The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine Eric Platt The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine. By Bernard Bourdin. Translated by Susan Pickford. (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 2010. Pp. x, 282. $59.95. ISBN 978-0-813-21791-8.) In this well-argued book, Bernard Bourdin contends that the debate between King James I and the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine, cardinal and saint, during the Oath of Allegiance controversy marked a “decisive step” in the “origins of modern politics” (p. 6). Arguing that the birth of modernity cannot be reduced to secularization, Bourdin maintains that “the advent of modern politics” was characterized by the “judicial distancing from papal authority” (p. 248). James’s stance in the controversy was especially important, because it laid out a “clearer demarcation of secular and ecclesiastical powers” (p. 111). The book begins by providing historical background to the controversy. It then discusses the Oath of Allegiance, imposed by King James after the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. This oath, which included an article denouncing the pope’s right to depose or excommunicate a ruler, set off a pamphlet war throughout Europe. King James and Bellarmine were among its most important disputants, and Bourdin expertly analyzes the two men’s theological-political theories throughout the rest of the book. James argued that rulers are the sole sovereigns over their subjects by divine right and are above any ecclesiastical body in their domains. The Church, indeed, never can interfere in political affairs. Bellarmine disagreed. He argued that the pope possesses ultimate power in spiritual affairs and indirect power in temporal ones. This indirect temporal power means that the pope can intervene by admonishing, spiritually censoring, and eventually deposing rulers whose policies endanger the salvation of souls. Bourdin’s analysis of the conflict between the king and the cardinal is convincing. His interpretation of James’s theological-political views, as well as the Calvinist influences visible in them, also is supported by James’s writings, those of his contemporaries, and the best of the secondary literature. [End Page 126] One wonders, however, if there was always quite as much “constancy” (p. 217) in the king’s theological-political thought as Bourdin suggests—at least when it came to its practical application. For example, during the same period that the king and his advisers were participating in the Oath of Allegiance controversy, they also became heavily involved in another significant theological-political conflict taking place in the Dutch Republic. In these disputes the “Arminians” were in general agreement with the king’s stance about the supremacy of rulers over ecclesiastical bodies whereas their “Gomarist” foes were not. But despite this fact, James forcibly intervened on behalf of the Gomarists. In addition, Bourdin’s writing often is needlessly opaque, making his arguments more difficult to follow than necessary. Terminology is occasionally muddled as well. For example, the book repeatedly refers to the Reformation as “the Reform,” while Reformed thinkers become “Reformist.” Occasional missteps such as referring early on to King James as “James VI” (his Scottish title) rather than “James I” (his English one) in reference to a period when he was king of both countries and then proceeding to call him “James I” in the same context throughout the rest of the book also distract the reader. The six-year gap between the book’s original publication and its 2010 English translation means that it does not reference relevant works from the past several years such as Stefania Tutino’s excellent Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570–1625 (Burlington, VT, 2007). It is unfortunate that the translation was not revised slightly to put it into dialogue with this research. There also are some scholarly gaps even among works published before 2004. For example, it surprisingly does not reference a single work on the topic by Michael C. Questier. Despite these problems, Bourdin’s book provides an important study of the Oath of Allegiance controversy and its historical significance. Eric Platt St. Francis College Brooklyn Heights, NY Copyright © 2012 The Catholic University...