as heresy and schism, but for faults of a temporal nature; forasmuch as a tyrannical government tendeth ever to the destruction of souls. So by this position, Kings of either religion are alike comprehended, and none exempted. The second, that after a sentence given by the Pope, this writer hath defined of a series, or succession, or substitution of hangmen, or bourreaux, to be sure, lest an executioner should fail. For he saith, That when a King is sentenced by the Pope to deprivation or death, the executioner, who is first in place, is he to whom the Pope shall commit the authority, which may be a foreign prince, it may be a particular subject, it may be general, to the first undertaker. But if there be no direction or assignation in the sentence special nor general, then, de jure, it appertains to the next successor, a natural and pious opinion; for commonly they are sons, or brothers, or near of kin, all is one: so as the successor be apparent; and also that he be a catholic. But if he be doubtful, or that he be no catholic, then it devolves to the commonalty of the kingdom; so as he will be sure to have it done by one minister or other. The third is, he distinguisheth of two kinds of tyrants, a tyrant in title, and a tyrant in regiment; the tyrant in regiment cannot be resisted or killed without a sentence precedent by the Pope; but a tyrant in title may be killed by any private man whatsoever. which doctrine he hath put the judgment of King's titles, which I will undertake are never so clean but that some vain quarrel or exception may be made unto them, upon the fancy of every private man; and also couples the judgment and execution together, that he may judge him by a blow, without any other sentence.

By

Your lordships see what monstrous opinions these are, and how both these beasts, the beast with seven heads, and the beast with many heads, Pope and people, are at once let in, and set upon the sacred persons of Kings.

Now to go on with the narrative; there was an extract made of certain sentences and portions of this book, being of this nature that I have set forth, by a

great prelate and counsellor, upon a just occasion; and there being some hollowness and hesitation in these matters, wherein it is a thing impious to doubt, discovered and perceived in Talbot; he was asked his opinion concerning these assertions, in the presence of the best; and afterwards they were delivered to him, that upon advice, and sedato animo, he might declare himself. Whereupon, under his hand, he

subscribes thus;

May it please your honourable good lordships: Concerning this doctrine of Suarez, I do perceive, by what I have read in this book, that the same doth concern matter of faith, the controversy growing upon exposition of Scriptures and councils, wherein, being ignorant and not studied, I cannot take upon me to judge; but I do submit my opinion therein to the judgment of the catholic Roman church, as in all other points concerning faith I do. And for matter concerning my loyalty, I do acknowledge my Sovereign Liege Lord King James, to be lawful and undoubted King of all the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Highness during my life.

WILLIAM TALBOT.

My lords, upon these words I conceive Talbot hath committed a great offence, and such a one, as if he had entered into a voluntary and malicious publication of the like writing, it would have been too great an offence for the capacity of this court. But because it grew by a question asked by a council of estate, and so rather seemeth, in a favourable construction, to proceed from a kind of submission to answer, than from any malicious or insolent will; it was fit, according to the clemency of these times, to proceed in this manner before your lordships: and yet let the hearers take these things right; for certainly, if a man be required by the council to deliver his opinion whether King James be King or no? and he deliver his opinion that he is not, this is high treason: but I do not say that

these words amount to that; and therefore let me open them truly to your lordships, and therein open also the understanding of the offender himself, how far they reach.

My lords, a man's allegiance must be independent and certain, and not dependent and conditional. Elizabeth Barton, that was called the holy maid of Kent, affirmed, that if King Henry VIII. did not take Catharine of Spain again to his wife within a twelvemonth, he should be no King: and this was treason. For though this act be contingent and future, yet the preparing of the treason is present.

And in like manner, if a man should voluntarily publish or maintain, that whensoever a bull of deprivation shall come forth against the King, that from thenceforth he is no longer King; this is of like nature. But with this I do not charge you neither; but this is the true latitude of your words, That if the doctrine touching the killing of Kings be matter of faith, then you submit yourself to the judgment of the catholic Roman church: so as now, to do you right, your allegiance doth not depend simply upon a sentence of the Pope's deprivation against the King; but upon another point also, if these doctrines be already, or shall be declared to be matter of faith. But, my lords, there is little won in this: there may be some difference to the guilt of the party, but there is little to the danger of the King. For the same Pope of Rome may, with the same breath, declare both. So as still, upon the matter, the King is made but tenant at will of his life and kingdoms; and the allegiance of his subjects is pinned upon the Pope's acts. And certainly, it is time to stop the current of this opinion of acknowledgment of the Pope's power in temporalibus; or else it will sap and supplant the seat of Kings. And let it not be mistaken, that Mr. Talbot's offence should be no more than the refusing the oath of allegiance. For it is one thing to be silent, and another thing to affirm. As for the point of matter of faith, or not of faith, to tell your lordships plain, it would astonish a man to see the gulf of this

implied belief. Is nothing excepted from it? If a man should ask Mr. Talbot, Whether he do condemn murder, or adultery, or rape, or the doctrine of Mahomet, or of Arius, instead of Suarez? Must the answer be with this exception, that if the question concern matter of faith, as no question it doth, for the moral law is matter of faith, that therein he will submit himself to what the church shall determine? And, no doubt, the murder of princes is more than simple murder. But to conclude, Talbot, I will do you this right, and I will not be reserved in this, but to declare that, that is true; that you came afterwards to a better mind; wherein if you had been constant, the King, out of his great goodness, was resolved not to have proceeded with you in course of justice; but then again you started aside like a broken bow. So that by your variety and vacillation you lost the acceptable time of the first grace, which was not to have convented you.

Nay, I will go farther with you: your last submission I conceive to be satisfactory and complete; but then it was too late, the King's honour was upon it; it was published and a day appointed for hearing; yet what preparation, that may be to the second grace of pardon, that I know not: but I know my lords, out of their accustomed favour, will admit you not only to your defence concerning that that hath been charged; but to extenuate your fault by any submission that now God shall put into your mind to make.

THE

CHARGE

GIVEN BY

SIR FRANCIS BACON, KNIGHT,

HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL,

AGAINST

MR. OLIVER ST. JOHN,

FOR

Scandalizing and traducing in the Public Sessions, Letters sent from the Lords of the Council touching the Benevolence.

MY LORDS,

I SHALL inform you ore tenus, against this gentleman Mr. I. S. a gentleman, as it seems, of an ancient house and name; but, for the present, I can think of him by no other name, than the name of a great offender. The nature and quality of his offence, in sum, is this: This gentleman hath, upon advice, not suddenly by his pen, nor by the slip of his tongue ; not privately, or in a corner, but publicly, as it were, to the face of the King's ministers and justices, slandered and traduced the King our sovereign, the law of the land, the parliament, and infinite particulars of his Majesty's worthy and loving subjects. Nay, the slander is of that nature, that it may seem to interest the people in grief and discontent against the state; whence might have ensued matter of murmur and sedition. So that it is not a simple slander, but a seditious slander, like to that the poet speaketh of Calamosque armare veneno. hath both iron and poison.

A venomous dart that

To open to your lordships the true state of this offence, I will set before you, first, the occasion where