KING JAMES I OF ENGLAND

By Steve Van Nattan

 

This article takes priority over any previous articles you may find on this journal as to the personal life if King James I of England.

The following quote is taken from "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"
By Charles Mackey -- Published 1841

You may read about Charles Mackey at Wikipedia

After reading his whole three volumes in one large recent reprint, I am convinced that Mackey was a God fearing man, he was rational, and he appears to have tried to make his history of manias as close to fact as possible. He was totally impartial, treating the Pope, the Reformers, and other Christian groups with the same even hand as to their faults and strengths. He speaks, from time to time, of the truth of the Bible as the correct standard, and uses it to judge the evils he is reporting.

I regret to have to add this article on the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, but I just read the book, and I have read other research on the issue, and I could not deal with my conscience if I did not weigh in on this discussion as I now see it.

But, the truth about King James is very unpleasant as to some of his life issues and choices. I have now concluded that the King James Bible is NOT in any way a product of King James' righteous life. He was very unrighteous in many ways and a scoundrel. The miracle of the King James Bible is the over reaching hand of God which controls the acts of kings and causes his divine will to be done. The selection of the men to translate the KJV, and James' order to leave out all doctrinal presuppositions, had to be an act of God in the heart of James, for the man had treacherous prejudices, and he was quite willing to send to death anyone who crossed his plans and schemes.

From this point on, I no longer will defend the reputation of King James I of England. I look to the Word of God itself to explain what happened in the translation of the King James Bible:

Proverbs 8:13 (KJV) The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Daniel 2:20 (KJV) Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:
21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV) Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Proverbs 31:4 (KJV) It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

Proverbs 16:12 (KJV) It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness.

Proverbs 29:12 (KJV) If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.

Proverbs 21:1 (KJV) The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

The following except from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is only one Chapter, the one on the mania of Slow Poisoning which became out of control in the 1600s through 1700s in all of Europe and England. You will learn that King James himself was very likely poisoned by his adversary in his own court.

Other chapters reveal that King James was responsible for thousands of innocent women and children being tortured and slaughtered on the suspicion of witchcraft, and the methods on investigation are as bizarre as any story of superstition from Africa one hundred years ago. James believed insane things about Satanic things.

You may find the whole work, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, on the Wayback Machine site at: http://www.archive.org/stream/memoirsofextraor00713gut/2ppdl10.txt I strongly recommend you read the whole work. It is astounding to see the parallel between manias in Europe long ago in the light of manias we see in society today. This book is a fantastic study in human nature run amuck.

Find "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" at Amazon Books.

The excerpt:

THE SLOW POISONERS By Charles Mackey -- Pub. 1841

Pescara. -- The like was never read of.
Stephano. -- In my judgment, To all that shall but hear it, 't will appear A most impossible fable.
Pescara. -- Troth, I'll tell you, And briefly as I can, by what degrees They fell into this madness.

Duke of Milan

The atrocious system of poisoning, by poisons so slow in their operation, as to make the victim appear, to ordinary observers, as if dying from a gradual decay of nature, has been practised in all ages. Those who are curious in the matter may refer to Beckmann on Secret Poisons, in his "History of Inventions," in which he has collected several instances of it from the Greek and Roman writers.

Early in the sixteenth century the crime seems to have gradually increased, till, in the seventeenth, it spread over Europe like a pestilence. It was often exercised by pretended witches and sorcerers, and finally became a branch of education amongst all who laid any claim to magical and supernatural arts. In the twenty-first year of Henry VIII. an act was passed, rendering it high-treason: those found guilty of it, were to be boiled to death.

One of the first in point of date, and hardly second to any in point of atrocity, is the murder by this means of Sir Thomas Overbury, which disgraced the court of James I, in the year 1613. A slight sketch of it will be a fitting introduction to the history of the poisoning mania, which was so prevalent in France and Italy fifty years later.

Robert Kerr, a Scottish youth, was early taken notice of by James I, and loaded with honours, for no other reason that the world could ever discover than the beauty of his person. James, even in his own day, was suspected of being addicted to the most abominable of all offences, and the more we examine his history now, the stronger the suspicion becomes.

However that may be, the handsome Kerr, lending his smooth cheek, even in public, to the disgusting kisses of his royal master, rose rapidly in favour. In the year 1613, he was made Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, and created an English peer, by the style and title of Viscount Rochester.

Still further honours were in store for him. In this rapid promotion he had not been without a friend. Sir Thomas Overbury, the King's secretary-who appears, from some threats in his own letters, to have been no better than a pander to the vices of the King, and privy to his dangerous secrets -- exerted all his backstair influence to forward the promotion of Kerr, by whom he was, doubtless, repaid in some way or other.

Overbury did not confine his friendship to this, if friendship ever could exist between two such men, but acted the part of an entremetteur, and assisted Rochester to carry on an adulterous intrigue with the Lady Frances Howard, the wife of the Earl of Essex. This woman was a person of violent passions, and lost to all sense of shame.

Her husband was in her way, and to be freed from him, she instituted proceedings for a divorce, on grounds which a woman of any modesty or delicacy of feeling would die rather than avow. Her scandalous suit was successful, and was no sooner decided than preparations, on a scale of the greatest magnificence, were made for her marriage with Lord Rochester.

Sir Thomas Overbury, who had willingly assisted his patron to intrigue with the Countess of Essex, seems to have imagined that his marriage with so vile a woman might retard his advancement; he accordingly employed all his influence to dissuade him from it. But Rochester was bent on the match, and his passions were as violent as those of the Countess.

On one occasion, when Overbury and the Viscount were walking in the gallery of Whitehall, Overbury was overheard to say, "Well, my Lord, if you do marry that base woman, you will utterly ruin your honour and yourself. You shall never do it with my advice or consent; and, if you do, you had best look to stand fast."

Rochester flung from him in a rage, exclaiming with an oath, "I will be even with you for this." These words were the death-warrant of the unfortunate Overbury. He had mortally wounded the pride of Rochester in insinuating that by his (Overbury's) means he might be lowered in the King's favour; and he had endeavoured to curb the burning passions of a heartless, dissolute, and reckless man.

Overbury's imprudent remonstrances were reported to the Countess; and from that moment, she also vowed the most deadly vengeance against him. With a fiendish hypocrisy, however, they both concealed their intentions, and Overbury, at the solicitation of Rochester, was appointed ambassador to the court of Russia. This apparent favour was but the first step in a deep and deadly plot.

Rochester, pretending to be warmly attached to the interests of Overbury, advised him to refuse the embassy, which, he said, was but a trick to get him out of the way. He promised, at the same time, to stand between him and any evil consequences which might result from his refusal. Overbury fell into the snare, and declined the embassy.

James, offended, immediately ordered his committal to the Tower. He was now in safe custody, and his enemies had opportunity to commence the work of vengeance.

The first thing Rochester did was to procure, by his influence at court, the dismissal of the Lieutenant of the Tower, and the appointment of Sir Jervis Elwes, one of his creatures, to the vacant post. This man was but one instrument, and another being necessary, was found in Richard Weston, a fellow who had formerly been shopman to a druggist. He was installed in the office of under-keeper, and as such had the direct custody of Overbury.

So far, all was favourable to the designs of the conspirators. In the mean time, the insidious Rochester wrote the most friendly letters to Overbury, requesting him to bear his ill-fortune patiently, and promising that his imprisonment should not be of long duration; for that his friends were exerting themselves to soften the King's displeasure. Still pretending the extreme of sympathy for him, he followed up the letters by presents of pastry and other delicacies, which could not be procured in the Tower. These articles were all poisoned.

Occasionally, presents of a similar description were sent to Sir Jervis Elwes, with the understanding that these articles were not poisoned, when they were unaccompanied by letters: of these the unfortunate prisoner never tasted.

A woman, named Turner, who had formerly kept a house of ill fame, and who had more than once lent it to further the guilty intercourse of Rochester and Lady Essex, was the agent employed to procure the poisons. They were prepared by Dr. Forman, a pretended fortune-teller of Lambeth, assisted by an apothecary named Franklin. Both these persons knew for what purposes the poisons were needed, and employed their skill in mixing them in the pastry and other edibles, in such small quantities as gradually to wear out the constitution of their victim.

Mrs. Turner regularly furnished the poisoned articles to the under-keeper, who placed them before Overbury. Not only his food, but his drink was poisoned. Arsenic was mixed with the salt he ate, and cantharides with the pepper. All this time, his health declined sensibly.

Every day he grew weaker and weaker; and with a sickly appetite, craved for sweets and jellies. Rochester continued to condole with him, and anticipated all his wants in this respect, sending him abundance of pastry, and occasionally partridges and other game, and young pigs. With the sauce for the game, Mrs. Turner mixed a quantity of cantharides, and poisoned the pork with lunar-caustic.

As stated on the trial, Overbury took in this manner poison enough to have poisoned twenty men; but his constitution was strong, and he still lingered. Franklin, the apothecary, confessed that he prepared with Dr. Forman seven different sorts of poisons; viz. aquafortis, arsenic, mercury, powder of diamonds, lunar-caustic, great spiders, and cantharides. Overbury held out so long that Rochester became impatient, and in a letter to Lady Essex, expressed his wonder that things were not sooner despatched.

Orders were immediately sent by Lady Essex to the keeper to finish with the victim at once.

Overbury had not been all this time without suspicion of treachery, although he appears to have had no idea of poison. He merely suspected that it was intended to confine him for life, and to set the King still more bitterly against him. In one of his letters, he threatened Rochester that, unless he were speedily liberated, he would expose his villany to the world.

He says, "You and I, ere it be long, will come to a public trial of another nature." * * * "Drive me not to extremities, lest I should say something that both you and I should repent." * * * "Whether I live or die, your shame shall never die, but ever remain to the world, to make you the most odious man living." * * * "I wonder much you should neglect him to whom such secrets of all kinds have passed." * * * "Be these the fruits of common secrets, common dangers?"

All these remonstrances, and hints as to the dangerous secrets in his keeping, were ill-calculated to serve him with a man so reckless as Lord Rochester: they were more likely to cause him to be sacrificed than to be saved. Rochester appears to have acted as if he thought so. He doubtless employed the murderer's reasoning that "dead men tell no tales," when, after receiving letters of this description, he complained to his paramour of the delay.

Weston was spurred on to consummate the atrocity; and the patience of all parties being exhausted, a dose of corrosive sublimate was administered to him, in October 1613, which put an end to his sufferings, after he had been for six months in their hands.

On the very day of his death, and before his body was cold, he was wrapped up carelessly in a sheet, and buried without any funeral ceremony in a pit within the precincts of the Tower.

Sir Anthony Weldon, in his "Court and Character of James I," gives a somewhat different account of the closing scene of this tragedy. He says, "Franklin and Weston came into Overbury's chamber, and found him in infinite torment, with contention between the strength of nature and the working of the poison; and it being very like that nature had gotten the better in this contention, by the thrusting out of boils, blotches, and blains, they, fearing it might come to light by the judgment of physicians, the foul play that had been offered him, consented to stifle him with the bedclothes, which accordingly was performed; and so ended his miserable life, with the assurance of the conspirators that he died by the poison; none thinking otherwise than these two murderers."

The sudden death -- the indecent haste of the funeral, and the non-holding of an inquest upon the body, strengthened the suspicions that were afloat. Rumour, instead of whispering, began to speak out; and the relatives of the deceased openly expressed their belief that their kinsman had been murdered. But Rochester was still all powerful at court, and no one dared to utter a word to his discredit.

Shortly afterwards, his marriage with the Countess of Essex was celebrated with the utmost splendour, the King himself being present at the ceremony.

It would seem that Overbury's knowledge of James's character was deeper than Rochester had given him credit for, and that he had been a true prophet when he predicted that his marriage would eventually estrange James from his minion. At this time, however, Rochester stood higher than ever in the royal favour; but it did not last long -- conscience, that busy monitor, was at work.

The tongue of rumour was never still; and Rochester, who had long been a guilty, became at last a wretched man. His cheeks lost their colour -- his eyes grew dim; and he became moody, careless, and melancholy. The King seeing him thus, took at length no pleasure in his society, and began to look about for another favourite.

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, was the man to his mind; quick-witted, handsome, and unscrupulous. The two latter qualities alone were sufficient to recommend him to James I.

In proportion as the influence of Rochester declined, that of Buckingham increased. A falling favourite has no friends; and Rumour wagged her tongue against Rochester louder and more pertinaciously than ever. A new favourite, too, generally endeavours to hasten by a kick the fall of the old one; and Buckingham, anxious to work the complete ruin of his forerunner in the King's good graces, encouraged the relatives of Sir Thomas Overbury to prosecute their inquiries into the strange death of their kinsman.

James was rigorous enough in the punishment of offences when he was not himself involved. He piqued himself, moreover, on his dexterity in unravelling mysteries. The affair of Sir Thomas Overbury found him congenial occupation. He set to work by ordering the arrest of Sir Jervis Elwes.

James, at this early stage of the proceedings, does not seem to have been aware that Rochester was so deeply implicated. Struck with horror at the atrocious system of slow poisoning, the King sent for all the Judges. According to Sir Anthony Weldon, he knelt down in the midst of them, and said, "My Lords the Judges, it is lately come to my hearing that you have now in examination a business of poisoning. Lord! in what a miserable condition shall this kingdom be (the only famous nation for hospitality in the world) if our tables should become such a snare, as that none could eat without danger of life, and that Italian custom should be introduced among us! Therefore, my Lords, I charge you, as you will answer it at that great and dreadful day of judgment, that you examine it strictly, without layout, affection, or partiality. And if you shall spare any guilty of this crime, God's curse light on you and your posterity! and if I spare any that are guilty, God's curse light on me and my posterity for ever!"

The imprecation fell but too surely upon the devoted house of Stuart. The solemn oath was broken, and God's curse did light upon him and his posterity!

The next person arrested after Sir Jervis Elwes, was Weston, the under-keeper; then Franklin and Mrs. Turner; and, lastly, the Earl and Countess of Somerset, to which dignity Rochester had been advanced since the death of Overbury. Weston was first brought to trial. Public curiosity was on the stretch. Nothing else was talked of, and the court on the day of trial was crowded to suffocation.

The "State Trials" report, that Lord Chief Justice Coke "laid open to the jury the baseness and cowardliness of poisoners, who attempt that secretly against which there is no means of preservation or defence for a man's life; and how rare it was to hear of any poisoning in England, so detestable it was to our nation. But the devil had taught divers to be cunning in it, so that they can poison in what distance of space they please, by consuming the nativum calidum, or humidum radicale, in one month, two or three, or more, as they list, which they four manner of ways do execute; viz. haustu, gustu, odore, and contactu."

When the indictment was read over, Weston made no other reply than, "Lord have mercy upon me! Lord have mercy upon me!" On being asked how he would be tried, he refused to throw himself upon a jury of his country, and declared, that he would be tried by God alone. In this he persisted for some time.

The fear of the dreadful punishment for contumacy induced him, at length, to plead "Not guilty," and take his trial in due course of law. [The punishment for the contumacious was expressed by the words onere, frigore, et fame. By the first was meant that the culprit should be extended on his back on the ground, and weights placed over his body, gradually increased, until he expired. Sometimes the punishment was not extended to this length, and the victim, being allowed to recover, underwent the second portion, the frigore, which consisted in his standing naked in the open air, for a certain space, in the sight of all the people. The third, or fame, was more dreadful, the statute saying, "That he was to be preserved with the coarsest bread that could be got, and water out of the next sink or puddle, to the place of execution; and that day he had water he should have no bread, and that day he had bread, he should have no water;" and in this torment he was to linger as long as nature would hold out.]

All the circumstances against him were fully proved, and he was found guilty and executed at Tyburn.

Mrs. Turner, Franklin, and Sir Jervis Elwes were also brought to trial, found guilty, and executed between the 19th of October and the 4th of December 1615; but the grand trial of the Earl and Countess of Somerset did not take place till the month of May following.

On the trial of Sir Jervis Elwes, circumstances had transpired, showing a guilty knowledge of the poisoning on the part of the Earl of Northampton the uncle of Lady Somerset, and the chief falconer Sir Thomas Monson. The former was dead; but Sir Thomas Monson was arrested, and brought to trial.

It appeared, however, that he was too dangerous a man to be brought to the scaffold. He knew too many of the odious secrets of James I, and his dying speech might contain disclosures which would compromise the King. To conceal old guilt it was necessary to incur new: the trial of Sir Thomas Monson was brought to an abrupt conclusion, and himself set at liberty!

Already James had broken his oath. He now began to fear that he had been rash in engaging so zealously to bring the poisoners to punishment. That Somerset would be declared guilty there was no doubt, and that he looked for pardon and impunity was equally evident to the King.

Somerset, while in the Tower, asserted confidently, that James would not dare to bring him to trial. In this he was mistaken; but James was in an agony. What the secret was between them will now never be known with certainty; but it may be surmised. Some have imagined it to be the vice to which the King was addicted; while others have asserted, that it related to the death of Prince Henry, a virtuous young man, who had held Somerset in especial abhorrence. The Prince died early, unlamented by his father, and, as public opinion whispered at the time, poisoned by Somerset.

Probably, some crime or other lay heavy upon the soul of the King; and Somerset, his accomplice, could not be brought to public execution with safety. Hence the dreadful tortures of James, when he discovered that his favourite was so deeply implicated in the murder of Overbury.

Every means was taken by the agonized King to bring the prisoner into what was called a safe frame of mind. He was secretly advised to plead guilty, and trust to the clemency of the King. The same advice was conveyed to the Countess.

(Sir Francis) Bacon was instructed by the King to draw up a paper of all the points of "mercy and favour" to Somerset which might result from the evidence; and Somerset was again recommended to plead guilty, and promised that no evil should ensue to him.

The Countess was first tried. She trembled and shed tears during the reading of the indictment, and, in a low voice, pleaded guilty. On being asked why sentence of death should not be passed against her, she replied meekly, "I can much aggravate, but nothing extenuate my fault. I desire mercy, and that the lords will intercede for me with the King." Sentence of death was passed upon her.

Next day the Earl was brought to trial. He appears to have mistrusted the promises of James, and he pleaded not guilty. With a self-possession and confidence, which he felt, probably, from his knowledge of the King's character, he rigorously cross-examined the witnesses, and made a stubborn defence. After a trial which lasted eleven hours, he was found guilty, and condemned to the felon's death.

Whatever may have been the secrets between the criminal and the King, the latter, notwithstanding his terrific oath, was afraid to sign the death-warrant. It might, perchance, have been his own. The Earl and Countess were committed to the Tower, where they remained for nearly five years. At the end of this period, to the surprise and scandal of the community, and the disgrace of its chief magistrate, they both received the royal pardon, but were ordered to reside at a distance from the court.

Having been found guilty of felony, the estates of the Earl had become forfeited; but James granted him out of their revenues an income of 4,000 pounds per annum!

Shamelessness could go no further. Of the after life of these criminals nothing is known, except that the love they had formerly borne each other was changed into aversion, and that they lived under the same roof for months together without the interchange of a word.

The exposure of their atrocities did not put a stop to the practice of poisoning. On the contrary, as we shall see hereafter, it engendered that insane imitation which is so strange a feature of the human character.

James himself is supposed, with great probability, to have fallen a victim to it. In the notes to "Harris's Life and Writings of James I," there is a good deal of information on the subject. The guilt of Buckingham, although not fully established, rests upon circumstances of suspicion stronger than have been sufficient to lead hundreds to the scaffold.

His motives for committing the crime are stated to have been a desire of revenge for the coldness with which the King, in the latter years of his reign, began to regard him; his fear that James intended to degrade him; and his hope that the great influence he possessed over the mind of the heir-apparent would last through a new reign, if the old one were brought to a close.

In the second volume of the "Harleian Miscellany," there is a tract, entitled the "Forerunner of Revenge," written by George Eglisham, doctor of medicine, and one of the physicians to King James. Harris, in quoting it, says that it is full of rancour and prejudice.

It is evidently exaggerated; but forms, nevertheless, a link in the chain of evidence. Eglisham says: -- "The King being sick of an ague, the Duke took this opportunity, when all the King's doctors of physic were at dinner, and offered to him a white powder to take, the which he a long time refused; but, overcome with his flattering importunity, he took it in wine, and immediately became worse and worse, falling into many swoonings and pains, and violent fluxes of the belly, so tormented, that his Majesty cried out aloud of this white powder, 'Would to God I had never taken it?"

He then tells us "Of the Countess of Buckingham (the Duke's mother) applying the plaister to the King's heart and breast, whereupon he grew faint and short-breathed, and in agony. That the physicians exclaimed, that the King was poisoned; that Buckingham commanded them out of the room, and committed one of them close prisoner to his own chamber, and another to be removed from court; and that, after his Majesty's death, his body and head swelled above measure; his hair, with the skin of his head, stuck to his pillow, and his nails became loose on his fingers and toes."

Clarendon, who, by the way, was a partisan of the Duke's, gives a totally different account of James's death. He says, "It was occasioned by an ague (after a short indisposition by the gout) which, meeting many humours in a fat unwieldy body of fifty-eight years old, in four or five fits carried him out of the world. After whose death many scandalous and libellous discourses were raised, without the least colour or ground; as appeared upon the strictest and most malicious examination that could be made, long after, in a time of licence, when nobody was afraid of offending majesty, and when prosecuting the highest reproaches and contumelies against the royal family was held very meritorious."

Notwithstanding this confident declaration, the world will hardly be persuaded that there was not some truth in the rumours that were abroad. The inquiries which were instituted were not strict, as he asserts, and all the unconstitutional influence of the powerful favourite was exerted to defeat them.

In the celebrated accusations brought against Buckingham by the Earl of Bristol, the poisoning of King James was placed last on the list, and the pages of history bear evidence of the summary mode in which they were, for the time, got rid of.

The man from whom Buckingham is said to have procured his poisons was one Dr. Lamb, a conjuror and empiric, who, besides dealing in poisons, pretended to be a fortune-teller. The popular fury, which broke with comparative harmlessness against his patron, was directed against this man, until he could not appear with safety in the streets of London. His fate was melancholy.

Walking one day in Cheapside, disguised, as he thought, from all observers, he was recognized by some idle boys, who began to hoot and pelt him with rubbish, calling out, "The poisoner! the poisoner! Down with the wizard! down with him!" A mob very soon collected, and the Doctor took to his heels and ran for his life. He was pursued and seized in Wood Street, and from thence dragged by the hair through the mire to St. Paul's Cross; the mob beating him with sticks and stones, and calling out, "Kill the wizard! kill the poisoner!"

This page will lose me some close friends I fear, but I refuse to end my life with my defense of King James posted on this journal and leave this information out. I have found no reason to disqualify Charles Mackey as to his zeal to present the facts as accurately as he could.

Recent attacks on King James speak of Sir Francis Bacon being James' private special friend. This is the first time I have heard of the youth Kerr, though I have seen accusations that James had youthful men around him and had a strange and open physical affection for them. Until now, I have simply believed these reports were done by people serving the cause of new bible revisions and translations. As it turns out, there are actually at least three men who were bed chamber friends of King James.

It is not understood these days how royalty in Europe behaved sexually. All the way through the Victorian era, The public picture of royalty was of chaste, virile, manly, and extremely modest behavior. Even eggs were not to be spoken of in mixed Victorian society. But, privately, the royalty of Europe, and especially England, were filthy. Wives arranged for their husband's mistresses to be invited to dinner and then made the bed chamber ready for them. When royalty entertained, they put the names of men and women who were having ongoing affairs next to each other, while their actual spouses were paired off to others in the mansion.

That King James could make royal edicts against sodomy, AND MEAN EVERY WORD OF IT, did not mean that, in private moments of social exchange, he might not turn to sodomy as a distraction for which he had no shame. The sin was letting the public ever hear about it.

Even today, the royal family of England has lived this double life. The difference in our day is that it is so hard for them to keep the prying eye of the camera from catching them. While Queen Elizabeth, when being coronated at Westminster Abby long ago, agreed to be the "defender of the Christian faith and the Church of England," the moral teachings of the Church of England take the back seat when she needs to cover for one of her fornicating husband or children.

So, how could a king live such a vile double life and be the authorizer of the King James Bible? Could God not come up with a better candidate?

All I can say it this, again: God is sovereign.

Whatever King James was in his personal life, he was a Protestant in public, and he exalted the Eastern Greek texts. God moved him to have the Bible translated, and his private life did not in any way interfere with the work of the translators. I have read much on the translators, and they were all very godly men, both Puritan and Anglican. I suggest you read God's Secretaries by Adam Nicolson. The private scandalous life of King James, if it was known to any of these men, did NOT infect their lives in any way. They were God's men, and King James intentionally made no effort to influence their work as translators. There was one exception-- James insisted that they not let their theological prejudices infect their work of translation. To help assure this happened, James appointed several scholars to the group who were Puritan scholars. Then, he got out of the way.

Here is a case where God used a pagan king to do his work:

Isaiah 44:21 (KJV) Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.
22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
26 That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
27 That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

Cyrus was a pagan king, and there is no indication he upheld any of Moses moral standards. Yet, God used him to accomplish Jews return to Israel. The point is simply this-- Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the Geneva translations were NOT the ones God wanted used to spread the Gospel world wide under the coming empire building by England. God accomplished his work of in inerrant preserved Word in spite of the human faults and limitations of those who brought it about. If God could only use sinlessly perfect men to accomplish his work, he would be unable to do anything, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

If King James had bedroom relationships with young men, his most evil sins could not prevent God from preserving his Word in the English language. I have lost none of my zeal for the King James Bible and its exclusive claim to be the preserved Word of God in the English language.

To those looking for an excuse to run to the Geneva Bible, forget it. Calvin and Zwingli were the most wicked murderers of witches and innocent insane woman whom they accused of witchcraft. They also murdered hundreds of Anabaptists. See "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin to read about the Reformers' evil deeds.

So, the sins of kings has nothing to do with which Bible God uses and Satan hates. It remains the King James Bible.

Matthew 16:18 (KJV) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

2 Corinthians 4:2 (KJV) But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Proverbs 30:5 (KJV) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

 

FINAL COMMENT

After reading the whole book of Charles Mackey, with chapters on manias of all sorts, including witch burnings and poisoning manias, I have concluded that we need to be very grateful for the age in which we live. The salt of the Word of God has removed unimaginable horrors that were foisted on innocent simple folk and children all during the Dark Ages and the Reformation.

At times, the Reformers were more zealous than the Pope and kings in burning alleged culprits. Kings, princes, Popes, and Reformers were free to make edicts sending hundreds of thousands of people to death who simply were insane or had shown nothing peculiar other than some physical defect. And the methods of torture were specified by men like John Calvin who ordered one man burned at the stake with green wood so that he died as slowly as possible. See "Reformers and Their Stepchildren" mentioned elsewhere.

We must be very grateful that we live in an era when the most wicked political and religious leaders in the world are under much greater restraints than during those past ages. Charles Mackey's book has changed my view of the day in which I live. While there is a passive and deadly malaise as to Truth as it is proclaimed from the Word of God, there is much salt still working in modern society, and, mark it down friend-- THESE ARE THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

Psalms 16:5 (KJV) The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.
6 The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.
7 I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.

To my friends who consider me a heretic or traitor for touching their hero, King James, I have to tell you one more thing. You might as well really get up a full load of bile against me. The only people who were not in on any of the many manias in Charles Mackey's book were the Anabaptists. Those Puritans you love so much in New England were murderers, as were all of the leaders of the Reformation, with the possible exception of Martin Luther.

Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin in particular, were vicious murders of alleged witches and the Anabaptists. This can further be studied in a book by a Dutch Reformed writer named Leonard Verduin- The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Verduin did all his own research in libraries and basements of old churches in Europe. He spoke at least five languages and read several others. The Dutch Reformed leaders and theologians both loved him and hated him. When he was defending the faith, he was overwhelming to his adversaries, but when he exposed the excesses of the Reformation founders, he was terrifying. You do NOT understand the Reformation until you have read his book above.

For the record, I am open to research sources you may have that in any way shed light on the information presented on this page. But, I don't give diddly for what your favorite preacher thinks, especially DA Waite, Gail Riplinger, David Cloud, or Peter Ruckman. Nor do I care what your favorite King James Bible mutilator thinks. I remain a King James Bible ONLY bigot. Send only research that is dated far in the past. No modern apologetic defending King James is of any interest to me.

Deal with it.

If you have other sources I can look into, please SEND MAIL

 

References:

The following sources will be very informative, but I must warn you that they will be more revolting than anything you have read above.

Encyclopedia Britannica on Robert Karr

Wikipedia on Robert Karr

The Overbuy murder

King James' decrees against witchcraft and his torture inventions

Sex and Violence at the Court of King James

Personal relationships of James I of England

A discussion at Google books of a possibly morally schizophrenic man

A search of Google will provide a great deal more reading options.

 

 

IN DEFESE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE MENU PAGE

BACK TO ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL