•33 HARVARD POLITICAL CLASSICS • PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT VOLUME I n THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I REPRINTED FROM THE EDITION OF 1616 WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY CHARLES HOWARD McILWAIN PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS COPYRIGHT, 1918 HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS TC TO KATHLEEN McILWAIN PREFACE THE needs of a thorough student of the history of political thought can never be adequately met by mere fragments torn out of the classical writings of the past, useful though such fragments may be. For the stu- dent needs to know not alone what the masters thought, but also how they thought; and this he can never learn solely from modern histories, or even from detached bits of contemporary writings without the nexus of con- tinuous argument by which the writers originally wove these disjecta membra into one whole. For such a student the thing most necessary - particularly if the ideas are of an age far removed from his own — is not the bare outline, the mere anatomy of the political thought of that age. He needs above all somehow to gain an appreciation of the whole political mind of the period, the very breath and movement that once galvanized these elements into a thing of life capable of inspiring the thoughts and guiding the actions of generations of men. Unless by long and patient contact he has become accustomed to the " intellectual climate " - to use a happy phrase of Mr. Balfour's — the net result of his studies is likely to be comparatively useless to himself and to others. There is no royal road to a real and sympathetic appreciation of the thought of past epochs. It can never be gained by the mere piecing together of political aph- orisms, however skillful the modern editor may be in their selection. To a reader or investigator of intelligent aspiration and proper conscientious- ness no other path is open save the old-fashioned study of the important contemporary writers in extenso. This it was, together with the unfortunate difficulty of obtaining texts of many of these important political works in their entirety, that led to the belief that a republication of some of these classics as nearly as possible in their original form and extent might be a valuable service to present-day students of the history of political thought and institutions. This volume, it is hoped, will be the first of such a series, and the re- printing of others will depend somewhat upon the reception obtained by this. Naturally, the editing of subsequent volumes must be determined in large part by the nature of the volumes themselves and by the judgment of their editors, but a word or two may be said of the method employed in the present one. As the main purpose has been to make the political works of James I again generally accessible in the form and extent in which they originally viii PREFACE played their part in the development of political ideas, it seemed best to reprint without abridgment or alteration the text of these writings as it ap- peared in the edition prepared for the King's printer by James Montagu, bishop of Winchester, in the King's lifetime and, no doubt, under his direction. For the general purpose intended, it was deemed inadvisable and unnecessary to cumber this text with variant readings or even with explanatory notes. It was felt that this general purpose would be better served, if such statements and explanations as the editor considered neces- sary to an understanding of the circumstances of the original publication and of the trend of political thought to which these writings contributed, were set forth in more consecutive form in a separate introduction which the reader might read or not as he pleased. This method has therefore been followed. But in applying it, the exigencies of modern printing have made neces- sary a few modifications that should be noted here. For example, the 1616 edition of the Basilikon Doron from which this is reprinted has a number of topical notes in the margin. These add nothing to the text, and are not found in the original edition printed at Edinburgh in 1599- They appear first in the editions of 1603 and are copied exactly from these in that of 1616. It has not been considered necessary to retain these in the form of footnotes in the present edition. Likewise, in the margins of the pages of the editions of 1603 and of the edition of 1616 numerous references are given to authors chiefly classical. These are wholly wanting in the edition of 1599 though the Biblical references are present in all editions. All these citations it was decided to retain in the present edition, as having a possible value to the reader in indicating the sources of the King's political ideas — a "possible" value only, because it cannot be entirely certain whether they are the work of James himself or of some editor. It has, however, been necessary to place them at the foot of the page, instead of at the side as in the edition of 1616, and to indicate by a number in the text as nearly as possible the passage to which the reference probably belongs. As the citation is usually very general, and as there is no indica- tion in any of the early editions save its position in the margin to what sentence it refers, the position of the number in the text to which the number of the citation corresponds must be considered as approximate only. These citations sometimes indicate the book or part of the work referred to, but oftener they give nothing but the work itself, as "Cic. in Of.," " Plato in Polit.," " Isoc. in panegyr.," " Sal. in Jug.," " Sal. in Cat.," " Plu. in Thes.," etc. As these references are so loosely made that in many cases identification is impossible, as they are seldom appended to direct quotations, and particularly as they are not certainly the work of the author himself; it was thought that the usefulness to a modern student PREFACE ix of indicating them more exactly by book and section where possible would be incommensurate with the amount of labor required. Though often ob- scure and even inaccurate, these notes have, therefore, been left exactly as they were in the edition of 1616, except for their transfer from the margin to the foot of the page and their numbering made necessary by it. If they were the work of the King they indicate a very considerable knowledge of the classical writers on politics, but from the loose form of the citations it is often impossible to say whether this knowledge was gained in particular cases from the originals themselves or from Latin or French translations of them, many of which are found in the list of James's books drawn up in his youth. See The Library of James VI, 1573-1583, from a manuscript in the hand of Peter Young, his Tutor, edited by George F. Warner, Publica- tions of the Scottish Historical Society, vol. XV, Edinburgh, 1893. The differences between the text of the first edition of the Basilikon Doron and that of 1603, the basis of all later editions, are very considerable, but it has been found impossible to give space here to an indication of these differences. They are all given at the end of the reprint of the edition of 1599 published by the Roxburghe Club, London, 1887. In the case of the Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, the plan followed is in general the same as for the Basilikon Doron. The topical sidenotes are omitted, and all the marginal references retained in the form of footnotes. In this case, however, the numbers indicating the passages referred to by these are found in the original text, and it was therefore not necessary to supply them conjecturally when the notes were transferred to the bottom of the page, as in the case of the Basilikon Doron. The 1609 edition of the Premonition and the Apologie is practically the same as that of 1616, save for some of the references confuting the " Lyes of Tortus," an additional title-page acknowledging the King's authorship of the Apologie, and a note concerning the " Copiers faults " in the first edition which is " to be held utterly disclaimed by his Majestic " because "erroneous and surreptitiously sold by the under Officers in the Printing House." The edition of 1616 is here followed without changes or additions. The title to the Premonition — A Premonition to all Most Mightie Mon- arches, etc., on page 287 of the Workes (page no of this edition) does not occur in the edition of 1609. All the other works of the King printed here are given exactly as they appear in the edition of 1616, with the uniform exception of the transfer of the notes, where such notes occur, from the side to the bottom of the page, and the attaching of numbers to them. The general theme of the political thought within the limits of time and space covered by the introduction to this volume might be expressed in the words of the title of Tyndale's book — The Obedience of a Christian Man; x PREFACE of which Obedience and Christian are equally important. In the discussion of it it would have been fascinating to try to show how the rise of parliamen- tary government in England has changed the position of the ecclesiastico- political party, sometimes termed Anglican, from a royalist party to one which is now largely anti-parliamentary. Many today prefer to speak of " the Church in England " rather than "the Church of England," and an indirect cause of this is the political change since the sixteenth century which has made the state church a parliamentary one instead of a church under royal control, a cause indirect, but neither unimportant nor remote. But the temptation to deal with this interesting phase of the subject has been resisted, because it belongs more to the province of the constitutional than of the political, if such a distinction can ever be very closely drawn; and also because it falls more properly within a chapter of the great con- troversy in England which comes somewhat later than the period of James I. It is hoped that a subsequent volume of this series may cover this part of the history of English political thought. But the study of the important phase of the history of divine right and of the opposition to it which falls within the limits of this volume alone cannot be dismissed by any intelligent observer of the political world today as insignificant or antiquarian; nor is the importance of the political ques- tions argued with so much heat in James's day rendered any less for us by the signs today multiplying in Ireland and elsewhere that the Great War may be followed by a renewed discussion of the ever-present problem of clericalism in a form possibly even more violent and acrimonious than that already familiar to students of modern European history, and by the further extension of voluntaryism which may be expected to accompany a growing democratization. The introduction has suffered very much on account of the editor's enforced absence, in all the later stages of its preparation, from the one place where an adequate introduction could be prepared, the British Museum Library. For valued help in the publication of this volume thanks are due to the Harvard University Press; and more particularly to Mr. G. A. Parker, not merely for the index, which is his work alone, but also for suggestions and assistance while the book was going through the press. HARVARD UNIVERSITY. September, 1918. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PACK Chapter I xv Chapter II xxxv Appendix A, The Tudor Literature on Church and State Ixxxi Appendix B, CowelTs Interpreter Ixxxvii Appendix C, James and the Puritans xc Appendix D, A Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England, and other books by Robert Parsons xcii Appendix E, Bibliography xcv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Basilikon Doron 3 The Trew Law of Free Monarchies 53 - An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance 71 A Premonition to all Christian Monarches, Free Princes and States ... no A Defence of the Right of Kings, against Cardinall Perron 169 Speech of 1603-1604 269 Speech of 1605 281 Speech of 1607 290 Speech of 1609-1610 306 Speech in the Star Chamber, 1616 .s'. 326 INDEX 347 INTRODUCTION N. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I IN the history of political thought the opening years of the seventeenth century in which the reign of James I fell are a period of rapid transition. "Before the conditions of modern politics arose," says Dr. Figgis,1 " Christendom, the union of the various flocks under one shepherd with divine claims, divine origin, and divine sovereignty, had to be transformed into Europe, the habit of compet- ing sects and compact nations." In this transformation we may look upon the closing sessions of the Council of Trent as the turning point. Before 1564 Prot- estantism might be considered as a revolt; afterward Rome at least could regard it only as a schism. The results were not slow in coming, a stiffening of the oppos- ing forces in preparation for the inevitable struggle for mastery, which exhibited itself first in the world of thought and later in the wars of religion. The reign of James mainly falls within the first of these phases. It has often been remarked how closely religion and politics are bound together in this period. " In England, as well as on the Continent, religion was the chief motive power of the age."2 Of the early years of the seventeenth century, as of the whole preceding one, " it is right to treat the growth of political ideas as a branch of ecclesiastical history." 3 To understand the political thought of James I and his time it is necessary, therefore, first to pass in brief review "The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism " and the development of political ideas that accompanied it. In spite of the lingering shadow of the Roman Empire, in England, as in parts of the Continent, the feudal particularism of the Middle Ages had by the sixteenth century completely merged into the national " commonwealth." And with the idea of the commonwealth had come the need of restating the relations of its parts one with another, in particular, those of the king and his subjects; while at the same time the changed aspect of the external relation of the State, due to much the same causes, was making apparent the necessity for a new formulation of the rules concerning the relations of sovereign commonwealths to each other. It is not strange, then, that the modern theory of sovereignty should date from the sixteenth century, or that a new conception of international law should follow so closely in its wake. But the most difficult and most pressing political problem of the age of Bodin and Grotius was the reconciling of these new conceptions of the State, both on the constitutional and on the international side, with an idea of the Church derived in large part from imperial Rome, and an idea as yet less affected by the growing spirit of nationality than that of the State. 1 Prom Gerson to Grotius, pp. 23-24. ' Prothero, Select Statutes, p. xxx. » Figgis, op. tit., p. 31. xvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I In an age in which majestas could be denned as sumnta in cives ac subditos legibusque soluta potestas,1 the question could not remain long in abeyance whether the magistrate wielding such unbridled power derived it from God directly, or from the other members of the commonwealth, or from God through the people; and if from the people, whether the Lex Regia by which it was conferred could or could not be revoked by those who had made that law. Thus in the sixteenth century, on the Continent, and in England to a degree surprising in view of the trite phrase " Tudor absolutism," questions were mooted touching the source, the nature, and the extent of royal power; questions of election, of contract, of restrictions imposed by the coronation oath; assertions of the right of the people collectively to judge, to depose, and even to kill the king, a right attributed in rare instances even to individual subjects. Thus the author of the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: Principes eliguntur a Deo, constituun- tur a populo. Ut singuli principe inferiores sunt, ita universi & qui universes repraesentant regni officiarii, principe superiores sunt.2 Populum universum, he says, Rege potiorem esse 3 — etsi singuli Rege inferiores sint.* Therefore, while lawful assemblies of the people may depose tyrannical rulers and set up others in their place6 . . . singuli sive privati . . . gladium non stringent: quia non a singulis, sed ab universis, constituti sunt.* This remarkable book is the clearest, as it was probably the most influential statement of the anti-monarchical view then prevailing, a view that is obviously constitutional, aristocratic even, rather than democratic. Buchanan's opinions are much more radical but their influence is attested by the widespread opposition they provoked.7 1 Bodin, De Republics, lib. i, cap. viii, p. 78. » P. 355- • P. 276. P. 273- • P. 282. 'P-35S- For similar statements, see pp. 287, 341-342. His views are summarized on p. 355. The book was first published in 1576. 7 B. Mutua igitur Regi cum civibus est pactio. M. Ita videtur. B. Qui prior a conventis recedit, contraque quam pactus est facit, nonne is pacta & conventa solvit ? M. Solvit. B. Soluto igitur vinculo, quod Regem cum populo continebat, quicquid juris ex pactione ad cum qui pacta solvit pertinebat, id, reor, amittitur. M. Amittitur. B. Is etiam cum quo erat conventum, aeque fit atque ante stipulationem erat, liber. M. Eodem plane jure, atque eadem libertate. B. Rex autem si facit, quae sunt solvendae societal! humanae, cujus continendae causa fuit creatus, quid cum vocamus ? M. Tyrannum, opinor. B. Tyrannus autem non modo non justum habet imperium in populum, sed etiam populi hostis est. M. Hostis profecto. B. Cum hoste, ob graves & intolerabiles injurias est justum bellum. M. Justum sane. B. Quid in eo, quod cum totius humani generis hoste, hoc est tyranno, geritur T M. Justissimum. INTRODUCTION xvii Two general causes might be assigned for this outburst of political thought and radical opinion in the sixteenth century: the after effects of the Renaissance, and the diversity of religious views made possible by the Reformation.'' The|| second was peculiarly potent, and nowhere did it affect politics in greater degree than in England where the break with Rome was from the outset so largely political. To this cause is due the fact that the politics of two centuries turns so largely on questions religious and ecclesiastical. In the discussion of tyrannicide, for example, which furnishes so much of the current political controversy, the tyrant is usually an apostate or one who differs from his people in religion, whose oppressive acts consist of religious persecution. Thus with this new diversity of religious views men often found themselves torn between their sovereign and^ their church. It was a competition between the loyalty due the State and that demanded by the Respublica Christiana, a dilemma between human and divine law. Politics took on a cast almost entirely theological or at least ecclesiastical. Under monarchical government it was natural that the first assertions of anti- monarchical opinions should proceed from those upon whom the weight of per- secution fell heaviest, or from such as saw the least hope of converting their rulers to their own religious views. The key to the political thought of the time is the fact that all men still held the mediaeval conception of the necessity of uniformity though diversity had in fact come into existence. There was no one who did not look with horror upon the toleration of doctrines different from his own. ToleratiorLwasjipt an_accepted principle. One's own views were to be respected not because religious opinion is beyond the sphere of state action, but because they alone were true and the others false. Diversity in an age of uniformity inevitably brings persecution, and the acceptance of uniformity as a principle means that each party demands the supremacy of its own doctrines. Such a party when overmastered, or when it B. Bello autem cum hoste justa de causa semel suscepto jus est non modo universe populo, sed singulis etiam hostem interimere. M. Fateor. B. Quid tyrannum hostem publicum, quocum omnibus bonis perpetuum est bellum? nonne singuli e tota generis humani multitudine jure omnes bellorum poenas ab eo expetere possunt ? M. Video nationes fere omnes in ea fuisse sententia. DeJure Regni apud Scotes, Dialogus, p. 62. This supposed dialogue between Buchanan and Thomas Maitland (Maetellanus) was first pub- lished in 1579. Its popularity was great and immediate. Three editions appeared in three years. A number of books were published in reply and the references to it, hostile or favorable, in subsequent political writings are innumerable. Mr. Gooch gives an admirable account not only of the dialogue itself (English Democratic Ideas, pp. 45-48), but also of the antecedent Scottish political philosophy (Ibid., p. 42 et seq.) and the sub- sequent influence of Buchanan's book. Lessen (Die Lehre vom Tyrannenmord, note 35, pp. 48-49), enumerates the principal authors of answers to it, probably the most important being Adam Black- wood, and William Barclay in his De Regno. Sir George MacKenzie, no favorable critic, declared, " It 's undeniable that Buchannan wrote this Book, De Jure Regni, to perswade Scotland to raise his Patron, (Murray] though a Bastard to the Crown." Jus Regium, p. 6, see also Ibid., pp. 137-138. For opinions somewhat similar to Buchanan's, expressed later by the Spanish Jesuit and historian. Mariana, see post, p. xxvii. xviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I sees its hopes of supremacy frustrated by a king of different belief, is likely to see in that king only a heretic, an apostate, or a tvrant. and from such a position it is only a step to the doctrine that he may be deposed. A party strong enough to hope that its views are or in future may be held by the majority is likely to be satisfied with an assertion of the superior power of the populus universus, but a hopeless minority which nevertheless believes it has a monopoly of truth is likely to accept the more desperate doctrine that even a private assassin may be the instrument of God. To Mariana the murder of Henry III of France is " f acinus memorabile." J Because they were the men least affected by the influence of authority and because the changes introduced by Henry VIII, going as they did so little beyond matters purely political, were peculiarly unsatisfactory to them, it is the extreme upholders of the reformed religion who become the first English monarchomachs.2 The views of these men could not be better expressed than in the words of the great Jesuit champion of the Papacy: potestas ecclesiastica, quae spiritualis est, praeest potestati politicae temporal!, & earn dirigere debet ad finem supremum aeternae vitae.3 In Scotland this theory was put hi practice, but in England it could only exhibit itself in opposition to the measures and claims of the king. Calvin had declared that earthly princes who fought against God abdicated their power, ergo conspuere oportet in ipsorum capita; and the extreme English Calvinists were inclined to look upon the retention of Romish forms and the assumption of the king's headship of the Church, alike, as little short of fighting against God. (The second of these objections is sometimes overlooked by modern historians, but it was important, particularly in view of James I's later posi- tion, " no bishop, no king.") It was no Romanist, but Anthony Gilby, a "dear disciple" of Calvin, who wrote of Henry VIII and his reign, " Thus there was no reformation, but a de- formation, in the tyme of that tyrant and lecherous monster. The bore I grant was busie wrooting and digging in the earth, and all his pigges that followed hym. But they soght only for the pleasant frutes that they winded with their longe snowtes; and for their owne bellies sake, they wrooted up many weeds; but they turned the grounde so, mingling good and badd togither, swete and sowre, mede- cine and poyson, they made, I say, such confusion of religion and lawes, that no good thing could grow, but by great miracle, under such Gardners." The burning of " faithful preachers of the trueth," coupled with the hanging of Papists, proved to him that Henry cared for no Religion. " This monstrous bore for al this," he exclaims, " must nedes be called the Head of the Churche in paine of treason, displacing Christ, our onlie Head, who oght alone to have this title. Wherefore 1 Joannis Marianae Hispani, e socielale Jesu, De Rege el Regis Institutwne Libri HI. Moguntiae, 1605, lib. i, cap. vi, 53. The first edition appeared in 1599. 1 This name was applied to them by William Barclay in his book, De Regno et Regali Potestate, adversus Bvchananum, Brutum, Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchomachos, published at Paris, in 1600. See Treumann, Die Monarchomachen, Leipsic, 1895. ' Bellarmine, Tractatus de Potestate Summi Pontificis, cap. iii, 40. INTRODUCTION xix in this point, O England, ye were no better then the Romish Antichrist, who by the same title maketh hymselfe a God, sitteth in mennes consciences, banny- sheth the Worde of God, as did your King Henrie, whome ye so magnifie. . . . So made you your King a god, beleving nothing but that he alowed." 1 The similar views of Knox are well known,2 and his advocacy of the depriving and punishing of a ruler who " fought against God." Whittingham, a fellow exile, shared Knox's views, and they are clearly set forth also by another member of the Frankfort and Geneva congregations, in Christopher Goodman's, How Supe- rior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects, and wherein they may lawfully be by God's Word Disobeyed and Resisted.3 Two years earlier, still another of the Marian exiles, John Poynet, successively bishop of Rochester and Winchester under Edward VI, had published his Short Treatise of Politique Power, and of the true obedience which subjectes owe to kynges and other civile governours,* in which he argues at length that tyrants may be called to account and punished " by the body of the whole congregation or commonwealth. ' ' These are enough to indicate the real springs of the anti-monarchical doctrine which filled so large a place before the century was over. The appearance on the Continent in the reign of Philip and Mary of so many attacks on royal power written by Englishmen exiled for their religion is an illustration of how much in the history of political theory flows from the actual conditions of the time. Much of that theory has been opportunism. Political doctrines have usually been put forward not in their own interest, but to bolster up some cause. In the sixteenth century it was the cause of religion. But while the Calvinists thus became per- force rather than by inclination the original English republicans, they remained scattered and without a head, and the danger to the existing order of things to be apprehended from their words and writings was soon overshadowed, at least for a tune, by a far more imminent peril, when these same doctrines were taken up and employed in the interests of the Papacy by the rapidly-growing Jesuit order, probably the most indefatigable and astute as well as the most centralized and efficient organization of modern times. If the ecclesiastical settlement of Henry VIII was to the radical Edwardian reformer " no reformation but a deformation," to the adherents of the old faith 1 An Admonition to England and Scotland to call them to Repentence, first published at Geneva in 1558 along with Knox's Appellation and Letter Addressed to the Commonalty of Scotland. It is reprinted by Laing in volume iv of the works of John Knox, pp. 553-571. The quotation given above is from pp. 563-564 of Laing's edition. This passage was quoted among others, by Thomas Stapleton, Counterblast, p. 23, to prove that Protestants were more dangerous subjects than Catholics. * Probably the strongest expressions of these views occur in his First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, published in 1558, Works, iv, 363 sqq., especially 415, 416; and in his Appellation from the sentence given against him by the bishops and clergy of Scotland, Works, iv, 465-520. See particularly, 487, 400, 496, 498, 499, 506, and 507. 1 Geneva, 1558. Mr. Gooch gives a summary, English Democratic Ideas, p. 36. 4 This book was reprinted twice in the reign of Charles I. A summary of it is given by Hallam, Literature of Europe, ii, 39-41. For another excellent one, see Gooch, op. cit., pp.34~35. Mr. Gooch's account of the whole democratic movement is admirable, pp. 39-58. / n THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I it was anathema. While they held the very opposite view to the Calvinists' in matters of ceremonial, on the question of the king's headship they were heartily at one with Gilby and his party. Out of this strife between the adherents and the opponents of Henry VUTs ecclesiastical policy English political theory arose. It was in the beginning much the same theory on either side that we find earlier in the literary champions of the Pope and the Empire, and it undoubtedly borrowed a large part of its arguments from the antagonists in that struggle. But the Emperor's power had ended at the Channel, even though the Pope's did not; and strictly English modern politi- cal theory practically begins with Henry's Act of Supremacy. In disproof of this statement the most important writers cited would probably be Wycliffe, Sir John Fortescue, and Sir Thomas More. But the sequence of modern thought cannot be traced to Wycliffe, important as he was in his day, and even for a later day; and Fortescue's Governance of England was more constitu- tional than political, more on the order of Sir Thomas Smith's Commonwealth than of Locke's Two Treatises. The case of Sir Thomas More is different, but the works of his most important in the beginning of modern English political thought, are his seldom read controversial works in answer to Tyndale and Saint German, not the Utopia; for the true test is not merely the subsequent fame of a book, nor even its currency among the literati of the time, but rather its effect upon the minds and actions of the men then most active in political life and thought. It must start or stem or divert the current of political thought and action. It can- not do this if it is unrelated to the questions at issue in its day. Judged by such a test the Utopia, may have had a more lasting effect in itself, but it did less to turn the minds of contemporaries into the channel which they kept for one hundred and fifty years or more than the Apologie or the Debellacyon of Salem and Bizance. The history of political theory is not the history of a few isolated political classics, it is the study of a stream of influence which has flowed down from age to age, now deflected by some great event, now determining the course of events themselves; a stream whose own path may often be determined more by a boulder in its way than by a mountain on the horizon. After all, the history of political thought is history, and the tests ought to be historical rather than metaphysical. One of these events which determine the currents of men's thoughts occurred in England with the enactment qf the Act of Supremacy. In 1534 or a half dozen years earlier a controversy began in England which touched the very foundations of government, which raged with unabated fury for a century and a half employing hundreds of pens; and for the larger part of that long struggle the ultimate question at issue was ever the same. From 1528, when Tyndale's i, book was issued, until the appearance of Hobbes's De Give in 1642, political " thought exhausted itself almost wholly on The Obedience of a Christian Man.1 1 See Appendix A, p. Ixxxi, INTRODUCTION xri V At the outset the two chief opposing earthly claimants to this obedience were the Pope and the King. All admitted that the law of God was above any earthly law, but the King was ordained of God and men were directed by the Scriptures to be subject to him. According to Knox the limits of this obedience were reached when the ruler fought against God as Mary did in restoring the authority of the Pope. The Catholics, on the other hand, denied that obedience was due a ruler who refused to accept the papal authority. Neither on the part of the extreme i Protestants nor of the Catholics did the objection to royal power in ecclesiastical matters rest on the clear-cut principle that a secular ruler should not meddle in spiritual things. Their objection was based not so much on the King's want of authority in things spiritual, as on his wrongful exercise of that authority, or on the existence of an authority higher than his to which he was subject. The up^] holders of the King, of course, were not likely to recognize such a distinction be- tween the secular and the spiritual, and Gardiner could exclaim, qua quidem in re certe non video, cur quemquam offendat, principem Anglicanae ecclesiae caput/jx dici, magis quam regni Angliae caput.1 The doctrine of Pope Gelasius, was, however, not unknown — that the prince is the vicar of Christ as king, while the bishop's authority is a delegation of His power as priest.2 Though this theory of the duality of divine authority and of the separateness of earthly powers derived from it had been obscured by the long struggle for supremacy between Pope and Emperor, in the sixteenth century the growing strength of secular monarchies not coterminous with Christendom was .1 tending rapidly to revive it. For England, for example, Pole, in his Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defensio, published in 1536, argues against the view of Sampson that because appeals in civil causes are referred to the king, tanquam ad supremum caput corporis politici, idcirco in Ecclesia, quae nihil commune cum corpore politico habet, idem fieri debere, ipsum etiam in Ecclesia supremum caput esse.3 Though the ultra Calvinists\ad not originally held this theory of the duality of authority, they were rapidly driven to it by the exigencies of politics. So Andrew Melville declared in the presence of James VI of Scotland " there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland, that is King James the head of the Com- monwealth, and there is Christ Jesus the King of the Church, whose subject King James VI is, and of whose kingdom he is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member." 4 The importance of the growth of this theory, upon the idea of sep- aratism, upon the ecclesiastical views and policy of James as King of Great Britain, and upon the attitude today of many English Churchmen and others toward a " parliamentary Church," can hardly be overestimated. It is in many 1 De Vera Obedientia, Goldast, i, 722. 1 Gelasius I, Ep., xii, 2; Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum, ed. Thiel, quoted by Carlyle, A ffis- tory of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, i, 190-192, esp. p. 191, note I. ' P. 54, ed. of 1587. The italics are not in the original. 4 Quoted by Figgis, A aron's Rod Blossoming or Jus Divinum in 1646, The Divine Right of Kings, ad edition, 286. This essay is the most valuable account of the influence of the Presbyterians upon the growth of this theory. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I respects the key to the ecclesiastical history of England, particularly in the reign of James I. The Presbyterians were claiming as a divine right an ecclesiastical independence of the secular power, and as Dr. Figgis says, "it is in this very claim that lies the service to true politics performed by the Presbyterian zeal- ots." * It " is the special contribution of Presbyterianism to the theory of politi- cal freedom." 2 Though the Calvinists were probably the first party to make this theory of Gelasius their own, its influence was soon felt elsewhere. And before the end of the century, under the Act of Uniformity, every ecclesiastical party of opposition in England had adopted it in smaller or greater measure, and even the English bishops and king, though they could not adopt it, were forced to make important concessions to a theory that was too strong to be suppressed. In this lies trie explanation of the treatment of Catholics for a hundred years after 1570, and of practically the whole of the ecclesiastical policy of James I. Among the parties accepting this theory, the Jesuits, in England and else- where, became in tune the foremost. Brought into conflict with the power of secular governments that recognized no exemption from their oversight, the Jesuits, who had become the chief champions of the Catholic Church and the Papacy, were now forced as the Calvinists had already been to develop doc- trines of a limitation of royal power in the interests of the people on the one hand, and on the other of a separation of the fields of ecclesiastical and secular;] \J jurisdiction.3 James I himself declared, "Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-papists." 4 On one important point, however, they differed from the followers of Calvin toto cado. The remark has been credited to Cardinal Manning that " the Pope was the only plank between the Jesuits and Presbyterianism." 6 Unlike the Calvin- ists, the Jesuits, while asserting the separation of secular and ecclesiastical juris- diction had to reconcile this separation with the claims of an absolutist Papacy whose authority was superior to that of all the governments of Christendom, whose decrees in case of conflict must be obeyed even in defiance of the laws and edicts of any state. This necessity led to the formulation of the famous doctrine of the indirect power of the Pope, set forth in its clearest form probably by Car- ! dinal Bellarmine, the foremost Jesuit champion of the Papacy in the later six- teenth century. The most effective statement of this doctrine is probably that of Bellarmine himself: 6 " We understand," says he, " potestatem Pontificiam per se, et proprie spiritualem esse, et ideo directe respicere, ut objectem suum 1 Aaron's Rod Blossoming or Jus Divinum in 1646, The Divine Right of Kings, 2d edition, 287. * Laski, Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty, p. 49. ' Dr. Figgis has made this subject his own. He treats of it in many places in his various books and papers. See especially " On Some Political Theories of the Early Jesuits," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, N. s., xi, 89 et seq. * A Premonition, Works, p. 305, post, p. 1 26. • Taunton, The History of the Jesuits in England, p. 8. 6 Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. v, cap. i-viii, Opera, i, 433-444; Tractatus de Potestate- Summi Pontificis, first edition, Rome, 1610, cap. v, 62-70, also reprinted in Opera, v, 23 et seq. (pp. 40- 42). My references are to the first edition. The existing literature on this subject is cited and discussed at length in the chapters of De Romano Pontifice referred to above. INTRODUCTION xxiii primarium, spiritualia negocia; sed indirecte, id est, per ordinem ad spiritualia, reductive, et per necessariam consequential!!, ut sic loquamur, respicere tempo- ralia, utcbjectum secundarium, ad quod non convertitur haec spiritualis potestas, nisi in casu." * The practical results of this indirect power he states thus: "At si in summo Pontifice ponatur potestas spiritualis tantum directe, et temporalis indirecte, id est, in ordine solum ad spiritualia; non sequitur, posse Pontificem tollere, vel confundere politicum regimen; sed solum sequitur, posse Pontificem per spiritualem, atque Apostolicam eminentissimam suam potestatem dirigere, et corrigere potestatem politicam, eamque, si opus sit, ad finem spiritualem, uni Principi adimere, et alteri conferre. . . . " Deus non dedit immediate Regnum huic aut illi; sed dicitur potestas Regum esse a Deo, quia Deus voluit esse inter homines potestatem politicam, eamque distinctam ab Ecclesiastica ; proinde cum Summus Pontif ex transf ert Regnum ab uno ad alium, non tollit quod Deus dedit, sed ordinat, et dirigit : et quemadmo- dum Deus dat Regna hominibus mediante consensu, et consilio hominum; et potest, ac solet ea mutare et transferee de gente in gentem, mediante consilio et consensu eorundem hominum : ita potest majore ratione ea mutare, et transferre propter finem spiritualem per Vicarfum suum generalem, quern constituit super totam familiam suam."11 Thus the Pope, "Pastor gregis totius, et Praepositus toti familiae, et caput vice Christi totius corporis Ecclesiae, intellegitur habere man- datum regendi, et dirigendi, et corrigendi omnes oves totius gregis; omnes con- servos, qui sunt in familia; et omnia membra, quae sunt in corpore; neque exci- piuntur Imperatores, et Reges, nisi velint excipi a numero ovium Christi, et ser- vorum Christi, et membrorum corporis Christi. . . . ' ' Habet Summus Pontif ex jure divino potestatem disponendi de rebus temporali- bus Christianorum in ordine ad finem spiritualem," and this is proved by Christ's giving the keys to Peter, but these are not to be considered " claves Regni ter- rarum, . . . quia non erat necessarium, ut Summus Princeps Ecclesiae simul esset Monarcha temporalis hujus Mundi: sed intellegitur potestas disponendi de temporalibus, quatenus ea juvant ad aperiendum fidelibus Regnum caelorum, vel impediunt atque obstant, ne fidelibus aperiatur Regnum caelorum." 3 These statements contain the whole sum of the Jesuit theory of Church and State, and they explain as no paraphrase could adequately do the fact that the staunchest upholders of an absolute Pope are numbered among the founders of modern republicanism. They make clear the ground of the opposition of James I to the Jesuit theories and his identification of Jesuit and Puritan. In short, they explain much of the history and most of the political thought from the close of the Council of Trent to the outbreak of the Civil Wars; for English policy both internal and external in this period is largely directed against the outward mani- ' festations of this theory, and nearly all the political writing will be found to be aimed at its support or its confutation. 1 Tractatus, p. 63. * Ibid., p. 65. « Ibid., pp. 66-67. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The importance of this theory for the history of political thought, as Dr. Figgis acutely remarks, lies in the fact that it, " marks the change from the idea of one commonwealth with different officers to the modern conception of Church and State as two distinct social entities." l This is true, but its final fulfillment only came when the principle of toleration was added to the beginnings made by the Calvinists and the Jesuits. It is worthy of remark also, that Catholic anti- Jesuits like Roger Widdrington and the Barclays, father and son, believed in a more complete separation than that advocated by any Jesuit. To the Protest- ants, of course, this theory of indirect power was in its day nothing but a pretext to cover Spanish designs upon the English monarchy, a mere subterfuge not put forward in good faith. ' ' Certe male fide res geritur," Andrewes declared,2 and Wil- liam Ames, the Puritan casuist, remarked of it, truly enough, " Quod una manu abstulit Papae Bellarminus id altera dat." 3 But though it must be frankly admitted that opportunism alone dictated the doctrine of the two kingdoms to the Calvinists, and that of the indirect power to the Jesuits, these men, who would have shuddered at the idea of religious liberty, were really laying the only foundation upon which the toleration of a later day could safely rest. Opportunism too has become an odious word, and in justice to these leaders of thought a further word of caution is hardly misplaced. We now look askance at political opportunism as a sign of moral laxity: it is only another name for a want of principle; and this may be justifiable now that our political ends are wholly secular. To do so for the sixteenth century would not be equally just. Because a Bellarmine or a Cartwright advocated a republican- ism for which in his heart he cared nothing we should hardly attribute to him a carelessness of principle as to a Disraeli we conceivably might. For to these men republicanism — and in fact all secular politics — was only a means to an end : they thought of it merely as an aid adfinem spiritualem. For a like opportunism no modern politician has in any great measure such a justification. It would be unfair, then, to condemn men whose whole political motive was jus divinum by the application to them of a standard proper only in an age become secular and utilitarian in all its political thought and action. Whether or not we approve of his methods and specific purposes, the central motive of a leader whose aim is ad majorem Dei gloriam is hardly with justice to be compared to that of a modern politician who is striving only to " dish the Whigs." A sixteenth century Jesuit might be a traitor, but his is not the char- acter of a trimmer. The work of Machiavelli was not yet done. In the later years of Elizabeth's reign Europe began to see these doctrines of the Jesuits put into actual practice. The history of the Counter-Reformation 1 From Gerson to Grotius, p. 183. > Tortura Torti, p. 28 (37 of reprint). 1 Bellarminus Enervatus, i, p. 270. The judgment of Janet is much the same. " Bellarmin ne parait-il pas ici, en combattant le pouvoir direct des papes, s'attaquer a une chimere imagined a plaisir pour introduire sous le nom de pouvoir indirect la souverainete' la plus parfaite a laquelle il fut possible d'aspirer ? " Histoire de la Science Politique, ii, 205. INTRODUCTION xxv and of the increased severity of the laws against recusants and proselytizers has often been told and need not be repeated here, but a brief outline of the develop- ment of English political thought at this time seems necessary to a right under- standing of James I and the theory of his day. To one looking at this important period over an interval of three hundred and fifty years, two great effects upon English political thought seem to appear as the result of the division between ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction and of the Jesuit interpretation of it. In the first place, a division among Catholics. A part of the clergy, and many of the laity, at first chiefly the older men who re- membered the days of Mary and had never ceased to cling to their old Church and its faith, were willing to accept the existing settlement if they were allowed their own faith and worship, even with some restrictions. Their aim was, in short, toleration for their own religion. Opposed to these was a growing party, composed of younger and more aggres- sive men, many of them converts from Protestantism through the teaching of the Jesuits, and filled with the zeal of converts for the reclaiming of Christendom to the Church and the Papacy. Naturally the latter could not be satisfied with a toleration which would only mean the slow death of Catholicism in England. For the sake of England itself anything was preferable to that, even the domina- tion of a foreign prince if he were only a true son of the Church. Between these two parties, the difference was irreconcilable, and it not merely explains the whole policy of the English government toward Catholics in Elizabeth's later years and throughout the whole succeeding reign, but it also furnishes the immediate stimu- lus to the political thought and its expression in this phase of the great controversy. The other greajt/result of the theory of the separation of the temporal and the spiritual power and of the papal authority over states ad finem spiritualem, was the theory j0f the divine right of kings to a power which touched the spiritual as well as the temporal. This theory was not new, but some Catholics were now led to accept, or at least to tolerate it, in opposition to a doctrine which they be- lieved to be only a cloak for investing the Papacy with all the old temporal authority which they considered its greatest curse. The effect upon Protestants was far greater. It is hardly too much to say, that it was opposition to the Pope's indirect power which made the theory of the divine right of kings the gospel of practically all English Protestants in this age, save such as could secure protec- tion for their nonconformity only under a theory of independence or separation. The effects of these differences in the development of political thought are hard to overestimate. One example of the first of these effects was the consolidation of the secular priests in opposition to the Jesuit order, the history of which has been admirably traced by the late Thomas Graves Law,1 and the publication of a series of books 1 A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1889; The Archpriest Controversy. Documents relating to the Dissentions of the Roman Catholic Clergy, 1597-1602 (Camden Soc., 1806). xrvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I and pamphlets that in no way yield to the Protestant attacks in bitterness or scurrility.1 The Elizabethan and Jacobean bishops were not slow to see the op- portunity offered by this controversy among the enemy, and left nothing undone — particularly Bancroft, as Bishop of London and later Archbishop of Canter- bury — to aggravate the quarrel.2 This division of Catholics is the key to almost the whole of James's policy towards those of that faith and, as some think, it was j ii to make this breach still wider that his famous oath of allegiance was framed, the most important act of his reign in its effect upon the trend of contemporary po- litical thought. Among Catholic laymen, also, opposition to this activity of the Jesuits created a small party whose attitude a little resembles that of the French Politiquxs, though their chief aim as appears from the writings of William Barclay, probably their ablest representative, is far less secular than that of the French group, whose attitude is indicated by the well-known reply of Cujas to anyone who tried to entangle him in the religious controversy of the tune : nihil hoc ad edictum praetoris. In order rightly to understand the growth of the idea of divine right, which may be regarded as the second great result of the Jesuit doctrine, it is necessary first to look briefly at the later developments of the Jesuit theory and practice to which divine right was opposed before the opening of the seventeenth century. As Bellarmine so clearly indicated, it was a necessary inference from the Pope's divine power politicum regimen dirigere et corrigere ad finem spiritualem that he might potestatem, si opus sit, uni Principi adimere, et alteri conferre. He was Pastor gregis totius; and though potestas politica was divine, and even monarchy itself, particular sovereigns had no divine right to the office which could stand / against a papal decree that the needs of Christendom demanded his removal. The deposing power was a necessary part of the Jesuit theory. And since the particular sovereign's authority came not directly from God, but only through the medium of the people's choice and consent, and since also the Pope's power was not itself a regimen politicum, the ordinary means of securing the deposition of a prince, was to absolve his subjects from their allegiance to him. But the Jesuits well knew that a law without a sanction is an imperfect law, and they were not content to leave the papal decree a mere brutum fulmen, as Hotman had called the bull of Sixtus V against Henry of Navarre.3 Three modes ' of enforcement were open; regnum transferre ab uno ad alium and to summon the new ruler to take possession, in the name of the Church — invasion; second, armed rebellion of the prince's own subjects to carry out the decree — resistance or revolution; and third, the assassination of the monarch by one or more private 1 Especially A Decacordon of Ten Quodlibeticall Questions concerning Religion and Slate, 1602, by William Watson; and Important Considerations, 1601. * The best account of this is contained in Professor R. G. Usher's The Reconstruction of the English Church, book i, ch. viii, Fostering Catholic Disunion (i, 160-190). * Francisci Hotomanni J. C. Brutum Fulmen, originally published in 1586, printed in Goldast, iii, 68 et seq. INTRODUCTION xxvii persons — tyrannicide. All three of these modes were actually put into effect in this period, and it may be truly said that all three are the result of Jesuit in- fluence, though it does not follow that all Jesuit theorists accepted them all. Bellarmine, for example, while advocating other means, denies that the Pope ever sanctioned assassination,1 and in France Pere Coton was assigned the task of proving this to be the doctrine and policy of Jesuits generally. Mariana, on the other hand, openly advocated assassination by any means except slow poison, and the French Ligueurs apparently had few scruples on this score. Since this deposing power exists in the supreme pontiff ad bonum spiritualem si opus sit, it becomes an important question to decide when such necessity arises. In one case at least all Jesuits agreed that it did arise. An heretical or infidel king who attempts to infect his subjects with his heresy — jind hi that aged of uniformity what heretic kinged not do this and much more — must not be permitted to reign. It is not merely the right but the duty of the Pope to depose him, and of his subjects to enforce the decree.2 These seem to be the parts of the Jesuit theory of Church and State at the end of the sixteenth century which had the greatest influence in moulding the thought and action of the years following. At a single glance it becomes obvious how much English theorists, for two centuries and more owed to a party whom they dared not acknowledge. A consecutive history of the effect of these theories upon the events of the end of the sixteenth century in England hardly belongs here, but a few observations on their relation to the further development of political thought may be pertinent. The first point here to be observed is the close connection of Jesuit theory and Spanish practice. Loyola himself was a Spaniard before he become a Jesuit. Just as the Christianity of Augustine and Cyprian has been termed Latin Chris- tianity, and as that of the Lutherans might be termed Teutonic; so " the new development we have now before us resembles these in being the result of a blending of Christianity with the spirit of a particular nation. It is Spanish Christianity." Before the death of Elizabeth, Thomas Campanella, the famous and erratic Italian Dominican was urging that the religious differences in Eng- land should be employed by Spain to secure a Spanish succession.4 1 Responsio, Works, v, 175. See also Serviere, p. 58. 1 This is plainly put by Bellarmine: Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem infidelem, aut haereti- cum, si ille conetur -«ertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim, vel infidelitatem, at judicare, an Rex per- trahat ad haeresiir , necne, pertinet ad Pontificem, cui est commissa cura religionis, ergo Pontificis est judicare, Regem esse deponendum, vel non deponendum. De Romano Pontifice lib. v. cap. vii, Opera, i, 441. 1 Seeley, The Growth of British Policy, i, 83. 4 Animi etiam Catholicorum e somno quasi excitandi ac stimulandi sunt: sic Hispanus, quam primum thronus vacabit, praetextu juvandi illos intrabit in Angliam. . . . Norunt quippe omnes quanta bella intestina, quae alterationes et mutationes in Anglia diversis temporibus fuerint. Ita ut quod proposui, minime novum aut impossibile futurum sit. De Monarchia Hispanica, cap. xxv, 208-210. He also urges the building of strong forts at all ports and mouths of rivers in America, ne Angli perrumpentes haeresin importent, qua omnis intentio Hispanica aboleretur, ibid., 285. I know of no other open avowal so cynically proposing that English Catholics should be exploited in xxviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The flight of Mary of Scots to England, the northern rising and subsequent execution of Northumberland, the bill of deposition of Pius V in 1570, the exten- sion of the law of treason by acts of the Parliaments of 1571 and subsequent years, the troubles in Ireland, the establishment of seminaries on the Continent for the training of English missionary priests, the Jesuit missions of 1580, and afterward, the numerous plots to assassinate the Queen — these had all been con- nected in greater or less degree with the Spanish question as was the case in most of the religious and civil disorders in France at this tune. All, however, had been brought to a head by the execution of Mary Stuart in 1 587. Her death had given an added incentive and removed an important impediment to a Spanish attack. The Armada and its failure had followed the next year. That failure, however, by no means ended the Spanish influence, and some of its manifestations after 1588 are important for us, among others the quarrel between the Jesuits and Seculars and the publications that resulted. The question underlying this quarrel had begun to be acute immediately after the bull of 1570 and Elizabeth's new legislation against Catholics. It is interesting to note how far Elizabeth's minis- ters at this time go toward a tacit admission of the doctrine of the two kingdoms, in their defense of the persecution of Catholics. It was their claim that no Catho- lic suffered at their hands for his religious belief but only for seditious or treason- able words or acts affecting the State, and that the severity of the punishment even of these had been provoked only by the bull of 1570. This is the tenor of the anonymous tract published in 1584 under the title The Execution of Justice in England.1 This important paper was evidently written by someone high in authority, and it is generally attributed to Lord Burleigh himself. It was answered by William Allen, afterward Cardinal, in his True, Sincere and Modest Defence of English Catholics that suffer for their Faith both at Home and Abroad, published in 1584. It is the thesis of this able book in answer to Cecil, that the persecution of Catholics is really religious and not secular, that its true cause is the Anglican schism, not the traitorous actions of Catholics. To prove this he cites the anti- monarchical utterances of Protestants like Gilby or Knox and asks pertinently enough if these are not as dangerous to the State as those of any martyred Catho- lic. Involved jii this whole controversy is the fundamental question, raised by Henry VITi^Xact of supremacy, of the division of the secular and the ecclesiasti- cal. Allen accepts this division, as Cecil had impliedly done in his defense of the government, but he also adopts the Jesuit doctrine of the " subalternation " of the secular to the spiritual in a Christian state.2 His attack is keen and hard the interests of the Spanish monarchy. This remarkable little book has not received the attention it deserves. As usual the historians of thought have neglected it for the author's purely speculative Civitas Solis. It was translated into English during the Interregnum to show to Englishmen the danger of Spanish aggression. 1 Harleiait Miscellany, ii, 122 et seq. For Hallam's strictures on its author, see Constitutional History of England, ch. iii (American ed., i, 155 et seq.). * Vol. ii, ii-i2 (reprint). INTRODUCTION xxix indeed to answer by a government that claimed the right to punish as a traitor anyone who dared call the sovereign a heretic. Allen sees with grief the trend toward our modern political conditions where utility has taken the place of di- vine law; he bemoans the fact that there is " more ado about Caesar's tribute than about God's due." : " But now," he says, " and ever when the superiority temporal hath the preeminence, and the spiritual is but accessory, dependent, and wholly upholden of the other, error in faith is little accounted of, whatsoever their pulpit men (to make themselves and their patrons sport) bawl of such matters; and all our doings, endeavours, and exercises of religion are drawn to treasons and trespasses against the Queen; themselves protesting, in all their doings, that they meddle not with us for our doctrine whatsoever; thereby either insinuating that our religion is true, and indeed by the judgment of their own con- science not punishable, or else that they care not for it, nor what we believe, no further than toucheth their prince and temporal weal; wherein yet they wipe so hard as they draw blood." 2 This penetrating statement discloses the weakness of Cecil's argument, and also explains perfectly the theoretical basis of the actions of the aggressive Catholic party. The policy of the state was peculiar, and hard to defend and Allen had probed its weakest point. It is perfectly true that Cecil had in practice been loth to employ the law to restrain men's consciences except when plot and violence had forced his hand — the execution of the law had recog- nized so far as possible the separation of religion and politics. But his hand had been forced, by the necessity of protecting the existing government from over- throw, and he could not have done less with plots and rebellions on every hand. But while he might thus defend his execution of the law, he could only do so by confessing that the law was unenforced. The law itself could not by any sophistry be said not to touch religion. Ever since 1 534 the English penal statutes had pro- ceeded on the opposite theory. It was impossible to deny that " the supreme head in earth," or " the supreme governor " of the Church in England was trenching on the authority which most Catholics believed to be jure divino the sole right of Christ's vicar on earth, the bishop of Rome. This great controversy seems to us now as a conflict of two great principles. Behind the temporary phases of the quarrel lay an irreconcilable difference. Did the king inherit Christ's powers as priest, or were these the sole right of the bishop ? Sovereigns might in words disclaim any such power, as Elizabeth and James I occasionally did, but so long as they actually exercised it — and who that knows the reign of Elizabeth can doubt that she did ? — it is not strange that many Catholics should be disaffected. The position of the English government was in fact indefensible to anyone who held the current Jesuit view of Church and State, and though unenforcement of law might be a concession, the English laws themselves could not be successfully defended either on Calvinistic or on Jesuit principles. It was the Protestant Gilby who declared that the English had made > Op. cit., i, 77. » ibid., i, 77-78. xxx THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I their king a God. Whether due to papal action as Cecil claimed, or to the schism of Henry and his successors as Allen asserted, one fact becomes clear. " It was henceforward [after 1571] impossible for any one to be at once a good Roman Catholic and a good subject." 1 The historian may if he be a Catholic put the blame for this terrible dilemma of English Catholics upon the Reformation, as Lingard does; or, if a Protestant, like Froude he may charge it all to the Counter- Reformation and completely exonerate the ministers of Elizabeth. But behind it all a historian ought to see a clash of irreconcilable principles; a contest for absolute power over an undefined field by two jure dimno authorities, the King and the Supreme Pontiff. Not until schism is recognized as possible even if not legitimate, not till sects are given a status in fact at least, could this question ever be settled. So long as uniformity is a principle of political and ecclesiastical policy, so long as toleration is unknown, that settlement must be delayed. It is only when utility takes the place of divine law as the motive power of political policy that a permanent division of the two jurisdictions can arise, and then it may still be unsatisfactory to those who complain that there is " more ado about Caesar's tribute than God's due." Before that consummation became possible in England, however, the principles of both parties had to be discarded, divine right as well as papal authority in temporal matters ad finem spiritualem. While these still confronted each other a lasting settlement was impossible: they were mutu- ally incompatible. It seems idle to question the motives of the leaders of Catholic thought. Men like Allen were sincere. They held, as Bellarmine did, the spiritual principate to be temporali Principatu longe nobilior.2 " Certainly he would be a bold man," says Dr. Figgis, " who should assert that national independence is a greater good than the knowledge of the truth. The Jesuits and Presbyterians chose the one, the politiques the other. Were the former quite wrong ? " 3 From another angle the same author approaches the same question when he says, " Perhaps it would be most accurate to say, that in the Middle Ages human wel- fare and even religion was conceived under the form of legality, and in the modern world this has given place to utility" "and it is not at all clear that we have gained." * Some recent events in the world may well lead us to ask that question again. It is open to question whether our politics are actuated by an ideal higher than that of the Middle Ages. But growing diversity of view as to what truth was made this noble mediaeval ideal no longer possible for the world. We may hope that the greater richness of this diversity may in time produce again a unity that will more than compensate us for what we have lost; but this diversity, we can- not deny, has thus far involved loss as well as great gain. In this development the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the unfortunate period of transition when uniformity was still sought and enforced but in the face of actual diversity 1 Prothero, Statutes, etc., p. xlviii. ' Royal Hist. Soc. Trans., N. S., xi, 97. * Tractatus, cap. iii, 42. « From Gerson to Grolius, p. 14. INTRODUCTION xxxi of belief. It could therefore not be other than a period of persecution. " The greatest mass of mental suffering and physical pain that Europe has undergone since the barbaric ages was brought about by the partially successful struggle of the Catholic reaction to recover revolted Christendom." So wrote Mr. G. M. Trevelyan, no doubt with the Thirty Years' War chiefly in mind.1 He wrote before the year 1914. But while we do justice to the Jesuits and their coreligionists of this period, the difficulty of Elizabeth and her ministers must not be forgotten. Jesuit theory justified and Jesuit practice fomented internal rebellion and ex- ternal attack in Elizabeth's reign, nor are they entirely unconnected with the many plots against the Queen's life. Secondary as these might be in a convinced Jesuit to the grand purpose of bringing England back to the true fold, to a Protestant and one charged with the safety of the State, they could be nothing but treason. Undoubtedly it was the connection of these principles and overt acts with Spain that ultimately made them unpalatable to most Englishmen. A man like Allen might honestly prefer to see his native country a Hispanized but Catholic England rather than inde- pendent and heretical, but such could not be the view of any sincere Protestant, and time showed that it was equally impossible for the majority of Catholics as well; and when we see Sir Thomas More advocating the use of the Oath ex Officio by ecclesiastics of the old faith in order to discover hidden heresy,2 and Richard Cosin 3 and Bishop Andrewes 4 defending a like forcing of conscience in support of the Queen's establishment, we can appreciate the fact that this was no mere question of men or methods, but a fundamental difference of principle. Each side defended the truth as each saw it. At a time when legality is the test, when one side must be true and the other false, the controversy must eventually come to an examination of the relative truth of the two contentions. But what should be the test ? The Protestants adopted the doctrine and practice of the early Christian Church as evidenced by Scripture and the early Fathers. The Catho- lics claimed an equal authority for later theologians and for the decrees of the Popes, as an authoritative interpretation of these, which the Protestants denied. When we have a proper understanding of the importance of this test of truth — in the eyes of all at that day an absolute test — it will be easy to understand why James I was at such pains in his Monitory Preface to prove that he was really orthodox. To do so he had to distinguish between his own position and that of heretics "worthy of the faggot" like Vorstius; and he had to prove the Pope Antichrist, which he attempted to do at great length. Outside England, 1 England under the Stuarts, p. 34. 1 Apology, cap. 40, English Works, pp. 907-909; The Debettacyon of Salem and Bizance, cap. xv, English Works, pp. 986-990, 1028, 1033. 1 An Apologiefor Sundrie Proceedings by Jurisdiction Ecclesiaslicall, London, 1593. 4 Quaestionis: nunquid per jus Divinum, Magistrui liceat, a Reo Jusjurandum exigere, printed at the end of Cosin's Apologie. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I at least, divine right was not enough; he had to prove also that the religion he enforced was true, and in its essentials a living branch of the only true religion. With these things in mind it is easy to see how inevitable the struggle was, and how far reaching the issue of the Counter-Reformation. It also becomes easier to be fair in judging the antagonists on both sides. These considerations also serve to explain the position of those Catholics who in this dilemma were in- clined to accept a bare toleration of Catholicism coupled with national independ- ence, rather than the supremacy of their church obtained at the price of Spanish domination. It was the activity of a party holding the latter view that brought about the quarrel of Jesuits and Seculars in the last years of Elizabeth. If Robert Parsons may be considered the leader of the Jesuit party of English- men, William Watson was at least the most extreme and the most vocal of this party of«opposition, though probably not the weightiest. To understand James's policy toward Catholicsm it will be necessary to look briefly at the position of this party among Catholics. It is made clear enough by the title of the pamphlet which contains the most complete contemporary state- ment of their views — Important Considerations, which ought to move all true and sound Catholikes, who are not wholly Jesuited, to acknowledge without all equivoca- tions, ambiguities, or shiftings, that the proceedings of her Majesty, and of the Stale with them, since the beginning of her Highnesse raigne haue been both mild and merci- full, etc., published in 1601. This party attributed all the sufferings of Catholic to the wrong-headed and treasonable actions of the Jesuit missioners. As Catholics they thought this detrimental to the faith in England and the real cause of con- tinued and increasing persecution; as Englishmen they hated it as an aid to Spain. In the Epistle which precedes this manifesto Watson declares, " We all the Secular clergy . . . una voce, do utterly disclaim and renounce from our hearts, both Archpriest and Jesuits, as arrant Traitors unto their Prince and Country; whom to death, we will never obey: No, if the Pope's Holiness should charge us to obey in this sense, to advance an Enemy to the English Crown, we would never yield to it; as by no law of nature, of nations, or of man, to be compelled thereunto." * Watson asserts that the King of Spain is not interested in English Catholics, but in securing England for Spain, aided by " the Jesuitical Hispanized Faction of Falsehood, Hypocrisy, Sedition and Treason," in England.2 Parsons he refers to as a " pestilent Traitor," 3 and elsewhere he openly charges him with opposing a toleration of Catholics hi England because it would interfere with the scheme of a Spanish conquest.4 The Jesuits, he says, are " wholly Puritanes," 5 and proceeds to enumerate no less than twenty-five points of similarity, among others a seeking " to pull downe Kings and Princes " and to bring " all Kings and common-wealthes to a popularitie and Oligarchicall gouernement." 6 " Surely 1 P- 25. * Decacordon, pp. 151-154. 1 Ibid., 11-12. ' Ibid., 27. ' Ibid., 14. e Ibidi 28 INTRODUCTION xxxiii they [the Jesuits] were, and haue beene tray tors both before God and man; " 1 and "All Priests and others, that are not of that seditious lesuiticall, and Spanish faction, are bound in charitie (as now the case stands) to detect them to the vttermost." 2 These were not empty words, for the seculars gave much information to Ban- croft and Cecil which was of great use in the prosecution of Jesuits and in thwart- ing their schemes. No doubt, also, the strength and activity of this party it was that later induced James to attempt to distinguish between loyal and disloyal Catholics by means of the oath of allegiance. There is no question, either, of the substantial correctness of many of the charges made by Watson against Parsons and others, as will appear later, though the motives he ascribes may not always be the true ones. Before coming to a more detailed account of the political theory of James I and his reign, it is necessary to understand just one more, but that a most im- portant, political conception which that period inherited from the controversies of the preceding century — the theoryofthediyineright of kings. The story of the gradual development of this idea in opposition to the repub- licanism of Calvinists and Jesuits, has been set forth so completely and so ade- quately in Dr. Figgis's Divine Right of Kings 3 that it is unnecessary and would be almost impertinent to attempt to summarize it here. That book is indispensi- bleto anyone who hopes to understand the theory of James I. This theory in 1603 presupposed a sovereign who had a personal and an in- dividual right, derived directly from God, to his throne. Some of its adherents in James's time attached this right to the royal office and therefore extended it to the King de facto on his institution regardless of the merits of his claims to the crown. The more thorough-going, however, rejected this view and held to a theory of hereditary right analogous to the private right of succession to land under the feudal law. James himself, as was necessary to the security of his tenure, resolutely set his face against any other theory, and it became the core of Jacobitism a century later. The right was hereditary as well as divine. As this right was divine, the King was God's representative upon earth, with heavy re- sponsibilities, for which, however, he was responsible^tojGod _aJoQe-. . His powers were commensurate. They included nothing less than the complete disposal of 1 Decacordon, 252. 1 Ibid., 9. 3 Second edition, Cambridge, 1914. See Particularly pp. 93-106 for a summary of the literature which has made it unnecessary to set it forth here. Probably the most important of these books, hitherto not referred to, is The True Difference Betweene Christian Subiection and Vnchristian Rebellion: •wherein the Princes Lawfull power to commaundfor trueth, and indepriuable right to beare the sword are defended against the Popes censures and the Jesuits sophismes vltered in their Apologie and Defence of English Catholikes, by Thomas Bilson, Warden of Winchester, Oxford, 1585. In this long dialogue of some 820 quarto pages, between Theophilus the Christian and Philander the Jesuite, Bilson gives probably the most complete account on all its sides of the position of the adherents of Elizabeth's policy. It was a storehouse of facts and arguments for later disputants, probably including James I himself, though not quite all of the Bishop's inferences could have been palatable to him. rxriv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I his subjects' persons and property, and the obstacles put in the way of their exercise by the common law were disposed of by the theorists by the doctrine that the prerogative was above the ordinary course of that law, which might therefore be dispensed with when need arose, of which the sovereign alone was to be the judge. This power was not limited by the boundaries of the ecclesiasti- cal and temporal. Contrary to Bellarmine's doctrine, it includes the clergy as well as the laity.1 Under such a theory the sacred duty of subjects was clear - absolute and unquestioning obedience; and even a bad king, whose possible existence is admitted, is none the less divine because bad; he is sent by God as a punishment of the people for their sins and his tyranny must be met by nothing more than prayers, sighs, and tears. Such was the theory of the Stuart Mon- archy, forged in part in the heat of the religious controversy of the preceding I dynasty; and with this brief statement of it, we are ready to take up the fuller account of the developments of political doctrine under the first James. 1 Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, pp. 30, 64-65. CHAPTER II IN considering the political philosophy of James I and his reign, probably no subject is better to begin with than the one about which we have just been speaking, the divine right of kings. This doctrine is set forth by James himself in all his political writings from the earliest to the latest, and set forth in its ex- tremest form, no doubt because in practice " he had been kept short of it in his Native Country," as Welwood acutely remarks.1 In the Basilikon Doron, he urges Prince Henry to love God, first because He has made him a man, " and next, for that he made you a little God, to sit on his Throne, and rule ouer other men." 2 " I am the Husband, and the whole Isle is my lawfull Wife; I am the Head, and it is my Body," as he put it in startling phrase to his first English Parlia- ment in i6o3.3 " Kings," he declared in his Defence of the Right of Kings, are " the breathing Images of God vpon earth." 4 They " are not only Gods Lieu- tenants vpon earth, and sit vpon Gods throne, but euen by God himselfe they are called Gods." 5 The implications of such a theory in the sphere of the reciprocal relations of the King and his subjects must be treated later, but first it is important to con- sider by what title the reigning sovereign was believed to hold such awful power. Among the supporters of divine right, some, as we have seen, considered the absolute power of the king as arising ex-officio, regardless of his title. " The pos- session of the crowne," wrote Sir John Hayward at the opening of James' reign in 1603, "purgeth all defects, and maketh good the actes of him that is in autho- ritie, although he wanteth both capacitie and right." 6 Convocation itself in the early years of the reign definitely accepted the same theory. " If any man shall affirm that . . . when any such new forms of Government, begun by Rebellion, are after thoroughly settled, the Authority in them, is not of God: or that any, who live within the Territories of such new Governments, are not bound to be subject to God's Authority, which is there executed, but may rebel against the same ... he doth greatly Erre." 7 It is not surprising that the English historian of the English Henry the Fourth, or that Tudor bishops should hold such a theory; but if they did, not so the Scots, trained in a different political school. Their views are faithfully reflected by Sir 1 Memoirs, p. 19. « Ibid., p. 488, post. p. 272. 1 Works, p. 148, post. p. 12. « Ibid., p. 464, post, p. 248. 6 Speech to the Parliament of 1600-10, Works, p. 529, post, p. 307. The whole passage (Works, pp. 520-531, post, pp. 307-310), deserves careful attention as probably the most complete exposi- tion of the King's views of the divine nature of kingship. * An Answer to Dolman, ch. iii. 7 Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, book i, Canon xxviii (p. 59). xxxvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Thomas Craig the great feudist, in the ablest book written in answer to the re- publican views of Robert Parsons, a book that deserves to be better known than it is. " Our enquiry here," says Craig, " is not at all of what is Profitable and Advantageous, but of what is Right and Just, and who it is that by the Laws of God and Men has the best Title and Right to the Succession of so considerable an Empire." x Not till after the death of Charles I and the republican extremes of the years ensuing did the English royalists unanimously accept this Scottish conception of hereditary right, but then, in the reaction from republicanism it rapidly became the necessary doctrine of Jacobitism. For the essence of Jacobi- tism is Scottish not English; it is based on the Roman law of Scotland rather than the national custom of England. One of its ablest early defenders was the feudal lawyer Craig, and one of its latest, Sir George MacKenzie, " bloody Mac- Kenzie," the civilian, author of the Institutions of the Law of Scotland.2 The theory, like the blood of the Stuarts, was Scottish, and the older English doctrine revived only when the House of Stuart disappeared. The contest over the Ex- clusion Bill and the long debate over James IPs " abdication " are indications of the strength of this doctrine, but also the prophecy of its end. James I himself was a true Scot, and to the end of a fairly long life and an English reign of over twenty years could never appreciate or even understand the English constitution. His pedestrian mind, his earlier political experience, and his shrewdness in all things touching his own interests, all contributed to an unwavering insistence on the hereditary character of his title, which appears no less clearly in his earliest than in his latest political utterances. His answer to Convocation's assertion of the right of a de facto king was a sharp letter to George Abbot, afterwards Archbishop. " Good Doctor Abbot " was warned that he had "dipp'd too deep in what all King's reserve among the Arcana Imperil" and advised in future to " meddle no more " with such " Edge-Tools." The King's disapproval kept the canons from becoming operative, and delayed their publi- \ cation till after the Revolution of i689-3 The importance of this part of James's theory can hardly be overestimated, for the whole of his doctrine 1 Concerning the Right of Succession to the kingdom of England, p. 386. 1 Second edition, Edinburgh, 1688. MacKenzie's political ideas are set forth in his Jus Regium, London, 1684. The second part of this book has the title: That the Lawful Successor cannot be De- barr'd from Succeeding to the Crown. Its motto is taken from James I's advice to Prince Henry, " Defraud never the nearest by Right." ' Bishop Overall's Convocation Book was first published under the imprimatur of Archbishop San- croft in 1690. James's letter to Abbot is printed in Welwood's Memoirs, p. 257. In it the King says his reason for calling Convocation was to obtain their judgment as to how far "a Christian and a Pro- testant King " might go in assisting the Dutch to oppose the tyranny of their sovereign the king of Spain. It was a hard task to reconcile any such assistance with James's ideas of hereditary right, and Convocation failed most signally. James's sensitiveness on this point of his title seems to have been heightened by the recent publication of a pamphlet against hereditary right, as appears from his reference in his letter to " Hales his Pamphlet." This pamphlet was probably a publication of A Declaration of the Succession of the Crowne Imperiatt of Ingland, made by J. [John] Hales, 1563. This interesting paper is printed in George Harbin's The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted, London, 1713, Appendix, no. vii. , INTRODUCTION xxxvii concerning the powers and duties of kings is directly deducible from it. For him the King's right to his crown is heritable precisely as was the right of the eldest son of a tenant of a feodum militare under feudal law. And it was more. It was a right inalienable and indefeasible. James's whole polit- ical theory appears full-blown in his The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, writ- ten in 1598, five years before he succeeded to the throne of England, not only the first but the most comprehensive of all his political writings. The stubbornness, with which, throughout all the vicissitudes of his later strug- gles with the English Parliament, James held to all points of the doctrine there laid down indeed explains much. James's inability to learn or unlearn anything is displayed in a startling way by a comparison of this book with the history of his rule in England. This and other early expressions of his political views have not been sufficiently emphasized in accounting for the events of his reign and after it. From the opinions there stated no new situations or conditions could ever shake him, and this must be considered one of the fundamental causes of the constitutional revolution of the next three quarters of a century. Of these opinions the doctrine of legitimism was among the most important. Allegiance, he says, is due not only to the reigning king, but also to his " lawfull heires and posterity, the lineall succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, ,and happily continued in diuers Christian common-wealths . . . For, as hee is their heritable ouer-lord, and so by birth, not by any right in the coronation, commeth to his crowne, it is a like vnlawful (the crowne euer standing full) to displace him that succeedeth thereto, as to elect the former: For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heire entreth in his place: And so to refuse him, or intrude another, is not to holde out vncom- ming in, but to expell and put out their righteous King." l " But if God giue you not succession," he warns his son, " defraud neuer the nearest by right, what- soeuer conceit yee haue of the person: For Kingdomes are euer at Gods disposi- tion, and in that case we are but liue-rentars, lying no more in the Kings, nor peoples hands to dispossesse the righteous heire." In the speech from the throne opening his first English Parliament, James insisted upon the same point,3 and could have found little to quarrel with in Par- liament's answer, " That immediately upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queen of England, the Imperial Crown of the Realm of England, and of all the Kingdoms, Dominions and Rights belonging to the same, did by inherent Birthright, and lawful and undoubted Succession, descend and come to your most excellent Majesty, as being lineally, justly and lawfully, next and sole Heir of the Blood Royal of this Realm." 4 1 The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, Works, p. 209, post, p. 69. See also Ibid., Works, p. 203, post, p. 64. 1 Basilikon Dor on (1598), Works, p. 173, post, p. 37. » Works, p. 485, post, p. 269. « I Jac. I, c. i. xxxviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I James, of course, was not unaware that his right though divine and heritable, could be traced to a historical beginning. How was he then to distinguish be- tween his ancestors' acquisition of the Crown from which all his own rights flowed, and the mere de facto sovereignty of any usurper ? Here the analogy of private property again proved useful. jConquest :js .to be ^distinguished from usurpation ; the conqueror is in much the same position as one who acquires title by occupatio; and quod . . . nullius est, id ratione natural! occupanti con- ceditur.1 But Scotland, and England as well, was conquered by James's ances- tors. Thus their right to the realm is nothing less than an absolute ownership, and neither the people nor anyone else can have any rights in what is solely theirs; neither can the people by laws of their own making interfere with the owners' enjoyment of what is theirs alone. " The Kings therefore in Scotland were before any estates or rankes of men within the same, before any Parliaments were holden, or lawes made: and by them was the land distributed (which at the first was whole theirs) states erected and decerned, and formes of gouernement deuised and established. And so it followes of necessitie, that the kings were the authors and makers of the Lawes, and not the Lawes of the kings." : " Lawes," of course there were, and even lawes " fundamental." But these James is at pains to explain are " onely those Lawes whereby confusion is auoyded, and their Kong's descent mainteined, and the heritage of the succession and Monarchic/^ The fundamental law is jus Regis and nothing more.4 Even this is " but craued " by the King's subjects, " and onely made by him at their roga- tion and with their aduice." 5 This identification of fundamental law with the Jus Coronae was not new in England. In the fourteenth century Edward III and Richard II had attempted to evade troublesome acts of Parliament on the ground that they violated the fundamental law, the Jus Coronae to which they had sworn at their coronation and, therefore, could not part with even if they would. Such a complete identifica- tion of the Jus Coronae with the law fundamental never prevailed, however; and the Jus Regni, as well as the law of the Crown, was always regarded as law fun- damental in England, as James himself was at tunes forced to admit, though he never consented to be brought within it. With the unfettered ownership of the realm solely in the King, James's next logical step was one made easy and even inevitable by the assumption of the feudal confusion of dominium and imperium. " And as ye see it is manifest that the King is ouer-Lord of the whole land: so is he Master ouer euery person that inhabiteth the same, hauing power ouer the life and death of euery one of them." * D. 41, i. 3. pr. Trew Law, Works, p. 201, post, p. 62. Speech in Parliament in 1607, Works, p. 520, post, p. 300. Ibid. Trew Law, Works, p. 202, post, p. 62. Ibid., p. 203, post, p. 63. INTRODUCTION xxxix Thus Kings exercising " a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth," may, like God, " make and vnmake their subiects: they haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death. . . . They haue power to, exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of their subiects like men at the Chesse: a pawne to take a Bishop or a Knight, and to cry vp, or downe any of their subiects, as they do their money. . . . For to Emperors, or Kings that are Monarches, their Subiects bodies & goods are due for their defence and main- tenance. . . . Now a Father may dispose of his Inheritance to his children, at his pleasure: yea, euen disinherite the eldest vpon iust occasions, and preferre the youngest, according to his liking; make them beggars, or rich at his pleasure; restraine, or banish out of his presence, as hee findes them giue cause of offence, or restore them in fauour againe with the penitent sinner: So may the King deale with his Subiects." l Such a theory as this leaves no place for the law of the land or the authority of the estates of the Realm when they conflict with the king's will. Prerogative had been high enough before, but it was acknowledged to have limits. Welwood says of Elizabeth: " As she was far from invading the Liberties of her Subjects, so she was careful to maintain and preserve her own just Prerogative. . . . The whole Conduct of her Life plac'd her beyond the Suspicion of ever having sought Greatness for any other end, than to make her People share with her in it." James, on the other hand, " grasp'd at an Immoderate Power, but with an ill Grace; and if we believe the Historians of that time, with a design to make his People little." 2 This is a serious indictment, but a true one. In James's view the liberty of the subject was only such as he saw fit to allow since it was derived solely from him or his ancestors, while the will of the subject must always bend to his own even though expressed in the most authoritative form of immemorial custom or solemn act of Parliament. It was a necessary deduction from his theory of the kingship and its tenure, and to James dialectic was ever more per- suasive than history. Though the King should not take his subjects' lives " with- out a cleare law; yet the same lawes whereby he taketh them, are made by him- self e, or his predecessours; and so the power flowes alwaies from him selfe." The King himself "is aboue the law, as both the author and giuer of strength thereto." He is in no way bound to obey it "but of his good will, and for good example-giuing to his subiects." It may therefore " vpon knowen respects to the King by his authoritie bee mitigated, and suspended vpon causes onely knowen to him." 3 Nor has the king, in James's opinion, divested himself of any of this power by consenting to take the coronation oath, a point much relied on by the oppo- nents both lay and ecclesiastkal of royal prerogative. Such an oath is taken to God alone; a king by taking it " makes not his Crowne to stoupe by this meanes 1 Speech in Parliament, 1609-10, Works, pp. 529-530, post, pp. 307-308. 1 Memoirs, pp. 18-19. ' Treat Law, Works, p. 203, post, p. 63. xl THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I to any power in the Pope, or in the Church, or in the people." l The prerogative is Arcanum Imperii. It is an act of impiety for any subject, though he be judge or Parliament man, to touch the sacred thing. ~' Incroach not vpon the Preroga- tiue of the Crowne," James warns the Judges ia 1616. " If there fall out a ques- tion that concerns my Prerogatiue or mystery of State, deale not with it: . . . for they are transcendent matters." 2 " It is Atheisme and blasphemie to dispute what God can doe: good Christians content themselves with his will reuealed in his word, so, it is presumption and high contempt hi a Subiect, to dispute what a King can doe, or say that a King cannot doe this, or that; but rest in that which is the Kings reuealed will in his Law. . . . That which concerns the mysterie of the Kings power, is not lawfull to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakenesse of Princes, and to take away the mysticall reuerence, that belongs vnto them that sit in the Throne of God." 3 James draws a distinction between his "private Prerogatiue" - " my priuate right, betweene me and a subiect,"4 under which he professes to ask of the judges no more than would be granted to any of his people; and "the absolute Prerog- atiue," the " mystery of State," which " is no Subiect for the tongue of a Lawyer, nor is lawfull to be disputed." 5 To anyone, with even the slightest knowledge of the constitutional history of this time and the period preceding, it must be obvious how utterly inconsistent such theories as these are with the views of practically all the common lawyers and most of the Parliamentarians of the day. By the attempt to make actual these absolutist doctrines the train was laid for the explosion which came later in the century: in fact, it made that catastrophe almost inevitable. Opposition to these theories was, of course, aroused at once, among lawyers and others, in Parliament and out, but there is no space here to recount it.6 This is the real beginning of the constitutional revolution in England, and as that struggle was in all its stages a contest between law and absolute power, its first phase was a quarrel between the common lawyers and royal commissions acting under the prerogative. Behind the temporary questions debated by these antagonists, however, we may also detect a clash of principles which may be of even greater importance for the history of political thought. For there is some evidence, not often noticed, that in James's first years a conscious and determined effort was being made, not altogether without the sympathy of the King, to weaken the immemorial custom 1 Remonstrance to Cardinal du Perron, Works, p. 441, post, p. 226. There is an elaborate discus- sion of this subject in the Treui Law, Works, pp. 207-209, post, pp. 68-69. James argues along the customary lines against the view that the King's violation of his oath can absolve the people from theirs, which would make them judges in their own cause, whereas God alone can judge. 1 Speech in the Star Chamber, 1616, Works, p. 556, post, p. 332. 1 Ibid; Works, p. 557, post, p. 333. Ibid., Works, p. 561, post, p. 337. ' Ibid., Works, p. 557, Post, p. 333. « Elsewhere I have tried to set it forth in some detail. The High Court of Parliament (1910), particularly chs. ii and v. INTRODUCTION xli of the courts of common law by a "reception" more or less complete — more rather than less the lawyers feared — of the principles and procedure of Roman law, already employed in the courts of Scotland and in various jurisdictions in -England^ particularly the ecclesiastical. The struggle for the prerogative was not a simple one; it can only be understood in combination with the royalist / zeal for the absolutist principles of the Roman law.1 To the opposition roused by this propaganda James was forced to yield to the extent of suppressing the most hated expression of these Roman and royalist \ views, Dr. Cowell's law dictionary; and James even plumed himself — hypocrit- ; ically I must believe — on account of " my censure of that booke." ! But what- ' ever concessions the King might make against his real convictions for the sake of obtaining a larger grant by Parliament for his desperate needs, an examination discloses no definitions of Dr. Cowell's which went so far as the King's own windy and extravagant preachments to his Parliaments and judges; and nothing indi- cates that James ever truly departed from these in thought, or — save under extreme pressure — in word or deed. In James's theory there is no more place for the supremacy or even the inde- pendence of the national assembly than for its decrees. The king, for example, is able to do as he pleases with the lands of his subjects " without aduice or authoritie of either Parliament, or any other subalterin iudiciall seate." ' Parlia- ^/ ment, in fact, is " nothing else but the head Court of the king and his vassals," and the king may "make daily statutes and ordinances, enioyning such paines thereto as hee thinkes meet, without any aduice of Parliament or estates." This was spoken particularly of Scotland, but James adds that the like is true of England, and cites the example of William the Conqueror.3 In one place he seems to recede somewhat from this extreme, if Salisbury re- ports him correctly, and to acknowledge "that he had noe power to make lawes of himselfe, or to exact any subsidies de jure without the consent of his 3 Es- tates." 4 „ But this was while he had hopes of a large supply from Parliament, and his later words are hardly consistent with these. His real views are better expressed in the Trew Law and there is little to indicate any sincere or permanent departure from them. And as of Parliament and its " ordinances," so also of Parliament's ancient privilege. Probably nowhere is the effect of James's theory upon his outward acts more manifest than in his repeated violations of the Lex Parliament, particu- larly of the right of freedom of speech. But this is history too well known to need repeating.6 1 As an example of the absolutist views of the Civilians, see Sir George MacKenzie's Institutions of the Law of Scotland, lib. i, tit. iii. 1 Speech in Parliament, 1609 (1610), Works, p. 528, post, p. 307. See Appendix B, p. Ixxrvii. ' Trew Law, Works, p. 202, post, p. 62. 4 Parliamentary Debates in 1610 (Camden Soc.), p. 24. ' See particularly Parliamentary History, 1, 1301, el seq., 1326-1371, passim; James's speech in Par- liament in 1605, Works, pp. 506, 507, post, pp. 288-289. Speech of 1607, Works, p. 521, post, p. 301, etc. xlii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I That these outward acts are a true reflection of James's settled convictions, many of his utterances show. ParKamcntr he declares, is not a place " for euery rash and harebrained fellow to propone new Lawes of his owne inuention: nay rather, I could wish these busie heads to remember that Law of the Lacedemo- \ nians, That whosoeuer came to propone a new Law to the people, behooued publikely to present himselfe with a rope about his necke, that in case the Law were not allowed, he should be hanged therewith." 1 " It is no place then for particular men to vtter there their priuate conceipts, nor for satisfaction of their curiosities, and least of all to make shew of their eloquence by tyning the time with long studied and eloquent Orations." 2 The King contrasts the freedom of debate in the English Parliament with the preferable conditions in Scotland, where " they must not speake without the Chauncellors leaue, and if any man doe propound or vtter any seditious or vncomely speeches, he is straight inter- rupted and silenced by the Chauncellors authoritie: where as here, the libertie for any man to speake what hee list, and as long as he list, was the onely cause he was not interrupted." 3 " And therefore/' he advises his son. "Aold no Parlia- ments, but for necessitie of new Lawes, which would be but seldome : for few Lawes and well put in execution, are best in a well ruled common- weale."4 Though we may agree with the latter part of this advice, any student of English history knows what calamities were brought upon the house of Stuart by the too faithful observance of the first. Not alone the High Court of Parliament, but the lower courts as well, James means to keep under his constant supervision and control. " Delite to haunt your Session, and spie carefully then" proceedings," he urges Prince Henry. " Let it be your owne craft, to take a sharpe account of euery man in his office." s And he warns his judges in 1616, in words that Bacon has made famous, that their office is jus dicere not jus dare.6 James had thus as early as 1599 outlined a policy which when put in practice later in England by himself and Charles contributed so much to the revolt of the nation against his family. In all these theories of the King with respect to the relations of the governor and the governed there are many traces of feudalism, particularly in his doctrine of hereditary right; but there is one feature of the feudal relation that is con- spicuous by its absence in James's politics. Of the reciprocal duties of dominus and homo so prominent in the mediaeval conception of English kingship there re- mains not a trace: it has been replaced entirely by the Roman conception of a king legibus solutus, placed at a distance so immeasurably above his subditi that he can in no way be bound by earthly law to the performance of any duties to them. The relation of his subjects to him, on the other hand, must consist entirely of Speech of 1605, Works, p. 506, post, p. 288. Ibid., Works, p. 507, post, p. 288. Speech of 1607, Works, p. 521, post, p. 301. Basilikon Dor on, Works, p. 156, post, p. 20. Ibid., Works, p. 176, post, p. 39. « Works, p. 555, post, p. 332. INTRODUCTION xliii \ duties, and duties to which no limits can be put; of the " rights of subjects " it is idle, even impious to speak. There are none. It is for the subject " not to ask the reason why." For him the single aspect of his relation to his lawful sovereign is absolute, unquestioning, passive obedience no matter how tyrannous or op- pressive the acts of that sovereign may actually become. An evil king is indeed a scourge, but none the less a scourge sent by God. He is no less God's instru- ment because of his tyranny, and the only remedy for such oppression is in prayers to God that the scourge may be taken away. Against even such a king if his title is lawful no direct remedy can be applied. To James's mind the en- trusting of the royal power to the hands of his ancestors was proved by Scripture to be an irrevocable act,1 and the corresponding duty of non-resistance in his sub- jects was equally supported by the same high authority.2 Their obedience, there- fore, ought to be rendered to him " as to Gods Lieutenant in earth, obeying his commands in all things, except directly against God, as the commands of Gods Minister, acknowledging him a ludge set by GOD, ouer them, hauing power to iudge them, but to be iudged onely by GOD, whom to onely hee must giue count of his iudgement: fearing him as their Iudge, louing him as their father; pray- ing for him as their protectour; for his continuance, if he be good; for his amendement, if he be wicked; following and obeying his lawful! commaunds, eschewing and flying his fury in his unlawfull, without resistance, but by sobbes and teares to God, according to that sentence vsed in the primitiue church in the time of the persecution. Preces, &° Lachrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae." 3 The King then turns from Scripture to analogy. If it is absurd that burghers should turn out their provost before his term is over, or pupils their master, " although but subaltern," " how much lesse is it lawfull vpon any pretext to controll or displace the great Prouost, and great Schoole-master of the whole land." 4 From the city and the school he passes to the family, and asks, " Yea, suppose the father were furiously following his sonnes with a drawen sword, is it lawfull for them to turne and strike againe, or make any resistance but by flight ? " 6 The answer is furnished even by the lower animals, where the parents " with violence and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their yong ones from them," yet the young will never offer any violence in return, except among the vipers. So subjects who answer with violence the " bloody strokes " of their king do but prove themselves " to be endued with their viperous nature." 8 " I grant indeed," he says, " that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people, and a plague for their sinnes; but that it is lawfull to them to shake off that curse at their owne hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny." 7 " Patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their liues, are the onely lawful meanes to moue God to relieue them of that heauie curse." 1 Treui Law, Works, p. 198, post, p. 58. l Ibid., Works, p. 205, post, p. 65. 1 Ibid., Works, pp. 199, 200, post, pp. 59, 60. • Ibid. 1 Trew Law, Works, pp. 200-201, post, p. 61. 7 Ibid., Works, p. 206, post, p. 67. 4 Ibid., Works, p. 204, post, p. 64. 8 Ibid., Works, p. 207, post, p. 67. xliv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Any doubt as to whether these doctrines of the King were shared by the up- holders of prerogative among his subjects will be set at rest by a reading of the canons adopted by Convocation or the books of Craig, Blackwood, or Barclay.1 Sir Robert Filmer's later theories, though more influential and possibly more systematically set forth, had nothing really original in them. In holding such high claims for his royal office, James, of course, was not ignorant that he differed from his former tutor, from many of his subjects, and A from others of the most famous thinkers and writers on the relation of princes and their subjects. It is evident that his reading of such authors was extensive. That reading, however, had never inspired him with any other feeling than one of mingled contempt and fear, but rather had increased his determination to sup- press such " seditious " utterances whenever they were found, and to punish with all the authority at his command any who dared to question his own view of these " mysteries of princes." He admonishes his son to " represse the insolence of such, as vnder pretence to taxe a vice in the person, seeke craftily to staine the race, and to steale the affection of the people from their posteritie." Even the possession of " infamous libels " such as those of Knox and Buchanan is to be severely punished.L_He \gains his Justices of Assize to be on their guard against " Gentlemen of great worth in their owne conceit," who " cannot be content with the present forme of gouernement, but must haue a kind of libertie in the people, and must be gracious Lords, and Redeemers of their libertie; and in euery cause that concernes Prerogative^ giue a snatch against a Monarchic through their Puritanicall itching after Popularitie." " Some of them," he significantly adds, " haue shewed themselves too bold of late in the lower house of Parliament." 4 James is among the first, if not the first, to apply to such men the name of Levellers.* From such extensive claims as these, and so extravagantly expressed, it would be wrong to infer that the royalist theory imposed no duties upon its king though legibus solutus. Obligations he had, and all the heavier on account of his emi- nence, but they were obligations to God alone. In fairness to James himself, it must be said that in theory if not always in practice, he emphasized these duties only less than his powers. He never denied them. A good king will act as "knowing himself e to be ordained for them [his people], and they not for him; " 6 and though a wicked king may be judged by God alone, his judgment will be the heavier, for "the highest bench is sliddriest to sit vpon." 7 "A Tyrannes miserable and infamous life," he warns his eldest son, " armeth in end his owne 1 For example, Overall's Convocation Book, book i. Canons 2, 8, 13, 17, 29, 35, etc. Craig, op, tit., pp. 185, 193, and ch. rv. : BasUikon Doron, Works, p. 158, post, p. 21. * Ibid., Works, p. 176, post, p. 40. 4 Speech of 1616, Works, p. 564, post, p. 340. ' Ibid., Works, p. 568, post, p. 344. Trew Law, Works, p. 195, post, p. 55. 7 Ibid., Works, p. 209, post, p. 70. INTRODUCTION xlv Subiects to become his burreaux1 and although that rebellion be euer vnlawfull on their part, yet is the world so wearied of him, that his fall is little meaned by the rest of his Subiects, and but smiled at by his neighbours."2 The reed placed in Christ's hand by the Jews when they derisively crowned him as their King, James tells his son Charles, should " put him in minde to manage his authoritie boldly, and yet temperately, not stretching his royall Prerogatiue but where necessitie shall require it " ; 3 and he adds an aphorism to which among the kings of his day he himself was on the whole unusually faithful; " A King should neuer pun- ish but with a weeping eye." 4 A precept not so well observed was his advice to Prince Henry not to enrich himself at his subjects' expense and to exact sub- sidies " as rarely as ye can." 6 Among the duties which God required of a Christian king the protection and advancement of the interests of the true faith was one of the chief. As James said, " That it is one of the principall parts of that duetie which appertaines vnto a Christian King, to protect the trew Church within his owne Dominions, and extirpate heresies is a Maxime without all controuersie." 6 James as successor of Elizabeth was " the only supreme governor " of the realm " in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes," and all ecclesiastics and state officials had to acknowledge this by oath; but ecclesiastics, for a single refusal of the oath, pro- vided they went no further, could be punished only by the loss of ecclesiastical office and emoluments. But Catholics, and many nonconformists also, had, of course, lost all these long before James's accession. This fact and the limitations put upon the royal power in ecclesiastical matters during Elizabeth's later years made the King's relation to Catholics and nonconformists somewhat different from that of Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, when Catholics still filled so many of the benefices and bishoprics. In Elizabeth's reign also, as we have seen, the doctrine of the two kingdoms had come to be accepted more or less fully by all opponents of the king as su- preme governor, and had been tacitly recognized even by royal ministers in the administration of the laws. These were changes which account for a large part of James's ecclesiastical policy. But there was one title to which James succeeded which had undergone less modification, the title first conferred by the Pope upon Henry VIII for his book against Luther, Defender of the Faith. Though the papal gift had been withdrawn, and notwithstanding the fact that it was not entirely certain just 1 Probably in the same sense as the Anglo-Saxon bork, i.e., he will be put under pledge for good conduct. For the law-burrow in Scots law, from which James got this expression, see, e.g., Lord Stair's Institutions of the Law of Scotland (second ed., Edinburgh, 1693), lib. 4, tit. 48; or Sir John Skene's De Verborum Significatione, s.v. law-burrow. James can hardly have meant the French bourreau, executioner. I BasUikon Doron, Works, p. 156, post, p. 19. 3 A Paterne for a King's Inauguration, Works, p. 621. See also Ibid., pp. 620-621. 4 Ibid. II BasUikon Doron, Works, p. 178, post, p. 42. • A Declaration against Vorstius, Works, p. 349. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I what faith would be defended, as Maitland aptly remarks; l Elizabeth had as- sumed the title and it passed to Tames hi 1603. But Elizabeth's long reign had at least done one thing. It had practically determined what that faith was of which James now declared himself the defender. The Canons, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Prayer Book, The Act of Uniformity, and the Council of Trent had produced their effect. In Elizabeth's first years, the Ecdesia Anglicana in so far as it differed from that of Rome was Protestant; that is about all that can be said of it. And Protestant was a term implying primarily only protest and nega- tion, a meaning entirely accurate just after the Reformation and nowhere more properly applicable than in England. By James's time however, this is all changed. Though the diversity of sects may have deprived the general term Protestantism of much positive content, Parliament and Convocation had now supplied the defect for England at least, and the definiteness of the break with Rome made evident by the decrees of the Council of Trent had done the rest. In 1603 England had what she certainly had not in 1558 or 1559 — a national, or at least a state faith as well as a state church, to which it is entirely proper to apply the term Anglo-Catholicism. It is true many things might not have been determined with entire definiteness. Its creed might be susceptible of inter- pretations differing as widely as those of Bishop Burnet and Tract Ninety, and its episcopal polity might be of divine ordination, or only " for order sake; " 2 but there is certainly at last in existence a faith to defend; a faith defined by Parliament, even though negatively, as based on Scripture and the first four general councils, and explained, though with some vagueness, by the same authority and by Convocation in the Articles of Religion. It is, of course, not impossible that James might have disregarded this. His theory certainly was that his faith was the one to be defended, and all his prede- cessors since Henry VII had acted on the German principle of cujus regio ejus religio, a principle that was by no means dead yet in England. The Revolution of 1688 still had to be fought partly to disprove the reassertion of it by James's grandson, and its death warrant was not signed till 1701 in the Act of Settlement. In 1603 it might indeed be fairly said that the question was not entirely closed: it was simply not raised; because of the fact that James's own private convic- tions were in all essential points — at least in all points likely at that time to lead to controversy — at one with those of the supporters of Anglo-Catholicism, and hence James's reign is marked by a closer alliance of King and higher clergy than can be found at almost any other time. In fact the fruits of the theory of the " supreme governor " did not fully ripen until England had a governor whose own faith was different from that of his people and his clergy. When this oc- curred we see the familiar linking of religious and political questions. For the Revolution of 1688 was as much religious as secular, nay it was more. Religion, 1 Elizabethan Gleanings, Collected Papers, iii, 158. 1 James, in his Monitory Preface, Works, p. 306, post, pp. 126-127. INTRODUCTION xlvii though to a less extent than in the sixteenth century, was still " the motive power of the age." It is not surprising that the opponents of prerogative should then republish as their own the republican doctrines of Parsons, the Jesuit, first uttered under Elizabeth,1 at the same time that they were holding up to popular detestation another book of the same author, his Jesuits' Memorial. " Jesuit," in fact, then became one of the favorite taunts hurled by the followers of a Catho- lic prince at the very party which existed only to exclude that prince, and to ex- clude him merely on account of his Catholicism. " Puritanism and Popularitie " were charged in the same breath against these opponents of prerogative, precisely as had been done a century earlier, and for the same reason — a reason only to be understood in the light of the long history of the doctrine of the two Kingdoms and of the temporal power ad finem spiritualem. Truly Tunstall's warning was hardly misplaced: the supreme headship was indeed a propositio midtiplex. But such quarrels as came later and earlier were spared in James's time because he and his bishops agreed. It was the Anglo-Catholicism of Whitgift and An- drewes that he was called upon to defend and he was nothing loth. In an age not of pragmatism but of jus divinum this meant that this faith could be defended only because it was true while all material departures from it must therefore be false, and that being true it could not but be a living branch of the one true Catholic and Apostolic faith. But the age was one of uniformity as well as legal- isrrL, a.nd this assertinn of the faith true and ApOStQlJC-fanipid with it inevitably .ajso the condemnation and the suppression of every other faith as necessarily false and heretical.2 It is this general theory that explains James's laborious attempts to prove that he himself is no heretic.3 In an age of uniformity instead of toleration an admission of the contrary must be fatal. He has to disavow any 1 A Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England, published in 1594, second ed., 1681. * The personal views of James on the question of heresy were exactly those of his time, and are to be found in many places in his works. As early as 1599 he cautions his son Henry against marrying anyone who is not of his own religion, advice which the prince seems to have taken to heart, but rather hard to reconcile with the father's own desperate efforts to secure the Spanish match for his other son. The most explicit statements of James's hatred of heresy are contained in his Declaration against Vorstius, for which there was not space in this volume. Vorstius, whose offence was nothing worse than the Arminianism which was accepted later by so many of James's own clergy, is referred to in this bitter attack as " a wretched Heretique or rather Atheist " (Works, p. 349), " monster " (330, 357) " viper," (351) " wretched and wicked atheist," (363) and the like, while Arminius him- self he calls " that enemie of God " (355). These and their kind the King attacks as " pestilent Heretiques . . . who dare to take upon them that licentious libertie, to fetch againe from Hell the ancient Heresies long since condemned, or else to inuent new of their owne braine, contrary to the beliefe of the trew Catholike Church." (356) His views of the danger of heresy are in no respect dif- ferent from those of the Holy Office. " It is furthermore to bee noted, that the spirituall infection of Heresie, is so much more dangerous, then the bodily infection of the plague; by how much the soule is more noble then the body." (366) Such doctrines are less dangerous in a commonwealth among a thousand laymen than in " one Doctour that may poison the youth." (Ibid.) " For Christian libertifi is neuer meant in the holy Scripture, but onely in matters indifferent." (371) The King's practical attitude toward heresy is indicated in his reference to the book of Vorstius, De Filiatione Christi (" for which Title onely, an Authour, so suspected as he, is worthy of the fagot.") (378). 1 See for example A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings, Works, pp. 470-473, post, pp. 253-257. xlviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I sympathy with admitted heretics such as Anabaptists or members of the Family of Love. Though he may have done it " with a weeping eye," and though he certainly did do it with evident hesitation, James has the unenviable distinction of being the last English king to order the issue of the writ De Haeretico Combur- endo.1 The King was also forced by the theory of his day to go at wearisome length into the practice and doctrine of the early Church to prove that the Ec- clesia Anglicana had never essentially departed from these; and it was sometimes a nice task to draw the lines just wide enough to include the faith of the bishops — and the Presbyterians, while shutting out Brownists, and other varieties of sectaries. There are also many other long and tiresome pages of James's political writings to be explained only by the opinions summarized above. James to de- fend his faith had not only to prove it true: he had also to show the falsity of doctrines not in agreement with it. Thus in his arguments against the Roman Church and its doctrines he follows the lead of the Elizabethan divines in at- tempting to prove the Pope to be Antichrist.2 Our utter aversion to this kind of argumentation should not blind us to its great importance in moulding the thought of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is important because they thought it important. In the application of these theories the great diffi- culty lay in dealing with the two opposite parties of Catholics and Puritans. Of the Puritans we need say little more because most of the political phases of their activity have appeared already. Strict uniformity, of course, meant their per- secution along with all others who disobeyed the laws.3 With the Catholics, the case was far different. Though the Puritans were in a few years to be a power as menacing to royal authority as ever Pope was, and though James personally hated them more than he did any Catholic, yet in his reign it was the Catholic danger that was in the foreground. The Counter Reformation was gaining volume year by year, and Catholics had what Puritans never had, a centralized organization and a human head, one whose authority was international and temporal and whose claims no " supreme governor " could ever allow. This danger was at once foreign and domestic. At the very beginning of his reign, I therefore, and even before it began, James was confronted with the most difficult of all his problems, and apparently the most dangerous. Was a reconciliation /" with Rome still possible, and on what terms ? If not, how were Roman Catho- I lies to be treated in England ? Was Catholicism to be granted a real toleration ? If so a change in the laws was necessary. Or, was the policy to be continued under which Catholics could only enjoy the exercise of their religion as " tole- rated vice," through the tacit unenforcement of existing laws ? Or, finally, 1 The victims were Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman. The former's offence was the denial of the divinity of Christ. James made earnest efforts in person to induce him to recant, but when they failed, the King, as Fuller tells us "spurn'd at him with His foot; Away base Fellow (saith He) it shall never be said, that one stayeth in My presence, that hath never prayed to our Saviour for seven years together." Fuller gives us our most extended account of the whole matter. Church History (1655), book x, pp. 62-64. See also State Trials, ii, 727, et seq.; D. N. B. 1 See the elaborate argument on this subject which he sets forth in his Monitory Preface, Works, pp. 308-328, post, pp. 129-150. ' See Appendix C, p. xc. INTRODUCTION xlix should Catholicism be totally extirpated as heresy always deserved ? These were the question that James had to answer in 1603. Their difficulty must have appalled any man less cocksure than James Stuart. Probably three-fourths of the systematic political writing of James I consist of a defense of the one administrative measure of his which really went beyond the methods and purposes of Elizabeth's ministers in dealing with this Catholic problem, the_Oath_of Allegiance^ And this is a not inaccurate index of the im- portance of the principle of the measure in the eyes of contemporaries not only in England but in the whole of western Europe. It was in reality England's answer to the Jesuit challenge contained in Bellarmine's theory of the Pope's indirect power, but an answer which tacitly accepted one-half of Bellarmine's theory, the separation of the spiritual from the secular. It looked to a partial translation into law of what Elizabeth's ministers had practiced by holding the law in abeyance. It must therefore be considered a considerable advance in principle, and one of the really important landmarks in the history of the idea of religious toleration. To understand its real importance as an attempted solu- tion of this chronic problem we must keep in mind the particular phases of that problem which were uppermost in the first years of the seventeenth century. Most important among these is the new aspect of the papal claims, the result of Bellarmine's theory of the indirect power. True, this doctrine was not accepted by the Catholic left, which was opposed entirely to the temporal power; 1 nor by the extreme right, which still held to all the high claims of Boniface VIII.2 But the new doctrine had been adopted by practically all the Jesuits and by many others, and the Jesuits were the undoubted leaders of Catholic thought and action during the Counter-Reformation.3 In England the whole programme of the aggressive party was based upon this theory, and the Archpriest Blackwell under examination by the High Commission admitted that the majority of Cath- olics probably accepted it.4 Of this doctrine it was a cardinal point that no heretical king must be permitted to reign, that it was the right and even the duty of the Supreme Pontiff to depose him, and that this right could and should be made effectual by the absolving of the king's subjects from their oath of allegiance and by the summoning of the Catholic princes of Europe to help in carrying out the sentence by means of foreign invasion. 6 We must remember that this " right " 1 E.g., William and John Barclay, and the French Politiques. * Among others Baronius, the brothers Bozii, and Carerius. Jacobus Gretserus, one of the most learned and influential of Bellarmine's defenders, admits that some ex caslris nostris refuse to accept Bellarmine's doctrine. Defensio Operum Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, ix, 604. Carerius even includes Bellarmine among heretics on account of this doctrine. Alex. Carerius, De Polestate Romani Ponti- ficis, adversvs impios politicos, & nostri temporis hereticos. There is a list of some of these writers and their books in the reprint of Andrewes's Tortura Torti in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, p. 36 (note by the editor). 1 E.g., Cardinal Bellarmine himself, Gretser at Ingolstadt, Martin Becan at Maintz, Suarez in Spain, and many others. 4 A Large Examination. 4 See the summary of the theory; ante, pp. xxii-xxiii, xxvi-xxvii. 1 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I of the Pope had not been allowed to remain a mere theory, but had been asserted in 1570 in the bull deposing Elizabeth and followed up by the Armada, the re- volt in Ireland, and armed insurrection in England itself, to say nothing of the many smaller plots against the life of the Queen. We must remember the alarm- ing advance that the Counter-Reformation had made and was making in the beginning of the seventeenth century, with all south Germany recovered, with the hopes of the French Huguenots dashed by the wars of religion, and with no indication that the tide would stop anywhere, even at the Channel. In addition to the attempts on the hie of Elizabeth, we must not forget the similar attempt of Jean Chatel in France, or the Bye-Plot in England itself, ineffective though it was, or further back, Saint Batholomew's day, or the murder of Henry III of France and of William the Silent. In France Henry IV had " received instruc- tion," an ominous thing in itself but not enough to save him, and for England the sharpest awakening came with the powder plot in 1605. Among the influ- ences upon opinion, particularly Catholic opinion, we must also include the harsh legislation to which the fear of aggression and assassination spurred the English Parliament. These laws against recusants, seminarists and convertisseurs and the victims of them cannot be ignored by anyone who tries to understand the political theory of the reign of James I. In Elizabeth's reign Spain had been the chief foreign instrument in the at- tempt to carry out the Pope's sentence. And Spain's intrigues did not stop with the defeat of the Armada in 1588. They continued throughout Elizabeth's life, but as she grew older her enemies became more content to let nature take her course, and turned their attention to the next succession. Among these enemies, if we confine ourselves to Englishmen, there is no doubt that the most active, the ablest, and the most influential, was Robert Parsons. " Jesuite, Anglois de nation, & Espagnol de devotion." 1 This remarkable man had written, or was to write, on practically every phase of the great controversy. And whatever he wrote, whether in English or Latin, was written remarkably well. He was master of a clear, direct and forcible English style which stands comparison with the best of his time, the time of the Authorized version of the Bible. Among his many books, the most important for the history of political theory is his Con- fercncc about the Next Succession to the Crown of England published in 1594. Though written nine years before Elizabeth's death this book really belongs to the reign of James, for its purpose was: in the first place, Jay discrediting_the principle of legitimism. to emphasize the popular basis of the tenure of the Crown; in the second, to show that on all precedents the " rights " put forward in the interests of all the existing claimants, with one exception, were without founda- tion in law or fact; and lastly — the real purpose of the book — to prove that the one exception, the one rightful claim to the throne of England at Elizabeth's death was that of the Spanish Infanta, daughter of Philip II, a princess whose faith was unimpeachable. 1 Cardinal d' Ossat (Lcttres, v, 61). INTRODUCTION li The book was a double blow at James, against whom it was mainly aimed; it denied his favorite principle of legitimism, and it attempted to disprove his own particular claim. James was right in regarding it as the most dangerous book of the time. The first part of the book, which deals with the abstract question of hereditary right and the basis of royal tenure has an even greater importance for political thought. It is hardly too much to say that this book was the chief storehouse of facts and arguments drawn upon by nearly all opponents of the royal claims for a century, Protestant as well as Catholic; and its importance is attested not only by the many attacks made upon it down to the Revolution of 1688 and after, but by the frequent surreptitious use of it in this period by men and parties who did not dare to disclose the source of their arguments and illus- trations.1 The Spanish party of which Parsons was the most able and active member did not confine itself entirely to writings. It strove in every way, among others by the founding of new seminaries in Spain for English Catholics and by secret negotiations with the Spanish King, to prepare the way for an attempt that should promise greater success than the Armada. In general the results were disappointing, and one result in particular even threatened the total overthrow of their schemes. This was the division among Catholics themselves which grew, partly out of the old quarrel between the regular and the secular clergy and partly from the aversion of the seculars to the designs of the " His- panized faction," who, they believed, were the real cause of the harsh laws against Catholics in general. We have seen how Bancroft labored to widen this gap under Elizabeth. As Primate under a king who conceded far more power to his clergy than his prede- cessor had ever done, Bancroft was free to pursue still further this policy. It was the conditions set forth briefly above, combined with the favorite policy of Bancroft, the ready acquiescence of the King, and the even more ready zeal of the Parliament, that led to the enactment of the most important legisla- tion of James's reign dealing with the religious question, the statute which framed and imposed the new oath of allegiance. This act 2 empowered any bishop or any two justices of the peace to tender to anyone under sentence or indictment of recusancy, or to any stranger confessing the same under oath — if over eighteen and not noble — an oath acknowledging James as " lawful and rightful " King, denying the authority of the Pope to depose him, promising to defend him in case of attack and to disclose all treasons or conspiracies against him; also dis- avowing the doctrine that a prince excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, might be deposed or murdered and in the following terms: " and I do further swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, that princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever." Four years later the oath was extended to all non-noble 1 See Appendix D, p. xcii. » 3 &• 4 Jac. I, cap. iv. lii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I persons whatsoever, if of eighteen and above, while the procedure was simplified and the penalty increased.1 A refusal to take the oath under the act of 1606 in- volved the penalty of a praemunire. These important acts included laymen as well as ecclesiastics, private persons as well as office holders. In this respect they go much further than Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy which included only eccle- siastics or holders of office. But while in respect of the persons affected James's legislation is more inclu- sive than Elizabeth's, in the extent of the engagement of these persons it is far less. The older oath of supremacy — which, it must not be forgotten, was still in existence — exacted an acceptance of the Queen as supreme governor and a denial of all authority of any outside person or state in matters " ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm." The oath of 1606 required the acknowledgment of James only as " lawful and rightful King " and the abjuration merely of the doctrine of the deposing and absolving power, but the theory that this deposition could be made effectual by the people must be condemned by the swearer as impious, heretical, and damnable, and the penalty is a heavy one. These are differences not merely of detail. _ The Act of 1 559 made it impossible for any Catholic to hold high secular office, or any ecclesiastical one, for no Cath- olic, however radical, could deny the Pope's authority in England in matters ecclesiastical or spiritual. The act of 1606 does not ostensibly touch the Pope's spiritual authority at all. To that extent it seems to have recognized the division between the secular and the spiritual jurisdiction, the doctrine of the two king- _doms. What it really does do is to deny emphatically that the Pope can ever override this division by exercising the secular power of deposition under pretext of a spiritual end. Had the act done this and nothing more than this, in straight- forward and unequivocal terms it seems probable that it would have been enough to drive a wedge between those Catholics who held and those who rejected 1 7 &• 8 Jac. I, cap. vi. It must be kept in mind that the taking of the oath freed no one from the penalty imposed by any other law. It was, as its Jesuit opponents complained, an additional burden, not an alternative one, so far as the law was concerned, and it, together with the other statutes of the same year added considerably to the already heavy weight of the penal laws against Catholics. But the statute book alone cannot be relied upon at that time. It would probably have been impossible to prevent Parliament from enacting some very harsh legislation after the powder plot. Since they had control of the administration of this law, James and Bancroft were glad rather than sorry to see it so severe. The more drastic it was the more persuasive to weak or wavering Catholics. But there is no doubt that the King and the Archbishop held out the prospect that anyone who took the oath would not be too closely questioned about his violation of other statutes. The enactment of the oath was a continuation, not a departure from the later policy of Elizabeth in treating the Catholic pro- fession as " tolerated vice." The Catholics make this clear in many places (see Tierney's appendix to Dodd's Church History, vol. iv) , and James makes much of it in his Apology for the oath. References to this policy also occur in the King's speech to his judges in 1616. In the Apology the King says explicitly that he had freely excused recusants "of their ordinarie paiments" and had ordered his judges to spare the execution of all priests. Works, p. 253, post, p. 76. Speaking of the harsh laws passed after the powder plot, he says in his Monitory Preface, " And yet so farre hath both my heart and gouernment bene from any bitternes, as almost neuer one of those sharpe additions to the former Lawes haue euer yet bene put in execution." Works, p. 292, post, p. 113. See also Ibid., Works, P; 336, post, pp. 157-158. Response to Cardinal du Perron, Works, p. 474, post, pp. 257-258, also in his various speeches, Works, pp. 491-493, 544-545, 565-566, post, pp. 274-277, 322-323, 34i~342. INTRODUCTION Uii Bellarmine's doctrine of a Papal power indirecte to interfere in secular matters adfinem spiritualem, and it would have been extremely difficult to dispute James's frequent assertions that his oath was " meerely Civill." But the act might be considered to do somewhat more than this. It might plausibly be said to require not merely the rejection of the doctrine of the deposing power: to demand that that doctrine be branded as impious, damnable, and even heretical. What is this but to declare all holders of such a doctrine to be heretics ? And it was notorious that the majority of Catholics did hold it. Could it be said that this requirement had nothing to do with things spiritual ? The King here demands that English Catholics shall deny the Pope's authority in secular matters, but what is he himself doing when he sets himself up to adjudge as heretical a doctrine believed by the majority of Catholics ? Could James expect the Pope to regard the line of division between the secular and the spiritual when he so ignores it himself ? Such offensive terms as these applied to a doctrine firmly held by many Catholics, no doubt gave an opening for the attacks of James's enemies, particu- larly Cardinal du Perron, who dwelt at length upon this point; but the real ob- jection of the Papacy went far deeper and was exactly expressed in Cardinal Bellarmine's letter to the English Archpriest, "For most certain it is, that in whatsoever words the Oath is conceived by the adversaries of the faith in that Kingdom, it tends to this end, that the Authority of the head of the Church in England may be transferred from the successor of S. Peter, to the successor of King Henry the Eighth."1 Such an objection could not have been obviated by any softening of terms which retained the denial of the Pope's temporal power. The less fundamental criticisms of du Perron and others we may regard largely as an attempt to discredit the argument of an opponent, but the question re- mains, why did James unnecessarily give them the opportunity ? To the English Parliament, however, the provisions of this act were displeas- ing only because they did not go far enough. Apparently they were entirely satisfactory to both Bancroft and James, both in their general tenor and in their wording. James's real attitude toward Catholicism springs from the same root as his views on Puritanism. In both cases his hostility is more political than religious. What made him love the bishops was the conge d'elire and little more, what made him hate equally a Scottish synod and a Roman pontiff was their common denial of his royal power as supreme governor in matters and causes ecclesiastical, and nothing else. With the doctrines of the Pope, as well as those of the less extreme Puritans, he had little quarrel. He acknowledged that the Roman church was catholic, and that its faith was " the ancient mother religion of all the rest," and he acknowledged this not on account of any theory of toleration, a theory most 1 English translation in James's Apology, Works, p. 260, post, pp. 82-83. The original is in Bellarmine's Responsio ad Apologiam, Bellarmine's Works, v, 168. liv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I hateful to him, but because he believed the Roman faith to be in its essentials true. It was only the pretensions of the later popes to a temporal power in con- flict with the rights of princes that he denied. He had even admitted the Pope's spiritual primacy, but this was before he became " supreme governor." Of James's two grandsons, Charles II and James II, in matters of religious conviction he more resembled the former than the latter. Though priding him- self more on his acuteness in theological disputation than on anything else, there is little real indication that he cared much for religion. Both in Scotland and in England policy demanded that he should remain true in the main to the religion of his tutors rather than that of his mother, but the Stuart tendency toward Cathol- icism which finally cost them the throne can be seen in his whole reign. It is one of the chief causes of his continual quarrel with his Commons who were strongly Protestant, and it would probably have disturbed even the harmony of his relations with his bishops, had not their political interests and his been identi- cal. In reality he was less Protestant than most of his bishops, notably Abbot. Their common bond was the political necessity of combating the Puritans and the " Papists." " No bishop no king," but also no king no bishop. Theirs was a defensive alliance against popery and parity, little more; an alliance essentially political, in which matters of religion had but a small part. The Stuart kings, James even included, were really foreigners in thought as they all were in their marriage alliances. None of them ever showed a clear under- standing of the English constitution, of England's true international position, or — most important of all — of the religious instincts of the nation. These things have a bearing on the nature and the purpose of the oath and upon the manner of its administration. That they are true, James's whole public life and nearly all his writings attest.1 1 It is unnecessary to add much to the proofs of these points given by Canon Tierney in his elaborate note to Dodd's Church History, iv, p. 36. James's attempt to secure a Scottish cardinal in 1599 is significant, and his later hypocritical prosecution of Lord Balmerino is a proof of his own insincerity rather than of Elphinstone's guilt. See his letter to the Pope printed in Rushworth, I, 162-164. A brief report of the trial is given in HowelTs State Trials, ii, 722. The King was really forced to go through this farce on account of the anger of the English Protestants when Bellarmine made known James's letter of 1599 in his Responsio (Works, v, 166). The terrible sentence against Balmerino was not enforced and was not intended to be. Balmerino himself after his conviction declared, no doubt truly, that James knew all about the letter before it was sent, and it required all the pressure and promises that Cecil could apply to induce him to recall it. See D. N. B., Elphinstone, James; Taun- ton, History of the Jesuits, 274 et seq. The accounts of these transactions and of other acts of James, which gave rise to hopes among English and foreign Catholics are so exhaustively treated by Tierney, Gardiner, and Usher (Reconstruction, i, 302-309; ii, 91-94), that no further account is necessary.. James's opinions as to the different classes of Catholics within his realm and of the way each should be treated are found in many places in his writings. His views are summed up in the statement of the purpose of the oath in his Apologie, " wisely to make distinction betweene the sheepe and goats in my owne pasture ... to set a marke of distinction betweene good subiects and bad. Yea, betweene Papists, though peraduenture zealous in their religion, yet otherwise ciuilly honest and good Subiects, and such terrible firebrands of hell, as would maintaine the like maximes, which these Powder-men did." Works, p. 274, post, p. 97. For some other expressions of his opinions, see the Apologie, Works, p. 253, post, p. 76; Monitory Preface, Works, pp. 292-293, post, pp. 113-114, 336, post, pp. 157- 158; Response to Cardinal du Perron, Works, p. 474, post, pp. 257-258; Speech of 1603, Works, pp.. INTRODUCTION Iv From the time of the Reformation to the present a division has existed among Catholics which corresponds to the difference between Ultramontanes and their opponents. The policy of employing this division fell in exactly with James's theories of Church and State, and this must be considered one of the reasons for the enactment of the oath. But James had no doubt been influenced in favor of this policy by his correspondence with Cecil while he was still in Scotland, and it was in fact nothing new in England. Cecil and Bancroft had been em- ploying it for years in fomenting the quarrel between seculars and Jesuits in England before James's arrival. We cannot, therefore, consider the oath as due merely to James's influence or its history as beginning only at his accession.1 A clear understanding of the purposes which led to its enactment requires some consideration of the eagerness of a Puritan House of Commons inflamed by the memory of the recent gunpowder plot, the long-standing quarrel among Catholics themselves, the views of James, and the previous policy of Bancroft, all taken together. We must now turn to the history of the results of this legislation. If a further division of the Catholic opposition in England was aimed at it may be said that this aim was achieved. From 1606 until the Revolution, when the oath was altered, and even to the present time, Catholics have disagreed as to the wisdom and justice of this measure. To Charles Butler " Nothing . . . could be more 491-493, post, pp. 274-277; Speech of 1605, Works, pp. 503-504, post, pp~. 284-286; Speech of 1609-10, Works, pp. 544-545, post, pp. 322-323; Speech of 1616, Works, pp. 565-566, post, pp. 341-342; Corre- spondence of King James VI of Scotland-Ttnth Sir Robert Cicil (Camden Soc.), pp. 31-33, 36 et seq. 1 The earlier history of the oath in England has been admirably treated by Usher in his Recon- struction of the English Church, i, book i, ch. viii ; ii, book iii, ch. iii , to which the reader is referred. Pro- fessor Usher attributes it almost entirely to Bancroft. In vol. ii, Appendix i, pp. 310-324, the various forms .offered by the Catholics or suggested by the Bishops from 1581 to 1606 are brought together from manuscript sources. A careful comparison of these is necessary to an understanding of the history of this important enactment. Such a comparison shows that the one important thing omitted in these drafts but occurring in the oath itself is the characterization of the doctrine of the right of the people to depose or assassinate a ruler when deprived by the Pope as "impious," "heret- ical," and " damnable." How and why were these words inserted ? Professor Usher rejects the story that they were put in after conference with Christopher Perkins, " a conforming Jesuit," as asserted by Taunton without citing authorities. The story, however, seems not improbable. Sir Christopher Perkins was a man who received many favors, including knighthood from James (see D. N. B.), and his part in this matter is mentioned by Dodd (iv, 70-71 and Tierney's notes) and by Charles Butler in his Historical Memoirs, ii, 188-189, where a number of authorities are given. See the temperate and excellent account of Lingard, History of England, vii, 47 et seq.; also that of Mr. Law, Jesuits and Seculars, Introduction, pp. cxxiii-cxxiv. But though the part of Perkins in adding those offensive words be rendered probable, it brings us no nearer the real reason for their inclusion. The only object could be the further accentuation of the gap between the " sheep " and the " goats " and this it must have been. It was no doubt the de- sire of James and Bancroft by these harsh adjectives to draw the line between the two classes of Eng- lish Catholics with such startling sharpness that it could never be obscured by the casuistry of which the Jesuits were noted masters. " Some form of oath was sought which . . . the Pope and the Jesuits would be certain to disapprove; for . . . until the Catholics would act independently of Rome, no lasting settlement could be secured." (Usher, Reconstruction, ii, 179.) But James must have known that this result was only to be obtained at the cost of losing a certain number of adherents and also of laying himself open to the attacks of his antagonists, even though it is not the Pope's but the people's deposing of a king to which the oath applies the word heretical, as the King himself pointed out clearly enough. Lingard's remarks on this are judicious. Op. cit., vii, 48. Ivi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I wise, or humane, than the motives of James, in framing the oath; " J while Dodd asserts that it "was never designed to be a test of allegience, but a state trick, to squeeze money from the party, and nourish an opinion in the common people, that they were enemies to the civil government." And this disagreement, furthermore, had also the ultimate result intended. The oath as the Catholic historian confesses, " effectually broke the power of the Catholic body in England, by dividing them into two parties marshalled against each other." 3 To a his- torian of the Stuart period results such as these certainly give to the enactment of the oath an importance hardly secondary to anything that occurred in that crowded epoch, but to the student of the history of political thought the oath should if possible have a still greater significance. For in reality it marks a turn- ing point in the history of modern politics, and its effects were felt at once in every corner of the western intellectual world. " The anti-papal controversy of James's reign," says Mark Pattison in his life of Casaubon, " is as obsolete for our generation as any other theological squabble, and the books, in which it is consigned, are equally forgotten; Casaubon's among the rest. But those who are acquainted with the situation of affairs at that period, are aware that this was no brawl of rival divines. . . . But in 1611 he [James] was heartily contending against the still advancing tide of the catholic reaction. The form in which this was threatening Europe was indeed that of military force, but it was also an invasion of opinion. The Jesuits did not draw the sword in Germany until they had gained a footing in the minds of men. The books and pamphlets they were now disseminating were what made the thirty years' war possible. When the enemy was successfully availing himself of the power of the press, it was wise and necessary that he should be met on the same ground." 4 This was no merely English struggle. It was equally important for Venice, for France, for every prince in Europe, and above all for the Papacy itself; and it was important for all because the revived Catholic world was now making ready for its mightiest renewal of the old quarrel between Church and State under the changed conditions imposed by the rise of national states and the schisms which the Reformation had produced. In the history of western political thought no more critical time can be found than the opening years of the seven- teenth century and at no time in her whole history was England so prominent in that world of thought as in the earlier part of the reign of James I. England was universally recognized then as the one corner of Christendom in which there was still hope of checking the onward moving tide of the Catholic reaction; the hopes of Catholics and Protestants alike had been concentrated upon her as upon 1 Historical Memoirs, ii, 185. See also a somewhat similar judgment of Lingard. History of England, vii, p. 47. 2 Church History, iv, 79-80. » Lingard, loc. cit. For concrete evidence of this, see Dodd's Church History, iv, pt. v, art. iv, with notes, and Tierney's appendix to the same volume, p. cxxxv, et seq., passim. 4 Second ed., pp. 310-311. INTRODUCTION Ivii no other part of Europe, and therefore, the dramatic effect produced in every corner of the intellectual world, Catholic or Protestant, by the challenge to the theory of that reaction which James's oath contained is hard for us to estimate highly enough. Referring to Bellarmine and to the Gunpowder plot in England, Hallam says, " The temporal supremacy would . . . have been left for obscure and unauthor- ised writers to vindicate, if an unforeseen circumstance had not called out again its most celebrated champion." * The truth of this we may doubt, but the fact we can never doubt, that the English oath of allegiance actually did give rise to a paper warfare in Europe the like of which has never been seen since and is hardly likely ever to be seen again now that the common language of that war- fare has fallen into disuse. As Krebs says, " Gelehrte von fast ganz Europa waren in den Streit verwickelt, dessen Hohepunkt in die Jahre 1609 bis 1611 fallt," 2 or a French writer: " Non mente hodie fingere possumus quam variis quamque acribus studiis haec controversia, inter potentissimum principem, unum- que ex doctissimis Europae viris exorta, initio saeculi XVII animos accenderit. Dum praecipui catholici theologi, Galli, Germani, Belgae, Hispani, Itali, Angli in auxilium Bellarmini concurrebant, fidelem doctamque operam rex Jacobus cum apud protestantes theologos omnium gentium invenit, turn etiam apud aliquos gallicanos doctores, in ceteris quidem rei catholicae studiosissimos, regiis antem placitis de potestate pontificia faventes." s " To all who are interested, either in the history of the times," says Charles Butler, ". . . or in the history of the pretensions of the popes to temporal power, this controversy is of singular importance." 4 The great stir caused by the new oath can only be understood in the light of the special interest in the old controversy between the Pope and the princes which had been roused by the recent and repeated assertions of the right of tyrannicide, by the application of this theory to the Jesuit doctrine that no heretic might bear rule, and by the startling effects of these theories, such as the murder of Henry III, or the attempts on the life of Elizabeth.5 To understand the results of the oath one further characteristic of the intellectual activity of the time must also be kept constantly in mind. It is this; that Europe was divided into two camps, armed as yet with only intellectual weapons, but none the less 1 Literature of Europe, ii, 298. * Die Politische Publizislik der Jesuiten, p. 36. * Serviere, De Jacobo 7 ... cum . . . Bellarmino . . . Disputants, p. 132. 4 Historical Memoirs, ii, 200. Serviere and Krebs give excellent bibliographies. Brief ones are also to be found in Gooch, History of English Democratic Ideas, p. 27, and Lossen, Die Lehre vom Tyrannenmord, note 58, p. 56. Good accounts of the oath are to be found in Usher and Lingard, in Gardiner's History of England, i, ch. vii, and in Ingram's England and Rome, ch. v. 6 The history of the theory of tyrannicide is given by Douarche, De Tyrannicidio apud Scriptores Decimi Sexti Seculi, with a considerable bibliography, p. 104 et seq.; Lossen, Die Lehre vom Tyran- nenmord; Krebs, Die Politische Publizislik der Jesuiten; Treumann, Die Monarchomachen; Foulis, The History of Romish Treasons and Usurpations, book ii, Gooch, English Democratic Ideas, pp. 20-29; Reusch, Beitrtige, pp. 1-58. To these the reader must be referred. The subject is also dealt with in the general histories of political theory, such as Janet's or Dunning's. Iviii THE POLITICAL WORKS -OF JAMES I under the direction of leaders who employed these means as part of a great campaign. It would be wrong to think of the innumerable books which poured from the presses between 1606 and 1620 merely as the work of detached individu- als who wrote on account of their private enthusiasm for their cause. The Jesuits, and to a lesser degree the Galileans and the Anglicans carefully planned every move. As men showed special fitness for dealing with a certain phase of the controversy they would be detached for that special service, and care was taken that all phases should be touched upon. Nothing was left to chance. When a man's reputation as a scholar was too solid to be taken by direct assault, as in the case of Joseph Scaliger, the services of a sapper like Scioppius would be called in to attack him on the personal side. Whenever a specially able attack was made by any of the enemy, the men best fitted would be detailed to prepare an answer. It was a carefully planned campaign for the conquest of intellectual Europe in which every move of the enemy was met by a counter move carried out by the method and the men best adapted to make it effective. Care was taken, for example, that a telling book should appear both in Latin and in the vernacular in the country where its effect was most desired. Sometimes such books were translated into several languages, and occasionally different books were written along the same lines by different men, each proficient in the lan- guage in which he wrote. In France where the contest was critical the ability of Cardinal du Perron, who had converted a king and vanquished the " Pope of the Protestants " in public debate, was too great to be allowed to lie idle. He was accordingly employed to counteract by his powers of persuasive eloquence the efforts of the Gallican party in the States General of 1614-15 and to write an answer to the English King himself; while Pere Co ton was set on work to dispel the distrust which had been created in France by the Catholic defenders of tyrannicide such as Mariana or Boucher. So men of the type of the scholarly and temperate Jesuit, Fronton du Due were given the more congenial task of answering the learned arguments of Casaubon, while the attacks on his character, when the time came for them, were entrusted to a Scioppius or a Eudaemon- Johannes. In Italy and Spain, at Louvain and Ingolstadt and Maintz it was the same. When Martin Becan had written one of his most effective books against the oath, provision was made that it should soon appear in English dress for English readers, while Parsons and others nearer home, were rapidly turning out others in both Latin and English. On the Anglican side, too, though the forces were less effectively handled than among the Jesuits, and the available champions fewer, this is equally noticeable. Nothing else explains the anxiety of James to bring to England Casaubon, then the chief scholar of the age, whose book, De Libertate Ecdesiastica, James had known for several years.1 Only thus can we account for the activity of Bishop Andrewes in the controversy, the man prob- ably best fitted in the whole of England for his particular service but at the same 1 Pattison's Casaubon, p. 272. INTRODUCTION lix time totally disinclined to it by temperament. The same could probably be said of Doctor Donne. In fact, it was notorious in England that the surest road to ecclesiastical or academic preferment was by the writing of a book defending the oath and its royal apologist; and many there were who sought it. There is little doubt, on the other hand, that magistrates were instructed to wink at the recu- sancy of a Catholic who was willing to employ his voice or pen on the side of the King. The contest was opened by one of the principals himself. It began with the Breve of Pope Paul V of Sept. 22, 1606, commanding English Catholics under no circumstances to take the oath, cum multa contineat, quae fidei, & saluti aperte adversantur.1 The English Catholics were in consternation. Like Henry II's bishops after the Constitutions of Clarendon, they were " between the hammer and the anvil." Many finally consented to take the oath, among them the Arch- priest George Blackwell, head of the Catholics in England.2 Not content with this Blackwell withheld the papal breve from publication, and under pressure of Bancroft and the Council wrote a letter advising Catholics to take the oath, copies of which Bancroft made sure to be widely scattered.3 This led to the issu- 1 It is conveniently found in Tierney's appendix to Dodd's Church History, iv, p. cxl, or in Bellar- mine's Works, v, 158. An English translation is given in James's Apology, Works, p. 250, post, p. 73. 1 For much information on this, see the letters given by Tierney, op. tit., pp. cxliv, et seq., passim. * This letter is given in full by Tierney, op. cit., p. cxlvii. Good accounts of these transactions are given by Tierney and Usher. Blackwell was only induced to write his letter after several searching examinations some of them before the High Commission. Bancroft lost no time in printing and dis- seminating the reports of these examinations in both the original English and in a Latin translation, together with Blackwell's letters to his clergy and Bellarmine. The Latin version is given in Goldast, iii, 578-612. The English edition was printed by Robert Barker in 1607 with the title: A Large Examination taken at Lambeth . . . of M. George Blackwell. A summary of it is to be found in C. Butler's Memoirs, ii, 204, et seq. It is a remarkable document, in which it is brought out probably more clearly than anywhere else how direct the connection was between the oath and the theory of the indirect power. I know of no document that brings to light so clearly as this all the essential points of the great controversy which the oath had brought to a direct issue. Blackwell is driven by the searching questions of the commissioners from one point to another, he is not allowed to rely on quotations, and in the end is forced to a direct denial of the temporal power in tola. The examiners attacked him at the outset for his admission in his letter to Bellarmine that the Pope " as supreme spiritual prince " could depose kings. It is impossible here to trace the whole examination. Black- well denied the direct power, but the examiners were more interested in the indirect (pp. 35-36). He attempted to answer by long quotations from Catholic writers (36-37) but this would not suffice. His own opinion was demanded and finally obtained " though he was hardly drawen unto it." When the examination reached the indirect power, he said, " that now indeed the matter was followed to the quicke," but he still tried to evade an answer (p. 48), though he admitted that this doctrine was un- known for three hundred years after Christ (p. 51). " After sundry tergiversations " he admitted that Bellannine's views were " political " but " not theological " and that he did " wholly disallow the said assertions " (p. 53). Then he had recourse again to long quotations " out of his pocket- notes " (pp. 63-65). Pressed still further for his own opinion he said the indirect power of deposing was " left as yet undetermined by the Church " and begged to be excused from an answer " in matters of so great moment and difficultie " (p. 66). But the examiners reminded him of his admissions to Bellarmine and demanded an explanation. " Being eftsoones urged " he admitted that he disagreed with Bellarmine on both the direct and the indirect power, and said the Pope had no imperial or civil authority to depose directly or indirectly (pp. 76-77). This, of course, left untouched the indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia, but he was finally driven to deny categorically that the Pope jure divino or by any other means has any power or authority directly or indirectly in ordine ad spiritualia to depose the king or absolve his subjects (p. 84). He went further and accepted the words " im- be THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I ing of a second breve on August 23, 1607 reiterating in unmistakable terms the command of the first.1 On September a8th of the same year, Bellarmine wrote to Blackwell condemn- ing in severe terms the Archpriests' course and declaring the oath to be contrary to the Catholic faith.2 To this Blackwell returned an answer on November i3th, setting forth the grounds of his acceptance of the oath.3 It was these two papal breves and Bellarmine's letter to Blackwell which James set himself to answer in the book which was the occasion of the extension of this quarrel from England to Christendom. This book, with the title Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus or an Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, was published anonymously in 1607. It is given in full here and commentary is unnecessary. James's editor says the King only drew it up as rough notes for a treatise to be written by the Bishop of Winchester and that it took only six days.4 It was written in English and at once translated into Latin.6 The edition given here is the one printed later with James's Monitory Preface included, but the king says no changes were made save corrections of the errors of copyists and printers,6 though his enemies assert that the first edition was suppressed on account of the serious mistakes pointed out in Bellarmine's answer, which were corrected by the bishops for the second edition.7 The substance of the Apology is the attempt to prove S that the oath " is meerely ciuill." Though the Apology was anonymous, it was printed by the King's printer and the edition contained the royal arms. James's authorship was an open secret in England and not doubted at Rome. This was a challenge that could not be pious " and " heretical " (85-86), though he had admitted (p. 38) that this was the part of the oath " most misliked by many Catholickes in England." Even with this the examiners were not fully satisfied. They desired to know what Blackwell's attitude would be if the Pope now declared the de- posing power to be a matter of faith. This disconcerted him, but he finally answered that anything declared to be a point of faith formaliter must be received, but not a particular deposing of " our king," which might be based on misinformation (88-89). They then questioned him on his view of a tyrant and whether a heretic is not in the same position, to which he replied that a hereditary king is no tyrant and cannot be deposed, agreeing with Blackwood whom he cited at length (p. 103). The examination did not stop there, but space will not permit its being traced farther. Blackwell's letter to his clergy which resulted is a complete and unequivocal renunciation of the doctrine of the papal power in temporalities, direct and indirect (p. 158). 1 Tierney, op. cit., p. cxlvi; or Bellarmine's Works, v, 167, where the date is incorrectly given. James gives an English translation, Apology, Works, p. 258, post, p. 80. 1 Tierney, op. cit., p. cxlviii, Bellarmine's Works, v, 168, Goldast, iii, 574. English translation in James's Apology, Works, p. 260, post, p. 82. ' Tierney, op. cit., p. clii, Goldast, iii, p. 576. 4 Preface to the Reader, Works of James I. 6 Monitory Preface, Works, p. 293, post, p. 114. 6 Ibid., Works, p. 330, post, p. 152. 7 On this point see Serviere, op. cit., pp. 34-35, 61, 67, 133; Lingard, History of England, vii, 50- 51 with the references cited by both writers. There is little reason to doubt these statements, which are based largely on Les Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre de 1606 a 1611. Greater prob- ability is given to la Boderie's reports by a note added to the 1609 edition of the Alplogie but omitted in James's collected works, which warned the reader against imperfect copies which had been surrep- titiously collected and sold by under officers in the printing house. A copy of the proclamation call- ing in the first edition is preserved in the British Museum Library. INTRODUCTION bd ignored. The fittest person to answer a king's book was the greatest of Catholic controversalists. This he did at once in a book entitled Responsio ad Librum Inscriptum Triplici nodo, Triplex Cuneus, sive Apologia, etc., under the name of Matthaeus Tortus, one of his almoners; * and with its publication the contro- versy over the oath became a European instead of an English question. The Cardinal's chief point of attack was James's assertion that the oath was merely civil. Primum ostendemus, he says, Juramentum Catholicis propositum, non solum civilem obedientiam, sed etiam Catholicae fidei abnegationem requirere: haec enim est principalis Quaestio quae inter nos hoc tempore disputatur.2 Any- thing, he asserts, is a matter of faith which concerns the primacy of the Apostolic See, which all Catholics believe as a dogma orthodoxae fidei to be founded upon the holy Scriptures.3 Non igitur hoc Juramento sola civilis obedientia quaeritur, sed quaeritur abnegatio fidei Catholicae, & ut obediatur homini contra obedi- entiam Dei.4 To take this oath non tarn jurari fidelitatem ad Regem, quam abjurari fidelitatem ad Christi Vicarium.6 This is the chief argument, though he does not end it without denying James's claim that he is no heretic.6 The name of Tortus no more concealed the authorship of Bellarmine's answer than had the omission of James's name from his Apologie. The Responsio had carried the Apologie and the answer to it into every part of western Europe. It was now the King's move, and he made a double one. A new edition of the Apolo- gie, was issued with the King's name on its title-page accompanied by a long preface addressed to the princes of Europe, with an appendix consisting of " A Catalogue of the Lyes of Tortus, together with a briefe Confutation of them." 7 At the same time Bishop Andrewes was given the task of making a more detailed answer to Tortus. The King's book appeared in 1609, the preface entitled A Premonition to all Most Mightie Monarches, Kings, Free Princes, and States of Christendome. The chief purpose of the Premonition is to show to the princes of Europe that the pretensions of the Papacy are a menace to the rights which they all claimed as sovereign rulers. It also deals at length with the question of James's alleged heresy. It is included in this volume, pp. 110-160. The Bishop's book appeared in the same year, printed at London by Robert Barker with the title Tortura Torti sive Ad Matthaei Torti Librum Responsio, etc.8 1 Coloniae Agrippinae, 1608, reprinted in Bellarmine's Works, v, 155-188. 1 Works, v, 157. * Ibid., p. 158. » Ibid. » Ibid.,-p. 164. • Ibid., p. 188. There is a good summary of the Responsio in Serviere, op. cit., pp. 47-67. 7 This is the Premonition or Monitory Preface, printed in this volume, p. no. The King had copies sent at once to the different European princes. On their reception see Lin- gard, vii, 50-51; Serviere, op. cit., pp. 113-115, 118, 122; Winwood, iii, 51, 55, 56; Lucy Aikin's Court of James I, i, 266-269; Prat, Recherches, iii, liv. xvii, ch. iii. See also Fortescue Papers (Cam- den Soc.), No. II, 3-6, with Henry IV's characteristic comment on the advisability of a King's enter- ing this controversy (p. 6, note i) " Une trop curieuse justification aussy engendre souvent des effects contraires a nostre expectation." 8 I have used the reprint in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, Oxford, 1851, edited by James Bliss. Ixii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I It is a detailed answer between three and four hundred octavo pages in length to all the points in Tortus, with some personalities added.1 Bellarmine now returned to the attack with his Apologia pro Responsione sua, in which the Responsio was acknowledged and defended and James's Premonition answered.2 A new edition of the Responsio accompanied it. To this Andrewes, in turn, replied in probably the weightiest book written on the King's side, his Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini, London, i6io,3 an elaborate examination of the whole question at issue in some four hundred pages, in which he had some assistance from Casaubon.4 But the controversy was not confined to these champions. In England and on the Continent many men were busy attacking this question from every pos- sible angle, or engaged in less creditable literary assaults on the persons of their antagonists. Among English supporters of the Papacy one of the most important in the earlier part of the controversy was the indefatigable Robert Parsons. He had now ostensibly accepted the succession of James and when the oath appeared was bending his great energies to secure a mitigation of the laws against Catho- lics.6 Clearly seeing by 1608, however, that mitigation would never come, he turned on James with his accustomed force and ability in The Judgment of a >•- Catholicke Englishman living in banishment for his religion . . . concerninge a late booke set forth and entituled Triplici Nodo triplex cuneus, etc.6 This book was too able and too important to leave unanswered in England, so William Bar- low recently translated from Rochester to Lincoln was set to answer it, which he did in 1609 in his Answer to a Catholicke Englishman (so by himself entituled). Parsons returned with a long and abusive answer which was not published till 1612, after the author's death: A Discussion of the Answer e of M. William Bar- 1 There is a summary of the contents in Ottley's Launcdot Andrewes, pp. 59-71. Apparently this task was not of Andrewes's own seeking. On October 21, 1608, John Chamberlain in a letter to Dudley Carleton mentions the report " that the Bishop of Chichester is appointed to answer Bellarmine about the oath of allegiance, which task I doubt how he will undertake and perform, being so contrary to his disposition and course to meddle with controversies." Birch, The Court and Times of James I, i, 77. 1 Works, v, 97-154. Summary in Serviere, op. cit., pp. 90-110. Among other things it contains a long answer to James's assertion that the Pope is Antichrist, chs. ix-xii, p. 131 et seq. A French translation appeared in 1610, De Backer, Bibliolheque de la Compagnie de Jesus. * Reprint, Oxford, 1851. 4 Ottley, op. cit., p. 97; Pattisoji, Isaac Casaubon, 308, note i. Ottley gives a convenient summary of this book, pp. 154-176. ' See his Answer to Thomas Bels Late Challenge, Douai, 1605. It is evidently intended to placate James by showing that the theory of the indirect power was far less dangerous to monarchy than the teachings of the Puritans. The book is dedicated to the King himself and is important. The facts cited in it were apparently freely drawn upon later by Catholic controversialists on the Continent, notably Gretser. A more important book of his along the same line was his Treatise Tending to Miti- gation towardes Catholicke-Subiectes in England, 1607, a still more remarkable attempt to reconcile the Jesuit doctrine with royal authority in answer to the attacks of Thomas Morton, later bishop of Chester, of Litchfield, and of Durham. • Saint Omer, 1608. The book is anonymous, and is in answer to the first edition of the King's book which also appeared without a name. Parsons pretended that he did not know it was written by James. INTRODUCTION Ixiii low, D. of Divinity. Bellarmine's theory is defended at great length,1 but the personalities make the book very tiresome. But though English Catholics con- tributed, the chief burden of defense of the Papacy fell on the Catholics, more especially the Jesuits, on the Continent, and among them were some of the most learned and eminent polemical writers of that day. Of these probably none had more authority or more ability than Martin Becan, Becanus, Verbeeck, or Van der Beeck, of Maintz. Becan entered the controversy as early as 1609 by the publication of his Refutatio to James's Premonition, three editions of which ap- peared in as many years. He followed it the next year by a Refutatio Torturae Torti, to which three English answers appeared in 1611, one of which by William Tooker is referred to below. Another was Richard Thomson's Elenchus Refuta- tionis Torturae Torti, Pro . . . Episcopo Eliensi adversus Martinum Becanum Jesuitam. The third was Robert Burhill's Responsio pro Tortura Torti. In 1610 Conrad Graser, professor at Thorn, had written a book entitled Plaga Regia in support of James's opinion that the Pope was Antichrist. This Becan answered by his Examen Plagae Regiae in the same year and was himself answered the next in Becano-Baculus-Salconbrigiensis; vel Rufutatio Beccanici Examinis Plagae Regiae, quoad orthodoxam Protestantium doctrinam, et Serenissimi Regis Angliae Primatum Ecclesiae Regium vincat Veritas? No better illustration than- this could be had of the way the controversy had spread. In 1612 Becan turned to answer the English critics of his Refutatio Torturae Torti. His answer was entitled Dissidium Anglicanum with a brief preface to English Catholics. This book was translated by William Wright as The English lane, Or Disagreement among the Ministers of Great Britaine, concerning the Kinge's Supremacy. St. Omer, 1612. William Tooker, Dean of Litchfield, in 1611 defended the King against Becan in his Duettum sive singulare certamen cum M. B. . . . futiliter refutante Apologiam . . . Jacobi Regis Magnae Britanniae. This Becan answered by the Duettum Martini Becani Societatis Jesu Theologi, cum Guilielmo Tooker . . . De Primatu Regis Angliae, Maintz, 1612. The same year he published De Pontifice Veteris Testamenti, Et de Comparatione illius cum Rege; also Controversia Anglicana, De potestate Regis et Pontificis, against Andrewes and in defense of Bellarmine. This was one of his best known books and often reprinted. It was condemned by the faculty of the University of Paris and in 1613 this condemnation was printed in 1 P. 70 el seq. The book was edited by Thomas Fitzherbert who contributed a long preface, more abusive than the book itself. Fitzherbert also wrote several books of his own on this controversy, A Supplement to the Discussion, 1613, an attack on Andrewes's Responsio to Bellarmine in the same year, and in 1614 a reply to Roger Widdrington. A partial list follows of the books written by Englishmen on the side of the papacy: Humphry Leech, Dutifull Considerations addressed to King James concern- ing his premonitory Epistle to Christian Princes. St. Omer, 1609. Parsons is said to have assisted in the preparation of this book. See D. N. B., and Gillow, iv, 185-186. Edward Weston, Juris Pontificii Sanctuariwm Defensum ac propugnatum contra Rogerii Widdringtoni in Apologia 6* Responso Apologe- tico Impietatem, 1613. Matthew Kellison, The Right and Jurisdiction of the Prelate and the Prince, Douay, 1617. Thomas Dempster, De Juramento Libri III pro Bellarmino. Bononjae, 1623 (De Backer I, 1215). Gillow (iv, 187-188) mentions also Edward Leedes, alias Courtney, A Discourse against the Oath of Allegiance, 1634, in answer to Sir W. Howard's Pattern of Christian Loyaltie. 1 See De Backer under Becanus, also Rrebs, op. tit., 210-211. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I England. In 1612 Richard Harris wrote in answer to Becan's Dissidium Angli- canum his Concordia Anglicana de Primatu Ecclesiae. This Becan in turn replied to in 1613 by his Examen Concordiae Anglicanae. In 1614, Harris returned after the publication of the Dissidium in English by writing his English Concord in Answer to Becane's English Jarre, and his Examen of the English Concord. Among these books of Becan might also be reckoned his De Republica Ecclesiastica, 1619, in answer to the book of the renegade De Dominis whom James had encouraged in his attacks on Rome. The voluminous Becan is possibly more remarkable than typical, but his books and those which called them forth or answered them furnish a concrete, not to say horrible, example of the nature and extent of this controversy which the English oath had stirred up; and they indicate it better than any amount of generalization. Among other books elicited by the King's Apologie a few are so important that they must not be entirely passed over. One such was the book written at the request of the Pope himself by the celebrated Spanish Jesuit Suarez,1 which had the distinction of being burnt both by the Parliament of Paris and the English government. Another was the Examen Praefationis Moni- toriae Jacobi I, etc. of Coquaeus, published at Freiburg in Breisgau in 1610. The Apologia Adolphi Schulkenii Geldriensis, Coloniae Aggrippinae, 1613, is a defence of Bellarimine against Widdrington usually attributed to Bellarmine himself.2 An Italian attack on James was F. M. Antonii Capelli Franciscani Conventualis adversus praetensum Primatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Angliae Liber, etc., Bononiae, 1610. Of the Jesuits who rushed to Bellarmine's defense none was more respected or influential than James Gretser, professor at Ingolstadt. In 1610, he published an important attack on James's two books concerning the oath under the significant title Basilikon Doron? It was dedicated to James' 1 Defensio fidei catholicae et apostolicae adversus anglicanae sectae errores, cum responsione ad Apo- logiam pro juramenlo fidelilalis, et Praefationem Monitoriam serenissimi Jacobi Magnae Britannia? regis, 1613. Serviere, gives a good summary of this book, one of the weightiest ever written against James, op. cit., pp. 152-156. See also Prat, Recherches, iii, liv, xx, ch. i. 1 Barbier, Dictionnaire des Outrages Anonymes, iii, 1259; Weller, Lexicon Pseudonymorum, 507. De Backer also ascribes this book to Bellarmine, " bien qu' en doutant." 3 Reprinted in Jacobi Gretseri Opera Omnia, Ratisbon, 1736, vii, 1-116. Its main attempt is to prove hoc Baaliticum juramentum really a juramentum infidelitatis. He begins by proving that the faith which James professes is neither truly Christian (cap. i), nor Catholic (cap. ii), nor apostolic (cap. iii), and that the oath is really an abjuration of these (cap. vi). He proceeds to show this by asserting that a denial of the Pope's jurisdiction over the churches of England Scotland and Ireland is a denial of the Catholic faith (p. 49) ; likewise a denial that the Pope is Christ's vicar and Peter's successor and an assertion of James's headship in Britain. It is a similar abjuration of the Catholic faith to deny the Pope's power of coercing those who harm the Lord's flock, or to promise obedience to the King in all things, such powers of coercion including the authority to absolve subjects from their allegiance. Anyone who does these things, denies the Catholic faith, hence an oath demanding them cannot truly be said to be merely civil. He then goes at length into the origin of the oath, compares the loyalty of Catholics with the views of Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, Zwingli and others, discusses the authority of the King in spiritual matters, and asserts the paramount authority of the Pope. He also deals at great length (pp. 68-98) with James's doctrine of Antichrist as given in the Premonition. The summary of this answer is here given as of one fairly typical of the abler and more moderate INTRODUCTION kv mother, " now in heaven." To these might be added the two books of Leonardus Lessius, Defensio Potestatis Summi Pontificis adversus librum regis Magnae Britan- niae, Caesaraugustae, 1611 ; and De Antichristo et ejus Praecursionibus Disputatio qua refutatur Praefatio Monitoria Jacobi Regis of the same year; also the several works of the scurrilous Scioppius; Scorpiacum, 1612, Collyrium, and Ecclesiasti- cus, 1611, all aimed at James; and many others. While books were thus pour- ing forth against the King from Germany to Spain, in France the struggle was equally intense though possibly not so violent. Before the English oath appeared, the activity of French Jesuits, the defence of the Gallican liberties, and the quar- rel of the Venetians with the Pope, had called out a considerable number of im- portant books for and against the papal claims, which it is impossible to notice here.1 But in France as everywhere else these controversies in great part con- verged after 1606 on the English oath, the principles contained in it, or the royal writings in its defence. Of these, the writings of five of the chief antagonists of James may be selected for brief notice : those of Pelletier (Peleterius) Coeffeteau, Pere Coton, Eudaemon- Johannes, and Cardinal du Perron. The book of Peleterius, La Religion Catholique soustenue en tons les poincts de sa doctrine, contre le livre addresse aux Rois . . . par . . . Jacques I, &°c. appeared at Paris in 1610, but a more important answer was the Responce a I'advertissement addresse par le Serenissime Roy de la Grande Bretagne, Jacques ler, a tous les princes et potentats de la chrestiente2 of the celebrated Nicolas Coeffeteau, a book which probably had the greater effect because of its modera- tion, the result of the advice of Henry IV, and of the fact of its author's being a Dominican and not a Jesuit. Its importance was recognized and it was answered by the equally celebrated French Protestant, Peter du Moulin (Molinaeus), in his Defense de la joy catholique contenue au livre du tres puissant et serenissime Jacques I" contre la response de F. N. Coeffeteau, which James lost no time in having translated into English.3 The larger part of it consists of a defense of the definition of his faith which James had made in his Premonition. This book was answered by Coeffeteau in his Apologie pour la response a V advertissement du serenissime roy de la Grande Bretagne. Pere Coton, confessor to the King, was in many respects the most influential Jesuit in France just before the murder of Henry IV. So influential with the King himself that it was a common saying in France that "les oreilles du roi sont bouchees de coton," and important for Ameri- can history as the chief originator of the scheme of sending Jesuit missionaries to North America;4 a man, as Foulis quaintly says, "of a subtil Head-peice." 5 Catholic replies to James's books. Gretser makes a strong defence of Bellarmine's doctrine of the indirect power against those who deny it both Catholic and Protestant, in his Defensio Operum Bellar- mini, Opera Omnia, ix, 604 et seq. Goldast has reprinted a number of the most important of these in his third volume. Rouen, 1610; De Backer, i, 1214-1215. London, 1610. See David Irving, The Lives of the Scottish Poets,ii, 235; Serviere, op. oil., 140-141. See Parkman, The Pioneers of France in the New World, ch. v, 276-277. The History of Romish Treasons, p. 474. Ixvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I His celebrated letter to the Queen Regent acquitting his order of any complicity in the murder of the King 1 is not immediately connected with the question of the oath, but the book and the famous anonymous answer to it,2 coming just when they did, played an important if an indirect part in the controversy. If Coton's part in this particular controversy was indirect, the same could not be said of the activity of the next writer to be noticed, " a Jesuite," according to the author of Anti-Colon, "named John I'Heureux, but disguising his name in an Hyrogliphicall forme, cals himselfe Andreas Eudaemon- Johannes Cydonius."3 The history of this man, who claimed to be a native of Crete, is rather obscure, but his part in the controversy was prominent. In addition to an elaborate de- fence of Garnet, he wrote two books directly connected with it: an attack on Casaubon, and answer to his letter to Fronto Ducaeus (Fronton du Due) ; and the more important Parallelus Torti ac Tortoris ejus L. Cicestrensis: sine Respon- sio ad Torturam Torti pro illustr™ Card. Bellarmino, Coloniae Agrippinae, 1611. His books, as will appear later, were considered important enough to require a good deal of answering in England. Of all French antagonists of King James, however, far the most considerable was Jacques Davy, Cardinal du Perron, one of the greatest if not the greatest orator and controversialist of France, a man of enormous memory, high mental power, and great tact; who had the further advantage of knowing both sides of the controversy as he was a convert from Protestantism. The occasion of his ap- pearing in the lists against the King of England was the assembling of the Estates General of 1614-15, their last meeting till the fateful one of 1789. In their cahier the Third Estate had adopted as the first article the corresponding article of the Cahier de Paris, which contained the form of an oath to be sworn by officers, ecclesiastics, and others, condemning the doctrine of the right to depose, rebel against, or kill the King, as " impie, detestable, centre verite, & centre 1'establisse- ment de 1'Estat de la France, que ne depend immediatement que de Dieu." 4 When the clergy got wind of it they at once put forth all efforts to have it sup- pressed, by petition to the Queen Regent,6 and by appeal to the other estates not to " bring in question the authority of the Pope and the Holy See along with that of the King." Negotiations followed which led, among other things, to the 1 Leltre dedaratoire de la doctrine des Peres Jesuites . . . addressee a la Royne Mere du Roy, Regente en France, Paris, 1610. It was translated into English in the same year. * Anti-Coton, ou Refutation de la Leltre dedaratoire du Pere Colon. Lime oil est prouve que les Jesuites sont coulpables el autheurs du parricide execrable commis en la personne du Roy tres-Chrestien Henri IV, d' heureuse memoire, 1610; "Translated out of the French by G. H.," London, 1611. It contains an elaborate account of the Jesuit writings in favor of tyrannicide. There were many edi- tions and translations. See De Backer, under Colon; Krebs, op. cit., 157-158; Foulis, op. cit., pp. 473- 476; Prat, Recherches, iii, liv. xviii, ch. ii. Of the other books which appeared in France about this tune to defend the Gallican liberties, the most important was probably that of Richer, De Ecclesiastics el Politica Potestale, 1611, reprinted in Goldast, iii, 797 el seq. In the same volume are several others. * English translation, 1611, p. 17. For Eudaemon- Johannes, see Biographie Universelle, xiii, 462. 4 Mercure Francois, Troisieme Continuation (1614-1615), second ed., pp. 235-337. The influence of the English oath of 1606 is obvious. * Ibid., p. 237. « Ibid., p. 238. INTRODUCTION Ixvii selection by the clergy of Cardinal du Perron to set forth their views to the other two estates.1 The Cardinal's oration for this purpose before the Third Estate was published and is a remarkable document, covering many phases of the great controversy, and filled with passages of fiery eloquence.2 It is significant here as the occasion of one of the most important of James's political writings, for whose interpretation some consideration of this oration is necessary. Of the three main points in the article of the Third Estate, du Perron was able to agree with the first two — that the assassination of kings is not permis- sible,3 and, qu'en la nue administration des choses temporelles, ils dependent im- mediatement de Dieu.4 But with the third, he was in total disagreement — Qu' il n'y a mil cas auquel les Subjets puissent estre absous du serment de fidelite' qu'ils ont faict a leurs Princes; 6 and it is against it that he inveighs throughout the larger part of his oration, citing at length the opinions of many councils and theologians to prove that this weapon had been and could be used against any prince who was a heretic, an infidel, or a persecutor of the Catholic faith. His chief objections to this article were four in number: first, that itwould compel the people to believe and assert under anathema as a doctrine of faith and conformable to the word of God the contrary of what was held by all parties of the Catholic Church; second, that it would make it the province of laymen to judge of the faith and to pronounce one doctrine conformable to God's word and the opposite one " impie et detestable" ; third, that this condemnation of the belief of all the rest of the Church as contrary to God's word, " impie, et detestable," would inevitably create a schism ; and lastly, that this means proposed, instead of securing its object, the safety of the person of the King, must result rather in a return to the horrors of the civil wars.6 These objections he took up in turn. For the first, he asks, if no doctor, or theologian, or jurist, council, or decree in France ever dared assert that subjects might not be absolved from allegiance to a heretic or infidel prince, how can they now without forcing and violating the consciences of men declare such to be the perpetual and universal doctrine of the Gallican Church, or require ecclesiastics to swear to it as a doctrine of faith and against its opposite as impie, perverse, et detestable; and how can they declare to be a fundamental law of the State a theory which only arose in France more than eleven centuries after that state had been established?7 Under the second of these four "manifestes incon- 1 Ibid., p. 263. 1 It was published at Paris by Antoine Estienne, the Kings printer, in 1615, a book of in small octavo pages with the title, Harangue faicte de la Part de la Chambre Ecclesiastique, En celle du tiers Estat, sur I 'Article du Serment, Par Monseigneur le Cardinal du Perron, Archevesque de Sens, Primal des Gaules &• de Germanie, 6* Grand Aumosnier de France. It is probably the third edition that I have used. Four appeared before the end of 1615. The Harangue was also included among the Diverse* Oeuvres of du Perron, several editions of which appeared early in the seventeenth century. The Harangue is given in large part in the Mercure Francois, Troisieme Continuation, p. 266 et seq., from which most of the quotations are taken. 1 Mercure Francois, $&*&' cont., p. 270. 4 Ibid., p. 271. ' Ibid., pp. 274-275. ' Ibid., pp. 272-273. ' Ibid., pp. 289-290. Ixviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I venients," the Cardinal demanded after long citations of authorities, Et voulez, non vous, mais ceux par 1'inspiration desquels ces clauses se sont glissees en vostre article, que les laiques la facent jurer aux Ecclesiastiques, que les lalques exigent en matiere de Foy le serment des Ecclesiastiques, que les layques imposent les loix de Religion aux Ecclesiastiques ? O opprobre! 6 scandale! 6 porte ouverte a toutes sortes d'heresies! Et done nostre Foy sera subjette aux varietez & incon- stances des affections des peuples qui changent de vingt-cinq ans en vingt-cinq ans ? Et done les troupeaux guideront les bergers ? Et done les brebis condui- ront les Pasteurs ? Et done les enfans instruiront les peres ? * Adopt this oath, he warns the bourgeosie, under his third objection, this oath which is modelled on that of England, and the schism which must inevitably result will not be of the Pope's making but our own. And it will be a schism not merely against the person of the Pope but against the Apostolic See and against all the rest of the body of the Church. For if the Church's communion consists in unity of faith, how can we believe and swear that the Pope and all the rest of the Church are errant to the faith and to the things that make for salvation and holders of a doctrine contrary to the word of God, impious, detestable, and hereti- cal, without withdrawing ourselves from that communion, and what is that but to dismember the Church or to cut ourselves off from it ? The article would not only drive us into schism: it would of necessity make us heretics as well. For in condemning this doctrine as impious and detestable we must admit that the Pope is not head of the Church and Vicar of Christ but a heretic and Anti- christ; and all other parts of the Church, not true parts but members of Anti- christ. But if so what is to become of the Church Catholic ? 2 Under the Fourth objection, the Cardinal, among other things, declared that "ces deux horribles assassinats" which had occurred in France were not the result of the teachings of the Church, and asserted that the Church never condemns a prince to any punishment but a spiritual one; and that against the condemned, qu'elle abhorre toutes sortes de meurtres. He made a distinction entre les tirans d'usurpation, lesquels les loix permettent d'exterminer par toutes sortes de voyes: &, les tyrans d'administration qui sont legitimement appellez a la principaut6, mais 1'adminis- trent mal. Heretical princes, persecutors of the faith and of their Catholic sub- jects, belong to the second class; not to the first contre lesquels seuls il est permis de conspirer par embusches occultes & clandestines; and the laws allowing such things even in their case are les loix politiques prophanes & payennes ... & non les loix politiques Chrestiennes.3 Thus disposing of the actual effects of such an oath he turns to its origin and purpose. Its real authors are not the Third Estate, and its avowed purpose is the protection of the King, mais sous ceste couverture est cache1 le Schisme & le dessein de deviser 1'Eglise.4 This oath he likens to the monster of Horace that 1 Mercure Francois, jitae cont., p. 291. * Ibid., pp. 296-300. 1 Ibid., pp. 292-294. « Ibid., pp. 301-302. INTRODUCTION box had the head of a beautiful woman — the pretext of the service and protection of the King; but the tail of a fish — i.e., schism and a division of religion. Et a la verit6 il peut bien estre dit avoir une queue de poisson puis qu'il est venu par mer & a nage d'Angleterre. Car c'est le serment d'Angleterre tout pur, except^ que celuy d'Angleterre est encore plus doux & plus modeste.1 He hastens to add that he means no offence to King James to whom he applies many flattering terms. He even acquits him of evil intent by laying the blame upon his religion — Je scay que tenant la Religion qu'il tient, il pense faire ce qu'il doit quand il essaye de mettre le Schisme & la division parmy la nostre — a method not apt to be particularly soothing. But because James has done this thing in England, be- cause Catholics there must take the oath pour avoir permission de respirer, ou plustost souspirer, must it also be done en un Royaume Catholique? And if Catholics are found even in England willing to suffer all sorts of punishment rather than consent, shall none be found in France who do the same rather than sign and swear to an article which met les resnes de la foy entre les mains des laiques, and brings division and schism into the Church ? 2 In the person of Queen Elizabeth of England, the interests of the State came into conflict with the claims of conscience and obliged her to remain separated from the communion of the Pope, but in France the common interest of Church and State require a preservation of the union with him.3 In answer to this oration, Miron, president of the Chamber of the Third Estate, gave in defense of the condemned article much the same reasons which James had urged in justification of the English oath. His defense, in brief, was that the object of the article was merely civil.4 The outcome was that the Coun- cil forbade further discussion of the objectionable article,6 and that it was left out of the cahier in obedience to royal command, not however, without " un grand bruict & murmure " among the Third Estate.6 The open challenge to James's favorite doctrine thus dramatically made by the Cardinal in the Estates and spread broadcast by publication of the Harangue, under the conditions then existing in the intellectual world, laid upon the Angli- cans the burden, not to be escaped, of making an answer. And as the challenge had come in the name of the whole estate of the French clergy it was one not beneath a King to answer. James therefore again entered the controversy in his Declaration du serenissime roi Jacques 7, roi de la Grande-Bretagne, France et Irlande, defenseur de lafoi pour le droit des rois, et independance de leurs couronnes 1 Mercure Francois, ji&ne cent., p. 302. 4 Ibid., p. 320. ' Ibid., p. 303. • Ibid., pp. 339-340. 1 Ibid., pp. 308-309. • Ibid., pp. 355-356. The echo of this struggle came in the famous Declaratio Cleri Gatticani de Ecdesiastica Potestate of 1682, the first article of which is an unequivocal acceptance of James's denial of papal power directe vel indirecte to depose kings or princes or release their subjects from the obedi- ence due them. Printed in CEuvres de Bossuet, xxxi, 28. See Bossuet's remarkable defense of these articles, Defensio Declarationis Conventus Cleri Gatticani, CEuvres, xxxi-xxxiii, esp. xxxii, book iv, chs. 13-15, 17, 18, and 23. See also Charles Butler, Memoirs, ii, 220-223. Ixx THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I centre la Harangue de Villustrissime Cardinal du Perron, prononcee a la chambre du tiers-etat, 1615. It was written in French and revised as to style by du Moulin.1 An English translation was made as usual and included in James's collected works,2 from which it is reprinted here at page 169, the Remonstrance for the Right of Kings. A Latin translation was published in 1616. At his death Cardi- nal du Perron left the manuscript of a reply to James's Declaration, which was printed in 1620 with the title Replique a la Response du Serenissime Roy de la Grande-Bretagne par Villustrissime et reverendissime Cardinal du Perron, arche- vesque de Sens, Primal des Gaules et de Germanic, et grand Aumosnier de France. The manuscript of another and much longer answer, unfinished at the Cardinal's death, is included in his (Euvres posthumes preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale? From the foregoing summary it must be clear what a furore James's works created in Europe. It now remains to consider briefly the efforts made in England to reply to the many Catholics antagonsists whom James had thus aroused. Among the most important of the books which appeared on this side of the controversy must be reckoned one which was not written in England, and was not aimed merely at the support of the oath. William Barclay, its author, was an orthodox Catholic, who utterly rejected the claims of the Pope to a temporal power directe or indirecte. He was a jurisconsult and a layman, a Scot who had taught law at Pont-a-Mousson in Lorraine, and at Angers. His book, the De Potestate Papae; An & Quatenus in Reges &° Principes secular es jus & imperium habeat: Gutt. Barclaii I. C. Liber posthumus? though it was written after the enactment of the English oath, was not directly a defence of it. It took a far wider range. Its underlying principle, nevertheless, was the same as that of the oath, and its very moderation, the work of a sincere Catholic and one who had 1 Feret, Le Cardinal du Perron, p. 320, citing du Moulin's Advertissement which followed the Declaration. 1 P. 381 et seq. It is referred to briefly as the Defense. ' Feret, Le Cardinal du Perron, p. 321, note i. Of this Feret gives a summary with numerous quotations, p. 322 et seq. In the main it is apparently an amplification of the Harangue, In 1630 Lady Falkland translated part of Du Perron's Replique into English. She is said also to have trans- lated the other works of Du Perron, but they were not printed. See T. F. Henderson in D. N. B., under Henry Gary, first Viscount Falkland. A Latin translation of the Riplique appeared in 1621. 4 William Barclay died in 1608 at Angers before the book was completed. It was published in 1609 without indication of place or publisher, a fact commented upon unfavorably by Bellarmine in the preface to his answer, who says it was alleged in quibusdam codicibus to be published at Pont-a- Mousson, but this he finds to be false. Mr. T. F. Henderson (D. N. B., Barclay, William) says it was published " probably at London." There is no doubt of it. John Barclay, William's son, says hi the preface to Bellarmine of his Pietas, that he himself is responsible for its publication, and that it was published at London by Norton — " Ast ego, qui librum Guilielmi Barclaii de Potestate Papae nuper emisi in lucem, nomen meum, & Typographi, sed & loci ubi liber excusus est, prodere audeo, & jam turn audebam. Joannes Barclaius sum, officina Northoniana, urbs Londinum (Goldast, Monarchia, iii, 850). He also cites Bellarmine's own book written under the name of Tortus. An English translation was published at London in i6n,0fthe Authoritie of the Pope whether and how farre forth he hath power and authoritie over Temporal! Kings. Liber Posthumus. Gillow makes the interesting statement that William Barclay died in 1606 and that his son published his posthumous work in 1600! i, 126-127. The book was published in French in 1611 (De Backer i, 1216-1217). The original version in Latin is reprinted in Goldast, iii, 621-687. On the book, see Krebs, op. cit., pp. 149- 152- INTRODUCTION bed suffered nothing by the oath, made its influence on the controversy the greater. Throughout Europe this book was considered one of the most effective presenta- tions of the argument against the temporal claims of the Pope, and its influence was considerable upon English Catholics who were already wavering. In 1611 Birkhead, the Archpriest, wrote that Sheldon's book " and Barclay's translated into English cause many to stagger about the oath." l The heresy which Barclay deplored as much as any man he believed to be due to the temporal power. Ita quicquid haereticorum in Gallia Britanniaque hodie est, id est illorum unicum robur, hoc temporalis potestatis miserabili calore, tanquam pestilenti ovo concep- tum est & educatum.2 He is not now writing in the interest of the State, though it is important, as in his De Regno. The safety of the Church itself demands the rejection of this pernicious doctrine. As might be expected he expressly denies the doctrine of the indirect power and singles out Bellarmine for contradiction as its main defender.3 He detects the fact that the immunity of the priesthood lies at the bottom of this question, and denies it with vigor.4 To hold it as Bellar- mine does really creates two republics, one of kings and laymen, the other of the Pope and ecclesiastics — quo nihil adsurdius . . . dicipotest.5 For there is but one republic in which are two powers or magistrates one spiritual, one temporal, with never any necessity for either to infringe upon the other.6 If this is true of the clergy, it is also of the Pope. And if the Pope has any power in temporals he must have received it by divine grant, for which there ought to be authority in Scripture. Christus commendando suas oves Petro, dedit ei omnem potesta- tem necessariam ad tuendum gregem. Atqui non dedit ei potestatem tempora- lem: ergo potestas temporalis non est necessaria ad tuendum gregem. Deinde progrediemur hoc modo; Absurdum est summum Pontificem, quatenus successor est B. Petri, habere plus potestatis, quam habuit ipse Petrus: at Petrus non habuit ullam potestatem temporalem in Christianos: ergo nee summus nunc Pontifex, quatenus successor ejus est.7 All temporal power is left .to princes, therefore all temporal punishments. Hence no Pope can depose kings or dis- pense with the allegiance of their subjects.8 Popes may only strive by prayers and tears to bring back even an evil king to the right path.9 Barclay's theory, as James's, contains no important element not employed long before in the struggle between the Pope and the Emperor, but this book was a brief and powerful restatement of the royal and imperial position, hi answer to the doctrine of the indirect power, a doctrine by which, Barclay de- clared, quicquid Pontifici per abnegationem directae potestatis subtractum est, id ei per obliquam & indirectam hanc imperandi viam cumulate restituitur.10 Dodd's Church History, iv. Appendix, p. clxviii. De Polestate Papae (first ed.). Epislola Dedicatoria, addressed to the Pope himself. The Italics are mine. Ibid., pp. 44-48. 7 De Potentate Papae, pp. 197-198. Ibid., pp. 136-142. 8 Ibid., pp. 244-245. Ibid., p. 136. ' Ibid., pp. 251-252. Ibid., p. 142. M Ibid., p. 43. Ixxii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Coming as it did in the very heat of the controversy over the oath there is little doubt that this book did cause many English Catholics " to stagger," and it brought out a reply from Bellarmine himself, now nearly seventy years old, his Tractatus de Poteslate summi Pontificis in rebus Temporalibus adversus Gulielmum Bardaium, Rome, I6IO.1 This is a masterly and concise restatement of Bellar- mine's theory of pontifical authority, hinging, of course, on the doctrine of the indirect power.2 It really adds nothing of importance to his earlier statement in the De Romano Pontifice, but its brevity and the clearness of its argument, to- gether with the pure and direct ecclesiastical Latin, make it the most satisfactory source of Bellarmine's theory.3 In 1611 John Barclay in answer published Joannis Bardaii Pietas, sive Pub- licae pro Regibus, ac Principibus, et Privatae pro Guilielmo Bardaio Parente Vindiciae,4 a long detailed reply point by point reasserting his father's views and denying those of the Cardinal.6 Although a thorough-going acceptance of any theory which sharply separated the temporal and the spiritual was really as inimical to a supreme governor as to a supreme pontiff, James was quick to see that a defense of his oath by a Catholic who denied the Papal authority in temporals would be all the more persuasive just because it was combined with a complete acceptance of the Pope's spiritual claims. Hence he particularly sought the aid of moderate Catholics who were willing to enter the contest on his side, and a few of these he found, of whom one at least is of sufficient importance to merit some attention. These Catholics must have hated the pretensions to ecclesiastical authority of a supreme governor even more than the papal claims to a temporal one, but they saw clearly that the oath itself was a departure, even though a very slight one, from the principle of the oath of supremacy, and they hoped that it might be the be- ginning, as it really was, of a development which in time would secure a toleration of their faith in England. The real difference between the Jesuits and the moder- ates among the Catholics, was that the former hated and opposed a toleration which might later be an embarrassing precedent in the way of complete Catholic uniformity under the prince for whom they hoped and plotted; while the moder- ates wished above all for a toleration of their own faith and were willing to support any measure which seemed to tend however slightly in that direction. The oath was a challenge to the indirect power, but it was a challenge which, so far as it went, also gave up the spiritual power of the King. If, as James con- 1 Reprinted in Bellarmine's Works, v, 23-95. I nave used the original edition of 1610. * I am unable to understand the statement of Professor Dunning (A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, p. 130), that in this book " Bellarmin's distinction between direct and indirect authority in seculars is left aside." See Tractatus (1610), cap. v, esp. pp. 64-66; 197; and the extract given above, pages xxii-xxiii. 1 For a discussion of it, see Krebs, op. cit., pp. 152-156. ' In Goldast, iii, 847-1134 [1034]. * He challenges Bellarmine to show any passage of Scripture conferring the temporal power. Goldast, iii, 846 [should be 946]. His treatment of the indirect power is in ch. v, 841 [941] et seq.; of the deposing power, ch. vi, 849 [949] et seq. INTRODUCTION bmii tended, the oath was merely civil, it derogated from his own claims as supreme governor as much as from those of the Pope. Hence many Catholics who really believed it to be merely civil, and cared nothing for the temporal power, were willing to accept it. In this connection there is a significant difference even be- tween the objections of du Perron, who mainly tried to prove the oath to be a matter of faith and therefore a breeder of schism; and the method of Bellarmine, who took his stand squarely upon the indirect power. Among the English Cath- olic defenders of James's policy the most important was Thomas Preston, an English Benedictine who wrote under the name of Roger Widdrington. He wrote many works, almost all in defence of the oath, and in one or other of them answered most of the important foreign opponents of it, Bellarmine, Gretser, Lessius, Becan, Suarez, Schulkenius, du Perron, and others; in many cases eliciting replies. On account of his activity on the side of the King, Widdrington seems to have been in some danger from the Jesuit party, and measures were taken for his protection by the government. He also received other favors and concessions not ordinarily accorded to Catholic ecclesiastics, in return for his services.1 The works of Widdrington are now very rare, and probably the most acces- sible is his first book, which is reprinted in Goldast's Monarchia? his Apologia Cardinalis Bellarmini pro Jure Principum. This, however, contains the substance of his views and may be briefly sum- marized as a typical statement of the position of moderate Catholics who were willing to submit to the oath as merely civil. It is a clear and comprehensive statement of the views of Catholics who opposed the temporal power, one of the most powerful arguments that appeared, answering Bellarmine's arguments for the indirect power step by step in excellent Latin and with the citation of many authorities, fully up to the level of the better known work of Barclay, and possi- bly more important for us because the author always has the oath in mind and applies his theory more concretely to the situation in England. The question of the Pope's temporal power, Widdrington says, has been re- opened in England on account of the oath and there are many Catholics there, who, though they hold that the Pope as Pope has no power merely temporal, jure divino, believe nevertheless that he does have in ordine ad bonum spirituale, supremum dominium temporale, seu potestatem disponendi de rebus temporali- bus, omnium praesertim Christianorum, et consequenter Regna, atque Imperia transferendi; et Reges, ac Principes supremos Principatu privandi. Et hanc sententiam tarn mordicus tenent, ut contrariam non tarn sententiam quam haere- sim esse arbitrentur. There are, however, many (permulti) other English Catho- 1 D. N. B., Widdrington, Roger; Foulis, op. cil., pp. 531-532. 1 Vol. iii, 688-763. The book was published in 1611, but Widdrington says it was written three years before, but hitherto not published on account of the appearance of Barclay's De Potestate Papae which covered much the same ground. He also mentions Bellarmine's Tractatus, which appeared in 1610, but says he has not yet seen it. Admonilio ad Lectorem, Goldast, iii, 688. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I lies who declare the oath to be permissible; and still others, not few in number, who, though they deny that it can be taken with a safe conscience by any Catho- lics, on account of certain of its terms (quasdam clausulas in eo insertas), yet hold that no satisfactory proof can be shown either from Scripture, apostolic tradition, the writings of the Fathers, or theological deduction, that the Supreme Pontiff has by Christ's institution any dominion truly temporal or any power sive directe, sive indirecte, sive absolute, sive respective ad bonum spirituale, to despoil sovereign princes of their temporal dominions for any crime what- soever.1 He then cites many authorities against the temporal power;2 and proceeds to prove affirmatively that the temporal sword is not in the hands of the Church, but of the Commonwealth,3 and that if it should be necessary for ecclesiastics ever to use that sword, they could do it non . . . qua Ecclesiastici sunt, sed qua homines.4 If this doctrine of indirect power is to be believed, Scripture or apos- tolic tradition should be produced in its support. But of tradition there is none, and of Scripture, two passages alone: Matthew 16 — Tu es Petrus, etc., and the last chapter of St. John — Pasce oves meas; neither of which, however, has any- thing to do with temporal things, as he explains at length. Next, he takes up for his main attack Bellarmine's exposition of this indirect power, and finds re- sulting from it four inconvenientes: that it leads to tyrannicide; that it may be abused by employing it for offences not worthy of such punishment; that it is open, not merely to the Pope, but to any bishop ; and that its effect will inevitably be to create disorder and suspicion.6 Besides, it is not easy to say just what is meant by bonum spirituale, whether the good of all, or of the majority, or of particular individuals.6 . He then sets out to prove by numerous citations that the Church has taught not this doctrine but passive obedience to temporal princes.7 The real core of this question, he says, lies in the determination of what punishment is properly ecclesiastical, and to what offences it can rightly be ap- plied. No one among Catholics denies the power of the Church to punish evil doers, even Christian kings and emperors; but the whole difficulty lies in de- termining whether the taking away of temporal goods and the depriving a king of this temporal principality ought to be included among the punishments which can be inflicted by ecclesiastical power as such.8 To prove one is by no means to prove the other. Such punishments, in fact, are secular, and may not be employed by the Church. Just as the Pope, qua Pope, has no right jure divino to punish a thief for theft or one who kills another pro homicidio, neither can he in ejusmodi causis pure temporalibus Principibus Secularibus, aliisque laicis in foro exteriori quoad vim coercentem imperare, quia ejusmodi causae, et peccata non sunt fori Ecclesiastici, sed secularis.9 Bellarmine's reasoning, Widdrington 1 Goldast, iii, 691. » Ibid., 695^697. « Ibid., 699. ' Ibid., 701. • Ibid., 709. J Ibid., 691-694. « Ibid., 695. • Ibid., 700. • Ibid., 707. INTRODUCTION Ixxv thinks is debilissima, because the indirect power is really inconsistent with the separateness and immunity of the clergy upon which he himself insists. This point had been noted by many critics; Barclay, for instance, asserting that Bellarmine was not able to regain under the indirect power what he himself had surrendered by admitting the separation of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction.1 To Bellarmine's argument that the Pope may exercise a temporal power per accidens when the spiritual republic is endangered, Widdrington aptly replies, as Andrewes had done, but with more effect since he was a Catholic, that this was a dangerous argument, as it could be used both ways. If the Pope under his spiritual power could thus interfere in a Commonwealth, why, he asks with England evidently in mind, could an infidel king who sincerely believed that preachers of the Gospel were a danger to his realm not exclude them from it under the severest penalties ? 2 Thus disposing of Bellarmine's general theory of the Church as a societas perfecta which must therefore have potestas sufficiens in ordine ad suum finem, Widdrington turns to the most important form of the exercise of such power, the deposing of a temporal prince, and the argument on this head is summed up in his statement: The present argument is not over the the reasons for which kings may be deposed. The only question at issue is simply whether the Supreme Pontiff has authority jure divino to do it. To prove that in some cases princes may be deposed is not to the point. Nam dato, sed non concesso, illicitum esse Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum, aut infidelem, si ille conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim aut infidelitatem, quae est prima propositio Cardinal! Bellarmini, et ab ipso quamvis pluribus, nullo tamen valido argumento (ut mox videbimus) confirmata, quomodo tamen hinc recte deduci potest, Summum Pontificem habere auctoritatem Principes deponendi ? 3 Passing from the punishment of a king to the judgment which precedes it, Widdrington would justify a denial of papal authority on much the same grounds as those asserted by Blackwell at his examination before the High Commission.4 The Pope may declare generaliter what is heresy and in this his decision is bind- ing upon all Catholics, but it is a different thing when he undertakes to determine " in particular whether this or that act, alleged to be heresy, has been committed by a King." In the first case the Pope is laying down a general rule of right reason between true and false, good and bad, applicable in all circumstances actual or speculative, and his decision must be accepted; but in the second, he is acting as a man, on evidence that is not certain, and his judgment is fallible and not binding.5 In this way Widdrington goes through Bellarmine's Apology point by point, but it is impossible to follow him further here. Enough has been given, however, to show the attitude of the party which he represented on the larger questions at issue, and also to demonstrate the remarkable keenness of his criticism and 1 Goldast, iii, 715; ante, p. xlix. « Ibid., 724. • Goldast, iii, 725. » Ibid., 716. * Ante, p. lix. Ixxvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I force of his language.1 So important was he, that Foulis says the Catholic op- position to the oath was commonly referred to as " Widdrington's Doctrine." 2 Among other Catholics supporters of the oath are Richard Sheldon, the im- portance of whose book, Certain General Reasons Proving the Lawfulness of the Oath of Allegiance, London, 1611, was admitted by the Archpriest, Birkhead;3 and William Warmington, who in 1612 published A Moderate Defence of the Oath of Allegiance, wherein the Author proveth the said Oath to be most Lawful, notwith- standing the Pope's Breves.* To these might be added, Jus Regis, sive De Absolute et independent Secula- rium Principum dominio et obsequio eis debito . . . Libri tres in quibus summi Pontificis Jus non esse Principes deponere aut civiliter plectere autoritate sacra Eistorica et Forensi Probat Guil. Barret Catholicus Anglus J. C., etc., Basiliae, 1613. Some idea of James's eagerness to enlist the aid of foreigners in the contro- versy, and of his methods of so doing may be gained from the inclusion in this list of one of the most remarkable characters of the time, the able but unscrupu- lous adventurer, Marco Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, upon whom James showered English benefices in return for his attacks upon Rome.6 Much invaluable help was undoubtedly given to the cause of the King by the writings of these Catholics who supported the oath. Their arguments no doubt had greater weight with Catholics in England and elsewhere than similar views 1 For a brief characterization of some of Widdrington's other books, see Serviere, op. cit., pp. 139- 140, 146, 155, 156-157. 2 Op. cit., p. 532. Other books of Widdrington's on the oath are: R. W. . . . Responsio apologetica at Libellum cujusdam Doctoris Theologi, qui ejus Pro Jure Principum Apologiam, tanquam Fidei Catho- licae . . . repugnantem . . . criminatur, 1612; Disputatio theologica de Juramento FidelUatis . . . In qua potissima omnia Argumenta, quae a . . . Bellarmino, J. Gretzero, L. Lessio, M. Becano, aliisque nonnullis contra recens FidelUatis Juramentum . . . facta sunt . . . examinantur, 1613. This is probably his most important book on the oath itself. A brief summary of it is given by Serviere, op. cit., pp. 139-140, an unfriendly critic. In addition, he published in 1616, A Cleare . . . confutation of the . . . Reply of T. F., who is knowne to be Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert, an English jesuite. Wherein also are confuted the chiefest objections which Dr. Schulkenius, who is commonly said to be Card. Belarmine, hath made against Widdrington's Apologiefor the Right, or Sweraigntie of temporall princes. By R. W., an English Catholike; also, Appendix ad Disputationem theologicam de Juramento FidelUatis, in quo omnia Argumenta, quae a F. Suarez . . . pro Potestate Papali Principes deponendi, et contra recens FidelUatis Juramentum allata sunt . . . examinantur, 1616; Discussio Discussionis Decreti Magni Concilii Lateranensis, adversus L. Lessium nomine Guilhelmi Singletoni personatum, in qua omnia Argumenta, quae idemmet Lessius pro Papali Potestate Principes deponendi adducit . . . examinantur 6* refutantur et quaedam egregia . . . Cardinalis Peronii Artificia . . . deteguntur &• refutantur, 1618; R. Widdrington's last reioynder to Mr. T. Fitz-Herberts Reply concerning the Oath of Allegiance and the Popes power to depose princes . . . Also many replies . . . of . . . Bellarmine in his Schulkenius, and of L. Lessius in his Singleton are confuted, and divers cunning shifts of . . . Peron are discovered, 1619; A New Yeares Gift for English Catholikes, or a brief and clear e Explication of the New Oath of Allegiance. By E. I., Student in Divinitie, 1620, in English and Latin; and in the same year, An Adjoinder to the late Catholick New Year's Gift. 8 Dodd's Church History, iv, Appendix, p. clxviii. Sheldon soon afterwards turned Protestant. He received many favors from the King. 4 Warmington's is a notable example of the remission of the penal laws in return for the service done to the King's cause. See Foulis, op. cU., p. 532. 8 For the curious history of this interesting man — see D. N. B., Dominis L. Marco Antonio de. INTRODUCTION Ixxvii expressed by Protestants could have had. But the number of Catholic apologists for the oath was very limited, and James had to rely in the main upon the sup- port of his own party, who in a measure made up for their lack of influence by the greater zeal, not to say violence, of their partisanship. Long before the enactment of the oath itself this party had been laying the foundation for James's attacks on the pretensions of the later Popes by their attempts to prove that the Popes had in the later ages fulfilled the prophecy of St. John in regard to Antichrist. This had begun in the time of the Tudors1 and was continued after the accession of James in such books as George Downame's A Treatise affirming the Pope to be Antechrist, 1603 ,2 or Robert Abbot's Anti- Christi Demonstratio of the same year. James owed much to these books, and they did not come to an end with the enactment of the oath.3 But the oath tended to focus the controversy even more directly upon the new phase of the old question of obedience which had been created by the papal claims as inter- preted by Bellarmine and the Jesuits. Convocation made an explicit denial of all the grounds on which those claims were based, and of all the theories to which they gave rise.4 When the oath itself appeared, and the defense of it by the King in person, a considerable number of Anglican writers also enlisted not without royal encour- agement in support of its principle or in defense of its author. Some of these have been mentioned already. A few others are important enough to throw some further light on the nature of the controversy and of the way it was conducted. Of those not referred to already probably none was of more consequence than Dr. John Donne. In 1610 appeared his Pseudo-Martyr wherein out of certaine Propo- sitions and Gradations. This conclusion is euicted. That those which are of the Romane Religion in this Kingdome, may and ought to take the Oath of Attegeance. Isaac Walton in his life of Doctor Donne gives an account of how his book came to be written. The King, much impressed with his arguments against refusing the oath, ..." commanded him to bestow some tune in drawing the arguments into a method, and then to write his answers to them." The result was the Pseudo-Martyr, and so satisfactory, Walton says, that the King " persuaded Mr. Donne to enter into the ministry." 6 1 For example the writings of William Whitaker, one of which was published just after the oath. Whitaker died in 1695. The similar views of Wycliffe are well known. * It was answered in 1613 in a book written by Michael Christopherson, priest. 3 For example, Thomas Brightman's Antichrisium Pontificiorum monstrum fictitium esse which appeared in 1610. * See Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, book i, Canons 16, 18, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33 and 34. They were an extension to meet the new circumstances of the principle of the Homily Against Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion of 1562. See also book ii, ch. x, and Canon 9, with Overall's comments. The canons in book ii, however, were probably never adopted. 1 Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biography, fourth ed., iii, 652-653. Mr. Edmund Gosse, in his life of Dr. Donne, i, 246-247, seems to question the accuracy of Walton's statement, but without any very convincing reason. See his whole account of the Pseudo-Martyr, i, 245-254; also Augustus Jessopp, John Donne, p. 69 et seq. kxviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The attacks of Eudaemon- Johannes upon Bishop Andrewes, referred to above,1 the reply of Bellarmine himself to Andrewes's arguments, and the contributions of other writers on the Papal side, also brought out a number of English books, — chiefly in defense of Andrewes, some of which have been noticed.2 Others were the Increpatio Andreae Eudemono-Johannis Jesuitae, de in/ami Parallelo, el renovata assertio Torturae Torti pro darissimo domino atque antistite Elieno, 1612, of Samuel Collins; and the same author's Epphata to F. T. or, the defence of . . . the lord Bishop of Elie . . . concerning his answer to Cardinall Bettar mines Apolo- gie, 1617. The latter was an answer to Thomas Fitzherbert's Confutation of certain Absurdities, Falsities, and Follies, uttered by M. D. Andrews in his Answer to Cardinall Bellarmines Apology, 1613, to which Fitzherbert in turn replied in The Obmutesce of F. T. to the Epphata of D. Collins. Collins's Epphata was dedi- cated to the King and undertaken at his command. Its appearance in 1617, the same year that its author obtained his regius professorship at Cambridge, is hardly a mere coincidence. To these might be added the De Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus sive in regibus deponendis usurpata adv. Robertum Cardinalem Bellarminum libri duo, 1614, of John Buckeridge, then bishop of Rochester, and a man high in James's favor; and the contributions of Robert Burhill to the controversy. In addition to his first defense of Andrewes's Tortura Torti, noticed above,3 Burhill published in 1613 De Potestate regia et Usurpatione papali pro Tortura Torti contra Paralle- lum Andr. Eudaemon, and Assertio pro Jure regio contra Martini Becani Jesuitae Controversiam Anglicanam. As early as 1610, John Gordon, dean of Salisbury, entered the struggle, a man who enjoyed the King's favor and repaid it by literary support of some of James's favorite projects, notably the union of England and Scotland. His first contribu- tion to the controversy bore the title Anti-tor to-Bellarminus, sive refutatio Calumni- arum mendaciorum, et Imposturarum Laico-Cardinalis Bellarmini contra jura omnium regum et sinceram illibitamque famam Serenis. Principis Jacobi, etc. He returned to it again in 1612 with his Anti-bellarmino-tortor, sive Tortus Re- tortus. But of all the Protestant supporters of the King's contention against the Pope, the one whose reputation for learning was highest, whose arguments had probably the greatest weight on the Continent, was Isaac Casaubon. Since the death of J. J. Scaliger he was recognized as the first scholar of Europe, and like Scaliger he was a Protestant. The death of Henry IV made Paris a place none too com- fortable for a such a man, and James in his search for apologists was able to in- duce him to come to England to his support. The patent for Casaubon's pension shows that he was asked to come not merely on account of his reputation: he was expected to render valuable service in return for his £300, the nature of which appears in his writings. He had been invited " here to make his aboad; 1 P. kvi. « P. Ixiii. « Ibid. INTRODUCTION Ixxix and to be used by us as we shall see cause for the service of the church." l The story of how he was " used " in this controversy, of the concerted efforts of the opposite party to answer his arguments or discredit him personally, and of the measures taken in England for his defense, has been told in the model biography of Casaubon by Mark Pattison so much more fully and so much better than I can tell it here that the best service I can render students of the political thought of that time is to refer them to that book as the best account of these things, and in fact, the best statement in English of the general conditions in intellectual Europe which made this whole controversy what it was.2 The intellectual war which I have been endeavoring to trace was at its height from 1606 to 1620. It did not end with the latter date, but all the important lines in which political thought was to flow were indicated by that time. It is true that the controversy broke out again with something of its old violence after the Restoration; and continued until the Revolution, when many of the political principles of the Stuarts and their time disappeared with the dynasty itself.3 Religious uniformity with the slight concessions granted under the oath was a policy not originated by the Stuarts, but one which lasted with one interruption till their downfall, when it was superseded by the qualified toleration of the Toleration Act. The Oath of 1606 was a very slight advance beyond Elizabeth's policy of a very limited " tolerance for a consideration," 4 but slight as it was it does mark an important stage in that development in which the year 1689 stands out with such prominence. As Dr. Figgis says, " Only because neither party could subdue, exterminate, or banish the other was toleration the result of the Revolution of 1688." 5 In the period between 1603 and 1625 these things were still uncertain. It was by no means clear yet that some such fate as this might not be in store for the Catholic party in England, and at the same time one branch of that party itself had not yet given up hope that the tables might be completely turned after all) and that the sufferers under such a subjugation, extermination, or banishment would be their enemies and not themselves. 1 Isaac Casaubon, by Mark Pattison, pp. 282-283, quoted from Rymer's Foedera, xvi, 710 (London ed.). * See particularly chs. v-ix, but ch. iv is almost equally important, and the whole book is useful. Casaubon's contributions to the controversy were mainly in the form of letters, but they were sometimes letters only in form. His long communications to Fronto Ducaeus (Fronton du Due) and du Perron are really elaborate defenses of the English position as long as many of the books. In fact it was intended that they should be separately published in book form, and they were so published. The most important is the letter to Fronto Ducaeus. It covers almost all parts of the controversy in an able and moderate defense of James and of the oath, and Casaubon said afterward that there was nothing in it which the King had not seen. (Epist., p. 841). The letter to the Cardinal is almost wholly an attempt to prove James's orthodoxy, the material for which was supplied by the King him- self — "la piece est de sa majeste." (Pattison, Isaac Casaubon, p. 308, note 2). The Epistolae of Casaubon have been thrice published. I have used the second edition, 1656. The letter of 1611 to Fronto Ducaeus is number 624 in that collection, pp. 705-798; for the letter to Cardinal du Perron, see pp. 800-936 (no. 710). • I am here using the term Revolution as including the Act of Settlement of 1701. 4 Figgis, From Gerson to Grotius, p. 115. * From Gerson to Grotius, p. 142. Ixxx THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The few years of James's reign remaining after 1620 are important for political history but for political theory they offer little that is new. The battle of the White Hill marked the transfer of the struggle from the sphere of the intellectual so that of the physical; and it is not laws alone that inter arma silent. But in the years that preceded 1620 the intellectual struggle between the Protestant Union and the Catholic League had been intense, and in it England had taken a larger place than she had ever had in matters of general Europran concern since the beginning of modern tunes. That important place, she owed to her peculiar position as the great protector of Protestantism. When, after 1620, the bitter contest between religions in Europe passed from words to arms, James played a sorry part as protector or leader. His forte was words not acts. But in the earlier part of the struggle there was no more conspicuous champion than he, no more important opponent of the principles upon which the Counter-Reformation rested and the wars of religion were to be fought. He owed this eminence, of course, more to his office than to his ability. Not that his writings were in them- selves negligible : they were by no means so. We have no way of knowing how much of them is due to the King's own undoubted controversial ability, and how much was contributed by others without hope of recognition, but these writings as they stand would probably not have passed without notice even had they been anonymous. We may be equally sure, however, that without the authorship of a king, they would hardly have elicted replies from such opponents as du Perron and Bellarmine. APPENDIX A*' THE TUDOR LITERATURE ON CHURCH AND STATE The literature of the early part of this controversy is of far greater importance for the history of political thought than is generally recognized if we may judge from the attention it has received from the historians. The personalities, and the prevailing practice of replying to an opponent's arguments, section by section and almost line by line, oftentimes for some hundreds of pages, are not en- couraging to the impatient modern reader. The Obedience of a Christen Man by - William Tyndale must be considered one of the earliest books dealing with this fundamental problem. It is, of course, anti-papal and urges an obedience to kingly authority that would have satisfied a non-juror a century and a half later. (The Whole Workes of W. Tyndall, John Frith, and Doct. Barnes, p. 97 seq.) His] view of the relations of Church and State with which we are now immediately , concerned is summed up in the statement, " There is no power but of God (by power understand the aucthoritie of kynges and princes). The powers that be, are ordayned of God. whoseouer therefore resisteth power, resisteth god: yeaj though he be Pope, Byshoppe, Monke or Fryer" (p. in). In 1529 Rastell published Sir Thomas More's Dyalogue in which the author makes a violent attack on the Protestants, defending the Church's practice in regard to images, prayers to saints, etc. Among the men attacked was Tyndale, and he replied in 1530 in his Anns-were unto Sir Thomas Mores Dialogue (Works, p. 247 et seq.}. For our purpose this answer is mainly significant on account of his attack on the Pope as Antichrist (p. 289 et seq.), a subject which became so important in the later controversy between the King and the Pope. Another important anti- papal work of Tyndale's was his Practice of Papisticall Prelates, published also in 1530. In 1531 Berthelet printed The Newe Addicions, treating most specially of the Power of the Parlyament, concernynge the Spiritualitie, and the Spiritual Juris- diction. This is attributed to Saint German and is reprinted in the modern edi- tions of the Doctor and Student, as Additions to the Second Dialogue. It is legal rather than political. There are several other legal works of this kind dating from this period not noticed here. They were often printed several times by different printers. More important than these was the anonymous and undated book published by Robert Redman, probably between 1530 and 1533 entitled A Treatise Concernynge the division betwene the spirytualtie and temporaltie, of which a copy exists in the British Museum Library. It also is usually attributed to Christopher Saint German, the author of the famous legal dialogue of the Doctor and Student. It is one of the most important early English books on the division bood Ixxxii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I of secular and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The seventh chapter, for example, is a detailed refutation based on the precedents of English law, of the claim of eccle- siastical courts to apply the oath Ex Officio in the detection of heresy, interesting in view of the later use of this means under royal authority by the High Com- mission. The book is important also, because it is in answer to it that Sir Thomas More wrote his Apology of Syr Thomas More Knight, published in 1533, in which he defends the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and insists that the heretical doctrines of Tyndale, Saint German, and others are urged in the interests of heresy and not of regal power, and that they are more dangerous to the state than the claims of the Church. He also answers in detail the objections to the Oath Ex Officio. (The workes of Sir Thomas More Knyght . . . wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge, London, 1557, p. 845 el seq.) This brought out another anonymous reply from Saint German in the same year entitled Salem and Bizance (A Dialogue be- twixte two Englyshe men, whereof one was called Salem and the other Bizance) printed by Berthelet, Salem (Jerusalem), asserting the claims of the Church, and Bizance (Byzantium) those of the State. Chapter XV takes up again the subject of the Oath Ex Officio. More answered at once in his Debellacyon of Salem and Bizance, printed by W. Rastell in 1533 (English Works, p. 929 et seq.) It is a long answer, point by point, of Saint German's book and abounds in personalities and abuse. These are among the most important of the early books on this great contro- versy, but others had been busy also in the meantime. In 1533 appeared the Oratio quae docet hortatur admonet omnes potissimum Anglos regiae dignitati cum primis ut obediant, etc., written by Richard Sampson, successively bishop of Chichester, and of Coventry and Litchfield. The purpose of this book is clear enough from its title, but its chief importance probably lies in the fact that the De Unitate Ecclesiae of Cardinal Pole was in large part an answer to it. Another attack on papal jurisdiction was published by Berthelet in 1534, Thomas Star- key's Exhortation to Christian Unity whose sub-title indicates its tenor — A Treatise against the Papal Supremacy. Berthelet also brought out in the same year another remarkable little book on the limits of ecclesiastical authority, Opus Eximium de Vera Differentia Regiae Potestatis et Ecclesiasticae, et quae sit ipsa Veritas ac Virtus utriusque. This book is attributed to Edward Fox, Bishop of Hereford. A second edition appeared hi 1538, and an English translation by Henry, Baron Stafford in 1548. It is a very concise and able exposition of the royal position and may be worthy of a brief examination here. It is reprinted in Goldast (vol. iii, 22-45). The plan of the author is set forth at the end of the preface (p. 24), " Itaque primum investigare conabimur atque expendere, quo- modo potestas ecclesiastica, ut hodie vendicatur, jure divino non innitatur. Secundo, quemadmodum obtineat de jure divino. Tertio, qua modestia usi suit ea potestate Pontifices boni. Quarto, quatenus propria sit Regum potestas ilia ecclesiastica, quae sic hodie appellatur. On this basis the author divides his book into four parts. Part one is taken up with a refutation, from Scripture and the INTRODUCTION Ixxxiii Fathers, of the papal claim derived from Matthew XVI, Tu es Petrus, etc., to a power of deposing kings and absolving their subjects from the allegiance due them (pp. 24-27). In part II he proceeds to prove that the same authorities had conferred upon the Apostles and their successors potestatem ecclesiasticam, but, he says, dominium negant; tribuunt authoritatem, non jurisdictionem, to ad- monish, exhort, console, entreat, teach, preach, administer the sacraments, etc. Leges autem, poenae, judicia, cohertiones, sententia et caetera hujusmodi pertain to Emperors, Kings, and other powers (p. 30). Hence, he concludes, constat Canones necessitate neminem obligare ut jam vim suam non obtineant ex autho- ritate statuentis Pontificis canonica jura (quae vocantur,) sed recipientis populi voluntate. The people are therefore not bound sub poena peccati mortalis to receive these canons, nor has the Pope authoritatem statuendi canones with any such sanction. The author proceeds to show that the Gallic and Anglican churches have in fact rejected some of these papal laws. Qua certe ratione apparet non aliud quam regulas esse Canones, qui vocantur, quae populus prout admiserit, et approbarit, aut rejecerit, its demum locum solent obtinere: Nam qua ratione aliquae reiiciuntur, etiam omnes possunt contemni (p. 31): He then shows at length how by a long process of gradual aggression, aided by the simplicity of princes themselves, this usurped power had been built up by the Popes, and brings his Part II to an end with a rejection of this illegal authority. The author's third part is short and of less importance; but Part IV, which deals with regal power in England is of greater significance. Kingship is the form of government dictated by nature and approved by divine law revealed in the Scriptures (p. 34). This is proved by citations (pp. 35-37). In addition to the Bible, quotations are given from the laws of Canute, Edgar, Athelstan and others, from the letters of William the Conqueror, from the Constitutions of Clarendon and from other sources, to prove the English king's lack of dependence upon the Pope (pp. 39- 44). The author sees dearly enough that the crux of the whole controversy lies in the question of the immunity of the clergy. He adduces the statement of St. Paul — Omnis anima potestatibus supereminentibus [Vulg. sublitnioribus] subdita sit — qui mirum in modum confirmat Regiam et civilem potestatem, cui omnes subesse jubet; neque Petrum excipit, neque Paulum, nullum Sacerdotem, nullum Episcopum, non Cardinalem, non Patriarcham, non Papam, denique neminem prorsus, nisi si quis sibi damnationem acquirere velit (p. 37). This is, after all, the real question on which a great part of the subsequent con- troversy turned. For the doctrine of the immunity of the clergy was the starting point of Bellarmine's theory of the indirect power. It was to defend this immun- ity that he accepted a division of the temporal and the spiritual by excluding temporal rulers from all interference with spiritual affairs. He could not do this without admitting that bishops were likewise excluded from all secular jurisdic- tion directe, but he saved the ecclesiastical and papal authority by his reservation of a right to interfere indirecte, and ad finem spiritualem. Of this whole theory t Ixxxiv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I the immunity of the clergy is the core. There are many references to it in Bellar- mine's works (See, e.g., De Clericis, cap. xxviii, Opera, ii, 160; Responsio, Opera, v, 187; Apologia, Ibid., pp. 113, 141-142, 154). The De Vera Differentia is note- worthy for its clear recognition of the importance of this point in the controversy, and for its insistence on the principle that there is no jurisdiction, be it temporal or spiritual, into which the King's power does not rightfully extend. This is the very centre and heart of the Anglican position. It was admitted even by Knox. " Neither Christ, neither his Apostles, hath given any assurance of this immunitie and priviledge, which men of Church (as they wilbe termed) do this day claime. Yea, it was a thing unknowen to the primitive Churche many years after the daies of the Apostles." (Apdlation, Workes, iv, 511). For Knox this implied no sepa- ration of powers. It is clear from many passages in his various writings that the King can and ought to have authority in spiritual matters. But he must exercise it on behalf only of the truth. If he do otherwise his subjects should remove him. The later Presbyterians differed from the papal party in their view of the priest- hood, hence for them the clergy were never as a class personally exempt entirely , from secular law, but they did come to hold the view that a sharp line existed between spiritual and temporal affairs and that the power of the prince could not jure divino extend beyond the second of these. The Anglican view (if it may be thus referred to by anticipation) is not so clear. Convocation several times showed a tendency to acknowledge the existence of this division. See for example the Articles of Religion of 1562, Article 37 (Sparrow's Collections, p. 105). For the earlier opposition to the first use of the title " Supreme Head," see Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 724 et seq. See also the speech of Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York, on Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy, Parliamentary History, i, column 643 et seq. Heath was a Catholic. But the activity of the High Commission can be defended and explained only on the theory that no such division exists between the spiritual and the temporal, and its absence is the basis of the practice and much of the theory of the bishops of Elizabeth and James I. (See, e.g., Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, Book I, canons 18, 20, 21.) Andrewes shrewdly re- marked, " Si indirecte habet potestatem temporalem Papa, quidni et Principes per eundem ductum habeant et ipsi indirecte quoque spiritualem, ut et illis inci- denter agere cum Papa liceat ? " Tortura Torti, p. 27 (p. 36 of reprint). The views of anti- Jesuit Catholics like Widdrington or William Barclay could be thus summed up in the words of the latter: Clericos . . . per totum orbem, quocun- que ordine vel gradu sint, non esse adhuc ullo modo exemptos et liberates a potes- tate temporali Principum secularium in quorum regnis et regionibus vitam degunt, sed perinde ac caeteri cives iis subjectos esse in omnibus, quae ad politi- cam et temporalem administrationem et jurisdictionem pertinent. (De Potestate Papae, pp. 265-266.) In short, they accept the Presbyterian theory of the two kingdoms, though their position was the harder to defend because they held the Catholic doctrine of the nature of priestly authority. INTRODUCTION kxxv As Tunstall put it in 1531, the supreme headship of the Church was propositio multiplex to which no simple answer could be given (Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 745), a propositio upon which — to judge from recent ecclesiastical cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — the judges and ecclesiastics would probably not be in agreement to this day. But without attempting to define it, one may safely say that in the sixteenth century the power exercised under it was by no means confined to the field we designate as merely temporal. Much light is thrown on this general question by the masterly paper by Dr. Figgis, entitled Respublica Christiana, reprinted as Appendix I in his Churches in the Modern State. This digression was provoked by the questions brought up in the De Vera Differentia, and that little book was itself summarized because it is brief and yet a good example of the method employed at that tune in this controversy. I may now return to a brief consideration of the development of these ideas in the years following. Soon after the Act of Supremacy Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Win- chester, entered the controversy on the royal side in his De Vera Obedientia Oratio} (printed in Goldast's Monarchia, i, pp. 716-733), in which he sets out to prove among other things that the Roman pontiff has no imperium over other churches, and that a Christian king, prince, or magistrate ought to be suae Ecclesiae Su^) v premum in terris caput. It is a very able and important book. A short summary of its contents is given in Figgis's Divine Right of King's, ed. 2, pp. 94-96. An- other book on this side, published by Berthelet in 1538, is A Treatise, proving by the Kinges Lawes, that the Byshops of Rome had never ryght to any Supremacie •within this Realme. In 1546, appeared the De Supremo et Absolute Regis Imperio Liber Unus oC1 John Bekinsau (reprinted in Goldast, i, 733-755), which upholds the prince's,' ecclesiastical jurisdiction mainly on the authority of Scripture and the Fathers. J Meanwhile, in addition to Sir Thomas More, Cardinal Pole had come to the defense of the Papacy against these attacks. (Reginaldi Poli, Cardinalis Britanni, Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniae Regem? Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defensione, Libri Quatuor, Ingoldstadt, 1587, first published probably in 1536). His book combats the claims of the upholders of secular authority, particularly Sampson, but as its name indicates, it is addressed directly to Henry himself and has a distinctly personal tone. With sorrow but also with a good deal of bitterness Pole attacks Henry and his ecclesiastical policy as against Scripture and the law of the Church — Dico igitur, dico hanc abs te injuriam Ecclesiae inferri, qua haud scio an major potuerit, quod suum illi caput in terris aufers, cum Ponti- ficem Romanum unicum in terris Ecclesiae caput, et Christi Vicarium negas (P- 12). This question of jurisdiction which had thus been raised by Henry was revived by Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy, and particularly by the oath required in it of ecclesiastics. While the whole controversy between England and Rome was Ixxxvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I touched upon, for example, in the bitter exchanges between Bishop Jewel and Thomas Harding, the political side of the struggle is mainly concentrated on the oath of supremacy. Among the most important of the writings brought out by this quarrel was the book of John Feckenham, last abbot of Westminster, The Declaration of Such Scruples and Stays of Conscience touching the Oath of Suprem- acie as Mr. J. F. by writing did deliver unto the Lord Bishop of Winchester, with his Resolution made thereupon, etc., London, 1565. This was answered by Robert Home, Bishop of Winchester, an extreme Protestant, in his Answer to Feckenham' s Scruples and Staies of Conscience touching the Oath of Supremacie, 1566. This, in turn, was replied to by Thomas Stapleton, in a long and elaborate statement of the whole controversy and of the arguments against the oath, probably the most valuable book on this part of the controversy — A Counterblast to M. Homes Vayne Blaste Against M. Fekenham, Wherein is set forthe A ful Reply to M. Hornes Answer, and to euery part thereof made, against the Declaration of my L. Abbat of Westminster, M. Fekenham, touching, The Othe of the Supremacy. Lou- vain, 1567. It is somewhat a matter of dispute whether the substance of this book is the work of Feckenham, of Nicholas Harpsfield, or of Stapleton himself, but in any case it is the most elaborate and important of the works against the oath. This partial list might close with Francis Bunny's A Survey of the Pope's Supremacie, an answer to Bellarmine which first appeared in 1590. The decrees of the Council of Trent and the Papal bull deposing Elizabeth in 1570, as we have seen, seemed to close the door to a reconciliation between the Papacy and England which had always been a possibility before, and henceforth the Anglicans are to the Pope not merely heretics but schismatics, while the English Catholics are to Elizabeth sectaries of a particularly dangerous kind. By the activity of the Jesuits and of the Spanish monarchy this question of jurisdiction is now rapidly shifted to the field of action as well as of thought, and the matter can therefore be better treated in the text than here. APPENDIX B COWELL'S INTERPRETER Cowell's Interpreter was published at Cambridge in 1607. In 1610, during the struggle with the King over the matter of supply, the Commons took notice of the book and objected to the author's views of royal power as expressed in his definitions of Subsidy, King, Parliament, and Prerogative; "on all of which words the said Dr. Cowell had so unadvisedly enlarged himself." Conferences had been held by Lords and Commons on this subject when proceedings were stopped by the Lord Treasurer's announcement to the Lords that the King had condemned the book and would take action himself. James's proclamation against the book is printed in the preface to the edition of the Interpreter pub- lished at London in 1708. It is significant that the second edition (London, 1637) contains all the " offensive " definitions unchanged, and this was made one of the charges against Laud at his trial (History of the Troubles and TryaT), pp. 229, 235-236. They were altered in subsequent editions and new material was added. The number of editions proves the usefulness of the book: it was one of the best law dictionaries of its day and is still valuable. The objection- able definitions from the earlier editions are conveniently given in Prothero's Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 2d ed., pp. 409-411 with unavoidable, but unfortunate omissions. Though the brunt of Parliament's objection to this book ostensibly fell upon the definition of subsidy and of King, Parliament, and Prerogative, there is reason to think there was more in the background. Arthur Wilson, in his History of James I, says that the common lawyers were irritated by some expressions of James "that fell from him publickly at his dinner, in derogation of the Common Law, extolling highly the Civil Law before it; and approving a Book lately written by Doctor Cowell, a Civilian, against it: Which netled our great Lawyers, that had not some of them been raised so high, that they could not with that Court-gag look downwards, it had bred a contest." pp. 45-46. Some probability is given to this by James's words in his speech to Parliament a few days after the debates in Parliament (March 21, 1609-10), in which he cites his censure of the book in disproof of the impression which he says is abroad " that I would haue wished the Ciuill Law to haue bene put in place of the Common Law for gouern- ment of this people," a complaint which, he says " was a part of the occasion of this incident." His elaborate explanation and defense of the Civil Law in the same speech (Works, p. 532 et seq., post, p. 310), hardly seem called for except Izzrvii Ixxxviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I on some such supposition as this. Fuller's account of Cowell (Worthies, i, 420) is more than consistent with this view. At this time, he says, " the contest was heightened betwixt the civilians and common lawyers, Cowel being the champion of the former, whom king James countenanced as far as he could with conveniency." He tells us also that Coke " was pleased in derision to call him Doctor Cow-heel." If we remember how really serious the assault was upon the common law, and if we duly consider that the King was in more than secret sympathy with it, these statements seem not improbable. The Articuli Cleri, to which Cowell no doubt contributed, were a real menace to the jurisdiction of the courts of common law, and they and the Canons of 1606 must be considered together. The common law was on its defence, and it is quite possible, as has been hinted, that CowelTs article on Littleton had as much to do with this quarrel as his definition of subsidy. The debates in the Commons in 1610 leave little doubt that Parlia- ment's attack on the royalist doctrines was made as much in the interests of the common law as of the liberty of the subject. It may not be, it cannot be, with- out considerable significance for the history of law and of political thought that the theories of a civilian should stir up so much strife in England just at this time. Dr. Cowell published another book in 1605 entitled Institutiones Juris Anglicani, Ad Methodum el Seriem Institutionum Imperialium compositae &* digestae, the only attempt to do this, so far as I know — and a very able one — between the Middle Ages and 1883. The edition I have used was published at Oxford in 1664. Cf . Sir George Mackenzie's Institutions of the Law of Scotland, which also follow the general order of Justinian's Institutes. This earlier book of Dr. Cowell's was no doubt in the minds of the Parliament men when they made their outcry against the Interpreter. In book i, title 2, section 5, Dr. Cowell, in discussing Parliamentary legislation, says, in hoc tamen Rex Anglorum legibus est superior, quod privilegia pro arbitrio suo, dummodo tertio non injuriosa personis singulis, vel etiam mun[i]cipiis aut collegiis concedere possit. In quibus etiam si dubita- tiones aliquae oriantur, aliquorum opinione ipse solus earum interpretandarum potestatem habet, licet alii instituariis quoque regiis hanc potestatem adscribant, ut chartas regias juxta juris regulas explicare possint. This important book and its views have not been sufficiently considered by historians. James approved of them and the Commons as strongly disapproved, but the statements of the In- terpreter offered a better point of attack. On the general topic of this note see in addition to the references above, Parliamentary History i, 1122 et seq.; Parlia- mentary Debates in 1610 (Camden Society), pp. 19, 22-25; The Journals of the Lords, and of the Commons; The Interpreter, editions of 1607 or 1637, and the preface by the editor of the edition of 1708; Roger Coke's Detection (1697), pp. 59-60; Maitland, English Law and the Renaissance; Gardiner, History of England, ii, 66-68; Lucy Aikin's, Memoirs of the Court of James I, i, 290-291; Usher, The Reconstruction of the English Church, i, book ii, chs. iii-v, ii, book iii, INTRODUCTION Ixxxix chs. ii, ix-xi. This valuable account though possibly slightly over hostile to the extravagance of the demands of the common lawyers, indicates better than any other I know the fundamental nature and the seriousness of this struggle for jurisdiction. The Articuli Cleri are reprinted in Coke's Institutes, 2d part, p. 601 et seq. See also in 12 and 13 Coke's Reports the many cases involving the pre- rogative, especially Part xii, pp. 58, 63, 65, 72, 76, 109, 112; Part xiii, pp. 12, 30, 37, 58- APPENDIX C JAMES AND THE PURITANS It is evident from James's writings that the root of his inveterate hatred of Puritans was really political not religious. His own training and convictions in matters purely doctrinal were not essentially different frohi those of Doctor John Reynolds, and even in questions of ceremonial he would probably, in the begin- ning, have preferred a less formal order of worship than any " evil-said mass in English." Neither had he any of the later high Anglican views of the divine origin of episcopacy. But he did hate Puritans above any other religious party in either of his kingdoms and his hatred was of long standing. .He had learned longj>e- fore he came to England that their political doctrines were incompatible with his own high views of the spiritual powers of " God's Lieutenant." It was as King, not as Christian that he feared and disliked the opinions of Puritan and Jesuit alike. " Popularity " and " parity " as held by the one were the same to him as popularity and popery advocated by the other, and they were hateful in each because they were equally fatal to his most cherished authority as " supreme governor." In this respect at least presbyter was but " priest writ large." His real opinion was never better stated than in his own aphorism at the Hampton Court Conference, " No Bishop no King." " I have learned," he says, " of what cut they have been, who, preaching before me, since my coming into England passed over, with silence, my being Supreme Governour in causes Ecdesiasticall." " If you aime at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with Monarchy, asGpd and the Devill." " If this be all your Party hath to say, I will make them con- forme themselves, or else I will harrie them out of the Land, or else doe worse." (Fuller, Church History, 1655, book x, pp. 18-19). This opinion, though con- firmed since his coming into England had been formed in his earlier struggles with the Scottish Lords of the Congregation. As early as 1599 he had warned his son against the Puritans — " uerie pestes in the Church and Common-weale " (Basilikon Doron, Works, pp. 160-161, post p. 24) and against the "preposterous humilitie of one of the proud Puritanes, claiming to their Paritie, and crying, Wee are all but vile wormes, and yet, will iudge and giue law to their King, but will be iudged nor controlled by none." (Ibid., Works, p. 175, post, p. 38.) " Surely," he exclaims, " there is more pride vnder such a ones blacke bonnet, then under Alexander the great his Diademe " (ibid.}. He urges Henry to keep a watchful eye on these preachers " that they vague not fipm their text in the Pulpit." " And if euer ye would haue peace hi your land, suffer them not to meddle in that place with the estate or policie; but punish seuerely the first that zc INTRODUCTION xci presumeth to it." Reasoning with them will not be effectual — "I haue ouer- much surfeited them with that " [It may well be believed.] " and it is not their fashion to yeeld." Therefore, he says, " suffer no conuentions nor meetings among Church-men, but by your knowledge and permission." (Ibid., Works, p. 175, post, p. 39). In the preface to the published work, James, in fear for his succession, lamely tries to allay the hostility aroused among the powerful Pres- byterian party in England, by the disingenuous statement that these remarks were originally meant to apply only to "that vile sect amongst the Anabaptists, called the Family of loue" and to a few other "brain-sicke and headie Preach- ers " such as Brown and Penry (ibid., Works, pp. 142 et seq., post, p. 6), but it is evident enough that they included all believers in parity. ^—^^&. In his speech to his first English Parliament, James divides the people of England into three classes on the basis of their faith, those of the true religion, Papists, and " a sect rather than a Religion . . . the Puritanes and Nouelists." (Speech of 1603, Works, p. 490, post, p. 274.) It may be suspected that even the " Heresy " nf Vnrstinc; wag hatpfnl largely because of its.a,uthor's belief in " par- ity " (Declaration against Vorstius, Works, p. 370^; and James leaves us in no doubt that the common offence of Jesuits and Puritans was a political one. " Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-papists." (Monitory Preface, Works, pp. 305- 306, post, p. 126.) The King's common objection to " a Scottish Presbytery" and to "a visible monarch" in the Church (ibid., Works, p. 306, post, pp. 126-127) arose from his clear conviction that neither would brook a " supreme governor." And so in 1616 he urges his justice of assize not to let " the Church nor Church- men bee disgraced in your Charges, nor Papists nor Puritanes countenanced." (Works, p. 569, post, p. 344-) A tendency toward the end of James's life to incline in the direction of the doctrine as well as the policy of the English Church may possibly be seen in one of the last of James's writings, in which he warns against " letting slippe the hold of the true Church," and trusting to the " priuate spirit of Reformation, according to our Puritans doctrine." By which, he says, "it is easie to fall and slide by degrees into the Chaos, filthy sinke and farrago of all horrible heresies, whereof hell is the just reward." (A Meditation upon the Lords Prayer, Works, P- 577-) This and the Paternefor a Kings Inauguration were printed in 1620 and included at the end of James's earlier works published together first in 1616. APPENDIX D A CONFERENCE ABOUT THE NEXT SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND, AND OTHER BOOKS BY ROBERT PARSONS Robert Parsons, according to his enemies, the secular priests, was a man " whose turnings and doublings are such as would trouble a right good hound to trace him." (Important Considerations, p. 65). There can be no doubt that the opinions expressed in the Next Conference were exactly those held by Parsons, but the book was published under a fictitious name, a practice common and neces- sary at the time and one frequently followed by Parsons. There has, therefore, been some doubt as to the part Parsons took in its composition. On the authority of Camden it has been said that Wingfield and Cardinal Allen were equally re- sponsible with him, and Watson indignantly charged that it was "fathered . . . upon the dead Cardinal Allane by Name" (Important Considerations, Epistle, pp. 14, 17). It is entirely possible that the book was suggested by a memorial on the English succession addressed to the King of Spain about 1587 by Parsons and Allen jointly, as Taunton suggests (History of the Jesuits in England, pp. 123- 124), but it is hard to escape the conclusion of Canon Tierney that the composi- tion of the book was the work of Parsons alone. See his elaborate note to Dodd's Church History, iii, p. 31 et seq., also Taunton, op. cit., pp. 150-151, 181, 282-284, 426-427, 461, and especially Appendix, pp. 476-477. Taunton is in agreement with Tierney. It is impossible here to give a summary of this remarkable book. Its general theory is much the same as that of the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos from which, it is easy to guess, many of its arguments are drawn; particularly the superiority of the populus universus to the prince, though he is superior to any individual subject (A Conference, pt. i, p. 58, ed. of 1681). But there is a greater insistence on the orthodoxy of the King, as might be expected (ibid., pp. 163, 168- 170, etc.). There is in it also an interesting tendency toward a pragmatic inter- pretation of history; as shown in the author's assertion " That lawful Princes have of tentimes by their Commonwealths been lawfully deposed for misgovern- ment; and that God hath allowed of, and assisted the same with good success unto the Weal-publick" (pt. i, p. 50). Sir Thomas Craig correctly saw that this was the real difference between his own view and that of Parsons, and insisted that the question was " not at all of what is Profitable and Advantageous, but of what is Right and Just." (Concerning the Right of Succession, pt. ii, p. 386.) The best proof of the importance of the Next Conference consists in the evident use made of it by later writers of a republican tendency, and by the numerous answers of opponents. In 1648 — the tune is significant — Part I was republished under INTRODUCTION xciii the title Sever all Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parlia- ment, to proceed against their King for Mis government, with only such alteration ^ of phraseology as seemed necessary to conceal its origin. Such an artifice was of no avail against an antagonist like William Prynne, who exposed the deception in his famous speech in the House of Commons on December 4, 1648 (Parl. Hist., iii, 1235). Clement Walker also detected it in his History of Independency, pub- lished in the same year (pt. i, p. 115). I have carefully compared this book with i the Conference and verified the statements of Prynne and Walker. In 1655 another disguised republication of parts of Parson's book appeared under the title A Treatise concerning the broken Succession of the Crown of England. And finally, in 1681 a second edition of the whole book appeared, reprinted ex- actly from the first by the supporters of the Exclusion Bill. The books referred to above are more or less exact copies of Doleman, but the influence of the Next Succession is also to be seen in almost all the books written on this side of the great controversy well into the eighteenth century. The importance of this book appears also from the replies it elicited. In the opinion of George Hickes, the non- juring bishop, it was " the most pestilent and dangerous Piece that ever was written against this Government." As early as 1600 appeared a Catholic Answer to Dolman on the Succession to the English Crown, published in Paris, and usually attributed to Charles Paget, a layman, but one of the most bitter of the Catholic enemies of Parsons. (See D. N. B., Paget, Charles). In 1603, Sir John Hayward published An Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, Concerning Suc- cession, Published not long since under the name of R. Dolman. Hayward's book is abusive but not particularly powerful. The imminence of Elizabeth's death was also the occasion of another book on the same subject but of a different order of merit. In 1602, Thomas Craig finished writing a defense of legitimism and of the title of James I which is, all considered, the ablest con- tribution on that side of the great argument. It was written in Latin and the dedication to James VI was dated January i, 1603. Just one hundred years later this book was first published in an English translation under the title, Concerning the Right of Succession to the Kingdom of England. Two Books against the Sophisms of one Parsons a Jesuite who assumed the Counterfeit Name of Doleman, etc., London, 1703. The author relies on law, divine and human, civil and com- mon, rather than on analogy. Like all contemporaries he also uses Scripture and history but his superiority lies in his evident knowledge of Roman law, to which Hayward could lay small claim. His answer is more complete than Hayward's, covering both parts of Doleman, and is less scurrilous, though it is evident that he knew Parsons to be the real author of the Next Conference (p. 142). Among the many books defending legitimism published toward the end of the seventeenth century, at least two are intended as direct answers to Parsons, Edward Felling's The Apostate Protestant, London, 1682, and the Jus Regium of Sir George Mackenzie, London, 1684. xciv THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I One statement from the first of these is an interesting commentary on the continuity of political ideas. Felling, in commenting on the passage of Watson's Quodlibets (p. 27), which compares the disobedience of Jesuits and Puritans, says, " However, one Faction has hither so shifted it self into another, that the old Puritan, that was peaceable and fair-conditioned, is quite gone out of the world; he has been long ago lost in the Presbyterian, and the Presbyterian too is upon the matter lost in the Independent, and all of them are so lost in the Jesuit, that if you go to unkennel the Fox, 'tis an even Lay whether you hunt a Jesuit or a Whig " (p. 49). Among the many other books of Parsons that were important in their influence on English political thought, space permits the mention of only one, A Memorial of the Reformation of England, 1 596. This was republished after the Revolution, in 1690, with the title The Jesuit's Memorial, for the Intended Reformation of England, Under their First Popish Prince, edited by Edward Gee. A curious commentary on the peculiar methods of Parsons is furnished by a comparison of his De Persecutions Anglicana, 1582, or his Elizabethae Angliae Reginae . . . Edictum, Lyons, 1592, which loudly complain of Elizabeth's reli- gious persecution ; with a statement of the Jesuit's Memorial of 1 596. In the latter Parsons urges his orthodox King of England to grant a temporary toleration to such heretics, but such alone, as live quietly, are desirous of learning the truth, and do not teach, preach, or seek to infect others. This, however, must not be a grant of religious liberty, but only " a certain Connivence or Toleration of Magis- trates only for a certain time to be limited, and with particular Conditions and Exceptions, that no meetings, assemblies, preaching or perverting of others be used," pp. 32-34 (edition of 1690). These books were all practically anonymous. A list of the writings of Parson's is found in the excellent article in the D. N. B., written by the late T. G. Law, and a summary of some of his most important books is given by Taunton, History of the Jesuits in England, Appendix, p. 475 et seq. For the general question of the influence of the Next Succession, see in addi- tion to the references given above, Gooch, The History of English Democratic Ideas, p, 37, note 4; Figgis, Divine Right, 2d ed., p. 147; Foulis, The History of Romish Treasons, 2d ed., 1681, pp. 80, 500-506; Brady, A True and Exact History of the Succession of the Crown of England, An Introduction to the Old English His- tory, 1684, pp. 353-357; and especially the dedication and preface of the editor in Craig's Right of Succession to the Kingdom of England, 1703. APPENDIX E BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, Robert, Anti-Christi Demonstratio, London, 1603. Acton, John Emerich Dalberg-Acton, Baron, The History of Freedom and Other Essays, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence, London, 1909. Sections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence, i, London, 1917, pp. 119-144, Letters to the Times on the Vatican Decrees. Aikin, Lucy, Memoirs of the Court of King James the First, Boston, 1822. Allen William, A True Sincere and Modest Defence of English Catholics that Suffer for their Faith both at home and abroad, against a false, seditious and slanderous Libel, entitled: " The Execution of Justice in England," 1584, Reprint, Lon- don and St. Louis, Mo., 1914. Ames, Joseph, Typographical Antiquities, London, 1749; the same, edited and enlarged by William Herbert, 1785-90; and by T. F. Dibdin, London, 1810 — . Ames, William (Amesius), Bellarminus Enervatus, Oxford, 1629. Andrewes, Lancelot, Tortura Torti Sive Ad Matthaei Torti Librum Responsio, etc., London, 1609, Reprint, Oxford, 1851. - Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Bellarmini, etc., London, 1610, Re- print, Oxford, 1851. Quaestionis: nunquid per Jus Divinum, Magistratui liceat, a Reo Jusjuran- dum exigere; in Cosin, Richard, An Apologiefor Sundrie Proceedings by Juris- diction Ecclesiasticall, London, 1593, pp. 242-255. Anti-Colon, ou Refutation de la Lettre declaratoire du Pere Coton. Liure oil est prouue que le Jesuites sont coulpables et autheurs du parricide execrable commis en la personne du Roy tres-Chrestien Henry IV d'heureuse memoire, 1610; English translation, by G. H., London, 1611: Anti-Coton, or a refutation of Cottons Letter Declaratorie, etc. Aylmer, John, Bishop of London, An H arbor owe for faithfull and trewe Subjects, against the late blowne Blaste, concerning the Government of Women, Stras- burg, 1559. Backer, Aloys de, Bibliotheque de la Compagnie de Jesus, new edition by Carlos Sommervogel S. J., Part I, Bibliography, Brussels and Paris, 1890 — . Dictionnaire des Anonymes. Bacon, Essays, Of Judicature. Bale, John, Index Britanniae Scriptorium (Anecdota Oxoniensia), Oxford, 1902. xcvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Bancroft, Richard, Daungerous Positions and Proceedings, published and practised •within this Island of Brytaine, under pretence of Reformation, and for the Presbyteriall Discipline, London, 1593. A Sermon Preached at Paul's-Cross the gth of February, . . . , 1588, in Bibliotheca Scriptorum, Ecclesiae Anglicanae, London, 1709, pp. 247-315. Barbier, A. A., Dictionnaire des Ouvrages Anonymes, 3d edition, Paris, 1869. Barclay, William, De Regno et Regali Potestate adversus Buchananum, Brutum> Boucherium, et reliquos Monarchomachos, Paris, 1600. De Potestate Papae: An 6° quatenus in Reges &• Principes seculares jus 6* imperium habeat, Guil. Barclaii J. C. Liber posthumus, (London) 1609; also reprinted in Goldast, M onarchia, iii, pp. 621-687; French translation, 1611 (De Backer, i, 1216-17); English translation, Of the Authoritie of the Pope> etc., London, 1611. Barclay, John, Pietas, sive Publicae pro Regibus, ac Principibus, et Privatae pro Guilielmo Barclaio Parente Vindiciae, etc., 1611, reprinted in Goldast, Mon- archia, iii, 847-1034. Barlow, William, Answer to a Catholike Englishman (so by him-self entituled), 1609. Barret, William, Jus Regis, sive De Absolute et independenti Secularium Principum dominio et obsequio eis debito, etc., Basiliae, 1613. Bayle, A General Dictionary, Historical 6* Critical, London, 1735 — . (Bayly, Thomas), The Royal Charter Granted unto Kings by God Himself, by T. B. Dr. in Divinity, London, 1649. Becan (Becanus, Verbeeck, or Van der Beeck), Martin, Serenissimi Jacobi Angliae Regis Apologiae, et Monitoriae Praefationis . . . Refutatio, Moguntiae, 1609. - Refutatio Torturae Torti, etc., Moguntiae, 1610. - Examen Plagae Regiae, Moguntiae, 1610. Dissidium Anglicanum De Primatu Regis, etc., Moguntiae, 1612; English translation by William Wright, The English Jarre, etc., by J. W. P., St. Omer, 1612. Duellum Martini Becani . . . cum Guilielmo Tooker, etc., Moguntiae, 1612. De Pontifice Veteris Testamenti, Et de Comparatione Ulius cum Rege. Mo- guntiae, 1612. Conlroversia anglicana De Potestate Regis et Pontificis, etc., Moguntiae, 1612. Examen Concordiae Anglicanae de primatu Ecclesiae Regio, Moguntiae, 1613. De Republica Ecclesiastica, libri quatuor, contra Mar cum Antonium de Dominis, etc., Moguntiae, 1610. Bekinsau, John, De Supremo et Absolute Regis Imperio Liber Unus, 1546, reprinted in Goldast, Monarchia, i, 733-755. Bellarmine (Bellarminus, Bellarmino) Robert, Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini . . . de Controversiis Christianae Fidel adversus hujus Temporis Haereticos . . . Tomus Primus, Controversias Tres Generales Complectens, (Giulio Maf- fei, editor), Venice, 1721, Tertia Controversia Generalis, de Summo Pontific& INTRODUCTION xcvii (De Romano Pontifice), pp. 241-446; Tontus secundus, Controversias Quatuor Generales Complectens, Controversia Secunda, De Membris Ecdesiae, Lib. I, De Clericis, pp. 116-167; lib. iii, De Laicis, pp. 254-280; Variorum Operum . . . Collectio, Tomus Quintus, Tractatus de Potestate Summi Pontificis in Rebus Temporalibus adversus Gulidmum Barclaium, pp. 23-95; Apologia . . . pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi . . . Regis, pp. 97-154; Re- sponsio ad Librum Inscriptum Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus, pp. 155-188. Tractatus de Potestate Summi Pontificis in Rebus Temporalibus adversus Gulielmum Barclaium, Rome, 1610. Bilson, Thomas, The True Difference Betweene Christian Subiection and Un- christian Rebellion, etc., Oxford, 1585. Biographic Universdle. (Birch, Thomas), The Court and Times of James the First, London, 1848. Blackwood, Adam, Apologia pro Regibus, etc., 1581. Blondel, David, Traite Historique de la Primaute de I'Eglise, etc., Geneva, 1641. Boderie, Antoine de la, Les Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre de 1602 a 1611, Paris, 1750. Bodin, De Republica Libri Sex, Lyon, 1586. Bossuet, (Euvres, Versailles, 1817 — , volumes 31-33, Defensio Declarationis Con- ventus Cleri Gallicani. Bozius, F., De Temporali Ecdesiae Monarchia el Jurisdictione, Romae, 1601. Brady, Robert, A True and Exact History of the Succession of the Crown of Eng- land, ad ed., in Introduction to the Old English History, London, 1684, p. 327 et seq. Brightman, Thomas, Antichristum Pontificiorum monstrum fictitium esse, Amber- gae, 1610. Bruce, John, editor, Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI of Scotland. Camden Society, 1849. Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others. Camden Society, 1861. Brunet, Jacques-Charles, Manuel du Libraire et de V Amateur de Limes, Paris, 1860—. Buchanan, George. De Jure Regni apud Scotos, 1579, published with his Rerum Scolicarum Historia, Amsterdam, 1643. Buckeridge, John, De Potestate Papae in rebus Temporalibus, etc., London, 1614. Bunny, Francis, A Survey of the Pope's Supremacie, London, 1595. Burhill, Robert, Responsio pro Tortura Torti contra Martinum Becanum Jesuitam, London, 1611. - De Potestate regia et Usurpatione Papali, etc., 1613. Assertio pro Jure regio contra Martini Becani Jesuitae Controversiam Angli- canam, 1613. Burnet, Gilbert, Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, 1699. xcviii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The History of the Reformation of the Church of England, London, 1850. Camm, Dom Bede, editor, Lives of the English Martyrs, London, 1904 — . Campanella, Thomas, De Monarchia Hispanica, Amsterdam, 1641; English translation (by Edmund Chilmead), London, 1654; a second edition of the same with preface by William Prynne. Capellus, F. M. Antonii Capelli . . . adversus praetensum Primatum Ecclesiasti- cum Regis Angliae Liber, etc., Bononiae, 1610. Cardwell, Edward, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England, Ox- ford, 1844. Carerius, Alex., De Potestate Romani Pontificis adversus impios politicos, & nostri temporis hereticos. Carleton, George, Jurisdiction Regatt, Episcopall, Papall, etc., London, 1610. Carlyle, R. W. and A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, 1903—. Casaubon, Isaac, Isaaci Casauboni Epistolae, curante Johanne Georgio Graevio, Brunsvigae, 1656. I. C. G. De Libertate Ecclesiastica, 1607, reprinted in Goldast, Monarchia, i, pp. 674-716. Epistola Frontoni Ducaeo, 1611. Epistola Jacobo Davy Perronio Cardinali, 1612. (Cecil, William, Lord Burleigh (?)), The Execution of Justice in England, 1584, Harleian Miscellany, ii, 122 et seq., ed. of 1744 — ; a Latin edition, Justitia Britannica, London, 1584. (Challoner, Richard), Memoirs of Missionary Priests (London), 1741. Cheke, Sir John, The Hurt of Sedition, how grievous it is to a Commonwealth, London, 1549, reprinted in Holinshed's Chronicle (London, 1808, vol. Hi, pp. 987-1011). This book was in the library of James when he was a youth. See The Library of James VI, 1573-1583 (Publications of the Scottish Historical Society, vol. xv, Edinburgh, 1893). Christopherson, Michael, A Treatise of Antichrist, 1613. Coeffeteau, Nicolas, Responce a V advertissement addresse par . . . Jacques I" a tous le princes et potentats de la chrestiente. Rouen, 1610. Apologie pour la responce a V advertissement, etc. Coke, Sir Edward, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, 6th ed., London, 1681. Reports, part v, p. i, Caudrey's Case. (Of the King's Ecclesiastical Law); parts xi and xii. Collins, Samuel, Increpatio Andreae Eudaemono-Johannis Jesuitae, 1612. Epphata to F. T., or., the defence of . . . the Lord Bishop of Elie, 1617. Coquaeus, Examen Praefationis Monitor iae Jacobi I, etc., Freiburg in Breisgau, 1610. INTRODUCTION xcix Cosin, Richard, An Apologie for Sundrie Proceedings by Jurisdiction Ecclesiasti- call, London, 1593. Coton, Pierre, Lettre Declaratoire de la doctrine des Peres Jesuites, etc., Paris, 1610. It is also given in Mercure Francois, Tome I, p. 848. English Translation, A Letter to the Queen Regent of France, etc., London, 1610. Cotton, Sir Robert, Twenty-four Arguments, Whether it be more expedient to sup- press Popish Practices Against the due Allegiance of his Majesty. By the Strict Executions, touching Jesuites and Seminary Priests. Or, To restrain them to Close Prisons, during life, if no Reformation follow, 1613, Cottoni Posthuma, 1679, p. 109 el seq. Couderc, J. B., Le Venerable Cardinal Bellarmin, Paris, 1893. Cowell, John, Institutiones Juris Anglicani, Oxford, 1664. The Interpreter: or Booke Containing the Signification of Words, Cambridge, 1607, London, 1637; A Law Dictionary: or the Interpreter of Words and Terms, etc., London, 1708 (with additions and changes). There are several other editions. Craig, Sir Thomas, Concerning the Right of Succession to the Kingdom of England, Two Books, London, 1703. The original, in Latin, was dedicated to James in 1603, but never published. Cristanovic, Stanislaus, Examen Catholicum Edicti Anglicani, quod contra Catho- licos est latum, Auctoritate Parlamenti Angliae, A.D. 1606, Paris, 1607. De Jure Magistratuum in Subditos, Leyden, 1648. Dempster, Thomas, De Juramento libri III pro Bellarmino, Bononiae, 1623. Destombes, La Persecution Religieuse en Angleterre sous le Regne d'Elisabeth, Paris, 1863. Dictionary of National Biography, cited as D. N. B. Dodd, Charles (Hugh Tootle), The Church History of England, edited by M. A. Tierney, London, 1840. Dollinger, J. J. I. von, and Reusch, F. H., Die Selbstbiographie des Kardinals Bellarmin, Bonn, 1887. Dominis, Marcus Antonius De, De Republica Ecclesiastica. - Ostensio Errorum Francisco Suarez. Donne, John, The Pseudo-Martyr, London, 1610. Douarche, Aristides, De Tyrannicidio apud Scriptores Decimi Sexti Seculi, Paris, 1888. Downame, George, A Treatise affirming the Pope to be Antechrist, London, 1603. Dudley, Edmund, The Tree of Common Wealth a Treatise by Edmonde Dudlay, Esq., etc. (written in 1509-10), Manchester, 1859. Dunning, William Archibald, A History of Political Theories from Luther to Mon- tesquieu, New York, 1905. Eudaemon- Johannes, Andreas, Parallelus Torti ac Tortoris ejus L. Cicestrensis, etc., Coloniae Agrippinae, 1611. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Responsio ad epistolam Isaaci Casauboni, Coloniae Aggrippinae, 1612. A Large Examination taken at Lambeth . . . of M. George Blackwett, London, 1607; Latin version in Goldast, Monarchia, iii, 578-612. Feckenham, John, The Declaration of Such Scruples and Stays of Conscience touch- ing the Oath of Supremacy as Mr. J. F. by writing did deliver unto the Lord Bishop of Winchester, with his Resolution made thereupon, etc., London, 1565. Feret, P., Le Cardinal du Perron, Paris, 1876. Figgis, John Neville, The Divine Right of Kings, 2d ed., Cambridge, 1914. Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, Cambridge Modern History, iii, ch. xxii. On Some Political Theories of the Early Jesuits, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, N. s., xi, 89. From Gerson to Grotius, ist ed., Cambridge, 1907. - Aaron's Rod Blossoming or Jus Divinum in 1646, in The Divine Right of Kings, 2d ed., p. 267. - Churches in the Modern State, London, 1913. - Respublica Christiana, reprinted in Churches in the Modern State, p. 175. Filmer, Sir Robert, Patriarcha, London, 1884. - Observations upon Mr. Bunion's Treatise of Monarchy; or the Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy, London, 1680. Observations upon H. Grotius de Jure Belli 6° Pacis, London, 1680. This and the preceding paper were published with the Free-holders Grand Inquest, a book often ascribed to Filmer but probably the work of Sir Robert Holborne. Fitzherbert, Thomas, A Discussion of the Answere of M. William Barlow, 1612. This book by Parsons contains a long preface by Fitzherbert. - A Supplement to the Discussion of M. D. Barlow's Answer, 1613. - A Confutation of certaine Absurdities, Falsities, and Follies, uttered by M. D Andrews in his Answer to Cardinall Bellarmine's Apology, 1613. Of the Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance against the Theological Disputations of Roger Widdrington, 1614. The Obmutesce of F. T. to the Epphata of D. Collins, 1621. Floyd, John, God and the King; or a Dialogue wherein is treated of Allegiance due to ... K. James within his Dominions, etc., 1620. Foley, Henry, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, London, 1877—. Foulis, Henry, The History of Romish Treasons and Usurpations, 2d ed., London, 1681. (Fox, Edward), Opus Eximium de Vera Differentia Regiae Potestatis el Ecclesi- asticae, etc., London, 1534, reprinted in Goldast, Monarchia, iii, 23 et seq.; English translation by Henry, Baron Stafford, London (1548). Frere, W. H., The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I., Lon- don, 1904. INTRODUCTION ci Franck, A., Reformateurs et Publicistes de I' Europe, Volume II, Dix-Septie"me Siecle, Paris, 1881. Especially for Suarez, Mariana, and Campanella. Froude, J. A., History of England, New York, 1872. Fuller, Thomas, The Church History of Britain, London, 1655. The History of the Worthies of England, London, 1840. Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, London, 1883. Editor, The Fortescue Papers, Camden Society, 1871. Editor, Parliamentary Debates in 1610, Camden Society, 1862. Gardiner, Stephen, De Vera Obedientia, Oratio, 1535 or 1536, reprinted in Goldast, Monarchia, i, 716-733. (Garter, Bernard (?)), A New Yeares Gifte, dedicated to the Popes Holinesse and all Catholikes addicted to the Sea of Rome . . . by B. G., Citizen of London, London, 1579. It includes a letter of Tunstall and John Stokesley, Bishop of London, to Cardinal Pole concerning his Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defen- sione and the King's headship. Gilby, Anthony, An Admonition to England and Scotland, to Call them to Repent- ance, Geneva, 1558, reprinted in The Works of John Knox, edited by David Laing, Edinburgh, 1864, iv, 553-571. Gillow, Joseph, A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics, London. Goldast, Melchior, Melchioris Goldasti . . . Monarchiae S. Romani Imperii, . . . [tomi tres], Frankfort, 1668. Gooch, G. P., The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, 1898. - Political Thought in England from Bacon to Halifax, London. Goodman, Christopher, How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their subjects and wherein they may lawfully be by God's words disobeyed and resisted, etc., Geneva, 1558. Gordon, John, Anti-torto-Bellarminus, London, 1610. Anti-bellarmino-tortor, siue Tortus Retortus, 1612. Gosse, Edmund, The Life and Letters of John Donne, London, 1899. Gosselin, M., Le Pouvoir du Pape au Moyen Age, translated by the Rev. Mat- thew Kelly, The Power of the Pope during the Middle Ages, London, 1853. Graser, Conrad, Plaga Regia, 1610. Gretser, J., Jacobi Gretseri Sociatatis Jesu Theologi Opera Omnia, Ratisbon, 1736. Basilikon Dor on, Opera, Omnia, vii, i-i 16. Defensio Operum Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, ix. Grotius, Hugonis Grotii de Jure Belli ac Pacts Libri Tres, Amsterdam, 1680. Guilday, Peter, The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent 1558-1795, 1914. Gwatkin, H. M., Church and State in England to the Death of Queen Anne, Lon- don, 1917. cii THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Haile, Martin, An Elizabethan Cardinal, William Allen, London, 1914. Hales, John, A Declaration of the Succession of the Crowne Imperiall of Ingland, 1563, reprinted in The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted (by George Harbin), London, 1713, Appendix, no. vii, p. xx. Hallam, Henry, Introduction to the Literature of Europe, London, 1847. - The Constitutional History of England, New York, 1897. (Harbin, George), The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted, Lon- don, 1713. The Harleian Miscellany, London, 1744 — . Harris, Richard, Concordia Anglicana de primatu Ecclesiae regio adversus Beca- num de dissidio Anglicano, London, 1612; in English, The English Concord, etc., London, 1614. Harris, William, An Historical and Critical Account of the Life and Writings of James I King of Great Britain. After the Manner of Mr. Bayle, Drawn from Original Writers and State-Papers, ad ed., London, 1772. (Hayward, Sir John), An Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference Con- cerning Succession, Published not long since under the name of R. Dolman, London, 1603. Higden, William, A View of the English Constitution, with respect to the sovereign authority of the Prince and the allegiance of the Subject, London, 1709. A Defence of the View of the English Constitution, etc., London, 1710. Hobbes, Thomas, De Cive, 1642, published as Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam, 1657; in English, Philosophical Elements of a True Citizen, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, edited by Molesworth, ii, London, 1841. • Leviathan, London, 1651, Cambridge, 1904, etc. Certain Sermons or Homilies appointed to be Read in Churches in the Time of Queen Elizabeth of famous Memory (1562), Dublin, 1767. Hooker, Richard, Works, Oxford, 1820. Home, Robert, An Answer to Feckenham's Scruples and Stales of Conscience touch- ing the Oath of Supremacie, 1566. Hotman, Francis, Brutum Fulmen Papae Sixti V, etc., in Goldast, Monarchia, iii, 68 et seq. - Franco-Gallia, 1574, English translation, London, 1711. Howard, Sir William, A Pattern of Christian Loyalty: showing how the new Oath of Allegiance may be safely taken by Roman Catholickes, London, 1634. Howell, State Trials, London, 1809 — . Hume, M. A. S., Treason and Plot, London, 1901. Hunt, Thomas, An Argument for the Bishops Right in Judging in Capital Causes in Parliament, London, 1682, The Postscript (an attack on hereditary right to the Kingship). Great and Weighty Considerations relating to the Duke of York, or Successor of the Crown, London, 1680. INTRODUCTION ciii Important Considerations, etc., 1601, edited by Joseph Mendham, M. A., Lon- don, 1831. Ingram, T. D., England and Rome, London, 1892. Irving, David, The Lives of the Scotish Poets, Edinburgh, 1804. James I, King of Great Britain, The Workes of the Most High and Mighty Prince, James, By the Grace of God Kinge of Great Brittaine France 6* Ireland De- fendor of ye Faith &°c: Published by James [Montagu] Bishop of Winton & Deane of his Mats Chappell Royall, London, 1616. This is the edition used for this volume. Serenissimi . . . principis Jacobi . . . regis . . . Opera, etc., London, 1619. This Latin edition was also probably the work of Bishop Montagu. In 1620 appeared A Meditation upon the Lords Prayer, and A Meditation upon the 27, 28, 29 Verses of the XXVII chapter of Saint Matthew. Or A Paterne for a Kings Inauguration, London, printed by R. Barker and J. Bill. These are printed at the end of the later issues of the Workes and are paged continuously with the rest (pp. 601-621). A Latin edition of the Works appeared at Frankfort in 1689. A Paraphrase upon the Revelation of the Apostle S. John (Workes, pp. 1-72). A Fruitfull Meditation, Containing a Plaine and Easie Exposition, or laying open of the vii, viii, ix, and x Verses of the 20 chapter of the Revelation, in forme and maner of a Sermon, Edinburgh, 1588, London, 1603, 1616 (Workes, pp. 73-80); in Latin: Basiliae, 1596; Jenae, 1603; Halle, 1603; in French; La Rochelle, 1589. These are the basis of James's later view of the Pope as Antichrist, as set forth in his Premonition. - The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, 1598, published anonymously, 1603, 1616 (Workes, pp. 191-210). A Meditation vpon the xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxviii and xxix verses of the xv Chap, of the first Booke of the Chronicles of the Kings, (Workes, pp. 81-89). Basilikon Doron, Edinburgh, 1599, an edition of only seven copies (Preface to the Reader, Workes, p. 142), one of which is in the British Museum Library There is a reprint of this first edition, published for the Roxburghe Club, London, 1887. Other editions: Edinburgh, 1603; London, 1603 (two); 1616 (Workes, pp. 137-189); London, 1883 (Morley's Universal Library); in Latin: London, 1604, Hanoviae, 1604, Frankfort, 1679; in French: Paris, 1603, 1604; etc. Many extracts were printed in the controversies of later years, one of the most interesting being A puritane set forth in his lively colours, London, 1642. A Discourse of the Maner of the Discoverie of the Powder-Treason, 1606, 1616 (Workes, pp. 223-246). - Triplici nodo, triplex cuneus. Or An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance (anonymous), London, 1607; in Latin, London, 1607, 1608; in French, Paris, 1608. civ THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I - An Apologiefor the Oath of Allegiance First set foorth without a name: And now acknowledged by the Author, the Right High and Mightie Prince, James, etc., London, 1609, 1616 (Workes, pp. 247-286); in French, London, 1609; in Latin, London, 1609, Amsterdam, 1609; in Dutch, Leyden, 1609. The English edition was dated April 8, 1609. The day before, a royal proclama- tion was issued calling in all copies of the first edition. To the various versions of this revised edition of the Apologie was prefixed a long introduction, A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches, Kings, Free Princes, and States of Christendome (Workes, pp. 287-338) which ended with A Catalogue of the Lyes of Tortus, together with a Brief e Confutation of them (Workes, pp. 339-346). The Premonition is sometimes referred to as the Monitory Preface. A Declaration Concerning the Proceedings with the States Generall, of the United Provinces of the Low Countreys, in the cause of D. Conradus Vorstius. This appeared in English, Latin, and French in 1612. It is reprinted in the Works, pp. 347-38°- Declaration du serenessime Roy Jacques I", Roy de la Grand1 Bretagne et Irlande, defenseur de la Foy, pour le droit des Rois et independance de leurs couronnes, centre la harangue de Villustrissime Cardinal du Perron, prononcee en le Chambre des Trois-Estats, le 15 Janvier 1615, 1615; in Latin, London, 1616; in English 1616, A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings, and the Inde- pendance of Their Crownes, etc. It is referred to usually as Defence. (Workes, pp. 381-484) ; 1619, "Translated out of his Maiesties French copie by R. B., Pastor to the church at Ashole in Norfolke." The editor of the Workes has also given five of James's most important speeches delivered before the publication of the book in 1616 (pp. 485-569), beginning with the speech opening James's first English Parliament in 1603-04, in- cluding the one made to both houses after the Powder plot, and others of 1607 and 1609-10; and closing with a speech in the Star-Chamber in 1616. These were all originally published soon after they were delivered by Robert Barker, the King's printer and copies of the first edition of all sur- vive. All except the last were delivered to Parliament and are included in the Parliamentary History, i. The speech in the Star Chamber is in Workes, pp. 540-569- To these might be added several speeches delivered to the Parliament of 1621 (Parliamentary History, i, 1175-1371, passim) and also those of James's fourth and last Parliament, in 1624 (Parl. Hist., i, 1373-1506, passim). The foregoing list of the King's works includes only those of importance for the history of political thought. Janet, Paul, Histoire de la Science Politique, 2d ed., Paris, 1872. Jardine, David, A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, London, 1857. Jessopp, Augustus, John Donne, London, 1897. INTRODUCTION cv Jewel, John, Apologia pro Ecdesia Anglicana, 1562. Kellison, Matthew, The Right and Jurisdiction of the Prelate and the Prince, etc., Douay, 1617. Klein, A. J., Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth, Boston, 1917. Knox, John, The Works of John Knox, edited by David Laing, Edinburgh, 1864. - The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, Geneva, 1558, Works, iv, 349. The Apellation, Geneva, 1558, Works, iv, 461. - A Letter addressed to the Commonalty of Scotland, 1558, Works, iv, 521. The Summary of the Proposed Second Blast of the Trumpet, 1558, Works, iv, 539- Knox, T. F., Records of Anglican Catholics under the Penal Laws, London, 1878. Krebs, Richard, Die Politische Publizistik der Jesuiten und ihrer Gegner in den letzten Jahrzehnten vor Ausbruch des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges, Halle, 1890. Laski, H. J., Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty, New Haven, 1917. Laud, William, The History of the Troubles and Tryal of . . . William Laud, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. Wrote by Himself, during His Imprison- ment in the Tower, London, 1695. Law, T. G., A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1889. - The Archpriest Controversy, Camden Society, 1896. Lea, Henry C., Studies in Church History, Philadelphia, 1883. Leech, Humphrey, Dutifull Considerations addressed to King James concerning his premonitory Epistle to Christian Princes, St. Omer, 1609. Leedes, Edward (alias Courtney), A Discourse against the Oath of Allegiance, 1634, (an answer to Sir William Howard's A Pattern of Christian Loyalty). Lessius, L., Defensio Potestatis Summi Pontificis adversus librum regis magnae Britanniae, Caesaraugustae, 1611. - De Antichristo et ejus Praecursionibus Disputatio qua refutatur Praefatio Monitoria Jacobi Regis, 1611. Leycester's Commonwealth, 1584, edited by Frank J. Burgoyne, London, 1904. Lingard, John, The History of England, 6th ed., London, 1854. Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, 1690, London, 1884. Longland, John, Bishop of Lincoln, A Sermonde made before the Kynge, his maiestye at grenewich, upon good Fridaye. The yere of our Lorde God. M.D.xxxvnj., London, (1538 ?). Lessen, Max, Die Lehre wm Tyrannenmord in der Christlichen Zeit, Munich, 1894. Mcllwain, C. H. The High Court of Parliament and its Supremacy, New Haven, 1910. Mackenzie, Sir George, Jus Regium: Or, the Just and Solid Foundations of Monarchy in General; And more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland, London, 1684. - The Institutions of the Law of Scotland, 2d ed., Edinburgh, 1688. cvi THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Maitland, F. W., The Anglican Settlement and the Scottish Reformation, Cambridge Modern History, ii, ch. xvi. English Law and the Renaissance, Cambridge, 1901. - Elizabethan Gleanings, Collected Papers, Cambridge, 1911, iii, 157. Mariana, Joannis Marianae Hispani, e Societate Jesu, De Rege et Regis Institu- tione Libri III, Moguntiae, 1605. (Marshall, William), The Defence of Peace [London], 1535, a translation of the Defensor Pads of Marsiglio of Padua. Mercure Francois, Troisieme Continuation (1614-1615), 2d ed., Paris, 1617. Meyer, Arnold Oskar, England und die Katholische Kirche unter Elisabeth, Rome, 1911. Milton, The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, 1649, The Prose Works of John Milton, London, 1836, p. 231. (Mocket, Richard), Tractatus de Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1616, London, 1705. (Mocket, Richard (?)), God and the King, 1615. Mohl, Robert von, Die Geschichte und Literatur der Staatswissenschaften, Erlangen, 1855- More, Sir Thomas, The workes of Sir Thomas More Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chauncellour of England, wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge, London, 1557- A Dyalogue of Syr Thomas More Knight, etc., 1528, English Works, p. 105. - The Confutacion of Tyndales Aunswere, 1532, English Works, p. 339. - The Apology of Syr Thomas More Knight, 1533, English Works, p. 845. - The Debellacyon of Salem and Bizance, 1533, English Works, p. 929. Morris, John, editor, The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers Related by Them- selves, London, 1872. The Condition of the Catholics under James I, London, 1871. Morton, Thomas, An Exact Discoverie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Con- spiracie and Rebellion, London, 1605. Moulin, Pierre du, Defense de la foy Catholique contenue au livre du tres puissant et serenissime Jacques i" . . . contre la response de F. N. Coe/eteau, 1612; English translation, A Defence of the Catholike Faith, etc., London, 1610. P. Molinei de Monarchia temporali Pontificis Romani liber, quo . . . liber Regis Jacobi ab adversariorum objectionibus, praecipue vero R. Bellarmini . . . vindicatur, 1614. (Newman, J. H.), Remarks on Certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles, Tracts for the Times, no. 90, London, 1841. Nicholson, William, The English Historical Library, London, 1696. Nouvelle, Biographic Generate, Paris, 1855 — . (Nye, Philip), The Lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy and Power of the King in Ecclesiastical Affairs, London, 1683. Ossat, Arnaud, Cardinal d', Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat, Amsterdam, 1708. INTRODUCTION cvii Ottley, R. L., Lancelot Andrewes, Boston, 1894. Overall, John, Bishop Overall's Convocation Book, 1606. Concerning Government of God's Catholick Church and the Kingdoms of the Whole World, London, 1600. Owen, David, Herod and Pilate reconciled; or the Concord of Papist and Pvritan . . . for the Coercion, Deposition, and Killing of Kings, discovered, 1610. Anti-Paraeus, sive Determinatio de Jure Regio, etc., 1622. Pacenius, E£eTai\avria, which is ouerkindly a sicknesse to all mankind: but censure your selfe as sharply, as if ye were your owne enemie: For if ye iudge your selfe, ye shall not be iudged,3 as the Apostle saith: and then according to your censure, reforme your actions as farre as yee may, eschewing euer wilfully and wittingly to contrare your conscience: For a small sinne wilfully committed, with a deliberate resolution to breake the bridle of conscience therein, is farre more grieuous before God, then a greater sinne committed in a suddaine passion, when conscience is asleepe. Remember therefore in all your actions, of the great ac- count that yee are one day to make : in all the dayes of your life, euer learning to die, and liuing euery day as it were you last; Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum* 1 Reu. 7. 14. * i. Tim. 4. 2. » i. Cor. u. 31. 4 Horat. lib. i. Epist. BASILIKON DORON 17 And therefore, I would not haue you to pray with the Papists, to be preserued from suddaine death, but that God would giue you grace so to Hue, as ye may euery houre of your life be ready for death: so shall ye attaine to the vertue of trew fortitude, neuer being afraid for the horrour of death, come when he list: And especially, beware to offend your conscience with vse of swearing or lying, suppose but in iest ; for othes are but an vse, and a sinne cloathed with no delight nor gaine, and therefore the more inexcusable euen in the sight of men: and lying commeth also much of a vile vse, which banisheth shame : Therefore beware euen to deny the trewth, which is a sort of lie, that may best be eschewed by a person of your ranke. For if any thing be asked at you that yee thinke not meete to reueale, if yee say, that question is not pertinent for them to aske, who dare ex- amine you further ? and vsing sometimes this answere both in trew and false things that shall be asked at you, such vnmanerly people will neuer be the wiser thereof. And for keeping your conscience sound from that sickenesse of superstition, yee must neither lay the safetie of your conscience vpon the credit of your owne conceits, nor yet of other mens humors, how great doctors of Diuinitie that euer they be; but yee must onely ground it vpon the expresse Scripture : for conscience not grounded vpon sure knowledge, is either an ignorant fantasie, or an arrogant vanjtie. Beware therefore in this case with two extremities: the one, to beleeue with the Papists, the Churches authority, better then your owne knowledge; the other, to leane with the Anabaptists, to your owne conceits and dreamed reue- lations. But learne wisely to discerne betwixt points of saluation and indifferent things, betwixt substance and ceremonies; and betwixt the expresse commandement and will of God in his word, and the inuention or ordinance of man; since all that is necessarie for saluation is contained in the Scripture: For in any thing that is expressely commanded or prohibited in the booke of God, ye cannot be ouer precise, euen in the least thing; counting euery sinne, not according to the light estimation and common vse of it in the world, but as the booke of God counteth of it. But as for all other things not contained in the scripture, spare not to vse or alter them, as the necessitie of the time shall require. And when any of the spirituall office-bearers in the Church, speake vnto you any thing that is well war- ranted by the word, reuerence and obey them as the heraulds of the most high God : but, if passing that bounds, they vrge you to embrace any of their fantasies in the place of Gods word, or would colour their particulars with a pretended zeal, acknowledge them for no other then vaine men, exceeding the bounds of their calling; and according to your office, grauely and with authoritie redact them in order againe. To conclude then, both this purpose of conscience, and the first part of this booke, keepe God more sparingly in your mouth, but abundantly in your heart: be precise in effect, but sociall in shew: kythe more by your deeds then by your 1 8 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I wordes, the loue of vertue and hatred of vice: and delight more to be godly and vertuous indeed, then to be thought and called so; expecting more for your praise and reward in heauen, then heere: and apply to all your outward actions Christs command, to pray and giue your almes secretly: So shal ye on the one part be inwardly garnished with trew Christian humilitie, not outwardly (with the proud Pharisie) glorying in your godlinesse; but saying, as Christ commandeth vs all, when we haue done all that we can, Inutiles semi sumus: l And on the other part, yee shall eschew outwardly before the world, the suspition of filthie proude hypo- crisie, and deceitfull dissimulation. OF A KINGS DVETIE IN HIS OFFICE. THE SECOND BOOKE. BVT as ye are clothed with two callings, so must ye be alike careful for the dis- charge of them both: that as yee are a good Christian, so yee may be a good King, discharging your Office (as I shewed before) in the points of Justice and Equitie: which in two sundrie waies ye must doe: the one, in establishing and executing, (which is the life of the Law) good Lawes among your people: 2 the other, by your behauiour in your owne person, and with your seruants, to teach your people by your example: 3 for people are naturally inclined to counterfaite (like apes) their Princes maners, according to the notable saying of Plato* ex- pressed by the Poet - Componitur orbis Regis ad exemplum, nee sic inflectere sensus Humanos edicla valent, quam vita regentis.* For the part of making, and executing of Lawes, consider first the trew dif- ference betwixt a lawfull good King, and an vsurping Tyran, and yee shall the more easily vnderstand your duetie herein: for contraria iuxta se posita magis elucescunt. The one acknowledgeth himselfe ordained for his people, hauing receiued from God a burthen of gouernment, whereof he must be countable:6 the other thinketh his people ordeined for him, a prey to his passions and inordi- nate appetites, as the fruites of his magnanimitie: 7 And therefore, as their ends are directly contrarie, so are their whole actions, as meanes, whereby they preasse to attaine to their endes. A good King, thinking his highest honour to consist in the due discharge of his calling, emploieth all his studie and paines, to procure and maintaine, by the making and execution of good Lawes, the well-fare and peace of his people; 8 and as their naturall father and kindly Master, thinketh his greatest contentment standeth in their prosperitie, and his greatest suretie in hauing their hearts, subjecting his owne priuate affections and appetites to 1 Luke 10. 17. 4 Plato in Polit. ' Arist. 5. Polit. 1 Plato in Polit. 6 Claudian in 4. cons. Hon. 8 Xen. 8. Cyr. * Isocr. in Sym. 6 Plato in Polit. BASELIKON DORON 19 the weale and standing of his Subiects, euer thinking common interesse his chiefest particular: 1 where by the contrarie, an vsurping Tyran, thinking his greatest honour and felicitie to consist in attaining per fas, vel nefas to his ambi- tious pretences, thinketh neuer himselfe sure, but by the dissention and factions among his people, and counterfaiting the Saint while he once creepe in credite, will then (by inuerting all good Lawes to serve onely for his vnrulie priuate affec- tions) frame the common-weale euer to aduance his particular: building his suretie vpon his peoples miserie:2 and in the end (as a step-father and an vncouth hireling) make vp his owne hand vpon the mines of the Republicke.3 And ac- cording to their actions, so receiue they their reward : For a good King (after a f happie and famous reigne) dieth in peace, lamented by his subiects, and admired I by his neighbours; and leauing a reuerent renowne behinde him in earth, ob-' taineth the Crowne of eternall felicitie in heauen.4 And although some of them (which falleth out very rarelie) may be cut off by the treason of some vnnaturall subiects, yet liueth their fame after them, and some notable plague faileth neuer to ouertake the committers in this life, besides their infamie to all posterities here- after: Where by the contrarier a Tyrannes miserable and infamous life, armeth in end his owne Subiects to become his burreaux: 6 and although that rebellion be euer vnlawfull on their part, yet is the world so wearied of him, that his fall is little meaned by the rest of his Subjects, and but smiled at by his neighbours.6 And besides the infamous memorie he leaueth behind him here, and the endlesse paine hee sustaineth hereafter, it oft falleth out, that the committers not onely escape vnpunished, but farther, the fact will remaine as allowed by the Law in diuers aages thereafter. It is easie then for you (my Sonne) to make a choise of ,/ one of these two sorts of rulers, by following the way of vertue to establish your standing; yea, in case ye fell in the high way, yet should it be with the honourable report, and iust regrate of all honest men. And therefore to returne to my purpose anent the gouernement of your Sub- iects, by making and putting good Lawes to execution; I remit the making of them to your owne discretion, as ye shall finde the necessitie of new-rising corrup- tions to require them: for, ex mails moribus bonce leges nat° Cic. ad Q. frat. Cic. ad At. » Cic. i. Off. Isoc. de reg. & in Euagr. " De arte Poetica. 48 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I I meane both your verse and your prose; letting first that furie and heate, wherewith they were written, coole at leasure; and then as an vncouth iudge and censour, reuising them ouer againe, before they bee published, — quid nescit vox missa reuerti^ If yee would write worthily, choose subiects worthie of you, that bee not full of vanitie, but of vertue; eschewing obscuritie, and delighting euer to bee plaine and sensible. And if yee write in verse, remember that it is not the principall part of a Poeme to rime right, and flowe well with many pretie wordes : but the chiefe commendation of a Poeme is, that when the verse shall bee shaken sundrie in prose, it shall bee found so rich in quicke inuentions, and poeticke flowers, and in faire and pertinent comparisons; as it shall retaine the lustre of a Poeme, although in prose.2 And I would also aduise you to write in your owne language: for there is nothing left to be saide in Greeke and Latine alreadie; and ynew of poore schollers would match you in these languages; and besides that, it best becommeth a King to purifie and make famous his owne tongue; wherein he may goe before all his subjects; as it setteth him well to doe in all honest and lawfull things. And amongst all vnnecessarie things that are lawfull and expedient, I thinke exercises of the bodie most commendable to be vsed by a young Prince, in such honest games or pastimes, as may further abilitie and maintaine health: 3 For albeit I graunt it to be most requisite for a King to exercise his engine, which surely with idlenesse will ruste and become blunt; yet certainely bodily exercises and games are very commendable;4 as well for bannishing of idlenesse (the mother of all vice) as for making his bodie able and durable for trauell, which is very necessarie for a King.5 But from this count I debarre all rough and violent exercises, as the footeball; meeter for laming, then making able the vsers thereof f- as likewise such tumbling trickes as only serue for Comcedians and Balladines, to win their bread with. But the exercises that I would haue you to vse (although but moderately, not making a craft of them) are running, leaping, wrastling, fencing, dancing, and playing at the caitch or tennise, archerie, palle maill6, and such like other faire and pleasant field-games.7 And the honourablest and most commendable games that yee can vse, are on horsebacke:8 for it becommeth a Prince best of any man, to be a faire and good horse-man.9 Vse therefore to ride and danton great and couragious horses; that I may say of you, as Philip said of great Alexander his sonne, MaKedovla ov w_jgjprn£_of Dillinjtfc, as I haue already said: next, from the fundamental Laweg_pf our owne Kingdome, which nearest must concerne vs: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by diuers similitudes drawne out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be obiected. The Princes duetie to his Subiects is so clearely set downe in many places of the Scriptures, and so openly confessed by all the good Princes, according to their oath in their Coronation, as not needing to be long therein, I shall as shortly as I can runne through it. Kings are called Gods l by the propheticall King Dauid, because theysit vpon GOD his Throne injthe^arth, and haue the count of their administration to giue 1 Psal. 82. 6. THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES / 55 vnto him. Their office is, To minister lustice and ludgement to the people,1 as the same Dauid saith: To aduance the good, and punish the euill?,a.s he likewise saith: To establish good Lowes to his people, and procure obedience to the satnt,' «.:> Jiuers good Kings of ludah 4 did: To procure the peace of the people, as the same Dauid saith: 6 To decide all controuersies that can arise among them 6 as Salomon did: To be the Minister of God for the weale of them that doe well, and as the minister of God, to take vengeance vpon them that doe euill,7 as S. Paul saith. And finally, -4s a good Pastour, to goe out and in before his people 8 as is said in the first of Samuel: That through the Princes prosperitie, the peoples peace may be procured? as leremie saith. And therefore in the Coronation of our owne Kings, as well as of euery Chris- tian Monarche they giue their Oath, first to maintaine the Religion presently c professed within their countrie, according to their lawes, wKereby it is established, and to punish all those that should presse to alter, or disturbe the profession CD thereofT And next to maintaine all the lowable and good Lawes made by their predecessoursj" to see them put in execution, and the breakers and violaters thereof, to be punished, according to the tenour of the same : And lastly, to main- taine the whole countrey, and euery state therein, in all their ancient Priuiledges and Liberties, as well against all forreine enemies, as among themselues: And shortly to procure the weale and flourishing of his people, not onely in maintain- ing and putting to execution the olde lowable lawes of the countrey, and by estab- lishing of new (as necessitie and euill maners will require) but by all other meanes possible to fore-see and preuent all dangers, that are likely to fall vpon them, and to maintaine concord, wealth, and ciuilitie among them, as a louing Father, and careful watchman, caring for them more then for himselfe, knowing himselfe to be ordained for them, and they not for him ; and therefore countable to that great God, who placed him as his lieutenant ouer them, vpon the perill of his soule to procure the weale of both soules and bodies, as farre as in him lieth, of all them that are committed to his charge. And this oath in the Coronation is the clearest, ciuill, and fundamentall Law, whereby the Kings office is properly defined. By the Law,oXNature the King becomes_a naturaJLFather to all his Liegesjajt his Coronation: And as the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and vertuous gouernment of his children; euen so is the king bound to care for all jjis subiects. As all the toile and paine that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to theL profile and weale; so ought the Prince to doe towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconuenients and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his owne person presse to preuent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction \fjon any of his children that offendeth, ought > Psal. 101. 4 2. Chron. 29; 2. King. ii;1bd 23. 2; chro. 34, &3S- 7 Rom. 13. 1 Psal. 101. * Psal. 72. " i. Sam. 8. ' 2. King. 18. * i. King 3. • lerem. 39. 56 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pitie, as long as there is any hope of amendment _ir Item; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend IrTtriat measure. And shortly, as the Fathers chiefe ioy ought to be in procuring his childrens welfare, reioycing at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their euill, to hazard for their safetie, trauell for their rest, wake for their sleepe; and in a word, to thinke that his earthly felicitie and life standeth and liueth more in them, nor in himselfe; so ought a good Prince thinke of his people. As to the other branch of this mutuall and reciprock band, is the duetv and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, dited by Gods Spirit, when God had giuen him com- mandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well vnderstood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I haue insert herein the very words of the Text. 9 Now therefore hearken to their -voice: howbeit yet testifie vnto them, and shew them the maner of the King, that shall raigne ouer them. 10 So Samuel tolde all the wordes of the Lord vnto the people that asked a King of him. 11 And he said, This shall be the maner of the King that shall raigne ouer you: he will take your sonnes, and appoint them to his Charets, and to be his horsemen, and some shall runne before his Charet. 12 Also, hee will make them his captaines ouer thousands, and captaines ouer fif- ties, and to eare his ground, and to reape his haruest, and to make instruments of warre and the things that serue for his char els: 13 Hee will also take your daughters, and make them Apothicaries, and Cookes, and Bakers. 14 And hee will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Oliue trees, and giue them to his seruants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your Vineyards, and giue it to his Eunuches, and to his seruants. 16 And he will take your men seruants, and your maid-seruants, and the chiefe of your young men, and your asses, and put them to his worke. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheepe: and ye shall be his seruants. And ye shall cry out at that day, because of your King, whom ye haue chosen you: and the Lord God will not heare you at that day. 19 But the people would not heare the voice of Samuel, but did say: Nay, but there shalbe a King ouer vs. 20 And we also will be all like other Nations, and our King shall iudge vs, and goe out before vs, and fight our battels. That these words, and discourseHib&Gtmuel were dited by Gods Spirit, it needs no further probation, but that it;i.» %£>lace of Scripture; since the whole Scripture is dited by that inspiration, as Paul saith: which ground no good THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES 57 Christian will, or dare denie. Whereupon it must necessarily follow, that these speeches proceeded not from any ambition in Samuel, as one loath to quite the reines that he so long had ruled, and therefore desirous, by making odious the gouernment of a King, to disswade the people from their farther importunate crauing of one : For, as the text proueth it plainly, he then conueened them to giue them a resolute grant of their demand, as God by his owne mouth commanded him, saying, Hearken to the voice of the people. And to presse to disswade them from that, which he then came to grant vnto them, were a thing very impertinent in a wise man; much more in the Prophet of the most high God. And likewise, it well appeared in all the course of his life after, that so long refusing of their sute before came not of any ambition in him: which he well proued in praying, & as it were importuning God for the weale of Saul. Yea, after God had declared his reprobation vnto him, yet he desisted not, while God himselfe was wrath at his praying, and discharged his fathers suit in that errand. And that these words of Samuel were not vttered as a prophecie of Saul their first Kings defection, it well appeareth, as well because we heare no mention made in the Scripture of any his tyrannic and oppression, (which, if it had beene, would not haue been left vnpainted out therein, as well as his other faults were, as in a trew mirrour of all the Kings behauiours, whom it describeth) as likewise in respect that Saul was chosen by God for his vertue, and meet qualities to gouerne his people: whereas his defection sprung after-hand from the corruption of his owne nature, & not through any default in God, whom they that thinke so, would make as a step-father to his people, in making wilfully a choise of the vnmeetest for gouerning them, since the election of that King lay absolutely and immediatly in Gods hand. But by the contrary it is plaine, and euident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to giue vnto them; and therefore opened vp vnto them, what might be the intolerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would haue said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in gluing you a king, as yee haue else committed an errour in shaking off Gods yoke, and ouer-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casjjng_off_also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laidjygon you, how hard that euef it seeme tp'be^ For as ye could not haue obtained one without the permissioirand ordinance of God, so may yee no more, fro hee be once set ouer you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arme _your seliies with pgtien.ce and humilitie, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the onely power to vnmake him; and ye onely to obey, bearing with .these straits, that I_nowjforeshew you, as with thelmgeFof which lieth not in you to take off. inc so 58 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I And will ye consider the very wordes of the text in order, as they are set downe, it shall plainely declare the obedience that the people owe to their King in all respects. First, God commandeth Samuel to doe two things : the one, to grant the people their suit in giuing them a king; the other, to forewarne them, what some kings will doe vnto them, that they may not thereafter in their grudging and murmur- ing say, when they shal feele the snares here fore-spoken; We would neuer haue had a king of God, in case when we craued him, hee had let vs know how wee would haue beene vsed by him, as now we finde but ouer-late. And this is meant by these words: Now therefore hearken vnto their voice: howbeit yet testifie vnto them, and shew them the maner of the King that shall rule ouer them. And next, Samuel in execution of this commandement of God, hee likewise doeth two things. First, hee declares vnto them, what points of iustice and equitie their king will breake in his behauiour vnto them: And next he putteth them out of hope, that wearie as they will, they shall not haue leaue to shake off that yoke, which God' through their importunitie hath laide vpon them. The points of equitie that the King shall breake vnto them, are expressed in these words: ii He will take your sonnes, and appoint them to his Charets, and to be his horse- men, and some shall run before his Charet. ^f>\ 1 2 Also he will make them his captaines ouer thousands, and captaines ouer fifties, ^i and to eare his ground, and to reape his haruest, and to make instruments of \ wane, and the things that seruefor his charets. 1 13 He will also take your daughters, and make them Apothecaries, and Cookes, and Bakers. The points of Justice, that hee shall breake vnto them, are expressed in these wordes: i4 Hee will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Oliue trees, and giue them to his seruants. And he will take the tenth of your seede, and of your vineyards, and giue it to his Eunuches and to his seruants: and also the tenth of your sheepe. As if he would say; The best and noblest of your blood shall be compelled in slauish and seruile offices to serue him: and not content of his owne patrimonie, will make vp a rent to his owne vse out of your best lands, vineyards, orchards, and store of cattell: So as inuerting the Law of nature, and office of a King, your persons and the persons of your posteritie, together with your lands, and all that ye possesse shall serue his priuate vse, and inordinate appetite. And as vnto the next point (which is his fore-warning them, that, weary as they will, they shall not haue leaue to shake off the yoke, which God thorow their importunity hath laid vpon them) it is expressed in these words: THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES 59 1 8 And yee shall crie out at that day, because of your King whom yee haue chosen you: and the Lord will not heare you at that day. As he would say; ^hen ye shall finde these things in proofe that now I fore- warne you of, althouglTyou shall grudge and murmure, yet it shal not be lawful to you to cast it off, in respect it is not only the ordinance of God, but also your selues haue chosen him vnto you, thereby renouncing for euer all priuiledges, by your willing consent out of your hands, whereby in any time hereafter ye would claime, and call backe vnto your selues againe that power, which God shall not permit you to doeTTAnd for further taking away of all excuse, and retraction of this their contract, after their consent to vnder-lie this yoke with all the burthens that hee hath declared vnto them, he craues their answere, and consent to his proposition: which appeareth by their answere, as it is expressed in these words: 19 Nay, but there shall be a King ouer vs. 20 And we also will be like all other nations: and our king shall iudge vs, and goe out before vs and fight our battels. As if they would haue said; All your speeches and hard conditions shall not skarre vs, but we will take the good and euill of it vpon vs, and we will be content to beare whatsoeuer burthen it shal please our King to lay vpon vs, aswell as other nations doe. And for the good we will get of him in fighting our battels, we will . more patiently beare any burden that shall please him to lay on vs. And where he sees the lawe doubtsome or rigorous, hee may interpret or mitigate the same, lest otherwise Summum ius bee summa iniuria: And therefore generall lawes, made publikely in Parliament, may \J vpon knowen respects to the King by his authoritie bee mitigated, and suspended vpon causes onely knowen to him. As likewise, although I haue said, a good king will frame all his actions to be according to the Law; yet is hee not bound thereto but of his good will, and for good example-giuing to his subiects: For as in the law of abstaining from eating of flesh in Lenton, the king will, for examples sake, make his owne house to obserue 64 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I the Law; yet no man will thinke he needs to take a licence to eate flesh. And although by our Lawes, the bearing and wearing of hag-buts, and pistolets be forbidden, yet no man can find any fault in the King, for causing his traine vse them in any raide vpon the Borderers, or other malefactours or rebellious subiects. i So as I haue alreadie said, a good King, although hee be aboue the Law, will subject and frame his actions thereto, for examples sake to his subiectsr and of his owne free-will, but not as subject or hound thereto. Since I haue so clearly prooued then out of the fundamentall lawes and prac- tise of this country, what right & power a king hath ouer his land and subiects, it is easie to be vnderstood, what allegeance & obedience his lieges owe vnto him; I meane alwaies of such free Monarchies as our king is, and not of electiue kings, and much lesse of such sort of gouernors, as the dukes of Venice are, whose Aristocratick and limited gouernment, is nothing like to free Monarchies; al- though the malice of some writers hath not beene ashamed to mis-know any difference to be betwixt them. And if it be not lawfull to any particular Lordes tenants or vassals, vpon whatsoeuer pretext, to controll and displace their Master, and ouer-lord (as is clearer nor the Sunne by all Lawes of the world) how much lesse may the subiects and vassals of the great ouer-lord the KING controll or displace him ? And since in all inferiour iudgements in the land, the people may not vpon any respects displace their Magistrates, although but subaltern: for the people of a borough, cannot displace their Prouost before the time of their election: nor • in Ecclesiasticall policie the flocke can vpon any pretence displace the Pastor, nor iudge of him: yea euen the poore Schoolemaster cannot be displaced by his schollers: If these, I say (whereof some are but inferiour, subaltern, and tem- poral! Magistrates, and none of them equall in any sort to the dignitie of a King) cannot be displaced for any occasion or pretext by them that are ruled by them: how much lesse is it lawfull vpon any pretext to controll or displace the great Prouost, and great Schoole-master of the whole land: except by inuerting the order of all Law and reason, the commanded may be made to command their commander, the iudged to iudge their Iudge, and they that are gouerned, to gouerne their time about their Lord and gouernour. And the agreement of the Law of nature in this our ground with the Lawes and constitutions of God, and man, already alledged, will by two similitudes easily appeare. The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diuers members: For as fathers, the good Princes, and Magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselues to their subiects. And for all other well ruled Common-wealths, the stile of Pater patrice was euer, and is commonly vsed to Kings. And the proper office of a King I towards his Subiects, agrees very wel with the office of the fapaH tnwarrk thp hnr\y1 ] and all members thereof: For from the head, being the seate of ludgement, pro- ceedeth the care anH foresight of guiding, a.nd preuenting all euill that may come to the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body, so doeth the King THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES 65 for his people. As the discourse and direction flowes from the head, and the execution according thereunto belongs to the rest of the members, euery one according to their office: so it is betwixt a wise Prince, and his people. As the Judgement comming from the head may not onely imploy the members, euery one in their owne office, as long as they are able for it; but likewise in case any of them be affected with any infirmitie must care and prouide for their remedy, in-case it be curable, and if otherwise, gar cut them off for feare of infecting of the rest: euen so is it betwixt the Prince, and his people. And as there is euer hope of curing any diseased member by the direction of the head, as long as it is whole; but by the contrary, if it be troubled, all the members are partakers of that paine, so is it betwixt the Prince and his people. And now first for the fathers part (whose naturall loue to his children I described in the first part of this my discourse, speaking of the dutie that Kings owe to their Subiects) consider, I pray you what duetie his children owe to him, & whether vpon any pretext whatsoeuer, it wil not be thought monstrous and vn- naturall to his sons, to rise vp against him, to control him at their appetite, and when they thinke good to sley him, or to cut him off, and adopt to themselues any other they please in his roome: Or can any pretence of wickednes or rigor on his part be a iust excuse for his children to put hand into him ? And although wee see_by the course of nature, that loue vseth to descend more then to ascend, in case it were trew, that the father hated and wronged the children neuer so much, will any man, endued with the least sponke of reason, thinke it lawfull for them to meet him with the line ? Yea, suppose the father were furiously follow- ing his sonnes with a drawen sword, is it lawfull for them to turne and strike againe, or make any resistance but by flight ? I thinke surely, if there were no more but the example of bruit beasts & vnreasonable creatures, it may serue well enough to qualifie and proue this my argument. We reade often the pietie that the Storkes haue to their olde and decayed parents: And generally wee know, that there are many sorts of beasts and fowles, that with violence and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their yong ones from them, how soone they perceiue them to be able to fend themselues; but wee neuer read or heard of any resistance on their part, except among the vipers; which prooues such persons, as ought to be reasonable creatures, and yet vnnaturally follow this example, to be endued with their viperous nature. And for the similitude of the head and the body, it may very well fall out that the head will be forced to garre cut off some rotten members (as I haue already said) to keep the rest of the body in integritie: but what state the body can be in, if the head, for any infirmitie that can fall to it, be cut off, I leaue it to the readers Judgement. So as (to conclude this part) if the children may vpon any pretext that can be imagined, lawfully rise vp against their Father, cut him off, & choose any other whom they please in his roome; and if the body for the weale of it, may for any 66 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I infirmitie that can be in the head, strike it off, then I cannot deny that the people may rebell, controll, and displace, or cut off their king at their owne pleasure, and vpon respects moouing them. And whether these similitudes represent better the office of a King, or the offices of Masters or Deacons of crafts, or Doctors in Physicke (which iolly comparisons are vsed by such writers as maintaine the contrary proposition) I leaue it also to the readers discretion. And in case any doubts might arise in any part of this treatise, I wil (according to my promise) with the solution of foure principall and most weightie doubts, that the aduersaries may obiect, conclude this discourse. And first it is casten vp by diuers, that employ their pennes vpon Apologies for rebellions and treasons, that euery man is borne to carry such a naturall zeale and duety to his common- wealth, as to his mother; that seeing it so rent and deadly wounded, as whiles it will be by wicked and tyrannous Kings, good Citizens will be forced, for the naturall zeale and duety they owe to their owne natiue countrey, to put their hahd to worke for freeing their common-wealth from such a pest. tWhereunto I giue two answeres: First, it is a sure Axiome in Theologie, that uill should not be done, that good may come of it: The wickednesse therefore of he King can neuer make them that are ordained to be Judged by him, to become nis Judges. And if it be not lawfull to a priuate man to reuenge his priuate iniury vpon his priuate aduersary (since God hath onely giuen the sword to the Magis- trate) how much lesse is it lawfull to the people, or any part of them (who all are but priuate men, the authoritie being alwayes with the Magistrate, as J haue already proued) to take vpon them the vse of the sword, whom to it belongs not, against the publicke Magistrate, whom to onely it belongeth. Next, in place of relieuing the common-wealth out of distresse (which is their onely excuse and colour) they shall heape double distresse and desolation vpon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for: For a king cannot be imagined to be so vnruly and tyrannous, but the common- wealth will be kept in better order, notwithstanding thereof, by him, then it can be by his way-taking. For first, all sudden mutations are perillous in common- wealths, hope being thereby giuen to all bare men to set vp themselues, and file with other mens feathers, the reines being loosed to all the insolencies that dis- ordered people can commit by hope of impunitie, because of the loosenesse of all things. And next, it is certaine that a king can neuer be so monstrously vicious, but hee will generally fauour iustice, and maintaine some order, except in the par- ticulars, wherein his inordinate lustes and passions cary him away; where by the , contrary, no King being, nothing is vnlawfull to none: And so the olde opinion fyl of the Philosophers prooues trew, That better it is to Hue in a Common-wealth, where nothing is lawfull, then where all things are lawfull to all men; the Com- mon-wealth at that time resembling an vndanted young horse that hath casten his rider: For as the diuine Poet Dv BARTAS sayth, Better it were to suffer some THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES 67 disorder in the estate, and some spots in the Common-wealth, then in pretending to reforme, utterly to ouerthrow the Republicke. The second obiection they ground vpon the curse that hangs ouer the common^ wealth, where a wicked king reigneth: and, say they, there cannot be a more acceptable deed in the sight of God, nor more dutiful to their common-weale, then to free the countrey of such a curse, and vindicate to them their libertie, which is naturall to all creatures to craue. Whereunto for answere, I grant indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for • I/ a curse to his people, and a plague for their sinnes: but that it is lawfull to them to shake off that curse at their owne hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny, and may so do iustly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly fore-spoken and threatned vnto them in the prophecie of their captiutie ? And what was Nero to the Christian Church in his / tune ? And yet leremy and Paul (as yee haue else heard) commanded them not onely to obey them, but heartily to pray for their welfare. It is certaine then (as I haue already bv (Vie Law of God sufficiently prnngd^ that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their Hues, are the onely lawful means to moue God to relieue them of that heauie curse. As for vindicating to themselues their owne libertie, what lawfull power haue they to reuoke to themselues againe those priuiledges, which by their owne consent before were so fully put out of their hands ? for if a Prince cannot iustly bring backe againe to himself the priuiledges once bestowed by him or his predecessors vpon any state or ranke of his subiects; how much lesse may the subiects reaue out of the princes hand that superioritie, which he and his Predecessors haue so long brooked ouer them ? But the vnhappy iniquitie of the time, which hath oft times giuen ouer good successe to their treasonable attempts, furnisheth them the ground of their third obiection: For, say they, the fortunate successe that God hath so oft giuen to such enterprises, prooueth plainely by the practise, that God fauoured the iustnesse of their quarrell. To the which I answere, that it is trew indeed, that all the successe of battels, f as well as other wordly things, lyeth onely in Gods hand : And therefore it is that | in the Scripture he takes to himselfe the style of God of Hosts. But vpon that generall to conclude, that hee euer giues victory to the iust quarrell, would prooue . ;he Philistims, and diuers other neighbour enemies of the people of God to haue aft times had the iust quarrel against the people of God, in respect of the many rictories they obtained against them. And by that same argument they had also iust quarrell against the Arke of God: For they wan it in the field, and kept it long prisoner in their countrey. As likewise by all good Writers, as well Theo- logues, as other, the Duels and singular combats are disallowed; which are onely made vpon pretence, that GOD will kith thereby the iustice of the quarrell: For wee must consider that the innocent partie is not innocent before God: And 68 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I therefore God will make oft times them that haue the wrong side reuenge iustly his quarrell; and when he hath done, cast his scourge in the fire; as he oft times did to his owne people, stirring vp and strengthening their enemies, while they were humbled in his sight, and then deliuered them in their hands. So God, as the great ludge may iustly punish his Deputie, and for his rebellion against him stir vp his rebels to meet him with the like: And when it is done, the part of the instrument is no better then the diuels part is in tempting and torturing such as God committeth to him as his hangman to doe: Therefore, as I said in the begin- ning, it is oft times a very deceiueable argument, to iudge of the cause by the euent. And the last obiection is grounded vpon the mutuall paction and adstipulation (as they call it) betwixt the King and his people, at the time of his coronation: For there, say they, there is a mutuall paction. and contract bound vp, _RnH sworne betwixt the king, and the people: Whereupon it followeth, that if the one part of the contract or the Indent bee broken vpon the Kings side, the people are no longer bound to keep their part of it, but are thereby freed of their oath: For (say they) a contract betwixt two parties, of all Law frees the one partie, if the other breake vnto him. As to this contract alledged made at the coronation of a King, although JLdeny any such contract to bee made then, especially containing such a clause irritant as they alledge; yet I confesse, that a king at his coronation, or at the entry to his kingdome, willingly promiseth to his people, to discharge honorably and trewly the office giuen him by God ouer them: But presuming that thereafter he breaks his promise vnto them neuer so inexcusable; the question is, who should bee iudge of the breake, giuing vnto them, this contract were made vnto them neuer so sicker, according to their alleageance. I thinke no man that hath but the smallest entrance into the ciuill Law, will doubt that of all Law, either ciuil or municipal of any nation, a contract cannot be thought broken by the one partie, and so the other likewise to be freed therefro, except that first a lawfull triall and cognition be had by the ordinary Iudge of the breakers thereof: Or else euery man may be both party and Iudge in his owne cause; which is absurd once to be thought. Now in this contract (I say) betwixt the king and his people, God is dgubtles the only Iudge. both because to him onely the king must make count of his administration (as is oft said before) as likewise by the oath in the coronation, God is made iudge and reuenger of the breakers: For in his presence, as only iudge of oaths, alToaths ought to be made. Then since God is the onely Iudge betwixt the two parties contractors, the cognition and reuenge must onely apper- taine to him: It followes therefore of necessitie, that God must first giue sentence vpon the King that breaketh, before the people can thinke themselues freed of their oath. What iustice then is it, that the partie shall be both iudge and partie, vsurping vpon himselfe the office of God, may by this argument easily appeare : And shall it lie in the hands of headlesse multitude, when they please to weary off subiection, to cast off the yoake of gouernement that God hath laid vpon them, to THE TREW LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES 69 iudge and punish him, whom-by they should be iudged and punished, and in that case, wherein by their violence they kythe themselues to be most passionate parties, to vse the office of an vngracious Iudge or Arbiter ? Nay, to speak trewly of that case, as it stands betwixt the king and his people, none of them ought to iudge of the others break : For considering rightly the two parties at the time of their mutuall promise, the king is the one party, and the whole people in one body are the other party. And therfore since it is certaine, that a king, in case so it should fal out, that his people in one body had rebelled against him, hee should not in that case, as thinking himselfe free of his promise and oath, become an vtter enemy, and practise the wreake of his whole people and natiue country: although he ought iustly to punish the principall authours and bellowes of that vniuersall rebellion: how much lesse then ought the people (that are alwaies subiect vnto him, and naked of all authoritie on their part) presse to iudge and ouer-throw him ? otherwise the people, as the one partie contracters, shall no sooner challenge the king as breaker, but hee assoone shall iudge them as breakers: so as the victors making the tyners the traitors (as our prouerbe is) the partie shall aye become both iudge and partie in his owne particular, as I haue alreadie said. And it is here likewise to be noted, that the duty and alleageance, which the people sweareth to their prince, is not only bound to themselues, but likewise to their lawfull heires and posterity, the lineall succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, and happily continued in diuers Christian common- wealths: So as no obiection either of heresie, or whatsoeuer priuate statute or law may free the people from their oath-giuing to their king, and his succession, {established by the old fundamentall lawes of the kingdome: For, as hee is their heritable ouer-lord, and so by birth, not by any right in the coronation, commeth jtojugjcrpwne; it is a like vnlawful (the crowne euer standing full) to displace him that succeedeth thereto, as to eiect the former: For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heire entreth in his ^lace: And so to refuse him, or intrude another, is not to holde out vncomming in, but to *"-'**- expell and put out their righteous King. And I trust at this time whole France acknowledgeth the superstitious rebellion of the liguers, who vpon pretence of heresie, by force of armes held so long out, to the great desolation of their whole countrey, their natiue and righteous king from possessing of his owne crowne and naturall kingdome. Not that by all this former discourse of mine, and Apologie for kings, I meane that whatsoeuer errors and intolerable abominations "a souereigne prince commit, hee ought to escape all punishment, as if thereby the world were only ordained for kings, & they without controlment to turne it vpside down at their pleasure: but by the contrary, by remitting them to God (who is their onely ordinary Iudge) remit them to the sorest and sharpest schoolemaster that can be deuised for them: for the further a king is preferred by God aboue all other ranks & degrees 70 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I of men, and the higher that his seat is aboue theirs, the greater is his obligation to his maker. And therfore in case he forget himselfe (his vnthankfulnes being hivthe same measure of height) the sadder and sharper will his correction be; and according to the greatnes of the height he is in, the weight of his fall wil recompense the same: for the further that any person is obliged to God, his offence becomes and growes so much the greater, then it would be in any other. loues thunder- claps light oftner and sorer vpon the high & stately oakes, then on the low and supple willow trees: and the highest bench is sliddriest to sit vpon. Neither is it euer heard that any king forgets himselfe towards God, or in his vocation; but God with the greatnesse of the plague reuengeth the greatnes of his ingratitude : Neither thinke I by the force and argument of this my discourse so to perswade the people, that none will hereafter be raised vp, and rebell against wicked Princes. But remitting to the iustice and prouidence of God to stirre vp such scourges as pleaseth him, for punishment of wicked kings (who made the very vermine and filthy dust of the earth to bridle the insolencie of proud Pharaoh}hny onely pur- pose and intention in this treatise is to perswade, as farre as lieth in me, by these sure and infallible grounds, all such good Christian readers, as beare not onely the naked name of a Christian, but kith the fruites thereof in their daily forme of life, to keep their hearts and hands free from such monstrous and vnnaturall rebellions, whensoeuer the wickednesse of a Prince shall procure the same at Gods hands: that, when it shall please God to cast such scourges of princes, and in- struments of his fury in the fire, ye may stand vp with cleane handes, and vn- spotted consciences, hauing prooued your selues in all your actions trew Chris- tians toward God, and dutifull subiects towards your King, hauing remitted the judgement and punishment of all his wrongs to him, whom to onely of right it appertained!,) But crauing at God, and hoping that God shall continue his blessing with vs, in not sending such fearefull desolation, I heartily wish our kings behauiour so to be, and continue among vs, as our God in earth, and louing Father, endued with such properties as I described a King in the first part of this Treatise. And that ye (my deare countreymen, and charitable readers) may presse by all means to procure the prosperitie and welfare of your King; that as hee must on the one part thinke all his earthly felicitie and happinesse grounded vpon your weale, caring more for himselfe for your sake then for his owne, thinking himselfe onely ordained for your weale; such holy and happy emulation may arise betwixt him and you, as his care for your quietnes, and your care for his honour and preserua- tion, may in all your actions daily striue together, that the Land may thinke themselues blessed with such a King, and the king may thinke himselfe most happy in ruling ouer so louing and obedient subiects. FINIS. TRIPLICI NODO, TRIPLEX CUNEUS. OR AN APOLOGIE FOR THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. AGAINST THE TWO BREVES OF POPE PAVLVS QVINTVS, AND THE LATE LETTER OF CARDINALL BELLARMINE TO G. BLACKWEL THE ARCH-PRIEST. WHAT a monstrous, rare, nay neuer heard-of Treacherous attempt, was plotted within these few yeeres here in England, for the destruction of Mee, my Bed-fellow, and our posteritie, the whole house of Parliament, and a great number of good subjects of all sorts and degrees; is so famous already through the whole world by the infamie thereof, as it is needlesse to bee repeated or pub- lished any more; the horrour of the sinne it selfe doeth so lowdly proclaime it. For if those crying sinnes, (whereof mention is made in the Scripture) l haue that epithet giuen them for their publique infamie, and for procuring as it were with a lowd cry from heauen a iust vengeance and recompense, and yet those sinnes are both old and too common, neither the world, nor any one Countrey being euer at any time cleane voyd of them : If those sinnes (I say) are said in the Scripture to cry so lowd; What then must this sinne doe, plotted without cause, infinite in crueltie, and singular from all examples ? What proceeded hereupon is likewise notorious to the whole world; our Justice onely taking hold vpon the offenders, and that in as honourable and publique a forme of Triall, as euer was vsed in this Kingdome. 2. For although the onely reason they gaue for plotting so heinous an attempt, was the zeale they caried to the Romish Religion; yet were neuer any other of that profession the worse vsed for that cause, as by our gracious Proclamation immediatly after the discouery of the said fact doeth plainly appeare: onely at the next sitting downe againe of the Parliament, there were Lawes made, setting downe some such orders as were thought fit for preuenting the like mischiefe in tune to come. Amongst which a forme of OATH was framed to be taken by my Subiects, whereby they should make a cleare profession of their resolution, faith- fully to persist in their obedience vnto mee, according to their naturall allegiance; To the end that I might hereby make a separation, not onely betweene all my good Subiects in generall, and vnfathfull Traitors, that intended to withdraw themselues from my obedience; But specially to make a separation betweene so many of my Subiects, who although they were otherwise Popishly affected, yet retained in their hearts the print of their naturall dutie to their Soueraigne; and those who being caried away with the like fanaticall zeale that the Powder- Traitors were, could not conteine themselues within the bounds of their naturall Allegiance, but thought diuersitie of religion a safe pretext for all kinde of trea- 1 Gen. 4. 10. 71 72 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I sons, and rebellions against their Soueraigne. Which godly and wise intent, God did blesse with successe accordingly: For very many of my Subiects that were Popishly affected, aswell Priests, as Layicks, did freely take the same Oath: whereby they both gaue me occasion to thinke the better of their fidelitie, and likewise freed themselues of that heauie slander, that although they were fellow professors of one Religion with the powder-Traitors, yet were they not ioyned with them in treasonable courses against their Soueraigne; whereby all quietly minded Papists were put of despaire, and I gaue a good proofe that I intended no persecution against them for conscience cause, but onely desired to be secured of them for ciuill obedience, which for conscience cause they were bound to performe. 3. But the diuel could not haue deuised a more malicious tricke for interrupting this so calme and clement a course, then fell out by the sending hither, and publish- ing a Breue of the Popes, countermanding all them of his profession to take this Oath; Thereby sowing new seeds of ielousie betweene me and my Popish Subiects, by stirring them vp to disobey that lawfull commandement of their Soueraigne, which was ordeined to bee taken of them as a pledge of their fidelitie ; And so by their refusall of so iust a charge, to giue mee so great and iust a ground for punishment of them, without touching any matter of conscience: throwing themselues needlesly into one of these desperate straits; either with the losse of their lives and goods to renounce their Allegiance to their naturall Soueraigne; or else to procure the condemnation of their soules by renouncing the Catholicke faith, as he alleadgeth. 4. And on the other part, although disparitie of Religion (the Pope being head of the contrary part) can permit no intelligence nor intercourse of messengers betweene mee and the Pope: yet there being no denounced warre betweene vs, he hath by this action broken the rules of common ciuilitie and Justice between Christian Princes, in thus condemning me vnheard, both by accounting me a perse- cutor, which cannot be but implied by exhorting the Papists to endure Martyrdome ; as likewise by so straitly commanding all those of his profession in England, to refuse the taking of this Oath; thereby refusing to professe their naturall obedience to me their Soueraigne. For if he thinke himselfe my lawfull ludge, wherefore hath he condemned me vnheard ? And, if he haue nothing to doe with me and my gouern- ment (as indeed he hath not) why doeth he mittere falcem in alienam messent, to meddle betweene me and my Subiects, especially in matters that meerely and onely concerne ciuill obedience ? And yet could Pius Quintus in his greatest fury and auowed quarrell against the late Queene, doe no more iniurie vnto her; then hee hath in this case offered vnto mee, without so much as a pretended or an alleadged cause. For what difference there is, betweene the commanding Subiects to rebell, and loosing them from their Oath of Allegiance as Pius Quintus did; and the commanding of Subiects not to obey in making profession of their Oath of their dutifull Allegiance, as this Pope hath now done: no man can easily discerne. 5. But to draw neere vnto his Breue, wherein certainely hee hath taken more paines then he needed, by setting downe in the said Breue the whole body of the AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 73 Oath at length; whereas the onely naming of the Title thereof might as well haue serued, for any answere hee hath made thereunto (making Vna litura, that is, the flat and generall condemnation of the whole Oath to seme for all his refuta- tion.) Therein hauing as well in this respect as in the former, dealt both vndiscreetly with me, and iniuriously with his owne Catholickes. With mee; in not refuting particularly what speciall words he quarrelled in that Oath; which if hee had done, it might haue beene that for the fatherly care I haue not to put any of my Subiects to a needlesse extremitie, I might haue beene contented in some sort to haue reformed or interpreted those wordes. With his owne Catho- lickes : for either if I had so done, they had beene thereby fully eased in that businesse; or at least if I would not haue condescended to haue altered any thing in the saide Oath, yet would thereby some appearance or shadow of excuse haue been left vnto them for refusing the same: not as seeming thereby to swarue from their Obedience and Allegiance vnto mee, but onely beeing stayed from taking the same vpon the scrupulous tendernesse of their consciences, in regard of those particular words which the Pope had noted and condemned therein. And now let vs heare the words of his thunder. POPE PAVLVS THE FIFT, TO THE ENGLISH CATHOLICKES. WELBELOUED Sonnes, Salutation and Apostolicall Benediction. The tribulations and calamities, which yee haue continually sustained for the keeping of the Catholike Faith, haue alwayes afflicted vs with great grief e of minde. But for as much as we •understand that at this time all things are more grieuous, our affliction hereby is wonderfully increased. For wee haue heard how you are compelled, by most grieuous punishments set before you, to goe to the Churches of Heretikes, to frequent their assemblies, to be present at their Sermons. Truly wee doe -undoubtedly beleeue, that they which with so great constancie and fortitude, haue hitherto indured most cruell persecutions and almost infinite miseries, that they may walke without spot in the Law of the Lord; will neuer suffer themselves to be defiled with the communion of those that haue forsaken the diuine Law. Yet notwithstanding, being compelled by the zeale of our Pastor all Office, and by our Fatherly care which we doe continually take for the saluation of your soules, we are inforced to admonish and desire you, that by no meanes you come unto the Churches of the Heretickes, or hear their Sermons, or communicate with them in their Rites, lest you incurre the wrath of God: For these things may ye not doe without indamaging the worship of God, and your owne sal- uation. As likewise you cannot, without most euident and grieuous wronging of Gods Honour, bind your selues by the Oath, which in like maner we haue heard with very great grief e of our heart is administred vnto you, of the tenor vnder-written. viz. I A.B. doe trewly and sincerely acknowledge, professe, testifie and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Soueraigne Lord King IAMES, is lawfull King of this Realrne, and of all other his Maiesties Dominions and Coun- 74 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I treyes : And that the Pope neither of himself e, nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by any other meanes with any other, hath any power or au- thoritie to depose the King, or to dispose of any of his Maiesties Kingdomes or Dominions, or to authorize any forreigne Prince to inuade or annoy him or his Countreys, or to discharge any of his Subiects of their Allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie, or to giue Licence or leaue to any of them to beare Armes, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his Maiesties Royall Person, State or Gouernment, or to any of his Maiesties subiects within his Maiesties Dominions. Also I doe sweare from my heart, that, notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of Excommunication, or depriuation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his successors, or by any Authoritie deriued, or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea, against the said King, his heires or successors, or any absolution of the said subiects from their obedience; I will beare faith and trew Allegiance to his Maiestie, his heires and successors, and him and them will defend to the vttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts what- soeuer, which shalbe made against his or their Persons, their Crowne and dignitie, by reason or colour of any such sentence, or declaration, or otherwise, and will doe my best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie, his heires and successors, all Treasons and traiterous conspiracies, which I shall know or heare of, to be against him or any of them. And I doe further sweare, That I doe from my heart abhorre, detest and abiure as impious and Hereticall, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope, may be deposed or murthered by their Subiects or any other whatsoeuer. And I doe beleeue, and in conscience am resolued, that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer, hath power to absolue me of this Oath, or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full authoritie to bee lawfully ministred vnto mee, and doe renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrarie. And all these things I doe plainely and sincerely acknowledge and sweare, according to these expresse words by me spoken, and according to the plaine and common sense and vnderstanding of the same words, without any Equiuocation, or mentall euasion, or secret reseruation whatsoeuer. And I do make this Recognition and acknowledgment heartily, willingly, and trewly, vpon the trew faith of a Christian. So helpe me GOD. Which things since they are thus; it must euidently appear e vnto you by the words themselues, That such an Oath cannot be taken without hurting of the Catholike Faith and the saluation of your soules; seeing it conteines many things which are flat con- trary to Faith and saluation. Wherefore wee doe admonish you, that you doe vtterly abstainefrom taking this and the like Oathes: which thing wee doe the more earnestly require of you, because wee haue experience of the constancie of your faith, which is tried like gold in the fire of perpetuall tribulation. Wee doe well know, that you will cheerfully imder-goe all kinde of cruell torments whatsoeuer, yea and constantly endure AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 75 death itself e, rather then you will in any thing offend the Maiestie of GOD. And this our confidence is confirmed by those things, which are dayly reported mto vs, of the singular iiertue, valour, and fortitude which in these last times doeth no lesse shine in your Martyrs, then it did in the first beginning of the Church. Stand therefore, your loynes being girt about with veritie, and hauing on the brest-plate of righteousness, taking the shield of Faith, be ye strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might; And let nothing hinder you. Hee which will crowne you, and doeth in Heauen behold your conflicts, will finish the good worke which hee hath begun in you. You know how hee hath promised his disciples, that hee will neuer leaue them Orphanes: for hee is faithfull which hath promised. Holdfast therefore his correction, that is, being rooted and grounded in Charitie, whatsoeuer ye doe, whatsoeuer ye indeuour, doe it with one accord, in simplicitie of heart, in meekenesse of Spirit, without murmuring or doubt- ing. For by this doe all men know that we are the disciples of CHRIST, if we haue loue one to another. Which charitie, as it is very greatly to be desired of all faithfull Christians; So certainely it is altogether necessary for you, most blessed sonnes. For by this your charitie, the power of the diuel is weakened, who doeth so much assaile you, since that power of his is especially -upheld by the contentions and disagreement of our sonnes. Wee exhort you therefore by the bowels of our Lord IESVS CHRIST, by whose loue we are taken out of the iawes of eternall death; That above all things, you would haue mutuall charitie among you. Surely Pope Clement the eight of happy memory, hath giuen you most profitable precepts of practising brotherly charitie one to another, in his Letters in forme of a Breue, to our welbeloued sonne M. George Arch-priest of the Kingdome of England, dated the 5. day of the month of October 1602. Put them therefore diligently in practise, and be not hindered by any dijficultie or doubtfulnesse. We command you that ye doe exactly obserue the words of those letters, and that yee take and vnderstand them simply as they sound, and as they lie; all power to interpret them otherwise, being taken away. In the meane while, we will neuer cease to pray to the Father of Mercies, that he would with pitie behold your afflictions and your paines; And that he would keepe and defend you with his continuall protection: whom wee doe gently greet with our Apostolicall Benediction. Dated at Rome at S. Marke, •under the Signet of the Fisherman, the tenth of the Calends of October, 1606. the second yeere of our Popedome. THE ANSWERE TO THE FIRST BREVE. FIRST, the Pope expresseth herein his sorrow, for that persecution which the Catholiques sustaine for the faiths sake. Wherein, besides the maine vntrewth whereby I am so injuriously vsed, I must euer auow and maintaine, as the trewth is according to mine owne knowledge, that the late Queene of famous memory, neuer punished any Papist for Religion, but that their owne punishment was euer extorted out of her hands against her will, by their owne misbehauiour, which both the time and circumstances of her actions will manifestly make proof e of. For before Pius Quintus his excommunication giuing her ouer for a prey, and setting 76 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I her Subiects at libertie to rebell, it is well kriowne she neuer medled with the blood or hard punishment of any Catholique, nor made any rigorous Lawes against them. And since that time, who list to compare with an indifferent eye, the mani- fold intended inuasions against her whole kingdome, the forreine practises, the internall publike rebellions, the priuate plots and machinations, poysonings, murthers, and all sorts of deuises, 6* quid non ? daily set abroach; and all these wares continually fostered and fomented from Rome; together with the con- tinuall corrupting of her Subiects, as well by temporall bribes, as by faire and specious promises of eternall felicitie; and nothing but booke vpon booke pub- likely set foorth by her fugitiues, for approbation of so holy designes: who list, I say, with an indifferent eye, to looke on the one part, vpon those infinite and intol- lerable temptations, and on the other part vpon the iust, yet moderate punish- ment of a part of these hainous offenders; shall easily see that that blessed defunct LADIE was as free from persecution, as they shall free these hellish Instruments from the honour of martyrdome. 5. But now hauing sacrificed (if I may so say) to the Manes of my late Pre- decessour, I may next with Saint PAVL iustly vindicate mine owne fame, from those innumerable calumnies spread against me, in testifying the trewth of my behauiour toward the Papists : wherein I may trewly affirme, That whatsoeuer was her iust and mercifull Gouernement ouer the Papists in her time, my Gouerne- ment ouer them since hath so farre exceeded hers, in Mercie and Clemencie, as not onely the Papists themselues grewe to that height of pride, in confidence of my mildnesse, as they did directly expect, and assuredly promise to themselues libertie of Conscience, and equalitie with other of my Subiects in all things; but euen a number of the best and faithfulliest of my sayde Subiects, were cast in great feare and amazement of my course and proceedings, euer prognosticating and iustly suspecting that sowre finite to come of it, which shewed it selfe clearely in the Powder-Treason. How many did I honour with Knighthood, of knowen and open Recusants ? How indifferently did I giue audience, and accesse to both sides, bestowing equally all fauours and honours on both professions ? How free and continuall accesse, had all rankes and degrees of Papists in my Court and company ? And aboue all, how frankely and freely did I free Recusants of their ordinarie paiments ? Besides, it is euident what strait order was giuen out of my owne mouth to the ludges, to spare the execution of all Priests, (notwithstanding their conuiction,) ioyning thereunto a gracious Proclamation, whereby all Priests, that were at libertie, and not taken, might goe out of the contrey by such a day: my generall Pardon hauing beene extended to all conuicted Priestes in prison: whereupon they were set at libertie as good Subiects: and all Priests that were taken after, sent over and set at libertie there. But time and paper will faile me to make enumeration of all the benefits and fauours that I bestowed in generall and particular vpon Papists: in recounting whereof, euery scrape of my penne would serue but for a blot of the Popes ingratitude and iniustice, in meating me AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 77 with so hard a measure for the same. So as I thinke I haue sufficiently, or at least with good reason wiped the teares1 from the Popes eyes, for complaining vpon such persecution, who if hee had beene but politickely wise, although hee had had no respect to Justice and Veritie, would haue in this complaint of his, made a dif- ference betweene my present time, and the time of the late Queene: And so by his commending of my moderation, in regard of former times, might haue had hope to haue mooued me to haue continued in the same clement course : For it is a trew saying, that alledged kindnesse vpon noble mindes, doeth euer worke much. And for the maine vntrewth of any persecution in my time, it can neuer bee prooued, that any were, or are put to death since I came to the Crowne for cause of Conscience; except that now this discharge giuen by the Pope to all Catholiques to take their Oath of Allegiance to me, be the cause of the due punishment of many : which if it fall out to be, let the blood light vpon the Popes head, who is the onely cause thereof. As for the next point contained in his Breue concerning his discharge of all Papists to come to our Church, or frequent our rites and ceremonies, I am not to meddle at this time with that matter, because my errand now onely is to publish to the world the Iniurie and Iniustice done vnto me, in discharging my subiects to make profession of their obedience vnto mee. Now as to the point where the Oath is quarrelled, it is set downe in few, but very weighty words; to wit, That it ought to be chare vnto all Catholiques, that this Oath cannot bee taken with safetie of the Catholique Faith, and of their soules health, since it containeth many things that are plainely and directly contrarie to their faith and saluation. To this, the old saying fathered vpon the Philosopher, may very fitly bee applied, Multa dicit, sed pauca probat; nay indeed, Nihil omnino probat: For how the profession of the naturall Allegiance of Subiects to their Prince can be directly opposite to the faith and saluation of soules, is so farre beyond my simple reading in Diuinitie, as I must thinke it a strange and new Assertion, to proceed out of the mouth of that pretended generall Pastor of all Christian soules. I reade indeede, and not in one, or two, or three places of Scripture, that Subiects are bound to obey their Princes for conscience sake, whether they were good or wicked Princes. So said the people to loshua,2 As wee obeyed Moses in all things, so will wee obey thee. So the Pro- phet3 commanded the peoples to obey the King of Babel, saying, Put your neckes vnder the yoke of the King of Babel, and serue him and his people, that yee may Hue. So were the children of Israel, vnto Pharaoh* desiring him to let them goe: so to Cyrus,5 obtaining leaue of him to returne to build the Temple: and in a word, the Apostle willed all men to bee subiect to the higher powers for conscience sake.6 Agreeable to the Scriptures did the Fathers teach. Augustine"1 speaking of lulian, saith, lulian was an vnbeleeuing Emperour: was hee not an Apostata, an Oppressour, and an Idolater ? Christian Souldiers serued that vnbeleeuing Emperour: when 1 Magno cum animi mcerore, &c. 'lere. 27. 12. 'Ezra 1.3. * August, in Psalm. 124. » losh. i. 17. « Exod. 5. i. ' Rom. 13. 5. 78 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I they came to the cause of CHRIST, they would acknowledge no Lord, but him that is in heauen. When hee would haue them to worship Idoles and to sacrifice, they preferred GOD before him: But when he said, Goe forth to fight, inuade such a nation, they presently obeyed. They distinguished their eternall Lord from their temporatt, and yet were they subiect euen imto their temporatt Lord, for his sake that was their eternall Lord and Master. Tertullian1 fayth, A Christian is enemie to no man, much lesse to the Prince, whom hee knoweth to bee appointed of God; and so of necessitie must loue, reuerence and honour him, and wish him safe with the whole Romane Empire, so long as the world shall last: for so long shall it endure. Wee honour therefore the Emperour in such sort, as is lawfullfor vs, and expedient for him, as a man, the next imto God, and obtaining from God, whatsoeuer hee hath, and onely inferiour wto God. This the Emperour himself e would : for so is hee greater then all, while hee is inferiour onely to the trew God. lustine Martyr;2 Wee onely adore the Lord, and in all other things cheerefully performe seruice to you, professing that you are Emperours and Princes of men. Ambrose;3 I may lament, weepe, and sigh: My tears are my weapons against their armes, souldiers, and the Gothes also: such are the weapons of a Priest: Otherwise, neither ought I, neither can I resist. Optatus;4 Ouer the Emperour, there is none but onely God, that made the Emperour. And Gregory* writing to Mauritius about a certaine Law, that a Souldier should not be receiued into a Monasterie, nondum expleta militia, The Almightie God, sayeth hee, holdes him guiltie, that is not upright to the most excellent Emperour in all things that hee doeth or speaketh. And then calling himselfe the vnworthy seruant of his Godlinesse, goeth on the whole Epistle to shewe the iniustice of that Lawe, as hee pretendeth: and in the end concludes his Epistle with these wordes; I being subiect to your command, haue caused the same Law to be sent through diuers parts of your Dominions: and because the Law it selfe doeth not agree to the Law of the Almightie God, I haue signified the same by my Letters to your most excellent Lord- ship: so that on both parts I haue payed what I ought; because I haue yeelded obedience to the Emperour, and haue not holden my peace, in what I thought for God. Now how great a contrarietie there is, betwixt this ancient Popes action in obey- ing an Emperour by the publication of his Decree, which in his owne conscience hee thought vnlawfull, and this present Popes prohibition to a Kings Subiects from obedience vnto him in things most lawfull and meere temporall; I remit it to the Readers indifferencie. And answerably to the Fathers, spake the Councels in their Decrees. As the Councell of Aries,6 submitting the whole Councell to the Emperour in these wordes; These things wee haue decreed to be presented to our Lord the Emperour, beseeching his Clemencie, that if wee haue done lesse then wee ought, it may be supplyed by his wisdome: if any thing otherwise then reason re- 1 Tertull. ad Scap. * Greg. Mag. Epist. lib. 2. indict, n. 1 lust. Martyr. Apol. 2. ad Ant. Imperat. Epist. 61. ' Amb. in oral. cont. Auxentium, de basilicis 6 Concil. Arelatense sub Carolo Mag. traden. habetur lib. 5. epist. Ambr. Can. 26. 4 Optat. contra Parmen. lib. 3. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 79 quireth, it may be corrected by his iudgement: if any thing be found fault with by vs •with reason, it may be perfected by his aide with GODS fauourable assistance. But why should I speak of Charles the great, to whome not one Councell, but sixe seuerall Councels, Frankeford, Aries, Tours, Chalons, Ments and Rhemes did wholly submit themselues ? and not rather speake of all the generall Councels, that of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the foure other commonly so reputed, which did submit themselues to the Emperours wisedome and piety in all things ? Insomuch as that of Ephesus repeated it foure seuerall times, That they were summoned by the Emperours Oracle, becke, charge and command, and betooke themselues to his Godlinesse; beseeching him, thai the Decrees made against Nestorius and his followers, might by his power have their full force and validitie,1 as appeareth manifestly in the Epistle of the generall Councell of Ephesus written ad Augustas. I also reade that Christ said, His kingdome2 was not of this world, bidding, Giue to Cesar what was Cesars,3 and to God what was Gods. And I euer held it for an infallible Maxime hi Diuinitie, That temporall obedience to a tem- porall Magistrate, did nothing repugne to matters of faith or saluation of soules: But that euer temporall obedience was against faith and saluation of soules, as in this Breue is alledged, was neuer before heard nor read of hi the Christian Church. And therefore I would haue wished the Pope, before hee had set downe this com- mandement to all Papists here, That, since in him is the power by the infabillity of his spirit, to make new Articles of Faith when euer it shall please him; he had first set it downe for an Article of Faith, before he had commended all Catho- likes to beleeue and obey it. I will then conclude the answere to this point in a Dilemma. Either it is lawfull to obey the Soueraigne in temporall things, or not. 1. If it be lawfull (as I neuer heard nor read it doubted of) then why is the Pope so vniust, and so cruell towards his owne Catholikes, as to command them to disobey their Soueraignes lawfull commandement ? 2. If it be vnlawfull, why hath hee neither expressed any one cause or reason thereof, nor yet will giue them leaue (nay rather hee should command and per- swade them in plaine termes) not to Hue vnder a King whom vnto they ought no obedience ? And as for the vehement exhortation vnto them to perseuere in constancie, and to suffer Martyrdome and all tribulation for this cause; it requireth no other answer then onely this, That if the ground be good whereupon hee hath com- maunded them to stand, then exhortation to constancie is necessarie: but if the ground be vniust and naught (as indeed it is, and I haue in part already proued) then this exhortation of his can worke no other effect, then to make him guilty of the blood of so many of his sheepe, whom hee doeth thus wilfully cast away; not onely to the needlesse losse of their liues, and ruine of their families, but euen to 1 Vide Epistolam generalis Cone. Ephes. ad August. 1 lohn 18. 36. * Matt. 22. 21. 80 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I the laying on of a perpetuall slander vpon all Papists; as if no zealous Papist could be a trew subiect to his Prince; and that the profession of that Religion, and the Temporall obedience to the Ciuill Magistrate, were two things repugnant and incompatible in themselues. But euill information, and vntrew reports l (which being caried so farre as betweene this and Rome, cannot but increase by the way) might haue abused the Pope, and made him dispatch this Breue so rashly: For that great Citie, Queene of the World, and as themselues confesse,2 mystically Babylon, cannot but be so full of all sorts of Intelligencies. Besides, all complainers (as the Catholikes here are) be naturally giuen to exaggerate their owne griefs, and multiply thereupon: So that it is no wonder, that euen a iust ludge sitting there, should vpon wrong information, giue an vnrighteous sentence; as some of their owne partie doe not sticke to confesse, That Pius Quintus was too rashly caried vpon wrong information, to pronounce his thunder of Excommuni- cation vpon the late Queene. And it may be, the like excuse shall hereafter be made for the two Breues, which Clemens Octauus 3 sent to ENGLAND immediatly before her death, for debarring me of the Crowne, or any other that either would professe, or any wayes tolerate the professours of our Religion; contrary to his manifold vowes and protestations, simul & eodem tempore, and as it were, deliuered mo 6* eodem spiritu, to diuers of my ministers abroad, professing such kindnesse, and shewing such forwardnesse to aduance me to this Crowne. Nay, the most part of Catholikes here, finding this Breue when it came to their handes to bee so farre against Diuinitie, Policie, or naturall sense, were firmely perswaded that it was but a counterfeit Libell, deuised in hatred of the Pope; or at the farthest, a thing hastily done vpon wrong information, as was before said. Of which opinion were not onely the simpler sort of Papists, but euen some amongst them of best account, both for learning and experience; whereof the Archpriest himselfe was one : But for soluing of this obiection, the Pope himselfe hath taken new paines by sending foorth a second Breue, onely for giuing faith and confirmation to the former; That whereas before, his sinne might haue beene thought to haue pro- ceeded from rashnesse and mis-information, he will now willfully and willingly double the same; whereof the Copy followeth. TO OVR BELOVED SONNES THE ENGLISH CATHOLIKES, PAULUS P. P. V™5. BELOUED sonnes, Salutation and Apostolicall Benediction. It is reported vnto vs, that there are found certaine amongst you, who when as we haue sufficiently declared by our Letters, dated the last yeere on the tenth of the Calends of October in the forme of a Breue, that yee cannot with safe Conscience take the Oath, which was then re- 1 Fama vires acquirit eundo. 2 Eusebius, Oecumenius and Leo hold, that by Babylon, in i. Pet. 5. 13. Rome is meant, as the Rhemists themselues confesse. • See the Relation of the whole proceedings against the Traitours, Garnet and his confederates. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 81 quired of you; and when as wee haue further straitly commanded you, that by no meanes yee should take it: yet there are some, I say, among you, which dare now affirme, that such Letters concerning the forbidding of the Oath, were not written of our owne accord, or of our owne proper will, but rather for the respect and at the instiga- tion of other men. And for that cause the same men doe goe about to perswade you, that our commands in the said Letters are not to be regarded. Surely this newes did trouble vs; and that so much the more, because hauing had experience of your obedience (most dearly beloued sonnes} who to the end ye might obey this holy Sea, haue godlily and valiantly contemned your riches, wealth, honour, libertie, yea and life it selfe; wee should neuer haue suspected that the trewth of our Apostolike Letters could once be called into question among you, that by this pretence ye might exempt your selues from our Commandements . But we doe herein perceiue the subtiltie and craft of the enemie of mans saluation, and we doe attribute this your backwardnesse rather to him, then to your owne will. And for this cause, wee haue thought good to write the second time •onto you, and to signifie vnto you againe, That our Apostolike Letters dated the last yeere on the tenth of the Calends of October, concerning the prohibition of the Oath, were written not only vpon our proper motion, and of our certaine knowledge, but also after long and weightie deliberation -used concerning all those things, which are contained in them; and that for that cause ye are bound fully to obserue them, reiecting all interpretation perswading to the contrary. And this is our meere, pure, and perfect will, being alwayes carefull of your saluation, and alwayes minding those things, which are most profitable vnto you. And we doe pray without ceasing, that hee that hath appointed our lowlinesse to the keeping of the flocke of Christ, would inlighten our tlwughts and our counsels: whom we doe also continually desire, that he would increase in you (our beloued Sonnes) faith, constancie, and mutuall charitie and peace one to another. All whom, we doe most louingly blesse with all charitable affection. Dated at ROME at Saint Markes vnder the Signet of the Fisherman, the x. of the Calends of September, 1607. the third yeere of our Popedome. THE ANSWERE TO THE SECOND BREVE. Now for this Breue, I may iustly reflect his owne phrase vpon him, in tearming it to be The craft of the Deuill. For if the Deuill had studied a thousand yeeres, for to finde out a mischief e for our Catholikes heere, hee hath found it in this: that now when many Catholikes haue taken their Oath, and some Priests also; yea, the Arch-priest himselfe, without compunction or sticking, they shall not now onely be bound to refuse the profession of their naturall Allegiance to their Soueraigne, which might yet haue beene some way coloured vpon diuers scruples conceiued vpon the words of the Oath; but they must now renounce and for- sweare their profession of obedience alreadie sworne, and so must as it were at the third instance forsweare their former two Oathes, first closely sworne, by their 82 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I birth in their naturall Allegiance; and next, clearly confirmed by this Oath, which doeth nothing but expresse the same: so as no man can now holde the faith, or procure the saluation of his soule in ENGLAND that must not abiure and renounce his borne and sworne Allegiance to his naturall Soueraigne. And yet it is not sufficient to ratifie the last yeeres Breue, by a new one come forth this yeere; but (that not onely euery yeere, but euery moneth may produce a new monster) the great and famous Writer of the Controuersies, the late vn-Iesuited Cardinall Bellarmine, must adde his talent to this good worke, by blowing the bellowes of sedition, and sharpening the spurre to rebellion, by send- ing such a Letter of his to the Arch-priest here, as it is a wonder how passion, and an ambitious desire of maintaining that Monarchic, should charme the wits of so famously learned a man. The Copy whereof here followeth. TO THE VERY REVEREND MR. GEORGE BLACKWELL, ARCH-PRIEST OF THE ENGLISH: ROBERT BELLARMINE CARDINALL OF THE HOLY CHURCH OF ROME, GREETING. REUEREND SIR, and brother in CHRIST; // is almost fourtie yeeres since we did see one the other: but yet I haue bene mmindfull of our ancient acquaintance, neither haue I ceased seeing I could doe you no other good, to commend your labouring most pain- fully in the Lords Vineyard, in my prayers to God. And I doubt not, but that I haue liued all this while in your memory, and haue had some place in your prayers at the Lords Altar. So therefore euen wito this time we haue abidden, as S. lohn speaketh, in the mutall loue one of the other, not by word or letter, but in deed and trewth. But a late message which was brought imto vs within these few dayes, of your bonds and imprisonment, hath inforced mee to breake ojf this silence; which message, although it seemed heauie in regard of the losse which that Church hath receiued, by their being thus depriued of the comfort of your pastorall function amongst them, yet withall it seemed ioyous, because you drew neere vnto the glory of Martyrdome, then the which gift of God there is none more happy; That you, who hauefedde your flocke so many yeeres with the word and doctrine, should now feed it more gloriously by the example of your patience. But another heauie tidings did not a little disquiet and almost take away this ioy, which immediatly followed, of the aduersaries assault, and per aduen- ture of the slip and fall of your constancie in refusing an mlawfull Oath. Neither trewly (most deare brother) could that Oath therefore bee lawfull, because it was offered in sort tempered and modified: for you know that those kinde of modifications are nothing else, but sleights and subtilties of Satan, that the Catholique faith touching the Primacie of the Sea Apostolike, might either secretly or openly be shot at; for the which faith so many worthy Martyrs euen in that very England it selfe, haue resisted vnto blood. For most certaine it is, that in whatsoeuer words the Oath is conceiued by, the aduersaries of the faith in that Kingdome, it tends to this end, that the Authoritie AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 83 of the head of the Church in England, may bee transferred from the successour of S. Peter, to the successour of King Henry the eight: For that which is pretended of the danger of the Kings life, if the high Priest should haue the same power in England, which hee hath in all other Christian Kingdomes, it is altogether idle, as all that haue any vnder standing, may easily perceiue. For it was neuer heard of from the Churches infancie mtill this day, that euer any Pope did command, that any Prince, though an Heretike, though an Ethnike, though a persecutour, should be murdered; or did approue of the fact, when it was done by any other. And why, I pray you, doeth onely the King of England feare that, which none of all other the Princes in Christendome either doeth feare, or euer did feare ? But, as I said, these mine pretexts are but the traps and stratagemes of Satan: Of which kinde I could produce not afewe out of ancient Stories, if I went about to write a Booke and not an Epistle. One onely for example sake, I will call to your memory. S. Gregorius Nazianzenus in his first Oration against lulian the Em- perour, reporteth, That hee, the more easily to beguile the simple Christians, did insert the Images of the false gods into the pictures of the Emperour, which the Romanes did vse to bow downe wto with a ciuill kinde of reuerence: so that no man could doe reuerence to the Emperour s picture, but withall hee must adore the Images of the false gods; whereupon it came to passe that many were deceiued. And if there were any that found out the Emperours craft, and refused to worship his picture, those were most grieuously punished, as men that had contemned the Emperour in his Image. Some such like thing, me thinkes, I see in the Oath that is offered to you; which is so craftily composed, that no man can detest Treason against the King, and make profession of his Ciuill subiection, but he must bee constrained perfidiously to denie the Primacie of the Apostolicke Sea. But the seruants of Christ, and especially the chief e Priests of the Lord, ought to bee so farre from taking an vnlawfull Oath, where they may indamage the Faith, that they ought to beware that they giue not the least suspicion of dissimulation that they haue taken it, least they might seeme to haue left any example of preuarication tofaithfull people. Which thing that worthy Eleazar did most notably performe, who would neither eate swines flesh, nor so much as faine to haue eaten it, although hee sawe the great torments that did hang ouer his head; least, as himself e speaketh in the second Booke of the Machabees, many young men might bee brought through that simulation, to preuaricate with the Lawe. Neither did Basil the Great by his example, which is more fit for our purpose, cary himself e lesse worthily toward Valens the Emperour. For as Theodoret writeth in his Historie, when the Deputy of that heretical Emperour did perswade Saint Basil, that hee would not resist the Emperour for a little subtiltie of a few points of doctrine; that most holy and prudent man made answere, That it was not to be indured, that the least syllable of Gods word should be corrupted, but rather all kind of torment was to be embraced, for the maintenance of the Trewth thereof. Now I suppose, that there wants not amongst you, who say that they are but subtilties of Opinions that are contained in the Oath that is offered to the Catholikes, and that you are not to striue against the Kings 84 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Authoritie for such a little matter. But there are not wanting also amongst you holy men like vnlo Basil the Great, which will openly auow, that the very least syllable of Gods diuine Trewth is not to bee corrupted, though many torments were to bee en- dured, and death it selfe set before you: Amongst whom it is meete, that you should bee one, or rather the Standard-bearer, and Generall to the rest. And whatsoeuer hath beene the cause, that your Constancie hath quailed, whether it bee the suddaineness of your apprehension, or the bitternesse of your persecution, or the imbecilitie of your old age: yet wee trust in the goodnesse of God, and in your owne long continued vertue, that it will come to passe, that as you seeme in some part to haue imitated the fall of Peter and Marcellinus, so you shall happily imitate their valour in recouering your strength, and maintaining the Trewth: For if you will diligently weigh the whole matter with your selfe, trewly you shall see, it is no small matter that is called in ques- tion by this Oath, but one of the principall heads of our Faith, and foundations of Catholique Religion. For heare what your Apostle Saint Gregorie the Great hath written in his 24. Epistle of his n. Booke. Let not the reuerence due to the Apos- tolique Sea, be troubled by any mans presumption; for then the state of the members doeth remaine entire, when the Head of the Faith is not bruised by any iniurie : Therefore by Saint Gregories testimonie, when they are busie about disturbing or diminishing, or taking away of the Primacie of the Apostolique Sea; then are they busie about cutting of the very head of the faith, and dissoluing of the state of the whole body, and of all the members. Which selfe same thing S. Leo doth confirme in his third Sermon of his Assumption to the Popedom, when he saith, Our Lord had a special care of Peter, & praied properly for Peters faith, as though the state of others were more stable, when their Princes mind was not to be ouercome. Where- upon himself e in his Epistle to the bishops of the prouince of Vienna, doth not doubt to qffirme, that he is not partaker of the diuine Mysterie, that dare depart from the solidity of Peter, who also saith, That who thinketh the Primacy to be denied to that Sea, he can in no sort lessen the authority of it; but by being puft vp with the spirit of his owne pride, doth cast himselfe headlong into hel. These and many many other of this kind, I am very sure are most familiar to you: who besides many other books, haue diligently read ouer the visible Monarchy of your owne Sanders, a most diligent writer, and one who hath worthily deserued of the Church of England Neither can you be ignorant, that these most holy and learned men, lohn bishop of Rochester, and Tho. Moore, within our memory, for this one most weighty head of doctrine, led the way to Martyrdome to many others, to the exceeding glory of the English nation. But I would put you in remembrance that you should take heart, and considering the weightines of the cause, not to trust too much to your owne iudgement, neither be wise aboue that is meet to be wise: and if peraduenture your fall haue proceeded not vpon want of consideration, but through humane infirmity, &• for fear e of punishment and imprisonment, yet do not preferre a temporall liberty to the liberty of the glory of the Sonnes of God: neither for escaping a light & momentarie tribulation, lose an eternal weight of glory, which tribulation it selfe doeth worke in you. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 85 You haue fought a good fight a long time, you haue wel-neere finished your course; so many yeeres haue you kept the faith: do not therefore lose the reward of such labors do not depriue your selfe of that crowne of righteousnes, which so long agone is pre- pared for you; Do not make the faces of so many yours both brethren and children ashamed. Vpon you at this time are fixed the eyes of all the Churches: yea also, you are made a spectacle to the world, to Angels, to men; Do not so carry your selfe in this your last act, that you leaue nothing but laments to your friends, and ioy to your enemies. But rather on the contrary, which we assuredly hope, and for which we continually powre forth prayers to God, display gloriously the banner of faith, and make to reioyce the Church, which you haue made heauy; so shall you not onely merite pardon at Gods hands, but a Crowne. Farewell. Quite you like a man, and let your heart be strengthened. From Rome the 28. day of September 1607. Your very Reuerendships brother and seruant in Christ, Robert Bellarmine Cardinall. THE ANSWERE TO THE CARDINALS LETTER. AND now that I am to enter into the field against him by refuting his Letter, I must first vse this protestation ; That no desire of vaine-glory by matching with so learned a man, maketh me to vndertake this taske; but onely the care and conscience I haue, that such smooth Circes charmes and guilded pilles, as full of exterior eloquence, as of inward vntrewths, may not haue that publike passage through the world without an answere: whereby my reputation might vniustly be darkened, by such cloudie and foggie mists of vntrewths and false imputations, the hearts of vnstayed and simple men be misse-led, and the trewth it selfe smothered. But before I come to the particular answere of this Letter, I must here desire the world to wonder with me, at the committing of so grosse an errour by so learned a man: as that he should haue pained himself e to haue set downe so elaborate a Letter, for the refutation of a quite mistaken question: For it ap- peareth, that our English Fugitiues, of whose inward societie with him he so greatly vaunteth, haue so fast hammered in his head the Oath of Supremacie, which hath euer bene so great a scarre vnto them, as he thinking by his Letter to haue refuted the last Oath, hath in place thereof onely paied the Oath of Supre- macie, which was most in his head; as a man that being earnestly caried in his thoughts vpon another matter, then he is presently in doing, will often name the matter or person he is thinking of, in place of the other thing he hath at that time in hand. For as the Oath of Supremacie was deuised for putting a difference betweene Papists, and them of our profession: so was this Oath, which hee would seeme to impugne, ordained for making difference betweene the ciuilly obedient Papists, and the peruerse disciples of the Powder-Treason. Yet doeth all his Letter runne 86 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I vpon an Inuectiue against the compulsion of Catholiques to deny the authoritie of S. Peters successors, and in place thereof to acknowledge the Successors of King Henry the eight: For in K. Henry the eights time, was the Oath of Supremacie first made: By him were Thomas Moore and Rojfensis put to death, partly for refusing of it : From his time till now, haue all the Princes of this land professing this Religion, successiuely in effect maintained the same: and in that Oath onely is contained the Kings absolute power, to be ludge ouer all persons, aswell Ciuill as Ecclesiastical, excluding al forraigne powers and Potentates to be Judges within his dominions; whereas this last made Oath containeth no such matter, onely medling with the ciuill obedience of Subiects to their Soueraigne, in meere temporall causes. And that it may the better appeare, that whereas by name hee seemeth to condemne the last Oath; yet indeed his whole Letter runneth vpon nothing, but vpon the condemnation of the Oath of Supremacie: I haue here thought good to set downe the said Oath, leauing it then to the discretion of euery indifferent reader^to iudge, whether he doth not in substance onely answere to the Oath of Supremacie, but that hee giues the child a wrong name. I A.B. doe "utterly testifie and declare in my conscience, that the Kings Highnesse is the onely Supreame Gouernour of this Realme, and all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries, aswell in all Spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as Tem- porall: And that no forraine Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to haue any lurisdiction, Power, Superioritie, Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesasticall or Spirituall within this Realme. And therefore I doe vtterly renounce and forsake all forraine Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities and Authorities; and doe promise that from hencefoorth I shall bear e faith and trew Allegiance to the Kings Highnesse, his Heires and lawfull Successours: and to my power shall assist and defend all lurisdictions, Priuiledges, Preeminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highnesse, his Heires and Successours, or -united and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of the Realme: So helpe me God; and by the Contents of this booke. And that the injustice, as well as the error of his grosse mistaking in this point, may yet be more clearely discouered; I haue also thought good to insert here immediatly after the Oath of Supremacie, the contrary conclusions to all the points and Articles, whereof this other late Oath doeth consist : whereby it may appeare, what vnreasonable and rebellious points hee would driue my Subiects vnto, by refusing the whole body of that Oath, as it is concerned: For he that shall refuse to take this Oath, must of necessitie hold all, or some of these pro- positions following. 1. That I King IAMES, am not the lawfull King of this Kingdome, and of all other my Dominions. 2. That the Pope by his owne authoritie may depose me: If not by his owne authoritie, yet by some other authoritie of the Church, or of the Sea of Rome: AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 87 If not by some other authoritie of the Church and Sea of Rome, yet by other meanes with others helpe, he may depose me. 3. That the Pope may dispose of my Kingdomes and Dominions. 4. That the Pope may giue authoritie to some forreine Prince to inuade my Dominions. 5. That the Pope may discharge my Subiects of their Allegiance and Obe- dience to me. 6. That the Pope may giue licence to one, or more of my Subiects to beare armes against me. 7. That the Pope may giue leaue to my Subiects to offer violence to my Person, or to my gouernement, or to some of my Subiects. 8. That if the Pope shall by Sentence excommunicate or depose mee, my Subiects are not to beare Faith and Allegiance to me. 9. If the Pope shall by Sentence excommunicate or depose me, my Subiects are not bound to defend with all their power my Person and Crowne. 10. If the Pope shall giue out any Sentence of Excommunication or Depri- uation against me, my Subiects by reason of that Sentence, are not bound to reueale all Conspiracies and Treasons against mee, which shall come to their hearing and knowledge. 11. That it is not hereticall and detestable to hold, that Princes being excom- municated by the Pope, may be either deposed or killed by their Subiects, or any other. 12. That the Pope hath power to absolue my Subiects from this Oath, or from some part thereof. 13. That this Oath is not administred to my Subiects, by a full and lawfull authoritie. 14. That this Oath is to be taken with Equiuocation, mentall euasion, or secret reseruation; and not with the heart and good will, sincerely in the trew faith of a Christian man. These are the trew and naturall branches of the body of this Oath. The affirmatiue of all which negatiues, doe neither concerne in any case the Popes Supremacie in Spirituall causes: nor yet were euer concluded, and defined by any complete generall Councell1 to belong to the Popes authoritie; and their owne schoole Doctors are at irreconciliable oddes and iarres about them. And that the world may yet farther see ours and the whole States setting downe of this Oath, did not proceed from any new inuention of our owne, but as it is warranted by the word of GOD: so doeth it take the example from an Oath of Allegiance decreed a thousand yeeres agone, which a famous Councell then, together with diuers other Councels, were so farre from condemning (as the Pope now hath done this Oath) as I haue thought good to set downe their owne wordes here in that purpose: whereby it may appear that I craue nothing now of my 1 Touching the pretended Councell of Lateran. See Plat. In vita Innocen. III. 88 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Subiects in this Oath, which was not expresly and carefully commaunded then, by the Councels to be obeyed without exception of persons. Nay not in the very particular point of Equivocation, which I in this Oath was so carefull to haue eschewed: but you shall here see the said Councels in their Decrees, as carefull to prouide for the eschewing of the same; so as almost euery point of that action, & this of ours shalbe found to haue relation & agreeance one with the other, saue onely in this, that those old Councels were careful and strait in commanding the taking of the same : whereas by the contrary, he that now vanteth himselfe to be head of al Councels, is as careful & strait in the prohibition of all men from the taking of this Oath of Allegiance. The words of the Councell be these: Heare our sentence. Whosoeuer of vs, or of all the people thorowout all Spaine, shall goe about by any meanes of conspiracie or practise, to violate the Oath of his fidelitie, which he hath taken for the preseruation of his Counlrey, or of the Kings life; or who shall attempt to put violent handes vpon the King; or to depriue him of his kingly power; or that by tyrannicall presumption would vsurpe the Soueraigntie of the Kingdome: Let him bee accursed in the sight of God the Father, and of his Angels; and let him bee made and declared a stranger from the Catholique Church, which hee hath prophaned by his periurie; and an aliant from the companie of all Christian people, together with all the complices of his impietie; because it behooueth all those that bee guiltie of the like offence, to wider-lie the like punishment.1 Which sentence is three seuerall times together, and almost in the same wordes, repeated in the same Canon. After this, the Synode desired, That this Sentence of theirs now this third time rehearsed, might bee confirmed by the wyce and consent of all that were present. Then the whole Clergie and people answered, Whosoeuer shall cary himselfe presumptuously against this your definitiue sentence, let them be Anathema maranatha, that is, let them bee vtterly destroyed at the Lords camming, and let them and their complices haue their portion with ludas Iscarioth. Amen. And in the fifth Councell,2 there it is decreed, That this Acte touching the Oath of Allegiance, shall bee repeated in euery Councell of the Bishops of Spaine. The Decree is in these wordes : In consideration that the mindes of men are easily inclined. to euill and forgetfulnesse, therefore this most holy Synode hath ordained; and doeth enact, That in euery Councell of the Bishops of Spaine, the Decree of the generall Councell 3 which was made for the safetie of our Princes, shall bee with an audible wyce proclaimed and pronounced, after the conclusion of all other things in the Synode: That so it being often sounded into their eares, at least by continuall remembrance, the mindes of wicked men beeing terrified, might bee reformed, which by obliuion and facilitie [to euill] are brought to preuaricate. 1 Concil. Tolet. 4 can. 47. Anno 633. 1 Concil. Tolet. 5. Can. 7. anno 636. 3 Synod. Tolet. 4. vniuersalis, & magna Synodus dicta, Synod. Tolet. 5. cap. 2. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 89 And in the sixt Councell,1 Wee doe protest before God, and all the orders of Angels, in the presence of the Prophets and Apostles, and all the companie of Martyrs, and before all the Catholique Church, and assemblies of the Christians; That no man shall goe about to seeke the destruction of the King: No man shall touch the life of the Prince: No man shall depriue him of the Kingdome: No man by any tyrannical pre- sumption shall vsurpe to himself e the Soueraigntie of the Kingdome: No man by any Machination shall in his aduersitie associate to himself e any packe of Conspirators against him: And that if any of vs shall be presumptuous by rashnesse in any of these cases, let him be stricken with the anatheme of God, and reputed as condemned in eternall iudgement without any hope of recouery. And in the tenth Councell2 (to omit diuers others held also at Toledo) it is said : That if any religious man, euen from the Bishop to the lowest Order of the Church-men or Monkes, shall bee found to haue violated the generall Oathes made for the presentation of the Kinges Person, or of the Nation and Countrey with a prophane minde; foorthwith let him bee depriued of all dignitie, and excluded from all place and Honour. The occasion of the Decrees made for this Oath, was, That the Chris- tians were suspected for want of fidelitie to their Kings; and did either equiuocate in taking their Oath, or make no conscience to keepe it, when they had giuen it; as may appeare by sundry speeches in the Councell,3 saying, There is a generall report, that there is that perfidiousnesse in the mindes of many people of diuers Nations, that they make no conscience to keepe the Oath and fidelitie that they haue sworne vnto their Kings: but doe dissemble a profession of fidelitie in their mouthes, when they hold an impious perfidiousnesse in their mindes. And againe, They sweare to their Kings, and yet doe they preuaricate in the fidelitie which they haue promised: Neither doe they feare the Volume of Gods iudgement, by the which the curse of God is brought vpon them, with great threatening of punishments, which doe sweare lyingly in the Name of God.* To the like effect spake they in the Councill of Aquisgran: If any of the Bishops, or other Church-man of inferiour degree, hereafter thorow feare or couetousnesse, or any other perswasion, shall make defection from our Lord the Orthodoxe Emperour Lodowicke, or shall violate the Oath of fidelitie made vnto him, or shall with their peruerse intention adhere to his enemies; let him by this Canonicall and Synodall sentence bee depriued of whatsoeuer place hee is possessed of.5 And now to come to a particular answere of his Letter. First, as concerning the sweet memory hee hath of his old acquaintance with the Arch-priest; it may indeed be pleasing for him to recount: but sure I am, his acquaintance with him and the rest of his societie, our Fugitiues (whereof he also vanteth himself e in his Preface to the Reader in his Booke of Controuersies) hath prooued sowre to vs Concil. Tolet. 6. Can. 18. Anno 638. Concil. Tolet. 10. Can. 2. JEm 694. Concil. Tolet. 4. cap. 74. Concil. Tolet. 4. cap. 74. Concil. Aquis. gran, sub Ludo Pio, & Greg.; 4. Can. 12. anno 836. 90 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I and our State : For some of such Priests l and lesuits, as were the greatest Traitors and fomenters of the greatest conspiracies against the late Queene, gaue vp Father Rob: Bellarmine for one of their greatest authorities and oracles: And therefore I do not enuy the great honour he can winne, by his vaunt of his inward familiarity with an other Princes traitors & fugitiues; whom vnto if he teach no better maners then hitherto he hath done, I thinke his fellowship are litle beholding vnto him. And for desiring him to remember him in his prayers at the Altar of the Lord: if the Arch-Priests prayers prooue no more profitable to his soule, then Bellar- mines counsell is like to proue profitable, both to the soule and bodie of Black-well (if he would follow it) the authour of this Letter might very well be without his prayers. Now the first messenger that I can finde which brought ioyfull newes of the Arch-Priest to Bellarmine, was hee that brought the newes of the Arch-Priests taking, and first appearance of Martyrdome. A great signe surely of the Cardi- nals mortification, that hee was so reioyced to heare of the apprehension, im- prisonment and appearance of putting to death of so old and deare a friend of his. But yet apparantly he should first haue beene sure, that hee was onely to bee punished for cause of Religion, before hee had so triumphed vpon the expectation of his Martyrdome. For first, by what rule of charitie was it lawfull for him to iudge mee a persecutour, before proofe had beene made of it by the said Arch- Priests condemnation and death ? What could hee know, that the said Arch- Priest was not taken vpon suspicion of his guiltinesse in the Powder-Treason ? What certaine information had hee then receiued vpon the particulars, whereupon hee was to bee accused ? And last of all, by what inspiration could he foretell whereupon hee was to bee accused ? For at that time there was yet nothing layed to his charge. And if charitie should not bee suspicious, what warrant had hee absolutely to condemne mee of vsing persecution and tyrannic, which could not bee but implyed vpon mee, if Blackwel was to bee a Martyr ? But surely it may iustly be sayd of Bellarmine in this case, that our Sauiour CHRIST saith of all worldly and carnall men, who thinke it enough to loue their friends,2 and hate their enemies; the limits of the Cardinals charitie extending no farther, then to them of his owne profession. For what euer hee added in superfluous charitie to Blackwel, in reioycing in the speculation of his future Martyrdome; hee detracted as much vniustly and vncharitably from me, in accounting of me thereby as of a bloody Persecutour. And whereas this ioy of his was interrupted by the next messenger, that brought the newes of the saide Arch-Priest his failing in his constancie, by taking of this Oath; he needed neuer to haue beene troubled, either with his former ioy or his second sorrow, both beeing alike falsly grounded. For as it was neuer my intention to lay any thing vnto the said Arch-Priests charge, as I haue neuer done to any for cause of conscience, so was Blackwels constancie 1 Campian and Hart. See the conference in the Tower. * Mat. 5. 43. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 91 neuer brangled by taking of this Oath; It beeing a thing which he euer thought lawfull before his apprehension, and whereunto hee perswaded all Catholiques to giue obedience; like as after his apprehension, hee neuer made doubt or stop in it; but at the first offering it vnto him, did freely take it, as a thing most lawfull; neither meanes of threatening, or flatterie being euer vsed vnto him, as himselfe can yet beare witnesse. And as for the temperature and modification of this Oath, except that a rea- sonable and lawfull matter is there set downe in reasonable and temperate wordes, agreeing thereunto ; I know not what he can meane, by quarelling it for that fault : For no temperatenesse nor modifications in words therein, can iustly be called the Deuils craft; when the thing it selfe is so plaine, and so plainely interpreted to all them that take it; as the onely troublesome thing in it all, bee the wordes vsed in the end thereof, for eschewing Mquiuocation and M entail reserualion. Which new Catholike doctrine, may farre iustlier bee called the Deuils craft, then any plaine and temperate wordes, in so plaine and cleare a matter. But what shall we say of these strange countrey clownes, whom of with the Satyre we may iustly complaine, that they blow both hote & cold out of one mouth ? For Luther and all our bold and free-speaking Writers are mightily railed vpon by them, as hote- brained fellowes, and speakers by the Deuils instinct: and now if we speake moderately and temperately of them, it must be tearmed the Deuils craft: And therefore wee may iustly complaine with CHRIST, that when we mourne, they wil not lament : and when we pipe, they wil not dance.1 But neither lohn Baptist his seueritie, nor CHRIST his meekenesse and lenitie can please them, who build but to their owne Monarchie vpon the ground of their owne Traditions; and not to CHRIST vpon the ground of his word and infallible trewth. But what can bee meant by alleadging, that the craft of the Deuill herein, is onely vsed for subuersion of the Catholique Faith, and euersion of Saint Peters Primacie; had neede bee commented anew by Bellarmine himselfe : For in all this Letter of his, neuer one word is vsed, to prooue that by any part of this Oath the Primacie of Saint Peter is any way medled with, except Master Bellarmine his bare alleadging; which without proouing it by more cleare demonstration, can neuer satisfie the conscience of any reasonable man. For (for ought that I know) heauen and earth are no farther asunder, then the profession of a temporall obedience to a temporall King, is different from any thing belonging to the Catholique Faith, or Supremacie of Saint Peter: For as for the Catholique Faith; can there be one word found in all that Oath, tending or sounding to matter of Religion ? Doeth he that taketh it, promise there to beleeue, or not to beleeue any article of Religion ? Or doeth hee so much as name a trew or false Church there ? And as for Saint Peters Primacie ; I know no Apostles name that it therein named, except the name of IAMES, it being my Christen name: though it please him not to deigne to name me in all the Letter; albeit, the contents thereof con- 1 Mat. ii. 17. 92 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I cerne mee in the highest degree. Neither is there any mention at all made therein, either disertis verbis, or by any other indirect meanes, either of the Hierarchic of the Church, of Saint Peters succession, of the Sea Apostolike, or of any such mat- ter: but that the Author of our Letter doeth brauely make mention of Saint Peters succession, bringing it in comparison with the succession of Henry the eight. Of which vnapt and vnmannerly similitude, I wonder he should not be much ashamed: For as to King Henries Successour (which hee meaneth by mee) as I, I say, neuer did, nor will persume to create any Article of Faith, or to bee ludge thereof; but to submit my exemplarie obedience vnto them, in as great humilitie as the meanest of the land: so if the Pope could bee as well able to prooue his either Personall or Doctrinall Succession from Saint Peter, as I am able to prooue my lineall descent from the Kings of England and Scotland; there had neuer beene so long adoe, nor so much sturre kept about this question in Christen- dome; neither had Master Bellarmine 1 himself e needed to haue bestowed so many sheetes of paper De summo Pontifice, in his great bookes of Controuersies: And when all is done, to conclude with a morall certitude, and a pie credendum; bringing in the Popes,2 that are parties in this cause, to be his witnesses: and yet their historicall narration must bee no article of Faith. And I am without vanterie sure, that I doe farre more neerely imitate the worthie actions of my Predecessours, then the Popes in our aage can be well proued to be similes Petro, especially in cursing of Kings, and setting free their Subiects from their Allegiance vnto them. But now wee come to his strongest argument, which is, That he would alledge vpon mee a Panicke terrour, as if I were possessed with a needlesse feare: For, saith the Cardinall, from the beginning of the Churches first infancie, euen to this day, where was it euer heard, that euer a Pope either commaunded to bee killed, or allowed, the slaughter of any Prince whatsoeuer, whether hee were an Hereticke, an Ethnicke, or Persecutour ? But first, wherefore doeth he here wilfully, and of purpose omit the rest of the points mentioned in that Oath, for deposing, degrad- ing, stirring vp of armes, or rebelling against them, which are as well mentioned in that Oath, as the killing of them ? as beeing all of one consequence against a King, no Subiect beeing so scrupulous, as that hee will attempt the one, and leaue the other vnperformed if hee can. And yet surely I cannot blame him for passing it ouer, since he could not otherwise haue eschewed the direct belying of himselfe in tearmes, which hee now doeth but in substance and effect: For as for the Popes deposing and degrading of Kings, hee maketh so braue vaunts and bragges of it in his former bookes, as he could neuer with ciuill honestie haue denied it here.3 But to returne to the Popes allowing of killing of Kinges, I know not with what face hee can set so stout a deniall vpon it against his owne knowledge. How many Emperours did the Pope raise warre against in their owne bowels ? Who 1 Bellar. de Rom. Pont. li. 4. cap. 6. Ibid. 1. 2. ca. 12. * Idem ibid. lib. 2. cap. 14. • Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 8. et lib. 3. cap. 16. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 93 as they were ouercome in battaile, were subiect to haue beene killed therein, which I hope the Pope could not but haue allowed, when he was so farre inraged at Henry l the fifth for giuing buriall to his fathers dead corpes, after the Pope 2 had stirred him vp to rebell against his father, and procured his mine. But leauing these olde Histories to Bettarmines owne bookes, that doe most authen- tically cite them, as I haue already said, let vs turne our eyes vpon our owne time, and therein remember what a Panegyricke 3 Oration was made by the Pope, in praise and approbation of the Frier and his fact, that murthered king Henry the third of France, who was so farre from either being Hereticke, Ethnicke, or Per- secutor in their account, that the said Popes owne wordes in that Oration are, That a trew Friar hath killed a counterfeit Frier. And besides that vehement Oration and congratulation for that fact, how neere it scaped, that the said Frier was not canonized for that glorious act, is better knowen to Bellarmine and his followers, then to vs here. But sure I am, if some Cardinals had not beene more wise and circumspect in that errand, then the Pope himselfe was, the Popes owne Kalender of his Saints would haue sufficiently proued Bellarmin a Her in this case. And to draw yet neerer vnto our selues; how many practises and attempts were made against the late Queenes life, which were directly enioyned to those Traitours by their Con- fessors, and plainly authorized by the Popes allowance ? For verification whereof, there needs no more proofe, then that neuer Pope either then or since, called any Church-man in question for medling in any those treasonable conspiracies; nay, the Cardinals owne S. Sander us mentioned in his Letter, could well verifie this trewth if, hee were aliue ; and who will looke his bookes, will find them filled with no other doctrine then this. And what difference there is betweene the killing, or allowing the slaughter of Kings, and the stirring vp and approbation of prac- tises to kill them; I remit to Bellarmines owne iudgement. It may then very clearely appeare, how strangely this Authors passion hath made him forget him- selfe, by implicating himselfe in so strong a contradiction against his owne knowl- edge and conscience, against the witnesse of his former bookes, and against the practise of our owne times. But who can wonder at this contradiction of himselfe in this point, when his owne great Volumes are so filled with contradictions ? which when either he, or any other shall euer bee able to reconcile, I will then beleeue that hee may easily reconcile this impudent strong deniall of his in his Letter, of any Popes medling against Kings, with his owne former bookes, as I haue already said. And that I may not seeme to imitate him in affirming boldly that which I no wayes prooue; I will therefore send the Reader to looke for witnesses of his con- tradictions, in such places here mentioned in his owne booke. In his bookes of lustification,4 there he affirmeth, That for the vncertaintie of our owne proper 1 Gotfrid. Viterb. Helmed. Cuspinian. * Paschal. 2. ' See the Oration of Sixtus Quintus, made in the Consistory vpon the death of Henry the 3. 4 Bellar. de lustif. lib. 5. cap. 7. 94 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I righteousness, and for auoiding of vaine-glory, it is most sure and safe, to repose our whole confidence in the alone mercy and goodnesse of God;. Which proposition of his, is directly contrary to the discourse, and current of all his fiue bookes de lustificatione,1 wherein the same is contained. God doeth not encline a man to euill, either naturally or morally.2 Presently after, hee affirmeth the contrary, That God doeth not encline to euill naturally, but morally.3 All the Fathers teach constantly, That Bishops doe succeed the Apostles, and Priests the seuentie disciples* Elsewhere he affirmeth the contrary, That Bishops doe not properly succeede the Apostles.6 That ludas did not beleeue.6 Contrary, That ludas was iust and certainly good? The keeping of the Law according to the substance of the worke, doeth require that the Commandement be so kept, that sinne be not committed, and the man be not guiltiefor hauing not kept the Commandement.6 Contrary, It is to be knowen that it is not all one, to doe a good morall worke, and to keepe the Commandement according to the substance of the worke: For the Commandement may be kept according to the substance of the worke, euen with sinne; as if one should restore to his friend the thing committed to him of trust, to the end that theeues might afterward take it from him.9 Peter did not loose that faith, whereby the heart beleeueth vnto iustification.™ Contrary, Peters sinne was deadly.11 Antichrist shall be a Magician, and after the maner of other Magicians shall se- cretly worship the diuel.12 Contrary, He shall not admit of idolatrie: he shall hate idoles, and reedifie the Temple.13 By the wordes of Consecration the trew and solemne oblation is made.1* Contrary, The sacrifice doeth not consist in the words: but in the oblation of the thing it selfe.16 That the end of the world cannot be knowne.1* Contrary, After the death of Antichrist, there shall bee but fiue andfourtie dayes till the end of the world.11 That the tenne Kings shall burne the scarlet Whore, that is, Rome.18 1 Contrary to all his fiue bookes de lustifi- 10 Bellar. de Pont. lib. 4. c. 3. catione. » Bell, de lust. lib. 3. cap. 14. Bellar. de amis gra. &stat. pecca.li. 2.0.13. " Bell, de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 14. Ibidem paulo post. " Ibid, ex sentent. Hypol. & Cyril. & cap. 12. Bellar. de cfericis, lib. i. c. 14. eiusdem libri. Bellar. de Pont. 1. 4. c. 25. " Bell. lib. i. de missa cap. 17. Bellar. de Pont. lib. i. c. 12. " Bellar. de miss. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bellar. de lustif. lib. 3. c. 14. l6 Bellar. de anim. Christ, lib. 4. cap. 5. Bellar. de gra. & lib. arbit. lib. 5. cap. 5. " Bellar. de Pont. lib. 3. cap. 17. Eodem lib. cap. 9. 18 Bellar. de Pont. lib. 3. cap. 13. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 95 Contrary, Antichrist shall hate Rome, and fight against it, and burne it.1 The name of vniuersall Bishop may be -understood two wayes; one way, that he which is said to be vniuersall Bishop, may bee thought to be the onely Bishop of all Christian Cities; so that all others are not indeed Bishops, but onely Vicars to him, who is called vniuersall Bishop: in which sense, the Pope is not vniuersall Bishop.2 Contrary, All ordinary iurisdiction of Bishops doeth descend immediatly from the Pope; and is in him, and from him is deriued to others.3 Which few places I haue onely selected amongst many the like, that the discreet and iudicious Reader may discerne ex vngue Leonem: For when euer he is pressed with a weighty obiection, hee neuer careth, nor remembreth how his solution and answere to that, may make him gainesay his owne doctrine in some other places, so it serue him for a shift to put off the present storme withall. But now to returne to our matter againe : Since Popes, sayeth hee, haue neuer at any time medled against Kings, wherefore, I pray you, should onely the King of ENGLAND be afraid of that, whereof neuer Christian King is, or was afraid ? Was neuer Christian Emperour or King afraid of the Popes ? How then were these miserable Emperours tost and turmoiled, and in the end vtterly ruined by the Popes: for proofe whereof I haue already cited Bellarmines owne bookes ? Was not the Emperour 4 afraid, who waited barefooted in the frost and snow three dayes at the Popes gate, before he could get entrie?6 Was not the Emperour6 also afraid, who was driuen to lie agroofe on his belly, and suffer another Pope to tread vpon his neck ? 7 And was not another Emperour 8 afraid, who was con- strained in like maner to endure a third Pope to beat off from his head the Im- periall Crowne with his foot ? 9 Was not Philip10 afraid, being made Emperour against Pope Innocentius the thirds good liking, when he brake out into these words, Either the Pope shall take the Crowne from Philip, or Philip shall take the Miter from the Pope?11 whereupon the Pope stirred vp Ottho against him, who caused him to be slaine; and presently went to Rome, and was crowned Em- perour by the Pope, though afterward the Pope12 deposed him too. Was not the Emperour Fredericke13 afraid, when Innocentius the fourth excommunicated him, depriued him of his crowne, absolued Princes of their Oath of fidelitie to him, and in Apulia corrupted one to giue him poison ? whereof the Emperour recouering, hee hired his bastard sonne Manfredus to poison him; whereof he died. What did Alexander1* the third write to the Soldan? That if he would Hue quietly, hee should by some slight murther the Emperour;15 and to that end sent him the Em- Bellar. ibid. • R. Houeden in Rich, i; Ranulph. in Poly- Bellar. de Pont. lib. 2. cap. 31. cronico. lib. 7. Bellar. de Pont. lib. 2. cap. 24. 10 Abbas Vrsper. ad Ann. 1191. Henry 4. » Nauc. gen. 40. Cuspin. in Philippo. Abbas Vrspergen. Lamb. Scaff. Anno 1077. " Abbas Vrsper. Plat, in vit. Greg. 7. >» Math. Paris, in Henr. 3; Petr. de Vineis, Frederick Barbarossa Epist. li. i. & 2; Cuspin in Freder. 2. Naucler. gener, 40. lacob. Bergom. in Sup. " Vita Frederici Germanice conscripta. plem. chron. Alfons. Clacon. in vit. Alex. 3. « Fredericke Barbarossa. • Henry 6. 96 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I perours picture. And did not Alexander l the sixt take of the Turke Baiazetes two hundred thousand crownes to kill his brother Gemen; or as some call him, Sisimus, whom he helde captiue at Rome ? Did hee not accept of the conditions to poyson the man, and had his pay ? Was not our Henry 2 the second afraid after the slaughter of Thomas Becket; that besides his going bare-footed in Pilgrimage, was whipped vp and down the Chapter-house like a schoole-boy, and glad to escape so to ? Had not this French King his great grandfather King lohn reason to be afraid, when the Pope 3 gaue away his kingdome of Nauarre to the King of Spaine, whereof he yet possesseth the best halfe ? Had not this King, his Successour reason to be afraid, when he was forced to begge so submissiuely the relaxation of his Excommunication, as he was content likewise to suffer his Ambassadour to be whipped at Rome for penance ? And had not the late Queene reason to looke to her selfe, when she was excommunicated by Pius Quintus, her Subiects loosed from their fidelitie and Allegiance toward her, her Kingdome of Ireland giuen to the King of Spaine, and that famous fugitiue diuine, honoured with the like degree of a redde Hat as Bellarmine is, was not ashamed to publish in Print an Apologie 4 for Stanleys treason, maintaining, that by reason of her excommunication and heresie, it was not onely lawfull for any of of her Subiects, but euen they were bound in conscience to depriue her of any strength, which lay in their power to doe ? And whether it were armies, townes, or fortresses of hers which they had in their hands, they were obliged to put them in the King of Spaine her enemies hands, shee no more being the right owner of anything ? But albeit it be trew, that wise men are mooued by the examples of others dangers to vse prouidence and caution, according to the olde Prouerbe, Turn tua res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet : yet was I much neerlier summoned to vse this caution, by the practise of it in mine owne person. First, by the sending foorth of these Bulles whereof I made mention already, for debarring me from entrie vnto this Crowne, and Kingdome. And next after my entrie, and full possession thereof, by the horrible Powder-treason, which should haue bereft both me and mine, both of crowne and life. And howsoeuer the Pope will seeme to cleare himselfe of any allowance of the said Powder-trea- son; yet can it not be denied, that his principall ministers here, and his chief e Mancipia the lesuites, were the plaine practisers thereof: for which the principall of them hath died confessing it, and other haue fled the Countrey for the crime; yea, some of them gone into Italy: and yet neither these that fled out of this Countrey for it, nor yet Baldwine, who though he then remained in the Low- countreys, was of counsell in it, were euer called to account for it by the Pope; much lesse punished for medling in so scandalous and enormous businesse. And 1 Paul. louius, Hist. lib. 2; Cuspinian. in « Gomecius de rebus gest. Fran. Ximenij Baiazet. n; Guicciard. lib. 2. Archiepis. Tolet.lib. 5. » Houeden, pag. 308; Matth. Paris, in < Card. Aliens Answere to Stan, letter, Henric 2; Walsinga. in Hypodig. Neu- Anno 1587. strias. loan. Capgraue. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 97 now what needs so great wonder and exclamation, that the onely King of England feareth : And what other Christian King doeth, or euer did feare but hee ? As if by the force of his rhetoricke he could make me and my good Subiects to mistrust our senses, deny the Sunne to shine at midday, and not with the serpent to stop our eares to his charming, but to the plaine and visible veritie it selfe. And yet for all this wonder, he can neuer prooue mee to be troubled with such a Panicke terrour. Haue I euer importuned the Pope with any request for my securitie ? Or haue I either troubled other Christian Princes my friends and allies, to intreat for me at the Popes hand ? Or yet haue I begged from them any aide or assist- ance for my farther securitie ? No. All this wondred-at feare of mine, stretcheth no further, then wisely to make distinction betweene the sheepe and goats in my owne pasture. For since, what euer the Popes part hath beene in the Powder- treason; yet certaine it is, that all these caitife monsters did to their death main- taine, that onely zeale of Religion mooued them to that horrible attempt: yea, some of them at their death, would not craue pardon at God or King for their offence; exhorting other of their followers to the like constancie. Had not wee then, and our Parliament great reason, by this Oath to set a marke of distinction betweene good Subiects, and bad ? Yea, betweene Papists, though peraduenture zealous in their religion, yet otherwise ciuilly honest and good Subiects, and such terrible firebrands of hell, as would maintaine the like maximes, which these Powder-men did ? Nay, could there be a more gracious part in a King, suppose I say it, towards Subiects of a contrary Religion, then by making them to take this Oath, to publish their honest fidelitie in temporal things to me their Soueraigne, and thereby to wipe off that imputation and great slander which was laide vpon the whole professours of that Religion, by the furious enterprise of these Powder-men ? And whereas for illustration of this strong argument of his, hee hath brought in for a similitude the historic of lulian * the Apostata his dealing with the Chris- tians, when as he straited them either to commit idolatrie, or to come within the compasse of treason: I would wish the authour to remember, that although a similitude may be permitted daudicare vno pede; yet this was a very ill chosen similitude, which is lame both of feete and hands, and euery member of the body: For I shall in fewe wordes prooue, that it agreeth in no one point saue one, with our purpose, which is, that lulian was an Emperour, and I a King. First, lulian was an Apostata, one that had renounced the whole Christian faith, which he had once professed, and became an Ethnike againe, or rather an Atheist: whereas I am a Christian, who neuer changed that Religion, that I dranke in with my milke: nor euer, I thanke GOD, was ashamed of my profession. lulian dealt against Christians onely for the profession of CHRISTES cause: I deale in this cause with my Subiects, onely to make a distinction betweene trew Subiects, an false-hearted traitours. lulians end was the ouerthrow of the Christians: my i Nazianzen. in lulian. inuectiua prima. 98 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I onely end is, to maintaine Christianitie in a peaceable gouernement. lulians drift was to make them commit Idolatrie : my purpose is, to cause my Subiects to make open profession of their naturall Allegiance, and ciuill Obedience. lulians meanes whereby he went about it, was by craft, and insnaring them before they were aware: my course in this is plaine, cleare, and voyd of all obscuritie; neuer refusing leaue to any that are required to take this Oath, to study it at leisure, and giuing them all the interpretation of it they can craue. But the greatest dissimili- tude of all, is in this: that Julian pressed them to commit idolatrie to Idoles and Images: but as well I, as all the Subiects of my profession are so farre from guilt in this point, as wee are counted heretiques by you, because we will not commit idolatrie. So as in the maine point of all, is the greatest contrarietie. For, lulian persecuted the Christians because they would not commit idolatrie; and ye count me a persecutour, because I will not admit idolatrie. So as to conclude this point, this old sentence may well be applied to Bellarmine, in vsing so vnapt a similitude, Perdere quos wit lupiter, has dementat. And therefore his vncharitable conclusion doeth not rightly follow: That it seemeth -onto him, that some such thing should be subtilly or fraudulently included in this Oath; as if no man can detest Treason against the King, or professe ciuill subiection, except hee renounce the Primacie of the Apostolique Sea. But how he hath suckt this apprehension out at his fingers ends, I cannot imagine: for sure I am, as I haue oft said, hee neuer goeth about to prooue it: and to answere an improbable imagination, is to fight against a vanishing shadow. It cannot be denied indeed, that many seruants of CHRIST, as well Priests, as others, haue endured constantly all sorts of torments, and death, for the profession of CHRIST: and therefore to all such his examples, as hee bringeth in for verifying the same, I need not to giue him any other answere, saue onely to remember him, that he playeth the part of a sophister in all these his examples of the constancie of Martyrs; euer taking Controuersum pro confesso, as if this our case were of the same nature. But yet that the Reader may the better discouer, not onely how vnaptly his similitudes are applied, but likewise how dishonestly hee vseth himselfe in all his citations: I haue thought good to set downe the very places themselues cited by him, together with a short deduction of the trew state of those particular cases: whereby, how little these examples can touch our case; nay, by the contrary, how rightly their trew sense may bee vsed, as our owne weapons to be throwen backe vpon him that alledgeth them, shall easily appeare. And first, for Eleazar : l If the Arch-priest his ground of refusing the Oath, were as good as Eleazars was, to forbeare to eate the swines flesh, it might not vnfitly be applied by the Cardinal to this purpose : For as Eleazar was a principall Scribe, so is he a principall Priest : As Eleazars example had a great force in it, to animate the yonger Scribes to 1 2. Maccab. chap. 6. ver.iS. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 99 keepe the Lawe, or in his colourable eating it, to haue taught them to dissemble: so hath the Arch-priests, either to make the inferiour Priests to take the Oath, or to refuse it: but the ground failing, the building cannot stand: For what example is there in all the Scripture, in which disobedience to the Oath of the King, or want of Allegiance is allowed ? If the Cardinall would remember, that when the Church maketh a Lawe (suppose to forbid flesh on certaine dayes) he that refuseth to obey it, incurreth the iust censure of the Church: If a man then ought to die rather than to breake the least of Gods Ceremoniall Lawes, and to pine and starue his body, rather then to violate the Church his positiue Law: will he not giue leaue to a man to redeeme his soule from sinne, and to keepe his body from punishment, by keeping a Kings politike Law, and by giuing good example in his Person, raise vp a good opinion in me of like Allegiance in the inferiour of his order ? This application, as I take it, would haue better fitted this example. But let mee remember the Cardinall of another Oath * inioyned by a King to his people, whereby he indangered his owne life, and hazarded the safetie of the whole armie, when hee made the people sweare in the morning, not to taste of any meate vntill night : which Oath he exacted so strictly, that his eldest sonne, and heire apparant, Jonathan, for breaking of it, by tasting a little hony of the top of his rodde, though he heard not when the King gaue that Oath, had well-nigh died for it. And shall an Oath giuen vpon so vrgent an occasion as this was, for the apparant safetie of me and my posteritie, forbidding my people to drinke so deeply in the bitter cup of Antichristian fornications, but that they may keepe so much hony in their hearts, as may argue them still espoused to me their Sou- eraigne in the maine knot of trew Allegiance; shall this Law, I say, by him bee condemned to hell for a stratageme of Sathan ? I say no more, but Gods lot in the Oath of Sauls, and Bellarmines verdict vpon this Oath of ours, seeme not to be cast out of one lap. Now to this example of Basill? which is (as he sayth) so fit for his purpose: First, I must obserue, that if the Cardinall would leaue a common and ordinarie tricke of his in all his Citations, which is to take what makes for him, and leaue out what makes against him; and cite the Authours sense, as well as his Sen- tence, we should not be so much troubled with answering the Ancients which he alledgeth. To instance it in this very place : if he had continued his allegation one line further, hee should haue found this place out of Theodoret, of more force to haue mooued Blackwell to take the Oath, then to haue disswaded him from it: For in the very next words it followeth, Imperatoris quidem amicitiam magni se pendere, cum pietate; qua remold, perniciosam esse dicer e. But that it may appeare, whether of vs haue greatest right to this place, I will in few words shew the Authours drift. The Emperour Valens being an Arrian, at the perswasion of his wife, when he had depriued all the Churches of their Pastours, came to Casarea, where 5. Basil 3 1 i. Sam. 14. 25. * Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 19. ' Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 19. loo THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I was then Bishop, who, as the historic reporteth, was accounted the Light of the world. Before hee came, hee sent his deputie * to worke it, that S. Basil should hold fellowship with Eudoxius (which Eudoxlus 2 was bishop of Constantinople, and the principal! of the Arrian faction) or if he would not, that hee should put him to banishment. Now when the Emperours Deputie came to Casarea, he sent for Basil, intreated him honourably, spake pleasingly vnto him, desired he would giue way to the time, neither that he would hazard the good of so many Churches tenui exquisitione dogmatis: promised him the Emperours fauour, and himselfe to be mediatour for his good. But S. Basill answered, These intising speeches were to fit to bee vsed to children, that i>se to gape after such things: but for them that were throughly instructed in Gods word, they could neuer suffer any syl- lable thereof to be corrupted: Nay, if need required, they would for the maintenance thereof refuse no kind of death. Indeed the loue of the Emperour ought to bee greatly esteemed with pietie; but pietie taken away, it was pernicious. This is the trewth of the historic. Now compare the case of Basill with the Arch-priests: Basill was sollicited to become an Arrian: the Arch-priest not once touched for any article of faith. Basill would haue obeyed the Emperour, but that the word of GOD forbade him : this man is willed to obey, because the word of GOD commandeth him. Basill highly esteemed the Emperours fauour, if it might haue stood with pietie: the Archi-priest is exhorted to reiect it, though it stand with trew godlinesse in deed, to embrace it. But that he may lay load vpon the Arch-priest, it is not sufficient to exhort him to courage and constancie by Eleazarus and Basils examples; but he must be vtterly cast downe with the comparing his fall to 5. Peter, and Marcellinus: which two mens cases were the most fearefull, considering their persons and places, that are to be found, or read of, either in all the bookes of diuine Scripture, or the volumes of Ecclesiastical! histories; the one denying the onely trew GOD, the other our Lord and Sauiour IESVS CHRIST; the one sacrificing to Idoles, with the prophane heathen: the other forswearing his Lord and Master, with the hard-hearted lewes. Vnlesse the Cardinal! would driue the Arch-priest to some horrour of conscience, and pit of despaire, I know not what he can meane by this comparison: For sure I am, all that are not intoxicated with their cup, cannot but wonder to heare of an Oath of Allegiance to a natural! Soueraigne, to be likened to an Apostats denying of God, and forswearing of his Sauiour. But to let passe the Disdiapason of the cases (as his ill-fauoured coupling S. Peter the head of their Church, with an apostate Pope) I marueile hee would remember this example of Marcellinus,3 since his brother Cardinal! Baronius, and the late Edition of the Councels by Binnius 4 seeme to call the credit of the whole historic into question, saying, That it might plainely be refuted, and that it is prob- 1 Modestus as Nazianzen vpon the death of « Looke Platina in vita Marcellini. Basill calleth him in his oration. * Concil. Tom. i. pag. 222. Looke Baronius, * Looke cap. 12. eiusdem libri. Ann. 302. num. 96. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 101 ably to be shewed, that the story is but obreptious, but that he would not swarue from the common receiued opinion. And if a man might haue leaue to coniecture; so would his Cardinalship too, if it were not for one or two sentences in that Councell l of Sinuessa, which serued for his purpose; namely, that Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur: And, ludica causam tuam: nostrd sententid non condemnaberis. But to what purpose a great Councell (as he termes it) of three hundred. Bishops and others, should meete together, who before they met, knew they could doe nothing: when they were there, did nothing, but like Cuckowes, sing ouer and ouer the same song: that, Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur; and so after three dayes sitting (a long time in- deed for a great and graue Councell) brake so bluntly vp: and yet, that there should be seuentie two witnesses brought against him, and that they should subscribe his excommunication, and that at his owne mouth hee tooke the Anathema maranatha: how these vntoward contradictions shall be made to agree, I must send the Cardinal! to Venice, to Padre Paulo, who in his Apologie 2 against the Cardinals oppositions, hath handled them very learnedly. But from one Pope, let vs passe to another: (for, what a principall article of Faith and Religion this Oath is, I haue alreadie sufficiently proued.) Why hee called S. Gregory 3 our Apostle, I know not, vnlesse perhaps it be, for that hee sent Augustine 4 the Monke and other with him into England, to conuert vs to the faith of Christ, wherein I with the Popes his successours would follow his patterne : For albeit hee sent them by diuine reuelation (as hee said) into England vnto King Ethelbert; yet when they came, they exercised no part of their func- tion, but by the Kings leaue and permission. So did King Lucius 8 send to Eleutherius his predecessour, and hee sent him diuers Bishops, who were all placed by the Kings authoritie. These conuerted men to the faith, and taught them to obey the King. And if the Popes in these dayes would but insist in these steppes of their fore-fathers; then would they not entertaine Princes fugitiues abroad, nor send them home, not onely without my leaue, but directly against the Lawes, with plots of treason and doctrine of rebellion, to draw Subiects from their obedience to me their naturall King: nor be so cruell to their owne Mancipia, as returning them with these wares, put either a State in iealousie of them; or them in hazard of their owne liues. Now to our Apostle (since the Cardinall will haue him so called) I perswade my selfe I should doe a good seruice to the Church in this my labour, if I could but reape this one fruit of it, to moue the Cardinall to deale faithfully with the Fathers, & neuer to alledge their opinions against their own purpose : For, this letter of Gregorius 6 was written to lohn Bishop of Palermo in Sicily, to whom he granted vsum pallij, to be worne in such times, and in such 1 See Tom. i. Concil. in Act. Concil. Sinuess. 4 Beda Ecclesi. Hist. gen.Ang. lib. i. 1 Apol. Pat. Paul, aduersus opposit. Card. cap. 25. Bellar. * Beda Ecclesi. Hist. gen. Ang. lib. i. ' Greg. lib. u. cap. 42. cap. 4. 6 Greg. lib. n. cap. 42. 102 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I order as the Priests in the He of Sicily, and his predecessors were wont to vse: and withall giueth him a caueat, That the reuerence to the Apostolike Sea, be not dis- turbed by the presumption of any: for then the state of the members doeth remaine sound, when the head of the Faith is not bruised by any iniury, and the authorise of the Canons alwayes remaine safe and sound. Now let vs examine the words. The Epistle was written to a Bishop, especially to grant him the vse of the Pall; a ceremonie and matter indifferent. As it appeareth, the Bishop of Rome tooke it well at his hands, that he would not per- sume to take it vpon him without leaue from the Apostolike Sea, giuing him that admonition which followeth in the wordes alledged out of him: which doctrine we are so farre from impugning, that we altogether approoue and allow of the same, that whatsoeuer ceremony for order is thought meet by the Christian Magistrate, and the Church, the same ought inuiolably be to kept: and where the head and gouernour in matters of that nature are not obeyed, the members of that Church must needs run to hellish confusion: But that Gregory by that terme, caputfidei, held himselfe the head of our faith, and the head of all religion, cannot stand with the course of his doctrine and writings: For first, when an other would haue had this stile to be called Vniuersalis Episcopus,1 hee said, I doe confidently auouch, that ivhosoeuer called himselfe, or desireth to be called Vniuersall Bishop, in this aduancing of himselfe, is the fore-runner of the Antichrist: 2 which notwithstanding was a stile farre inferiour to that of Caput fidei. And when it was offered to himselfe the wordes of S. Gregory 3 be these, refusing that Title: None of my predecessours [Bishops of Rome,] euer consented to vse this prophane name [of vniuerfall Bishop.] None of my predecessours euer tooke vpon him this name of singulartie, neither consented to vse it, Wee the Bishops of Rome doe not seeke, nor yet accept this glorious title, being offered mto vs. And now, I pray you, would he that refused to be called Vniuersall Bishop, be stiled Caputfidei, vnlesse it were in that sense, as I haue expressed ? which sense if he will not admit, giue me leaue to say that of Gregorie, which himselfe sayeth of Lyra* Minus caute locutus est: or which he elsewhere sayth of Chrysostome,6 Locutus est per excessum. To redeeme therefore our Apostle out of his hands, and to let him remaine ours, and not his in this case; it is very trew that he sayth in that sense he spake it. When yee goe about to disturbe, diminish, or take away the authoritie or suprem- acie of the Church, which resteth on the head of the King, within his dominions, ye cut off the head and chiefe gouernour thereof, and disturbe the state and mem- bers of the whole body. And for a conclusion of this point, I pray him to think, that we are so well perswaded of the good minde of our Apostle S. Gregory to vs, that wee desire no other thing to be suggested to the Pope and his Cardinals, then our Apostle S. Gregory 6 desired Sabinian to suggest vnto the Emperour and the 1 lohn of Constantinople. See Greg. lib. 4. 4 Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 10. Epist. 32. ' Idem. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 10. 1 Lib. 6. Epist. 30. « Greg. lib. 7. Epist. i. 8 Greg. lib. 4. epist. 32. & 36. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 103 State in his time. His words be these: One thing there is, of which I would haue you shortly to suggest to your most noble Lord and Master: That if I his seruant would haue had my hand in slaying of the Lombards, at this day the Nation of the Lombards had neither had King, nor Dukes, nor Earles, and had beene diuided asunder in -utter confusion: but because I feare God, I dread to haue my hand in the blood of any man. And thus hauing answered to S. Gregory, I come to another Pope, his Apostle, S. Leo. And that hee may see, I haue not in the former citations, quarelled him like a Sophister for contention sake, but for finding out of the trewth, I doe grant, that the authorities out of Leo,1 are rightly alledge"d all three, the wordes trewly set downe, together with his trew intent and purpose: but withall, let me tell him, and I appeale vnto his owne conscience, whether I speake not trewly, that what Tullie said to Hortensius,2 when he did immoderately praise eloquence, that hee would haue lift her vp to Heauen, that himself e might haue gone vp with her; So his S. Leo lift vp S. Peter with praises to the skie, that he being his heire, might haue gone vp with him: 3 For his S. Leo was a great Oratour, who by the power of his eloquence redeemed Rome from fire, when both Attilas and Gensericus would haue burnt it.4 Some fruites of this rhetoricke hee bestowed vpon S. Peter, saying, The Lord 5 did take Peter into the fellowship of the indiuisible imitie: which wordes being coupled to the sentence alledged by the Cardinall (that he hath no part in the diuine Mysterie, that dare depart from the soliditie of Peter) should haue giuen him, I thinke, such a skarre, as hee should neuer haue dared to haue taken any ad- uantage by the wordes immediatly preceding, for the benefite of the Church of Rome, and the head thereof; since those which immediatly follow, are so much derogatorie to the diuine Maiestie. And againe, My writings 6 be strengthened by the authoritie and merit of my Lord, most blessed S. Peter. We beseech 1 you to keepe the things decreed by vs through the inspiration of God, and the Apostle most blessed S. Peter. // anything 8 be well done, or decreed by vs; If anything be obtained of Gods mercy by daily prayers, it is to be ascribed to S. Peters workes and merits, whose power doeth Hue, and authoritie excell in his owne Sea. Hee was so plentifully 9 watered of the very fountaine of all graces, that whereas he receiued many things alone, yet nothing passeth ouer to any other, but hee was partaker of it. And in a word, hee was so desirous to extoll Saint Peter, that a messenger from him was an embas- sage™ from Saint Peter: any thing done in his presence?1 was in S. Peters presence. Neither did he vse all this Rhetoricke without purpose: for at that time the Patriarch of Constantinople contended with him for Primacie. And in the Coun- 1 Leo primus in die assump. suae ad Pont. * Epist. 89. serm. 3; Leo Epist. 89. ad Episc. Vien. ' Epist. 52. Idem ibid. ca. 2. 7 Epist. 89. 1 Cic. in Hort. 8 In serm. 2 in die anniuer. assum. suae. 3 For so hee calleth himselfe in serm. i. in • Serm. 3. in die anniuer. assump. suae. die assum. 10 Epist. 24. 4 Ex breuiario Romano. " Epist. 4. 104 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I cell of Chalcedon^ the Bishops, sixe hundred and more, gaue equall authoritie to the Patriarch of that Sea, and would not admit any Priuiledge to the Sea of Rome aboue him; but went against him. And yet he that gaue so much to Peter, tooke nothing from Ccesar; but gaue him both his Titles and due, giuing the power of calling a Councell to the Emperour; as it may appeare by these one or two places following of many. // it may please your godlinesse to vouchsafe at our supplication to condiscend, that you will command a Councell of Bishops to be holden within Italy?' And writing vnto the Bishop of Constantinople: Because the most clement Emperour? carefull of the peace of the Church, will haue a Councell to be holden; albeit it euidently appeare, the matter to be handled doeth in no case stand in neede of a Councell. And againe, Albeit my occasions will not permit me to be present vpon the day of the Councell of Bishops, which your godlinesse hath appointed* So as by this it may well appeare, that hee that gaue so much to Peter, gaue also to Ccesar his due and prerogatiue. But yet he playeth not faire play in this, that euen in all these his wrong applied arguments and examples, hee produceth no other witnesses, but the parties themselues ; bringing euer the Popes sentences for approbation of their owne authoritie. Now indeed for one word of his in the middest of his examples, I cannot but greatly commend him; that is, that Martyrs ought to endure all sorts of tortures and death, before they suffer one syllable to be corrupted of the Law of God. Which lesson, if hee and all the rest of his owne profession would apply to them- selues, then would not the Sacrament be administred sub vnd specie, directly con- trary to Christs institution, the practise of the Apostles and of the whole Primitive Church for many hundred yeeres: then would not the priuate Masses be in place of the Lordes Supper: then would not the words of the Canon 6 of the Masse be opposed to the words of S. Paul and S. Luke, as our Aduersarie himselfe con- fesseth, and cannot reconcile them : nor then would not so many hundredths other traditions of men be set vp in their Church, not onely as equall, but euen preferred to the word of God. But sure in this point I feare I haue mistaken him: for I thinke hee doeth not meane by his Diuina Dogmata, the word of the God of heauen, but onely the Canons and Lawes of his Dominus Deus Papa: otherwise all his Primacie of the Apostolike Sea would not be so much sticken vpon, hauing so slender ground in the word of God. And for the great feare he hath, that the suddennes of the apprehension, the bitternesse of the persecution, the weaknesse of his aage, and other such in- firmities might haue been the cause of the Arch-priests fall; in this, I haue already sufficiently answered him; hauing declared, as the trewth is, and as the said Blackwell himselfe will yet testifie, that he tooke this Oath freely of himselfe, without any inducement thereunto, either Precibus or Minis. 1 Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 16. & Can. 28. 4 Epist. 17. Theodosio. 1 Epist. o- Theodosio. • Bellar. de sacra Eucharist, lib. 4. cap. 14. • Epist. 16. Flau. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 105 But amongst all his citations, hee must not forget holy Sanderus and his visibilis Monarchic, whose person and actions I did alreadie a little touch. And surely who will with vnpartiall eyes reade his bookes, they may well thinke, that hee hath deserued well of his English Romane-Church; but they can neuer thinke, but that hee deserued very ill of his English Soueraigne and State : Wit- nesse his owne books; whereout I haue made choice to set downe heere these fewe sentences following, as flowers pickt out of so worthy a garland. Elizabeth 1 Queene of ENGLAND, doeth exercise the Priestly acte of teaching and preaching the Gospel in ENGLAND, with no lesse authority than Christ himself e, or Moses euer did. The supremacie of a woman* in Churchmatters is from no other, then from the Deuil. And of all things in general! thus he speaketh, The King 3 that will not inthrall himself e to the Popes authoritie, he ought not to be tolerated; but his Subiects ought to giue all diligence, that another may be chosen in his place assoone as may be. A King that is an Heretike* ought to be remooued from the Kingdome that hee holdeth ouer Christians; and the Bishops ought to endeauour to set vp another, assoone as possibly they can. Wee doe constantly affirme,5 that all Christian Kings are so farre vnder Bishops and Priests in all matters appertaining to faith, that if they shall continue in a fault against Christian Religion, after one or two admonitions, obstinately, for that cause they may and ought to be deposed by the Bishops from their temporall au- thoritie they holde ouer Christians. Bishops 6 are set ouer temporall kingdomes, if those kingdomes doe submit themselues to the faith of Christ. We doe iustly affirme,7 that all Secular power, whether Regall, or any other, is of men. The anoynting* which is powred vpon the head of the King by the Priests, doeth declare that hee is in- feriour to the Priest. It is altogether against the will of Christ,9 that Christian kings should haue supremacie in the Church. And whereas for the crowne and conclusion of all his examples, he reckoneth his two English Martyrs, Moore and Roffensis, who died for that one most weightie head of doctrine, as he alledgeth, refusing the Oath of Supremacie; I must tell him, that he hath not been well informed in some materiall points, which doe very neerely concerne his two said Martyrs: For it is cleare and apparantly to be prooued by diuers Records, that they were both of them committed to the Tower about a yeere before either of them was called in question vpon their Hues, for the Popes Supremacie; And that partly for their backwardnesse in the point of the establishment of the Kings succession, whereunto the whole Realme had subscribed, and partly for that one of them, to wit, Fisher, had had his hand in the matter of the holy maide of Kent;10 hee being for his concealement of that false prophets abuse, found guiltie of misprision of Treason. And as these were the principal! causes of their imprisonment (the King resting secure of his Suprem- Sand. de visib. Monar. lib. 6. cap. 4. * Ibidem. Sand, de clau. Dauid. li. 6. c. i. ' Sand, de clau. Dauid. li. 5. c. 2. Sand, de visib. Monar. lib. 2 cap. 4. 8 Ibidem. Ibidem. ' Sand, de clau. Dauid. li. 5. c. 4. Ibidem. 10 Called Elizabeth Barton. See the Act of Parliament. 106 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I acie, as the Realme stood then affected, but especially troubled for selling the Crowne vpon the issue of his second mariage) so was it easily to be concerned, that being thereupon discontented, their humours were thereby made apt to draw them by degrees, to further opposition against the King and his authoritie, as indeede it fell out: For in the tune of their being in prison, the Kings lawfull authoritie in cases Ecclesiasticall being published and promulged, as well by a generall decree of the Clergie in their Synode, as by an Acte of Parliament made thereupon; they behaued themselues so peeuishly therein, as the olde coales of the Kings anger being thereby raked vp of new, they were againe brought in question; as well for this one most weighty head of doctrine of the Pope his supremacy, as for the matter of the Kings mariage and succession, as by the con- fession of one of themselues, euen Thomas Moore, is euident: For being con- demned, he vsed these words at the barre before the Lords, Non ignore cur me morti adiudicaueritis; videlicet ob id, quod nunquam wluerim assentiri in negotio matrimonii Regis.1 That is, I am not ignorant why you haue adiudged mee to death: to wit, for that I would neuer consent in the business of the new mariage of the King. By which his owne confession it is plaine, that this great martyr himselfe tooke the cause of his owne death, to be onely for his being refractary to the King in this said matter of Marriage and Succession; which is but a very fleshly cause of Martyrdome, as I conceiue. And as for Rojfensis his fellow Martyr (who could haue bene content to haue taken the Oath of the Kings Supremacie, with a certaine modification, which Moore refused) as his imprisonment was neither onely, nor principally for the cause of Supremacie, so died hee but a halting and a singular Martyr or witnesse for that most weighty head of doctrine; the whole Church of England going at that time, in one current and streame as it were against him in that Argument, diuers of them being of farre greater reputation for learning and sound iudge- ment, then euer he was. So as in this point we may well arme our selues with the Cardinals owne reason, where he giueth amongst other notes of the trew Church, Vniuersalitie for one, wee hauing the generall and Catholique conclusion of the whole Church of England, on our side in this case, as appeareth by their booke set out by the whole Conuocation of England, called, The Institution of a Christian man; the same matter being likewise very learnedly handled by diuers particular learned men of our Church, as by Steuen Gardiner in his booke De vera obedientia, with a Preface of Bishop Boners adioyning to it, De summo 6* absoluto Regis Imperio, published by M. Bekinsaw, De vera differentia Regia Potestatis & Ecclesiastics, Bishop Tonstals Sermon, Bishop Longlands Sermon, the letter of Tonstall to Cardinall Poole, and diuers other both in English and Latine. And if the bitternesse of Fishers discontentment had not bene fed with his dayly am- bitious expectation of the Cardinals hat, which came so neere as Calis before he lost his head to fill it with, I haue great reason to doubt, if he would haue con- 1 Histor. aliquot Martyrum nostri seculi, Anno 1550. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 107 stanly perseuered in induring his Martyrdome for that one most warghty head of doctrine. And surely these two Captaines and ringleaders to Martyrdome were but ill followed by the rest of their countreymen: for I can neuer reade of any after them, being of any great accompt, and that not many, that euer sealed that weighty head of doctrine with their blood in England. So as the trew causes of their first falling in trouble (whereof I haue already made mention) being rightly considered vpon the one part, and vpon the other the scant number of witnesses, that with their blood sealed it (a point so greatly accompted of by our Cardinal) there can but smal glory redound thereby to our English nation, these onely two Enoch and Elias, seruing for witnesses against our Antichristian doctrine. And I am sure the Supremacie of Kings may, & wil euer be better maintained by the word of God (which must euer be the trew rule to discerne all waighty heads of doctrine by) to be the trew and proper office of Christian Kings in their owne dominions, then he will be euer able to maintaine his annihilating Kings, and their authorities, together with his base and vnreuerend speaches of them, wherewith both his former great Volumes, and his late Bookes against Venice are filled. In the old Testament, Kings were directly1 Gouernours over the Church within their Dominions,2 purged their corruptions ; reformed their abuses, brought the Arke 3 to her resting place, the King 4 dancing before it; 5 built the Temple ; 6 dedicated the same, assisting in their owne persons to the sanctification thereof; made the Booke of the Law7 new-found, to bee read to the people;8 renewed the Couenant between God and his people; 9 bruised the brasen serpent in pieces, which was set vp by the expresse commandement of God, and was a figure of Christ; destroyed all Idoles,10 and false gods; made a publike reforma- tion,11 by a Commission of Secular men and Priests mixed for that purpose; de- posed the high Priest,12 and set vp another in his place : and generally, ordered euery thing belonging to the Church-gouernment, their Titles and Prerogatiues giuen them by God, agreeing to these their actions. They are called the Sonnes13 of the most High, nay, Gods14 themselues; The Lords15 anoynted, Sitting in Gods16 throne; His seruants;1"1 The Angels18 of God; According to his hearts desire;19 The light of Israel;20 The nursing fathers of the Church,21 with innumerable such stiles of honour, wherwith the old Testament is filled; whereof our aduersary can pretend no ignorance. And as to the new Testament, Euery soule is commanded to be subiect -unto them, euen for conscience sake.22 All men23 must be prayed for; but especially Kings, and those that are in Authoritie, that -under them we may leade a godly, peaceable and an honest life. 1. Chron. 19. 4. • 2. King. 18. 4. " 2. Chro. 6. 15. 2. Sam. 5. 6. 10 i.King.i5.i2; 2.King.i3.4. w 2. Sam. 14. 20. 1. Chron. 13. 12. « 2. Chron. 17. 8. li i. Sam. 13. 14. 2. Sam. 6. 16. " i. King. 2. 27. M 2. Sam. 21. 17. 1. Chron. 28. 6. u 2. Sam. 7. 14. ll Isa. 49. 23. 2. Chron. 6. " Psal. 82. 6. & exod. 22. 8. " Rom. 13. 5. 2. King. 22. ii. » i. Sam. 24. n. M i. Tim. 2. 2. Nehe. 9. 38. Dauid. Salomon. " i. Chro. 9. 8. 108 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I The Magistrate l is the minister of God, to doe vengeance on him that doeth euill, and reward him that doeth well. Ye must obey all higher powers, but especially Princes,2 and those that are supereminent. due euery man his due, feare 3 to whom feare belongeth, and honour to whome honour, due -onto Casar 4 what is Ccesars, and to God what is Gods.6 Regnum meum non est huius mundi.6 Quis me constituit ludicem super vos ? 7 Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic. If these examples, sentences, titles, and prerogatives, and innumerable other in the Old and New Testament doe not warrant Christian Kings, within their owne dominions, to gouerne their Church, as well as the rest of their people, in being Custodes vtriusque Tabulce, not by making new Articles of Faith, (which is the Popes office, as I said before) but by commanding obedience to be giuen to the word of God, by reforming the religion according to his prescribed will, by assisting the spirituall power with the temporall sword, by reforming of corrup- tions, by procuring due obedience to the Church, by iudging, and cutting off all friuolous questions and schismes, as Constantine& did; and finally, by making decorum to be obserued in euery thing, and establishing orders to bee obserued in all indifferent things for that purpose, which is the onely intent of our Oath of Su- premacie : If this Office of a King, I say, doe not agree with the power giuen him by Gods word, let any indifferent man voyd of passion, iudge. But how these honourable offices, styles, and prerogatiues giuen by God to Kings in the Old and New Testament, as I haue now cited, can agree with the braue styles and titles that Bellarmine giueth them, I can hardly conceiue. That Kings are rather slaues then Lords? That they are not onely subiects to Popes, to Bishops, to Priests, but euen to Deacons.10 That an Emperour must content himself e to drinke, not onely after a Bishop, but after a Bishops Chaplen.11 That Kings haue not their Authoritie nor Office immediatly from God, nor his Law, but onely from the Laws of Nations.12 That Popes haue degraded many Emperours, but neuer Emperour degraded the Pope; nay, euen Bishops,13 that are but the Popes vassals, may depose Kings, and abrogate their lowest That Church-men are so farre aboue Kings, as the soule is aboue the body.16 That Kings may be deposed by their people, for diuers respects.16 But Popes can by no meanes be deposed. -for no flesh hath power to iudge of them.17 That obedience due to the Pope, is for conscience sake.18 But the obedience due to Kings, is onely for certaine respects of order and politic.1* Rom. 13. 4. 8 Euseb. lib. 3. de vita Constantini. " De Pont. lib. 3. cap. 6. i. Pet. 2. 13. • De laicis cap. 7. 16 De laicis cap. 8. Rom. 13. 7. w De Pont. li. i. cap. 7. " De Pont. li. 5. cap. 18. Mat. 22. 21. " Ibidem. " De Pon. lib. 2. cap. 26. lohn 18. 36. » Ibid. & de Cler. cap. 28. 18 De Pont. lib. 4. cap. 15. Luk. 12. 14. " De Rom. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 8. a De Clericis, cap. 28. Luk. 22. 25. AN APOLOGIE FOR OATH OF ALLEGIANCE 109 That these very Church-men that are borne, and inhabite in Soueraigne Princes countreys, are notwithstanding not their Subiects, and cannot bee iudged by them, although they may iudge them.1 And, that the obedience that Church-men giue to Princes, euen in the meanest and meere temporall things, is not by way of any necessarie subiection, but onely out of discretion, and for obseruation of good order and custome? These contrarieties betweene the Booke of God, and Bellarmines bookes, haue I heere set in opposition each to other, Vt ex contrariis iuxta se positis, veritas magis elucescere possit. And thus farre I dare boldly affirme, that who- soeuer will indifferently weigh these irreconciliable contraditions here set downe, will easily confesse, that CHRIST is no more contrarie to Belial, light to darknesse, and heauen to hell, then Bellarmines estimation of Kings, is to Gods. Now as to the conclusion of his letter, which is onely filled with strong and pithie exhortations, to perswade and confirme Blackwell to the patient and con- stant induring of martyrdome, I haue nothing to answere, saue by way of regrate; that so many good sentences drawen out of the Scripture, so well and so hand- somely packed vp together, should be so ill and vntrewly applied: But an euill cause is neuer the better for so good a cloake; and an ill matter neuer amended by good wordes : And therefore I may iustly turne ouer that craft of the diuell vpon himselfe, in vsing so holy-like an exhortation to so euill a purpose. Onely I could haue wished him, that hee had a little better obserued his decorum herein, in not letting slippe two or three prophane words amongst so many godly mortified Scripture sentences. For in all the Scripture, especially in the New Testament, I neuer read of Pontifex Maximus. And the Pope must be content in that style to succeed according to the Law and institution of Numa Pompilius, and not to S. Peter, who neuer heard not dreamed of such an Office. And for his Caput fidei, which I remembred before, the Apostles (I am sure) neuer gaue that style to any, but to CHRIST : So as these styles, whereof some were neuer found in Scripture, and some were neuer applyed but to CHRIST in that sense, as hee applieth it, had beene better to haue beene left out of so holy and mortified a letter. To conclude then this present Discourse, I heartily with all indifferent readers of the Breues and Letter, not to iudge by the speciousnesse of the wordes, but by the weight of the matter; not looking to that which is strongly alledged, but iudiciously to consider what is iustly prooued: And for all my owne good and naturall Subiects, that their hearts may remaine established in the trewth; that these forraine inticements may not seduce them from their natall and naturall duetie; and that all aswell strangers, as naturall subiects, to whose eyes this Dis- course shall come, may wisely and vnpartially iudge of the Veritie, as it is nakedly here set downe, for clearing these mists and cloudes of calumnies, which were iniustly heaped vpon me; for which end onely I heartily pray the courteous Reader to be perswaded, that I tooke occasion to publish this Discourse. 1 Ibidem. « Ibidem. A PREMONITION TO ALL MOST MIGHTIE MONARCHES, KINGS, FREE PRINCES, AND STATES OF CHRISTENDOME. TO THE MOST SACRED AND INVINCIBLE PRINCE, RODOLPHE THE II. BY GODS CLEMENCIE ELECT EMPEROUR OF THE ROMANES; KING OF GERMANIE, HVNGARIE, BOHEME, DALMATIE, CROATIE, SCLA- VONIE, &c. ARCH-DUKE OF AVSTRIA, DUKE OF BVRGVNDIE, STIRIA, CARINTHIA, CAR- NIOLA, AND WIRTEMBERG, &c. EARLE OF TYROLIS, &c. AND TO ALL OTHER RIGHT HIGH AND MIGHTIE KINGS; AND RIGHT EX- CELLENT FREE PRINCES AND STATES OF CHRISTENDOME; OUR LOUING BRETHREN, COSINS, ALLIES, CONFEDERATES AND FRIENDS: IAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD, KING or GREAT BRITAINE, FRANCE AND IRELAND; PRO- FESSOTJR, MAINTAINER AND DEFENDER OF THE TREW, CHRISTIAN, CATHOLIQUE AND APOSTOLIQUE FAITH, PROFESSED BY THE ANCIENT AND PRIMITIUE CHVRCH, AND SEALED WITH THE BLOOD OF SO MANY HOLY BlSHOPS, AND OTHER FAITHFULL CROWNED WITH THE GLORY OF MARTYRDOME; WISHETH EUERLASTING FELICITIE IN CHRIST OTTR SAVIOVR. To You MOST SACRED AND INVINCIBLE EMPEROVR; RIGHT HIGH AND MIGHTIE KINGS; RIGHT EXCELLENT FREE PRINCES AND STATES, MY LOVING BRETH- REN AND COSINS: TO you, I say, as of right belongeth, doe I consecrate and direct this Warn- ing of mine, or rather Preamble to my reprinted Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance: For the cause is generall,and concerneth the Authoritie and priuiledge of Kings in generall, and all supereminent Temporall powers. And if in what- soeuer Societie, or Corporation of men, either in Corporations of Cities, or in the Corporation of any mechanicke craft or handle- worke, euery man is carefull to maintaine the priuiledges of that Societie whereunto he is sworne; nay, they will rather cluster all in one, making it a common cause, exposing themselues to all sorts of perill, then suffer the least breach in their Liberties; If those of the baser sort of people, I say, be so curious and zealous for the preseruation of their com- mon priuiledges and liberties, as if the meanest amongst them be touched in any such point, they thinke it concerneth them all : Then what should wee doe in such a case, whom GOD hath placed in the highest thrones vpon earth, made his Lieutenants and Vice-gerents, and euen seated vs vpon his owne Throne to exe- cute his ludgements ? The consideration hereof hath now mooued mee to expone a Case vnto you, which doeth not so neerely touch mee in my particular, as it doeth open a breach against our Authoritie, (I speak in the plurall of all Kings) and priuiledge in generall. And since not onely all rankes and sorts of people in no A PREMONITION III all Nations doe inuiolably obserue this Maxime, but euen the Ciuil Law, by which the greatest part of Christendome is gouerned, doeth giue them an interest, qui fouent consimilem causam; How much more then haue yee interest in this cause, not beeing similis or par causa to yours, but eadem with yours ? and indeed yee aUfouetis, or at least fouere debetis eandem causam mecum. And since this cause is common to vs all; both the Ciuill Lawes, and the municipal! Lawes of all Nations, permit and warne them, that haue a common interest, to concurre in one for the defence of their common cause; yea, common sense teacheth vs with the Poet, Ecquid Ad te post paulo ventura pencula sentis ? Nam tua res agilur paries cum proximus ardet. Awake then while it is time, and suffer not, by your longer sleepe, the strings of your Authoritie to be cut in singulis, and one and one to your generall ruine, which by your vnited forces, would rather make a strong rope for the enemie to hang himself e in, with Achitophel, then that hee should euer bee able to breake it. As for this Apologie of mine, it is trew, that I thought good to set it first with- out putting my name vnto it; but neuer so, as I thought to denie it, remembring well mine owne words, but taken out of the Scripture, in the beginning of the Preface to the Reader, in my BASIAIKON AflPON, that nothing is so hid, which shall not bee opened, etc.: promising there, which with GOD his grace I shall euer performe, neuer to doe that in secret, which I shall need to be ashamed of, when it shall come to be proclaimed in publique. In deed I though it fit, for two respects, that this my Apologie should first visite the world without hauing my name written in the forehead thereof. First because of the matter, and next of the persons that I medled with. The matter, it being a Treatise, which I was to write, conteining reasons and discourses in Diuinitie, for the defence of the Oath of Allegiance, and refutation of the con- demners thereof; I thought it not comely for one of my place, to put my name to bookes concerning Scholasticke Disputations; whose calling is to set forth Decrees in the Imperatiue mood: for I thinke my selfe as good a man as the Pope, by his reuerence, for whom these my Answerers make the like excuse; for that his Breues are so summary without yeelding any reason vnto them. My next reason was the respect of the persons whom with I medled: Wherein, although I shortly answered the Popes Breues; yet the point I most laboured, being the refutation of Bellarmines Letter, I was neuer the man, I confesse, that could thinke a Cardinall a meet match for a King: especially, hauing many hundreth thousands of my subiects of as good birth as hee. As for his Church dignitie, his Cardinal- ship I meane, I know not how to ranke or value it, either by the warrant of God his word, or by the ordinance of Emperours or Kings; it being indeed onely a new Papall erection, tolerated by the sleeping conniuence of our Predecessours (I meane still by the plural! of Kings.) But notwithstanding of this my forbearing to put my name vnto it, some Embassadours of some of you (my louing Brethren 112 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I and Cousins) whome this cause did neereliest concerne, can witnesse, that I made Presents of some of those bookes, at their first printing, vnto them, and that auowedly in my owne name. As also the English Paragraphist, or rather peruerse Pamphleter Parsons, since all his description must runne vpon a P. hath trewly obserued, that my Armes are affixed in the frontispice thereof, which vseth not to bee in bookes of other mens doing; whereby his malice in pretending his ignorance, that hee might pay mee the soundlier, is the more inexcusable. But now that I finde my sparing to put my name vnto it hath not procured my spar- ing by these answerers, who haue neither spared my Person directly in naming me, nor indirectly by railing vpon the Author of the Booke: it is now high time for me no longer to conceale not disauow my selfe, as if I were ashamed of my owne deed. And therefore that ye may the better vnderstand the nature of the cause, I will begin at the first ground thereof. The neuer enough wondered at and abhorred POWDER-TREASON (though the repetition thereof grieueth, I know, the gentle hearted lesuite Parsons) this Trea- son, I say, being not onely intended against mee and my Posteritie, but euen against the whole house of Parliament, plotted onely by Papists, and they onely led thereto by a preposterous zeale for the aduancement of their Religion; some of them continuing so obstinate, that euen at their death they would not acknowl- edge their fault; but in their last words, immediatly before the expiring of their breath, refused to condemne themselues and craue pardon for their deed, except the Romish Church should first condemne it; And soone after, it being discouered, that a great number of my Popish Subiects of all rankes and sexes, both men and women, as well within as without the Countrey; had a confused notion and an obscure knowledge, that some great thing was to bee done in that Parliament for the weale of the Church; although, for secrecies cause, they were not acquainted with the particulars; certaine formes of prayer hauing likewise beene set downe and vsed for the good successe of that great errand; adding heereunto, that diuers times, and from diuers Priests, the Archtraitours themselues receiued the Sacra- ment for confirmation of their heart, and obseruation of secrecie; Some of the principall lesuites likewise being found guiltie of the foreknowledge of the Trea- son itselfe; of which number some fled from their triall, others were apprehended (as holy Garnet himselfe and Owldcorne were) and iustly executed vpon their owne plaine confession of their guilt : If this Treason now, clad with these cir- cumstances, did not minister a iust occasion to that Parliament house, whome they thought to haue destroyed, courageously and zealously at their next sitting downe, to vse all meanes of triall, whether any more of that minde were yet left in the Countrey; I leaue it to you to iudge, whom God hath appointed his highest Depute Judges vpon earth: And amongst other things for this purpose, This Oath of Allegiance, so vniustly impugned, was then deuised and enacted. And in case any sharper Lawes were then made against the Papists, that were not obedient to the former Lawes of the Countrey; if ye will consider the Time, Place and A PREMONITION 113 Persons, it will be thought no wonder, seeing that occasion did so iustly exasperate them to make seuerer Lawes, then otherwise they would haue done. The Time, I say, being the very next sitting downe of the Parliament, after the discouerie of that abominable Treason: the Place being the same, where they should all haue bene blowne vp, and so bringing it freshly to their memorie againe: the Persons being the very Parliament men whom they thought to haue destroyed. And yet so farre hath both my heart and gouernment bene from any bitternes, as almost neuer one of those sharpe additions to the former Lawes haue euer yet bene put in execution. And that ye may yet know further, for the more conuincing these Libellers of wilfull malice, who impudently amrme, That this Oath of Allegiance was deuised for deceiuing and intrapping of Papists in points of Conscience; The trewth is, that the Lower house of Parliament at the first framing of this Oath, made it to containe, That the Pope had no power to excommunicate me; which I caused them to reforme, onely making it to conclude, That no excommunication of the Popes, can warrant my Subiects to practise against my Person or State; denying the deposition of Kings to be in the Popes lawfull power; as indeed I take any such temporall violence, to be farre without the limits of such a Spirituall censure as Excommunication is. So carefull was I that nothing should be con- tained in this Oath, except the profession of natural Allegiance, and ciuil and temporall obedience, with a promise to resist to all contrary vnciuill violence. This Oath now grounded vpon so great and iust an occasion, set forth in so reasonable termes, and ordained onely for making of a trew distinction betweene Papists of quiet disposition, and in all other things good subiects, and such other Papists as in their hearts maintained the like violent bloody Maximes, that the Powder-Traitours did: This Oath, I say, being published and put in practise, bred such euill blood in the Popes head and his Cleargie, as Breue after Breue commeth forth, vt vndam vnda sequitur; prohibiting all Catholikes from taking the same, as a thing cleane contrary to the Catholike faith; and that the taking thereof cannot stand with the saluation of their soules. There commeth likewise a letter of Cardinall Bettarmines to Blackwell to the same purpose; but discoursing more at length vpon the said Oath. Whereupon, after I had entred in consideration of their vniust impugning that so iust and law- full an Oath; and fearing that by their vntrew calumnies and Sophistrie the hearts of a number of the most simple and ignorant of my people should bee misse-led, vnder that faire and deceitfull cloake of Conscience; I thought good to set foorth an Apologie for the said Oath : wherein I prooued, that as this Oath con- tained nothing but matter of ciuill and temporall Obedience, due by Subiects to their Soueraigne Prince; so this quarrelling therewith was nothing but a late usurpation of Popes (against the warrant of all Scriptures, ancient Councels and Fathers) vpon the Temporall power of Kings, wherewith onely my Apologie doeth meddle. But the publishing of this Booke of mine hath brought such two An- 1I4 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I swerers, or rather Railer vpon mee, as all the world may wonder at : For my Booke being first written in English, an English Oath being the subiect thereof, and the vse of it properly belonging to my Subiects of England; and immediately there- after being translated into Latine, vpon a desire that some had of further publish- ing it abroad; it commeth home to mee now answered in both the Languages. And, I thinke, if it had bene set foorth in all the tongues that were at the con- fusion of Babel, it would haue bene returned answered in them all againe. Thus may a man see how busie a Bishop the Diuell is, and how hee omitteth no diligence for venting of his poysoned wares. But herein their malice doeth clearly appeare, that they pay mee so quickly with a double answere; and yet haue neuer answered their owne Arch-priest, who hath written a booke for the maintenance of the same Oath, and of the temporall authoritie of Kings, alledging a cloud of their Scholemen against them. As for the English Answere, my vnnaturall and fugitiue Subiect, I will neither defile my pen, nor your sacred eyes or eares with the describing of him, who ashames, nay, abhorres not to raile, nay, to rage and spew foorth blasphemies against the late Queene of famous memory. A Subiect to raile against his naturall Soueraigne by birth; A man to raile against a Lady by sexe; A holy man (in outward profession) to insult vpon the dead; nay to take Radamanthus office ouer his head, and to sit downe and play the Judge in hell; And all his quarrell is, that either her Successour, or any of her seruants should speake honourably of her. Cursed be he that curseth the Anointed of God: and destroyed mought he be with the destruction of Korah, that hath sinned in the contradiction of Korah. Without mought such dogs and swine be cast forth, I say, out of the Spirituall Jerusalem. As for my Latine Answere, I haue nothing to say to his person; hee is not my Subiect; hee standeth or falleth vnto his owne Lord: But sure I am, they two haue casten lotts vpon my Booke, since they could not diuide it : the one of them, my fugitiue, to raile vpon my late Predecessour, (but a rope is the fittest answere for such an Historian;) the other, a stranger, thinketh he may be boldest both to pay my person and my Booke, as indeed he doeth; which how iustly either in matter or maner, wee are now to examine. But first, who should be the trew Authour of this booke, I can but guesse. Hee calleth himselfe Mattheus Tortus, Cardinal! Bellarmins Chaplaine. A throwne 1 Euangelist indeed, full of throward Diuinitie; an obscure Authour, vtterly vn- known to mee, being yet little knowne to the world for any other of his workes: and therefore must be a very desperate fellow in beginning his apprentisage, not onely to refute, but to raile vpon a King. But who will consider the carriage of the whole booke, shall finde that hee writeth with such authoritie, or at the least tarn elato stylo, so little sparing either Kings in generall, or my person in particular; and with such a greatnesse, Habemus 2 enim exemplaria Breuium illorum in ma- nibus, and Decernimus: 3 as it shall appeare, or at least bee very probable, that it 1 Being a proper word to expresse the trew meaning of Tortus. ' P. 46. ' P. 63. A PREMONITION 115 is the Masters, and not the mans labour; especially in one place, where he quarrelleth mee for casting vp his moralis certitudo and pie credi vnto him; hee there grossely forgetting himselfe, faith, mala fide nobiscum agit,1 thereby making this Authour to be one person with Bellarmine. But let it bee the worke of a Tortus indeed, and not of a personated Cardinall; yet must it bee the Cardinals deed, since Master Tortus is the Cardinals man, and doeth it in his Masters defence. The errand then being the Cardinals, and done by his-owne man, it cannot but bee accounted as his owne deed; especially since the English Answerer doeth foure tunes promise, that Bellarmine, or one by his appointment, shall sufficiently answere it. And now to come to his matter and maner of Answere: Surely if there were no more but his vnmanerly maner, it is enough to disgrace the whole matter thereof. For first, to shew his pride, in his Printers preface of the Politan edition of this elegans libellus, hee must equall the Cardinals greatnesse with mine in euery thing. For through hee confesseth this Master Tortus to bee an obscure man; yet being the Cardinals Chapleine, he is sufficient enough forsooth to an- swere an English booke, that lacketh the name of an Authour; as if a personated obscure name for Authour of a Cardinals booke, were a meete match for answering a KINGS Booke, that lacketh the name of an Authour; and a Cardinals Chapleine to meete with the Deane of the Kings Chappell, whom Parsons with the Cardinall, haue (as it seemeth) agreed vpon to intitle to bee the Authour of my Apologie. And not onely in the Preface, but also through the whole booke doeth hee keepe this comparatiue greatnesse. Hee must bee as short in his answere, as I am in my Booke, hee must refute all that I haue said against the Popes second Breue, with equall breauitie, and vpon one page almost, as I haue done mine : and because I haue set downe the substance of the Oath in foureteene Articles; in iust as many Articles must he set downe that Acte of Parliament of mine, wherein the Oath is contained: And yet, had hee contented himselfe with his owne pride, by the demonstration of his owne greatnesse, without further wronging of mee, it had bene the more tollerable. But what cause gaue I him to farce his whole booke with iniuries, both against my Person and Booke ? For whereas in all my Apologie I haue neuer giuen him a foule word, and especially neuer gaue him the Lye : hee by the contrary giueth mee nine times the Lye in expresse termes, and seuen times chargeth mee with falsehood, which phrase is equiualent with a Lye. And as for all other wordes of reproch, as nugce, conuitia, temeritas, vanitas, impudentia, blasphemies sermonis barbaries, cum eadem f felicitate scribendi, cauil- lationes, applicatio inepta, fingere historias, audacia qua in hominem sance mentis cadere non potest, vel sensu communi caret, imperitia &• leuitas, omnem omnino pudorem &• conscientiam exuisse, mala fide nobiscum agit, vt lectoribus per fas 6* nefas imponat: of such like reproches, I say, I doubt if there bee a page in all his Booke free, except where hee idlely sets downe the Popes Breues, and his owne 1 Pag. 69. Il6 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Letter . And in case this might onely seeme to touch the vnknowen Authour of the Booke, whome notwithstanding he knew well enough, as I shew before; hee spareth not my Person with my owne name: sometimes saying, that Pope Clement thought mee to bee Inclined to their Religion:1 Sometimes, that I was a Puritane in Scotland, and a persecutour of Protestants?' In one place hee con- cludeth, Quia lacobus non est Catholicus, hoc ipso Hareticus est.3 In another place, Ex Christiana Caluinistam fecerunt* In another place hee sayeth, Neque omnino verum est, lacobum nunquam deseruisse Religionem quam primb susceperat.6 And in another place, after that hee hath compared and ranked mee with lulian the Apostate, hee concludeth, Cum Catholicus not sit, neque Christianus est.6 If this now bee mannerly dealing with a King, I leaue it to you to iudge, who cannot but resent such indignities done to one of your qualitie. And as for the Matter of his Booke, it well fittes indeede the Manner thereof: for hee neuer answereth directly to the maine question in my Booke. For whereas my Apologie handleth onely two points, as I told you before; One, to prooue that the Oath of Allegiance doeth onely meddle with the ciuill and temporall Obedience, due by Subiects to their naturall Soueraignes: The other, that this late vsurpa- tion of Popes ouer the temporall power of Princes, is against the rule of all Scrip- tures, auncient Councels and Fathers: hee neuer improoues the first, but by a false inference; that the Oath denyeth the Popes power of Excommunication directly, since it denieth his authoritie in deposing of Kings. And for the second point, he bringeth no proofe to the contrary, but, Pasce ones meas: and, Tibi dabo claues regni Ccdorum: and, That no Catholike euer doubted of it. So as I may trewly say of him, that hee either vnderstandeth not, or at least will not seeme to vnderstand my Booke, in neuer directly answering the maine question, as I haue alreadie saide; and so may I iustly turne ouer vpon himself e that doome of ig- norance, which in the beginning of his Booke hee rashly pronounceth vpon mee; saying, that I neither vnderstand the Popes Breues, his Letter, nor the Oath it selfe : And as hee delighteth to repeate ouer and ouer, I know not how oft, and triumpheth in this wrong inference of his; That to deny the Popes power to de- pose Kings, is to denie the Popes Primacie, and his spiritual! power of Excom- munication: So doeth hee, vpon that ground of Pasce ones meas, giue the Pope so ample a power ouer Kings, to throne or dethrone them at his pleasure (and yet onely subiecting Christian Kings to that slauerie) as I doubt not but in your owne Honours yee will resent you of such indignities; the rather since it concernes so many of you as professe the Romish religion, farre more then me: For since he accounteth me an heretike, and like lulian the Apostate; I am consequently extra caulam, and none of the Popes flocke, and so am in the case of Ethnicke Princes, ouer whom he confesseth the Pope hath no power. But yee are in the Popes folde; and you, that great Pastour may leade as sheepe to the slaughter, 1 Pag. 47. » Pag. 87 « Ibid. 1 Pag. 98. « Pag. 98. « Pag. 97. A PREMONITION 117 when it shall please him. And as the Asses eares must be homes, if the Lion list so to interprete it; so must yee be remooued as scabbed sheepe from the flocke, if so the Pope thinke you to be, though your skinne be indeed neuer so sound. Thus hath he set such a new goodly interpretation vpon the wordes of CHRIST, Pasce oues meas, as if it were as much to say, as, depose Christian Kings; and that Quodcunque solueris gaue the Pope power to dispense with all sorts of Oathes, Vowes, Penalties, Censures and Lawes, euen with the naturall obedience of Subiects to their Souereigne Lords; much like to that new coyned glosse that his brother Baronius J made vpon the wordes in Saint Peters vision, Surge Petre, occide &° manduca; That is (said he to the Pope) Goe kill and confound the Venetians. And because I haue in my Booke (by citing a place in his controuersies) dis- couered him to be a small friend to Kings, he is much commoued: For whereas in his said Controuersies, speaking de Clericis,2 he is so bolde as to affirme, that Church-men are exempted from the power of earthly Kings; and that they ought them no subiection euen in temporall matters, but onely w rationis and in their owne discretion, for the preseruation of peace and good order; because, I say, citing this place of his in my Booke, I tell with admiration, that hee freeth all Church-men from any subiection to Kings, euen those that are their borne Sub- iects: hee is angry with this phrase, and sayth it is an addition for breeding enuie vnto him, and raising of hatred against him: For, sayth hee, although Bellar- mine affirmed generally, that Church-men were not subiect to earthly Kings; yet did hee not insert that particular clause [though they were borne and dwelling in their Dominions] as if the words of Church-men and earthly Kings in generall imported not as much: for Layickes as well as Church-men are subiect to none but to their naturall Soueraigne: And yet doeth hee not sticke to confesse, that he meant it, though it was not fit (he sayth) to be expressed. And thus quarrels hee me for reuealing his Printed secret. But whose hatred did hee feare in this ? was it not yours ? Who haue interest, but KINGS, in with- drawing of due subiection from KINGS ? And when the greatest Monarches amongst you will remember, that almost the third part of your Subiects and of your Territories, is Church-men, and Church-liuings ; I hope, yee will then con- sider and weigh, what a feather hee pulles out of your wings, when hee denudeth you of so many Subiects and their possessions, in the Popes fauour: nay, what briars and thornes are left within the heart of your dominions, when so populous and potent a partie shall haue their birth, education and lieulihood in your Countries, and yet owe you no subiection, nor acknowledge you for their Sov- ERAIGNES ? So as where the Church-men of old were content with their tythe of euery mans goods; the Pope now will haue little lesse then the third part of euery Kings Subiects and Dominions. And as in this place, so throughout all the 1 Senten. Card. Baron, super excom. Venet. 1 Lib. de Cler. cap. 28. Ii8 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I rest of his booke, bee doeth nothing but amplifie the Popes power ouer Kings, and exaggerate my vnreasonable rigour for pressing this Oath; which hee will needs haue to bee nothing but a renewed Oath of Supremacie in more subtill and craftie termes, onely to robbe the Pope of his Primacie and spirituall power; making his temporall power and authoritie ouer Princes, to be one of the chiefe Articles of the Catholike Faith. But that it may the better appeare vnto you, that all my labour and intention in this errand, was onely to meddle with that due temporall Obedience which my Subiects owe vnto mee; and not to intrap or inthrall their Consciences, as hee most falsely amrmes: Yee shall first see how farre other Godly and Christian Emperours and Kings were from acknowledging the Popes temporall Supremacie ouer them; nay, haue created, controlled and deposed Popes: and next, what a number of my Predecessors in this Kingdome haue at all occasions, euen in the times of the greatest Greatnesse of Popes, resisted and plainely withstood them in this point. And first, all Christian Emperours were for a long time so farre from acknowl- edging the Popes Superioritie ouer them, as by the contrary the Popes acknowl- edged themselues for their Vassals, reuerencing and obeying the Emperours as their Lords, for proofe whereof, I remit you to my Apologie. And for the creating of Popes; the Emperours were in so long and continuall possession thereof, as I will vse for my first witnesse a Pope himself e ; who (in a Synode l of an hundredth fiftie and three Bishops and Abbots) did ordeine, That the Emperour CHARLES the Great should haue the Right of choosing the Pope, and ordeining the Apostolicall Seate, and the Dignitie of the Romane Principalitie: nay, farther hee ordeined; That all Archbishops and Bishops should receiue their Inuestiture from the Emperour, or else bee of no auaile; And, that a Bishop want- ing it, should not bee consecrate, pronouncing an Anathema against all that should disobey this Sentenice. And that the Emperours assent to the Popes Election was a thing ordinary for a long time, Platina,2 and a number of the Popes owne writers beare witnesse: And Bellarmine 3 himselfe, hi his booke of Controuersies, cannot get it hand- somely denied. Nay, the Popes were euen forced then to pay a certaine summe of money to the Emperours for their Confirmation: And this lasted almost seuen hundreth yeeres after CHRIST; witnesse Sigebert 4 and Luitprandus,6 with other Popish Historians. And for Emperours deposing of Popes, there are likewise diuers examples. The Emperour Ottho 6 deposed Pope lohn the twelfth of that name, for diuers 1 Sigebert. ad ann. 773. Walthram. Naum- « Lib. de Clericis. burg. lib. de Episc. inuestitura. Mart. 4 In Chron. ad ann. 680. Polon. ad ann. 780. Theod. a Niem. de ' In vit. Agathen. & Anast. in vit. eiusd. priuileg. & lurib. Imperij & dist. 63. Agath. & Herm. Contract, ad ann. 678. C. Hadrian. edit, poster. & dist. 63. c Agatho. 1 See Platin. in vit. Pelag. 2. Gregor. i. & • Luitpr. Hist. lib. 6. ca. 10. n. Rhegino ad Seuerini. an. 063. & Platin. in vit. loan. 13. A PREMONITION 119 crimes and vices; especially of Lecherie. The Emperour Henry l the third in a short time deposed three Popes; Benedict the ninth, Siluester the third, and Gregorie the sixt, as well for the sinne of Auarice, as for abusing their extraordinarie authentic against Kings and Princes. And as for KINGS that haue denied this Temporall Superioritie of Popes; First, wee haue the vnanime testimonie of diuers famous HISTORIOGRAPHERS for the generall of many CHRISTIAN Kingdomes. As Walthram 2 testifieth, That the Bishops of Spaine, Scotland, England, Hungarie, from ancient institution till this moderne noueltie, had their Inuestiture by KINGS, with peaceable inioyning of their Temporalities whooly and entirely; and whosoeuer (sayeth hee) is peaceably solicitous, let him peruse the Hues of the Ancients, and reade the Histories, and hee shall understand thus much. And for verification of this generall Assertion; wee will first beginne at the practise of the KINGS of France, though not named by Walthram in this his enumeration of Kingdomes : amongst whom my first witnesse shall bee that vulgarly knowne letter of Philip le Bel 3 King of France, to Pope Boniface the eighth, the beginning whereof, after a scornefull saluation, is, Sciat tua maxima fatuitas, nos in temporalibus nemini subesse. And likewise after that Lewes 4 the ninth, surnamed Sanctus, had by a publique instrument (called Pragmatica sanctio) forbidden all the exactions of the Popes Court within his Realme: Pope Pius 6 the second, in the beginning of Lewes the eleuenth his time, greatly misseliking this Decree so long before made, sent his Legate to the said King Lewes, with Letters-patents, vrging his promise which hee had made when hee was Dolphin of France, to repeale that Sanction if euer hee came to bee King. The King referreth the Legate ouer with his Letters-patents to the Councell of Paris: where the matter being propounded, was impugned by lohannes Romanus, the Kings Atturney; with whose opinion the Vniuersitie of Paris concurring, an Appeale was made from the attempts of the Pope to the next generall Councell; the Cardinall departing with indignation. But that the King of France and Church thereof haue euer stoken to their Gallican immunitie, in denying the Pope any Temporall power ouer them, and in resisting the Popes as oft as euer they prest to meddle with their Temporall power, euen in the donation of Benefices; the Histories are so full of them, as the onely examples thereof would make vp a bigge Volume by it selfe. And so farre were the Sorbonistes for the Kings and French Churches priuiledge in this point, as they were wont to maintaine; That if the Pope fell a quarrelling the King for that cause, the Gallican Church might elect a Patriarch of their owne, renouncing any obedience to the Pope. And Gerson was so farre from giuing the Pope that temporal! authority ouer Kings (who otherwise was a deuoute Roman Catholike) 1 Marianus Scot. Sigeb. Abbas Vrsp. ad ann. ' See Annales Franciae Nicolai Gillij in Phil. 1046 & Plat, in vit. Greg. 6. Pulchro. 1 Walthram. Naumburg. in lib. de inuest. 4 Anno 1268. ex Arrestis Senatus Parisiens. Episc. Vixit circa ann. mo. • loan. Maierius. lib. de Scismat. & Concil. 120 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I as hee wrote a Booke de Auferibilitate Papa; not onely from the power ouer Kings, but euen ouer the Church. And now pretermitting all further examples of forraigne Kings actions, I will onely content me at this time with some of my owne Predecessors examples of this kingdome of England; that it may thereby the more clearly appeare, that euen in those times when the world was fullest of darkened blindnes and ignor- ance, the Kings of England haue oftentimes, not onely repined, but euen strongly resisted and withstood this temporall vsurpation and encrochment of ambitious Popes. And I will first begin at King Henry l the first of that name, after the Con- quest; who after he was crowned gaue the Bishopricke of Winchester to William Gifford, and forwith inuested him into all the possessions belonging to the Bishop- ricke, contrary to the Canons of the new Synod. King Henry 2 also gaue the Archbishopricke of Canterbury to Radulph Bishop of London; and gaue him inuestiture by a Ring and a Crosiers staffe. Also Pope Calixtus 3 held a Councell at RHEMES, whither King Henry had appointed certaine Bishops of ENGLAND and NORMANDIE to goe; Thurstan also, elected Archbishop of YORKE, got leaue of the King to goe thither, guing his faith that hee would not receiue Consecration of the Pope; And comming to the Synode, by his liberall gifts (as the fashion is) wanne the ROMANES fauour, and by their meanes obtained to bee consecrated at the Popes hand: Which assoone as the King of ENGLAND knewe, hee forbade him to come within his Dominions. Moreouer King Edward the first prohibited the Abbot of Waltham 4 and Deane of Pauls, to collect a tenth of euery mans goods for a supply to the holy Land, which the Pope by three Bulks had committed to their charge; and the said Deane of Pauls compeering before the King and his Councell, promised for the reuerence he did beare vnto the King, not to meddle any more in that matter, without the Kings good leaue and permission. Here (I hope) a Church-man disobeyed the Pope for obedience to his Prince euen in Church matters: but this new lesuited Diuinitie was not then knowen in the world. The same Edward I. impleaded the Deane of the Chappell of Vuluerhampton, because the said Deane had, against the priuiledges of the Kingdome, giuen a Prebend of the same Chappell to one at the Popes command: whereupon the said Deane compeered, and put himselfe in the Kings will for his offence. The said Edward I. depriued also the Bishop of Durham of all his liberties, for disobeying a prohibition of the Kings. So as it appeareth, the Kings in those dayes thought the Church-men their Subiects, though now we be taught other Seraphicall doctrine. 1 Matth. Paris, in Henr. i. anno noo. 8 Idem. ibid, anno 1113. 1 Idem. ibid, anno 1119. 4 Ex Archiuis Regni. A PREMONITION 121 For further proofe whereof lohn of Ibstocke was committed to the goale by the sayde King, for hauing a suite in the Courte of Rome seuen yeeres for the Rectorie of Newchurch. And Edward II. following the footsteps of his Father; after gluing out a Summons against the Abbot of Walden, for citing the Abbot of Saint Albons and others in the Court of Rome, gaue out letters for his apprehension. And likewise, because a certaine Prebend of Banburie had drawen one Beuer- coat by a Plea to Rome without the Kings Dominions, therefore were letters of Caption sent foorth against the said Prebend. And Edward III. following likewise the example of his Predecessours; Because a Parson of Liche had summoned the Prior of S. Oswalds before the Pope at Auinion; for hauing before the ludges in England recouered the arrerage of a pension; directed a Precept, for seasing vpon all the goods both Spirituall and Temporall of the said Parson, because hee had done this in preiudice of the King and Crowne. The said King also made one Harwoden to bee declared culpable and worthie to bee punished, for procuring the Popes Bulks against a Judgement that was giuen by the Kings ludges. And likewise; Because one entred vpon the Priorie of Barnewett by the Popes Bui, the said Intrant was committed to the Tower of London, there to remaine during the Kings pleasure. So as my Predecessors (ye see) of this Kingdome, euen when the Popes tri- umphed in their greatnesse, spared not to punish any of their Subiects, that would preferre the Popes Obedience to theirs, euen in Church-matters: So farre were they then from either acknowledging the Pope for their temporall Superiour, or yet from doubting that their owne Church-men were not their Subiects. And now I will close vp all these examples with an Act of Parliament in King Richard II. his time; whereby it was prohibited, That none should procure a Benefice from Rome, vnder paine to be put out of the Kings protection. And thus may yee see, that what those Kings successiuely one to another by foure generations haue acted in priuate, the same was also maintained by a publicke Law. By these few examples now (I hope) I haue sufficiently cleered my selfe from the imputation, that any ambition or desire of Noueltie in mee should haue stirred mee, either to robbe the Pope of any thing due vnto him, or to assume vnto my selfe any farther authoritie, then that which other Christian Emperours and Kings through the world, and my owne Predecessours of England in especiall, haue long agone maintained. Neither is it enough to say (as Parsons doeth in his Answere to the Lord Coke} That farre more Kings of this Countrey haue giuen many more examples of acknowledging, or not resisting the Popes vsurped Au- thoritie; some perchance lacking the occasion; and some the abilitie of resisting them; for euen by the Ciuill Law, in the case of violent intrusion and long and wrongfull possession against mee, it is enough if I prooue that I haue made lawfull interruption vpon conuenient occasions. 122 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I But the Cardinall thinkes the Oath, not onely vnlawfull for the substance thereof, but also in regard of the Person whom vnto it is to be sworne: For (saith he) The King is not a Catholique; And in two or three other places of his booke, he sticketh not to call me by my name very broadly, an Heretike, as I haue already told. But yet before I be publikely declared an Heretike; by the Popes owne Law my people ought not to refuse their Obedience vnto me. And (I trust) if I were but a subiect, and accused by the Pope in his Conclaue before his Cardinals, hee would haue hard prouing mee an Heretike, if he Judged me by their owne ancient Orders. For first, I am no Apostate, as the Cardinal would make me; not onely hauing euer bene brought vp in that Religion which I presently professe, but euen my Father and Grandfather on that side professing the same : and so cannot be prop- erly an Heretike, by their owne doctrine, since I neuer was of their Church. And as for the Queene my Mother of worthy memorie; although she continued in that Religion wherein shee was nourished, yet was she so farre from being super- stitious or lesuited therein, that at my Baptisme (although I was baptized by a Popish Archbishop) she sent him word to forbeare to vse the spettle in my Baptisme; which was obeyed, being indeed a filthy and an apish tricke, rather in scorne then imitation of CHRIST. And her owne very words were, That she would not haue a pockie priest to spet in her childs mouth. As also the Font wherein I was Christened, was sent from the late Queene here of famous memory, who was my God-mother; and what her Religion was, Pius V. was not ignorant. And for further proofe, that that renowned Queene my Mother was not superstitious; as in all her Letters (whereof I receiued many) she neuer made mention of Re- ligion, not laboured to perswade me in it; so at her last words, she commanded her Master-houshold, a Scottish Gentleman my seruant and yet aliue, she com- manded him ( I say) to tell me; That although she was of another Religion then that wherein I was brought vp; yet she would not presse me to change, except my owne Conscience forced mee to it; For so that I led a good life, and were carefull to doe Justice and gouerene well; she doubted not but I would be in a good case with the profession of my owne Religion. Thus am I no Apostate, nor yet a deborder from that Religion which one part of my Parents professed, and an other part gaue mee good allowance of. Neither can my Baptisme in the rites of their Religion make me an Apostate, or Heretike in respect of my present pro- fession, since we all agree in the substance thereof, being all Baptized In the Name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost: vpon which head there is no variance amongst vs. And now for the point of Heretike; I will neuer been ashamed to render an accompt of my profession, and of that hope that is in me, as the Apostle pre- scribeth. I am such a CATHOLIKE CHRISTIAN, as beleeueth the three Creeds; That of the Apostles, that of the Councell oi Nice, and that of Athanasius; the two latter being Paraphrases to the former: And I beleeue them in that sense, as A PREMONITION 123 the ancient Fathers and Councels that made them did vnderstand them: To which three Creeds all the Ministers of England doe subscribe at their Ordination. And I also acknowledge for Orthodoxe all those other formes of Creedes, that either were deuised by Councels or particular Fathers, against such particular Heresies as most reigned in their tunes. I reuerence and admit the foure first generall Councels as Catholique and Orthodoxe: And the said foure generall Councels are acknowledged by our Acts of Parliament, and receiued for Orthodoxe by our Church. As for the Fathers; I reuerence them as much and more then the lesuites doe, and as much as themselues euer craued. For what euer the Fathers for the first fiue hundreth yeeres did with an vnanime consent agree vpon, to be beleeued as a necessary point of saluation, I either will beleeue it also, or at least will be humbly silent ; not taking vpon mee to condemne the same : But for euery priuate Fathers opinion, it bindes not my conscience more then Bellar mines ; euery one of the Fathers vsually contradicting others. I will therefore in that case follow S. Angus- lines 1 rule in iudging of their opinions, as I finde them agree with the Scriptures: what I finde agreeable thereunto I will gladly imbrace; what is otherwise I will (with their reuerence) reiect. As for the Scriptures; no man doubteth I will beleeue them: But euen for the Apocrypha; I hold them in the same accompt that the Ancients did: They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publikely read in our Churches: I reuerence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the Canon, wee accompt them to bee secundce lectionis, or ordinis 2 (which is Bellarmines owne distinction) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of Faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonicall Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffinus (who is no Nouelist, I hope) That the Apocryphall books were by the Fathers permitted to be read; nor for confirmation of Doctrine, but onely for instruction of the people. As for the Saints departed, I honour their memory, and in honour of them doe we in our Church obserue the dayes of so many of them, as the Scripture doeth canonize for Saints; but I am loath to beleeue all the tales of the Legended saints. And first for the blessed Virgin MARIE, I yeeld her that which the Angel Gabriel pronounced of her, and which in her Canticle shee prophecied of herselfe: that is, That she 3 is blessed amongst women, and That all generations 4 shall call her blessed. I reuerence her as the Mother of CHRIST, whom of our Sauiour tooke his flesh, and so the Mother of GOD, since the Diuintie and Humanitie of CHRIST are inseparable. And I freely confesse, that shee is in glory both aboue Angels and men, her owne Sonne (that is both GOD and man) onely excepted. But I dare not mocke her and blaspheme against GOD, calling her not onely Diua but Dea, and praying her to command and controule her Sonne, who is her GOD; 1 Lib. 2. cont. Cresconium. cap. 32. * Luk. i. 28. 1 Lib. I. de verb. Dei. c. 4. * Ibid. ver. 48. 124 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I and her SAVIOUR: Nor yet not I thinke, that shee hath no other thing to doe in heauen, then to heare euery idle mans suite, and busie her selfe in their errands; whiles requesting, whiles commanding her Sonne, whiles comming downe to kisse and make loue with Priestes, and whiles disputing and brawling with Deuils. In heauen shee is in eternall glory and ioy, neuer to bee interrupted with any worldly businesse; and there I leaue her with her blessed Sonne our SAVIOUR and hers in eternall felicitie. As for Prayer to Saints; CHRIST (I am sure) hath commanded vs to Come all to him that are loaden with sinne, and hee will relieue vs : * and Saint Paid hath forbidden vs to worship Angels; 2 or to vse any such voluntary worship, that hath a shew of humilitie in that it spareth not the flesh. But what warrant wee haue to haue recourse vnto these Dij Penates or Tutelares, these Courtiers of GOD, I know not; I remit that to these Philosophicall Neoterike Diuines. It satisfieth mee to pray to GOD through CHRIST as I am commanded, which I am sure must be the safest way; and I am sure the safest way is the best way in points of saluation. But if the Romish Church hath coined new Articles of Faith, neuer heard of in the first 500. yeeres after CHRIST, I hope I shall neuer bee condemned for an Heretike, for not being a Nouelist. Such are the priuate Masses, where the Priest playeth the parth both of the Priest and of the people; And such are the Amputation of the one halfe of the Sacrament from the people; The Transsubstantion, Elevation for Adoration, and Circumportation in Procession of the Sacrament; the workes of Supererogation, rightly named Thesaurus Ecclesia; the Baptising of Bels, and a thousand other trickes: But aboue all, the worshipping of Images. If my faith bee weake in these, I confesse I had rather beleeue too little then too much: And yet since I beleeue as much as the Scriptures doe warrant, the Creeds doe perswade, and the ancient Councels decreed; I may well be a Schismatike from Rome, but I am sure I am no Heretike. For Reliques of Saints; If I had any such that I were assured were members of their bodies, I would honourably bury them, and not giue them the reward of condemned mens members, which are onely ordeined to bee depriued of buriall: But for worshipping either them or Images, I must account it damnable Idolatrie. I am no Iconomachus; I quarrell not the making of Images, either for publike decoration, or for mens priuate vses: But that they should bee worshipped, bee prayed to, or any holinesse attributed vnto them, was neuer knowen of the Ancients: And the Scriptures are so directly, vehemently and punctually against it, as I wonder what braine of man, or suggestion of Sathan durst offer it to Christians; and all must bee salued with nice Philosophicall distinctions: As, Idolum nihil est: and, They worshop (forsooth) the Images of things in being, and the Image of the trew GOD. But the Scripture forbiddeth to worship the . Image of any thing that GOD created. It was not a nihil then that God forbade onely to be worshipped, neither was the brasen Serpent, nor the body of Moses a 1 Matt. ii. 28. « Coloss. 2. 8, 23. A PREMONITION 125 nihil; and yet the one was destroyed, and the other hidden for eschewing of Idolatrie. Yea, the Image of GOD himselfe is not onely expresly forbidden to bee worshipped, but euen to bee made. The reason is giuen, That no eye euer saw GOD; and how can we paint his face, when Moses (the man that euer was most familiar with GOD) neuer saw but his backe parts ? Surely, since he cannot be drawn to the mue, it is a thankelesse labour to marre it with a false representation; which no Prince, nor scarce any other man will bee contented with in their owne pictures. Let them therefore that maintaine this doctrine, answere it to CHRIST at the latter day, when he shall accuse them of Idolatrie ; And then I doubt if hee will bee payed with such nice sophisticall Distinctions. But CHRISTS Crosse must haue a particular priuiledge (say they) and bee worshipped ratione contactus. But first wee must know what kinde of touching of CHRISTS body drew a vertue from it; whether euery touching, or onely touching by faith ? That euery touching of his body drew not vertue from it, is more then manifest. When the woman1 in the bloody fluxe touched him, she was healed of her faith: But Peter then told him that a crowd and throng of many people then touched him; and yet none of them receiued any benefite or vertue from him. ludas touched him many and many a time, besides his last kisse; so did the vil- laines that buffeted and crucified him; and yet I may safely pronounce them accursed, that would bestow any worship vpon their reliques: yea wee cannot denie but the land of Canaan it selfe (whereupon our Lord did dayly tread) is so visibly accursed, beeing gouerned by faithlesse Turkes, full of innumerable sects of hereticall Christians, and the very fertilitie thereof so farre degenerated into a pitifull sterilitie, as hee must bee accursed that accounteth it blessed. Nay, when a certaine woman 2 blessed the belly that bare CHRIST, and the breastes that gaue him sucke; Nay, rather (saith hee) Blessed are those that heare the Word of God, and keepe it. Except then they could first prooue that CHRIST had re- solued to blesse that tree of the Crosse whereupon hee was nailed; they can neuer proue that his touching it could giue it any vertue. And put the case it had a vertue of doing miracles, as Peters shadow had; yet doeth it not follow, that it is lawful to worship it, which Peter would neuer accept of. Surely the Prophets that in so many places curse those that worship Images, that haue eyes and see not, that haue eares and heare not, would much more haue cursed them that worship a piece of a sticke, that hath not so much as any resemblance or representation of eyes or eares. As for Purgatorie and all the trash 3 depending thereupon, it is not worth the talking of; Bellarmine cannot finde any ground for it in all the Scriptures. Onely I would pray him to tell me; If that faire greene Meadow that is in Purgatorie,4 hajie a brooke running thorow it; that in case I come there, I may haue hawking vpon it. But as for me; I am sure there is a Heauen and a Hell, premium &• 1 Luke 8. » Jubilees, Indulgences, satisfactions for the dead, &c. J Luk. ir. 28. 4 Lib. 2 de Purgat. cap. 7. 126 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I poena, for the Elect and reprobate: How many other roomes there be, I am not on God his counsell. Multcz sunt mansiones in domo Patris mei,1 saith CHRIST, who is the trew Purgatorie for our sinnes : But how many chambers and anti-chambers the diuell hath, they can best tell that goe to him: But in case there were more places for soules to goe to then we know of, yet let vs content vs with that which in his Word he hath reuealed vnto vs, and not inquire further into his secrets. Heauen and Hell are there reuealed to be the eternall home of all mankinde: let vs indeauour to winne the one and eschew the other; and there is an end. Now in all this discourse haue I yet left out the maine Article of the Romish faith; and that is the Head of the Church or Peters Primacie; for who denieth this, denieth fidem Catholicam, saith Bellarmine. That Bishops ought to be in the Church, I euer maintained it, as an Apostolique institution, and so the ordinance of God ; contrary to the Puritanes, and likewise to Bellarmine; 2 who denies that Bishops haue their lurisdiction immediatly from God (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritanes part, since lesuits are nothing but Puritan-papists^) And as I euer maintained the state of Bishops, and the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchic for order sake; so was I euer an enemie to the confused Anarchie or paritie of the Puritanes, as well appeareth in my BASIAIKON AflPON. Heauen is gouerned by order, and all the good Angels there; nay, Hell it selfe could not subsist without some order; And the very deuils are diuided into Legions, and haue their chief etaines : how can any societie then vpon earth, subsist without order and degrees ? And therefore I cannot enough wonder with what brasen face this Answerer could say, That I was a Puritane in Scotland, and an enemie to Protestants:3 1 that was persecuted by Puritanes there, not from my birth onely, but euen since foure moneths before my birth ? I that in the yeere of God 84. erected Bishops, and depressed all their popular Paritie, I then being not 18. yeeres of aage ? I that in my said Booke to my Sonne, doe speake tenne times more bitterly of them nor of the Papists; hauing in my second Edition thereof, affixed a long Apologetike Preface, onely in odium Puritanorum ? and I that for the space of sixe yeeres before my comming into England, laboured nothing so much as to depresse their Paritie, and re-erect Bishops againe ? Nay, if the dayly Commentaries of my life and actions in Scot- land, were written (as lulius Cassars were) there would scarcely a moneth passe in all my life, since my entring into the 13. yeere of my aage, wherein some accident or other would not conuince the Cardinall of a Lye in this point. And surely I giue a faire commendation to the Puritanes in that place of my booke, Where I affirme that I haue found greater honestie with the highland and border theeues, then with that sort of people. But leauing him to his owne impudence, I returne to my purpose. Of Bishops and Church Hierarchic I very well allowe (as I said before) and likewise of Ranks and Degrees amongst Bishops. Patriarches (I know) were in the tune of the Primitiue Church, and I likewise reuerence that Institution for order 1 lohn 14. » Bell. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 25. » Page 98. A PREMONITION 1 27 sake : and amongst them was a contention for the first place. And for my selfe (if that were yet the question) I would with all my heart giue my consent that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first Seate: I being a westerne King would goe with the Patriarch of the West. And for his temporall Principalitie ouer the Signory of Rome, I doe not quarrell it neither; let him in God his Name be Primus Episcopus inter omnes Episcopos, and Princeps Episcoporum; so it be no other- wise but as Peter was Princeps Apostolorum. But as I well allow of the Hierarchic of the Church for distinction of orders (for so I vnderstand it) so I vtterly deny that there is an earthly Monarch thereof, whose word must be a Law, and who cannot erre in his Sentence, by an infallibilitie of Spirit. Because earthly King- domes must haue earthly Monarches; it doeth not follow, that the Church must haue a visible Monarch too: for the world hath not ONE earthly temporall Monarch. CHRIST is his Churches Monarch, and the holy Ghost his Deputie: Reges gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic.1 CHRIST did not promise before his ascension, to leaue Peter with them to direct and instruct them in all things ; but he promised to send the holy Ghost vnto them for that end.2 And as for these two before cited places, whereby Bellarmine maketh the Pope to triumph ouer Kings: I meane Pasce oues, and Tibi dabo claues: 3 the Cardinall knowes well enough, that the same words of Tibi dabo, are in another place spoken by Christ in the plurall number. And he likewise knowes what reason the Ancients doe giue, why Christ bade Peter pascere oues: and also what a cloude of witnesses there is, both of Ancients, and euen of late Popish writers, yea diuers Cardinals, that do all agree that both these speeches vsed to Peter, were meant to all the Apostles represented in his person: Otherwise how could Paul 4 direct the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person cum spiritu suo, whereas he should then haue sayd, cum spiritu Petri? And how could all the Apostles haue otherwise vsed all their censures, onely in Christs Name, and neuer a word of his Vicar ? Peter (wee reade) did in all the Apostles meetings sit amongst them as one of their number: And when chosen men were sent to Antiochia from that great Apostolike Councel at Jerusalem* (Acts 15.) The text saith, It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, to send chosen men, but no mention made of the Head thereof; and so in their Letters no mention is made of Peter, but onely of the Apostles, Elders and Brethren. And it is a wonder, why Paul rebuketh the Church of Corinth for making exception of Persons, because some followed Paul, some Apollos, some Cephas,6 if Peter was their visible Head! for then those that followed not Peter or Cephas, renounced the Catholike faith. But it appeareth well that Paul knew little of our new doctrine, since he handleth Peter so rudely, as he not onely compareth but preferreth himselfe vnto him.7 But our Cardinall proues Peters superioritie, by Pauls going to visite him.8 In- 1 Luke 22. 25. * i. Cor. 5. 4. 7 Galat. 2. 1 lohn 14. 26. * Act. 15. 22, 23. * Galat. i. 18. 1 Matth. 18. 18. ' i. Cor. i. 12. 128 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I deed Paul saith, hee went to lerusalem to visite Peter, and conferre with him; but he should haue added, and to kisse his feet. To conclude then, The trewth is that Peter was both in aage, and in the time of CHRISTS calling him, one of the first of the Apostles; In order the principall of the first twelue, and one of the three whom CHRIST for order sake preferred to all the rest. And no further did the Bishop of Rome claime for three hundred yeeres after CHRIST: Subiect they were to the generall Councels, and euen but of late did the Councell of Constance depose three Popes, and set vp the fourth. And vntill Phocas dayes (that murthered his master) were they subiect to Emperours. But how they are now come to be Christs Vicars, nay, Gods on earth, triple- crowned, Kings of heauen, earth and hell, ludges of all the world, and none to iudge them; Heads of the faith, Absolute deciders of all Controuersies by the infallibility of their spirit, hauing all power both Spirituall and Temporall in their hands; the high Bishops, Monarches of the whole earth, Superiours to all Em- perours and Kings; yea, Supreme Vice-gods, who whether they will or not cannot erre: how they are now come (I say) to the toppe of greatnesse, I know not: but sure I am, Wee that are KINGS haue greatest neede to looke vnto it. As for me, Paul and Peter I know, but these men I know not : And yet to doubt of this, is to denie the Catholique faith; Nay, the world it selfe must be turned vpside downe, and the order of Nature inuerted (making the left hand to haue the place before the Right, and the last named to bee the first in honour) that this primacie may bee maintained.1 Thus haue I now made a free Confession of my Faith: And (I hope) I haue fully cleared my selfe from being an Apostate; and as farre from being an Here- tike, as one may bee that beleeueth the Scriptures, and the three Creedes, and acknowledgeth the foure first generall Councels. If I bee loath to beleeue too much, especially of Nouelties, men of greater knowledge may well pitie my weakenesse; but I am sure none will condemne me for an Heretike, saue such as make the Pope their God; and thinke him such a speaking Scripture, as they can define Heresie no otherwise, but to bee whatsoeuer Opinion is maintained against the Popes definition of faith. And I will sincerely promise, that when euer any point of the Religion I professe, shalbe proued to be new, and not Ancient, Catholike, and Apostolike (I meane for matter of Faith) I will as soone renounce it; closing vp this head with the Maxime of Vincentius Lirinensis,2 that I will neuer refuse to unbrace any opinion in Diuinity necessary to saluation, which the whole Catholike Church With an vnanime consent, haue constantly taught and beleeued euen from the Apostles dayes, for the space of many aages thereafter without any interruption. But in the Cardinals opinion, I haue shewed my selfe an Heretike (I am sure) in playing with the name of Babylon, and the Towne vpon seuen hilles; as if I would insinuate Rome at this present to be spiritually Babylon. And yet that Rome is called Babylon, both in Saint Peters Epistle,3 and in the 1 Bellar. de Rom. Pont. li. i. cap. 17. » Libello aduersus haereses. » i. Pet. 5. 13. A PREMONITION 129 Apocalyps, our Answerer freely confesseth. As for the definition of the Antichrist, I will not vrge so obscure a point, as a matter of Faith to bee necessarily beleeued of all Christians; but what I thinke herein, I will simply declare. That there must be an Antichrist, and in his time a generall Defection; we all agree. But the Time, Seat, and Person of this Antichrist, are the chiefe Ques- tions whereupon wee differ: and for that we must search the Scriptures for our resolution. As for my opinion; I thinke S. Paul in the 2. to the Thessalonians 1 doeth vtter more clearely that which Saint lohn speaketh more mystically of the Antichrist. First, that in that place hee meaneth the Antichrist, it is plaine, since hee saith, There must bee first a Defection; and that in the Antichrists time onely that eclipse of Defection must fall vpon the Church,2 all the Romish Catholikes are strong enough: otherwise their Church must be daily subiect to erre, which is cleane contrary to their maine doctrine. Then describing him (hee saith) that The man of Sinne, Filius perditionis, shall exalt himself e aboue all that is called God.3 But who these be whom of the Psalmist * saith Dixi vos Dij estis, Bellarmine can tell. In old Diuinitie it was wont to bee Kings; Bellarmine will adde Churchmen; Let it bee both. It is well enough knowen, who now exalteth himselfe aboue both the swords. And after that S. Paul hath thus described the Person, he next describeth the Seal, and telleth that He shall sit in the Temple of God? that is, the bosome of the Church; yea, in the very heart thereof. Now where this Apostolike Seat is, I leaue to bee guessed : And likewise who it is that sitting there, sheweth himselfe to be GOD; pardoning shines, redeeming soules, and defining Faith, controlling and iudging all men, and to be iudged of none. Anent the Time, S. Paul is plainest of all : For hee calleth the Thessalonians to memorie, That when hee was with them, hee told them these things; 6 and therefore they know (saith hee) what the impediment was, and who did withhold that the man of Sinne was not reuealed,7 although the mysterie of iniquitie was already working* That the Romane Emperours in Saint Pauls tune needed no reuealing to the Christians to bee men of Sinne or sinfull men, no childe doubteth: but the reuela- tion hee speaketh of was a mysterie, a secret; It should therefore seeme that hee durst not publish in his Epistle what that impediment was. It may be he meant by the translating of the Seat of the Romane Empire, and that the translation thereof should leaue a roume for the man of Sinne to sit downe in. And that he meant not that man of Sinne of these Ethnicke Emperours in his time, his intro- duction to this discourse maketh it more then manifest. For he saith (fearing they should be deceiued, thinking the day of the Lords second comming to bee at hand) he hath therefore thought good to forewarne them that this generall Defection must first come: Whereby it well appeareth that hee could not meane 1 2. Thes. 2. * Psal. 82. 6. 7 Verse 6. 1 Verse 3. * 2. Thess. 2. 4. • Verse 7. * Verse 3, 4. • Verse 5. I3o THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I by the present time but by a future, and that a good long time; otherwise he proued ill his argument, that the Lords comming was not at hand. Neither can the forme of the Destruction of this man of Sinne agree with that maner of spoile, that the Gothes and Vandals made of Ethnick1 Rome: For our Apostle saith, That this wicked man skull bee consumed by the Spirit of the Lords mouth, and abolished by his comming.2 Now I would thinke that the word of God and the Preaching thereof, should be meant by the Spirit of the Lords mouth,3 which should peece and peece consume and diminish the power of that man of Sinne, till the brightnes of the Lords second comming should vtterly abolish him. And by his expressing the meanes of his working, he doeth likewise (in my opinion) explane his meaning very much: For he saith, It shall be by a strong delusion, by lying wonders, &°c.4 Well, what Church it is that vanteth them of their innumerable miracles, and yet most of them contrary to their owne doctrine; Bellarmine can best tell you with his hungry Mare, that turned her taile to her prouender and kneeled to the Sacra- ment: And yet (I am sure) he will be ashamed to say, that the holy Sacrament is ordained to be worshipped by Oues &• Boues, &* ccetera pecora campi? Thus haue I prooued out of 5. Paul now, that the time of the Antichrists com- ming, and the generall Defection was not to be till long after the time that he wrote in; That his Seat was to be in the Temple and Church of God; and, That his Action (which can best point at his Person) should be to Exalt himself e aboue all that were called Gods. S. lohn indeed doth more amply, though mystically describe this Antichrist, which vnder the figure of a monstrous Beast, with seuen heads and ten homes, he sets forth in the xiij. chap, and then interpreteth in the xvij. where hee calles her a Whore sitting vpon many waters? and riding vpon the sayd monstrous Beast; 7 concluding that chapter with calling that Woman, that great City which reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth.6 And both in that Chapter, and in the beginning of the next he calles that great Citie, Babylon.9 So as to continue herein my formerly purposed Methode, of the Time, Seat, and Person of Antichrist; this place doth clearely and vndenyably declare that Rome is, or shalbe the Seat of that Antichrist. For first, no Papist now denieth that by Babylon here Rome is directly meant; and that this Woman is the Anti- christ, doeth clearely appeare by the time of his working (described by 42. moneths in the xiij. Chap.10) which doeth iustly agree with that three yeeres and a halfes tune, which all the Papists giue to the Reigne of Antichrist. Besides that, the Beast it selfe with seuen heads and tenne homes, hauing one of her heads wounded and healed againe, is described iust alike in the xiij. and xvij. Chap, being in the former prooued to be the Antichrist by the time of her reigne; and in the latter Rome by the name of Babylon, by the confession of all the Papists; So as one point is now cleare, that Rome is the Seat of the Antichrist. 1 For so doeth Tortus call Rome » Verse 8, 9. 7 Vers. 18. when it was spoiled by them, 4 Bellar. lib. 3. de Euchar- 8 Vers. 5. though it was Christian ist. cap. 8. • Cap. 18. v. 2. many yeres before. « Reuel. 17. v. i. 10 Vers. 5. 1 Verse 8. « Vers. 3. A PREMONITION 131 Neither will that place in the eleuenth Chapter serue to shift off this point, and proue the Antichrists Seat to bee in lerusalem; where it is saide; That the Corpses of the Witnesses shall lie in the great City, spiritually Sodome and Egypt,1 •where our Lord also was crucified. For the word spiritually is applied both to Sodome, Egypt and lerusalem in that place; And when hee hath named Sodome and Egypt, hee doeth not subioyne lerusalem with a single vbi; but with an vbi 6% as if hee would say; and this Antichrists abomination shall bee so great, as his Seate shall bee as full of Spirituall whoredomes and Idolatries, as Sodome and Egypt was; nay, and so bloody in the persecution of the Saints, as our Lord shall be crucified againe in his members. And who hath so meanely read the Scriptures (if he haue euer read them at all) that knoweth it not to be a common phrase in them, to call CHRIST persecuted and slaine, when his Saints are so vsed ? So did CHRIST say,2 speaking of the latter day; and in the same style did hee speake to S. Paul at his conuersion.3 And that Babylon, or Rome (since Bellarmine is con- tented it bee so called) is that great Citie where our Lord was crucified, the last verse of the xviij. Chap, doeth also clearely proue it: For there it is said, That in that City was found the blood of the Prophets, and of the Saints, and of all that were slaine vpon the earth; 4 and I hope CHRIST was one of them that were slaine vpon the earth. And besides that it may well bee said that hee was slaine in that great Citie Babylon, since by the Romane authoritie hee was put to death, vnder a Romane ludge, and for a Romane quarrell: for he could not be a friend to C&sar, that was not his enemie. This point now being cleared of the Antichrists Seate, as I haue already sayd; we are next to find out the Time when the Antichrist shall reigne, if it be not already come. In the xiij. Chapter 5. lohn saith,6 that this Beast with the seuen heads and tenne homes, had one of his heads wounded and healed againe; 6 and interpreting that in the xvij. he saith, that these seuen heads are also seuen Kings, whereof fiue are fallen, one is, and an other is not yet come, and when hee commeth hee shall continue a short space. And the Beast that was and is not, is the eight, and yet one of the seuen? By which Beast hee meaneth the Antichrist, who was not then come, I meane in the Apostles dayes, but was to come after. So as betweene the time of the Apostles and the ende of the worlde, must the Time of the Anti- christs comming be; and with this the Papists doe also agree. Whereby it ap- peareth that Babylon, which is Rome, shall bee the Seate of the Antichrist; but not that Ethnicke Rome which was in the Apostles dayes (for lohn himselfe pro- fesseth that hee is to write of nothing, but that which is to come after his time.)8 Nor yet that turning Christian Rome while shee was in the conuerting, which immediatly followed the Apostles time, glorious by the Martyrdome of so many godly Bishops: But that Antichristian Rome, when as the Antichrist shal set downe his seat there, after that by the working of that Mysterie of iniquitie, 1 Chap. it. 8. 4 Reuel. 18. 24. 7 Verse n. 1 Matt. 25. 40. • Cha. 13. 3. • Reuel. i. i. & chap. 4. i. * Acts o. 4. • Chap. 17. 10. I32 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Christian Rome shall become to be corrupted; and so that deadly wound, which the Gothes and Vandales gaue Rome, shall bee cured in that Head or King, the Antichrist, who thereafter shall arise and reigne for a long space. But here it may bee obiected, that the Antichrist cannot reigne a long space; since S. lohn saith in two or three sundry places, that the Antichrist shall worke but the space of three yeeres and a halfe. Surely who will but a little acquaint himselfe with the phrases and Stile of S. lohn in his Apocalyps, shall finde that he doth ordinarily set downe numerum certum pro incerto.1 So doeth hee in his twelue thousand of euery Tribe that will bee safe; so doeth he in his Armie of two hundred thousand, that were sent to kill the third part of the men;2 and so doeth he in diuers other places. And therefore who will but remember that in all his Visions in the said Booke, hee directly imitates the fashions of the Prophet Ezekiels, Daniels, and Zacharies Visions (borrowing their phrases that prophecied before CHRIST, to vtter his Prophecies in, that was to speake of the last dayes) shall finde it very probable that in these three dayes and a halfe, hee imitated Daniels Weekes, accounting for his Weeke the time betweene CHRISTS first and second comming, and making Antichrist to triumph the halfe of that time or spirituall Weeke. For as to that literall interpretation (as all the Papists make it) of three yeeres and a halfe, and that time to fall out directly the very last dayes, saue fiue and fourtie, before CHRIST his second comming, it is directly repugnant to the whole New TESTAMENT. For CHRIST saith, That in the latter dayes men shall be feasting, marrying, and at all such worldly businesse, when the last houre shall come in a clap vpon them; One shall be at the Mill; One vpon the top of the house,3 and so foorth. CHRIST telleth a Parable of the fiue foolish Virgins,4 to shew the vnlooked-for comming of this houre, Nay, hee saith, the Sonne of man, nor the Angels in heauen know not this time. S. Peter biddeth vs WATCH AND PRAY, euer awaiting vpon that houre. And S. lohn in this same Apocalyps doeth 8 twise tell vs, that CHRIST will come as a thief e in the night; And so doeth CHRIST say in the Euangel.6 Whereas if the Antichrist shall reigne three yeeres and a halfe before the Latter day, and that there shall bee but iust fourtie fiue dayes of time after his destruction; then shall not the iust day and houre of the Latter day, bee vnknowne to them that shall be aliue in the world, at the time of Antichrists destruction. For first according to the Papists doctrine, all the world shall know him to be the Antichrist, both by the two Witnesses doctrine, and his sudden destruction; And consequently they cannot be ignorant, that the Latter day shall come iust fourtie fiue dayes after: and so CHRIST shall not come as a thiefe, nor the world bee taken at vnawares; contrary to all the Scriptures before alleadged, and many more. And thus haue we proued Rome to be the Seat of the Antichrist, and the second halfe of that spirituall Weeke betweene the first and second comming of CHRIST, to be the time of his Reigne: For in the first halfe 1 Chap. 7. » Matth. 24. 41. « Reuel. 3. 3. and 16. 15. 1 Chap. 9. 16, 18. « Matth. 25,. • Matth. 24. 44. A PREMONITION 133 thereof the mysterie of iniquitie began to worke; but the man of Sinne was not yet reuealed. But who these Witnesses should be, is a great question. The generall conceit of the Papists is, that it must bee Enoch and Elias. And heerein is Bellarmine so strong, as hee thinketh him in a great errour (if not an Heretike) that doubteth of it. But the vanitie of the lewish fable I will in few words discouer. The Cardinall,1 in his booke of Controuersies, bringeth foure places of Scripture for probation of this idle dreame: two in the Old Testament, Malachie and Ecclesiasticus, and two in the New, CHRIST in Matthew (hee might haue added Marke too) and lohn in the xj. of the Apocalyps. First, for the generall of all those places, I dare boldly affirme, That there is not a word in them, nor in all the rest of the Scriptures that saith, that either Enoch or Elias shall returne to fight against Antichrist, and shall bee slaine by him, nor any such like matter. Next as to euery place in particular, to begin with Malachie, I know not who can better interpret him then CHRIST, who twise in Matthew,2 Chap. xj. and xvij. and once in Marke,3 tels both the multitude, and his owne Disciples, that lohn Baptist was that promised Elias. And heerein doeth Bellarmine deale most vnfaithfully with CHRIST: for in his demonstration that Antichrist is not yet come, because Enoch and Elias are not yet returned; hee, for his probation thereof, citeth these wordes of CHRIST in the xvij of Matthew, Elias shall indeed come, and restore all things; but omits his very next wordes interpreting the same, That hee is already come, in the person of lohn Baptist. Nay, whereby hee taketh vpon him to an- swere Biblianders obiection, that CHRIST did by lohn the Baptist, vnderstand the prophecie of Elias comming to be accomplished, he picketh out the words, Qui habet aures, audiat, in the xj. of Matthew, immediately following that purpose of Elias, making of them a great mysterie: and neuer taketh knowledge, that in the xvij. by himselfe before alleaged, CHRIST doeth interpret Malachie in the same maner without any subioyning of these words, Qui habet aures, audiat; adioyning shamelesly hereunto a foule Paraphrase of his owne, telling vs what CHRIST would haue said; nay, in my conscience, he meant what CHRIST should and ought to haue said, if he had bene a good Catholike, setting downe there a glosse of Orleance that destroyes the Text. Thus ye see: how shamefully he abuseth CHRISTS words, who in three sundry places (as I haue said) interpreteth the second comming of Elias to be meant by lohn the Baptist. He likewise cauils most dis- honestly vpon that word Venturus. For CHRIST vseth that word but in the re- peating their opinion: but interpreting it that he was already come in the person of lohn Baptist. As if hee had said, The prophecie is indeed trew that Elias shall come; but I say vnto you, that Elias iam venit,* meaning of lohn Baptist: and so he first repeats the words of the prophecie in the future time, as the Prophet spake them; and next sheweth them to be now accomplished in the person of lohn, in 1 Bellar. de Rom. Pont. lib. 3. cap. 6. ' Mar. 9. 13. 1 Matt. ii. 14. and 17. 12. * Matt. 17. n. 134 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I the present time. Neither can these words of Malachie [Dies magnus 6* hor- ribilis *] falsifie CHRISTS Commentarie vpon him.2 For if that day whereupon the Sauiour of the world suffered, when the Sunne 3 was totally obscured from the sixt houre to the ninth; the Vaile of the Temple rent asunder from the top to the bottome; and the earth did quake, the stones were clouen, the graues did open themselues, and the dead arose: If that day (I say) was not a great and horrible day, I know not what to call a horrible day. Which day no doubt had destroyed the whole nation of the I ewes without exception by a iust Anatheme, if the said lohn the fore-runner had not first conuerted many by the doctrine of Repentance and by Baptisme. But why should I presume any more to interprete Malachie* since it is sufficient that CHRIST himselfe hath interpreted him so ? And since Ipse dixit; nay, ter dixit, per quern facta sunt omnia, what mortall man dare interprete him otherwise; nay, directly contrary ? Now for that place of Ecclesiasticus; B as the son of Sirach onely borroweth it from Malachie (as appeareth by these words of his, of conuerting the sonnes hearts to their fathers, which are Malachies6 own words) so doth CHRISTS Commentary serue as well to interprete the one as the other: it being no shame for that mortal lesus, to be commented & interpreted by the immortall and trew IESVS, though to the shame & confusion of the lesuits heresies herein. But Enoch must be ioyned to Elias in this errand, onely to beare vp the couples, as I thinke. For no place of Scripture speaketh of his returning againe, onely it is said hi Ecclesiasticus 7 the 44. that Enoch pleased GOD, and was translated to Paradise, vt daret Gentibus sapientiam, or pxnitentiam; since they will haue it so. And what is this to say ? marry that Enoch shall returne againe to this world, and fight against the Antichrist. A prettie large Comment indeed, but no right Commentary vpon that Text. When Bellarmine was talking of Elias; he in- sisted, That Elms must come to conuert the lewes principally, restituere tribus lacob. But when he speaketh here of Enoch, he must dare Gentibus pcenitentiam, and not a word of lewes. Belike they shall come for sundry errands, and not both for one : Or like Paul and Peter, the one shall be Apostle for the lewes, and the other for the Gentiles. What need such wilde racked Commentaries for such three wordes? Will not the sense stand well and clearely enough, that Enoch pleased GOD, and was translated to Paradise; that by the example of his reward, the Nations might repent and imitate his Holy footsteps ? For what could more mightily perswade the Nations to repent; then by letting them see that holy Man carried quicke vp to Heauen, for reward of his vprightnesse; whereas all the rest of the people died and went to corruption ? And where Scripture faileth, the Malach. 4. 5. ' This obscuring of the Sunne was so extra- Matth. 27. ordinary and fearefull, that Dionysius, Mala. 4. 6. onely led by the light of Nature and Ecclus. 48. 8. humane learning, cried out at the sight Mala. 4. 6. thereof, Aut Deus patitur, aut vices pa- 7 Ecclus. 44. 16. tientis dolet. A PREMONITION 135 Cardinal! must helpe himselfe with the Fathers, to prooue both that Enoch and Elias are yet aliue, and that they shall hereafter die; but with the like felicitie, as in his alledging of Scriptures; to vse his owne words of mee in his pamphlet: 1 For which purpose he citeth fiue Fathers; Irenaus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Hierome and Augustine. Vpon this they all agree in deed, that Enoch and Elias are still aliue both, which no Christian (I hope) will denie: For Abraham, Isaac, and lacob are all still aliue,2 as CHRIST telleth vs; for God is Deus viuentium, non mortuorum. Much more then are Enoch and Elias aliue, who neuer tasted of death after the maner of other men. But as to the next point, that they should die hereafter, his first two witnesses,3 Irenceus and Tertullian say the direct contrary: For Irenaus saith, that they shall remaine in Paradise, till the consummation, conspicantes incorruptionem. Now to remaine there till the consummation, and to see incorruption is directly contrary to their returning to the world againe and suffering of death. Tertullian 4 likewise agreeing hereunto, saith most clearely, That Enoch hath neuer tasted of death, vt aternitatis candidatus: now he is ill priuiledged with eternitie, if he must die againe. As for his places cited out of the other three Fathers, they all confirme that first point, That they are stil aliue; but that they must die again, they make no mention. But he speaking of the Ancient Fathers, let mee take this occasion to forewarne you concerning them: That though they mistake and vnderstand not rightly many mysteries in the Apocalyps, it is no wonder: For the booke thereof, was still sealed in their dayes. And though the mysterie of iniquitie was already work- ing, yet was not the man of Sinne yet reuealed.5 And it is a certaine rule in all darke prophecies; That they are neuer clearely vnderstood, till they be accomplished. And thus hauing answered his two places, in the Old Testament, by his third in the New Testament, conteining Christs owne words : which being luce clariora, I need speake no more of them. I am now to speake of the fourth place of Scripture, which is in the xj. of the Apocalyps: 6 For the two Witnesses (for- sooth) there mentioned, must be Enoch and Elias. But how this can stand with any point of Diuinitie or likelihood of reason, that these two glorified Bodies shall come downe out of heauen or Paradise, (make it what you will) preach, and fight against the Antichrist, bee slaine by him after many thousand yeeres ex- empted from the naturall course of death, rise againe the third day in imitation of CHRIST, and then (hauing wrought many wonders) to goe vp againe to Heauen, making an ordinary Poste betwixt Heauen and Earth: how this (I say) can agree either with Diuinitie or good Reason, I confesse it passeth my capacitie. And especially that they must be clad in Sackcloth, whose bodies (I hope) haue bene so long agone free from sinne, as I thinke they shall neede no more such macera- tion for sinne: For they must be now either in Heauen or Paradise: If in heauen, 1 Pag. 27. » Lib. 5. • 2. Thess. 2. 1 Matt. 22, 32. 4 Lib. cont. ludaeos. cap. 2. • Reuelat. n. 136 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I (as doubtlesse they are) their bodies must bee glorified; for no corruptible thing can enter there; 1 and consequently they can no more bee subiect to the sensible things of this world, especially to death: But if they be in earthly Paradise, we must first know where it is. Bellarmine 2 indeed in his Contrpuersies is much troubled to finde out the place where Paradise is, and whether it bee in the earth, or in the ayre. But these are all vanities. The Scriptures tell vs, that Paradise and the garden of Eden therein, was a certaine place vpon the earth, which GOD chose out to set Adam into,3 and hauing thereafter for his sinne banished him from the same, it is a blasphemie to thinke that any of Adams posteritie came euer there againe. For in Adam were all his posteritie accursed, and banished from the earthly Paradise: like as all the earth in generall, and Paradise in speciall were accursed in him; the second Adam hauing by grace, called a certaine number of them to bee Coheritours with him of the heauenly Paradise and Jerusalem. And doubtlesly, the earthly Paradise was defaced at the Flood, if not before : and so lost all that exquisite fertilitie and pleasantnesse, wherein it once surpassed all the rest of the earth. And that it should be lifted vp in the ayre, is like one of the dreames of the Alcoran. Surely no such miracle is mentioned in the Scriptures, and hath no ground but from the curious fancies of some boyling braines, who cannot be content, Sapere ad sobrietatem* In heauen then for certaine are Enoch and Elias: for Enoch (saith the Text) walked with GOD,6 and was taken vp, and Elias was scene caried vp to heauen in a fierie chariot.6 And that they who haue beene the In-dwellers of Heauen these many thousand yeeres, and are freed from the Lawes of mortalitie; that these glorious and incorruptible bodies (I say) shall come in the world againe, preach and work miracles, and fighting against the Antichrist be slaine by him, whom natural! death could not before take hold of: as it is a fabulous inuention, so is it quite contrary to the nature of such sanctified creatures. Especially I wonder, why Enoch should bee thought to bee one of these two Witnesses for CHRIST: For it was Moses and Elias that were with CHRIST, at the transfiguration; signifying the Law and the Prophets: which would be the fittest witnesses for conuincing of Antichrist. But why they haue exempted Moses, and put Enochs head in the yoake, I cannot conceiue. So as I haue too much laboured in the refuting of this foolish, and indeed childish fable ; which I am so farre from beleeuing in any sort, as I protest in GODS presence, I cannot hold any learned Diuine (in our aage now) to be a Christian, that will beleeue it; but worthy to bee ranked with the Scribes and Pharises, that raued and dreamed vpon the comming againe of Elias, though CHRIST told them the contrary. As for some of the Ancients that mistooke this matter, I doe not censure them so hardly; for the reason that I haue already alleaged concerning them. 1 Reuel. 21. 27. « Gen. 2. ' Gen. 5. 24. 1 Lib. de Grat. primi hominis. * Rom. 12. 3. • 2. King. 2. 10, n. A PREMONITION 137 And hairing now refuted that idle fable; that those two Witnesses were Enoch and Elias: it falleth mee next to guesse, what in my opinion should bee meant by them. I confesse, it is farre easier to refute such a groundlesse fable as this is, contrary to all grounds of Diuinitie and Reason; then to set downe a trew inter- pretation of so high and darke a Mistery. And therefore as I will not presume to bind any other man to my opinion herein, if his owne reason leade him not there- unto; so shall I propone such probable coniectures, as (I hope) shall be free from Heresie, or vnlawfull curiostie. In two diuers fashions may the Mysterie of these Witnesses be lawfully and probably interpreted, in my opinion. Whereof the one is, that by these two Witnesses should be meant the Old and New Testaments: For as the Antichrist cannot chuse but bee an aduersary to the Word of GOD aboue all things ; so will hee omit no endeuour to disgrace, corrupt, suppresse and destroy the same. And now whether this Booke of the two Testaments, or two Witnesses of CHRIST, haue suffered any violence by the Babylonian Monarchic or not; I need say nothing; Res ipsa loquitur. I will not weary you with recounting those Common Places vsed for disgracing it : as calling it a Nose of waxe, a dead Letter, a leaden Rule, a hundreth such like phrases of reproch. But how farre the Traditions of men, and authoritie of the Church are preferred to these Witnesses, doeth sufficiently appeare in the Babylonian doctrine. And if there were no more but that little booke, with that prettie Inscription, De I'lnsuffisance de VEscriture Sainte,1 it is enough to proue it. And as to the corrupting thereof; the corruptions of the old Latine translation must not be corrected, though it bid euertere domum in stead of euerrere, for seek- ing of a penie; 2 and though it say of lohn, Sic eum wlo manere donee veniam,3 in place of Si, though it be knowne a plaine Lie, and that the very next words of the Text disproue the same. Nay, so farre must wee be from correcting it, as that the Vulgar Translation must be preferred by Catholikes, to the Bible in the owne Originall tongue. And it is a small corrupting of Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the Canonicall Scriptures, contrary to the Fathers opinions and Decrees of ancient Councels ? And what blasphemous corrupting of Scripture is it, to turne Dominus into Domina throughout the whole Psalmes ? And thus our Ladies Psalter 4 was lately re- printed in Paris. Is not this to confound CHRISTS person with hers ? And as for suppressing of the Scriptures; how many hundreth yeeres were the people kept in such blindenes, as these Witnesses were almost vnknowne ? for the Layicks durst not, being forbidden, and the most part of the Cleargie, either would or could not meddle with them. Thus were these two Witnesses of CHRIST, (whom of himselfe saith, Scrutamini Scripturas, ilia enim testimonium perhibent de me) 6 These 6 two Oliues bringing 1 Cardinall Peron. * lohn 21. 22, 23. ' lohn 5. 39. 1 Luke 15. 8. 4 Made by Boneuentura Doctor Seraphicus. • Reuel. n. 4. 138 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I peace to all the beleeuers, euen peace of Conscience: These1 two Candlesticks standing in the sight of GOD, and giuing light to the Nations; represented by Candlesticks euen in the very order of the Roman Masse: 2 Thus were these two Witnesses (I say) disgraced, corrupted and suppressed (nay, so suppressed and silenced, as he was brent for an Heretike that durst presume to looke vpon them) kept close in a strange tongue, that they might not be vnderstooff, Legends and lying wonders supplying their places in the Pulpits. And so did their Bodies lie in the streets of the great Citie, spiritually Sodome,3 for spiritual fornication which is idolatrie; spiritually Egypt, for bringing the Saints of God in bondage of humane traditions4 [Quare oneramini ritibus.] So did their bodies (I say) lie 3. dayes and a halfe; B that is, the halfe of that spirituall Weeke betweene CHRIST his first and second comming; and as dead carkases indeed did the Scriptures then lye with- out a monument, being layed open to all contempt, cared for almost by none, vnderstood by as few; nay, no man durst call for them for feare of punishment, as I haue already said. And thus laying dead, as it were, without life or vigour (as the Law of GOD did till it was reuiued in losias time 6) The Inhabitants of the earth, that is, wordly men reioyced and sent gifts to other? for ioy that their fleshly libertie was now no more awed, nor curbed by that two edged sword, for they were now sure, that do what they would, their purse would procure them pardons from Babylon. Omnia vcenalia Roma; so as men needed no more to looke vp to heauen, but downe to their purses to finde Pardons. Nay, what needed any more suing to heauen, or taking it by violence and feruencie of zeale; when the Pardons came and offered themselues at euery mans doores ? And diuers spirituall men vanted themselues, that they neither vnderstood Old Testament nor New. Thus were these 2. Witnesses vsed in the second halfe of this spiritual weeke; who in the first halfe thereof were clad in sackcloth; 8 that is, preached repentance to all nations, for the space of 500. or 600. yeres after Christ: God making his Word or Witnes so triumph, riding vpon the white horse 9 in the time of the Primi- tiue Church, as that they ouercame al that opposed themselues vnto it, beating downe euery high thing, as Paul10 saith; excluding from heauen al that beleeue not therein: as strongly with the spiritual fire thereof, conuincing the stif-necked pride of vnbeleeuers, as euer Moses or Elias did, by the plagues of Egypt and famine, conuince the rebellious Egyptians and stif-necked Israelites. Neither shall it be enough to disgrace, corrupt and suppresse them; but Killed must they be at the last.11 To which purpose commeth forth 12 Censura ge- neralis, -at mucrone censorio iugulare eas possit; and cutteth their throats indeed: For the author ordaineth al translations, but their owne to be burnt, which is 1 Ibid. ' Verse 10. 1 See Expositio Missae, annexed to Ordo Ro- 8 Verse 3. manus, set forth by G. Cassander. • Reuel. 6. 2. 3 Verse 8. " i. Cor. 10. 4. 4 Coloss. 2. 20. » Reuel. n. 7. 6 Verse 8. " Printed at Venice. Anno 1562. ' 2. Chro. 34. 14. A PREMONITION 139 yet commonly practised : nay he professeth, he commeth not to correct but to destroy them, controlling and calling euery place of Scripture Heretical, that disagreeth from their Traditions (with almost as many foule words and railing epithetes, as the Cardinal bestoweth on my Apologie) not ruling, nor interpreting Scripture by Scripture, but making their Traditions to be such a touchstone for it, as he condemneth of Heresie, not onely those places of Scripture that he citeth, but layeth the same general condemnation vpon al other the like places where- soeuer they be written in the Scriptures. And yet (praised be God) we beginne now with our eyes, as our predecessors haue done in some aages before, to see these Witnesses rise againe,1 and shine in their former glory: GOD, as it were, setting them vp againe vpon their feete, and raising them to the Heauens in a tri- umphall cloud of glory,2 like Elias his fiery chariot. Which exalting of the Gospel againe, hath bred such an earthquake 3 and alteration amongst many Nations: as a tenth part, or a good portion of these that were in subiection to that Great Citie, to wit, Babylon, are fallen from her; seuen thousand, that is, many thousands hauing bene killed vpon the occasion of that great alteration; and many other conuerted to the feare of GOD, and giuing glory to the God of heauen. This now is one of the wayes, by which (I thinke) this place of Scripture may be lawfully and probably interpreted. The other is more common, and seemeth more literally to agree with the Text. And this is to interpret, not the word of God, but the Preachers thereof to bee meant by these Witnesses. Few they were that first began to reueale the man of Sinne, and discouer his corruptions; and therefore well described by the number of two Witnesses : 4 Nam in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum. And in no greater number were they that began this worke, then the greatnesse of the errand did necessarily require. They prophesied in sackecloth,5 for they preached re- pentance. That diuers of them were put to cruell deaths, is notorious to the world: And likewise that (in the persons of their Successours in doctrine) 6 they rose againe; and that in such power and efficacie, as is more then miraculous: For where it is accounted in the Scriptures a miraculous worke of GOD wrought by his holy Spirit,7 When the Apostle Saint Peter, conuerted about three thousand in one day; 8 these Witnesses I speak of, by the force of the same Spirit, conuerted many mightie Nations in few yeeres, who still continue praising GOD, that hee hath deliuered vs from the tyrannic of Antichrist, that reigneth ouer that great Citie; and with a full crie proclaiming, Goe out of her my people, lest yee bee partaker of her sinnes and of her plagues.9 Let therefore these Miracle-mongers that surfeit the world, and raise the price of paper daily, with setting foorth old, though new gilded Miracles and Legends of lies; Let such (I say) consider of this great and wonderfull Miracle indeed, and to their shame, compare it with their paultry wares. Thus hauing in two fashions deliuered my coniecture, what I take to bee 1 Verse n. 4 Deut. 19. 15. ' Verse u. 1 "• ' Reuel. ii. 3. • Actes 2. 41. ' 13- ' Sanguis Martyrum est semen Ecclesiae. » Reuel. 18. 4. I4o THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I meant by these two Witnesses in the xj. of the Apocalyps, there beeing no great difference betweene them: In the one, taking it to bee the Word of GOD it selfe; In the other, the Word of God too, but in the mouthes of his Preachers : It resteth now that I come to the third point of the description of Antichrist; which is anent his Person. That by the Whore of Babylon that rideth vpon the Beast, is meant a Seate of an Empire, and a successiue number of men sitting thereupon, and not any one man; doeth well appeare by the forme of the description of the Antichrist thorow- out all the said Booke. For in the last verse l of the xvij. Chapter, the Woman is expounded to bee, That great Citie that reigneth ouer the Kings of the earth; which cannot signifie the onely Person of one man, but a successiue number of men (as I haue already said) whose Seat 2 that great Citie must be : like as in the same Chapter, The seuen heads of the Beast are two wayes expounded. First, they are called seuen Hits, which is plaine; and next they are called seuen Kings, which cannot bee meant by the Kings that shall giue their power to the Beast,3 and bee subiect vnto her, which is immediatly after expressed by the tenne hornes: 4 But rather appeareth to be those seuen formes of gouernment of that Seat: fiue of which had already beene and fallen; As Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemuiri and Tribuni militum. The sixt was in the tune of 5. lohn his writing of this booke, which was the Gouernement of the Emperour. The seuenth which was not yet come, and was to last but for a short space, was the Ecclesiasticall gouernment by Bishops,6 which was not come vpon the translation of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople; though their gouernment was in a manner substitute to the Em- perours: For though that forme of Gouernement lasted about the space of 276. yeeres; yet was it but short in comparison of the long tune of the reigne of the Antichrist (not yet expired) which succeeded immediatly thereunto. And the eight, which is the Beast that was and is not, and is to goe to perdition,6 is the ANTI- CHRIST: the eight forme of Gouernment indeed by his absolutenesse, and yet the seuenth, because hee seemeth but to succeed to the Bishop in an Ecclesiasticall forme of Gouernement, though by his greatnesse hee shall make Babylons Empire in glory, like to that magnificence wherein that great Citie triumphed, when it most flourished : which in Saint lohns time was much decayed, by the factions of the great men, the mutinies of the armies, and the vnworthines of the Emperours. And so that flourishing state of that great Citie or Beast, which it was in before S. lohns time, and being much 7 decayed was but in a maner in his time, should be restored vnto it againe by Antichrist: who as he ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, so must he goe to Destruction. And likewise by that great lamentation that is 1 Cap. xvii. Verse 18. * From the time of Con- • Verse n. J Verse 9. stantine the Great, his remou- 7 Not in respect of the ex- ' Verse 13. ing of the Empire from Rome tent, and limites of the Em- 4 Verse 12. to Constantinople, till the time pire: but in regard of the gou- of Bonifacius the third, to wit, ernement thereof, and glory of about 276 yeeres. the Citie. A PREMONITION 141 made for the destruction of Babylon in the eighteenth Chapter, both by the Kings, and by the Merchants of the earth; where it is thrice repeated for aggrauating the pitie of her desolation, that That great Citie fell in an houre: By that great lamentation (I say) it well appeareth, That the raigne of Antichrist l must con- tinue longer then three yeeres and a halfe, or any one mans time: For the Kings that had committed fornication 2 with her, 6° in delicijs vixerant, behoued to haue had a longer time for contracting of that great acquaintance: And the Merchants of the earth 3 set her forth and describe her at great length, as the very staple of all their riches; which could not be so soone gathered as in one mans time. And to conclude now this description of the Antichrist; I will set downe vnto you all that is spoken of him in the Apocalyps in a short methode, for the further explaining of these three points that I haue already handled. The Antichrist is foure times (in my opinion) described by lohn in the Apo- calyps, in foure sundry visions; and a short Compendium of him repeated againe in the xx. Chapter. He is first described by a pale Horse 4 in the vision of the Seales in the sixt Chapter: For after that CHRIST had triumphed vpon a white Horse 6 in the first Scale, by the propagation of the Gospel; and that the red Horse 6 in the second Scale, is as busie in persecution, as CHRIST is in ouercom- ming by the constancie of his Martyrs; and that famine and other plagues signi- fied by the blacke Horse 7 in the third Scale, haue succeeded to these former persecutions: Then commeth forth the Antichrist vpon a pale horse* in the 4. Scale, hauing Death for his rider, and Hell for his conuoy ; which rider fitted well his colour of palenesse : and he had power giuen 9 him ouer the fourth part of the earth (which is Europe) to kill with the sword, and vse great persecution; as Ethnick Rome did, figured by the red horse: and to kill with spirituall hunger or famine of the trew word of God; as the black horse did by corporal famine & with death, whereby spiritual death is meant. For the Antichrist, signified by this pale horse, shal afflict the Church both by persecution and temporal death; as also by alluring the Nations to idolatry, and so to spiritual death : and by the beast of the earth shall he procure their spiritual death; for he shall send out the Locusts (ouer whom he is King) mentioned in the 9. Chap, of this booke; and the 3. frogs, mentioned in the 16. of the same; for intising of al Kings and nations to drinke of the cup of her abominations. That that description now of Antichrist endeth there, it is more then plaine: for at the opening of the first Seale, the soules and blood of the murthered Saints cry for vengeance and hasting of iudgment;10 which in the sixt Seale is granted vnto them by CHRISTS comming at the Latter day: signified by heauens departing away, like a scroll when it is rolled:11 with a number of other sentences to the same purpose. 1 Reuel. 18. Ver. 9. & n. • Reuel. cap. 6. 10 Or them, after other Transla- Ver. 10, 1 6, 19. « Verse 2. tions, whereby is ioyntly vnder- * Vers. 9. ' Verse 4. stood the said pale horse together ' Verse 12. 8 Verse 5. with his rider and conuoy, Death 4 i. Description of Anti- • Verse 8. and Hell, christ. u Verse 9; verse 10; verse 12. I42 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I But because this might seeme a short and obscure description of the Antichrist, he describeth him much more largely and specifikely, especially in the vision of the Trumpets l in the 9. Chapter. For there he saith, at the blowing of the first Trumpet, Heresies being first spread abroad in three of the foure former blasts; to wit, in the first, third, and fourth blast (for I take temporall persecution to be onely signified by the second blast) he then saw a starre fall from Heauen, to whom was giuen the key of the bottomles pit; z which being opened by him, with the smoke thereof came foorth a number of Locusts? whom hee largely describeth, both by their craft & their strength; and then telleth the name of this their king, who brought them out of the bottomles pit, which is, Destroyer* By this starre fallen from heauen, being signified, as I take it, some person of great dignitie in the Church, whose duetie being to giue light 6 to the world (as CHRIST saith) doth contrary thereunto fall away like Lucifer, and set vp a kingdome, by the sending forth of that noisome packe of craftie cruell vermine, described by Locusts: and so is the Seat of the Antichrist begun to be erected, whose doctrine is at length declared in the second woe, after the blast of the sixt Trumpet ;6 where it is said, That the remnant of men which were not killed by the plagues,"1 repented not of the workes of their hands, that they should not worship diuels, and idols of gold, and of siluer 6* of brasse, and of stone, and of wood, which neither can see, heare, nor goe. (As for worshipping of diuels; looke your great lesuited doctour, Vasques: 8 and as for all the rest, it is the maine doctrine of the Roman Church.) And then it is subioyned in this Text, that they repented not of their murther, their sorcerie, their fornications, nor their theft? By their murther, their persecution is meant, and bloody massacres. For their Sorcery consider of their Agnus Dei, that will slocken fire; of the hallowed shirts, and diuers sorts of Reliques; and also of Prayers that will preserue men from the violence of shot, of fire, of sword, of thunder, and such like dangers; And iudge, if this be not very like to Sorcerie and incantation of charmes. By their Fornication is meant both their spirituall fornication of Idolatry, and also their corporall fornication; which doth the more abound amongst them, as well by reason of the restraint of their Churchmen from marriage, as also because of the many Orders of idle Monastike Hues amongst them, as well for men as women: And continuall experience prooueth, that idlenesse is euer the greatest spurre to lecherie. And they are guiltie of Theft, in stealing from GOD the titles and greatnes of power due to him, and bestowing it vpon their head, the Antichrist: As also by heaping vp their treasure with their higgling wares and merchandise of the soules of men, by lubiles, Pardons, Relates and such like strong delusions. That he endeth this description of Antichrist in the same ninth Chapter may likewise well appeare, by the Oath that that Mightie Angell sweareth10 in the 1 Reu. Chap. 9. Verse i. • Matth. 5. 14. 8 Lib de Cultu Adoratio. lib. 3 disp. i. cap. 5. 1 Verse 2. ' Verse 13. • Vers. 21. 1 Verse 3. ' Verse 20. 10 Cap. 10. ver. 6. 4 Verse n. A PREMONITION 143 sixth verse of the tenth Chapter: And after the blast of the sixt Trumpet, that time shall bee no more, and that when the seuenth Angell 1 shall blow his Trumpet, the mysterie of GOD shalbe finished, as he had declared it to his seruants the Prophets. Onely in the eleuenth Chapter he describeth the meanes whereby the Antichrist* was ouercome, whose raigne he had before described in the ix. Chapter; and telleth vs that the two witnesses,3 after that they haue beene persecuted by the Antichrist shall in the end procure his destruction. And in case any should thinke, that the Antichrist is onely spoken of in the xj. Chapter, and that the Beast spoken of in the xiij. and xvij. Chapters doth onely signifie Ethnicke Rome; there needeth no other refutation of that conceit, then to remember them, that the Antichrist is neuer named in all that xj. Chapter, but where he is called in the seuenth verse thereof the Beast that commeth foorth of the bottomless pit: 4 which by the description of the place he commeth out of, prooueth it to be the same Beast which hath the same originall in the xvij. Chapter, and in the very same words; so as it is euer but the same Antichrist repeated, and diuersly described in diuers visions. Now in the xij. and xiij. Chapters and so foorth till the xvij. he maketh a more large and ample propheticall description of the state of the Church, and reigne of the Antichrist: For in the xij. Chap, he figureth the Church by a Woman 5 flying from the Dragon (the Deuill) to the wildernesse; And when the Dragon seeth hee cannot otherwise ouer-reach her, hee speweth foorth waters like floods to carry her away;6 which signifieth many Nations, that were let loose to persecute and vexe the Church. And in the xxiij. Chapter,7 out of that Sea of Nations that persecuted her, ariseth that great Citie (Queene of all the Nations, and head of that persecu- tion) figured by a Beast with seuen heads and tenne homes? like a Leopard;9 as well for the colour because it was full of spots, that is, defiled with corruptions; as also vsing a bastard forme of gouernement, in shew spiritual!, but in deed tem- porall ouer the Kings of the earth; like the Leopard that is a bastard beast be- twixt a Lion and a Parde: hauing/ee/e like a Beare, to signifie his great strength, and the mouth of a Lion, to shew his rauenous and cruel! disposition. This Beast who had his power from the Dragon, and had gotten a deadly wound in one of his heads,10 or formes of gouernment (by the Gothes and Vandals] and yet was healed againe; opened his mouth to blasphemies,11 and made wane against the Saints :n nay, all the world must worship him; which worship Ethnicke Rome neuer craued of any, being contented to call their neighbour Kings Amid 6* socij populi Romani. And whether worship or adoration, euen with that same title, he vsed to Popes at their creation, our Cardinall can best tell you. But then commeth another beast vp out of the earth,13 hauing indeed a more firme and setled originall : for she doeth visibly and outwardly succeed to the trew 1 Verse 7. * Chap. xii. Verse 6. • Verse i. " Verse 6. 1 Cap. ii. • Verse 15. • Verse 2. " Verse 7. ' Verse 3. 7 Chap. xiii. M Verse 3. " Verse n. 4 Cap. ii. Verse 7. 144 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Church, and therefore she hath two hornes like the Lambe, in outward shew repre- senting the spouse of CHRIST, and pretending CHRIST to be her defence: But she speaketh like the Dragon, teaching damnable and deuilish doctrine. And this Apostatike (I should say Apostolike) Church, after that she hath made her great power manifest to the world, by doing all that the first Beast could doe,1 In con- spectu eius; that is, by shewing the greatnesse of her power, to be nothing in- feriour to the greatnesse of the former Ethnicke Empire: she then is mooued with so great a desire to aduance this Beast, now become Antichrist, as she causeth the earth and all that dwell therein, to worship this former Beast or Roman Monarch; transferring so, as it were, her owne power in his person. Yea, euen Emperours and Kings shall be faine to kisse his feet. And for this purpose shall shee worke great Miracles, wherein she greatly prides her selfe, deceiuing men with lying wonders and emcacie of lyes, as S. Paul 2 saith. And amongst the rest of her wonders, she must bring Fire out ofheauen,3 Fulmen excommunication[i}s, which can dethrone Princes: So that all that will not worship the image of the Beast,* that is, his vnlimited Supremacie, must be killed and burnt as Heretikes. Yea, so peremp- tory will this Beast or false Prophet be (so called in the xvj. Chapter of this booke) for the aduancement of the other Beast or Antichrist; as all sorts and rankes of people must receiue the marke 5 or name of that Beast in their right hand, or in their forehead; without the which it should be lawfull to none to buy, or sell: 6 by the Marke in the forehead, signifying their outward profession and acknowledgement of their subiection vnto her; and by the Marke in their right hand, signifying their actuall implicite obedience vnto her, who they thinke cannot erre, though she should commaund them to rebell against their naturall princes; like that Cceca obedientia whereunto all the lesuits are sworne: and like those Romish Priests in this Coun- trey, that haue renounced and forsworne againe that Oath of Allegiance, grounded vpon their naturall Oath; which though at their taking it, they confessed they did it out of conscience, and as obliged thereunto by their naturall duetie; yet now must they forsweare it againe, for obedience to the Popes command; to whose will their conscience and reason must be blindly captiuated. And who euer denied this absolute power, might neither buy nor sell; for no man was bound to keepe any faith, or obserue any ciuill contracts with Heretikes: yea, to a?quiuo- cate and commit periury towards them, is a lawfull thing in a Catholike. Now as to the Mysterie anent the Number of his name ; 7 whether it shalbe vnder- stood by the number composed of the Letters in that Greeke word AATEINOS ;8 which word well sutes with the Romish Church, Romish Faith, and Latine Ser- uice: Or whether in respect that in the Text it is called the number of the man, ye will take it for the number or date of the yeere of GOD, wherein that first man liued, that first tooke the title of the Antichrist vpon him; I leaue it to the Readers choice. By that first Man, I meane Bonifacius tertius, who first called himselfe 1 Verse 12. « Verse 15. 7 Verse 17. 1 2. Thes. 2. 9. • Verse 17. 8 Irenaeus aduersus Haeres. lib. 5. ' Verse 13. « Verse 16. A PREMONITION 145 Vniuersall Bishop; which S. Gregorie, that liued till within three yeeres of his time,1 foretold would be the style of the Antichrist, or his Precursor: for though he died threescore yeeres before the 666. of CHRIST; yet was that Title but fully setled vpon his Successors, sixtie yeeres after his time. Or if ye list to count it from Pompey his spoiling of the Temple, to this same Mans time; it will goe very neere to make iust vp the said number 666. Now the raigne of the Antichrist being thus prophetically described in the xiij. Chapter, his fall is prophecied in the xiiij. First by the ioyfull and triumphall New song2 of the Saints in heauen: And next by the proclamation of three Angels; whereof the first hauing an euerlasting Gospel 3 in his hand to preach to all Nations (the trew armour indeed wherewith the Witnesses fought against the Antichrist^) The first Angel, I say, proclaimed Feare and glory to GOD, since the houre of his lodgement was come* And the second proclaimed the fall of Babylon,* which is the destruction of the Antichrist. And the third prohibited vnder great paines, euen the paine of eternall damnation, that none should worship the Beast,6 or receiue his Marke. But though that in the rest of this Chapter the Latter day be againe prophecied, as a thing that shall come shortly after the reuealing of the man of Sinne: yet in the xv. Chap, he telleth of seuen plagues? vnder the name of Vials, that shall first fall vpon the Antichrist and his kingdome; which, being particularly set downe in the xvj. Chapter, he reckoneth among the rest. In the fift viall* the plague of darkenesse; yea, such darkenesse as the kingdome of Antichrist shall be obscured. Whereby at the powring foorth of the sixt Viall the way of the Kings of the East shall be prepared; 9 the man of Sinne being begun to be reuealed, and so all impediments remooued that might let the inuasion of that Monarchic: euen as that great riuer Euphrates that runneth by the literall Babylon, guarded it from the Kings of the East, the Medes and Persians, the tune of the Babylonian Monarchic, till by the drying thereof, or vnexpected passage made through it by Cyrus,10 Babylon was wonne, and Baltasar destroyed, and his Monarchic ouerthrowne, euen while hee was sitting in that literall Babylon, corporally drunken and quaffing in the vessels ordained for GODS Seruice; and so sitting as it were in the Temple of GOD, and abusing the holy Mysteries thereof. For remedy whereof, at the powring forth of the sixt Viall, three mdeane spirits, like frogs, shall then come foorth out of the mouth of the Dragon, that beast, and of the false prophet;11 which I take to be as much to say, as that how soone as the kingdome of Antichrist shall be so obscured, with such a grosse and a palpable ignorance, as learning shall be almost lost out of the world, and that few of the very Priests themselues shall be able to reade Latine, much lesse to vnderstand it; and so a plaine way made for the Destruction of Babylon: Then shall a new sect of Spirits arise for the defence of that falling Throne, called three in number, by 1 Epist. lib. 6. cap. 30. 5 Verse 8. • Verse 12. * Chap, xiiij. Verse 3. • Verse 9. 10 Dan. 5. 3. 1 Verse 6. 7 Chap. xv. Verse i. u Verse 13. « Verse 7. 8 Chap xvi. Verse 10. 146 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I reason of their three-fold direction; being raised and inspired by the Dragon Sathan, authorized and maintained by the Beast the Antichrist, and instructed by the false prophet the Apostatike Church, that hath the homes like the Lambe, but speaketh like the Dragon. These Spirits indeed, thus sent foorth by this threefold authoritie for the defence of their Triple-crowned Monarch, are well likened to frogges; for they are Amphibious, and can Hue in either Element, earth or water: for though they be Churchmen by profession, yet can they vse the trade of politique Statesmen; going to the Kings of the earth, to gather them to the battell of that Great day of GOD Almightie.1 What Massacres haue by their per- swasion bene wrought through many parts of Christendome, and how euilly Kings haue sped that haue bene counselled by them; all the vnpartiall Histories of our tune doe beare record. And whatsoeuer King or State will not receiue them, and follow their aduise, rooted out must that King or State be, euen with Gunpowder ere it faile. And these frogges had reason indeed to labour to become learned, thereby to dissipate that grosse mist of ignorance, wherewith the reigne of Antichrist was plagued before their comming forth.2 Then doeth this Chapter conclude with the last plague that is powred out of the seuenth Viall vpon the Antichrist, which is the day of Judgement : for then Babylon (saith he) came in remembrance before God? But in the 17. Chapter is the former Vision interpreted and expounded;4 and there is the Antichrist represented by a Woman, sitting vpon that many-headed Beast; because as CHRIST his trew Spouse and Church is represented by a Woman in the twelfth Chapter, so here is the Head of his adulterous spouse or false Church represented also by a woman, but hauing a cup full of abominations in her hand:6 as her selfe is called a Whoore* for her spiritual adulterie, hauing seduced the Kings of the earth to be partakers of her Spirituall fornication:6 And yet won- derful gorgious and glorious was she in outward shew; but drunken with the blood of the Saints,7 by a violent persecution of them. And that shee may the better bee knowen, hee writeth her name vpon her forehead agreeable to her qualities: A Mysterie? that great Babylon, the Mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth. A Mysterie is a name that belongeth vnto her two maner of wayes: One, as shee taketh it to her selfe; another, as shee deserueth indeed. To her selfe shee taketh it, in calling herself e the visible Head of the mysticall Body of CHRIST, in professing her selfe to bee the dispenser of the mysteries of GOD, and by her onely must they bee expounded: This great God in earth and Head of the Faith, being a Mystes by his profession; that is, a Priest. And if the obseruation of one be trew, that hee had of old the word Mysterie written on his Myter; then is this Prophecie very plainely accomplished. Now that indeed shee deserues that name, the rest of her Title doeth beare witnesse that sheweth her to bee the Mother 1 Verse 14. < The fourth description. Chap. 17. Verse 3. ' Verse 2. 1 Verse 17. ' Verse 4. « Verse 6. ' Verse 19. • Verse i. » Verse 5. A PREMONITION 147 of all the whoredomes and abominations of the earth:1 and so is she vnder the pretext of holinesse, a Mystery indeed of all inquitie and abominations; vnder the maske of pretended feeding of Soules, deuouring Kingdomes, and making Christendome swimme in blood. Now after that this scarlet or bloody Beast and her Rider are described, by their shape, garments, name and qualities: the Angel doeth next interprete this vision vnto lohn, expounding vnto him what is signified both by the Beast and her Rider; telling him, the seuen heads of the Beast are seuen Hilles? meaning by the situation of that Citie or seat of Empire; and that they are also seuen Kings or formes of gouernment in the said Citie, whereof I have told you my conceit already. As for the ten Homes,3 which hee sheweth to be tenne Kings, that shall at one houre receiue their power and kingdome with the Beast, I take that number of ten to be Numerus certus pro incerto; euen as the number of seuen heads and ten homes vpon the Dragon the Deuill, cannot but be an vncertaine number. And that hee also imitates in those ten homes, the ten homes of the seuen headed Beast in the seuenth of Daniel: and therefore I take these ten Kings to signifie, all the Christian Kings, and free Princes and States in generall, euen you whom to I consecrate these my Labours, and that of vs all he prophesieth, that although our first becomming absolute and free Princes, should be in one houre with the Beast : (for great Christian Kingdomes and Monarches did but rise, and receiue their libertie by the rubies of the Ethnicke Romane Empire, and at the destruction thereof) and at the very time of the beginning of the planting of the Antichrist there; and that we should for a long time continue to worship the Beast, hauing one Catholike or common consenting minde 4 in obeying her, yeelding our power and authoritie vnto her, and kissing her feete, drinking with her in her cup of Idolatrie, and fighting with the Lambef in the persecution of his Saints, at her com- mand that gouerneth so many Nations and people: yet notwithstanding all this, wee shall in the time appointed by GOD, hauing thus fought with the Lambe, but being ouercome by him, that is conuerted by his Word, wee shall then (I say) hate the Whore,6 and make her desolate, and make her naked, by discouering her hypo- crisie and false pretence of zeale; and shall eate her flesh, and burne her with fire. And thus shall the way of the Kings of the East bee prepared,1 as ye heard in the sixteenth Chapter. And then doeth hee subioyne the reason of this strange change in vs: for (saith hee) GOD hath put it in their hearts to fulfill his will, and with one consent to giue their Kingdomes to the Beast, till the words of GOD be full filled* according to that sentence of Solomon; That the hearts of Kings are in the handes of GOD, to bee turned at his pleasure? And hauing thus interpreted the Beast or Empire; hee in a word expounds, that by the Woman that rode vpon her, or Monarch that gouerned her, was meant that great Citie10 that reigned ouer the 1 Verse 5. 4 Verse 13. ' Reuel. 16. 12. • Prou. 21. i. 1 Verse 9. • Verse 14. • Verse 17. 10 Verse 18. 1 Verse 12. • Verse 16. 148 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I Kings of the earth: by the Seate of the Empire pointing out the qualitie of the persons that should sit and domine there. Then is the greatnesse of her fall, and the great lamentation that both the Kings and Merchants of the earth shall make for the same, proclaimed by an other Angel in the eighteenth Chapter. The Kings lamenting her fall,1 because they lined in pleasure with her; which no Kings could doe with Ethnicke Rome, who conquered them by her sword: for shee honoured them with Titles, and dispensed with their lustes and vnlawfull marriages. And the Merchants of the earth? and all Shipmasters, and traffickers vpon the Sea, shall lament the fall of that great Citie, which neuer had a fellow, for the losse of their riches and traffique, which they enioyed by her meanes. And there he describeth all sorts of rich wares,3 whereof that great Citie was the Staple : for indeed shee hath a necessary vse for all such rich and glorious wares, as well for ornaments to her Churches and princely Prelates, as for garments and ornaments to her woodden Saints; for the blessed Virgin must be dayly clothed and decked in the newest and most curious fashion, though it should resemble the habit of a Curtizane. And of all those rich wares, the most precious is last named, which is the Soules of men: 4 for so much bestowed vpon Masses, and so much doted to this or that Cloyster of Monkes or Friers, but most of all now to that irregular and incomprehensible order of lesuites; shal both redeeme his owne Soule, and all his parents to the hundreth generation, from broyling in the fire of Purgatory. And (I hope) it is no small merchandise of Soules, when men are so highly deluded by the hopes and promise of Saluation, as to make a Frier murther his Soueraigne; 6 a yong knaue attempt the murther of his next Successour; 6 many one to conspire and attempt the like against the late Queene; and in my time, to attempt the destruction of a whole Kingdome and State by a blast of Powder: and hereby to play bankerupt with both the soules mentioned in the Scriptures, Animus 6* Anima. But notwithstanding of this their great Lamentation, they are commanded by a voyce from heauen to doe two things: One, to flee from Babylon, lest they bee partakers of her sinnes,"1 and consequently of her punishment. Which warning I pray God that yee all, my Beloued Brethren and Cousins, would take heed vnto in time, humbly beseeching him to open your eyes for this purpose. The other com- mand is, to reward her as shee hath rewarded you; yea, euen to the double* For as she did flie but with your feathers, borrowing as well her Titles of greatnesse and formes of honouring her from you; as also enioying all her Temporall liuing by your liberalities; so if euery man doe but take his owne againe, she will stand vp 9 naked; and the reason is giuen, because of her pride: For shee glorifieth her selfe liuing in pleasure, and in her heart saith, shee sitteth as a Queene (outward pro- speritie being one of their notes of a trew Church) and is no Widow;10 for her 1 Chap. 18. Verse 9. 10. « Henry 4. 1 Verse n, 15, 16, 17, 18. 7 Verse 4. « Verse 6. 3 Verse 12, 13. « Verse 13. • Comicula Aesopica. ' Henry 3. K. of France. 10 Verse 7. A PREMONITION 149 Spouse CHRIST is bound to her by an inuiolable knot (for he hath sworne neuer to forsake her) and she shall see no mourning: for she cannot erre, nor the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against her. But though the earth and worldly men lament thus for the fall of Babylon in this eighteenth Chapter, yet in the nineteenth, Heauen and all the Angels and Saints 1 therein doe sing a triumphall Cantique 2 for ioy of her fall, praising God for the fall of that great Whore: Great indeed, fof our Cardinatt 3 confesseth, that it is hard to describe what the Pope is, such is his greatnesse. And in the end of that Chapter is the obstinacie of that Whore described, who euen fought to the vttermost against him that sate on the white Horse* and his armie; till the Beast 6 or Antichrist was taken, and the false Prophet, or false Church with him, who by Miracles, and lying wonders deceiued them that receiued the marke of the Beast; and both were cast quicke into the burning lake of fire and brimestone; vnde nulla re- demptio. Like as in the ende of the former Chapter, to describe the fulnesse of the Antichrists fall (not like to that reparable wound that Ethnicke Rome gate) it is first compared to a Milstone cast into the sea,6 that can neuer rise and fleete againe: And next it is expressed by a number of ioyfull things that shall neuer bee heard there againe, where nothing shall inhabite but desolation.7 But that the patience and constancie of Sairits on earth, and God his Elected may the better bee strengthened and confirmed; their persecution in the latter dayes, is shortly prophesied and repeated againe, after that Satan hath beene bound? or his furie restrained, by the world enioying of peace for a thousand yeeres, or a great indefinite time; their persecuters being named Gog and Magog,9 the secret and reuealed enemies of CHRIST. Whether this be meant of the Pope and the Turke, or not; (who both began to rise to their greatnesse about one tune) I leaue to bee, guessed; alwayes their vtter confusion10 is there assuredly promised: and it is said; that the Dragon, the Beast, and the false Prophet,11 shall all three bee cast in that lake of fire and brimstone, to be tormented for euer.n And thereafter is the latter day described againe (which must be hastened for the Elects sake13) and then for the further comfort of the Elect, and that they may the more constantly and patiently endure these temporall and finite troubles, limited but to a short space; in the last two Chapters u are the ioyes of the eternall lerusalem largely described. Thus hath the Cardinals shamelesse wresting of those two places of Scripture, Pasce oues meas, and Tibi dabo claues, for proouing of the Popes supreame Tem- porall authoritie ouer Princes; animated mee to prooue the Pope to bee THE ANTICHRIST, out of this foresaid booke of Scripture; so to pay him in his owne money againe. And this opinion no Pope can euer make me to recant; except they first renounce any further medling with Princes, in any thing belonging to 1 Cap. xix. Verse i. > Verse 2. * Bellar. in Res. ad Gerson, con- sid. ii. 4 Verse 19. Verse 20. Cap 18. 21. Ibidem. Vers. 22. 23. Cap xx. Verse 2. Verse 8. u Verse 9. 11 Verse 10. 11 Verse 11, 12, 13. 15 Matth. 24. 22. 14 Cap. xxj. xxij. 150 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I their Temporall Jurisdiction. And my onely wish shall bee, that if any man shall haue a fancie to refute this my coniecture of the Antichrist; that hee answere mee orderly to euery point of my discourse; not contenting him to disprooue my opinion, except hee set downe some other Methode after his forme for interpreta- tion of that Booke of the Apocalyps, which may not contradict no part of the Text, nor conteine no absurdities: Otherwise, it is an easie thing for Momus to picke quarrels in another mans tale, and tell it worse himself e; it being a more easie practise to finde faults, then amend them. Hauing now made this digression anent the Antichrist, which I am sure I can better fasten vpon the Pope, then Bellarmine can doe his pretended Temporall Superioritie ouer Kings: I will returne againe to speake of this Answerer; who (as I haue already told you) so fitteth his matter with his manner of answering, that as his Style is nothing but a Satyre and heape full of iniurious and reproch- full speaches, as well against my Person, as my Booke; so is his matter as full of lyes and falsities indeed, as hee vniustly layeth to my charge: For three lies hee maketh against the Oath of Alleagiance, conteined and maintained in my Booke; besides that ordinary repeated lie against my Booke, of his omitting to answere my lyes, trattles, iniurious speaches and blasphemies. One grosse lye he maketh euen of the Popes first Breue. One lye of the Puritanes, whom he would gladly haue to be of his partie. And one also of the Powder-Traitours, anent the occa- sion that mooued them to vndertake that treasonable practise. Three lies hee makes of that Acte of Parliament wherein this Oath of Allegiance is conteined. Hee also maketh one notable lie against his owne Catholike Writers. And two, of the causes for which two lesuites haue beene put to death in England. And he either falsifies, denies or wrests fiue sundry Histories and a printed Pamphlet: besides that impudent lye that hee maketh of my Person; that I was a Puritane in Scotland, which I haue already refuted. And for the better filling vp of his booke with such good stuff e; hee hath also fiue so strange and new principles of Diuinitie therein, as they are either new, or at least allowed by very few of his owne Religion. All which lyes, with diuers others, and fiue strange, and (as I thinke) erroneous points of Doctrine, with sundry falsifications of Histories; are set downe in a Table by themselues in the end of this my Epistle, hauing their Refutation annexed to euery one of them. . But as for the particular answering of his booke; it is both vnnecessary and vncomely for me to make a Reply. Vnnecessary, because (as I haue already told you) my Booke is neuer yet answered, so farre as belongeth to the maine question anent the Oath of Allegiance : the picking of aduantages vpon the wrong placing of the figures in the citations, or such errors in the Print by casuall addition, or omission of words that make nothing to the Argument; being the greatest weap- ons wherewith hee assaults my Booke. And vncomely it must needs be (in my opinion) for a King to fall in altercation with a Cardinal, at least with one no more nobly descended then he is: That Ecclesiasticall dignitie, though by the A PREMONITION 151 sloath of Princes (as I said before) it be now come to that height of vsurped honour, yet being in the trew original! and foundation thereof nothing else, but the title of the Priests and Deacons of the Parish Churches in the towne of Rome; at the first, the stile of Cardinals being generally giuen to all Priests and Deacons of any Cathedral Church, though the multitude of such Cardinal Priests and Deacons resorting to Rome, was the cause that after bred the restraining of that title of Cardinall Priests and Deacons, onely to the Parish priests and Deacons of Rome. And since that it is S. Gregorie, who in his Epistles sixe hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, maketh the first mention of Cardinals (and so these now Electours of the Apostolike Sea, beeing long and many hundreth yeeres vnknowen or vnheard of, after the Apostolik aage ; and yet doeth hee speake of them but in this sence as I haue now described) I hope the Cardinall, who calleth him the Apostle of England, cannot blame mee that am King thereof, to acknowledge the Cardinall in no other degree of honour, then our said Apostle did. But how they should now become to bee so strangely exalted aboue their first originall institution, that from Parish-priests and Deacons (Priests inferiours) they should now come to bee Princes and Peeres to Kings; and from a degree vnder Bishops (as both Bellarmine 1 and Onuphrius 2 confesse) to bee now the Popes sole Electours, supplying with him the place of a Generall Councell ; whereby the conuening of Generall Councels is now vtterly antiquated and abolished; nay, out of their number onely, the Pope to be elected; who claimeth the absolute Superioritie ouer all Kings: how this their strange vsurped exaltation (I say) should thus creepe in and bee suffered, it belongeth to all them in our place and calling to looke vnto it; who being GOD his Lieutenants in earth, haue good reason to bee iealous of such vpstart Princes, meane in their originall, come to that height by their owne creation, and now accounting themselues Kings fellowes. But the speciall harme they do vs, is by their defrauding vs of our common & Christian interest in General Councels; they hauing (as I said) vtterly abolished the same, by rolling it vp, & making as it were a Monopoly thereof, in their Conclaue with the Pope. Whereas, if euer there were a possibilitie to be expected of reducing all Christians to an vniformitie of Religion, it must come by the means of a Generall Councel: the place of their meeting being chosen so indifferent, as all Christian Princes, either in their owne Persons, or their Deputie Commissioners, and all Church-men of Christian profession that beleeue and professe all the ancient grounds of the trew, ancient, Catholike, and Apostolike Faith, might haue tutum accessum thereunto; All the incendiaries and Nouelist fire-brands on either side being debarred from the same, as well lesuites as Puritanes. And therefore hauing resolued not to paine my selfe with making a Replie for these reasons heere specified, grounded as well vpon the consideration of the matter, as of the person of the Answerer; I haue thought good to content my selfe 1 Lib. de Clericis, cap. 16. 1 Lib. de Episcopatibus, Titulis & Diaconijs Cardinalium. 152 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I with the reprinting of my Apologie: hauing in a manner corrected nothing but the Copiers or Printers faults therein, and prefixed this my Epistle of Dedication and Warning thereunto; that I may yet see, if any thing will be iustly said against it: Not doubting but enow of my Subiects will replie vpon these Libellers, and an- swere them sufficiently; wishing Yov deepely to consider, and weigh your com- mon interest in this Cause. For neither in all my Apologie, nor in his pretended Refutation thereof, is there any question made anent the Popes power ouer mee in particular, for the excommunicating or deposing of mee: For in my particular; the Cardinall doeth mee that grace, that hee saith, The Pope thought it not ex- pedient at this tune to excommunicate mee by name; our question being onely generall, Whether the Pope may lawfully pretend any temporall power ouer Kings, or no ? That no Church-men can by his rule bee subiect to any Temporall Prince, I haue already shewed you; And what Obedience any of you may looke for of any of them de facto, hee plainely forewarneth you of, by the example of Gregory the Great his obedience to the Emperour Mauritius; not being ashamed to slaunder that great Personages Christian humilitie and Obedience to the Emperour, with the title of a constrained and forced obedience, because hee might, or durst doe no otherwise. Whereby he not onely wrongs the said Gregory in particular, but euen doeth by that meanes lay on an heauie slaunder and reproach vpon the Christian humilitie and patience of the whole Primitiue Church, especially in the tune of persecution: if the whole glory of their Martyrdome and Christian patience shall bee thus blotted with that vile glosse of their coacted and constrained suffering, because they could or durst doe no otherwise; like the patience and obedience of the lewes or Turkish slaues in our time, cleane contrary to Saint Paul 1 and Saint Peters 2 doctrine of obedience for conscience sake; and as contrary to Tertullians Apologie for Christians, and all the protestations of the ancient Fathers in that case. But it was good lucke for the ancient Christians in the dayes of Ethnicke Emperours, that this prophane and new conceit was then vnknowen among them: otherwise they would haue beene vtterly destroyed and rooted out in that time, and no man to haue pitied them, as most dangerous members in a Common- wealth; who would no longer be obedient, then till they were furnished with sufficient abilitie and power to resist and rebell. Thus may ye see, how vpon the one part our Cardinall will haue all Kings and Monarchs to bee the Popes Vassals; and yet will not on the other side, allow the meanest of the Pope his vassals, to be subiect to any Christian Prince. But he not thinking it enough to make the Pope our Superior, hath in a late Treatise of his (called the Recognition of his bookes of Controuersies} made the people and Subiects of euery one of vs, our Superiors. For hauing taken occasion to reuisite againe his bookes of Controuersies, and to correct or explaine what he findeth amisse or mistaketh in them; in imitation of S. Augustine his retractions (for so he 1 Rom. 13. 5. ' i. Pet. 2. 13. A PREMONITION 153 saith in his Preface) he doth in place of retracting any of his former errours, or any matter of substance; not retract, but recant indeed, I meane sing ouer againe, and obstinatly confirme a number of the grossest of them: Among the which, the exempting of all Church-men from subiection to any Temporall Prince, and the setting vp not onely of the Pope, but euen of the People aboue their naturall King; are two of his maine points. As for the exemption of the Clerickes; he is so greedy there to proue that point, as he denieth Casar to haue beede Pauls lawfull ludge: contrary to the expresse Text, and Pauls plaine Appellation,1 and acknowledging him his ludge; besides his many times claiming to the Roman priuiledges, and auowing himselfe a Roman by freedome; 2 and therefore of necessitie a Subiect to the Roman Emperour. But it is a wonder that these Romane Catholikes, who vaunt them- selues of the ancientie both of their doctrine and Church, and reproch vs so bitterly of our Nouelties, should not be ashamed to make such a new inept glosse as this vpon S. Pauls Text; which as it is directly contrary to the Apostles wordes, so is it without any warrant, either of any ancient Councell, or of so much as any one particular Father that euer interprets that place in this sort: Neither was it euer doubted by any Christian in the Primitiue Church, that the Apostles, or any other degree of Christians, were subiect to the Emperour. And as for the setting vp of the People aboue their owne naturall King, he bringeth in that principle of Sedition, that he may thereby proue, that Kings haue not their power and authoritie immediatly from God, as the Pope hath his: For euery King (saith he) is made and chosen by his people; nay, they doe but so transferre their power in the Kings person, as they doe notwithstanding retaine their habituall power in their owne hands, which vpon certaine occasions they may actually take to themselues againe. This, I am sure, is an excellent ground in Diuinitie for all Rebels and rebellious people, who are hereby allowed to rebell against their Princes; and assume libertie vnto themselues, when in their discre- tions they shall thinke it conuenient. And amongst his other Testimonies for probation, that all Kings are made and created by the People; he alledgeth the Creation of three Kings in the Scripture, Saul, Dauid and leroboam; and though hee bee compelled by the expresse words of the Text, to confesse, that God by his Prophet Samuel annointed both Saul 3 and Dauid;* yet will he, by the post-consent of the people, proue that those Kings were not immediately made by God, but medially by the people; though he repeat thrise that word of Lott, by the casting whereof he confesseth that Saul was chosen. And if the Election by Lott be not an immediate Election from God; then was not Matthias * who was so chosen and made an Apostle, immediatly chosen by GOD : and consequently, he that sitteth in the Apostolike Sea cannot for shame claime to be immediatly chosen by God, if Matthias (that was one of the 1 Acts. 25. 10. ' i. Sam. 10. i. ' Actes i. 1 Acts 22. 28. « i. Sam. 16. 12. 13. THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I twelue Apostles, supplying ludas his place) was not so chosen. But as it were a blasphemous impietie, to doubt that Matthias was immediatly chosen by GOD, and yet was hee chosen by the casting of Lots, as Saul was: so is it well enough knowen to some of you (my louing Brethren) by what holy Spirit or casting of Lots the Popes vse to be elected; the Colledge of Cardinals, his electors, hauing beene diuided in two mightie factions euer since long before my tune; and in place of casting of Lotts, great fat pensions beeing cast into some of their greedy mouthes for the election of the Pope, according to the partiall humours of Princes. But I doe most of all wonder at the weakenesse of his memorie: for in this place he maketh the post-consent of the people to be the thing that made both these Kings, notwithstanding of their preceding inauguration and anoyntment by the Prophet at GODS commandement; forgetting that in the beginning of this same little booke of his, answering one that alledgeth a sentence of S. Cyprian, to prooue that the Bishops were iudged by the people in Cyprians time, he there confesseth, that by these words, the consent of the people to the Bishops Election must be onely vnderstood. Nor will he there any wayes be mooued to graunt, that the peoples power, in consenting to or refusing the Election of a Bishop, should be so vnderstood, as that thereby they haue power to elect Bishops: And yet do these words of Cyprian seeme to bee farre stronger, for granting the peoples power to elect Churchmen, then any words that he alledgeth out of the Scripture are for the peoples power in electing a King. For the very words of Cyprian l by himselfe there cited, are, That the very people haue principally the power, either to chuse such Priests as are worthy, or to refuse such as are vnworthie: And, I hope, hee can neuer prooue by the Scripture, that it had beene lawfull to the people of Israel, or that it was left in their choise, to haue admitted or refused Saul or Dauid at their pleasure, after that the Prophet had anoynted them, and presented them vnto them. Thus yee see how little he careth (euen in so little a volume) to contradict himselfe, so it may make for his purpose; making the consent of the people to signifie their power of Election in the making of Kings; though in the making of Bishops, by the peoples consent, their approbation of a deed done by others must onely be vnderstood. And as for his example of leroboams 2 election to bee King; hee knoweth well enough, that leroboam was made King in a popular mutinous tumult and rebellion; onely permitted by God, and that in his wrath, both against these two Kings and their people. But if he will needs helpe himselfe, against all rules of Diuinitie, with such an extraordinary example for proofe of a generall Rule; why is it not as lawfull for vs Kings to oppose hereunto the ex- ample of lehu3 his Inauguration to the Kingdome; who vpon the Prophets priuat anointment of him, and that in most secret manner, tooke presently the Kings office vpon him, without euer crauing any sort of approbation from the people? 1 Cyprian. lib. i. Epist. 4. « i King. 12. 20. ' 2. King. 9. a, 3. . A PREMONITION 155 And thus may ye now clearely see, how deepe the claime of the Babylonian Monarch toucheth vs in all our common interest : for (as I haue already told) the Pope, nor any of his Vassals, I meane Church-men must be subiect to no Kings nor Princes: and yet all Kings and their Vassals must not onely be subiect to the Pope, but euen to their owne people. And now, what a large libertie is by this doctrine left to Church-men, to hatch or foster any treasonable attempts against Princes; I leaue it to your considerations, since do what they will, they are ac- countable to none of vs: nay, all their treasonable practises must be accounted workes of pietie, and they (being iustly punished for the same) must be presently inrolled in the list of Martyrs and Saints; like as our new printed Martyrologie hath put Garnet and Ouldcorne in the Register of English Martyrs abroad, that were hanged at home for Treason against the Crowne and whole State of England: so as I may iustly with Isaiah,1 pronounce a Woe to them that speake good of euill, and euill of good; which put light for darkenesse, and darkenesse for light; which iuslifie the wicked for a reward, and take away the righteousnes of the righteous from him? For euen as in the time of the greatest blindnesse in Popery, though a man should find his wife or his daughter lying a bed in her Confessors armes; yet was it not lawfull for him so much as to suspect that the Frier had any errand there, but to Confesse and instruct her: Euen so, though lesuites practising in Treason be sufficiently verified, and that themselues cannot but confesse it; yet must they be accounted to suffer Martyrdome for the Faith, and their blood worke miracles, and frame a stramineum argumentum vpon strawes; when their heads are standing aloft, withered by the Sunne and the winde, a publike spectacle for the eternall commemoration of their treacherie. Yea, one of the reasons, that is giuen in the Printers Epistle of the Colonian edition of the Cardinall or his Chaplains pam- phlet, why he doth the more willingly print it, is; because that the innocencie of that most holy and constant man Henry Garnet, is declared and set forth in that booke; against whom, some (he knew not who) had scattered a false rumour of his guiltinesse of the English treason. But, Lord, what an impudencie or wilfull ignorance is this, that he, who was so publickely and solemnely conuicted and executed, vpon his owne so cleare, vn- forced and often repeated confession, of his knowledge and concealing of that horrible Treason, should now be said to haue a certaine rumour spred vpon him of his guiltinesse, by / know not who ? with so many attributes of godlinesse, con- stancie and innocencie bestowed vpon him, as if publike Sentences and Execu- tions of Justice, were rumors of I know not who. Indeed, I must confesse, the booke it selfe sheweth a great affection to performe, what is thus promised in the Preface thereof: for in two or three places therein, is there most honorable lying mention made of that straw-Saint; wherein, though he confesse that Garnet was vpon the foreknowledge of the Powder-Treason, yet in regard it was (as he saith) onely vnder the Seale of Confession, he sticketh not to praise him for his conceal- 1 Isai 5. 20. ' Verse 23. IS6 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I ing thereof, and would gladly giue him the crowne of glory for the same: not being ashamed to proclaime it as a principall head of Catholique doctrine; That the secret of Sacramentall confession ought not to be reuealed, not for the eschewing of whatsoeuer euill. But how damnable this doctrine is, and how dangerously preiudiciall to all Princes and States; I leaue it to you to iudge, whom all it most highly concerneth. For although it bee trew, that when the Schoolemen came to be Doctors in the Church, and to marre the old grounds in Diuinitie by sowing in among them their Philosophicall distinctions; though they (I say) do main- taine, That whatsoeuer thing is told a Confessor vnder the vaile of confession, how dangerous foeuer the matter be, yet he is bound to conceale the parties name : yet doe none of them, I meane of the old Schoolmen, deny; that if a matter be reuealed vnto them, the concealing whereof may breed a great or publike danger; but that in that case the Confessor may disclose the matter, though not the per- son, and by some indirect means make it come to light, that the danger thereof may be preuented. But that no treason nor deuilish plot, though it should tend to the mine or exterminion of a whole Kingdome, must be reuealed, if it be told vnder Confession, no not the matter so farre indirectly disclosed, as may giue occasion for preuenting the danger thereof: though it agree with the conceit of some three or foure new lesuited Doctors, it is such a new and dangerous head of doctrine, as no King nor State can Hue in securitie where that Position is maintained. And now, that I may as well prooue him a lyar in facto, in his narration of this particular History; as I haue shewed him to be in iure, by this his damnable and false ground in Diuinity : I will trewly informe you of Garnets case, which is farre otherwise then this Answerer alleadgeth. For first, it can neuer be accounted a thing vnder Confession, which he that reueals it doth not discouer with a remorse, accounting it a shine whereof hee repenteth him; but by the contrary, discouers it as a good motion, and is therein not dissuaded by his Confessor, nor any pen- ance enioyned him for the same: and in this forme was this Treason reuealed to Garnet, as himselfe confessed. And next, though he stood long vpon it, that it was reuealed vnto him vnder the vaile of Confession, in respect it was done in that tune, while as the partie was making his Confession vnto him; Yet at the last hee did freely confesse, that the party reuealed it vnto him as they were walking, and not in the time of Confession: But (he said) he deliuered it vnto him vnder the greatest Scale that might bee, and so he tooke that he meant by the Scale of Con- fession; And it had (as he thought) a relation to Confession, in regard that hee was that parties Confessor, and had taken his Confession sometimes before, and was to take it againe within few dayes thereafter. He also said, that he pre- tended to the partie, that he would not conceale it from his Superior. And further it is to be noted, that he confessed, that two diuers persons conferred with him anent this Treason; and that when the one of them which was Catesby, conferred with him thereupon, it was in the other parties presence and hearing: and what a A PREMONITION 157 Confession can this be in the hearing of a third person ? And how farre his last words (whereof our Answerer so much vaunts him) did disproue it to haue bene vnder Confession, the Earle of Northamptons booke doeth beare witnesse. Now as to the other parties name, that reuealed the Powder-Treason vnto him, it was Greenewell the lesuite; and so a lesuite reuealed to a lesuite this Treasonable plot, the lesuite reuealer not shewing any remorse, and the lesuite whom-to it was reuealed not so much as enioyning him any penance for the same. And that ye may know that more lesuits were also vpon the partie, Owldcorne the other Powder-Martyr, after the misgiuing and discouery of that Treason, preached consolatory doctrine to his Catholique auditorie; exhorting them not to faint for the misgiuing of this enterprise, nor to thinke the worse thereof that it succeeded not; alleadging diuers Presidents of such godly enterprises that mis- gaue in like maner: especially, one of S. Lewes King of France, who in his second iourney to the Holy-land died by the way, the greatest part of his armie being destroyed by the plague; his first iourney hauing likewise misgiuen him by the Soldans taking of him: exhorting them thereupon not to giue ouer, but still to hope that GOD would blesse their enterprise at some other time, though this did faile. Thus see ye now, with what boldnesse and impudencie hee hath belied the publiquely knowne veritie in this errand; both in auowing generally that no lesuite was any wayes guilitie of that Treason, for so he amrmeth in his booke; and also that Garnet knew nothing thereof, but vnder the Scale of Confession. But if this were the first lye of the affaires of this State, which my fugitiue Priests and lesuits haue coyned and spread abroad, I could charme them of it, as the prouerbe is. But as well the walles of diuers Monasteries and lesuites Colledges abroad, are filled with the painting of such lying Histories, as also the bookes of our said fugitiues are farced with such sort of shamelesse stuff e; such are the innumerable sorts of torments and cruell deathes, that they record their Martyrs to haue suffred here, some torne at foure Horses; some sowed in Beares skinnes, and then killed with Dogges; nay, women haue not bene spared (they say) and a thousand other strange fictions; the vanities of all which I will in two words discouer vnto you. First, as for the cause of their punishment, I doe constantly maintaine that which I haue said in my Apologie: That no man, either in my time, or in the late Queenes, euer died here for his conscience. For let him be neuer so deuout a Papist, nay, though he professe the same neuer so constantly, his life is in no danger by the Law, if hee breake not out into some outward acte expresly against the words of the Law; or plot not some vnlawfull or dangerous practise or attempt; Priests and Popish Church-men onely excepted, that receiue Orders beyond the Seas; who for the manifold treasonable practises that they haue kindled and plotted in this countrey, are discharged to come home againe vnder paine of Treason, after their receiuing of the said Orders abroad; and yet, without some other guilt in 158 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I them then their bare home-comming, haue none of them bene euer put to death. And next, for the cruell torments and strange sorts of death that they say so many of them haue bene put vnto; if there were no more but the Law and con- tinually obserued custome of England, these many hundred yeeres, in all criminall matters, it will sufficiently serue to refute all these monstrous lies: for no tortures are euer vsed here, but the Manacles or the Racke, and these neuer but in cases of high Treason; and all sorts of Trai tours die but one maner of death here, whether they be Papist or Protestant Traitors; Queene Maries time onely excepted. For then indeed no sorts of cruell deathes were spared vnexecuted vpon men, women and children professing our Religion: yea, euen against the Lawes of God and Nature, women with childe were put to cruell death for their profession; and a liuing childe falling out of the mothers belly, was throwen in the same fire againe that consumed the mother. But these tyrannous persecutions were done by the Bishops of that time, vnder the warrant of the Popes authoritie; and therefore were not subiect to that constant order and formes of execution, which as they are heere established by our Lawes and customes, so are they accordingly obserued in the punishment of all criminals: For all Priestes and Popish Traitours here receiue their ludgements in the temporall Courts, and so doe neuer exceed those formes of execution which are prescribed by the Law, or approued by continuall custome. One thing is also to bee marked in this case that strangers are neuer called in question here for their religion, which is farre otherwise (I hope) in any place where the Inquisition domines. But hauing now too much wearied you with this long discourse, whereby I haue made you plainely see, that the wrong done vnto mee in particular first by the Popes Breues, and then by these Libellers, doth as deepely interest you all in generall, that are Kings, free Princes, or States as it doth me in particular: I will now conclude, with my humble prayers to God, that he will waken vs vp all out of that Lethargike slumber of Securitie, wherein our Predecessors and wee haue lien so long; and that wee may first grauely consider, what we are bound in con- science to doe for the planting and spreading of the trew worship of God, accord- ing to his reuealed will, in all our Dominions; therein hearing the voice of our onely Pastor (for his Sheepe will know his Voyce,1 as himselfe sayeth) and not following the vaine, corrupt and changeable traditions of men. And next, that we may prouidently looke to the securitie of our owne States, and not suffer this incroching Babylonian Monarch to winne still ground vpon vs. And if GOD hath so mercifully dealt with vs, that are his Lieutenants vpon earth, as that he hath ioyned his cause with our interest, the spirituall libertie of the Gospell with our temporall freedome: with what zeale and courage may wee then imbrace this worke: for our labours herein being assured, to receiue at the last the eternall and inestimable reward of felicitie in the kingdome of Heauen; and hi the meane time to procure vnto our selues a temporall fecuritie, in our temporall Kingdomes in this world. 1 lohn 10. 27. A PREMONITION 159 As for so many of you as are alreadie perswaded of that Trewth which 1 pro- fesse, though differing among your selues in some particular points; I thinke little perswasion should moue you to this holy and wise Resolution: Our Greatnesse, nor our number, praised bee GOD, being not so contemptible, but that wee may shew good example to our neighbors; since almost the halfe of all Christian people and of all sorts and degrees, are of our profession; I meane, all gone out of Baby- lon, euen from Kings and free Princes, to the meanest sort of People. But aboue all (my louing Brethren and Cosins) keepe fast the vnity of Faith among your selues; Reiect * questions of Genealogies and Anilesfabulas,2 as Paul saith; Let not the foolish heate of your Preachers for idle Controuersies or indifferent things, teare asunder that Mysticall Body, whereof ye are a part, since the very coat of him whose members wee are was without a seame: And let not our diuision breed a slander of our faith, and be a word of reproch in the mouthes of our aduersaries, who make Vnitie to be one of the speciall notes of the trew Church. And as for you (my louing Bethren and Cosins) whom it hath not yet pleased GOD to illuminate with the light of his trewth; I can but humbly pray with Elizeus, that it would please GOD to open your eyes, that yee might see what innumerable and inuincible armies of Angels are euer prepared and ready to defend the trewth of GOD : and with S. Paul 3 1 wish, that ye were as I am in this case; especially that yee would search the Scriptures, and ground your Faith vpon your owne certaine knowledge, and not vpon the report of others; since euery Man must bee safe by his owne faith* But, leauing this to GOD his mercifull prouidence in his due time, I haue good reason to remember you, to maintaine the ancient liberties of your Crownes and Common- weal thes, not suffering any vnder GOD to set himself e vp aboue you; and therein to imitate your owne noble prede- cessors, who (euen in the dayes of greatest blindnesse) did diuers times coura- giously oppose themselues to the incroaching ambition of Popes. Yea, some of your Kingdomes haue in all aages maintained, and without any interruption enioyed your libertie, against the most ambitious Popes. And some haue of very late had an euident proofe of the Popes ambitious aspiring ouer your Temporall power; wherein ye haue constantly maintained and defended your lawfull free- dome, to your immortall honour. And therefore I heartily wish you all, to doe in this case the Office of godly and iust Kings and earthly Judges: which consisteth not onely in not wronging or inuading the Liberties of any other person (for to that will I neuer presse to perswade you) but also in defending and maintaining these lawfull Liberties wherewith GOD hath indued you: For yee, whom GOD hath ordained to protect your people from iniuries, should be ashamed to suffer your selues to be wronged by any. And thus, assuring my selfe, that ye will with a setled Judgement, free of preiudice, weigh the reasons of this my Discourse, and accept my plainnesse in good part, gracing this my Apologie with your fauours, 1 i. Tim. i. 4. » Actes. 26. 29. * Ibid. c. 4. 7. 4 Abac. 2. 4. 160 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I and yet no longer then till it shall be iustly and worthily refuted; I end, with my earnest prayers to the ALMIGHTIE for your prosperities, and that after your happie Temporall Raignes in earth, ye may Hue and raigne in Heauen with him for euer. A CATALOGVE OF THE LYES OF TORTVS, TOGETHER WITH A BRIEFE CONFUTATION OF THEM. 4 TORTVS. Edit. Politan. pag. 9. IN the Oath of Allegiance the Popes power to excommunicate euen Hereticatt Kings, is expresly denied. CONFVTATION. The point touching the Popes power in excommunicating Kings, is neither treated of, nor denned in the Oath of Allegiance, but was purposely declined. See the wordes of the Oath, and the Premonition, pag. 292. TORTVS. pag. 10. 2 For all Catholike writers doe collect from the wordes of Christ, Whatsoeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth, shall be loosed in heauen, that there appertained to the Popes authoritie, not onely a power to absoluefrom sinnes, but also from penalties, Censures, Lawes, Vowes, and Oathes. CONFVTATION. That all Roman Catholike writers doe not concurre with this Libeller, in thus collecting from CHRISTS wordes, Matth. 16. To omit other reasons, it may appeare by this that many of them doe write, that what CHRIST promised there, that hee did actually exhibite to his Disciples, lohn 20. when hee said, Whose sinnes ye remit, they shall be remitted, thereby restraining this power of loosing formerly promised, vnto loosing from sinnes, not mentioning any absolution from Lawes, Vowes and Oathes in this place. So doe Theophylact, Anselme, Hugo Cardin. &• Ferus in Matt. 16. So doe the principall Schoolemen, Alexand. Hales in Summa. part. 4. q. 79. memb. 5. &° 6. art. 3. Thorn, in 4. dist. 24. q. 3. art. 2. Scotus in 4. dist. 19. art. i. Pope Hadrian. 6. in 4. dist. q. 2. de clauib. pag. 302. edit. Parisien. anno 1530. who also alledgeth for this interpretation, Augustine and the interlinear Glosse. TORTVS. Pag. 18. 3 I abhorre all Parricide, I detest all conspiracies: yet it cannot be denied but oc- casions of despaire were giuen [to the Powder-plotters.] CONFVTATION. That it was not any iust occasion of despaire giuen to the Powder-Traitours, as this Libeller would beare vs in hand, but the instructions which they had from A PREMONITION 161 the Jesuits, that caused them to attempt this bloody designe: See the Premonition pag. 291. &° 335. and the booke intituled, The proceedings against the late Traitours. TORT/VS. Pag. 26. 4 For not onely the Catholiques, but also the Caluinist puritanes detest the taking of this Oath. CONFVTATION. The Puritanes doe not decline the Oath of Supremacie, but daily doe take it, neither euer refused it. And the same Supremacie is defended by Caluin himselfe, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 20. TORTVS. Pag. 28. 5 First of all the Pope writeth not, that he was grieued at the calamities which the Catholikes did suffer for the keeping of the Orthodox faith in the time of the late Queene, or in the beginning of King lames his reigne in England, but for the calamities which they suffer at this present time. CONFVTATION. The onely recitall of the wordes of the Breue will sufficiently confute this Lye. For thus writeth the Pope, The tribulations and calamities which ye haue continually susteined for the keeping of the Catholique faith, haue alway afflicted vs with great grief e of minde. But for asmuch as we vnderstand, that at this time all things are more grieuous, our affliction hereby is wonderfully increased. TORTVS. Page. 28. 6 In the first article [of the Statute] the Lawes of Queene Elizabeth are confirmed. CONFVTATION. There is no mention at all made of confirming the Lawes of Queene Elizabeth, in the first article of that Statute. TORTVS. Pag. 29. 7 In the 10. Article [of the said Statute] it is added, that if the [Catholicks] refuse the third time to take the Oath being tendered vnto them, they shall incurre the danger of loosing their Hues. CONPVTATION. There is no mention in this whole Statute either of offering the Oath the third time, or any indangering of their liues. TORTVS. Pag. 30. 8 In the 12. Article, it is enacted, that whosoeuer goeth out of the land to serue in the warres vnder forreine Princes, they shall first of all take this Oath, or els be accounted for Traitours. 162 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I CONFVTATION. It is no where said in that Statute, that they which shall thus seme in the warres vnder forraine Princes, before they haue taken this Oath, shall be ac- counted for Traitors, but onely for Felons. TORTVS. Pag. 35. 9 Wee haue already declared, that the [Popes] Apostolique power in binding and loosing is denied in that [Oath of Alleageance.] CONFVTATION. There is no Assertory sentence in that Oath, nor any word but onely con- ditionall, touching the power of the Pope in binding and loosing. TORTVS. Pag. 37. 10 The Popes themselues, euen will they, nill they, were constrained to subiecl themselues to Nero and Diocletian. CONFVTATION. That Christians without exception, not vpon constraint but willingly and for conscience sake, did subiect themselues to the Ethnicke Emperors, it may appeare by our Apologie, pag. 255, 256. and the Apologetickes of the ancient Fathers. TORTVS. Pag. 47. 11 In which words [of the Breues of Clement the 8.] not onely lames King of Scotland, was not excluded, but included rather. CONFVTATION. If the Breues [of Clement] did not exclude mee from the Kingdome, but rather did include me, why did Garnet burne them ? why would he not reserue them that I might haue seene them, that so hee might haue obteined more fauour at my hands for him and his Catholikes ? TORTVS. Pag. 60. 12 Of those 14. Articles [conteined in the Oath of Alleagiance] eleuen of them concerne the Primacie of the Pope in matters Spirituall. CONFVTATION. No one Article of that Oath doeth meddle with the Primacie of the Pope in matter Spirituall: for to what end should that haue bene, since we haue an expresse Oath elsewhere against the Popes Primacie in matters Spirituall ? TORTVS. Pag. 64. 13 Amongst other calumnies this is mentioned, that Bellarmine was priuie to sundry conspiracies against Q. Elizabeth, if not the author. A PREMONITION 163 CONFUTATION. It is no where said [in the Apologie] that Bellarmine was either the Authour, or priuie to any conspiracies against Queene Elizabeth; but that he was their principall instructor and teacher, who corrupted their iudgement with such dangerous positions and principles, that it was an easie matter to reduce the generals into particulars, and to apply the dictates which hee gaue out of his chaire, as opportunitie serued, to their seuerall designes. TORTVS. Pag. 64. 14 For he [Bellarmine] knoweth, that Campian onely conspired against He- reticall impietie. CONFVTATION. That the trew and proper cause of Campians excution, was not for his conspir- ing against Hereticall impietie, but for conspiring against Queene Elizabeth and the State of this Kingdome, it was most euident by the iudiciall proceedings against him. TORTVS. Pag. 65. 15 Why was H. Garnet, a man incomparable J or learning in all kindes, and ho- linesse of life, put to death, but because he would not reueale that which he could not doe with a safe conscience. CONFVTATION. That Garnet came to the knowledge of this horrible Plot not onely in confes- sion as this Libeller would haue it, but by other meanes, neither by the relation of one alone, but by diuers, so as hee might with safe conscience haue disclosed it; See the Premonition, pag. 334, 335, &c. and the Earle of Northamptons booke. TORTVS. Pag. 71. 1 6 Pope Sixtus 5. neither commanded the French King to bee murthered, neither approoued that fact, as it was done by a priuate person. CONFVTATION. The falsehood of this doeth easily appeare by the Oration of Sixtus 5. TORTVS. Pag. 91. 17 That which is added concerning Stanley his Treason, is neither faithfully nor trewly related: for the Apologer (as his manner is) doeth miserably depraue it, by adding many lyes. CONFVTATION. That which the Apologie relateth concerning Stanley his Treason, is word for word recited out of Cardinall Aliens Apologie for Stanleys treason: as it is to be scene there. r64 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I TORTVS. Pag. 93. 18 It is very certaine that H. Garnet at his arraignement, did alwayes con- stantly auouch, thai neither hee nor any lesuite either were authors, or compartners, or aduisers, or consenting any way [to the Powder-Treason.] And a little after. The same thing hee protested at his death in a large speach, in the presence of in- numerable people. CONFVTATION. The booke of the proceedings against the late Traitours, and our Premonition, PaS- 334) 335> &c- doe dearely prooue the contrary of this to bee trew. TORTVS. Pag. 97. 19 King lames since he is no Catholike, neither is he a Christian. CONFVTATION. Contrary: I am a trew Catholike, a professor of the trewly ancient, Catholike, and Apostolike Faith: and therefore am a trew Christian. See the confession of my faith in the Premonition, pag. 302, 303. 6*c. TORTVS. Pag. 98. 20 And if the reports of them which knew him most inwardly, be trew, when hee was in Scotland, he was a Puritane, and an enemie to Protestants: Now in England he professeth himself e a Protestant, and an enemie to the Puritans. CONFVTATION. Contrary; and what a Puritane I was in Scotland: See my BASIAIKON AQPON and this my Premonition, pag. 305, 306. HIS FALSIFICATIONS IN HIS ALLEDGING OF HISTORIES, TOGETHER WITH A BRIEFE DECLARATION OF THEIR FALSHOOD THE WORDS OF TORTVS. Pag. 70. // was certaine that he [Henry 4. the Emperour] died a naturall death. CONFVTATION. It was not certaine: since sundry Historians write otherwise, that he died vpon his imprisonment by his sonne Henry 5. either with the noysomnesse and loathsomnesse of the prison, or being pined to death by hunger. Read Fasciculus temporum at the yeere 1094. Laziardus epitom. vniuersal. Histor. c. 198. Paulus Langius in Chronico Citizensi at the yeere 1105. and lacobus Wimphelingus epitome Rerum Germanic, c. 28. A PREMONITION 165 TORTVS. Pag. 83. 2 Henry 4. The Emperour feared indeed, but not any corporall death, but the censure of Excommunication, from the -which that he might procure absolution, of his owne accord, he did thus demissely humble himself e [before Gregory 7.] CONFUTATION. That Henry 4. thus delected himselfe before the Pope, it was neither of his owne accord, neither vpon any feare of the Popes Excommunication, which [in this particular] hee esteemed of no force, but vpon feare of the losse of his King- dome and life, as the records of antiquitie doe euidently testifie. See Lambertus Schafnaburg. at the yeere 1077. Abbas Vrspergen. at the yeere 1075. The Author of the life of Henry 4. Bruno in his History of the Saxon warre. Laziard. in epitom. miuersal. Histor. c. 193. Cuspinian. in Henr. 4. Sigonius de Regno Italia lib. 9. TORTVS. Pag. 83. 3 The trewth of the History [of Alexander 3. treading vpon the necke of Fre- dericke Barbarossa with his foot] may be iustly doubted of. CONFVTATION. But no Historian doubteth of it; and many do auouch it, as Hieronym. Bard, in victor. Naual. ex Bessarion. Chronico apud Baron, ad an. 1177. num. 5. Gerson de potestate Ecclesia consid. n. lacob Bergom. in supplem. Chronic, ad an. 1 1 60. Nauclerus Gener. 40 Petrus lustinian. lib. 2. Rerum Venetar. Papirius Masson. lib. 5. de Episcop. vrbis. who alledgeth for this Gennadius Patriarch of Constantinople. Besides Alphonsus Ciacconius de vit. Pontif. in Alexand. 3. and Azorius the lesuite: Instil. Moral, part. lib. 5. c. 43. TORTVS. Pag. 83. 4 What other thing feared Frederick Barbarossa but excommunication ? CONFVTATION. That Frederick feared onely Pope Alexander his Excommunication, no ancient Historian doth testifie. But many do write, that this submission of his was principally for feare of loosing his Empire and Dominions. See for this, Martin Polon. ad an. 1 166. Platina in vita Alexan. 3 Laziard. in epitom. Historic vniuersal. c. 212. Naucler. General 40. lacobus Wimphelingus in epitom. Rerum Germanic. 0.32. TORTVS. Pag. 88. 5 Adde heereunto, that Cuspinian. [in relating the history of the Turkes brother who was poysoned by Alexander 6.] hath not the consent of other writers to witnesse the trewth of this History. !66 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I CONFVTATION. The same History, which is reported by Cuspinian, is recorded also by sundry other famous Historians. See Francis Guicdardin. lib. 2. Histor. Ital. Paulus louius lib. 2. Hist, sui temporis. Sabellic. Ennead. 10. lib. g. Continuator Palmerij, at the yeere. 1494. THE NOVEL DOCTRINES, WITH A BRIEFE DECLARATION OF THEIR NOUELTIE. NOVEL DOCTRINE. Pag. 9. IT is agreed vpon amongst all, that the Pope may lawfully depose Hereticall Princes and free their Subiects from yeelding obedience -onto them. CONFUTATION. Nay, all are so farre from consenting in this point, that it may much more trewly be auouched, that none entertained that conceit before Hildebrand: since he was the first brocher of this new doctrine neuer before heard of, as many learned men of that aage, and the aage next following (to omit others of succeed- ing aages) haue expresly testified. See for this point, the Epistle of the whole Clergie of Liege to Pope Paschal the second. See the iudgement of many Bishops of those times, recorded by Auentine in his historic, lib. 5, fol. 579. Also the speech vttered by Conrade bishop of Vtretcht, in the said fifth booke of Auentine, fol. 582. And another by Eberhardus, Archbishop of Saltzburge. Ibid. lib. 7, p. 684. Also the iudgement of the Archbishop of Triers, in constitut. Imperialib. a M. Haimensfeldio editis. pag. 47. The Epistle of Walthram Bishop of Megburgh which is extant in Dodechine his Appendix to the Chronicle of Marianus Scotus, at the yeere 1090. Benno in the life of Hildebrand. The author of the booke De imitate Ecclesice, or the Apologie for Henry the fourth. Sigebert in his Chronicle, at the yeere 1088. Godfrey of Viterbio in his History entituled Pantheon, part. 17. Ottho Frisingensis, lib. 6. c. 35. &• prcefat. in lib. 7. Frederick Barbarossa. lib. 6. Gunther. Ligurin. de gestis Frederici. and lib. i. c. 10. of Raduicus de gestis eiusdem Frederici. Vincentius in specula historiali lib. 15. c. 84. with sundry others. NOVEL DOCTRINE. Pag. 51. 2 In our supernaturall birth in Baplisme wee are to conceiue of a secret and im- plied oath, which we take at our new birth, to yeeld obedience to the spiritual Prince, which is Christes Vicar. CONFVTATION. It is to bee wondered at, whence this fellow had this strange new Diuinitie, which surely was first framed in his owne fantasticall braine. Else let him make A PREMONITION 167 vs a Catalogue of his Authors, that hold and teach, that all Christians, whether infants or of aage, are by vertue of an oath taken in their Baptisme, bound to yeeld absolute obedience to CHRISTS Vicar the Pope, or baptized in any but in CHRIST. NOVEL DOCTRINE. Pag. 94. 3 But since that Catholike doctrine doeth not permit for the auoidance of any mis- chief e whatsoeuer, to discouer the secret of Sacramentall confession, he [Garnet] rather chose to suffer most bitter death, then to violate the seale of so great a Sacrament. CONFVTATION. That the secret of Sacramentall confession is by no meanes to bee disclosed, no not indirectly, or in generall, so the person confessing bee concealed, for auoydance and preuention of no mischiefe, how great soeuer: Besides that it is a position most dangerous to all Princes and Common-wealths, as I shew in my Premonition, pag. 333, 334. It is also a Nouell Assertion, not heard of till of late dayes in the Christian world : Since the common opinion euen of the Schoolemen and Canonists both old and new, is vnto the contrary; witnesse these Authors following: Alexander Hales part. 4. qu. 78. mem. 2. art. 2. Thorn. 4. dist. 21. qu. 3. art. I. ad. i. Scotus in 4. dist. 21. qu. 2. Hadrian. 6. in 4. dist. vbi de Sacramen. Confes. edit. Paris. 1530. pag. 289. Dominic. Sot. in 4. dist. 18. q. 4. art. 5. Francis, de victor, summ. de Sacram. n. 189. Nauar. in Enchirid. c. 8. loseph. Angles in Florib. part i. pag. 247. edit. Antuerp. Petrus Soto lect. n. de confess. The lesuites also accord hereunto, Suarez. Tom. 4. disp. in 3. part. Thorn, disp. 33. § 3. Gregor. de Valentia. Tom. 4. disp. 7. q. 13. punct. 3. who saith the common opinion of the Schoolemen is so. NOVEL DOCTRINE. Pag. 102. 4 / dare boldly auow, that the Catholikes haue better reason to refuse the Oath [of Allegeance] then Eleazar had to refuse the eating of Swines flesh. CONFVTATION. This assertion implieth a strange doctrine indeed, that the Popes Breues are to be preferred before Moses Law: And that Papists are more bound to obey the Popes decree, then the lewes were to obey the Law of God pronounced by Moses. NOVEL DOCTRINE. Pag. 135. 5 Churchmen are exempted from the lurisdiction of secular Princes, and there- fore are no subiects to Kings: yet ought they to obserue their Lawes concerning mat- ters temporall, not by vertue of any Law, but by enforcement of reason, that is to say, not for that they are their Subiects, but because reason will giue it, that such Lawes are to be kept for the publike good, and the quiet of the Common-wealth. l68 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I CONFUTATION. How trew friends the Cardinall and his Chaplen are to Kings that would haue so many Subiects exempted from their power: See my Premonition, Pag. 296, 297. Also, Pag. 330, 331. &c. But as for this and the like new Aphorismes, I would haue these cunning Merchants to cease to vent such stuff e for ancient and Catholikes wares in the Christian world, till they haue disprooued their owne Venetians, who charge them with Noueltie and forgerie in this point. A REMONSTRANCE FOR THE RIGHT OF KINGS, AND THE INDEPENDANCE OF THEIR CROWNES, AGAINST AN ORATION OR THE MOST ILLVSTRIOVS CARD. OF PERRON, PRONOVNCED IN THE CHAMBER OF THE THIRD ESTATE. IAN. 15. 1615. THE PREFACE. /HA VE no humour to play the Curious in a forraine Commonwealth, or, vnre- quested, to carry any hand in my neighbours affaires. It hath more congruitie with Royall dignitie, whereof God hath giuen mee the honour, to prescribe Lawes at home for my Subiects, rather then to furnish forraine Kingdomes and people with counsels. Howbeit, my late entire affection to K. Henry IV. of happy memorie, my most honoured brother, and my exceeding sorrow for the most detestable parricide acted upon the sacred person of a King, so complete in all heroicall and Princely vertices; as also the remembrance of my owne dangers, incurred by the practise of conspiracies flowing from the same source, hath wrought mee to sympathize with my friends in their grieuous occurrents: no doubt so much more dangerous, as they are lesse apprehended and left of Kings themselues, euen when the danger hangeth ouer their owne heads. Vpon whom, in case the power and vertue of my aduertisements be not able effectually to worke, at least many millions of children and people yet vn- borne, shall beare me witnesse, that in these dangers of the highest nature and straine, I haue not bene defectiue: and that neither the subuersions of States, nor the murthers of Kings, which may mhappily betide hereafter, shall haue so free passage in the world for want of timely aduertisement before. For touching my particular, my rest is vp, that one of the maynes for which God hath aduanced me -upon the loftie stage of the supreme Throne, is, that my words vtteredfrom so eminent a place for Gods honour, most shamefully traduced and vilified in his owne Deputies and Lieutenants, might with greater facilitie be concerned. Now touching France, faire was the hope which I concerned of the States assem- bled in Parliament at Paris: That calling to minde the murthers of their Noble Kings, and the wanes of the League which followed the Popes fulminations, as when a great stor me of haile powerth downe after a Thunder-cracke, and a world of writings addressed to iustifie the parricides, and the dethronings of kings, they would haue ioyned heads, hearts 6* hands together, to hammer out some apt and wholesome remedy against so many fearefull attempts and practises. To my hope was added no little ioy, when I was giuen to understand the third Estate had preferred an Article or Bill, the tenor and substance whereof was concerning the means whereby the people 169 170 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I might bee vnwitched of this pernicious opinion; That Popes may tosse the French King his Throne like a tennis ball, and that killing of Kings is an acte meritorious to the purchase of the crowne of Martyrdome. But in fine, the proiect was en- countred with successe cleane contrary to Expectation. For this Article of the third Estate, like a sigh of libertie breathing her last, served only so much the more to in- thrall the Crowne, and to make the bondage more grieuous and sensible then before. Euen as those medicines which worke no ease to the patient, doe leaue the disease in much worse tearmes: so this remedy inuented and tendred by the third Estate, did onely exasperate the present malady of the State; for so much as the operation and vertue of the wholesome remedy was ouermatched with peccant humours, then stirred by the force of thwarting and crossing opposition. Yea much better had it bene, the matter had not bene stirred at all, then after it was once on foot and in motion, to give the Trewth leaue to lye gasping and sprawling vnder the violence of a forraine faction. For the opinion by which the Crownes of Kings are made subiect vnto the Popes will and power, was then auowed in a most Honourable Assembly, by the auerment of a Prelate in great authoritie, and of no lesse learning: He did not plead the cause as a priuate person, but as one by representation that stood for the whole body of the Clergie; was there applauded, and seconded with approbation of the Nobilitie; no resolution taken to the contrary, or in bane to his plea. After praises and thankes from the Pope, followed the printing of his eloquent harangue or Oration, made in full Parliament: a set discourse, maintaining Kings to be deposeable by the Pope, if he speake the word. The said Oration was not onely Printed with the Kings priui- ledge, but was likewise addressed to mee by the Author and Orator himselfe; who presupposed the reading thereof would forsooth driue me to say, Lord Cardinall, in this high subiect your Honour hath satisfied me to the full. All this poysed in the ballance of equall iudgement, why may not I trewly and freely qffirme, the said Estates assembled in Parliament, haue set Royall Maiestie vpon a doubtfull chance, or left it resting vpon vncertaine tearmes: and that now if the doctrine there maintained by the Clergie should beare any pawme, it may lawfully be doubted, who is King in France ? For I make no question, hee is but a titular King that raigneth onely at an others discretion, and whose Princely head the Pope hath power to bare of his Regall Crowne. In temporall matters, how can one be Soueraigne, that may be fleeced of all his Tempor allies by any superior power? But let men at a neere sight marke the pith and marrow of the Article proposed by the third Estate, and they shall soone perceiue the skilfull Architects thereof aymed onely to make their King a trew and reall King, to bee recognised for Soueraigne within his owne Realme, and that kill- ing their King might no longer passe the muster of workes acceptable to God. But by the vehement instance and strong current of the Clergie and Nobles, this was borne downe as a pernicious Article, as a cause of Schisme, as a gate which openeth to all sorts of Heresies: yea, there it was maintained tooth and naile, that in case the doctrine of this Article might goefor currant doctrine, it must follow, that for many aages past in sequence, the Church hath beene the kingdome of Antichrist, and A DEFENCE OF THE RIGHT OF KINGS 171 the synagogue of Satan. The Pope vpon so good issue of the cause, had reason, I trow, to addresse his Letters of triumph vnto the Nobilitie and Clergie, who had so farre aprrooued themselues faithfull to his Holinesse; and to vaunt withall, that hee had nipped Christian Kings in the Crowne, that hee had giuen them checke with mate, through the magnanimous resolution of this courageous Nobilitie, by whose braue making head, the third Estate had beene so valiantly forced to give ground. In a scornefull reproach hee qualified the Deputies of the third Estate, nebulones ex fcece plebis,1 a sort or a number of knaues, the very dregges of the base vulgar, a packe of people, presuming to personate well affected Subiects, and men of deepe vnderstanding, and to reade their masters a learned Lecture. Now it is no wonder, that, in so good an office and loyall cariage towards their King, the third Estate hath outgone the Clergie. For the Clergie denie themselues to haue any ranke among the Subiects of the King: they stand for a Soueraigne out of the Kingdome, to whom as to the Lord Paramount they owe suite and seruice: they are bound to ad- uance that Monarchic, to the bodie whereof they properly apperteine as parts or mem- bers, as elsewhere I have written more at large. But for the Nobilitie, the Kings right arme, to prostitute and set as it were to sale the dignitie of their King, as if the arme should giue a thrust vnto the head; I say for the Nobilitie to hold and main- taine euen in Parliament, their King is liable to deposition by any forreine power or Potentate, may it not passe among the strangest miracles and rarest wonders of the world? For that once granted, this consequence is good and necessarie; That in case the King, once lawfully deposed, shall stand vpon the defensiue, and hold out for his right, he may then lawfully be murthered. Let mee then here freely professe my opinion, and this it is: That now the French Nobilitie may seeme to haue some reason to disrobe themselues of their titles, and to transferre them by resignation vnto the third Estate. For that body of that third Estate alone hath caried a right noble heart: in as much as they could neither be tickled with promises, nor terrified by threatnings, from resolute standing to those fundamentall points and reasons of State, which most concerne the honour of their King, and the securitie of his person. Of all the Clergie, the man that hath most abandoned, or set his honour to sale, the man to whom France is least obliged, is the Lord Cardinall of Perron: a man other- wise inferiour to few in matter of learning, and in the grace of a sweete style. This man in two seuerall Orations, whereof the one was pronounced before the Nobilitie, the other had audience before the third Estate, hath set his best wits on worke, to draw that doctrine into all hatred and infamie, which teacheth Kings to be indeposeable by the Pope. To this purpose hee termes the same doctrine, a breeder of Schismes, a gate that openeth to make way, and to giue entrance vnto all heresies; in briefe, a doctrine to bee held in so high a degree of detestation, that rather then he and his fellow- Bishops will yeeld to the signing thereof, they will bee contented like Martyrs to burne at a stake. At which resolution, or obstinacie rather in his opinion, I am in a 1 I haue receiued aduertisement from diuers parts, that in the Popes letters to the Nobitie these wordes were extant, howsoeuer they haue bin left out in the impression, & rased out of the copies of the said letters. 172 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I manner antased, more then I can be moouedfor the like brauado in many other: for- asmuch as hee was many yeeres together, a follower of the late King, euen when the King followed a contrary Religion, and was deposed by the Pope: as also because not long before, in a certaine Assemblie holden al the lacobins in Paris, hee withstood the Popes Nuntio to his face, when the said Nuntio laboured to make this doctrine, touching the Popes temporall Soueraigntie, passe for an Article of Faith. But in both Orations, hee singeth a contrary song, and from his owne mouth passeth sentence of condemnation against his former course and profession. I suppose, not without sollide iudgement; as one that heerein hath well accommodated himself to the times: For as in the reigne of the late King, hee durst not o/er to broach this doctrine (such was his fore-wit;} so now he is bold to proclaime and publish it in Parliament vnder the reigne of the said Kings sonne; whose tender yeeres and late succession to the Crowne, doe make him lie the more open to iniuries, and the more facill-to be circum- uented: Such is now his afterwisedome. Of these two Orations, that made in presence of the Nobilitie he hath, for feare of incurring the Popes displeasure, cautelously suppressed. For therein he hath beene somewhat prodigall in affirming this doctrine maintained by the Clergie, to bee but problematical ; and in taking vpon him to auouch, that Catholikes of my Kingdome are bound to yeeld me the honour of obedience: Whereas on the other side, he is not ignorant, how this doctrine of deposing Princes and Kings, the Pope holdeth for meerely necessarie, and approoueth not by any means Alleagiance to bee performed •onto mee by the Catholikes of my Kingdome. Yea if credit may be giuen vnto the abridgement of his other Oration publisfod, wherein he paralells the Popes power in receiuing honours in the name of the Church, with the power of the Venetian Duke in receiuing honours in the name of that most renowned Republike; no marueile that when this Oration was dispatched to the presse, he commanded the same to be gelded of this clause and other like, for feare of giuing his Holinesse any ojfensiue distaste. His pleasure therefore was, and content withall, that his Oration imparted to the third Estate, should be put in Print, and of his courtesie he vouchsafed to addresse vnto me a copie of the same. Which after I had perused, I foorthwith well perceiued, what and how great discrepance there is betweene one man that perorateth from the ingenuous and sincere disposition of a sound heart, and an other that flaunteth in nourishing speech with inward checkes of his owne conscience: For euery where he contradicts himselfe, and seemes to be afraid lest men should picke out his right meaning. First, he grants this Question is not hitherto decided by the holy Scriptures, or by the Decrees of the ancient Church, or by the analogic of other Ecclesiasticall proceed- ings: and neuerthelesse hee confidently doeth affirme, that whosoeuer maintaine this doctrine to be wicked and abhominable, that Popes haue no power to put Kings by their supreame Thrones, they teach men to beleeue, there hath not bene any Church for many aages past, and that indeed the Church is the very Synagogue of Antichrist.1 1 In 1 2. seuerall passages the L. Card, seemeth to speake against his owne conscience. Pag. 85. A DEFENCE OF THE RIGHT OF KINGS 173 Secondly, he exhorts his hearers to hold this doctrine at least for problematically and not necessary: and yet herein he calls them to all humble submission vnto the iudgement of the Pope and Clergie, by whom the cause hath bene already put out of all question, as out of all hunger and cold. Thirdly, he doeth auerre, in case this Article be authorized, it makes the Pope in good consequence to bee the Antichrist: and yet he grants that many of the French are tolerated by the Pope to dissent in this point from his Holinesse; l prouided, their doctrine be not proposed as necessary, and materiall to faith; As if the Pope in any sort gaue toleration to hold any doctrine contrary to his owne, and most of all that doctrine which by consequence inferres himself e to be the Antichrist. Fourthly, he protesteth forwardnesse to vndergoe the flames of Martyrdome, rather then to signe this doctrine, which teacheth Kings Crownes to sit faster on their heads, then to be stirred by any Papal power whatsoeuer: and yet saith withal, the Pope winketh at the French, by his toleration to hold this dogmaticall point for prob- lematicall. And by this meanes, the Martyrdome that hee a/ecteth in this cause, will prooue but a problematicall Martyrdome, whereof question might grow very well, whether it were to be mustered with grieuous crimes, or with phreneticall passions of the braine, or with deserued punishments. Fiftly, he denounceih Anathema, dischargeth maledictions like haile-shot, against parricides of Kings: and yet elsewhere hee layes himself e open to speake of Kings onely so long as they stand Kings. But who doeth not know that a King deposed is no longer King ? And so that limme of Satan, which murthered Henry the III. then vn-king'd by the Pope, did not stabbe a King to death. Sixtly, he doeth not allow a King to be made away by murder: and yet he thinks it not much out of the way, to take away al meanes whereby he might be able to stand in defence of his life. Seuenthly, hee abhorreth killing of Kings by apposted throat-cutting, for feare lest body and soule should perish in the same instant: and yet he doth not mislike their killing in a pitcht field, and to haue them slaughtered in a set battaile: For he presupposeth, no doubt out of his charitable mind, that by this meanes the soule of a poore King so dispatched out of the way, shall instantly flie vp to heauen? Eightly, he saith a King deposed, retaineth stil a certaine internal habitude and politike impression, by vertue and efficacie whereof he may, being once reformed and become a new man, he restored to the lawfull vse and practise of Regalitie. Whereby hee would beare vs in hand, that when aforraine Prince hath inuaded and rauenously seised the kingdome into his hands, he will not onely take pittie of his predecessour to saue his life, but will also proue so kindhearted, vpon sight of his repentance, to re- store his kingdome without fraud or guile. Ninthly, he saith euery where in his Discourse, that he dealeth not in the cause, otherwise then as a problematicall discourser, and without any resolution one way or other: and yet with might and maine hee contends for the opinion, that leaues the 1 Pag. 99. * Pag. 95. 97. 174 THE POLITICAL WORKS OF JAMES I States and Crownes of Kings controulable by the Pope: refutes objections, propounds the authoritie of Popes and Councils, by name the Later an Councill wider Innocent. III. as also the consent of the Church. And to crosse the Churches iudgement, is, in his opinion to bring in schisme, and to leave the world without a Church for many hundred yeeres together: which (to my -understanding) is to speake with resolution, and without all hesitation. Tenthly, he acknowledgeth none other cause of sufficient validitie for the deposing of a King, besides heresie, apostasie, and infidelitie: neuerthelesse that Popes haue power to displace Kings for heresie and apostasie, hee proueth by examples of Kings whom the Pope hath curbed with deposition, not for heresie, but for matrimoniall causes, for ciuill pretences, and for lacke of capacitie. Eleuenthly, hee alledgeth euerywhere passages, as well of holy Scripture, as of the Fathers and moderne histories; but so impertinent, and with so little trewth, as here- after wee shall cause to appear e, that for a man of his deepe learning and knowledge, it seemeth not possible so to speake out of his iudgement. Lastly, whereas all this hath bene hudled and heaped together into one masse, to currie with the Pope: yet hee suffereth diuers points to Jail from his lips, which may well distast his Holinesse in the highest degree. As by name, where he prefers the authoritie of the Councill before that of the Pope, and makes his iudgement inferiour to the iudgement of the French; as in fit place hereafter shalbe shewed. Againe, where he representeth to his hearers the decrees of Popes and Councils already passed concerning this noble subiect; and yet affirmes that he doth not debate the question, but as a Questionist, and without resolution: As if a Cardinal should be afraid to be positiue, and to speake in peremptory straines, after Popes and Councils haue once decided the Question: Or as if a man should perorate vpon hazard, in a cause for the honour whereof, he would make no difficultie to suffer Martyrdome. Adde here- unto, that his Lordship hath alwayes taken the contrary part heretofore, and this totall must needs arose, that before the third Estate, his lips looked one way, and his con- science another. All these points, by the discourse which is to follow, and by the ripping vp of his Oration (which by Gods assistance I will -undertake) tending to the reproch of Kings, and the subuersion of kingdomes, I confidently speake it, shalbe made manifest. Yet doe I not conceiue it can any way make for my honour, to enter the lists against a Cardinall: For I am not ignorant how farre a Cardinals Hat, commeth vnder the Crowne and Scepter of a King; For well I wot -onto what sublimitie the Scripture hath exalted Kings, when it styles them Gods; Whereas the dignitie of a Cardinall is but a late vpstart inuention of man; as I haue elsewhere prooued.1 But I have im- barqued my selfe in this action, mooued thereunto: First, by the common interest of Kings in the cause it selfe: Then by the L. Cardinall, who speaketh not in this Ora- tion as a priuate person, but as one representing the body of the Clergie and Nobilitie by whom the cause hath bene wonne, and the garland borne away from the third Estate: 1 In the Preface to my Apologie. A DEFENCE OF THE RIGHT OF KINGS 175 Againe, by mine owne particular; because he is pleased to take me vp for a sower of dissention, and a persecutour, vnder whom the Church is hardly able to fetch her breath; yea, for one by whom the Catholikes of my Kingdome are compelled to endure all sorts of punishments; and withal he tearmes this Article of the third Estate, a monster with a fishes taile that came swimming out of England: Last of all, by the present state of France; because France being now reduced to so miserable tearmes, that it is now become a crime for a Frenchman to stand for his King; it is a necessary duetie of her neighbours to speak in her cause, and to make triall whether they can put life into the trweth now dying, and ready to be buried by the power of violence, that it may resound and ring againefrom remote regions. , I haue no purpose once to touch many prettie toyes which the ridges of his whole booke are sowen withall: Such are his allegations of Pericles, Agesilaus, Aristotle, Minos, the Druides, the French Ladies, Hannibal, Pindarus, and Poeticall fables: All resembling the red and blew flowers that pester the corne when it standeth in the fields, where they are more noysome to the growing crop, then beautifull to the behold- ing eye. Such pettie matters, nothing at all beseemed the dignitie of the Assembly and of the maine subiect, or of the Orator himself e: For 'it was no Decorum to enter the Stage with a Pericles in his mouth, but with the sacred Name of God; nor should hee haue marshalled the passage of a Royall Poet, after the example of an heathen Oratour. Neither will I giue any touch to his conceit of the Romane conquests, which the L. Cardinall * bestoweth in the list of Gods graces and temporall blessings, as a recom- pence of their zeale to the seruice and worship of Idols: As if God were a recompencer of wickednes, or as if the forcible electing of Tenants out of their farmes and other possessions, might be reckoned among the blessings of God. Nor to that of the Milesian Virgins, dragged stark-naked after they were dead; which the L. Cardinall drawes into his discourse for an example of the eternall tor- ments denounced by the Lawes Ecclesiasticall, to be inflicted after this life? Nor to his exposition of the word Problematical! ;3 where he giueth to under- stand that by Problematically hee meaneth such things as are of no necessitie to matter of faith; and in case men shall beleeue the contradictory of the said points, they are not bound for such beleefe, to vnder goe the solemne curse of the Church, and the losse of communion: Whereas Aristotle,4 of whom all Schooles haue borrowed their tearmes, hath taught vs that euery proposition is called a Probleme, when it is pro- pounded in a formall doubt, though in its proper nature it containes a necessary trewth, concerning the matter thereof; As for example, to say in forme of question, Whether is there but one God ? or, Whether is man a creature indued with rea- son ? By which examples it is plaine, that propositions in problematicall forme, doe not for goe the necessitie of their nature; and that many times the contradictory 1 Pag. 4. J Pag. 7. & 8. » Pag. 13. 4 Aristot. i. top. cap. 4. [3.] Trpbraaif nal irp6f}\ijna, sound both one thing, A7r6 irbaris yetp irporA-