No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
The accession of James I to the throne of England in 1603 brought about a change in the political thought of the English Catholics. As was pointed out at the end of the previous part of this study, the battle for a Catholic prince was over and the battle for toleration under a Protestant prince was about to begin. In this new struggle the doctrine of the deposing power was, as far as practical politics went, merely an embarrassment. The doctrine was, however, implied by the current Catholic teaching concerning the nature and government of the church, and no champion of the Holy See could then imagine how it could be denied without seriously impairing the Catholic case for the Roman primacy. But since it was plain to all that the last chance for invoking the deposing power in England had passed and that it was now useless as a political weapon, the temptation was naturally very strong to renounce it altogether as a doctrine.
1. Doctors who taught otherwise, e.g. those who developed the theory of the “ accidental power,“ which we have discussed in the previous article, such as Almain, Major, and Quidort, were all tinged with conciliarism.
2. See Hicks, L.: “The Embassy of Sir Anthony Standen” Part II Recusant History, V. 5. 184–7Google Scholar, and references cited in notes 11 and 16 pp. 206 et seq.
3. STC. 20626.
4. London, 1598 (STC 3092).
5. “An Sit licitum Catholicis in Anglia arma sumere, et aliis modis, reginam et regnum defendere contra Hispanos,” reprinted (in English) from Burghley's papers by Strype Annals III, ii, pp. 583-597. See especially pp. 589 et seq. On Wright see the article by T. Stroud in Biographical Studies I, 3, especially pp. 193-4.
6. Law, T. G.: The Archpriest Controversy, Vol. II (London, 1898) pp. 147–150.Google Scholar This document seems to be a resumé of a much longer one now in Westminster Archives VII No. 16, p. 79. For the distinction between temerarious and heretical propositions a useful article is in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Censures, theological.”
7. Le franc discours. Discourse presented … to the French King by Antoine Arnauld, 1602 (A & R 42) and The Iesuites catechisme by Etienne Pasquier, 1602 (A & R 596).
8. Printed in Tierney-Dodd III, clxxxviii et seq. See also his text pp. 56. Preliminary drafts in Law: Archpriest Controversy II, pp. 246-8. Thomas Preston alias” Roger Widdrington, “afterwards claimed that this Protestation” was the ground and foundation from whence the Parliament … framed the form of this new Oath [of Allegiance] …” See A New-Yeares Gift for English Catholikes, 1620. (A & R 670) pp. 11 et seq. See also Fr. Pollen's comments in Month cxvii (1911) pp. 348 et seq
9. English Protestants Plea, 1621. (A & R 159) pp. 32 et seq., 62 et seq.
10. The Catholikes Supplication (STC 20141), also printed by Tierney-Dodd IV, Ixxii-lxxiv. See also a reply to it by Christopher Muriell (STC 18292).
11. A & R 247 and 646. An anonymous Catholic reply to the Puritans, entitled A Brief e Censure, vpon the puritane pamphlet: entituled Humble motyues which had appeared in 1603 (A & R 141) also develops a similar line of argument.
12. Petition Apologeticall, pp. 28, 23.
13. A & R 164 and 132.
14. Broughton, op. cit. at sigs Hlv and N2v. In Stonyhurst MSS. Collectanea P. I, fol. 181a, the seventeenth-century archivist Christopher Greene SJ. with some hesitation ascribed this book, which was published without the author's name, to Persons because he had seen a copy covered with Persons's notes in the English College. But it is plain from Persons's own comments in his A Treatise tending to Mitigation, 1607 (A & R 641) pp. 97 et seq., that he simply used it to prepare his own book and we shall see (supra p.211) that he did not approve of its tone.
15. See pp. 50 et seq.
16. The English translation of Sarpi's book is entitled: An apology or Apologeticall answere made … unto … Cardinal Bellarmine against certaine treatises and Resolutions of John Gerson, concerning the force and validity of Excommunication, London, 1607. (STC 21757). Sarpi's anti-papal writings enjoyed a great vogue at this time in Protestant England (see the list of his books in STC). On Rome's attitude see Brodrick: Bellarmine, chapter 21.
17. Stonyhurst MSS, Anglia VII. No. 24.
18. A & R 771-2.
19. The whole of part I is taken up with the temporal power (pp. 1-84); most of the passages which gave offence to Blackwell are in chapter 1 (pp. 1-8).
20. The memorandum, entitled Censura brevis etc., is the document referred to in note 17 above. L. Hicks, S.J., gives all the references for this affair in CRS. vol. XLI, pp. 122 et seq. He also points out that there is nothing to show that it was Persons's memorandum which was presented to the Inquisition.
21. Bishop Smith to Fitton, 17 June 1633, printed in CRS. vol. XXII p. 181.
22. An exception must be made for Richard Walpole if the initials R.G. on the titlepage of the Appendix ad Apologiam (1602) which was written as a supplement to Persons's A Briefe Apologie (A & R 613) are taken to stand for ‘Richardus Gualpolus.’ There are many pieces of internal evidence to substantiate this identification. This Latin Appendix, which is longer than the earlier Appendix to the Apologie (A & R 612), contains on pp. 44-54 a good treatment of Church-state questions.
23. Persons: A Temperate Ward-word, 1599 (A & R 639) p. 53. According to Walpole, Richard, “Such questions [were] to be handled by divines in the schooles and kept from vulgar peoples eares,” A Brief, and Cleere Confutation, 1603, (A & R 874) p. 207b.Google Scholar
24. See Prothero, G. W.: Select Statutes and Constitutional Documents, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1913) pp. 259 Google Scholar et seq. On the evolution of the Oath see R. G. Usher: Reconstruction of the English Church (London 1910) II, ch. 3 and in the Appendix, pp. 310 et seq.
25. A Treatise tending to Mitigation, 1607 (A & R 641) pp. 77 et seq.
26. Bellarmine wrote a mild answer which was only published in 1913 in Auctarium Bellarminianum (ed. F. X. Le Bachelet) pp. 209-256. For Persons’s reaction see A Treatise of Three Conversions Vol. I, 1603 (A & R 640) sig. * 3 r&v and his letter to Garnet (P.R.O., S.P. 14/1/84). Persons had the Basilicon Doron translated into Latin for the benefit of Pope Clement VIII. This translation, together with Persons’s forwarding letter, is in Vatican Archives, Borghese MSS, IV, 95.
27. Vatican Archives, Borghese MSS III, 124 (g. 2, f. 31). Original in Italian.
28. Letter of 26 Aug. 1606, B.M. Addit. MSS 14140, No. 30, fol. 87.
29. “A Discourse against taking the Oathe in England, written by F. Persons,” Stonyhurst MSS, Collectanea P., pp. 161-174.
30. The second paragraph referred to is the section contained in lines 17 to 32 of Prothero, op. cit., p. 259.
31. Persons: The Judgment of a Catholike English-man, 1608 (A & R 630), pp. 115 et seq. According to Bishop Bancroft this was a point common to popery and the Puritan doctrine. The latter, he wrote,” dooth not onelye take from Prynces the authoritie for execution and disciplyne, but debarreth them also of their right and interest in ordeyning, makeinge and determynynge of lawes, orders, or cerymonyes and causes ecclesiasticall. That which they give to Princes, is but plaine Poperie, that is potestas facti non juris, or as Saunders saith authoritas promovendi religionem non constituendi …” (Tracts ascribed to Richard Bancroft, ed. A. Peel, Cambridge, 1953, p. 81.) The same theme is developed in Bancroft’s Survey of the Pretended Holie Discipline, 1593, (STC 1352) ch. 23.
32. Holie Bible, (Douay version) 1609, I, p. 713. See also the comments on II Paralipomenon xiv, 2, and I Peter ii, 13.
33. Rainolds: Calvino-Turcismus, Bk. 4, ch. 10 (see also p. 1080); Stapleton, : Apologia pro rege … Philippo II, 1592, pp. 198 Google Scholar et seq.; Verstegan, : A Declaration of the True Causes, 1592 (A & R 844) pp. 11 Google Scholar et seq.
34. Persons: An Answere to the fifth part of Reportes, 1606, (A & R 611), p.26.
35. [R. Walpole ?] Appendix ad Apologiam, p. 46. This was a reference to certain instances in the Old Testament.
36. Persons: A Treatise tending to Mitigation, p. 180. See also [R. Walpole ?] Appendix ad Apologiam, pp. 44 et seq. and the references in note 22 supra.
37. Antonio Perez: Relaciones (Paris, 1624) pp. 455 et seq.
38. Defensio Fidei III, ii, No. 2. The italics are mine.
39. Fouqueray, Henri: Histoire de la compagnie de Jésus en France II (Paris, 1913) pp. 401–4.Google Scholar Duplessis-Mornay wrote to one of his co-religionists, Saucy, and congratulated him for having “si dextrement pris l’occasion pour l’expulsion des jésuites. C’est ung coup inestimable sur ces nouveaux estançons de la toute puissance de Rome …” Patry, R.: Pliilippe du Plessis-Mornay, (Paris, 1933) p. 262 Google Scholar n.
40. The copie of a letter … wherein is shewed the late attempt of a lesuite to kill the king (STC 13130a). Two more pamphlets on the same subject were entered in the Stationers’ Register; see Collins, D. C.: A Handlist of News-pamphlets (London, 1943) p. 108.Google Scholar
41. A temperate Ward-word, pp. 61 et seq.
42. “There is no better evidence of the fact that foreign news was an echo of the trend of English opinion with regard to home affairs than the scarcity of news from abroad which does not flatter English hopes, coincide with English prejudices, and confirm English notions.” Shaaber, M. A.: Some Forerunners of the Newspaper in England (Philadelphia, 1929) pp. 182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq.
43. Martin, V.: Le Gallicanisme politique ch. 4 (pp. 87–137)Google Scholar treats of Richer’s campaign in general.
44. For example, Anti-Coton, or a refutation of Cottons letter, 1611 (STC 5861) answered by The copie of a letter … contayning an Answer to the calumniations of the Anti-Coton, 1611 (A & R 590). Cf. also STC 5862 and A & R 32 and 591.
45. On this question see laszi & Lewis, : Against the Tyrant (Glencoe, 1957) pp. 69 Google Scholar et seq.
46. Fouqueray, op. cit., III, pp. 241 et seq.
47. “Excommunication of itself is not followed by such a consequence. Of itself and in itself it is nothing else than a privation of communion … Excommunication does nothing other than make a person excommunicate. It releases its thunderbolts not to give princes the status of tyrant, nor to deprive them of their temporal sovereignty, nor to give free rein to their subjects nor to absolve these from their allegiance, but to bring help to princes as individual souls by means of inspiring in them a salutary fear.” Plainte apologétique (1603) pp. 79 et seq. This was an answer to the works of Arnauld and Pasquier referred to above, note 8. William Warmington quoted part of this passage on p. 99 of his Moderate Defence (A & R 882).
48. Lettre Déclaratoire à la Reine mère (Paris, 1610) pp. 7 Google Scholar et seq. An English version of the whole of this work was included in Thomas Owen’s A Letter of a Catholike Man (A & R 591) of the same year, where these passages, pp. 16 et seq., are translated as follows: “That amongst all sorts of governement and publicke administration the Monarchie is the best.
That the Kinges are, as Homer calleth them, the children and fosters of God, or rather his own lively Images as sayd Menander.
That it is a damnable heresy, … to thinke that Kings are given to men casually.
That our Kings of France are the eldest children of the Church, enjoying rare and singular priviledges, above the common, of other Kinges of the world.
That it is not lawfull to denie to them obedience.
That he which resisteth kinges or rebelleth against them, purchaseth to him selfe his owne damnation.”
49. Fouqueray, op. cit., II, 608 referring to De Beaumont’s letter to Henri IV of 20 Feb. 1602.
50. Fourqueray op. cit., II, pp. 674 et seq. gives an account of Achille de Harlay’s speech against the fesuits and Henri IV’s reply. The latter is translated in Anthony Hoskins: The Apologies of the Most Christian Kinges (A & R 32) pp. 13-23.
51. Pierre, Blet: “lesuites et Libertés Gallicanes en 1611,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu xxiv (1955) p. 166.Google Scholar
52. Aquaviva’s letter is printed by Pierre Blet as an appendix to his article “lesuites Gallicans au xviie siècle.” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu xxix (1960) pp. 83 Google Scholar et seq.
53. Fouqueray, op. cit., III, p. 247.
54. Raoul, de Scoraille: François Suarez (Paris, 1912) II, pp. 172 Google Scholar et seq.
55. Coimbra, 1613; Cologne, 1614. See Sommervogel for an account of the many subsequent editions.
56. Defensio Fidei VI, 4, nos. 1-12. The summary which follows is drawn from the same section, nos. 15-19.
57. “… Nec respublica vel Papa regem haereticum vel aliter tyrannicum condemnans, omnibus talem licentiam [i.e. eum occidendi] concedit etiam tacite, vel implicite . . Nam semper est necessaria prudentia, et Justus modus in ipsa executione, et majus periculum est turbationis et excessus in coactione personae principis, quam caeterarum …”
58. Fouqueray, op. cit., II, pp. 305-313; De Scoraille, op. cit., II, pp. 197-218.
59. Fouqueray, op. cit., III, p. 291; Martin, V., op. cit., pp. 113–117.Google Scholar
60. Scoraille, De, op. cit., II, pp. 193–209.Google Scholar
61. Foley, Henry, Records S.J. VII, Part II, pp. 1059 Google Scholar et seq.
62. Fitzherbert’s later books (A & R 314-5) simply insist on the fact that the Pope has forbidden Catholics to take the Oath and do not try to make out a case for the prohibition.
63. Institutum Societatis Jesu II pp. 51 et seq., (Rome, 1870):Google Scholar V. Martin op. cit. p. 91n. Vitelleschi relied on the same method of imposing silence on his subjects in the case of the Chalcedon controversy; see Hughes, Thomas, History of the Society of Jesus in North America Vol. I of Text (London, 1907) pp. 70 et seq. Google Scholar