Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://journals.cambridge.org/ECH
J. P. Sommerville
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 32 / Issue 01 / January 1981, pp 104 - 105
DOI: 10.1017/S0022046900034230, Published online: 25 March 2011
absolutism since it might be the case that the people have placed few or no limits
on the ruler's exercise of power. These essays make it clear, however, that
Suarez's theory was not merely contractual and that it was certainly not
absolutist. Suarez held that if the ruler failed to govern in accordance with the
public good he could be deposed by the people, even if he had not infringed the
original contract. He thus gave the people powers over their ruler in a much
wider set of circumstances than is often assumed. The emphasis of these essays on
Suarez's constitutionalism is most salutary, as is their insistence that Suarez
conceived of civil authority as a divine institution rather than a human artefact.
Nevertheless, these essays have several shortcomings, and the book as a whole
serves as an introduction rather than a definitive account of its subject. Abril's
analysis of the theories involved in the controversy is a little unsympathetic
towards the doctrines maintained by James i and his supporters. These doctrines
were not based merely on an idiosyncratic reading of scripture, as Abril suggests,
but were also (purportedly) grounded on natural reason. John Buckeridge, for
example, based his designation theory of the origins of royal authority on an
equation between civil and patriarchal power, in this strikingly anticipating the
views of such nineteenth-century Catholic theorists as Taparelli. Abril's account
is also a little weak on the interesting question of the relations of Suarez's
theories to those of other Catholic theologians, especially Bellarmine. Somewhat
questionably, the book regards Suarez as first and foremost a Spaniard rather
than a Catholic or a Jesuit and makes little attempt to examine his theories from
the perspective of the history of Catholic political philosophy.
Baciero's account of the origins and progress of the controversy over James's
Oath is generally reliable, though his somewhat dismissive attitude towards
James's supporters seems calculated to revive rather than describe the debate.
Just occasionally he falls into error: the papal Breves condemning the Oath were
issued on 23 August 1606 and 22 September 1607, not on 10 October in each
year (p. 341); the books published under the name of Roger Widdrington were
certainly, and not probably, written by Thomas Preston, and his opponent in the
Responsio Apologetica of 1612 (not 1613) was in fact the secular priest Edward
Weston (p. 347); William Barret was not a Frenchman but an Englishman, at one
time chaplain of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, and his lus Regis was
published at London, though its title-page bore the fictitious imprint of Basle (p.
348). Some of the errors in this book could have been avoided by better
collaboration between the authors and this might also have prevented a certain
amount of needless repetition. Lancelot Andrewes is called Andrew Lancelot by
Perena on p. 41 and in the bibliography, but appears correctly, except for the
mis-spelling Andrews, in Baciero's essay.
Despite these defects these well-produced volumes are valuable, especially for
their treatment of Spanish affairs, and for the illustrative documents which they
publish, while the second volume is likely to become the standard edition of
Suarez's text.
STJOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE J. P. SOMMERVILLE