No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Twenty-Four Arguments”: Sir Robert Cotton Confronts the Catholics and the Church of England*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Extract
The subject of this essay is a tract written by the noted antiquary, legalist, parliamentarian and sometime courtier, Sir Robert Cotton. Entitled, “Twenty-Four Arguments,” and composed sometime between March, 1617 and early January, 1618, it dealt with the problems posed to the English State and Church by the Roman Catholics and concerned itself, in particular, with the question of whether Popish priests should be executed or imprisoned for life.
The “Twenty-Four Arguments” appeared under that name in the Cottoni Posthuma, a collection of Cotton's writings, published in three editions between 1651 and 1679. However, the first actual publication of this treatise occurred in 1641, when it was put out independently by two printers, each giving it a different title. In addition, it is quite likely that the tract circulated in manuscript before it appeared in printed form.
This brief excursion into the publication history of the “Twenty-Four Arguments” indicates that it was the subject of interest at an important moment in English history. Thus, while admittedly a lesser known and minor work of the period, it is worthy of our consideration. In fact, to the historian the “Twenty-Four Arguments” presents, I think, three important features which make it of real significance. First, it is the product of one of the outstanding lay minds in early seventeenth century England. Sir Robert was, of course, a man of intense learning who displayed a scholar's love for knowledge in his search and accumulation of manuscripts and books, in his concern with antiquities and legal history, and in his close association with such brilliant contemporaries as Sir Francis Bacon and John Selden.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1976
Footnotes
*
An earlier version of this article was read to the Pacific Northwest Conference on British Studies, Burnaby, B. C., April 18, 1975.
References
1 The complete title is “Twenty-Four Arguments, whether it be more expedient to suppress Popish Practices against the due Allegeance 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.”
2 The dating of this tract has been the matter of some debate. Sidney Lee in his article in the Dictionary of National Biography suggests that it was “compiled about 1616”; DNB, s.v. “Cotton, Sir Robert Bruce.” On the other hand, Professor Wilbur K. Jordan argues that “it would appear to have been written not earlier than 1616 and certainly not later than 1621”; see his The Development of Religious Toleration in England (Cambridge, Mass., 1932–1940), II: 475 n. 1.Google Scholar However, it seems to me possible that the treatise can be more specifically dated. In the “Twenty-Four Arguments” Cotton refers to the opinion of “the worthy Lord Keeper Bacon” (“Twenty-Four Arguments,” in Howell, James, ed. Cottoni Posthuma (London, 1679), pp. 109–157, 149Google Scholar). I believe this reference was to his close friend, Sir Francis Bacon, who became Lord Keeper of the Great Seal on March 7, 1617 and was made Lord Chancellor on January 7, 161 8; see Powicke, F. M. and Fryde, E. B., eds Handbook of British Chronology (London: 2nd ed., 1961), p. 87Google Scholar. It would seem likely, therefore, that Cotton's treatise must have been written between March 7, 1617 and January 7, 1618. While it is true that Sir Francis Bacon's father, Sir Nicholas, also served as Lord Keeper from 1558 to 1579, both the context of this reference in the text and its similarity to ideas expressed by Sir Francis at the time (see note 44) strongly suggest that Cotton was referring to the younger Bacon. Moreover, elsewhere in this article, as the reader will note, are other instances which illustrate that Sir Robert shared a number of Sir Francis's views. It is also highly interesting that a paper, written in late 1584 or early 1585 and described by James Spedding “as being possibly and not improbably” the work of Sir Francis Bacon, contains exactly the same points as Cotton later developed in his “Twenty-Four Arguments;” see “Letter of Advice to Queen Elizabeth” in The Works of Francis Bacon ed. Spedding, James (London 1857–1874), VIII: 43–56, esp. 46, 49-51.Google Scholar
3 See Howell, James ed., Cottoni Posthuma (London, 1651, 1672 and 1679)Google Scholar. All references herein are to the 1679 edition. The “Twenty-Four Arguments” is on pp. 109-157.
4 See A Treatise against Recusants in defence of the Oath of Allegeance. With Executions of Consideration, for repressing the encrease of Papists. (London, 1641)Google Scholar, and Serious Considerations for repressing of the increase of Jesuites, Priests and Papists, without shedding of Blood. (London, 1641)Google Scholar. Each of these has certain variations of text and format with the edition in Cottoni Posthuma. The second, for example, seems closer to the text, while the first includes most of Cotton's important marginal comments which the other completely lacks. Serious considerations announces on the title page that the treatise was presented to King James, but there is apparently no evidence for this assertion.
5 There are, in fact, manuscript copies of Cotton's treatise in the British Museum. See “Consideracons for the repressinge of Priests, Jesuits, Seminaries and Recusants without draweinge of bloud. Written by Sir Robert Cotton” in BM, Harl, Ms. 7381, fols. 72 recto - 104 verso, and “Considerations for the repressinge of the Exercise of Preests, Jesuits, and Recusants without Drawinge of Blood. Written by Sir Robert Cotton, Knight and Baronett,” in BM, Royal.18.B.XXIV. fols. 140 resto-162 recto. It is important to note that, while there are variations in each of them from the published text, the latter copy includes all of Cotton's marginalia, while the copy in Harl. 7381 does not. The fact that Cotton's manuscripts circulated has been pointed out by Fussner, F. S. in The Historical Revolution: English Historical Writing and Thought 1580-1640 (London, 1962), p. 132 n. 3.Google Scholar
6 The influence of Cotton's learning and the extent of his friendships and library are well described in Fussner, pp. 117-149; Wright, C. E., “The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries and the Formation of the Cottonian Library.” in Wormwald, F. and Wright, C. E. eds., The English Library before 1700 (London. 1958). pp. 176–212Google Scholar; and Mirrless, Hope, A Fly in Amber (London. 1962).Google Scholar
7 For Cotton's close association with Ussher see Fussner, pp. 136-137. Sir Robert's wide religious knowledge can be seen, for example, in his address before the Society of Antiquaires on November 29, 1604, “Of the Antiquity of the Christian Religion in this Island,” which may be found in Hearne, Thomas, ed., A Collection of Curious Discourses (London, 1773), II:155–160Google Scholar. Another indication of Cotton's expertise is the fact that James I urged him “to write a history of the church of England down to the reformation.” (DNB s.v. “Cotton, Sir Robert Bruce.”) In addition, Fussner points out that Cotton's library included many materials on post-Reformation English church history (pp. 146-147). Sir Robert was also the author of “An Answer to certain Arguments raised from supposed Antiquity and urged by some Members of the Lower House of Parliament; to prove that Ecclesiastical Laws ought to be enacted by Temporal Men,” Cottoni Posthuma, pp. 203-218. Professor D. H. Willson has suggested that this was a speech delivered by Cotton in Commons in February, 1606 in debate over a bill “for the more sure establishinge and assurance of trew religion.” See Willson, D. H. ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606-1607 (Minneapolis, Minn., 1931) p. 52 n. 2.Google Scholar
8 Fussner, pp. 123-124.
9 It is interesting to note in this connection that, in the Public Record Office, S.P. 14/19 no. 37. is an abstract of a speech Sir Robert delivered before a Committee in March, 1606 “concerning a petition for restitution of deprived ministers intended to be offer red to the King.” (See Green, M.A.E., ed. Calendar of Stale Papers, Domestic Series, James I, 1603-1610 (London, 1857), p. 299Google Scholar and Willson, , Parliamentary Diary, p. 79 n. 1Google Scholar). In this abstract, Cotton used precedents to deny Parliament's competency to deal with this matter. This speech, taken together with “An Answer to certain Arguments” (see note 7 above), must have reflected Sir Robert's views in 1606 when he was a government supporter and courtier, for their position is at variance with the attitudes toward the importance of lay opinion, the need for church reform and the character of Puritanism which he spelled out, as shall be observed, in the “Twenty-Four Arguments”. See also Mirrless, pp. 225-226.
10 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma, pp. 113-117. The quote appears on p. 113.
11 Ibid., pp. 113, 115, 117-119.
12 Ibid., p. 119. A good discussion of anti-Catholic attitudes in early seventeenth century England may be found in Clifton, Robin, “Fear of Popery,” in Russell, Conrad, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 144–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A stimulating and scholarly examination of the Jacobean Catholics is provided in Bossy, John, “The English Catholic Community 1603-1625” in Smith, A.G.R., ed., The Reign of James VI and I (London, 1973), pp. 91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also David Mathew's consideration of the Catholics in his The Jacobean Age (London, 1938), pp. 11-12, 230–245Google ScholarPubMed. Dr. Bossy points out that the view of Mathew and others that Catholicism was decreasing in England in the early seventeenth century must be corrected in the light of recent research (pp. 101-102). Dr. Bossy estimates that between 1603 and 1640 the number of Catholics in England rose from approximately 35,000 to 60,000 (p. 101).
13 This important point must not be disregarded. Professor Jordan, for example, when briefly considering Cotton's tract (Development of Religious Toleration, 11:475–479Google Scholar), distorted, in my opinion, both its meaning and intent when he described it as embodying proposals that “were moderate, sane, and, as it happened, remarkably tolerant” (p. 475). Sir Robert shared many of the prejudices about Catholics common to most Englishmen of his day. Sidney Lee is much nearer the mark in his brief comment on the treatise (DNB, s.v. “Cotton, Sir Robert Bruce”).
14 “Twenty-four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma. p. 120.
15 Ibid., pp. 120-121.
16 Ibid., pp. 121-122.
17 Ibid., pp. 122-123.
18 Ibid., pp. 1 24-126. Cotton (p. 126). cites the Jurist Fortcsquc to show that torture was not used in England in criminal cases, because an Englishman, even if he were innocent, would rather face death.
19 Ibid., pp. 126-127.
20 Ibid., pp. 131-132.
21 Ibid., p. 131.
22 Ibid., p. 131.
23 Ibid., p. 128.
24 Ibid., p. 130.
25 Ibid., pp. 133-134.
26 Ibid., p. 135.
27 Ibid., pp. 135-136.
28 Ibid., p. 136.
29 Ibid., p. 136. Cotton noted that the Martyrologist. John Foxe, while considering spies and accusers necessary in a state, held them in contempt.
30 Ibid., p. 136.
31 Ibid., pp. 136-137.
32 Ibid., p. 137.
33 Ibid., p. 138.
34 Ibid., pp. 138-139.
35 Ibid., p. 139.
36 Ibid., pp. 139-140.
37 Ibid., p. 140.
38 Ibid., p. 141.
39 Ibid., pp. 147-148.
40 Ibid., p. 148. It is possible that Cotton's allusion to “Hatflelds” in this passage refers to Queen Elizabeth herself for Hatfield Palace was associated with Elizabeth by virtue of the fact that there she received the news of her accession and held her first privy council meeting. Moreover, it is also true that it was at the Queen's instigation that the prophesyings were suppressed and Archbishop Grindal suspended.
41 For Bacon's views on the prophesyings see his “An Advertisement Touching the Controversies of the Church of England” (1589) in Works, VIII:74-95, 88Google Scholar; and his “Certain Considerations Touching the Better Pacification and Edification of the Church of England” (1603), Ibid., X;103-127, 119-120. I have dealt with Bacon's religious thought in my article, “Sir Francis Bacon: Lay Analyst of the English Church,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, XLII (March, 1973):47–61.Google Scholar
42 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma, pp. 148-149. See also ibid., p. 118. For Sanders' comment on the Puritans see Sanders, Nicholas, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, ed. Lewis, David (London, 1877), pp. 308–309.Google Scholar
43 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma, p. 149.
44 Ibid., p. 149. See also ibid., pp. 130-131. It is interesting to note that on p. 149 Cotton pointed out that “most men grew to be frozen in zeal, and in such sort henum-med, that whosoever (as the worthy Lord Keeper Bacon observed in those days) pretended a little spark of earnestness, he seemed no less than red fire hot, in comparison of the other.” It may be that Sir Robert was referring to Bacon's “An Advertisement” written in 1589. Bacon dealt at length with the problem posed by these enthusiasts in “An Advertisement,” Worlks, VIII:86, 90–94Google Scholar. Though Sir Francis did not specifically propound the view which Cotton ascribed to him. he did speak in detail about the dangerous opinions and activities of these overzealous fanatics. The • point should also be made that Bacon included in this category not only the true Separatists, but also others who, while remaining in the Church, refused to communicate with the rest (Ibid., pp. 90-91). We can assume that Cotton's view was the same in this regard.
45 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma. pp. 142-143.
46 Ibid., p. 143. A good modern account of the Vorstius affair may be found in Schriver, F., “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy: James 1 and the Vorstius Affair,” English Historical Review, LXXXV (July, 1970):449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma, p. 143.
48 Ibid., p. 143.
49 Ibid., p. 142.
50 Ibid., pp. 144-145. Cotton also pointed out (ibid., p. 145) that where godly preaching was lacking and ignorance prevailed people would turn to Popery which, by its pageantry, appealed to their baser instincts.
51 Ibid., p. 145.
52 Ibid., pp. 145-146. Sir Robert cited the example of the Spartan practice of learning their customs from infancy and the way in which the ancient “Common Laws…are better observed than late Statutes” (ibid., p. 146).
53 Ibid., p. 146.
54 Ibid., pp. 150-151.
55 Ibid., pp. 146-147. Cotton suggested that this should happen on Sundays and holidays and made the significant comment that “I hold the breaking of the Sabbath to be the ruine of our Religion” (ibid., p. 146). This is certainly an interesting comment coming from a thinker of Cotton's predilections.
56 Ibid., p. 147.
57 Ibid., pp. 152-154.
58 Ibid., p. 151.
59 Ibid., p. 152. See also his comment “that our Cause hath taken harm by relying more on the temporal than the spiritual Arms; for while we trusted that capital punishments should strike the stroke, we have neglected the means which would for the most part have discharged the need of such severity.”
60 Ibid., p. 152.
61 Ibid., pp. 152-153.
62 Ibid., pp. 153-154.
63 Ibid., p. 154.
64 Ibid., p. 155.
65 Ibid., p. 156. It is interesting to note that Cotton rejected the argument that because the Papists did not rise in 1588, Englishmen need not suspect them any longer and urged continued close scrutiny of the Catholics by the authorities.
66 Ibid., p. 157.
67 Sir Francis Bacon also briefly made the same point when he advised James I in 1603 that “I am partly persuaded that the Papists themselves should not need so much the severity of penal laws if the sword of the spirit were better edged, by strengthening the authority and repressing the abuses in the Church.” (“Certain Considerations.” Works, X:126Google Scholar).
68 I have discussed the emergence of this attitude in my article, “Some Thoughts on the Development of a Lay Religious Consciousness in Pre-Civil-War England,” in Cuming, G. J. and Baker, D., eds. Popular Belief and Practice, Studies in Church History, VIII (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 171–178.Google Scholar
69 “Twenty-Four Arguments,” Cottoni Posthuma, p. 157.