunt regibus, etiam in mi¬ nimis mereque civilibus negotiis, non sit a necessaria aliqua subjectione, sed tantum ex discretione, et propter observantiam boni ordinis atque moris. Ibidem. Respondeo, non esse hanc propriam sen¬ tentiam Bellarmini, sed omnium Catholico¬ rum Doctorum, tum theologorum, tum juris¬ consultorum , quamvis enim Catholici scri¬ ptores disputent, quo jure data sit exemptio clericis : tamen datam esse, et usu receptam ab antiquissimis temporibus, nemo Catholi¬ corum in dubium vertit. Quae cum ita sint, cum adversarius colligit immane discrimen esse inter librum Dei, et Bellarminianos codices, et non magis Deum et Belial, lucem et tenebras, coelum denique et inferos distare, quam Bellarminianum ju¬ dicium de majestate regia a divino de iisdem judicio dissideat : eadem facilitate, sed ma¬ jori temeritate colligere potuisset, sanctos Patres, et ipsam divinam Scripturam de ma¬ jestate regum, contraria judicia protulisse, nihil enim Bellarminus asseruit de Pontifi¬ cum potestate, de Clericorum exemptione, de regum et Principum obedientia, quod ex verbo Dei, conciliorum auctoritate, doctrinis Patrum, et Ecclesiae sensu, atque consensu non hauserit. (a) Restat pars Apologise postrema, quae tribus ultimis paginis continetur. In ea lau¬ dat adversarius verba cohortationis, quibus in epistola sua utitur Bellarminus; sed re¬ prehendit, quod tam sanctis sententiis ex ipsa Scrip tura petitis nonnullas voces admi¬ scuerit , quarum aliquae profanae sunt : cujusmodi est illa de Pontifice Maximo, quae in tota Scriptuta numquam legitur : aliae soli Christo conveniunt, ut illa de Ca¬ pite fidei, quam Apostoli soli Christo tribue¬ runt. At Bellarminus legit in libro Judith cap. xv : Joacim autem summus Pontifex; quem librum tametsi vos Calviniani cum Judaeis non recipitis inter sacros libros : nos tamen Catholici cum Nicaena synodo libpnter reci¬ pimus. Et quamvis vestri magistri librum divinum esse negent : non tamen profa¬ num appellare audent. Sed praeterea, nomen Pontificis, nonne in Scripturis Testamenti veteris frequentissime legitur ? et idem no¬ men cum adjuncta voce (magnus) nonne legitur in epistola ad Hebraeos? Sic enim habemus cap. iv : Habentes ergo Pontificem magnum , qui penetravit coelos, Jesum : qua fronte igitur vocem prophanum audes appel¬ lare, quam Spiritus sanctus Christo ipsi tri¬ buit? Nisi forte tantum interesse putes inter Pontificem magnum, et Pontificem maximum, ut Pontifex magnus sacra vox, Pontifex ma¬ ximus vox profana dicenda sit, quasi Chri¬ stus non potuerit pie dici Pontifex maximus, sicut dictus est Pontifex magnus. Deinde tot sancti Patres Romanum Episcopum Pontifi¬ cem summum, vel maximum appellavere, ut eorum auctoritas plane sufficiat ad hujus hominis temeritatem refutandam. Vide Ste- phani Episcopi Carthaginiensis epistolam ad sanctum Damasum, Gregorium lib. i. Dialo¬ gorum cap. 4. Anselmum praefatione libri de Incarnatione Verbi ad Urbanum Papam, Bernardum in omnibus epistolis ad Roma¬ nos Pontifices Innocentium II. et Euge- nium III. Quod vero attinet ad nomen capitis fidei, optassem, ut adversarius qui affirmat nomen illud soli Christo ab Apostolis fuisse tributum vel unum locum notasset in toto volumine Bibliorum, ubi Apostoli hoc nomen Christo tribuerint. Auctorem fidei, et caput Ecclesiae legi Christum ab Apostolis appellatum ; sed caput fidei non legi ; sed neque Bellarminus hanc vocem excogitavit, sed ex Gregorio retulit. Non igitur Bellarminum, sed Grego¬ rium adversarius accuset, si audet. Claudit A pologiam auctor, lectores rogans, ut alieni a studio partium, de veritate sen¬ tentiam ferant, prout illam candide a se de¬ scriptam protestatur, ad discutiendas illas tenebras mendaciorum, ac calumniarum, (a) Conclusio totius operis. 256 RESPONSIO AD APOLOGIAM PRO JURAM. FIDELIT. quae in regem serenissimum contra jus fas¬ que collatae indignissime fuerant. Ego quo¬ que responsionem claudo, et quoniam spero me calumnias, et mendacia hujus Apologiae luce ipsa solis clariora fecisse; non rogabo lectores, ut judicium ferant, quasi de re dubia, sed ut oculorum sensum tantum ad Scripturas admoveant, et a re ipsa edocti, lucem veritatis aspiciant. Illud in extrema oratione lectorem admonendum esse censui, (b) unam ex notis verae Ecclesiae semper fuisse Catholica} nomen, de quo sanctus Pa- cianus in epistola ad Sympronianum :« Ca¬ tholicum, i) inquit, « neque Marcionem, neque Apellem, neque Montanum sonat, ne¬ que haereticos sumit auctores : Catholicum non est ab homine mutuatum, quod per saecula tanta non cecidit. » Item : « Chri¬ stianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus vero cog- nonem; illud me nuncupat, istud osten¬ dit. » Sanctus item Cyrillus Catechesi 1 8 : « Si iveris, » inquit, « in aliquam Urhem} non petas ubi sit Ecclesia, vel domus Dei; (a) De nomine Catholici. nam etiam haeretici dicunt se haberedomum Dei et Ecclesiam : sed petas ubi sit Catho¬ lica Ecclesia : id enim nomen proprium est hujus sanctae Ecclesiae Matris omnium no¬ strum. » Sanctus Augustinus (ut in ore duo¬ rum vel trium testium stet omne verbum) in libro contra epistolam Fundamenti cap. 4. describens notas Ecclesiae, quae illum in Ec¬ clesia Catholica retinebant : « Tenet postre¬ mo, » inquit, « ipsum Catholicae nomen, quod non sine causa, inter tam multas hae- reses, ista Ecclesia sola obtinuit. » Ubi ergo lector Apologiae tertio quoque verbo vide¬ bit Catholicos appellari iq ipsa Apologia illos, adversus quos ipse auctor Apologiae scribit, et a quorum communione se alienum esse profitetur ; certe ex ipsa Apologia discet non Catholicum, sed plane Haereticum esse hujus auctorem Apologiae. Ex quo denique facile judicabit, quanta sit illi habenda fides in rebus caeteris, qui se ipse proprio jndicio condemnavit. FINIS RESPONSIONIS AD ATOLOGIAM PRO JURAMENTO FIDELITATIS.