web counter

READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

 

 

HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH,

IRISH, AND

SCOTTISH CATHOLICS

FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

By

CHARLES BUTLER

I. General Remark, on the state of Learning and Religion, during the middle ages

II. Preliminaries of the Reformation

III. Henry the Eighth:  Commencement of the Reformation

IV. He receives from, the Pope, the title of Defender of the Faith

V. His Divorce from Queen Katharine 

VI. Introduction to the history of the King's assumption of the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England

VII. Henry the Eighth assumes the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England

VIII. Criminal Prosecutions

IX. Monastic Institutions

X. The Dissolution of Monasteries

XI. Pope Paul the Third excommunicates Henry the Eighth

XII. Ecclesiastical Regulations in his reign. The death of Henry the Eighth

XIII. Edward the Sixth

XIV. Principal Ecclesiastical Occurrences in the reign of Queen Mary, 1553

XV. Queen Elizabeth

XVI. Queen Elizabeth declared head of the Church of England

XVII. Principal Ecclesiastical Arrangements in the reign of Queen Elizabeth

XVIII. Persecution of the Catholics

XIX. Reasons assigned to justify the sanguinary Laws, enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth against Catholics and the rigorous execution of them

XX. Alleged Plots of the Catholics against Queen Elizabeth

XXI. Protestation of Allegiance presented to the Queen by Thirteen Priests.

XXII. Two Briefs of Clement the eighth.

XXIII. James the first, his Dispositions towards the English Catholics at the time of his Accession to the throne.

XXIV. The Gunpowder Conspiracy

XXV. The Oath of Allegiance framed by James the first:

XXVI. The Controversy respecting the lawfulness of the Oath

XXVII. The examination of Mr. Blackwell, the Archpriest, before his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

XXVIII. Ulterior Occurrences respecting the Protestation of Allegiance

XXIX. The Puritans

I.

SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE STATE OF LEARNING, AND RELIGION, DURING THE MIDDLE AGES.

 

THAT some ignorance and superstition existed, in every part of Christian Europe, when the reformation began, must be admitted. But there is more ground, than is usually supposed, for believing: That neither ignorance, nor superstition, prevailed in it at any time, to the extent, which has been generally imagined; And that a much earlier period, than is usually assigned, ought to be affixed to the revival of learning.

IF any person were required to mention the time, in which, during the middle ages, the arts, and sciences, were at their lowest ebb in Europe, he would, probably, fix on the period, which elapsed between the death of Charlemagne, and the accession of the Capetian dynasty. Now, an excellent dissertation by the abbé le Boeuf, on the state of the sciences in the Gauls, from the death of Charlemagne, till the reign of Robert king of France, seems to establish, by very strong proofs, that, during the whole of this period, both sacred, and profane literature, the civil and canon law, and the sciences of arithmetic, astronomy, geography, music and medicine, were extensively cultivated.

It is true, that many instances of gross and risible ignorance may be produced: but, at a time, when there was so little intercourse, either between countries, or individuals, it would easily happen, that learning might exist, where ignorance was not distant. Even, in the present state of society, when roads and posts have rendered every kind of intercourse so easy, a single family, cultivating, in a provincial town, the elegant arts, with distinction, will make it a seat of polite literature; and give its inhabitants a general taste for learning, which no neighboring place will possess. How much more frequently, must something of this nature have taken place, when communication of every kind was so difficult! In such times, it might often happen, that the arts would abound in one monastery, or in one town; and be altogether neglected in the adjacent. This seems to show satisfactorily, that, when we peruse the histories of the times, to which we are alluding, we should not hastily conclude, from particular instances of ignorance in some places, that a considerable portion of learning did not exist, in others.

Another argument against such a conclusion may, perhaps, be drawn from the state of architecture, and its ornamental appendages, throughout this period. No intellectual eye can behold our ancient cathedrals, without being struck with the sublime science and learned labor, which their construction must have required. Our ablest architects confess their ignorance of the means, by which several of their elevated parts were raised, or continue to be supported. To these, we must add the works of gold, silver and bronze, with which, in a less or greater degree, all of them abounded. When we survey these splendid exertions of art and science; and then consider the share of knowledge which they presuppose and imply, it is impossible to deny to the ages, which produced them, a high degree of cultivation; and, when we consider their number, it is equally impossible to imagine, that the knowledge, which raised or ornamented them, was not extensively disseminated.

The history of the English church, during this period, may be divided into three eras;—the first, from the introduction of Christianity, till the invasion of the Danes;—the second, from that invasion, till the Norman conquest;—the third, from the Norman conquest, till the reformation.

1. Except in the accounts, which have been given of the lives, and manners, of the first Christians, the religion of the gospel has never appeared more amiable, than in the account of the early Saxon era of Christianity. “St. Augustine, and his companions”, says Mr. Fletcher, “in his sermon on the holiness of the catholic church, preached, and acted, as once did the first envoys of Jesus Christ. They gained proselytes by the eloquence of truth, assisted by the eloquence of meekness, humility, and piety, verifying, in the whole series of conduct, that pleasing sentence of the prophet, How beautiful on the hills are the footsteps of those who bring glad tidings! Neither were the exertions of their charity, unattended by the approbation of heaven.

Not only contemporary historians attest, but several protestant writers allow, that God rewarded, them with the gift of miracles”. “Their kings”, says the martyrologist Fox, “considered the honest conversation of their lives, and was moved by the miracles wrought, through God's hand, by them”.

After noticing the difficulties, which St. Augustine, and his companions encountered, Fox observes, that “Notwithstanding their seeming impossibilities, they were followed with surprising success. The sanctity of their lives, and the force of their miracles, broke through the difficulties of the enterprise. The fruits, and effects, of their mission were striking. A people, hitherto savage, barbarous, and immoral, was changed into a nation, mild, benevolent, humane, and holy”. “Everything”, says Collier, “brightened as if nature had been melted down, and recoined”. That the preacher, and the flock, deserved this character, most readers will allow, who have perused, The Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon church, by the reverend John Lingard, in one volume 8vo.

2. Such was the happy state of religion, and of manners, at the invasion of the Danes. Those ferocious invaders spread devastation over England, and laid waste almost its whole territory. A necessary consequence of this calamity, was, that the pastor, and the flock, were often separated and that, if they did meet again, it generally was not until after a considerable lapse of time. Meanwhile, every form of instruction, either civil, or religious, was interrupted; and the interruption, naturally, gave rise to error, and superstition.

3. The same scenes must have been renewed, during the convulsions, which followed the Norman conquest; particularly during the period between the death of the conqueror, and the accession of the first Henry; and in the long years of havoc, consumed in the contests between the houses of York and Lancaster. That, in these times, some superstition should prevail, is not surprising. But, it bore no proportion, to the true spirit of religion, with which the nation still continued to abound. What gospel truth did not the ministers of the church then inculcate?—What disorder did they not then condemn?—What crime did they not then reprobate?—What excess did they not then censure?—What passion did they not then endeavor to restrain? They taught every virtue; they encouraged every perfection. In no age, has love of God or charity for man, been more warmly recommended. But, did no superstition, then, exist? Unhappily it did.—But surely, where there was so much instruction, superstition could not predominate.

The reflections, which have been suggested, may, perhaps, incline the reader to think, that, in the times, of which we are speaking, there was less ignorance, and superstition, than is generally represented. It may be added, that there are grounds to suspect, that the dispersion of these was earlier; and that sound learning, and science, began to revive in Europe, sooner than is generally imagined.

We shall shortly state some facts, which may be thought to prove this assertion, as applied to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, particularly in respect to the state of literature in England, during these periods.

1. So early as the eleventh century, the arts and sciences flourished, under the protection of the Mahometan princes of Persia, Baghdad, Africa, and Spain. In all these countries, the studies of medicine, astronomy, and dialectics, were cultivated with success, and the works of Aristotle, and of some other authors, were translated from the Grecian language, into the Arabic. Something, too, of learning, and science, remained at Constantinople, and in the adjacent provinces. By degrees, they attracted the attention, first of the Italians, and afterwards of the northern states of Europe, and many inquisitive spirits, in quest of learning, travelled from them to the Greeks of the eastern empire; or to the Arabians in Baghdad, Spain, or Africa, and returned, with considerable literary spoil. Of these, Gerbert, who afterwards became Pope, under the name of Silvester the Second, deserves particular mention. A thirst of knowledge had led him to Cordova. In that celebrated seat of Moorish literature, he acquired an extensive knowledge of mathematics, and astronomy. On his return to France, he attracted the notice of Adalberon, archbishop of Rheims; and, under his auspices, opened a school in that city. Hugh Capet, and several of the principal nobility of France, sent their children to it, for education. “France”, says M. de St. Marc, “owes to him her taste for true literature. He was not satisfied, with advancing it by his public lectures, and occasional publications. By an extensive epistolary correspondence, he communicated his discoveries to many, both in France, and in other states; and strove to kindle in them his own literary ardor. At a great expense, he collected a large library of ancient, and modern, books; caused numerous copies of them to be made, and distributed them wherever he thought they might be useful. It is probable, that he first introduced into Europe the Arabic system of notation,—perhaps the most useful of modern discoveries, in science. It is observable, that in the preceding century, Campanus, a mathematician of Lombardy, had translated into Latin the elements and data of Euclid: the former was printed at Venice in 1482, the latter at Basle in 1546.

2. The twelfth century, presents a visible increase of literary ardor. Mr. Berington, in his learned, and interesting History of Abeillard and Heloisa, speaking of these times, observes, that “The schools, as we know, from the histories of the age, were not only filled with students, as at present; but, men in years, persons of distinction, fathers of families, and ministers of state, after the toils of the day were over, crowded to them, as to a theatre of amusement”. The same writer adds, that, “when Abeillard taught, in the Convent of St. Denys, more than 3,000 scholars, are said by some authors, to have attended his lectures. When he left this convent, and retired to the convent of Nogent in Champagne, the lovers of science pursued, and discovered him, and, before the end of the first year, exceeded six hundred. Situated in a forest, exposed to the inclement seasons, without a single convenience to smooth the rugged life, or without one amusement, except what literary pursuits, scientific conversation, and their own society could supply;—in Abeillard, they saw the divine Plato, in themselves, that illustrious group of disciples, which had given renown to the academic walks of Athens”. We may lament, that the instruction, given them, was not more elegant, more sublime, or more useful: But, the thirst of knowledge, the mental activity of the scholars, it is impossible to deny. Ignorant, it would be injustice to call them. “In the twelfth” century, “says Dom Rivet, “men of letters were almost infinitely multiplied; a prodigious number of writings on every subject, and sometimes of a very interesting nature, appeared”.

3. In the thirteenth century the rays of science were brighter, and more generally diffused. The formation of the Italian republics raised, in every part of that ample territory, a spirit of mental energy, which equally discovered itself in commerce, and the polite arts. Many edifices, of the most exquisite gothic architecture, were raised. Cimabue, the father of the modern school of painting, adorned them with the efforts of his art; Brunelleschi revived, at Florence, the forms of ancient architecture; and Dante produced the Divina Comedia. In the Netherlands, the elegant arts equally flourished. No one, who has seen the long line of magnificent towns in Belgium, can have surveyed the many public edifices of exquisite and costly architecture, and the numberless works in marble, gold, silver, iron and bronze, which decorate them, —without admiration. Many of these may be traced to the period, of which we are speaking. In the same period, France discovered equal mental ardor. The church of Notre-Dame, at Paris, the facades of the churches, of Rheims, and Notre-Dame, at Rouen, and the cathedrals of Amiens and Strasbourg show, that in the architecture of the times, France did not yield the palm to Italy. The number of her schools, and the multitudes, by whom they were frequented, make it evident, that she possessed an equal taste for general literature. Libraries began now to be formed. The foundations of the Bibliothèque Royâle, at Paris, were laid at this time; and Robert, (called of Sorbonne, from a village of that name in the diocese of Rheims, in which he was born), founded the university of the Sorbonne;—collecting, moreover, for the use of its members, an extensive library. In 1289, it consisted of upwards of a thousand volumes—which were then valued, at 3,812 livres, 10 sous, and 8 deniers—(about 3,0001, sterling, according to the present value of money.)

The literary spirit of the times was increased by the discovery, in 1137, of a complete copy of the Pandects of Justinian, at Amalfi. The wisdom, and the justice, of the laws, expressed in these, were immediately felt; and the study of them was pursued, with a kind of enthusiasm. They were introduced into several universities: Exercises were performed, lectures read, degrees conferred, in this, as in other branches of science: and most of the nations on the continent adopted the Pendects, if not as the basis, at least, as an important portion of their jurisprudence.

4. If we compare the state of letters in England, with that of foreign countries, at this period, England will not suffer by the comparison. During a great part of this interval, the throne was tilled by Henry the second, the most powerful monarch in Europe. Beside England, and Ireland, he was master, in right of his father, of his mother, and of his wife, and by the annexation of Brittany to his other states, of more than a third part of the provinces, which then composed the French monarchy. He possessed great abilities; and inherited from his father, a taste for literature, and the arts. “When he could enjoy leisure”, says Mr. Hume, “he recreated himself, either in conversation, or in reading; and he cultivated his natural abilities by study, above any prince of his time”. Throughout his reign, England made great advances in learning, and in the polite arts; and, if we were required to name the golden age of the literature of the middle ages, we could not assign any era, better deserving this appellation than the reign of this monarch. It was distinguished by its improvements in architecture; particularly by an universal increase of dimension, the sharp pointed arch, resting on the slender column, and the leafy molding. These Mr. Miller mentions among the characteristics of the Norman style of architecture. He supposes it to have flourished, from the Norman conquest to the reign of John. At the close of his account of it, he says—“Let us not quit this topic, without paying a due tribute of admiration to the liberality, and magnificence, of those, whose mighty works we have been endeavoring to characterize. Almost all the cathedrals in England, and Wales; a prodigious number of splendid monasteries, and parish churches, in every part of the kingdom, were erected by them, in little more than one century”. Considering the concomitant learning, which architectural eminence presupposes, it is impossible, that this should have been a century of ignorance.

One of the most valuable monuments of the literature of the middle ages,—the letters of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and of his correspondents, belongs to this reign. The writers express themselves with a conscious elevation of rank, and character, with sense, and with spirit, and discover an extensive knowledge of sacred, and profane, literature. Their frequent allusions to the classics, show their acquaintance with these precious remains of antiquity. It is surprising, that it did not lead them to a purer style.

The same may be said of many of the historians of these times. Sir Henry Saville preferred William of Malmesbury to all other historians, with whom he was acquainted, both for judiciousness, and fidelity. Bishop Warburton speaks in terms, equally high, of Matthew Paris.

But, the wonder of the thirteenth century is Roger Bacon. It is a disgrace to his countrymen, that neither a complete collection of his works; nor a full and able account of his life, and literary labors, have yet appeared. He first studied, at Oxford; thence, removed to Paris and took the degree of doctor in that university. “After his return to Oxford”, says Mr. Chalmers, in his General Biographical Dictionary, “he was considered, by the greatest men in that university, as one of the ablest, and most indefatigable inquirers after knowledge that the world ever produced, and, therefore, they not only showed him all due respect; but likewise, conceiving the greatest hopes from his improvements in the method of study, they generally contributed to his expenses; so that he was enabled to lay out, within the compass of two years, no less than 2,000 £. (an immense sum for those times),— in collecting curious authors; making trials of various kinds; and in the construction of different instruments, for the improvement of useful knowledge”. He was master of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages; deeply versed in all branches of mathematics, in the sciences of optics, geography, astronomy, and chemistry. The composition and effects of gunpowder were probably discovered by him. He certainly made great discoveries in chemistry. He had enemies: but, he had many powerful friends, and he was patronized by every pope of his time. The patronage, which he received from his countrymen, has been mentioned. A nation, in which there was so much science on one side, and so much patronage of science on the other, could not have been generally unlearned. It must be added, that, while Roger Bacon was employed in the manner we have mentioned, John Holywood, or Johannes de Sacrobosco, as he is sometimes called,—(for whose birth Nithisdale, Yorkshire, Durham, and Dublin, contend),—was considerably extending the boundaries of science. He acquired from the Moors in Spain, and communicated both to England and France, the system of circulating decimals,—the uttermost limit of pure arithmetic.

In fact, so far, at the time of which we are speaking, had the spirit of literary ardor proceeded, and so widely was it circulated, that, in every southern, and several northern states of Europe, there was an irresistible tendency to a new and better order of things. For a time, the religious controversies, which then began to disturb the world, rather retarded than accelerated, the march of science, and the general improvement of the human mind.

II.

THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE REFORMATION.

 

The diffusion of learning, and the mental activity, which it occasioned, paved the way for the reformation. That there was much ignorance, and many superstitious practices, in the catholic churches; that there was much dissoluteness in the lower, and much luxury in the higher ranks, of the clergy, that the pretensions of the ecclesiastical body in general, and particularly the claims of the see of Rome, were exorbitant, every well-informed and candid catholic may allow. They are described in the strongest colors, by Bossuet, in the first pages of his Variations. They had never been unobserved by the wise or the good. The increase of information, and the new spirit of inquiry, which it produced, now made them every day, more and more felt, and the discussions, at the councils of Constance, and Basil, forcibly called the attention of the public to them.

The chapter, perhaps the most interesting in his works, in which Mr. Gibbon gives an account of the Paulicians, shows, that there had long existed, in a numerous portion of Christians, an anxious wish to simplify both the religious creed, and the religious observances of the times; and several protestant writers have labored to prove, that they would have been satisfied with a moderate reform.

A different opinion is, however, maintained by Mosheim. “Before the reformation”, to use his own words, “there lay concealed, in almost every part of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany, many persons, who adhered tenaciously to the doctrines, which the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites had maintained; some in a disguised, and others, in a more open and public manner: That the kingdom of Christ was an assembly of true, and real saints and ought, therefore, to be inaccessible to the wicked, and unrighteous; and also exempt from all those institutions, which human prudence suggests, to oppose the progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform transgressions”. From these principles they inferred, that, all things ought to be in common among the faithful, that, taking interest for the loan of money, tythes, and tribute, ought to be entirely abolished, that, in the kingdom of Christ, civil magistrates were absolutely useless; and that God still continued to reveal his will to chosen persons”.

Some writers have gone farther; and have pretended, that, among the maintainers of these opinions, something of the Jacobinical doctrines of liberty and equality, is discoverable. It must, no doubt, be admitted, that the celebrated distich of the English Lollards,

When Adam delv'd, and Eva span,

Where was then the gentleman?

has something of a Jacobinical sound.

It may be added, that the principle was, not only avowed, but carried into practice, by the Jacquerie, in France. This, no one, who has read the Conjuration d'Etienne Marcel contre l’autorité royal par Monsieur Maudet, a very curious, and interesting work,—will be disposed to controvert.

Whatever may have been the principles of the persons, to whom we have just alluded, it is at least certain, that they produced a considerable degree of ferment. “The minds of men”, says cardinal Julian, in a letter to Pope Eugenius the Fourth, “are big with expectation of what measures will be taken, and are ripe for something tragical. I see the axe is at the root: the tree begins to bend: and instead of propping it, whilst we may, we hasten its fall”. The whole of this letter, a copious extract from which is given by Bossuet, in the first pages of his Variations, is inserted in the works of Eneas Sylvius, afterwards pope, under the name of Pius the Second. It is a remarkable monument of political foresight, and deserves the perusal of the reader.

 

III.

HENRY THE EIGHTH.COMMENCEMENT OF THE REFORMATION.

1517

 

Whilst the general spirit of the public was in the state, we have described, a circumstance took place, which immediately led to the reformation. Pope Leo the tenth published a General Indulgence, and employed several persons to preach and distribute it, among the faithful. The charge of doing this, in the electorate of Saxony, he committed to Albert, archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg. This prelate employed on the occasion, John Tetzel, a dominican friar, ignorant, and insolent; but possessing no small share of popular eloquence. The terms, in which he described the indulgences, and announced their effects, excited general disgust.

The celebrated Martin Luther was, at this time, professor of theology, in the university of Wittenberg, on the Elbe. He had taken the degree of doctor; and possessed great reputation, and authority. In the most explicit, and bold language, he harangued, in the great church, both against the indulgences and against the manner, in which they were dispensed. In September, 1517, he published ninety-five propositions, expressing his sentiments respecting them. These were universally read and produced the greatest sensation. The notions, which they conveyed, and the consequences, to which they evidently led, alarmed the see of Rome. Some attempts were made to silence, and pacify Luther. Tetzel was condemned; and, soon afterwards, loaded with general detestation, died of grief and despair. Miltitz, a Saxon knight, a person of learning, prudence and address, was then employed by Leo the tenth to confer with Luther. The conferences seem to have been conducted in a manner, which promised an amicable settlement. But, before they came to a conclusion, Leo the tenth issued a bull, dated the 25th June, 1520. In this memorable document, he solemnly condemned forty-one propositions, extracted from the writings of Luther; ordered his writings to be burnt; and summoned him, under pain of excommunication, to retract his errors, within sixty days. The sixty days expired without any retractation; and it was generally understood, that the Pope was proceeding to issue a formal sentence of excommunication. To anticipate it, the reformer, on the 19th of December, 1520, caused a pile of wood to be erected, without the walls of the city of Wittenberg; and there, in the presence of an immense multitude of people, of all ranks and orders, committed to the flames, both the bull, which had been published against him and those parts of the decretals and canons, which particularly related to the Pope’s jurisdiction. By this proceeding, Luther formally withdrew himself from the communion of the see of Rome. On the 6th of the following month of January, the Pope issued a second bull; pronouncing Lutheran obstinate heretic; and excommunicating him. Some time afterwards, in the execution of the bull, he appointed Luther’s books to be burnt, at Rome. Luther by way of retaliation, assembled all the professors, and students, of the university of Wittenberg, caused a fire to be lighted, and cast the bull of excommunication into the flames.

He proceeded to attack other doctrines, and practices of the church of Rome. Justification, and the efficacy of the sacraments, were the first objects of his hostility. “The justification of a sinner”, to use his own language, “was the principle and source, from which all his doctrines flowed”. So great, in his opinion, was the importance of this article of faith, that he thought himself warranted in asserting, that, “whilst the doctrine upon it was pure, there would be no reason to fear, either schism, or division; but that, if the true doctrine of justification were once altered, it would be impossible to oppose error or stop the progress of fanaticism”.

In the Historical and literary account of the formularies, confessions of faith, or symbolic books, of the Roman-catholic, Greek, and principal Protestant churches, written by the author of these pages, the reader will find a very accurate statement, drawn up by father Scheffmaker, a Jesuit of Strasbourg, of the difference between the Roman-catholic, and the Lutheran churches, concerning this important article.

With respect to the sacraments, the Catholic church believes them to be seven, baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, holy orders, extreme unction, and matrimony. Luther confined them to two, baptism, and the Eucharist. In opposition to the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, he contended, that in the sacramental elements, the bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, existed together. When the language of the epistle of St. James, was opposed to his doctrine, on the subject of justification, he absolutely denied its authenticity.

This short account of the principal religious tenets, in which the Lutheran differs from the Catholic church, was necessary; and will suffice, for the object of the present pages.

 

IV.

HENRY THE EIGHTH RECEIVES FROM THE POPE THE TITLE OF DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

1521.

 

AT this time, the throne of England was filled by Henry the Eighth. He was zealously attached to the roman catholic faith; and the theological opinions of Luther no sooner found their way into his dominions, than they were marked by his indignation. He had been originally designed for the church; and, on that account, had received an early tincture of scholastic erudition. He particularly venerated the writings of St. Thomas of Aquinas. Most historians observe, that his dislike of Luther was much increased by the contemptuous terms, in which the reformer spoke of that voluminous father. The monarch had also a taste for classical learning; and was a warm admirer of pure Latinity. He loved the conversation of literary men. He was often the subject of their adulation; and to him, many of them dedicated their works. “Learning”, says Erasmus, “would triumph, if we had such a prince at home, as England has. The king is not unlearned; and has a sharp wit. He openly protects literature; and imposes silence upon brawlers”. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at, that the spirit of authorship should fall upon the monarch; or that he should choose, for his subject, a theological theme. Cardinal Wolsey, bishop Fisher, and others, are said to have assisted him, in the composition of this work. It was written in Latin, and entitled, Assertio septum Sacramentorum adversus Lutherum, which may be translated, The defence of the Seven Sacraments against Luther. It is particularly opposed to Luther’s treatise, De Captivitate Babylonica. It is dedicated to pope Leo the Tenth; and treats, under separate heads, of the Eucharist, penance, satisfaction, confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, and extreme unction. It is written with order, and perspicuity; and with such force of argument, that Mr. Collier says that “the king had the better of the controversy and was, generally speaking, the sounder divine; superior to his adversary in the vigour and propriety of his style, the force of his reasoning, and learning of his quotations”. He adds, that “his manner was not altogether unexceptionable and that he leant too much on his character; argued in his garter-robes; and wrote, as 'twere, with his scepter”. It is observable, that the terms, in which Henry expressed himself, respecting the supremacy of the pope, were stronger than sir Thomas More thought it prudent for him to use. “I moved the king's highness”, says sir Thomas, in his letter to Cromwell, “either to leave out that point; or else to touch it more slenderly; for doubt of some things, as might hap to fall in question, between his highness, and some pope; as between princes, and popes, diverse times, have done; whereunto his highness answered me, that he would, in no wise, minish in that matter”.

His majesty sent, by Dr. Clarke, dean of Windsor, his ambassador at Rome, a copy of his work, sumptuously bound, to pope Leo the Tenth. At a solemn assembly of cardinals, the ambassador, after a set speech, delivered it into the hands of his holiness. The pope received it most graciously; expressed himself in high terms of praise, of the zeal, and learning, of the royal author; and caused the copy to be deposited, with great ceremony, in the Vatican. By a bull, dated the following October, he conferred on the king the title of Defender of the Faith; and “ordered all the faithful in Christ, in their verbal and written addresses to the monarch, to add, after the word king,* the words Defender of the Faith”. With this honor his majesty was extremely gratified.

But, neither the arguments, nor the rank of his royal adversary, nor the title conferred upon him by the pope, dismayed Luther. He published a reply, replete with arrogance, and the foulest abuse. At a subsequent period, Luther apologized to the king, for the style of his letter. He seems, by his apology, to discover, that he had then some hopes of the monarch’s favoring the reformation. But he expresses himself, in severe language, concerning the pope, and cardinal Wolsey; and the reader will think, he was a bad politician, in those parts of his letter, in which he intimates, that his majesty was not the real author of his work. This, certainly, was touching the king in a very tender part.

The king returned an answer. But it was not, in general, written in those terms, which were calculated to please Luther. Henry imputes the troubles of Germany to the reformer’s writings; and exhorts him to retire from the world; to quit his engagements with the nun, whom he had married; and to spend the remainder of his life, in discipline and penance. In reply to that part of Luther’s work, in which he intimates, that his majesty's work was written by others, the royal author says, “And although ye fayne yourselfe to thynke my booke not my owne, but, to my rebuke, (as it lyketh you to affyrme), put on by subtell sophistere; yet, it is well knowne for myne, and I, for myne, avouch it”. The style of Henry's answer provoked Luther exceedingly. He declared, he would throw away no more civilities upon him.

It remains to observe, on the subject of this controversy, that, in 1523, Fisher, bishop of Rochester, entered the lists, by a work against Luther, in titled “Assertionis Lutherae Confutatio”. Henry was extremely pleased with it; and by letters patent, conferred on the prelate, the exclusive right of printing it, during the course of three years.

 

V.

THE DIVORCE OF HENRY THE EIGHTH FROM QUEEN KATHARINE.

1533

The subject of these pages, neither requires, nor admits of, more, than a short mention of the transactions, which attended this interesting event, some observations on the lawfulness of the marriage of Henry the eighth with queen Katharine, some account of the sentence, pronounced by Clement the seventh, for its validity, and of the act of parliament, ratifying the divorce and establishing the marriage of Henry with Anne Boleyn.

Marriage, with the widow of a deceased brother, is prohibited, in Leviticus XVIII. 6. The same prohibition is repeated, in chapter xx. 16; with a denunciation, that such marriage should be unfruitful. This denunciation imported, not that God would miraculously prevent the parents from having off­spring; but, that the children should not be entitled to the rights of heirship: So that, in a civil sense, the parents would be childless. This was the general rule: Moses excepted from it, the case, where the deceased brother left no child, Deut. xxv. 9. Here the legislator not only permits, but commands, as a civil duty, the next brother to marry the widow.

Henry was in this situation. On the 14th of November, 1501, Katharine, the daughter of Ferdinand, king of Spain, was married to prince Arthur, the eldest son of Henry the Seventh. The prince died, in the following April. Soon after his decease, it was agreed, by both parents, that Katharine should be espoused to prince Henry. Her previous marriage was a canonical impediment, as, under the Christian dispensation, marriages, within the degrees prohibited by Leviticus, were unlawful, and the exception of the case, where the deceased brother had died childless, was not admitted. The canonical impediment was, however, removed by a bull of dispensation from Julius the Second, dated the 26th of December, 1503. Soon after it was obtained, the contract was signed: but, for some reason or other, when prince Henry arrived at a sufficient age, it was annulled. Henry the Weventh died, on the 7th day of April, 1509. He was succeeded by his son, Henry the Eighth. The marriage between him and Katharine, was, with the full consent of both parties and the advice of the council of state, solemnized, on the third of the following June. The queen had several miscarriages, as also some children, who were born alive, but, died, almost immediately; and one daughter, Mary, who lived to inherit the crown. The king seems, for the first time, to have expressed scruples respecting the lawfulness of the marriage, about the year 1527. The pope's commission, authorizing cardinal Wolsey, in conjunction with the archbishop of Canterbury, or any other bishop, to examine, juridically, the validity of the marriage and the dispensations, on which it was founded, is dated, the 13th of April, 1528. On the 15th of July, the following year, the pope annulled, by his bull, the power of the commissioners and evoked the cause to Rome. On the 23d of May, 1533, Cranmer, then archbishop of Canterbury, declared the marriage null. On the 14th day of the following November, Henry publicly married Anne Boleyn. One child, Elizabeth, afterwards queen of England, was the issue of this marriage. On the 23d of May, 1534, the pope pronounced the marriage between Henry and Katharine to be valid. On the 6th day of January, 1536, Katharine died.

The circumstance of the lawfulness, according to the Christian dispensation, of the marriage between Henry and Katharine,—considering it as the abstract question of a marriage between a brother and his brother's widow,—was certainly attended with considerable difficulties. The unlawfulness of such a marriage, by the injunctions in the Levitical law, admitted of no doubt. But, were these injunctions of the Levitical law adopted into the Christian code? If they were,—then, besides being a rule of the Christian (economy, were they also a rule of the natural law? If so,—could they admit of dispensation? On each of these points, opinions were divided. It is certain, that doubts had been entertained of the lawfulness of the marriage, before Henry's scruples had provoked the discussion: this is evident from several circumstances: 1. Henry the Seventh caused prince Henry, as soon as he came of age, to enter a protest against it; 2. And, on his death-bed, charged the prince not to make the alliance. 3. At the council, held upon it, after the death of Henry the Weventh, some members, particularly Warham, the archbishop of Canterbury, declared, at first, against it. 4. When the espousal of the princess Mary, the daughter of Henry, with Charles the Fifth, was proposed to the states of Castile, they objected to it, the doubts, which were entertained of the validity of Henry's marriage with Katharine. 5. When the negotiations were opened with France, for betrothing the princess Mary to Francis the First, or the duke of Orleans, the bishop of Tarbe, the French ambassador, made the same objection. 6. And although the unlawful practices, which were used in order to prevail, both on communities and on individuals, to pronounce in favor of the invalidity of the marriage, detract greatly from their weight,—yet, it must be admitted, that several, who objected to it, were men of worth, and learning. The better opinion, however, appears to have been favorable to the marriage.

The generality of those, who pronounced for its validity, grounded their opinion upon the supposition, that the marriage between prince Arthur and Katharine had not been consummated. At the hearing of the cause, evidence was adduced to prove the consummation. But the assertion of Katharine before the king, and the legates, at the hearing of the cause,—that her virgin honor was unstained, when the monarch received her to his bed; her solemn, and affecting, appeal to Henry himself for the truth of her declaration; and his not denying it,—added to her high character, and exemplary conduct, through life,—to which the monarch himself bore repeated testimony,—leave, in the writer's opinion, no doubt of the truth of her allegations.

It has been mentioned, that, on the 15th July, 1529, Clement the seventh, who then filled the papal chair, evoked the cause of the divorce to Rome. At the, end of five years, the cause appeared to verge to a conclusion. The pope, at the earnest solicitation of Francis the first, then gave his solemn assurance, that, if Henry would send a proxy to Rome, and submit his cause to the holy see, he would appoint commissioners to meet at Cambray, and pronounce a final sentence. Bellay, bishop of Paris, was sent by Francis to the English monarch, to apprise him of this circumstance, and to exhort him to submission. The prelate reached London, in the beginning of December and about the beginning of the following February, arrived at Rome, with such an answer, as Francis had suggested.

But the answer was verbal; and the pope required a written agreement, to the same purport, signed by Henry himself; promising that, on its receipt, the proceeding, which was required, should take place. Messengers were accordingly sent; and a day was appointed for their return. Everything then seemed to prognosticate an amicable conclusion. Rainié, the French agent at Rome, was persuaded, that Henry would gain his cause; and expressed himself to this effect, in a dispatch to the grand-master, Montmorency. But the courier, who carried the King’s written promise, was detained beyond the day appointed; and, in the meantime, such intelligence had been brought to Rome, as induced the pope to believe, that no courier was to be expected. Upon this, a consistory was assembled; and the pope pronounced sentence;—declaring, that the marriage of Henry with Katharine was valid; and that the former should incur excommunication, in case he should refuse to adhere to it.—This memorable sentence was pronounced, on the 23d of March, 1534.

From the letters of the bishops of Paris, and Mascou, cited by le Grand, it appears, that, immediately after the first intelligence of the sentence, those prelates waited upon his holiness, and remonstrated against it; that they found him much concerned at the step, which, he said, he had been obliged to take and that he assured them, that in opposition to the advice of many cardinals, he had suspended the signification of the sentence, until the ensuing Easter. It must be added, that, if the courier brought with him any written document from England, the contents of it were never known. On the other hand, if we take into consideration, that, during the whole of this stage of the business, the king persisted in his offensive measures; and even enacted several laws, destructive of papal authority, we shall find no reason to believe, that the pope, although he had conducted himself with ever so great moderation and temper, would have prevented a final rupture. It is probable, that, at this time, Henry considered the pope's decision, as a matter of great indifference.

In a former part of these pages, it has been mentioned, that Cranmer pronounced the marriage of the king with Katharine, to have been invalid; and that, soon after the passing of this sentence, his marriage with Anne Boleyn was solemnized. By an act of the 25th of the monarch's reign, the archbishop’s sentence was ratified; and the marriage with Anne Boleyn, confirmed. The crown was limited to the issue of this marriage; and, in default of such issue, to the king’s right heirs. An oath was enjoined, in favor of this order of succession, under the penalty of imprisonment, during the king’s-pleasure. It is observable, that this act excluded the princess, Mary, from the crown; this seems to have been contrary to the monarch’s avowed intentions, when he first applied for the sentence of divorce.

 

VI.

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE KING'S ASSUMPTION OF THE TITLE OF SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND —GIVING A SHORT HISTORICAL MINUTE OF THE PAPAL ENCROACHMENTS ON THE SOVEREIGN, AND CHURCH OF ENGLAND; AND OF THE RESISTANCE TO THEM.

We come now to consider the most important part of the reign of Henry; his assumption of the title of head of the church of England. To present the reader with a view of this interesting event, some account of the previous encroachments of the popes, on the rights of the sovereign, and church of England; and of the resistance of each, is necessary. An attempt will, therefore be made, in this chapter, to give a succinct statement of the success, and subsequent decline, of the pretensions of the popes to temporal power, of their occasional abuse of their spiritual power, of the resistance of the sovereigns of England to the former, and of the legislative acts of the parliament of England against the latter.

The beginning of the 14th century, may be assigned, as the era of the highest elevation of the temporal power of the popes since, about this time, their territorial possessions had their largest extent; they had made their greatest progress in exempting the clergy from the civil power; and they experienced the slightest resistance, to their general claim of a divine right to dominion. Thus, at this period, they had attained their highest elevation. Its decline may be dated from the year 1309; when the policy of the French king prevailed on the pope to remove to Avignon. During seventy years, that city continued the metropolis of Christendom. This exasperated the Italians, to the highest degree: they lost their personal affection for the pope; called his residence at Avignon, the captivity of Babylon; and filled Europe with invectives against him.

This was followed by an event, still more detrimental to the popes. Gregory the eleventh quitted Avignon, and established his residence at Rome. He died, in 1378. The Italian cardinals chose a pope; he assumed the name of Urban the sixth; and also fixed his seat at Rome. The French cardinals likewise chose a pope. He assumed the name of Clement the Seventh and fixed his seat at Avignon. Christendom was divided between the two popes; and the schism lasted, from 1378 to 1417: it then ended by the elevation of Martin the Fifth. Throughout the period of this schism, there were two, and sometimes three rival popes; dividing the Christian world by their quarrels, and scandalizing it by their mutual recriminations.

But, nothing contributed so much to the decline of the temporal power of the popes, as the discussions, which took place at the councils of Constance, Basil, and Pisa and the writings of several men of learning, particularly of the Parisian school, who then began to discuss the papal pretensions to temporal power, with wisdom, temper and erudition.

A rougher attack was made upon them by the Albigenses, Wickliffites, and Lollards; and by some other sectaries of the fourteenth and fifteenth, centuries. It must, however, be admitted, on the one hand, that these maintained some doctrines, irreconcilable with those of the gospel, and subversive of civil government;—so that it may be considered a matter of some surprise, that the protestant churches should be so anxious to prove their descent from them—and, on the other, that they brought charges against the temporal usurpations of some popes, and of some churchmen, to which their advocates could make no reply.

The effect of these circumstances was, that the justice of the pretensions of the popes to temporal power, by divine right, became much suspected; the ancient canons were more attended to; and the limits of spiritual and temporal power were better understood.

It is an article of the Roman-catholic faith, that the pope has, by divine right, 1st, a supremacy of rank; 2dly, a supremacy of jurisdiction, in the spiritual concerns of the Roman-catholic church; and, 3dly, the principal authority in defining articles of faith. In consequence of these prerogatives, the pope holds a rank, splendidly preeminent, over the highest dignitaries of the church; has a right to convene councils, and preside over them, by himself or his legates, and to confirm the elections of bishops. Every ecclesiastical cause may be brought to him, as the last resort, by appeal; he may promulgate definitions and formularies of faith to the universal church; and when the general body, or a great majority of her prelates, have assented to them, either by tacit acquiescence, or formal consent, all are bound to acquiesce in them: “Rome”, they say, “in such a case, has spoken, and the cause is determined”. To the pope, in the opinion of all Roman-catholics, belongs also a general superintendence of the concerns of the church; a right, when the canons provide no line of action, to direct the proceedings; and, in extraordinary cases, to act in opposition to the canons. In those spiritual concerns, in which, by strict right, his authority is not definitive, he is entitled to the highest respect and deference. Thus far, there is no difference of opinion among Roman-catholics; but here, they divaricate into the Transalpine and Cisalpine opinions.

The great difference between the transalpine and cisalpine divines, on the power of the pope, formerly was, that the transalpine divines attributed to the pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least, of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good; and, in consequence of it, held that the supreme power of every state was so far subject to the pope, that, when he deemed that the bad conduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of the church, that he should reign no longer, the pope was authorized, by his divine commission, to deprive him of his sovereignty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegiance; and that, even on ordinary occasions, the pope might enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation and jurisdiction, by civil penalties. On the other hand, the cisalpine divines affirmed, that the pope had no right either to interfere in temporal concerns, or to enforce obedience to his spiritual legislation or jurisdiction, by temporal power; and consequently had no right to deprive a sovereign of his sovereignty, to absolve his subjects from their allegiance, or to enforce his spiritual authority over either, by civil penalties. This difference of opinion exists now no longer, the transalpine divines having insensibly adopted, on this subject, the cisalpine opinions.

But, though on this important point, both parties are at last agreed, they still differ on others.

In spiritual concerns, the transalpine opinions ascribe to the pope a superiority, and controlling power over the whole church, should she oppose his decrees, and consequently over a general council, its representative; and the same superiority and controlling power, even in the ordinary course of business, over the canons of the universal church. They describe the pope, as the fountain of all ecclesiastical order, jurisdiction, and dignity. They assign to him, the power of judging all persons in spiritual concerns; of calling all spiritual causes to his cognizance; of constituting, suspending, and deposing bishops; of conferring all ecclesiastical dignitaries and benefices, in or out of his dominions, by paramount authority; of exempting individuals or communities from the jurisdiction of their prelates; of evoking to himself, or judges appointed by him, any cause actually pending in an ecclesiastical court; and of receiving, immediately, appeals from all sentences of ecclesiastical courts, though they be inferior courts, from which there is a regular appeal to an intermediate superior court. They farther ascribe to the pope, the extraordinary prerogative of personal infallibility, when he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on any point of faith.

The cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals, the pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the church, and to a general council representing her; that he is subject to the canons of the church, and cannot, except in an extreme case, dispense with them; that, even in such a case, his dispensation is subject to the judgment of the church; that the bishops derive their jurisdiction from God himself, immediately, and not derivatively through the pope; that he has no right to confer bishoprics, or other spiritual benefices of any kind, the patronage of which, by common right, prescription, concordat or any other general rule of the church, is vested in another. They admit that an appeal lies to the pope from the sentence of the metropolitan; but assert, that no appeal lies to the pope, and that he can evoke no cause to himself, during the intermediate process. They affirm, that a general council may, without, and even against the pope's consent, reform the church. They deny his personal infallibility, and hold, that he may be deposed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism: and they admit, that in an extreme case, where there is a great division of opinion, an appeal lies from the pope to a future general council.

The popes had been reproachable, not merely for their unwarrantable pretensions to temporal power, and for the attempts, which they had made to establish it;—but, they had also been long blamed, by the wiser and more respectable part of the church, for their undue exercise, even of their spiritual power. They were particularly blamed for their incessant efforts, to extend the immunities of the clergy; to exempt the regulars from the constitutional jurisdiction of the hierarchy; for their pecuniary exactions, for their interference in ecclesiastical proceedings in the diocesan courts; for their nominations to ecclesiastical benefices in foreign states, contrary to common right; and for the supercilious demeanour, and expensive proceedings, of their legates. The writings of St. Bernard, full as he was of reverence towards the holy see, incontrovertibly show, how reprehensible he sometimes thought the conduct of its pontiffs, and how greatly, in his opinion, it stood in need of reformation. “The Roman church”, says Bossuet, “which had, for nine whole ages, by setting the example of an exact observance of ecclesiastical discipline, maintained it throughout the universe, to the utmost of her power, was not exempt from the general disorder; and, so early as the council of Vienne, a great prelate, commissioned by the pope to prepare matters to be there treated on, laid it down, for a ground work, to the whole assembly, that they ought to reform the church, in the head, and its members. The great schism made this saying current, not only among particular doctors, as Gerson, Peter d'Ailly, and other great men of those times, but even in councils; and nothing was more frequently repeated, in those of Pisa, and Constance”. At the council of Trent, it was loudly pronounced by the wise and holy Bartholomew de Martyribus, archbishop of Braga and several others of the highest dignitaries of the church. Thus, the conduct of the Roman see, had become the subject of general reprehension.

It has often been asserted, that, in England, it had always been more reprehensible, than in any other country.

The papal encroachments had frequently provoked the interference, both of the monarch, and of the legislature. Gregory the Seventh, by Hubert, his legate, had solicited Henry the Second to do homage to the apostolic see for the crown of England. “I will not do it”, was the monarch's answer; “I did not promise it myself; nor can I learn, that any one of my predecessors did it”. During the third expedition of Edward the First to Scotland, he received a letter from Boniface the Eighth, in which he declared, that Scotland was a fief of the holy see; and required Edward to desist from force, and pursue his claim in the court of Rome. To this extraordinary requisition, the king paid no regard. The papal message was, however, laid before the parliament, at Lincoln. “Having diligently read your letter”, say the barons, in answer to the pope, “it is, and by the grace of God shall ever be, our common and unanimous resolution, that with respect to the right of his kingdom of Scotland, or any other of his temporal rights, our aforesaid lord shall not plead before you; nor submit to any trial, or inquiry; nor send any messenger, or prolocutor, to your court, especially, as such proceedings would be to the manifest disherison of the rights of the crown of England, and the royal dignity; the evident subversion of the sovereignty of the kingdom; and to the prejudice of the liberties, customs, and laws, which we have inherited from our fathers; and to the observance, and defence, of which, we are bound by our oaths; and which we will continue to hold to the best of our power; and with the assistance of God, will defend with all our strength. Neither do we, nor will we, nor can we, nor ought we, to permit our lord the king, to do any of the things aforesaid, even were he ever so desirous to do them”. The pope wrote to the king, that “the emperor and king of France, had submitted to him”. “If both the emperor, and the French king should take the pope’s part”, replied Edward, “I am ready to give battle to them both in defence of the liberties of my crown”.

In 1302, the bull of institution of William of Glastonbury committed to his charge, “the spiritualities and temporalities of the bishopric”. This was held an invasion of the rights of the crown. The bishop was immediately summoned before Edward the First, and his council; condemned, in a thousand marks, for having received the bull; and compelled to renounce publicly the obnoxious clause, and to declare, that he held his temporalities of no one but the king. “It is probable”, says Mr. Lingard, “that, to this incident, we are to ascribe the origin of a custom, inviolably observed in the succeeding reigns, till the reformation. The bishop elect, as soon as he had received his bull of institution, appeared before the king, or his deputy; and, in his presence, abjured every clause in the bull, that could be prejudicial to the temporal rights of the crown”. “I expressly renounce”, said the prelate elect, “and totally abjure all, and every word, clause, and sentence, in the apostolic bulls, directed to me, concerning the aforesaid bishopric, which are, or which, by any means hereafter, may be prejudicial to my sovereign lord the king; or his heirs, or the rights, customs, or prerogatives, of the kingdom; and, in this respect, wholly submit, and place myself at the good pleasure of his highness, humbly beseeching his majesty to grant me the temporalities of the said bishopric, which I acknowledge to hold of him, as my sovereign lord”.

In this manner, the king, and the nation, asserted the independence of the realm against the pretensions of the popes, to temporal power within its territories.

Their undue exercise even of spiritual power, they restrained by several statutes, 1. The first of these was passed, in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of Edward the first. It is entitled De Asportatis religiosorum; concerning the exportation of money out of the kingdom by religious men. It states, that, “abbots, and other governors of religious houses, were used to set pecuniary impositions on the communities, subject to their government and to dispose of them at their pleasure”. To prevent these abuses, the act directed, that “every religious person, taking, or sending, any such money out of the kingdom, should be grievously punished, and that alien abbots, imposing such a tax, should forfeit their property for the offence”.

Another offensive practice of the see of Rome was to make grants of benefices, before they became actually vacant. The language of these grants was, that “the holy father, out of his great care, for the welfare of the church in general, and of such a diocese in particular, had provided for it, before-hand, a proper, and useful person to preside over it, lest, in case of a vacancy, it might suffer detriment, by being long destitute of a pastor; for which reason, out of the plenitude of his authority, he reserved to himself, for that term, the disposal of the bishopric, decreeing, from that time forward, all interposition, or attempt, to the contrary, of all persons whatsoever, null and void”.

The individuals, obtaining these grants, were called provisors. By the statutes of Edward III, commonly called the statutes of provisors, they were directed “to be attached and, if convicted, to be imprisoned, without bail, till they made fine and ransom to the king at his will; and satisfaction to the party. If they could not be found, the sheriff was to proceed to the outlawry of them; and the king was to receive, in the meantime, the profits of the benefice”.

A still more offensive practice of the see of Rome, was to permit English subjects to sue in its courts, in cases, the cognizance of which belonged to the courts of the king; and to receive appeals from the sentences of such courts. This, by the statutes of the h Edward III was prohibited under severe penalties.

At subsequent times, other statutes, as those of Richard II and Henry IV were passed to strengthen the foregoing laws; and to extend their provisions. These statutes, were generally called the statutes of praemunire. They received this appellation from the language of the writ of citation, preparatory to the prosecution upon them. By this, the sheriff was ordered “to cause the offender to be fore-warned, (praemunire), to appear and to answer the contempt, with which he was charged”; which offence was recited in the preamble to the writ. The contempt was supposed to consist, in paying that obedience to papal process, which was due to the king alone. The punishments, inflicted by these statutes, are various. Collectively taken, they are thus shortly summed up by Lord Coke,—“that, from the time of conviction, the defendant should be out of the king’s protection, and his lands and tenements forfeited to the king; and that his body should remain at the king's pleasure”.

Such were the provisions, by which, when the popes were in the zenith of their authority, our catholic ancestors disclaimed and resisted their claims to temporal power; and even the undue exercise of their spiritual power, within this imperial realm.

 

VII.

HENRY THE EIGHTH ASSUMES THE TITLE OF SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

1534

 

From the beginning of the reign of Henry the Eighth, until the period, to which the subject now leads the writer, his majesty gave his entire confidence to cardinal Wolsey. I. The character of that minister; II. The penalties of preamunire, which the whole body of the clergy was adjudged to have incurred by their submission to his legatine authority; III. The steps taken to prepare the mind of the nation for his majesty's ecclesiastical supremacy; IV. And the legislative acts, by which it was conferred upon him, will be succinctly described in the present chapter.

To this distinguished personage his contemporaries, generally speaking, were unjust. The splendor, with which he was surrounded, made him an object of envy; his lofty manners created him many personal enemies; the spirit of domination, which he showed in all ecclesiastical concerns, indisposed the clergy towards him; and the friends of the reformation considered him their enemy. Whilst he lived, nearly all hated him; after his decease, nearly all were hostile to his memory.

His extraction was mean: Henry the Seventh had occasion to discover the penetration and energy of his mind; and conferred upon him the deanery of Lincoln. He was quickly noticed by Henry the Eighth. He soon became his favorite, and the companion of his pleasures, and, before long, his sole and absolute minister. “By this rapid advancement, and uncontrolled authority”, says Mr. Hume, “the character and genius of Wolsey had full opportunity to display itself. Insatiable in his acquisitions; but still more magnificent in his expense; of extensive capacity, but still more unbounded enterprise, ambitious of power, but more ambitious of glory, insinuating, engaging, persuasive, and by turns lofty, elevated, and commanding; haughty to his equals, affable to his dependents; oppressive to the people, but liberal to his friends; more generous than grateful; less moved by injuries than by contempt; he was framed to take the ascendant in every intercourse with others, but exerted this superiority of nature, with such ostentation, as exposed him to envy and made every one willing to recall the original inferiority, or rather meanness of his fortune”. Such is the character drawn of Wolsey, by Mr. Hume. Even, with the dark shades, which it receives from his pen, small is the number of those, that have attained a situation equally elevated, with whom Wolsey will suffer in comparison.

That, in his conduct much was reprehensible, must be admitted. But, surely, much excuse may be found in the ungovernable violence, and obstinacy, of the monarch. “I do assure you”, the cardinal said, a few hours before he expired, to Sir William Kingston, the constable of the Tower, “that, I have often knelt before his Majesty, sometimes three hours together, to persuade him from his will and appetite, but could not “prevail”.

It should also be observed, that the part of Henry’s reign, which was subsequent to the decease of the minister, was much more criminal, than that, which had been directed by his councils.

That Wolsey was a protector of learning, his most violent enemies admit: and, if we think with them, that he was justly chargeable with an excess of magnificence, we should not forget, that, by calling forth the arts, and exciting the industry of the nation, that very magnificence was a public benefit. At the time, of which we are speaking, the benefits which the public receives from individual magnificence like Wolsey's, was little understood.

The whole body of the English Clergy held to be liable to the penalties of Praemunire

The offence particularly imputed to Wolsey, was his exercising in England the power of a legate of the pope. From an early time, it was an acknowledged prerogative of the popes to send persons to represent them, and to exercise their powers in foreign states. The persons invested with this high authority were often delegated to sovereign princes and states, as the guardians of the faith, and discipline of the church, and as the protectors of its general interests. They were the representatives of the pope, holding many of his highest powers.

It is not to be supposed, that prerogatives, such as these, would be exercised by Wolsey, with a very gentle hand. His administration gave great offence to the clergy; and became a subject of general complaint. On this account, as soon as the ruin of the cardinal was determined, his enemies indicted him for procuring from Rome, the bull, which invested him with the legatine authority and for an extravagant exercise of the powers, which it conferred upon him. The charge was ridiculous, but, such were the absolute power of the monarch, and the temper of the times, that the cardinal confessed the indictment, and sentence was pronounced upon him; declaring him out of the king’s protection, his lands and goods to be forfeited; and ordering him into custody. Henry however, granted him a pardon.

This memorable event took place, in November, 1529. In January 1531, the whole ecclesiastical establishment was brought under the same law. It was alleged, that, by submitting to the cardinal's exercise of his legatine authority, the whole national church had offended within the statute of provisors. Upon this statute, therefore, the attorney-general, by his majesty's direction, indicted them. They assembled in convocation; confessed their guilt, and submitted to his majesty's mercy. The king accepted from the clergy of the province of Canterbury, 100,000£; and from the clergy of the province of York, 18,440£. for a pardon. It was expected, that the whole body of the laity would have been considered guilty of the same offence; but, after some demonstrations of anger, the king issued his pardon of them, without requiring any fine. The Commons expressed great gratitude to him for his clemency.

It is surprising, that the nation should have quietly submitted to a proceeding so manifestly unjust and absurd. On what ground, it could be gravely asserted, that either clergy, or laity, had incurred the penalties of the statutes of provisors, or praemunire, it is impossible to conceive. The first of these statutes extended to those only, who obtained from the see of Rome, provisional presentations to benefices, that were not vacant; the latter, to those only, who interrupted the proceedings of the king's courts, or prevented the execution of their sentences, by appealing from them to the see of Rome.

After this, it soon became evident, that the king was determined to abolish, in his dominions, the spiritual supremacy of the pope. He was aware, that it would shock the religious principles and feelings of a large proportion of the nation. He, therefore, proceeded in the execution of his design, with greater caution, than he condescended to use on any other occasion.

Great attempts were made to induce the leading ecclesiastics to cooperate with his views; 2. Many works were published, to dispose the nation favourably towards them; 3. Convocations of both provinces were brought over to them: 4. And the language of the debates, in both houses of parliament, was calculated to promote them.

The king caused the bishops, and all other leading ecclesiastics, to be sounded by his principal courtiers; and every method was employed, that could dispose them to favor his designs. The ordinary means of persuasion and terror were resorted to. Frequent sermons were preached, and every other mode of instruction was used, to make the new doctrine palatable to the people. The superiors of religious houses were required to disseminate it among the members of their communities. The effect of these measures upon the public mind is remarkable. At first, it was thought sufficient to propound, that the council was above the pope. But, “afterwards”, says Burnet, “they struck a note higher; and declared to the people, that the pope had no authority in England”

For the first time, perhaps, the powerful artillery of the press was now brought forward in aid of a great public measure. Many works, advocating the royal views, and indisposing the nation against the see of Rome, were printed and extensively circulated. The most remarkable of these were, “The Institution for the necessary Erudition of a Christian Man”, the treatise of Fox, bishop of Hereford, De vera differentia regies potestatis et ecclesiae, and the work of Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, “De vera obedientia”. The most popular, was a Latin oration of doctor Richard Sampson, printed, in 1553, by Berthelet. Henry himself broke a lance against the pope. “The king himself”, says Strypet, “wrote a book. It was a large and ample treatise of the tyranny and usurpation of the bishop of Rome; and bore this title, De Potestate Christianorum Regum in suis ecclesiis contra Pontificis Tyrannidem et horribilem impietatem”.

Meantime, the advocates of the supremacy of the pope were not idle. Its most distinguished champion was cardinal Pole. He addressed to the king a labored dissertation, “Pro unitate ecclesiastica”; and carefully sent it to him by a private hand. It was afterwards published at Strasbourg, and several copies found their way into England. Some replies to it were published. The harsh terms, in which the cardinal expressed himself, respecting the king, were objected to his work. He defended it against this, and other charges, by his treatise, entitled Unitatis ecciesiasticae Defensio, published at Strasbourg, in 1555; and at Ingolstadt, in 1587. The two works were often printed in one volume. The appendixes to bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, and Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, contain several letters written by the cardinal; and several addressed to him. No documents show so well the general tenor of the arguments, by which, at this time, the papal supremacy was attacked, and defended. But, it must be admitted, that, in subsequent times, the subject, if not better understood, has, certainly, been more ably discussed.

The next attempt of the advocates for the royal supremacy was, to procure a formal recognition of it by the convocations of the clergy. Whilst they lay at the mercy of the crown, in consequence of their supposed guilt, in submitting to cardinal Wolsey's legatine authority, it was pressed upon them, as a measure, likely to soothe his majesty’s anger, that they should acknowledge his title of supreme head of the church. A petition was, accordingly, brought into the upper house of convocation of the province of Canterbury. In it, the king was styled, “the protector and supreme head of the church”. Some opposition to this expression was made; and the consideration of the petition postponed. It was then proposed to qualify the obnoxious words, by adding to them, the expression, “so far as is permitted by the law of Christ”. With this qualification, the sentence was adopted; and the petition signed by the convocation of each province. For a time, the king appeared to be satisfied. But, to use the words of Strype, he “finally made them buckle to”.

In the following year, the parliament passed an act, prohibiting appeals to Rome; and subjecting those who made them, to the penalties of praemunire. The convocations ordered the act to be fixed upon the church door of every parish: And, in March and May, 1534, announced, that “a general council represented the church; and was above the pope, and all other bishops: and that the bishop of Rome had no greater jurisdiction, given him by God in the holy scriptures, within the kingdom of England, than any other foreign bishop”. In the convocation of Canterbury, this allegation was opposed by four voices only; and by one, expressing doubt. In the convocation of York, it passed, without a dissenting voice. Both the universities, all the capitular and all the conventual bodies throughout the realm, followed their example. Compliance with the royal wishes now became the order of the day. The bishops took out new commissions from the crown: and in these, not only their temporal, but even their spiritual and episcopal, authority, was affirmed to be derived from the magistrates, and to be dependent upon their will.

4. But nothing contributed so much to reconcile the nation to the views of the court, as the general language of the leading members of both houses of parliament, when ecclesiastical concerns were the subject of their deliberations. The care, which the ministers of the crown took to bring the subject, under various forms, into the house of commons shows that, even in those arbitrary times, the weight of this branch of the legislature, the importance of public opinion, and the influence of parliamentary discussion, were on the increase. Hence, in both houses of parliament, severe invectives against the dissolute manners, the ambition and the avarice of the clergy, were not only allowed, but encouraged. Their encroachments, both on the crown, and on the general body of the nation, were represented in strong colors, whilst the immense sums, which were said to be drawn out of the kingdom by the pope, were held out to the view and indignation of the public. Several bills also were passed, restraining some of the most invidious of the impositions of the clergy. The manner, in which they were received by the nation, instigated the crown to still bolder measures.

The ultimate tendency of these proceedings had not been unobserved. In 1529, when the motion was made in the upper house of the convocation of Canterbury, for suppressing the lesser monasteries, —“" Beware, my lords”, exclaimed bishop Fisher, “beware of yourselves, and your country! beware of your holy mother, the catholic church! The people are subject to novelties; and Lutheranism spreads itself among us. Remember Germany, and Bohemia.—Let our neighbors’ houses, which are on fire, teach us to beware of our own”. “An axe”, continued the learned prelate, “came, upon a time into the wood, making his moan to the great trees, that he wanted an handle to work withall; and, for that cause, he was constrained to sit idle; therefore, he made it his request to them to grant him one of their small saplings, within the wood, to make him an handle. But now, becoming a complete axe, he fell so to work, within, the same wood, that, in process of time, there were neither great, nor small trees to be found in the place, where the wood stood. And so, my lords, if you grant the king these smaller monasteries, you do but make him an handle, whereby, at his own pleasure, he may cut down all the cedars of the Lebanons”.

At length, the final blow was struck. In the twenty-sixth year of his reign the statute was passed, which declared Henry head of the church of England. After reciting, that “the king's majesty justly, and rightfully, was, and ought to be, supreme head of the church of England; and so had been recognized by the clergy of the kingdom in their convocation, it was enacted, that the king should be reputed the only supreme head, on earth, of the church of England; and should have, and enjoy, annexed to the imperial crown of the realm, as well the style, and title, thereof, as all honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the church appertaining; and should have full power, and authority, to reform, and correct, all manner of errors, heresies, and offences, which might be reformed, and corrected, by any manner of spiritual authority, or jurisdiction”. On the thirteenth of the following January, the king assumed, with great solemnity, his title of supreme head on earth of the church of England.

In a future part of this work, some observations will be offered on the nature of the supremacy conferred on Henry by this act. At present, it only remains to add, that, immediately after the act, establishing his supremacy, was passed, the king issued a proclamation, commanding it to be preached in the most frequented auditories; and taught to little children enjoining farther, that the pope’s name should be erased out of all books;—and that he should be treated no otherwise than as an ordinary bishop. “We have seen”, say the writers of the parliamentary history, “several books, printed before this time, wherein the word pope is entirely obliterated, particularly one in our collection,—Fabian's Chronicle,—in which the name of pope is blotted out by a pen, throughout the volume. It is probable, the book-sellers, durst not sell them, without this alteration”.

 

VIII.

CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ON THE STATUTES REGULATING THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN

 

WE have mentioned each of these statutes,— (25th and 26th of Henry the eighth). The oath, prescribed by the former, was generally taken 5 the title, conferred by the latter, was generally admitted. But the oath respecting the supremacy was refused by cardinal Fisher, Sir Thomas More, and some others. For their refusals they were capitally condemned, and executed.

The most memorable of these victims were Fisher, bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More. Fisher suffered first. In his praise, both Englishmen and foreigners, both the friends and the enemies, of the Reformation are united. Erasmus represents him, as a man of consummate integrity, profound learning; incredible sweetness of temper, and grandeur of soul: “all”, say the authors of the Biographia Britannica, “acknowledge, that he was a sober man; pious, temperate, and charitable, learned, and an encourager of learning”. By his persuasion, the countess of Richmond founded the noble colleges of Christ, and St. John in Cambridge, and the Lady Margaret Professorships in Cambridge and Oxford. He contributed to the expense of building St. John's College, and founded in it two fellowships, a lectureship of Hebrew, a lecture­ship of Greek, four examining readers, and four under-readers, to relieve the principal. He augmented the commons, and presented the college with his library. He was elected chancellor of the University. At first, he was greatly favored by Henry, who called him, “the honor of his nation”, and asked cardinal Pole, on his return from the continent, “whether he had found, in all his travels, a person, either in virtue, or learning, comparable with the bishop of Rochester”. The monarch raised him to that see; and afterwards offered to promote him to the wealthier sees of Lincoln and Ely. But, in conformity to the language and spirit of the canons, Fisher declined the promotion.

He was unluckily implicated in the practices of Elizabeth Barton, commonly called, “the Maid of Kent”. By an appearance of sanctity, and pretended revelations, as well as by the co-operation of some weak, and some designing men, she imposed upon many, and even obtained the esteem of several respectable persons. Among these, were Warham, the archbishop of Canterbury, and Fisher. She declaimed against the king's divorce, and supremacy; and prophesied, that his sins would speedily be visited by the judgment of Heaven. The king caused her and her principal accomplices, to be arrested. They were brought before the star-chamber; confessed their guilt; and suffered for it. An act of attainder was passed against Fisher, and some others, for being acquainted with her practices, and not making them known to the king. To exculpate himself, Fisher addressed a letter to the house of lords, in which, he admitted his having been told by her, that it had been revealed to her by God, that, if Henry persevered in his irreligious measures, he would not, in seven months, be any longer king of England. Fisher seems to acknowledge that he thought favorably of her, and of her revelations; and excuses himself for not having apprised the king of them, in consequence of her assurance, that she herself had already done so and because he understood, that the event, whatsoever it might be, was to be produced, not by any human means, but by the immediate intervention of the Almighty.

Sir Thomas More had casually conversed with her. But he appears to have listened to her with distrust. He wrote her a letter of advice: It was, however, so little favorable to the supposition of her extraordinary sanctity, that, when her advocates endeavored, during the reign of queen Mary, to sanctify the memory of the maid, they thought it advisable to suppress it. On this account, but, not without some difficulty, Sir Thomas More was left out of the bill of attainder and suffered to remain at large.

The confinement of bishop Fisher was rigorous. He was stripped of his clothes; and, to copy the words of Hume, “notwithstanding his extreme age, was allowed nothing but rags, which scarcely covered his nakedness. In this condition, he lay in prison about a twelve month; when the pope, willing to recompense the sufferings of so faithful an adherent, created him cardinal”. This promotion roused the indignation of the king; and he was resolved to display the force of his resentment. Fisher was indicted for denying the king's supremacy ; and, soon after, was tried, condemned, and executed.

Few men, in exalted situations, have been viewed by their contemporaries, or by posterity, with greater reverence, than Sir Thomas More. He was born of respectable parents, and first known to the public, as law-lecturer in Furnival’s Inn; and as a successful practitioner at the bar. It is recorded of him, that, in this employment, “he took no fees of poor folks, widows, or pupils”. He was successively appointed speaker of the house of commons, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, and sent on several embassies. His conduct gained him the approbation and confidence of his sovereign; and the esteem of all, to whom he became known. The king was personally attached to him; and took great delight in his instructive and entertaining society. “Henry”, says Erasmus, in a letter written, about this time, to Ulric von Hutten, “holds More in such intimacy, that he never suffers him to leave him. If he want counsel in serious matters, he has not a better adviser. If he desire to relax his mind, he knows not a more festive companion”. But More was sensible of the little reliance that was to be placed on the regard shown him by the king. One day, the king came unexpectedly to dine with More; and, after dinner, walked, an hour, in the garden, with one arm round his neck. Roper, the son-in-law of More, congratulated him, on this mark of his prince’s affection, and familiarity. “Son”, said More, “I thank our lord; I find his grace my very good lord indeed. I believe he doth as singularly favor me as any subject within this realm. Howbeit, son Roper, I may tell thee, I have no cause to be proud thereof; for, if my head would win him a castle in France, it should not fail to go”.

More foresaw the Reformation, and its effects. Mr. Roper once observed to him the flourishing state of the catholic religion within the realm, under so orthodox a king. “Truth it is, son Roper”, he replied. “And yet, son Roper, I pray God, that some of us, as high as we seem to sit upon the mountains, treading heretics under feet, like ants, live not to see the day, that we would gladly be at league, and composition with them, to let them have their churches quietly to themselves, so that they would be contented to let us have ours quietly to ourselves”.

Upon the fall of Wolsey, the king advanced More to the office of lord high chancellor of England. The duties of this high station he discharged with universal applause. By indefatigable application he cleared the court of all its causes. Having, one day, ended a cause, and called for the next, he was told, that there was no other depending. This he was pleased to hear; and ordered it to be entered on the records of the court. It gave rise to the following epigram,—not the worst in the English language,—

When More some time had chancellor been

No more suits did remain;

The same shall never more be seen

Till More be there again.

His sentiments were known to be unfavorable to the divorce. His rank, and high reputation, both at home and abroad, for talents and integrity, made Henry very desirous, that he should pronounce in its favor. On one occasion, being greatly importuned by him upon the subject, More fell upon his knees; and besought his majesty to remain to him the gracious sovereign he had ever found him. “Nothing”, he said, “had been so grievous to him, as his inability to serve his majesty in that matter, with a safe conscience; having ever borne in mind his majesty’s words, in his entry into his service,—(the most virtuous lesson which a prince ever taught to his servant),—first, to look unto God; and after God, to him. Henry answered, that if More could not conscientiously serve him, in that manner, he was content to accept his services in other ways; and to take the advice of others of his council, whose consciences did not revolt at it; that he would continue his favors towards him; and never more molest his conscience on the matter”

Perceiving, however, that the king was bent on his marriage with Anne Boleyn, More resigned his office. “He descended”, says Mr. Hume, “from his high station, with more joy and alacrity, than he had in ascending it. He sported with the varieties of fortune; and neither the pride of high station, nor the melancholy of retreat, could disturb his serenity. When his friends discovered sorrow on his descent from grandeur, he laughed at their distress and made them ashamed of losing a moment’s cheerfulness from such trivial misfortunes”.

He was one of the greatest promoters of classical learning. The letters, which passed between him and Erasmus, are elegant and interesting; those, in which the latter relates his tragical end, and records his great and amiable virtues, are pathetic and beautiful in the highest degree. As a writer, More’s reputation rests principally on his Utopia,—a description of an imaginary commonwealth. It discovers great observation and acuteness, reprobates sanguinary punishments, and describes a system of religious liberty, which few, even in these days, would venture to propose for practice. In his polemic writings, he conformed too much to the bad taste of the times, expressing himself in regard to heretics, in strong terms of abuse;—but, with so much elegance, that he gained the reputation of having the best knack, of any man in Europe, at calling bad names in good Latin.

He is even accused of having caused corporal punishment to be inflicted on heretics. The truth of this accusation seems to rest entirely on the credit of Fox, the martyrologist,—a writer equally bigoted and credulous. In the 36th chapter of his apology, Sir Thomas peremptorily denies the charge; and solemnly appeals to God for the truth of the denial.

His attachment to the catholic church was sincere. But while, in conformity to its universal doctrine, he defined the church to be “the common known congregation of all Christian nations, under one head, the pope”,—he affirms, “that the council is above the pope; and that there are orders in Christ’s church, by which a pope may be both admonished, and amended; and hath been, for incorrigible mind, and lack of amendment, finally deposed, and changed”.

Nothing is more pleasing than the picture drawn by Erasmus of the domestic circle of Sir Thomas More; of his playfulness, simplicity, and universal beneficence. “More”, says Erasmus, “did not know what a stranger was. Most are kind only to their own countrymen; the Frenchman, to the French; the German, to the Germans; the Scot, to the Scots. With More it was otherwise; the Hibernian, the German, even the Scythian, and the Indian, found More their friend”. His general benignity had endeared More so much to all, that his death was deplored, as that of a father, or a brother. “I, myself”, says Erasmus, “have seen it bewailed with tears by several, who had neither seen, nor had the slightest intercourse with him”.

An account of his trial is published in the second volume of the State Trials. The indictment, on which he was tried, has not been discovered. From his speech on the trial, it appears, that the principal charges against him were, that he had disapproved the king’s second marriage; had denied his spiritual supremacy; had confederated against it, with bishop Fisher; and,—(this was particularly urged against him),—had called the law, by which the supremacy was conferred upon his majesty, a two-edged sword, —as, by consenting to it, he would endanger his soul; and, by rejecting it, lose his life. To prove the three first of these charges, no evidence was produced. On the contrary, it appeared, that, when Rich, the solicitor-general, was sent to him, during his confinement in the Tower, he put this question to More,—“If there was an act of parliament, that the realm should take me for king, would you take me for king?”. “Yes; sir”, replied More, “that would I”.

With respect to the expression, that the law against the supremacy was like a two-edged sword the proof of this rested upon the single testimony of Mr. Rich, who swore, that, in a casual conversation with him, in the Tower, sir Thomas had used this expression. Sir Thomas denied his having used the words, in the sense affixed to them by Mr. Rich; and totally discredited his testimony. Upon this evidence, however, he was found guilty ; and executed.

Never, certainly, was the mind of man less moved by a sentence of condemnation, or by the approach of death. True, under every vicissitude of fortune, to his principles, and sense of duty, the recollection of a well-spent life, and the belief of its approaching reward supported him in those awful moments. Without ostentation or display, he met his fate, with the unpretending firmness and constancy, with which he would have discharged the most ordinary duty.

Many others, both of the clergy, and laity, suffered death, for denying the king's spiritual supremacy. Dodd, in his Church History of England, gives a list of fifty-nine. None attracted so much commiseration as the Carthusians. This Order was singularly respected. John Haughton, the prior of the Charter-house, Robert Lawrence, prior of Belleval, and Augustine Webster, prior of the house of Shene, were sent to the Tower, and, soon afterwards, tried. “But the jury”, says Strype, “had such a reverence for these three fathers, that they deferred their verdict till next day. To whom Cromwell sent to know,—what made them so long? and what they intended to do? They sent this answer back, that they could not bring in such holy fathers guilty, as malefactors”. “Which, when Cromwell heard”, adds Strype, “he sent them word immediately, that, if they found them not guilty, they should suffer the death of malefactors, themselves. But, they still persisting in their former judgment, notwithstanding Cromwell’s threatenings, he came to them himself, and so overawed them with his threats, that they, at length, brought them in guilty of treason. And, five days after, they were executed at Tyburn. Other Carthusians were starved to death in prison. Maurice Chauncey, one of their order, fled beyond seas and published an account of the sufferings of his brethren, under the title of Historia aliquot nostri saeculi Martyrum”. “It is not denied, by any knowing, or moderate protestant”, says Mr. Wood, “but that his name is worthy to be kept in everlasting remembrance”.

When the three priors were led to execution, sir Thomas More beheld them from a window in his own apartment, in the Tower. He called to Margery, his favorite daughter, to observe “the blessed fathers, going”, said he, “as cheerfully to their deaths, as bridegrooms to their marriage; the reward”, he called it, “of their days spent in strait, penitential, and painful life”.

It is remarkable, that the denial of the king's spiritual supremacy was first made a capital offence by an act passed in the twenty-eighth year of his reign. The acts in force, when the individuals mentioned were executed, were those of the 25th and 26th of his majesty; which carried the punishment for the denial of the supremacy no higher than praemunire, and misprision of treason. Thus, even in those cases, where the offence was proved by legal evidence,—(and such cases were, certainly, very few),—the offenders were sentenced to a punishment, which the law did not inflict.

 

IX.

MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS.

 

THE dissolution of monastic establishments, within the realm, is one of the most important events in the history of the Reformation of England. An attempt will be made, in this chapter, to present the reader with some account, of the origin of the monastic institution; and its principal orders,— 1st. the Benedictines; 2d. the Canons Regular of St. Augustine; 3d. the Mendicant Orders; 4th. the corresponding orders of Nuns; 5th. and the Military Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem; of the advantages derived from the monastic institution; 1st. by the state; 2d. by the persons, by whom their lands were given; 3d. by the general body of the public, from their hospitality; 4th. from their support of the poor; 5th. from their being general seminaries for the education of the youth of both sexes; 6th. from their agricultural labors; 7th, from their encouragement of architecture, sculpture, and other arts; 8th. from their cultivation of sacred and profane literature; 9th. and from their care in preserving and transmitting to us the sacred word of God.

The monastic state originated in the east. Towards the middle of the fourth century, St. Anthony, after having spent many years in perfect solitude, in a desert, in Upper Egypt, permitted a numerous body of men to live in community with him, and lead, under his direction, a life of piety, and manual labor, sanctified by prayer. St. Pachomius was the first, who composed a written rule for the conduct of the monks.

About two hundred years after this, St. Benedict, an Italian monk, framed his religious rule for the government of a convent at Mount Casino, between Rome and Naples, over which himself presided. He adopted the whole of the spirit, and most of the observances, of the rule of St. Pachomius. In consequence of the general devastation, and confusion, occasioned in Italy by the Lombards, in Spain by the Saracens; in France by the wars among the descendants of Charlemagne; and in England by the irruption of the Danes, the Benedictine monks fell from their original fervor into great disorder. But, towards the middle of the eleventh century, several eminent members of the order arose; and endeavored to restore it to its ancient purity. While each added some new statute, or custom, to the original rule, each became the founder of a congregation, or secondary order, adhering, in essentials, to the order of St. Benedict, but differing from it in particular observances. Such were the Carthusians, Celestines and Premonstratenses.

The Canons Regular of St. Augustine derive their origin from certain respectable ecclesiastics, who, in the eighth century, formed themselves into a kind of middle order, between the monks and the secular clergy. They adopted so much of the monastic discipline, as to have in common, the church, and the table, and to assemble at stated hours, for the divine service. But they made no vows; and often discharged the functions of the ministry in churches, committed to their care. Thus, they rendered essential service to religion. By degrees, they too degenerated: But, in the twelfth century, a considerable reformation was introduced among them, under the auspices of pope Nicholas the second. Some, carrying the reformation further, renounced their worldly possessions, and all private property; and lived in a manner, resembling the austerity and discipline, of a monastic life. This gave rise to the distinction between the secular and regular canons.

For many centuries, the Benedictines, the congregations, which emanated from them, and the canons of St. Augustine, constituted the only monastic orders of the west. In the thirteenth century, the Mendicant Orders arose. These were the Franciscan and Dominican friars, the Carmelites, and the Hermits of St. Augustine.

The Franciscan friars were founded by St. Francis, the son of a merchant of Assissium, in the province of Umbria. They were divided into Conventuals, who admitted some mitigations into their practice of their rule; and Observantines, who practiced a stricter observance of it.

The Dominican friars were founded by St. Dominic. He adopted the rule of St. Francis for the groundwork of his institute, but, introduced into it so many alterations, as made it, almost, a new order.

The Carmelites professed to derive their origin from hermits, who, from the time of Elias to the time of Christ and the apostles, and thence, by a regular succession, till the irruptions of the Saracens, inhabited Mount Carmel.

The Hermits of St. Augustine derived their institute from a bull of Alexander the Fourth. This pontiff collected several hermits into one order, to which he gave the above appellation, and prescribed a rule for their government. At first, those orders only were considered to be mendicant, which had no fixed income; but derived their whole subsistence from casual and uncertain bounty. Experience soon discovered, that many spiritual as well as many temporal evils attended mendicity. In consequence of it, some of the Franciscan establishments, and almost all the establishments of the three other orders, began to acquire permanent property. This, the church first permitted; and afterwards countenanced. The council of Trent confined mendicity to the Observantine Friars.

It remains to add, that convents of nuns were founded; whose institutes corresponded with those of the religious orders and congregations, which have been noticed; and with some also of the principal reforms.

The only military order, in England, at the time of the Reformation, was that of St. John of Jerusalem. It was divided into three classes;—the nobles, who followed the profession of arms, for the defence of the faith against the followers of Mahomet, and for the protection of pilgrims;—the ecclesiastics, who exercised their religious functions for the benefit of the order;—and the lay-brothers, whose duty it was to take care of the pilgrims, and of the sick. After the loss of the Holy Land, they successively retired to Cyprus, to Rhodes, and to Malta, from the last of which places they received the appellation of Knights of Malta.

The Knights Templars once flourished in England; and were instituted, for the same purposes as the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem. Some account of their suppression will be given in a subsequent part of this work.

The language, which is employed, in describing the characters and manners of the regular clergy, is generally such, as might induce a reader to suppose that they were altogether useless, and a heavy burthen on the public: but, the case was far otherwise.

To every public imposition of the state, both the secular, and the regular, clergy contributed, at least their proportionate share; while, in addition to these, subsidies, not required from the laity, were sometimes, under the name of benevolences, exacted from them. Most of their lands were held by the tenure of knight's-service; and were, therefore, liable to pecuniary contributions, for the ransom of the lord, for making his eldest son a knight, and for portioning his daughters, and to the obligation of finding a certain number of soldiers, to serve in the field, at the charge of the monastery.

The individuals, again, from whose benevolence they had acquired their possessions, and the heirs of these individuals, received back from them some return of that bounty. They had the privilege of quartering a certain number of poor servants, on the religious houses which they had founded: or, in later times, of claiming from them annual pensions for their servants, as commutations for their corodies.

The public was essentially benefited by their duty of hospitality. This obliged the monasteries to receive and entertain their benefactors, and their heirs, and all their followers. So that, to use Mr. Collier's expression, “the monasteries were like houses of public entertainment for the gentry that travelled”. In the present state of society, the practice of this hospitality appears in the light of a festivity; but, in the times, of which we are speaking, it was always considered, as a serious duty, imposing, more than is now imagined, a very heavy, and a very unpleasing obligation.

We must add, that the convents maintained the poor; there being, in these times, no national provision for them.

On such a subject, it is impossible to form even a plausible calculation; but it is obvious that a considerable proportion,—(can it be exaggeration to say one third?),—of monastic property, returned, in the way of direct payment or expenditure, to the public; or to the representatives of their benefactors.

That, in those times, the monasteries were the best schools of education, is a point, now universally admitted. History scarcely mentions a person of either sex, without mentioning, at the same time, the monastery in which that individual was educated. Neither was this education confined to the nobles, or to the wealthy. The children of their tenants; and the very poorest of the poor, were there instructed in religion, and morality. A school was as regular an appendage to a monastery, as a chapel.

But, what was the religion, what the morality, that was taught in them?

If we credit Dr. Robertson, “Instead of aspiring to sanctity and virtue, which alone can render men acceptable to the great Author of order and excellence, they imagined, that they satisfied every obligation of duty, by a scrupulous observance of external ceremonies. Religion, according to their conception of it, comprehended nothing else; and the rites, by which they persuaded themselves, that they could gain the favor of Heaven, were of such a nature as might have been expected from the rude ideas of the ages, which devised and introduced them. They were either so unmeaning, as to be altogether unworthy of the Being to whose honor they were consecrated; or so absurd, as to be a disgrace to reason and humanity. All the religious maxims and practices of the dark ages”, continues the royal historiographer, in a note to this passage, “are a proof of this. I shall produce one remarkable testimony, in confirmation of it, from an author canonized by the church of Rome, St. Eloy, or Eligius, bishop of Noyon, in the seventh century.' He is a good Christian, who comes frequently to church; who presents the oblation, which is offered to God, upon the altar; who doth not taste of the fruits of his own industry, until he has consecrated a part of them to God; who, when the holy festivals shall approach, lives chastely, even with his own wife, during several days, that, with a safe conscience, he may draw near to the altar of God; and who, in the last place, can repeat the creed, and the Lord's prayer. Redeem then your souls from destruction, while you have the means in your power; offer presents, and tithes, to churchmen; come more frequently to church; humbly implore the patronage of the saints, for, if you observe these things, you may come with security, in the day, to the tribunal of the eternal Judge, and say, give to us, O Lord! for we have given unto thee”. The learned, and judicious, translator of Dr. Mosheim's ecclesiastical history, from one of whose additional notes, I have borrowed this passage, subjoins a very proper reflection; “We see here a large, and ample, description of a good Christian, in which there is not the least mention of the love of God, resignation to his will, obedience to his laws, or of justice, benevolence, and charity, towards men”.

A charge, expressed in more direct, or stronger terms against the clergy of the middle ages, for teaching a false and depraved system of morality, cannot be imagined. What, then, must be the surprise of the reader, when, from the perusal of the following passage, in Mr. Lingard’s learned and elegant Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, he finds the whole to be an absolute misrepresentation? “From that period”, says Mr. Lingard,—referring to the publication of Dr. Robertson’s History, “this citation from the writings of St. Eloy, or St. Eligius, has held a very distinguished place, in every invective, which has been published against the clergy of former ages: and the definition of the good Christian has been re-echoed a thousand times by the credulity of writers, and their readers. May I hope to escape the imputation of skepticism, when I own, that I have always been inclined to mistrust this host of witnesses, and their quotations? I, at last, resolved to consult the original document; nor were my expectations disappointed. I discovered, that the bishop of Noyon had been foully calumniated; and that, instead of his real doctrine, a garbled extract had been presented to the public. That the good Christian should pay the dues of the church, he indeed requires: but, he also requires, that he should cultivate peace among his neighbors; forgive his enemies; love all mankind as himself, observe the precepts of the Decalogue; and faithfully comply with the engagements, which he contracted at his baptism”." We insert the text of the bishop in a note; the following is Mr. Lingard's translation of it: “It does not, therefore, most dear Christians, suffice to you, that you have received the Christian name, unless you do Christian works. For, to him, it avails to be called a Christian, who always keeps in his mind the precepts of Christ and fulfils them by his works. Such is he, who does not steal; who does not bear false witness; who does not lie, or forswear, who does not commit adultery, who hateth no one, but loveth all, as himself, who does not return evil to his enemies, but rather prayeth for them; who does not raise quarrels, but recals quarrellers to peace”. “On account of its similarity”, continues Mr. Lingard, “I shall subjoin another description of the good Christian from an Anglo-Saxon prelate, Wulstan, archbishop of York: Let us always profess one true faith; and love God with all our mind and might; and carefully keep all his commandments, and give to God that part, (of our substance), which by his grace, we are able to give; and earnestly avoid all evil; and act righteously to all others, that is, behave to others, as we wish others to behave to us. He is a good Christian, who observeth this”.

Such was the doctrine taught in the monasteries. May it not be confidently asked, whether it be not the morality of the gospel? whether any purer lessons of morality, can be cited? and whether, the institutions, which taught it,—and without which it might not have been taught,—were not, with all the imperfections, justly, or unjustly, imputed to them, eminently useful to the community?

It may moreover, be confidently asserted, that agriculture has not had better friends than the monks. To the truth of this assertion our own country bears the most ample testimony. That the monks were most indulgent landlords; that their tenants prospered under them; and that, at the time of the dissolution of monasteries, the lands belonging to them, were in the highest state of cultivation, which was known at that time, is admitted. Generally speaking, the lands, bestowed upon them, were the refuse of the soil, when they received them. It was by the unceasing and regular toil of centuries, that they brought them to the state, in which they were found at the dissolution. No one can turn over the pages of Dugdale's History of Embankment, without being sensible of the magnitude of their labors, in gaining land from the sea; and in rendering the fen, the morass, and the marsh, both profitable and habitable.

Add to this, that the pious inmates of a monastery, regularly spent almost the whole of their income in its neighborhood. This attracted the laborer, the artisan, and the manufacturer. It seldom happened that a village did not rise, or that a village did not become a town, in any place where a convent flourished.

It is unnecessary to repeat, what has been said in a former page, respecting their encouragement of architecture, sculpture, and the other arts. No intelligent eye can survey any one of the many cathedral churches, which still ornament this island, without being struck with the skill, which was required to raise it and feel how greatly its erection must have contributed to the advancement of art and science, how many poor it must have clothed and fed; how much labor it employed, how much talent it called into action; and how greatly all this must have tended to humanize the boisterous spirit of the times, to dispel ignorance, and to introduce the arts, the habits, and the blessings of peace and industry? It is difficult to imagine an institution, which the spirit of the times would have endured, that was likely to promote, in a greater degree, peaceful and useful occupations,— the great desideratum of the middle ages.

Permit the writer to add:—For several years, the greatest geniuses of this country have employed their talents on the subject of political economy. Their grand discovery appears to be, that nothing contributes so greatly to the wealth, or strength of the nation, as the celibacy of those, who have not the means of providing for the offspring of their marriages. Now, of such persons, monasteries were, and of such they are still, principally composed. Therefore, if the above axiom be founded in truth, it never can apply so well, as in times, when, comparatively speaking, there was so little employment for industry, and consequently, when there existed so few ways, by which a poor man could provide for his family.

That learning was cultivated in the monasteries, is a truth which all candid writers acknowledge and which everyone must own, who has perused with attention and impartiality, the tenth chapter of Mr. Lingard's Antiquities of the Saxon Church—or even the 4th chapter of the third book of Dr. Henry's learned History of Britain. “I am sensible” says Gerardus Tychsen, professor of philosophy, and oriental literature in the united universities of Butzow and Rostock, that, “it is the general opinion, that the study of the fine arts was buried during the middle ages. It is, however, certain, that, while literature was crushed everywhere else, she found a refuge in monasteries”. “There was not one religious person at Woolstrope”, says Mr. Strype, “but that he could, and did, use, either embrothering, writing books with very fair hand, making their own garments, carving, painting, or grafting”. The transcription of useful works considered by the monks to be a useful and a meritorious employment. “To transcribe works”, says the pious Thomas a Kempis, “which Jesus Christ loves, by which the knowledge of him is diffused, his precepts taught, and the practice of them inculcated, is a most useful employment. If he shall not lose his reward, who gives a cup of cold water to his thirsty neighbor, what will not be the reward of those, who, by putting good works into the hands of their neighbors, open to them the fountains of eternal life? Blessed be the hand of such transcribers! Which of the writings of our ancestors would now be remembered, if there had been no pious hand to transcribe them!”. It may be added that Thomas a Kempis was himself an excellent copyist: some of his transcriptions, among them a Latin bible in four large volumes, still remain, and show his eminence in caligraphy.

To proceed,—For almost all that has been preserved to us of the writers of Greece, or Rome; for all that we know of the languages of those invaluable writers, for all the principal monuments of our holy religion, even for the sacred writings themselves, which contain the word of God; as well as for the traditions of the wise and good, respecting it, for all these benefits and blessings, we are almost wholly indebted, under Providence, to the monks of the middle ages. Their merit was their own: all the ignorance, or the bad taste, which is justly imputable to them, was owing to the general ruin and devastation occasioned by the inroads and conquests, of the barbarians; and to the unceasing wars of the barons. But justice, surely, claims our gratitude to these venerable communities, who strove against the barbarism of the times; and who preserved for us all the precious remains of sacred, or profane antiquity, that have reached us all that we know of our own history, and almost all the historical records that we possess.

Far be it from the writer to deny due praise to the biblical exertions of modern times: But it ought not to be forgotten, that these holy men were the principal instruments employed by divine Providence in preserving the sacred volumes which compose the bible. We have the names of seven English monks, who translated the scriptures, or some parts of them, into the English language. The venerable Bede expired while dictating a translation of the gospel of St. John. It has been invidiously observed, that in these times copies of the bible were few. Perhaps the scarcity has been exaggerated. But, that there should have been a scarcity is not surprising. Copies were then only procured by the slow labor of transcription: they were not, as now, instantaneously multiplied by the simultaneous operations of innumerable presses. The transcription of a whole bible must have employed several months; and would, it is supposed, have cost upwards of fifty pounds. Taking this into account, and considering how few among the laity, even in the higher ranks of life, could then read;—considering also the destruction of all monuments of antiquity at the time of the Reformation, we shall rather be surprised at the number, than scandalized at the scarcity, of the ascertained manuscripts of the sacred volume.

Such, then, were the advantages, derived by the public, and by individuals, from monastic establishments. “The world”, says a writer, speaking of the Benedictine monks, “has never been so deeply indebted to any other body of men as to this illustrious order; but historians, when relating the evil, of which they were the occasion, have too frequently forgotten the good, which they produced. Even the commonest readers are familiar with the arch-miracle-monger, St. Dunstan; while the most learned of our countrymen scarcely remember the names of those admirable men, who went forth from England, and became the apostles of the north. Tinian, and Juan Fernandez, are not more beautiful spots on the ocean, than Malmesbury, and Lindisfarne, and Jarrow, in the ages of our heptarchy. A community of pious men, devoted to literature, and to the useful arts, as well as to religion, seems, in those ages, like a green oasis amid the desert. Like stars in a moonless night, they shine upon us, with a tranquil ray. If ever there was a man, who could truly be called venerable, it is he, to whom that appellation is constantly affixed, Bede, whose life was passed in instructing his own generation, and preparing records for posterity. In those days, the church offered the only asylum from the evils, to which every country was exposed; amidst continual wars, the church enjoyed peace: it was regarded as a sacred realm, by men, who, though they hated each other believed, and feared, the same God. Abused, as it was, by the worldly-minded, and ambitious, and disgraced by the artifices of the designing, and the follies of the fanatic, it afforded a shelter to those who were better than the world, in their youth; or weary of it in their age; the wise, as well as the timid and the gentle, fled to this Goshen of God, which enjoyed its own light, and calm, amid darkness and storms”. This just and generous tribute of gratitude, and respect, should be inscribed on every ruin, which still exists, of these venerable establishments.

 

X.

THE DISSOLUTION OF MONASTERIES.

1540.

 

Two Events, the suppression of the order of the Knights Templars, and the suppression of the Alien Priories, preceded, and, in some measure, prepared the public mind in England for the general dissolution of all the monasteries in the realm. Succinct historical minutes of each of these events, may, therefore, be acceptable to the reader. An account will follow, of the license granted by the pope to cardinal Wolsey, to dissolve some of the smaller monasteries, of the dissolution of the remaining smaller monasteries, and of the subsequent dissolution of the greater.

It has been mentioned, that the Knights Templars were one of the military orders, established in the church, for the defence of the faith in the east, against the Saracens; and for the protection of the pilgrims, who resorted to the Holy Land. They took their name from a monastery in Jerusalem, given to them by Baldwin, the second king of that city, after its conquest, in the first Crusade. The order was founded in 1118. It was divided into three classes:—To the nobles, was assigned the profession of arms, for the purposes just expressed: the ecclesiastics were appointed to exercise their religious functions, for the benefit of the order: the lay-brothers had the care of the pilgrims and the sick. For several years, the members of the order were distinguished equally for their piety and their valor. St. Bernard composed a panegyric on them in which language seems to sink under him, while he celebrates their virtues. But insensibly their fervor decayed; and luxury found its way among them. This led to the dissolution of the order. The best view of it is given in the Monuments historiques relatif à la condemnation des Chevaliers du Temple, et à l’abolition de leur ordre; par M. Renouard, member de l’institut imperial de France et de la legion d'honneur. This work makes it highly probable, not only, that some laxity of morals prevailed in the order, but that there were also some associations in it, among which the disbelief of Christianity was avowed, and was expressed by grotesque and obscene rites. It however shows equally, that neither this infidelity, nor these infidel practices, were general; and, that the credit of the charges brought against the order is fundamentally shaken, by the very means, which were used to prove its guilt.

On the 13th of October, 1307, the grand master, and every Knight Templar, in France, were arrested, imprisoned, and put in irons. A bare sustenance was allowed them. They were refused counsel; the visit of their friends was interdicted. Life, liberty, and reward were offered to those, whose confessions would charge the order with guilt; and, as an inducement to such confessions, a forged one, by the grand master, of its general guilt, was produced.

The individuals, who denied the charge, were delivered to the most horrid tortures. The most common of these was the torture of the pulley. The hands of the sufferer were tied behind him; enormous weights fixed to his feet; and the cord, which tied his hands, was brought over a pulley. On a signal, he was suddenly drawn up; then, suddenly let fall, to a distance of some feet from the ground. His whole frame was dislocated by the sudden shock; and, in this state, he long remained suspended. The fire, was a still more severe infliction. The sufferer was made to be upon his back, with his body fastened to the ground. Then, the soles of his feet were anointed with an unctuous matter; and exposed to the fire. The feet of others were inserted in an iron shoe, which was gradually compressed, until every bone was broken. The legs of others were screwed into iron boots filled with quick lime. That such proceedings should produce several confessions, cannot excite surprise.

In other kingdoms, proceedings were instituted against the order: but they were conducted with much greater form, and with more humanity. The consequence was, that, in those kingdoms, the knights were either honorably acquitted; or only partially condemned. This circumstance detracts also from the authority of the proceedings of the French tribunals.

At the earnest instance of the French monarch, pope Clement V caused a general council to be assembled at Vienne, in Dauphiné, the knights were solemnly cited to it to defend the order. Nine of them appeared; and were immediately ordered to be imprisoned, and put in irons. At this unjustifiable proceeding, the fathers of the council expressed great indignation.

It is generally supposed, that the order was abolished by the council; but this is a mistake. The pope assembled the cardinals, and several prelates, in a secret consistory; and there, abolished the order by his own authority. At the second sessions of the council he published the decree of abolition. The members present heard it, (it cannot be said they accepted it), in solemn silence. Four days afterwards, the pope, in his bull, Considerantes dudum, announced, that the charges against the order were sufficiently proved, to render them strongly suspected; but, not sufficiently proved, to authorize a judicial sentence. For this reason, he professed to have abstained from a definitive sentence; and only passed a provisional condemnation. It is observable, that Clement XIV in his bull for suppressing the order of the Jesuits, adverts to the above circumstance; and expressly says, that “the general council of Vienne, to whose examination the pope had committed the business, advised him to adopt this provisional mode of proceeding”.

Combining all these circumstances, it seems impossible not to acquit the Templars from the general guilt imputed to their body. If some members were chargeable with irreligion, their number was not great; if some irreligious associations were formed, these must have been exceedingly few. They seem to have been merely meetings of sensuality. It is evident, at least, that nothing of the metaphysical speculations of atheism entered into them.

The last act of the tragedy was the burning of the grand master, Jacques de Molay. He was of an illustrious house in Burgundy and, at the time, when the storm burst on the order, was carrying on with great valor, a war, in the island of Cyprus, against the Turks. By the command of the pope, he quitted it, and, attended by sixty of his knights, all of noble birth, repaired to Paris. Immediately on their arrival, they were cast into prison. The grand master was cruelly tortured. Subdued by the violence of the torments, he confessed the general guilt of the order. He was then remanded to prison, and continued in it during six years. On the 18th March, 1313, he was summoned, with three chief dignitaries of the order, before the three commissaries of the cause; and required to acknowledge his guilt. Turning his face to the assembled multitude, “It is most just”, he said aloud, “that, on this horrible day, and, in these last moments of my life, I should proclaim the iniquity of falsehood; and make virtue triumph. I therefore acknowledge, before heaven and earth, that I have been guilty of the greatest crime. But, it was, when I confessed the truth of the charges made against the order. I now attest its innocence. The love of truth obliges me to declare it. I asserted the contrary, merely to suspend the excessive tortures inflicted on me; and to soften the hearts of those, who inflicted them. I am aware of the torments, which have been inflicted on those who have had the courage to retract their confessions: but, this dreadful spectacle is not sufficient to make me confirm a first lie by a second. Rather than comply with so infamous a condition, I renounce life”.

A knight, who attended him, made a similar declaration. A council of state was immediately assembled by order of the king who condemned both o perish by a slow fire. They were, accordingly, fastened to an iron stake; and a small fire was lighted under them. In this horrible situation they long continued,—protesting their innocence to the last.

Some readers may, perhaps, acquit the Templars wholly of the charges imputed to them. This, perhaps, is going too far: yet it should not be forgotten, that the evidence against them arises, altogether, from the depositions taken before commissioners appointed by their enemies, and extorted from the witnesses by hopes, intimidation, and torture, while every method was used to mislead the judgment; to inflame the imagination, and to rouse the passions of the public against them. If, from such materials, and under such circumstances, arguments, so powerfully vindicating their innocence, have been collected, how would the case have stood, had they been allowed to make their own statements; to urge their own defence; and to expose, in their own manner, the artifices and cruelty, of their adversaries?

The Alien Priories may be considered as filiations from the foreign abbeys. Some of them depended entirely upon their foreign parents, receiving from them their priors and remitting to them all that remained of their income after supplying the necessary wants of the community. The dependence of the others was almost nominal.

They elected their own priors, and were absolute proprietors of their own estates. The former had long been the objects of the jealousy of the English government, on account of their sending out of the country a large proportion of the revenues. In the fourth year of Henry V, when he was at war with France, an act was passed by which all the alien priories were suppressed, and their estates vested in the crown.

To the attacks, which were made upon monasteries by Henry the eighth, Wolsey preluded, by the license, which, in 1525, he obtained from the pope, to dissolve several of the smaller communities. The pope had attached to this license a condition, that no monastery should be dissolved without the previous consent of the king, and its founders. The consent of the king was readily obtained. What arrangements were made with the founders, or their representatives, does not appear. The suppressed houses, and their possessions, became the property of Henry. He conferred them, by new grants, on the cardinal who annexed some of them to the college at Oxford; and others, to the college at Ipswich, which he had founded. The former is called Christ Church; the latter, immediately after the decease of the cardinal, was neglected, and fell to ruin.

Henry determined on the general dissolution of all the monasteries within his realm, soon after he had assumed the title of supreme head of the church. His first attack was leveled at the smaller, institutions, or those, whose yearly income did not exceed two hundred pounds. With this view, he appointed Thomas Cromwell,—(who, from a very low situation, had raised himself by his talents, to the rank of secretary of state),—to be his vicar-general, and vicegerent; with authority to visit all ecclesiastical persons, and communities, within his dominions; to rectify and correct all abuses; and, generally to do everything that the king could do, as supreme head of the church. Henry also authorized him to delegate to others, any portion of the authority thus conferred upon him. Cromwell, accordingly, signed several commissions, authorizing the persons named in them to visit all churches, monasteries, and priories, both of men, and women; and to inquire into the conduct of archbishops, bishops, and other dignitaries as well as into the conduct of all superiors of religious houses, both in spirituals, and temporals; with directions to make their reports to him on all these circumstances. The visitors,—probably, in conformity to the injunctions given to them by Cromwell,—abstained from interfering with the secular clergy: but made a general visitation of all the religious houses. With some exceptions, the report was, in the highest degree, unfavorable to them. The smaller monasteries were said to be the most irregular. The king, already determined on their destruction, dissolved, by an act of the thirty-seventh year of his reign, all the houses of monks, canons and nuns, which had not above two hundred pounds yearly revenue; and which did not contain more than twelve members; vesting, at the same time, in himself, all their real and personal property. The number of houses, dissolved by this act, was three hundred and seventy-six. Their annual revenue was computed at thirty-two thousand pounds, their personal effects, at one hundred thousand pounds.

Is 1537, the king ordered a visitation to be made of the remaining, or greater houses. The commissioners were directed to inquire into the practices, by which the religious, as it was alleged, had deceived the people; and nourished superstition, to enrich themselves.

Many of the monks were so much alarmed at the report of this visitation, that they surrendered their houses, and possessions to the king, without waiting the arrival of the visitors. “The chief employment of the visitors, in this, and the two following years”, says Doctor Henry, “seems to have been settling the surrenders of the monasteries, and the pensions of the abbots, priors, and monks; making surveys of their estates; taking possession of their relics, jewels, and plate, which in some houses was of great value: selling their furniture, pulling down their churches, and such of their other buildings, as were only suited, and useful, to monastics; disposing of their bells, lead, and other materials. It is incredible how many magnificent churches, cloisters, libraries, and other buildings, which had been erected at an immense expense of money and labor, were un-roofed and ruined in the short space of three or four years. To this dreadful havoc, Henry, and his courtiers were prompted, partly by their avarice, and partly to prevent the re-establishment of monasteries. To finish this great affair a parliament was called, which met at Westminster, April 28th, in the year 1540. On the 13th of May, a bill was brought into the house, for granting to the king, his heirs, and successors, all the houses, lands, and goods, of all the abbeys, priories, nunneries, chantries, hospitals, and religious houses, that had been already surrendered, or suppressed; or that should there-after be surrendered, or suppressed. The bill passed both houses, with much less opposition than might be expected and, in consequence of it, all the possessions of six hundred and forty-five convents, ninety colleges, two thousand three hundred and seventy-four chantries, and free chapels; and one hundred and ten hospitals, were annexed to the crown. The yearly rent of their lands was estimated at one hundred and sixty thousand pounds. The jewels, plate, furniture, and other goods, must have amounted to a prodigious sum, of which no computation can now be made”.

A very small proportion only of the property of the convents was appropriated to the service of the public. The whole was soon distributed by the monarch, with a prodigal hand, among his courtiers. The best account of this extraordinary event, which has come to the hands of the writer, is given in Mr. Collier's Ecclesiastical History. He sheds a generous tear over the sufferers; and, while he admits the criminality of some individuals, and the disorders of some houses, he honorably and successfully advocates the general integrity of the body.

In the opinion of the writer of these pages, the report of the commissioners is wholly unworthy of credit. We have seen, how little attention to truth, and how gross a violation of justice, were shown, even in the proceedings of the parliament, and in the highest courts of justice, against the most exalted and distinguished personages, whom the king wished to oppress; and whom all, except the king, wished to save. How much less, then, must naturally have been the attention paid, either to truth or justice, where monks and nuns were to be persecuted? Where obscure individuals were appointed to report upon their conduct; where the king was determinately bent upon their ruin; where his courtiers were indifferent to their fate; and where plunder of them was the general aim;—the immediate expectation of many, and the sanguine hope of almost all!

The loss, which learning sustained by the destruction of books and manuscripts, was great. Bale, a man remarkably hostile to the Roman-catholic religion, and to monastic institutions, says that “a number of them, which purchased these superstitious mansions, reserved of those library books, some to form their jakes; some to scour their candlesticks and some, to rub their boots. And some, they sold to grocers, and soap-sellers; and some they sent over the sea to the book-binders, not in small numbers, but at times in ships. I know a merchant, (who shall, at this time, be nameless), that bought the contents of two noble libraries, for forty shillings price. A shame it is to be spoken. This stuff has been occupied instead of grey paper. I judge this to be true, and utter it with heaviness, that neither the Britains, under the Romans and Saxons; nor yet the English people under the Danes and Nor mans, had ever such damage of their learned monuments, as we have, in this our time. Our posterity may well curse the wicked fall of our age; this unreasonable sport of England’s most noble antiquities”.

 

XI.

POPE PAUL THE THIRD EXCOMMUNICATES HENRY THE EIGHTH.

 

IT has been related, that, when Clement the Seventh pronounced his sentence for the validity of Henry’s marriage with Katherine of Aragon, it was accompanied with a threat of excommunication, in case he refused to adhere to the marriage. “But the pope lived not”, says Echard, “to execute any censures against the king. So that, instead of the matter's being past reconciliation, there was only a sentence, annulling what the arch-bishop of Canterbury had done”. Moderate men, therefore, still hoped, that an amicable adjustment between the parties might yet be effected.

Clement the seventh died about six months after he had pronounced the sentence on the divorce. He was succeeded by Paul the Third, of the illustrious family of Farnese; and the hopes of a satisfactory arrangement between the monarch and the see of Rome were increased by his elevation; as, when cardinal, he had favored the cause of Henry. But they vanished on the execution of bishop Fisher. Soon after the news of this event had reached Rome, the pope issued a bull, by which he cited Henry to appear before him within ninety days; failing which, he declared the monarch excommunicated, and laid the whole kingdom under an interdict. Whatever a catholic may think of the prudence of the excommunication, he must admit, thus far, that a right to excommunicate a member of the catholic church, be he sovereign, or be he subject, belongs to the pope. But, unfortunately, the pontiff did not confine himself to excommunication. By an assumption of authority, of which, subsequently to the elevation of Gregory the Seventh, the papal history affords but too many examples, he deprived Henry of his crown; dissolved all leagues of catholic princes with him; gave away his kingdom to any invader; commanded his nobility to take up arms against him; freed his subjects from all oaths of allegiance; cut off their commerce with foreign states; and declared it lawful for anyone to seize them, to make slaves of their persons, and to convert their effects to their own use.

It remains to add, that the pope withheld the publication of the bull till the act of parliament for the dissolution of the greater monasteries had passed, and was carried into execution. Then, by another bull, he confirmed, and established, the former. A full account of each of these bulls is given by Dodd, in his Church History of England.

The separation from the church was now consummated. May the writer be permitted to suggest, that, amid the various causes of this great calamity, not any, perhaps, had greater influence, than the mistaken notions, entertained on both sides, respecting the nature of spiritual, and temporal power. When the pope assumed the temporal, and the king assumed the spiritual, each was equally in the wrong. If, by a happy anticipation, a Bossuet had arisen, and explained to the pope, that he had no right to legislate in temporal concerns, or to enforce his spiritual legislation by temporal power, and to the monarch, that he had no right to legislate in spiritual concerns, or to enforce his temporal legislation by spiritual power, it is possible, that the schism might have been avoided; and a moderate scheme of reformation adopted, which would have satisfied the wise, and the good, of both parties. 

 

XII.

ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS IN THE REIGN OF HENRY.

 

TO give the reader a notion of the religious alterations introduced into England by Henry, and his successors, it seems proper to state, succinctly, the different religious systems of the primitive Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, and Anabaptists; a summary account of the ecclesiastical regulations, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, respecting the general reading of the bible in the English language, by the laity; his guidance of the faith, and devotions of his subjects; his persecutions; and his death.

The tenets of the Lutherans are accurately, and fully, expressed, in the confession of Augsburg: a solemn formulary of faith, presented, in 1530, by the Lutheran princes of Germany to the emperor Charles V at a diet, holden in that city. The distinctive articles of the Lutheran creed are,—that, in the sacrament of the eucharist two things are exhibited, and received together—the one, earthly, which is bread and wine; the other, heavenly, which is the body and blood of Christ: That, in Christ, there are two distinct natures, the divine, and the human; and that these remain eternally unconfined, inseparable, and undivided:— That, by baptism God saves us; and works in us, justice, and purgation of our sins; that he who perseveres to the end, in that covenant, and hope, does not perish, but has eternal life;—and that Christ died for all men; and wills that all men should be saved.

In opposition to the Lutheran doctrine on the Eucharist, the Zuinglians maintained, that, in the sacrament, the bread and wine are only signs and symbols of the absent body of Christ so that the Eucharistic rite is merely a pious, and solemn ceremony, instituted or ordained to bring the passion, and the death, of Christ to the remembrance of the faithful. In the doctrines, respecting baptism, the Lutherans and Zuinglians generally agree: With the doctrines, concerning the will of God for the salvation of the whole, or a part only of mankind, the Zuinglians did not meddle.

Calvin maintained, that when the true Christian receives the sacrament of the Eucharist, with a lively faith, he is united indescribably, but yet really, to Jesus Christ incarnate: so that, to him, Jesus Christ is really, though not corporally, present in the sacrament. Thus, when Calvin advocated the reality of the presence, he seemed to hold the language of Luther; When he denied the corporeal presence, he seemed to speak the language of Zwingli. According to Calvin, baptism is not absolutely essential to salvation; and not all, but the elect only obtain by it, the grace of God, and the gifts of faith. Calvin also maintained, without any qualification, that God, from all eternity, predestinated one part of mankind to everlasting happiness; the other, to everlasting misery: and that he was led to make this distinction by no other motive than his own mere pleasure.

On their notions, respecting the use of ceremonies in religion; respecting the gradations of rank in the hierarchy; and respecting the subordination of the ministers of the church to the magistracy, there was a considerable difference of opinion among the first reformers. Much ceremonial, much gradation of rank, much subordination to the magistracy, was allowed by the Lutherans; less, by the Zwinglians; next to none by the Calvinists. In doctrine, and discipline, the Calvinists and the English puritans agreed almost entirely. It is observable, that, though their formularies sound differently, yet the doctrine of Zwingli, that the Eucharist is no more than a solemn rite, has insensibly obtained admission into all the protestant churches.

The Anabaptists were not, at the time of which we are speaking, that peaceable, and respectable community, who are now distinguished by this appellation. They then held, as they hold still, that baptism ought to be administered only to those who have attained to years of understanding; and that then, it should be performed by immersion—harmless doctrine, so far as civil society is interested. But, they were accused, and not without foundation,—of teaching, that all things ought to be in common among the faithful, that taking interest for the loan of money, tithes, and tribute, ought to be entirely abolished; that, in the kingdom of Christ, civil magistrates are absolutely useless; and that God still continues to reveal his will to certain persons, by dreams, and revelations.

Ecclesiastical regulations in the reign of Henry the eighth, respecting the general reading of the Bible, in the English language, by the laity

When Henry assumed the title of head of the church, it was naturally expected that he would have receded much farther, both in doctrine, and discipline, from the see of Rome, than he did, in reality. Respecting the propriety of a farther reformation, his council was much divided. Anne Boleyn, the new queen, Cranmer, who had succeeded Warham in the see of Canterbury, Lord Cromwell, and several other persons of distinction, were warm advocates for it. On the other hand, it was strenuously opposed by the lord chancellor, the duke of Norfolk, and the bishops of Winchester and Rochester. To their opinion, the king was strongly inclined, both from principle and affection. By education he was attached to the catholic church: By his writings in her defence, he had acquired great renown; he was proud of his title of defender of the faith and prouder still of his spiritual supremacy over the church of England. On the other hand, the savage and contemptuous treatment, which he had received from Luther, alienated him from that reformer, and his adherents; while the severe simplicity of the creeds and liturgies, of Zwingli and Calvin, had no attractions for him. Still, he was fond of exercising his spiritual authority; and willingly interfered in the concerns of the church. The chief of his interferences we shall notice. We shall therefore succinctly mention, 1st, his principal proclamations, and legislative enactments, respecting the general reading of the bible by the laity; and 2dly, the most remarkable of his doctrinal regulations.

The new translation of the bible afforded the monarch an early opportunity for the exercise of his spiritual supremacy. It is well known, that, since the troubles, occasioned by the Albigenses, in the 9th and 10th centuries, it has been a point of catholic discipline, to prohibit, to the laity, the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the special leave of their respective pastors. The reformers were anxious that such translations of them should be made, and generally circulated.

There are many Anglo-Saxon versions of different parts both of the Old and the New Testament. Of the translation by archbishop Elfric, we have, of the Old Testament, the Heptateuch, published by Edmund Thwayte at Oxford, in 1699; and, of the New Testament, the Gospels only, published by Matthew Parker, London, 1571. They were reprinted by Franciscus Junius, and Thomas Marshal, at Dordrecht, with the Meso-gothic version, 1665, reprinted at Amsterdam, in 1684. An Anglo-saxon version of the Psalms, evidently translated from the Vulgate, was published by Sir Henry Spelman.

It is generally said, that the most ancient English translation of the bible is that of Wickliffe. This is untrue: “The hole bible was, before Wycliffe's days, by virtuous and learned men, translated into the English tong, and by good and godly people, with devotion and soberness, well and reverently read” - Thomas More. In the preface to Wickliffe's Bible, by Lewis, mention is made of two English translations of part of the bible, still existing in manuscript, and anterior to Wickliffe's. His translation was finished about the year 1367; and revised by one of his followers. Both the original, and the revised translation, are still extant in manuscript: the manuscript copies of the latter are more rare, than those of the former.

In compliance with the wishes of the reformers, William Tyndale, a Welshman, settled at Antwerp, assisted by John Fry, a learned layman, and William Roye, a friar, translated the New Testament from the Greek, into English. In 1526, he published his translation and procured several copies to be conveyed to England. The success it met with induced him to continue his labors. In 1530, he published a translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Numerous editions of the New Testament, and some of the Pentateuch, were printed.

In 1535, Myles Coverdale, an Augustinian friar, published a complete translation, made by himself, of all the Old and New Testament. These translations,—Tyndale's, in particular,—gave offence; and great efforts were made to suppress the copies. Among his assailants, Tyndale had the honor to reckon sir Thomas More. Several propositions, which sir Thomas extracted from the writings of Tyndale, are as opposite to those of the church of England, as they are to those of the church of Rome. “If he is not misreported”, says Collier, "he has failed, both in truth and decency in several material points. In short, his heterodoxies are too visible to reckon him amongst the reformers of the English church”. Coverdale's translation was thought less objectionable than Tyndale's and was, therefore, more favorably received by the public.

At length, the wish to have an authorized version of the Bible was so general, and so strongly expressed, that in 1536 the clergy petitioned the king, that “he would graciously indulge his subjects of the laity with the reading of the Bible, in the English tongue; and have a new translation of it made for that purpose”. Soon after this petition was presented, Cromwell, “the vicegerent of his majesty for and concerning, all the jurisdiction ecclesiastical within his realm”,—(this is the title which he assumed in the instrument in question),—issued his celebrated injunctions to the clergy. By the 9th of these, he ordered, that “every person, or proprietary of any parish church should provide a book of the whole Bible, both in Latin and English; and lay the same in the quire, for every man that would, to loke, and read, thereon and that no man should be discouraged from the reading any part of the Bible, in Latin, or in English”. In consequence of this injunction, a new version of the whole Bible was printed, in 1537. It consisted of the translation of Tyndale, so far as this extended. What Tyndale had left undone, was supplied from the translation of Coverdale. In the title, it was said to be translated by Thomas Mathewe,—a fictitious name. It was printed abroad but, in what place, is not known. The types are certainly German. Amongst bibliographers, it is generally styled “Mathewe's Bible”. A revised edition of it was published, in 1539; which archbishop Cranmer was supposed to have superintended. It is, hence usually called Cranmer's Great Bible.

In May 1540, the king issued a proclamation, requiring curates “to provide themselves with this Bible”. It fixed the price at two shillings, unbound; and directed, that it should not exceed twelve shillings, well bound, and clasped. But his majesty gives the people to understand, that “his allowing them the holy scriptures, in their own mother tongue, was not his duty, but his goodness and liberality, to them”

Other proclamations, of the same import, were issued. But, by the act, passed in the last year of the reign of his majesty, “for the advancement of the true religion”, after reciting in the preamble, that “the people had abused the liberty with which the king had indulged them, of reading the scriptures”, Tyndale's translation is condemned as crafty, false, and untrue; and all the books of the Old and New Testament of that translation, are abolished, and forbidden to be read. Other translations were declared not to be included in the act: but, if there should be found any annotations in them, they were to be cut, or blotted out except summaries of chapters. None, but persons specially appointed by his majesty, were to read them, in any church, or open assembly; but the chancellor, captains of the wars, the king's justices, the recorder of any town, the speaker, and some others, might continue to use them as before. Any noblewoman and gentlewoman might read the Bible privately. Women of lower degree, artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving husbandmen, and laborers, were prohibited from reading the Bible, or New Testament, to themselves, or any other person.

Henry's pastoral solicitude for the spiritual welfare of his subjects was not confined to their reading of the Bible. Formularies also of faith, and some books of devotion, were published by him, or by his direction, for their use. The principal of these are 1, his Primer; 2, his Ten Articles of religious belief: 3, the work called, The Institution of a Christian Man: 4, his Six Articles of religious belief.

The first edition of his Primer is said, in the title-page, to be printed by John Biddle, on the 16th June, 1535. It was published, with the approbation, but without the formal authority, of the king. When, by the act of parliament already mentioned, the reading of the Bible was prohibited to all persons under the rank of gentlemen, the Primer was expressly saved from the prohibition. Abstracting from the circumstance, that it condemns the offering of prayer to angels and saints, its doctrines accord with those of the catholic church.

The innovations in religion occasioning much diversity in the doctrines delivered from the pulpit, his majesty, on the 12th July 1536, sent a circular letter to the bishops, enjoining them to abstain from preaching, until the ensuing Michaelmas. In the meantime he framed Ten Articles of faith; and sent them to the convocation, which was then sitting, at St. Paul's. They were received, with great respect; passed, by an unanimous act, and then signed by his majesty. They run in his name; and were published, by his authority. Baptism, penance, the sacrament of the Eucharist, with the doctrine of transubstantiation, auricular confession, and prayers to the saints, are retained in them. They omit the article of purgatory. The scriptures, and ancient creeds, are made the standards of faith.

The Institution of a Christian Man was published in 1537, by Berthelet. It was recommended, and subscribed, by the two archbishops, nineteen bishops, and the lower house of convocation. It contains an explanation of our Lord's prayer, the creed, the seven sacraments, the decalogue, the ave maria, justification, and purgatory. It is observable, that it maintains, in its fullest extent, the doctrine of passive obedience; and that, in the article of orders, it declares, that, "after the conversion of kings and princes, the bishop had recourse to the assistance of the secular magistrate. This was done to reinforce the jurisdiction of the "church by the civil sanction. For the church has no authority to inflict pecuniary, or corporal punishment”.

In the parliament of the year 1538-9,—the last that was holden in the reign of Henry,—the act passed for abolishing diversity of opinions. After a preamble, it propounds “certain articles concerning Christian religion”. From the number of the articles, and the severity with which the act was carried into execution, several writers have called it, the bloody Statute of the Six Articles.

The six articles are:

1st. That in the sacrament of the altar, after the consecration, there remains no substance of bread and wine; but, under these forms, the natural body and blood of Christ are present.

2dly. That communion of both kinds is not necessary to salvation, to all persons, by the law of God; but that both the body and flesh of Christ are together in each of the kinds.

3dly. That priests may not marry by the law of God.

4thly. That vows of chastity ought to be observed by the law of God.

5thly. That private masses ought to be continued, which, as they are agreeable to God's law, so men receive great benefit from them

6thly. That auricular confession is expedient and necessary, and ought to be retained in the church.

It was, moreover, enacted, that if any person should preach or write against the first article, he should be judged an heretic, burned, without any abjuration, and forfeit his real and personal estate to the king. Those who preached, or disputed against the other articles, were to suffer death, as felons, without benefit of clergy. And those, who, either in word or writing, declared against them, were to be imprisoned, during the king's pleasure; to forfeit their goods and chattels, for the first offence; and suffer death, for the second.

In a former page, a general mention has been made of fifty-nine persons, who received the sentence of death for denying the spiritual supremacy of Henry. The same severity was exercised on those, who denied the doctrine of transubstantiation.

On one occasion, the same cart conveyed three catholics, and three protestants, to execution; the former, for denying the king’s supremacy; the latter for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation. The catholics were hanged, drawn, and quartered, the punishment of treason: The protestants were burned, the punishment of heresy. They all, to the last, persisted in their opinions; and, with their dying breath, forgave their enemies. The execution of the protestants is remarkable, from this circumstance, that several of the council of state, who advised, or consented to the measure, were known to disbelieve the doctrine of transubstantiation; and, in the following reign, concurred in the same sanguinary measures against those who continued to believe it.

Of those, who suffered in the reign of Henry, for the disbelief of transubstantiation, the execution of Lambert was the most remarkable. Being accused of heresy and brought before archbishop Cranmer, for denying the real presence, he appealed to the king, as supreme head of the church of England. The king accordingly ordered him to be tried before himself, in Westminster Hall; and caused letters to be sent to all the prelates, principal nobility, and commoners of England, to attend it. He appeared in great state on the occasion. He sat under a white canopy, arrayed in all the insignia of majesty, and clothed in white garments, emblematic of the purity of faith. The spiritual peers were placed on his right hand; the temporal, on his left. The judges, and most eminent lawyers were placed behind the bishops: The officers of state, and the most distinguished courtiers, were ranged behind the temporal peers.

Lambert acknowledged his disbelief of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament; and, being called upon to defend his opinion, supported it with learning and acuteness. The king replied: “It was a wonder”, Cromwell wrote to Sir Thomas Wyatt, his majesty's ambassador in Germany, “to see, with how much excellent gravity, and inestimable majesty, he exercised there, the very office of supreme head of the church of England! How benignly his grace essayed to convert the miserable man! How strong, and manifest reasons his highness alleged against him! I wish the princes and potentates of Christendom to have had a meet place to have seen it. Undoubtedly, they would have much marveled at his majesty's most high wisdom and judgment, and reputed him otherwise, after the same, than, in a manner, the mirror and light of all other kings and princes in Christendom”. Cranmer, and the other bishops, frequently came to the aid of his majesty: Lambert replied. The trial lasted five hours; at length, quite exhausted, Lambert stood silent: Cromwell, as vicar-general, pronounced sentence upon him, which was executed with uncommon circumstances of cruelty.

Henry finished his reign on the 29th of January 1547. There seems some reason to suppose that, in his latter years, he wished to be reconciled to the see of Rome. By his will, he directed large sums of money to be distributed for prayers for his soul.

Without a clear view of the royal genealogy of England, from the time of the union of the houses of York and Lancaster, in the person of Henry the Eighth, till the reign of James the First, it is impossible to obtain an accurate notion of the events, even in the ecclesiastical history of England, during that period. We shall, therefore, present it to the reader in the form of a Table, simplifying it as much as its complex nature will admit.

The title of Henry the Eighth to the crown was clear and undisputed. In his reign the succession was regulated by several legislative enactments.

1. By an act of the 25th year of his reign, the crown was entailed to his majesty, and to the heirs male of his body, failing these to the lady Elizabeth; who was declared to be the king's eldest issue female, and to the heirs of her body,—(in exclusion of the lady Mary on account of her supposed illegitimacy, in consequence of the divorce of Henry from her mother Katharine of Aragon),—and so on from issue female to issue female, by course of inheritance, according to their age; and failing these to the king’s right heirs.

2.Upon the king’s divorce from Anne Boleyn, the lady Elizabeth was bastardized, and the crown settled on the eldest children of the king by lady Jane Seymour, and his future wives; and failing these, to the persons to whom the king should limit the same by letters patent, or will.

3. But, by a statute of the 35th of his reign, the lady Mary, and lady Elizabeth were legitimated, and the crown limited to prince Edward by name, and the heirs of his body, failing these, to the lady Mary, and the heirs of her body; and failing these, to the lady Elizabeth, and the heirs of her body; and failing issue of both

4. By his will Henry limited the crown, in default of issue of his daughters, to the heirs of the body of lady Frances, the eldest daughter of his sister Mary, and failing such issue, to the heirs of the body of Eleanor, the second daughter of his sister Mary.

5. On the accession of Mary, her title to the throne was recognized by a legislative act; and the same was done on the accession of Elizabeth.

6. On the death of queen Elizabeth, without issue, the line of Henry the eighth became extinct.

 

XIII.

EDWARD THE SIXTH

1547.

 

EDWARD the sixth came to the throne at the age of nine years; he had been educated by doctor Cox, who favored the Reformation. The majority of the bishops, and the chief part of the clergy, were on the side of the catholic religion, or of the old learning, as it was then usually termed. But the majority of the government were favorers of the Reformation, these carried the king with them, and soon obtained the ascendancy.

The principal ecclesiastical occurrences in the reign of Edward the sixth, are:

I. The regulations respecting the election of bishops, and the new admissions of the actual bishops to their sees: 

II. The new visitation:

III. The publication of the Book of Homilies:

IV. The forty-two Articles:

V. The book of Common Prayer:

VI. The further suppression of colleges, hospitals and chantries, and the general destruction of their libraries, and of the articles for sacred or secular use, or ornament, belonging to them:

VII. And the religious persecution which took place during this reign.

 

1.The regulations respecting the election of Bishops, and the new admission of the actual Bishops to their sees.

BY the charter of king John, recognized and con­firmed by his great charter, and by the 25th of Edward the third, stat. 6, sect. 3, the chapters had the free right of electing their prelates. But this statute was virtually repealed by the 25th Henry the eighth, ch. 7, by which the chapters, if they did not elect the person recommended by the king's letters missive, became subject to the penalties of praemunire. In the first year of the reign of Edward the sixth, a new act was passed for the election of bishops. After reciting that the manner of electing bishops by a congé d'elire was but the shadow of an election, it enacted, that, in future, all bishops should be appointed by the king's letters patent only, and should continue the exercise of their jurisdiction during their natural lives, if they should behave well. In the passing of this act, archbishop Cranmer was principally concerned. It was his opinion, that the exercise of all episcopal jurisdiction depended upon the prince. Consistently with this principle, he thought that his own right to exercise the episcopal authority ended with the life of the late king; nor would he act as archbishop till he had received a new commission from Edward the sixth. On the same grounds, most of the other prelates obtained fresh commissions for the exercise of their episcopal authority.

2.The New Visitation.

IMMEDIATELY after the ceremony of the king’s coronation, the regents appointed a royal visitation, and commanded the clergy to preach nowhere, except in their parish churches, without license, till the visitation was concluded. For this purpose they divided the kingdom into six districts, assigning to each, as visitors, two gentlemen, a civilian, a divine, and a registrar. These were directed to proclaim and publish forty-nine injunctions, and to give orders that they should be published, once at least, in every quarter of a year. The spiritual supremacy of the monarch was the leading article, the gospels and epistles were to be read in English, mass and praying for the dead were discontinued: processions, and some ornaments and ceremonies, were set aside. It is observable that, on the death of Francis the first, which happened on the 22nd March 1547, a solemn mass, and funeral service, were sung for him in all the churches in London; the choir of St. Paul's was hung in mourning; Cranmer, the archbishop, with eight other bishops, in their richest habits, sung a mass ad requiem anima: and a sermon was preached by Dr. Ridley, bishop elect of Rochester.

3.The Book of Homilies.

AMONG the injunctions of the visitors there was a direction that they should leave, in every parish, the Book of Homilies. It consisted of twelve discourses upon the principal points of the Christian faith and was directed to be left with every parish priest. The discourses are believed to have been composed by archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Latimer. Bishop Gardiner declined giving them his approbation. A second volume of the Homilies was published in the reign of queen Elizabeth.

4.The Forty-two Articles.

IN the fourth year of the reign of Edward, it was resolved in council to reform, once more, the doctrine of the church. In pursuance of this order, Archbishop Cranmer, and Bishop Ridley, framed forty two articles of Christian doctrine. Copies of them were sent to several bishops, and to other divines, for their consideration. Being returned by them, the articles were approved in council, and had the royal sanction. In the title-page they were styled, "Articles agreed upon by the bishops, and other learned men, in the convocation held at London in the year 1522, for avoiding diversity of opinion, and establishing consent touching true religion, published by the king's authority". But by Cranmer's own admission, in the subsequent reign, it is certain, that these articles never were submitted, either to the parliament or to the convocation. They are, in substance, very nearly the same as the thirty-nine articles.

5.The Book of Common Prayer.

THAT the Jews had set forms of prayer, which they used in their synagogues, has been satisfactorily shown by doctor Lightfoot. That the earliest Christians joined in the use of the Lord's prayer, and of the psalms, appears from several passages in the Acts of the Apostles, and from the apostolic epistles. That, at an early period of Christianity, liturgies were in use, may be justly inferred from those ascribed to St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, "which", says Mr. Wheately, in a work of real learning, his Rational Illustration of the Common Prayer, introduction, p. 13,."are doubtless of high antiquity". In the course of time, there was a variety of liturgies; in England, those of York, Sarum and Bangor, were particularly distinguished. The liturgies of the middle ages consisted generally of the missal and breviary. The former contained the service of the mass; the latter, those forms of prayer, consisting of psalms, hymns and lessons, which the clergy were used to recite daily, and parts of which were solemnly sung in the churches every Sunday, and principal holiday, for the edification of the laity.

The liturgy soon attracted the notice of the reformers. In 1537 a book was published, called, "the Godly and Pious Instruction of a Christian Man'' it contained, in the English language, the Lord's prayer, the Ave Maria, the creed, the ten commandments, and the seven sacraments. With some variations it was re-published in 1540 and 1543, under the title of, "a necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man". In 1545, the king's primer was published, containing, among other things, the Lord's prayer, the creed, the ten commandments, Venite exultemusTe Deum, and several hymns and collects.

Soon after the accession of Edward the sixth a committee of divines was appointed to reform the liturgy. They drew up offices for Sundays and holidays, baptism, confirmation and matrimony, burial of the dead, and other special occasions; forming all these into one book. It was published by the common agreement and full assent of the parliament and convocations. In 1548, it was confirmed by act of Parliament, and declared to have been composed "by the aid of the Holy Ghost." Exceptions however, were soon made to some passages; these were altered by Archbishop Cranmer, with the assistance of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, whom he had invited into England from Germany. Thus revised and altered, the book was confirmed by Parliament in 1551. Both acts, however, were repealed in the first year of the reign of queen Mary.

6.The suppression of Colleges, Hospitals and Chantries: general destruction of their Libraries, and of the sacred or secular articles of use, or ornament belonging to them.

MENTION has been made of the suppression of the smaller monasteries by the act of the 27th of Henry VIII. Several colleges, hospitals, chantries and other religious institutions, within the operation of that act, had been permitted to remain in the hands of their lawful possessors. "The great ones of the court", says Heylin, "not being willing to lose so rich a booty, their suppression was set on foot again. The consequence was, that 90 colleges, and 2,374 free chapels and chantries, with their possessions, were vested in the king, and consumed during his minority."

The suppression of these houses was the occasion of much individual wretchedness. When the monasteries were dissolved, some provision was made for the subsistence of the ejected religious. "But as for the chantry priests", says Mr. Dodd, "the greater part were reduced to the extremities of want; as also many of the laity who depended on them."

"On the pretence", continues the same author, "of rooting out superstition, visitors were sent about; and made a spoil of all things that might conduce to support either learning or piety. Upon this occasion was destroyed the famous Angervilian library, first composed by Angerville, bishop of Durham. The two noble libraries of Cobham bishop of Winchester, and Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, underwent the same fate. Merton college had almost a cart load of manuscripts carried off." Every article in these buildings, which served either for use or ornament, was seized. What could not be removed was destroyed or defaced. Finally, the council gave an order for burning and destroying all the books used in the service of the church". "Sacrilegious avarice", says Camdent, "ravenously invaded church-livings, colleges, chantries, hospitals, and places dedicated to the poor, as things superfluous. Ambition and emulation among the nobility, presumption and disobedience among the common people, grew so extravagant, that England seemed to be in a downright frenzy".

To raise the palace, which the protector Somerset was building in the Strand, the parish church of St. Mary, three episcopal houses, a chapel, a cloister, and a charnel-house in St. Paul's Churchyard, with a church of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, were pulled down, and the materials used in the construction of the palace. Somerset attempted to demolish the church of St. Margaret, Westminster, but the parishioners rose, and drove off the artificers of destruction. From this example alone, some idea may be formed of the general plunder and devastation.

"This gross and insatiable scramble", says Bp. Burnet, "after the goods and wealth that had been dedicated to good designs, without the applying any part of it to promote the good of the gospel, the instruction of youth, and the relieving the poor, made all people conclude that it was for robbery, and not for reformation, that their zeal made them so active. The irregular and immoral lives of many of the professors of the gospel gave their enemies great advantage to say, that they ran away from confession, penance, fasting and prayer, only to be under no restraint, but to indulge themselves in a licentious and dissolute course of life. By these things, that were but too visible in some of the most eminent among them, the people were much alienated from them; and, as much as they were formerly against popery, they grew to have kinder thoughts of it, and to look on all the changes that had been made, as designs to enrich some vicious characters, and to let in an inundation of vice and wickedness upon the nation".

7.Religious Persecution during the Reign of Edward VI.

THE hardships, which the reformers underwent in the preceding reign, should, according to Mr. Neale's just observation, "have made them tender of the lives of those who differed from the present standard". But their conduct showed a very different feeling.

Complaint being made to the council against the anabaptists, a commission was ordered to six of the bishops, and to some other divines, to search after all anabaptists, heretics, and all condemners of the common prayers, with injunctions, that the commissioners should endeavor to reclaim them; and, after due penance, to give them absolution; but that if they should continue obstinate, the commissioners should excommunicate, imprison, and deliver them over to the secular arm. Many were brought before them: some abjured the errors imputed to them, and were dismissed; others persisted in their opinions and were burned. Among these, Joan Bocken particularly attracted the commiseration of the public; she maintained that Christ was not incarnate of the virgin, not having taken any of her flesh. For this opinion she was sentenced to the flames. The humane prince was so struck with the cruelty of the sentence, that he refused, for a long time, to sign the warrant for her execution. "Cranmer", says Mr. Hume, "was employed to persuade him to compliance. He said that there was great difference between errors in other points of divinity, and those which were in direct contradiction to the apostolic creed. These latter were impieties against God, which the monarch, being God's deputy, ought to repress, in like manner as inferior magistrates were bound to punish offences against the king's person. Edward, overcome by importunity, at last submitted, though with tears in his eyes; and he told Cranmer, that if any wrong were done, the guilt should lie entirely on his head. The primate, after making a new effort to reclaim the woman from her errors, and finding her obstinate to all his arguments, at last committed her to the flames."

 

XIV.

PRINCIPAL ECCLESIASTICAL OCCURRENCES IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN MARY.

1553

 

EDWARD the sixth died on the 6th July 1553. Dudley, earl of Warwick, who had supplanted the duke of Somerset, the protector, in the favor of the young monarch, had induced him, not long before his decease, to exclude the princesses, Mary and Elizabeth, from the succession, and to substi­tute in their place lady Jane Grey. The protector had married her to Lord Guilford Dudley, his fourth son. She was the daughter of Frances, duchess of Suffolk, and descended, by Charles Brandon, from Mary, the dowager queen of France, and sister to Henry the eighth. She was singu­larly accomplished, and universally respected and beloved. Henry's testamentary disposition having set aside the Scottish line, lady Jane Grey stood next in succession to the crown, after the princesses Mary and Elizabeth. The duke of Northumberland, her father-in-law, with the concurrence of Cranmer, and of the whole privy council, except the lord chief justice, caused her to be proclaimed queen. She did all that depended upon her to refuse the crown; but, at length overpowered by her father-in-law and husband, accepted it with sincere and evident reluctance. Her adherents endeavored to support her title by arms, but they were soon discomfited, and Mary was proclaimed queen. The duke of Northumberland, and two persons with him, were put to death, while eight more were tried and condemned for high treason. Among these were lady Jane and her husband, lord Guilford Dudley. Their execution was more than once put off, and probably would not have taken place, had not the subsequent rebellion of sir Thomas Wyatt caused it to be thought a necessary measure, for the tranquility of the state.

Mary thus became peaceably possessed of the throne.

I. The return of the English nation to communion with the see of Rome:

II. The persecution of the Protestants for heresy: and

III. the condemnation and death of archbishop Cranmer; are the ecclesiastical events in this reign, which seem to require particular notice.

1.The return of the English nation to communion with the See of Rome.

IMMEDIATELY on her accession to the throne, Mary avowed her attachment to the catholic religion, and very soon made public her intention to restore it. She formally signified this to the pope, and his holiness appointed cardinal Pole his legate to England, and furnished him with the most ample powers for effecting the object of his legation. In August 1554, the marriage between the queen and Philip was celebrated. On the 28th of the following November the king and queen, the spiritual and temporal peers, and the commons, assembled in the house of lords. Gardiner, who had been recently restored to the bishopric of Winchester, and advanced to the dignity of Chancellor, announced the arrival of the cardinal, with legatine authority. Being introduced with great ceremony into the assembly, the cardinal addressed the members in a conciliating speech. The chancellor replied, expressing his own wishes, and the general wish of the nation, to return to communion with the see of Rome.

On the following day, the king, the queen, and both houses of parliament, being again assembled in the house of peers, the cardinal was ushered into the house, dressed in his legatine robes. The king was placed on the left-hand of the queen, and the legate on her right, but at a greater distance than the king. All three were placed on seats covered with rich tapestry, and under a very costly canopy. The chancellor then addressed the houses of parliament, recapitulated what he had said the day before, and solemnly asked them, if they desired to return to the unity of the church, and to the obedience due to their chief pastor. The whole assembly assented, by acclamation, to the proposal. The chancellor then presented to their majesties a petition, on behalf of the members of both houses, as the representatives of the whole nation, expressing their sorrow for the schism, and for whatever they had enacted against the see of Rome and the catholic religion, declaring that they now annulled it; and beseeching those, whom God had preserved from the general guilt, to obtain from the lord legate that he would pardon them, and restore them as true and living members to that body, from which they had been separated by their misdeeds.

The king and queen having perused the petition, returned it to the chancellor; he read it distinctly and audibly. The whole assembly then rose, and the queen, in the name and behalf of herself, and of the king, petitioned the legate to grant the pardon and reconciliation sued for. The legate rose from his seat, and every one, except the king and queen, being on their knees, he pronounced the general absolution. They then went to the royal chapel, and a solemn Te Deum was sung, to express the general sentiment of religious joy, with which all the assembly appeared to be penetrated.

On the following day a similar ceremony of reconciliation took place in the city of London. Afterwards, the clergy assembled in convocation; and, on their knees, received absolution for all the censures, which they had incurred during the late innovations. By the legislative act of 1st and 2d Philip and Mary, c. 8, the work of reconciliation was completed.

With the unanimous consent of the pope and the clergy, and the sanction of parliament, the possessors of the church property were generally quieted in its detention and enjoyment. The queen restored to the ancient possessors all the church property, which remained in the hands of the crown, and earnestly solicited others to follow her example. Her conduct, if admired, was very little imitated.

Immediately after the ceremony of reconciliation took place, the queen sent viscount Montague, Thirlby bishop of Ely, and Sir Edward Came, ambassadors to Rome. They reached it on the 23d of May 1555; and, on the 23d of the following June, were admitted to an audience with the pope. They prostrated themselves at the feet of his holiness, represented the sorrow of the nation for their schism and heresy, and their desire to return into communion with the holy see. The pope received them graciously, expressed a general approbation of the proceedings of the legate, but complained of the detention of the ecclesiastical property, and intimated his right to the ancient render of Peter-pence. "He himself", he said, " had, when he was young, been employed in collecting it, and even had been edified by the alacrity with which it was paid".

It is observable, that, before Henry the eighth, the kings of England styled themselves only lords of Ireland. That monarch, in the twenty-third year of his reign, assumed the title of king of Ireland, and, two years afterwards, it was recognized by parliament. This the pope considered an invasion of the right, assumed by the holy see, to be the sovereign, and ultimate feudal lord of that kingdom.

To prevent any controversy on this head, Mary accompanied the letter presented to the pope by the ambassadors, with one, in which she solicited him to confer on her the title of queen of Ireland. With this request, by a bull, the pope complied; the bull was dated on the 7th of June,—several days before the presentation of the ambassadors,—and thus, the difficulty, which might otherwise have arisen, was dexterously, but dishonorably, eluded.

2.Persecution of the Protestants for Heresy.

THERE is reason to believe that, when Mary ascended the throne her dispositions towards those who should continue to differ from her in religious opinions, were just, moderate, and wise. Doctor Heylin admits, that before the end of the second year of her reign she practised no violence. The first volume of Dodd's Church History contains the faculties, and instructions, which the pope gave for reconciling the kingdom to the holy see. They are written in the language of moderation, and do not contain a single expression which suggests measures of violence. The lenity of cardinal Pole, her principal adviser, seems to be universally admitted. So much is this the case, that Hume, in a debate which he supposes to have taken place in Mary's reign, on the subject of religious persecution, makes Pole the advocate of toleration.

In 1555 all the bishops, and several of the leading clergy, attended cardinal Pole, to receive his instructions. They were truly pastoral and humane; he had them treat their flocks with tenderness, and make converts rather by example and instruction than by rigor. The councils, which induced Mary to adopt a system of intolerance, were generally attributed to Gardiner, the bishop of Winchester, but he soon ceased to take an active part in them. By Rogers, the first of those who suffered for religion in the reign of Mary, the bishop was asked, "whether he had not preached against the pope, during the best part of twenty years?

"Yes", said Gardiner, "but I was forced to it by cruelty."

"And will you then", said Rogers, "use to others that cruelty, of which you now complain?"

Gardiner made no answer. When he first recommended persecution, he thought a few striking examples would cause a general recantation; but, when he found his error, he left the weight of cruelty on the willing shoulders of Bonner. Gardiner died in great sentiments of repentance. "I" have sinned", he said, "with Peter, but I have not wept with Peter". Bonner was bishop of London; if his conduct has not been greatly exaggerated, he was a perfect monster of cruelty.

It must also be admitted, that Mary met with many provocations. Northumberland's treasons were quickly followed by Wyatt's. For some time, a person was encouraged to personate king Edward, and to dispute Mary's title. Repeated indignities were offered to her religion. "Her preacher", says Mr. Phillips, in his Life of Cardinal Pole, "was shot at, whilst he was preaching in the pulpit of St. Paul's, and her chaplains were mobbed and pelted in the streets. When public prayers were ordered, on a supposition of her pregnancy, a reformed preacher made use of the form, that it would please God either to turn her heart from idolatry, or to shorten her days. A dog's head was shaved, in contempt of the clerical tonsure and by an impiety, which says Mr. Phillips, I have difficulty to repeat, a wafer was put into a dead cat's paws, in derision of the holy sacrament, and hung up at Cheapside. Pretended revelations, and the forgery of the spirit on the wall, were employed to disturb the government, and discredit mass and confession. These and the like impieties were followed by divers acts of rebellion, of which an attempt to rob the treasury, the insurrection in the north, and the seizure of Scarborough Castle, in favor of the French invasion, are instances".

3. Archbishop Cranmer.

THE number of those, who suffered death for heresy, in the reign of queen Mary, has been computed, probably with some exaggeration, at 277. Of these, none certainly was so distinguished as Dr. Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury. That, for some of his actions he is entitled to praise, that, for others, his conduct should be strongly reprobated, every candid person must allow.

His protection of the princess Mary from the fury of her father, his endeavors to save sir Thomas More, bishop Fisher, and Cromwell, his resistance to the passing of the sanguinary enactment of the six articles, and his encouragement of letters and learned men, are entitled to praise. But, when we find, that, though he adopted the Lutheran prin­ciples so early as his residence in Germany on the business of the divorce, he yet continued, during the fifteen subsequent years of Henry's reign, in the most public profession of the catholic religion, the article of the supremacy of the pope alone excepted:—That, though, when he was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, he took the customary oath of obedience to the see of Rome, he yet, just before he took it, retired into a private room and protested against it:—And that, though he subscribed and caused his clergy to subscribe the six articles, the third and fourth of which enjoined ce­libacy to the clergy, and the observance of the vows of chastity, he yet, though a priest, was married, and continued to cohabit with his wife;—we must pronounce him guilty of dissimulation.—When we find, that, though he knew Anne Boleyn was under no pre-contract of marriage, he yet, to use bishop Burnet's expression, extorted from her, standing as she did, on the very verge of eternity, a confession of the existence of such contract;—we must pronounce him guilty of subserviency to his master's cruelties.—When we see how instrumental he was in bringing Lambert, Anne Askew, Jane Bocken, Van Parr, and others, both catholics and anabaptists, to the stake; and particularly, when we read his successful exertions to induce the young prince, to sign the sentence for Jane Bocken's condemnation,—we must pronounce him guilty, both of the theory and practice of religious persecution.—When we find that previously to Henry's marriage with Anne of Cleves, he declared that the negotiations for her marriage with a prince of the house of Lorraine were not a lawful impediment to her marriage with Henry,—he yet, within six months after it, declared that they had created such an impediment, and solemnized the monarch's adulterous marriage with lady Katharine Howard,—we must pronounce him guilty of sacrilege.—And finally,—when we find, that, notwithstanding the undoubted rights of the princesses Mary and Elizabeth, he yet, on the death of their royal brother, strove to exclude both from the throne, and to place lady Jane Gray upon it,—we must admit the justice of the verdict, and pro­nounce him guilty both of ingratitude and high treason.

Still,—the sentence, which, after he had been pardoned for his treason, condemned him to the flames for heresy, was execrable. His firmness under the torture, to which it consigned him, has seldom been surpassed. It presents an imposing example, and we then willingly forget what history records against him. But, when we read, in the Biographia Britannica, that "he was the glory of the English nation, and the ornament of the Reformation", his misdeeds rush on our recollection: We are astonished at the effect of party spirit, and the intrepidity of the biographer.

 

XV

THE FIRST MEASURES OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.

 

THE commencement of the Reformation in England, in the reign of Henry the eighth, its progress in the reign of Edward the sixth; and its interruption in the reign of Mary, have been mentioned. Some account will now be given of its completion, in the reign of Elizabeth. We shall therefore attempt to present the reader, with a general view of her first measures. Under this head, we shall endeavor to give a succinct account,

I. Of her being proclaimed queen of England, and her progress to London:

II. Of her coronation:

III. Of the division of the nation at this time into a catholic and a protestant party;

IV. The subdivision of the latter into Lutherans:

V. Zwinglians:

VI. And the successors of these, the Calvinists, or Puritans:

VII. Of the preference given by the queen to the protestant party :

VIII. Of her notifying to Paul the fourth, her accession to the throne, and the manner in which the intelligence was received by him:

IX. And of the more conciliatory proceedings of Pius the fourth, his immediate successor.

 

1.The first measures of Queen Elizabeth.

QUEEN Mary died on the 17th November 1558. She was succeeded by her sister Elizabeth, the only child then living of Henry the eighth; Ferdinand of Austria, being at this time Emperor; Henry the second, king of France; Philip the second, king of Spain; and Paul the fourth, filling the Roman See.

At the moment of Mary's decease both houses of parliament were sitting. Information of the event being brought to the house of lords, they sent a message to the house of commons requesting their attendance. When the members arrived, the lord chancellor Heath, archbishop of York, announced the event to them. He observed, that the succession to the crown belonged, of right, to the princess Elizabeth and that she should be instantly proclaimed queen of England. The proclamation was immediately made by the king at arms.

The news of her election reached Elizabeth at Hatfield. On the 29th, she proceeded to London, attended, says Heylin, by a great and royal train; and an infinite concourse of people expressing their feelings by loud acclamations, and every other demonstration of joy. She delighted them by the affability of her manner, and the share which she seemed to take in the general sentiment. At Highgate, she was met by all the bishops: from Bonner, as a man of blood, she turned with disgust: the others she received courteously, and permitted them to kiss her hand. At Bishopsgate she was met by the lord mayor and all the city companies. Thus escorted, she reached the Tower. At her entrance into it, "she rendered", says Heylin, "her most humble thanks to Almighty God, for the great change in her condition, in bringing her, from being a prisoner in that place, to be the princess of her people and now, to take possession of it as a royal palace, in which, before, she had received so much discomfort". Immediately on the decease of Mary the lords assembled in council had given orders for the stopping of all ports and havens, in order that no intelligence of the event might be carried out of the realm, but finding so general a concurrence of the people in favor of Elizabeth, they removed the embargo.

2.Her Coronation.

ON the 13th of January 1559, she made her "triumphant passage," says Dr. Heylin, "through London to her palace at Westminster. Having offered a prayer, she mounted in her chariot with so clear a spirit, as if she had been made for that day's solemnity; entertained all the way she went with the joyful shouts and acclamations of God save the Queen, which she repaid with such a modest affability that it drew tears of joy from the eyes of some, with infinite prayers and thanksgivings from the hearts of all.

"But nothing more endeared her to them than the accepting a Bible, neatly gilt, which was let down to her from one of the pageants representing Truth. With both her hands she received the book, which she pressed and laid to her bosom, (as the nearest place unto her heart), giving the greater thanks for that, than for all the rest which plentifully had that day been bestowed upon her; and promised to be diligent in the reading of it. By which, and many other acts of popular piety, with which she passed away that day, she did not only gain the hearts of them that saw her, but they that saw her did so magnify her most eminent graces, that she found the like affection in the hearts of all others also".

On the following morning, with the like magnificence and splendor, she was attended to the church of St. Peter in Westminster. She was crowned by Doctor Owen Oglethorpe, bishop of Carlisle, according to the form, and took the oath prescribed by the Roman pontifical. The other catholic prelates declined assisting at the ceremony. Three bishops, ordained in the reign of Edward the sixth, and the friends of the Reformation, were then alive; but "those bishops", as doctor Heylin remarks, "were at that time deprived of their sees,—(whether justly or unjustly could not then be questioned)—and therefore not in a capacity to perform that service. Besides there being, at that time, no other form established for a coronation than that, which had much in it of the ceremonies and superstition of the church of Rome; she was not sure that any one of those three bishops would have acted in it without such alteration and omissions, in the whole course of that order, as might have rendered the whole action questionable among capricious men, and therefore, finally, she thought it more conducible to her reputation among foreign princes to be crowned by the hands of a catholic bishop, or one at least that was accounted as such, than if it had been done by any of the other religions".

3.Division of the Nation into a Catholic and a Protestant party

THE nation was divided at this time, into a catholic and a protestant party. From several circumstances it is evident that a great majority of the nation then inclined to the roman-catholic religion. All the bishops, with the solitary exception of Kitchin of Landaff, opposed the change of religion; the whole convocation, which met at the same time with the queen's first parliament, declared against it, and expressed their unanimous adherence to the ancient creed, by a declaration conformable to it, on the five important articles of the real presence, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead, the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, and the authority of the pastors of the church, exclusive of the laity, in matters of faith and discipline. They addressed these articles to the bishops, with a request to lay them before the lords in parliament. Both the universities signed a writing, declaring their concurrence in the same articles. Thus the change was in opposition to the wishes of the body of the clergy.

The laity were divided—but several facts seem to show that a great majority must have been in favor of the catholic religion; the single circumstance of the known general attachment, at this time, of the laity for their pastors, renders this highly probable.

Rishton, a contemporary writer, speaking from his own observation, says, that one third of the kingdom was at this time protestant; most of the nobility, the majority of the greater commoners, and the generality of the persons employed in agriculture and husbandry, being catholics.

This conclusion is also favored by the violence, which the court party found it necessary to use, in the ensuing election of members to serve in the house of commons. Five candidates were nominated by the court to each borough, and three to each county; and by the sheriff's authority, the members were chosen from among these candidates. This measure seems to indicate that the court entertained apprehensions that the general sense of the people was against the Reformation. The same conclusion is again rendered probable by the complaints, which are found in the protestant writers of these times, concerning the general dearth of teachers in the universities and the public schools, and of ministers to officiate in the parishes.

4.Subdivision of the Protestants into Lutherans;

IT may be generally said, that, with the exception of the belief of the ecclesiastical supremacy of the monarch, the church of England continued catholic during the reign of Henry. The first seeds of the protestant doctrine were sown by Lutheran hands. The emissaries employed by Henry in ob­taining the opinions of foreigners on the lawfulness of his marriage with Katharine of Aragon became acquainted with Luther and some of his disciples; they returned home with dispositions favorable to his principles; and, in their return, were either accompanied, or soon after followed, by some of their ablest advocates. Several attempts were made by the protestant princes of Germany to induce Henry to subscribe the confession of Augsburg, and to place himself at the head of the league, which had been formed for its support. These attempts did not succeed; but they gave occasion to communications between the Lutheran divines and the English advocates of reform. Thus, therefore, during the reign of Henry the eighth, the seeds of the Reformation sown in this country were Lutheran.

5.Zwinglians

WHILE Henry lived, archbishop Cranmer, the most powerful advocate of Protestantism in this country, outwardly professed, except in the article of the supremacy, the catholic religion; but in the reign of Edward he veered to the creed of Zwingli; and the majority of the royal council adopted and led the infant monarch into the adoption of the same principles. We have before observed, that Zwingli differed from Luther in several articles, particularly in considering the sacrament of the Eucharist merely as a pious rite, established to commemorate the passion and death of Christ, in abolishing religious ceremonies, and in his total subjection of the priest to the magistrate. In conformity with the two former opinions, the ministers of Edward the sixth expunged from their creed the belief of the corporal presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist; and reduced the ecclesiastical orders of the church to bishops, priests and deacons. In the ordination of bishops and priests they used the same ceremonial, omitting every ancient rite, ex­cept the imposition of hands, and some prayers. They laid aside all the vestments of bishops, priests and deacons, with the exception of the surplice. They retained the altar, the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, and the bowing at the name of Jesus. To all that was retained, the disciples of Zwingli seriously objected.

6.And Calvinists.

MEANWHILE, several disciples of Calvin had found their way into England; by degrees they attracted almost all the disciples of Zwingli. It has been mentioned, that, in opposition to Zwingli, Calvin contended for the absolute subserviency of the magistrate to the priest in all ecclesiastical concerns. To the followers of his doctrine it had therefore given great offence, that the acts of parliament of Edward the sixth for ordaining ministers, establishing the common prayer, and constituting the forty-two articles as the national creed, were imposed by the authority of the temporal power. Still, the influence of the disciples of Calvin is very discernible in all the ecclesiastical regulations, which took place during the reign of that monarch; and from the beginning of it to its close, this influence was always on the increase.

It should be remarked, that those, who embraced the doctrines of Calvin, were known by different appellations: from their master, they were frequently called Calvinists, from their innovations on Luther's system, they were styled the Reformed; from their peculiar tenets respecting the real pre­sence, they were called Sacramentarians; in France, for some unknown reason, they were called Hugonots; in England, their alleged improvements in the national worship gave them, soon after queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the appellation of Puritans; while their objection to episcopacy gave them, in the reign of her successor, the name of Presbyterians.

7.The Queen's preference of the Protestant party.

SUCH was the division of public opinions on religious concerns, when Elizabeth ascended the throne. For some time the catholics and the protestants waited in a state of anxious uncertainty to discover for which party she would declare. After much deliberation with a council of select advisers, she decided for a protestant establishment, partaking more of the Lutheran than of the Calvinistic economy. But it seems to have been conceived on a conciliating and comprehensive scheme.

8.Notification of her Succession to Pope Paul IV.

ONE of the first measures of Elizabeth was to write to sir Edward Carne, the English ambassador at Rome, to notify her accession to the pope.

At this time the Roman see was filled by Paul the fourth. Unblemished purity of morals, and inflexible integrity, cannot, with justice, be denied to this pontiff. "But all these qualities", says Mr. Phillips, in the sketch which he has given of his character in the life of cardinal Pole, "were vitiated by a fierce and obstinate temper, a haughty and aspiring disposition, and a mind incapable of yielding to opposition, and greedy, above measure, of command". He received the queen's overtures with great loftiness: he told sir Edward Carne, that "the kingdom of England was held in fee of the apostolic see; that Elizabeth, being illegitimate, could not succeed; that he could not contradict the declarations of Clement the seventh and Paul the third; that it was a great boldness in her to assume the name and government without him; yet, that being desirous to show a fatherly affection, if she would renounce her pretensions, and refer herself wholly to his free disposition, he would do whatever might be done with honor to the holy see". This speech was equally unjustifiable and imprudent: in the deliberations which at this time took place, on the important question, whether the catholic or the protestant was to become the religion of England, it was evidently calculated to turn the scale against the former.

9.Conciliatory Proceedings of Pius IV.

IT may not be improper to mention in this place that, not long after this wayward event, another and a better spirit was shown by Pius the fourth, the immediate successor of Paul, In May 1560 he sent Vincentio Parpalia, an ecclesiastic of great merit and conciliating manners, to the queen, with a letter, most earnestly, but respectfully, entreating her to return to the bosom of the church. On this occasion, Parpalia, if we are to credit Camden, was instructed by the pope to offer to the queen, that the pope would annul the sentence of Clement his predecessor against her mother's marriage, settle the liturgy by his authority, and grant to the English the use of the sacrament under both kinds. Parpalia reached Bruxelles: from that place, he acquainted the English ministry with the object of his mission, and proceeded to Calais. The propriety of admitting him was debated in the royal council, and determined in the negative.

The conciliating pope was not disheartened. At a subsequent time he deputed the abbe Martenengo to the queen, to notify to her the sitting of the council of Trent; and to request she would send an ambassador to it, and permit the prelates of England to attend it. Some objected to the pope, that this was showing too great a condescension towards persons, who had formally separated from the church. "Nothing", said the worthy pontiff, "is humiliating, to gain souls to Christ". Both the king of Spain and the duke of Alva seconded, with great earnestness, the pope's request: but the queen was inflexible. "She could not", she said, "treat with any power, whose authority the parliament had declared to be unlawful". She therefore refused to permit the abbe to enter any part of her dominions.

 

XVI.

QUEEN ELIZABETH DECLARED HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

 

THE subject now requires,

I. That the principal legislative enactments, by which Elizabeth was declared to be the supreme head of the church of England;

II. With some observations on the nature and extent of her supremacy,—should be placed before the reader.

 

1.Legislative Acts conferring the Supremacy on Elizabeth; and enjoining the Oath of Supremacy.

1. BY the first act of the first year of her reign it was enacted, "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, potentate, spiritual or temporal, should, at any time after the last day of that session of parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre-eminence or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or within any other of her majesty's dominions, or countries that then were or thereafter should be; but that from thenceforth the same should be clearly abolished out of the realm, and all other her majesty's dominions, forever.

"And that such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, power or authority, as had theretofore been, or might lawfully be, exercised or used, for visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons; and for reformation, order and correction of the same, and all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, should forever, by authority of that parliament, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm.

 

"And that her highness, her heirs and successors, kings or queens of this realm, should have full power and authority, by virtue of that act, by letters patent under the great seal of England, to assign, name and authorize, when and as often as her highness, her heirs or successors, should think meet and convenient, and for such and so long time as should please her highness, her heirs or successors, such person or persons, (being natural-born subjects to her highness, her heirs or successors), as her majesty, her heirs or successors, should think meet to exercise, use, occupy and execute, under her highness, her heirs and successors, all manner of jurisdictions, privileges and pre-eminences, in any wise touching or concerning any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within those her realms of England and Ireland, or any other her highness's dominions and countries; and to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all such errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities whatsoever, which, by any manner of spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority or jurisdiction, could or might lawfully be reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue, and the conservation of the peace and unity of the realm, and that such person or persons, so to be named, assigned, authorized and appointed by her highness, her heirs or successors, after the said letters patent to him or them made and delivered as aforesaid, should have full power and authority, by virtue of that act, and of the said letters patent under her highness, her heirs and successors, to exercise, use and execute all the premises according to the tenor and effect of the said letters patent, any matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding."

2. By the same act, every ecclesiastical person, and every ecclesiastical officer or minister, and every temporal judge, justice and mayor, and every other lay or temporal officer and minister, and every other person having the queen's fee or wages within the realm, were directed to take the following oath, under pain of forfeiting their office, and of being disabled from holding any office in future.

"I, A. B. do utterly testify and declare, in my conscience, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and all other her highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things, or causes, as temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise, that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the queen's highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, privileges, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen's highness, her heirs and successors, or united or annexed to the imperial crown of the realm. So help me God, and the contents of this book."

Persons maintaining by writing, word, act or deed, the authority, pre-eminence, power or jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, of any foreign prince, prelate or potentate, were punishable—for the first offence, by forfeiture of goods and chattels, and imprisonment for a year; for the second, by the penalties of a praemunire; and for the third, with death, and the other penalties incident to con­viction of high treason.

3. By an act passed in the fifth year of her reign, persons in general who should maintain the jurisdiction of the see of Rome were subjected, for the first offence, to the penalties of a praemunire; and for the second, to the punishment of high treason.

4. In a future page we shall have occasion to mention the admonition of queen Elizabeth respecting the oath of supremacy, declaring the sense in which it should be taken. The last act which has been cited directs, that the oath shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in that admonition.

 

2.An Inquiry into the nature and extent of the Spiritual Supremacy conferred by these acts on Queen Elizabeth,

WHEN the Reformation took place, an alliance had long subsisted in England, and every other country in Europe, between the church and the state. In consequence of it, the state had conferred upon the church the power of enforcing several of her spiritual injunctions, by those acts of temporal power, which the civil courts of the king possess for enforcing their sentences. This was done, either by authorizing the ministers of the church to issue process from the civil courts, in aid of their spiritual injunctions; or by erecting courts entirely appropriated to the spiritual concerns of the church, and investing them with the temporal process of the civil courts. The objects, on which such courts exercised their jurisdiction, gave them the appellation of spiritual courts; but the process, by which they carried it into execution, was temporal. To this extent, therefore, they were temporal, or civil courts of the king; and so far as respected their right to this process, the king was the supreme head of their jurisdiction.

From these circumstances, it has been sometimes contended that the pre-eminence, spiritual authority, and spiritual jurisdiction, mentioned in the acts which conferred the supremacy upon Elizabeth, ought to be understood to denote, only that pre­eminence, supremacy, and jurisdiction, which the clergy, or their courts, receive from the state; and that the clauses in the acts, which deny the supremacy of the pope, were intended only to deny his right to that temporal power, which the state, in consequence of its alliance with the church, had conferred upon him.

Those, who contend for this construction of the oath, cite what is termed the admonition of queen Elizabeth. In the very year in which the act enjoining the oath of supremacy was passed, Elizabeth published a body of "Regulations of the discipline and order of the church". In one of these, she professes to notice the misconstructions of her claims to the spiritual supremacy. She then proceeds to say,—"her majesty neither doth, nor ever will challenge any other authority than what was challenged, and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, which is, and was, of ancient time, due to the imperial crown of the realm,—that is,—under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her realms and dominions, so as no power shall or ought to have any superiority over them." In the next parliament this explanation of the oath of supremacy received the sanction of the legislature.

In unison with this exposition of the regal supremacy, the 37th of the Thirty-nine Articles is expressed in the following terms:— The king's majesty hath the chief power in the realm of England, and other his dominions; unto whom the chief government of all estates in this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all cases doth appertain-, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. When we attribute to the king's majesty the chief government,—by which titles, we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended,—we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word or of the sacraments,—the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth, our queen, do most plainly testify,—but, that only prerogative which we see to have been given always, to all godly princes in holy scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal; and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers".

"The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England."

The same description of the nature and extent of the spiritual supremacy of the crown was repeatedly given by king James. This we shall mention in a future page.

As a further testimony in favor of this construction of the oath, its advocates cite passages from the works of many personages of great distinction in the protestant church. Nothing, they say, can be more explicit than the language of doctor Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, in the reign of Charles the first, in the work intituled Schism guarded. "Neither Henry the eighth, nor any of his legislators", says this eminent prelate, "did ever endeavor to deprive the bishop of Rome of the power of the keys, or any part thereof; either the key of order, or the key of jurisdiction: I mean jurisdiction purely spiritual, which hath place only in the inner court of conscience, as over such persons as submit willingly, nor did ever challenge, or assume to themselves any jurisdiction purely spiritual. All, which they deprived the pope of; all, which they assumed to themselves, was the external regimen of the church by coactive power, to be exercised by persons capable of his respective branches of it. And therefore, when we meet with these words, of the like, (that no foreign prelate shall exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, ecclesiastical within this realm),—it is not to be understood of internal, or purely spiritual power in the court of conscience, or the power of the keys,—(we see the contrary practised every day), but of external and co-active power in ecclesiastical causes, in foro contentioso.—Our kings leave the power of the keys, and jurisdiction purely spiritual, to those to whom Christ has left it.— Our ancestors cast out external ecclesiastical coactive jurisdiction; the same do we. They did not take from the pope the power of the keys, or jurisdiction purely spiritual,—neither do we". Citations of passages to the like effect from other protestant writers, might, it is said, be easily multiplied.

In further support of this construction, its advo­cates notice the conduct of the clergy in the reigns of Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, as well as the conduct of many of the clergy during the first part of the reign of queen Elizabeth, who, they say, did not refuse similar oaths, when these were pressed upon them.

They intimate, that objections to the oath pre­scribed by the parliament of Elizabeth, were first made by the priests, who came to England from the foreign seminaries. In those schools, they say, the ultramontane doctrines on papal power were taught in their utmost extent. In conformity with these, the members of those communities believed the pope to be entitled, at least indirectly, to temporal power by divine right, and must therefore object to every oath, which denied the right of the pope to the exercise of temporal power in the administration of spiritual concerns, or the right of the church to enforce the sentences of the church by temporal process.

These, the writer apprehends, are the principal arguments by which it is contended, that catholics might conscientiously take the oath of supremacy prescribed by the parliament of queen Elizabeth, and similar oaths prescribed by subsequent parliaments. His own impression on the subject is as follows:

Were it quite clear, that the interpretation contended for is the true interpretation of the oath, and quite clear also, that the oath was and is thus universally interpreted by the nation, then, the author conceives, that there might be strong ground to contend, that it was consistent with catholic principles to take either the oath of supremacy which was prescribed by Elizabeth, or that, which is used at present.

He also thinks it highly probable, that, if a legislative interpretation could now be obtained, the interpretation suggested would be adopted. But, that the oaths of supremacy were thus understood by the bulk of the nation, when they were first promulgated, this, the writer considers, at best, extremely doubtful. He cannot reconcile such construction of them, either with that, which the monarchs and their parliaments themselves repeat­edly put on them, by their conduct, or with the powers which the legislature has very frequently attributed to them. Hume says expressly that Elizabeth always pretended that, in "quality of supreme head of the church, she was fully empowered by her prerogative to decide all questions which might arise with regard to doctrine, discipline, or worship; and would never allow her parliaments so much as to take these points into consideration". This appears to the writer to afford a conclusive argument for supposing, that, when the acts conferring the supre­macy on the crown were passed, they were not generally understood in the sense contended for by those, who deem it lawful for catholics to take them, The subject is ably discussed by Mr. Neale, in his History of the Puritans. His arguments to show, that the acts in question were intended to confer on the monarch some powers merely spiritual, and belonging of right to the church, appear to the writer to be incontrovertible.

That the acts are at this time so understood, both by the general body of catholics, and by the general body of protestants, the writer considers quite undeniable.

"These things", (to use the language of Sir John Winter, in his Observations on the Oath of Supremacy, in which he contended, in the reign of Charles the second, with great force of argument for the construction of it in the sense suggested by its advocates,)—"These things have made it to be firmly believed by the catholics, and those of their profession over all Christendom, that in taking the said oath, with what explanation soever,— (if such explanation be not publicly made known and declared), they give just scandal (which is malum in se),—that they renounce their religion, as indeed the common acceptation of the words of the oath do import no less."

 

XVII.

PRINCIPAL ECCLESIASTICAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH.

 

BOTH the creed and discipline of the church of England were left at the death of Edward the sixth in a very unsettled state. Speaking of their state at that time, bishop Latimer, in one of his sermons said, "it is yet but a mingle-mangle, a hotch-potch, I cannot tell what; partly popery, and partly true religion, mingled together. They say in my country, when they call their hogs to the swine trough, come to the mingle-mangle, come, puz, come!' Even so do they make a mingle-mangle of the gospel".

I, By the book of common prayer,

II, and the thirty-nine articles; with the aid,

III, Of the act of uniformity;

IV, and of the statutes against recusancy, the ecclesiastical Reformation of England was completed:

V, The subject leads to some mention of the translations of the Bible during the reign of Elizabeth.

 

1.The Book of Common Prayer.

THE two revisals of the liturgy, and the confirmation of the latter by two acts of parliament in the reign of Edward the sixth, have been mentioned. Both acts were repealed in the first year of the reign of queen Mary. The second revisal, but with some alterations, was adopted by queen Elizabeth, and received the sanction of the legislature.

Though it be anticipating the order of events, it may be proper to notice in this place, that alterations were made in it in the first year of James the first, in consequence of some things which had been said of it at the conference at Hampton Court. Under the Common wealth, it was banished from the churches. Immediately after the Restoration, it was solemnly reviewed, some alterations in it made, and, with these, brought to its present state. In December 1661 it was unanimously approved by the houses of convocation of both provinces. In the following March, an act of parliament was passed for its legal establishment. It is there styled The Book of Common Prayer.

2.The Thirty-nine Articles.

IN January 1562, both the parliament and the convocation of the province of Canterbury were convened. It appears, that the draft of the thirty-nine articles was presented to the convocation by archbishop Parker, and that the convocation ap­proved them unanimously. All the registers of the convocation having been burned at the memorable fire of London, our information of its proceedings upon the articles must be derived from other sources, and these unfortunately are very imperfect.

We find that the convocation first met at the Chapter-house, at St. Paul's, on the 12th day of January, and held thirty-six several sittings, sometimes at the Chapter-house, and sometimes, by continuation, at king Henry the seventh's chapel at Westminster. Archbishop Parker presided, and was the great mover of all its proceedings. The convocation began by taking into consideration the articles of Edward the sixth. From forty-two they reduced them to thirty-nine, making alterations in some of them. With these alterations the convocation adopted them unanimously; and thus, they had all the authority that the convocation of Canterbury could confer on them.

In 1566, a bill was brought into parliament to confirm them. It passed the commons, but was dropped in the house of lords, by the queen's particular command. In the year 1571, the convocation revised the articles of 1562, and made some alterations in them. In the same year an act was passed, "to provide that the ministers of the church should be of sound religion". It enacted, that "all ecclesiastical persons should subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concerned the confession of the true faith, and of the sacraments, comprised in a book imprinted, in titled Articles whereupon it was agreed by the archbishops and bishops, and the whole clergy in convocation, holden at London in the gear of our Lord 1562, according to the computation of the church of England, for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, put forth by the queens' authority." All the acts of parliament made subsequently to this time, which mention the articles, refer to this act, as settling the articles, and the rule of subscription to them.

For some reason, which does not now appear, they were confirmed in 1584, by the convocation of Canterbury. In 1628, an edition of them in the English language, was published by the royal authority. To this edition a declaration of king Charles the first is prefixed. It is the exemplar of all the subsequent editions.

3.The Act of Uniformity.

This act was leveled at least as much against the puritans as the roman-catholics. Elizabeth loved the pomp and ceremonial of the catholic church, and the spirit of subordination inculcated by its tenets and discipline. In her chapel, there was an altar, a crucifix, and lighted tapers; copes and rich garments were, at first, used by the officiating ministers, and the knights of the garter bowed before the altar, a ceremony which had been disused by her brother Edward. Something of a conciliatory disposition towards the catholics was shown, by her expunging from the litany the clause introduced into it in the reign of her brother—"From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us".

And by omitting in the thirty-nine articles, the long refutation of the doctrine of the real presence, introduced into the forty-two articles; and adopting the general expression, that "the body of Christ is given and received in a spiritual manner, and the means, by which it is received, is faith".

The independent spirit of the puritans,—a spirit which had long strongly manifested itself in ecclesiastical, and now began to show itself in political concerns,—both disgusted and alarmed Elizabeth, she perceived that their dislike to any ecclesiastical restraint was accompanied by strong sentiments of political liberty. To guard against these, she caused the Statute of Uniformity to be passed. One object of it was certainly to guard the church and state against the puritans. It is not a little remarkable, that, while she thought her civil and ecclesiastical government stood in need of so strong a defence against the puritans, her confidential ministers, Cecil, Leicester, and Walsingham, and her favorite Essex, were known to be closely connected with them.

The act of uniformity, (1 Eliz. ch. 2.), enjoined all ministers to use the book of common prayer, and none other, in the celebration of divine service, and that every minister refusing to use it; or using any other; or speaking in derogation of the common prayer, should, if not beneficed, for the first offence be imprisoned one year, for the second, be imprisoned for life; and if beneficed, for the first offence, be imprisoned six months, and forfeit a year's value of his benefice; for the second, be deprived, and suffer one year's imprisonment, and for the third, be imprisoned for life. And that, if any person should speak in derogation of the book, or prevent the reading of it, or cause any other service to be read in its stead, he should forfeit, for the first offence, one hundred marks; for the second, four hundred, and for the third, all his goods and chattels, and suffer imprisonment for life. Sir William Blackstone, (Book 4. ch. 4), mentions the terror of these laws, as a principal means, under Providence, of preserving the purity as well as the decency of the national worship, and he approves their continuance. These observations produced Remarks on some paragraphs in the fourth volume of Dr. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, relating to the Dissenters, by Joseph Priestley, 1769". These remarks sir William Blackstone answered, by A reply to Dr. Priestley's remarks on the fourth volume of the Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1769."

4.The Statutes of Recusancy.

THE acts of the 1st Eliz. ch. 2, and 23d Eli&. ch. 1, subjected those, who absented themselves from divine worship in the established church, to a forfeiture of one shilling to the poor, every Lord's day they should so absent themselves, and twenty pounds to the king, if they continued such absence for a month together. If they kept in their houses any inmate guilty of such absence, they were to forfeit ten pounds for every such month. The penalties were rigorously exacted. Every fourth Sunday of absence was held to complete the month; and thus, in relation to these penalties, thirteen months were supposed to occur in every year. The amount of money thus raised from the catholics was very great. It was chiefly levied on the poorer sort: the rich purchasing from Elizabeth dispensations from attendance on the protestant service. Mr. Andrews computes the annual amount of money thus received by Elizabeth for dispensations, at 20,000£.

It is to be observed, that, during the first ten years of the reign of Elizabeth, the greater number of English catholics, to avoid the rigor of these laws, attended divine service in the protestant churches. On the lawfulness of this occasional conformity, there appears to have been a difference of opinion among their divines. The case was regularly submitted to the opinion of some eminent theologians then attending the council of Trent: these pronounced such occasional conformity to be unlawful. The justice of this opinion being strenuously inculcated by the missionary priests, was soon universally acquiesced in by the laity.

Those, who thus absented themselves from the protestant church, obtained the appellation of recusants. Till the statute of the 35th Eliz. ch. 2, protestants and catholics were equally considered as recusants, and equally subject to the penalties of recusancy: that was the first penal statute made against popish recusants, by that name, and as distinguished from other recusants. From that statute, arose the distinction between protestant and popish recusants, the former were subject to such statutes of recusancy as preceded that of the 35th of queen Elizabeth, and to some statutes against recusancy made subsequently to that time; but they were relieved from them all by the act of toleration in the 1st year of king William's reign. From the 35th Eliz. ch. 2, arose also the distinction between papists persons professing the popish religion, and popish recusants, and popish recusants convict. Notwithstanding the frequent mention in the statute book, of papists, and persons professing the popish religion, neither the statutes themselves, nor the cases adjudged upon them, present a clear notion of the acts or circumstances, that, in the eye of the law, constituted a papist, or a person professing the popish religion. When a person of that descrip­tion absented himself from church he filled the legal description of a popish recusant: When he was convicted, in a court of law, of absenting himself from church, he was termed in the law a popish recusant convict. To this must be added the& constructive recusancy, hereinafter mentioned to be incurred by a refusal to take the oath of supremacy.

5.The new Translation of the Bible.

IN preceding parts of this work, mention has been made of the English translations of the Bible in the reigns of Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, mention will now be made of the translations of it during the reign of queen Elizabeth: these are, 

1, The Geneva Bible;

2, The Bishops0 Bible,

3, The Rheimish Testament.

1. It is remarkable, that, notwithstanding the persecuting spirit, with which the reign of queen Mary is justly charged, Cranmer's Bible was, throughout her reign, permitted to remain on sale.

It has been mentioned, that, to avoid the rigors of her persecution, several, both of the clergy and the laity, left their native country and settled at Geneva, and in its neighborhood. Some employed themselves in making an English version, completely new, of the sacred writings. In 1557, they printed, in a small duodecimo volume, the New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "conferred diligently 'with the Greek and best approved translations. With the arguments as well before the chapters, as for every book and epistle, also diversities and readings, and most profitable annotations of all hard places. Whereunto is added a copious table. Printed by Conrad Badvis, M.D.LVII." It is printed in a small but beautiful character, and is the first New Testament in the English language, with the distinction of verses by numeral figures.

They proceeded to translate the Old Testament. Queen Mary dying in 1558, most of the exiles returned to England; but some, at least, of the persons employed in the translation, remained at Geneva, and completed the work. Father Simon explicitly accuses it of being only an English version, of a French translation made at Geneva some years before. It was published in 1560, in quarto, and is generally called the Genevan Bible.

2. It soon became popular in England. Afterwards, Cranmer's version becoming scarce, a new version was resolved upon. The task was allotted to many; the celebrated Matthew Parker, then archbishop of Canterbury, superintended and regulated their labors. Every section, when completed, was communicated to the whole body, and each person was at liberty to offer his remarks. Few works, of such magnitude and importance, have been executed in so short a space of time. It was completed in two years. In 1568, the impression was finished, and the work exposed to sale: it is printed in one volume large folio, on royal paper, in a beautiful English letter, and embellished with several engravings and maps. A copy of it is in the public library at Cambridge. It is sometimes called Parker's Bible, but is generally known by the appellation of The Bishops' Bible.

Still, the advocates of the Genevan opinions asserted the superiority of the Genevan version, and called the Bishops' Bible a corrupt Bible.— Each version was more than once reprinted.

3. An English version of the New Testament was printed in 1582, in one volume quarto, by the clergy of the English catholic college, first established at Douay, but then removed to Rheims. Their translation of the Old Testament was published at Douay, (to which town the college had then returned), in two volumes quarto, in the years 1609 and 1610.

The Rheimish version of the New Testament, but with some variation both in the text and notes, was reprinted at Douay in 1600.It was reprinted at Antwerp in 1610. In this edition, the text stands by itself: the notes are printed together at the end. The version of the New Testament has been often reprinted. In 1738, it was beautifully printed in London, in one volume folio, and in the title-page is called the fifth edition.

A version of the New Testament, with annotations, was published in 1719 at Paris, by doctor Nary, in one volume; another, in two volumes, by doctor Witham, at Douay in 1730.

In 1750 a translation both of the Old and New Testament, with much alteration in the text, and much more in the notes, was published from the Rheimish version by the late Dr. Challoner, in five volumes 8vo. In various forms, this has been often reprinted.

These repeated editions prove the exaggeration in the charge brought against catholics, of denying to the laity the perusal of the Bible in a vulgar tongue.

 

XVIII.

PERSECUTION OF THE CATHOLICS.

 

IN the history of religious persecution, the reign of Elizabeth fills a considerable space

I, The laws against the roman-catholics:

II, The number of those, who suffered capitally under them:

III, And the infliction of the torture on many of these, and on some other catholics, will be succinctly mentioned in the present chapter.

1.Sanguinary Laws against the Catholics.

I. The laws, by which the roman-catholics were subjected to capital punishment, in consequence of their religious principles, may be divided into four classes; 1, Those, which punished persons capitally for refusing to take the oath of supremacy, for acknowledging the spiritual supremacy of the pope, or for denying the spiritual supremacy of the queen; 2, Those, which punished roman-catholic clergymen capitally for coming into or remaining in England; 3, Those, which punished persons capitally, who maintained or assisted such clergy­men; 4, And those, which punished persons capitally, who were reconciled, or who reconciled others, to the roman-catholic church. To these, may be added the laws, which subjected persons to fine and imprisonment, for not attending divine service in the form prescribed by law.

Mention has been made of the act of the 1st year of the reign of Elizabeth, by which persons in office, or receiving the queen's fee, who should refuse to take the oath acknowledging the queen's supremacy, were incapacitated from holding any office; and by which, all who denied the supremacy were, for the first offence, punished by the forfeiture of their goods and chattels; for the second, subjected to the penalties of a praemunire; and for the third, rendered guilty of high treason.

By the act of the 27th of her reign, Jesuits, and other priests, were ordered to depart the kingdom within forty days, and it was ordained, that those, who should remain beyond that time, or who afterwards returned, should be guilty of treason.

By the same act, those, who received, relieved, comforted, aided or maintained a priest, deacon, or other ecclesiastical person, were declared to be felons, without benefit of clergy.

By the act of the 23d of Elizabeth, ch. 1, persons reconciling others to the roman-catholic religion, and persons so reconciled, were subjected to the penalties of treason.

2.Probable amount of those who suffered Death under these Laws.

THE total number of these sufferers, is calculated by Dodd, in his Church History, at one hundred and ninety-one. Further inquiries by Dr. Milner increase their number to 204. Fifteen of these, he says, were condemned for denying the queen’s spiritual supremacy; one hundred and twenty-six for the exercise of priestly functions; and the others, for being reconciled to the catholic faith, or aiding or assisting priests. In this list, no priest is included who was executed for any plot, either real or imaginary, except eleven, who suffered for the pretended plot of Rheims, or Rome; a plot which, as the same writer justly observes, was so daring a forgery, that even Camden, the eulogizing biographer of Elizabeth, allows the sufferers to have been political victims.

Such, then, being the number of the sufferers, we must feel some surprise, when we read in Hume's history, that "the severity of death was sparingly exercised against the priests in the reign of queen Elizabeth".

It is observable, that the punishment of treason by the law of England is, that the offender should be drawn to the gallows, hanged by the neck, cut down alive, his entrails taken out, while he is yet alive, and his head then cut off. Against the atrocious circumstances, attending this punishment, the humanity of the nation has so far interfered, that the offender now is generally permitted to remain hanging till he is dead. But this mercy was often denied to the catholics, who suffered under these laws. Often, they were cut down alive, in that state ripped open, and their entrails torn out.

Besides the sufferers we have noticed, mention is made in the same work of ninety catholic priests, or laymen, who died in prison, during the same reign; and one hundred and five others, who were sent into perpetual banishment. "I say nothing", continues the same writer, "of many more, who were whipped, fined, (the fine for recusancy was 20£ a month), or stripped of their property, to the utter ruin of their families. In one night, fifty catholic gentlemen, in the county of Lancaster, were suddenly seized, and committed to prison, on account of their non-attendance at church. About the same time, I find an equal number of Yorkshire gentlemen lying prisoners in York castle, on the same account, most of whom perished there. These were, every week, for a twelve-month together, dragged by main force, to hear the established service performed in the castle chapel."

Doctor Bridgewater, in a table published at the end of his Concertatio Catholica, gives the names of about 1,200, who had been deprived of their livings or estates, or had been imprisoned or banished, or been otherwise victims of persecution for their religion, previously to the year 1588, the period, when the persecution of the catholics began to rise to its greatest height, declaring, at the same time, that he was far from having named all; and that he mentioned the names of those only, which had come to his personal knowledge. Many of these died in prison, and some of them under sentence of death.

3.The Torture.

INCREDIBLE as it may appear to an English reader, it is unquestionably true, that several of those, who suffered death; and several also who did not suffer capitally, were, previously to their trials, inhumanly tortured,—by the common rack, by which their limbs were stretched by levers to a length,—too shocking to mention,—beyond the natural mea­sure of their frame;—or the hoop, called the scavenger's daughter, on which they were placed, and their bodies bent until the head and the feet met;—or by confinement in the little ease, a hole so small that a person could neither stand, sit, or lie straight in it; the iron gauntlet, a screw, that squeezed the hands until the bones were crushed ; or by needles thrust under the nails of the sufferers; or by a long deprivation of necessary sustenance.

It adds to the atrocity of these inflictions, that, in several instances, when the sufferers were put to trial, there was no legal proof established; and in some, not even any legal evidence offered to substantiate the offence, of which the party was accused.

Recourse was had to the torture, in order to supply this want of legal evidence to convict the accused; and at the same time furnish proofs against others. At the end of Cecil's Execution of Justice is usually printed, a Declaration of the favorable dealing of her majesty's commissioners, appointed for the examination of certain traitors; and of tortures unjustly reported to be done upon them for matters of religion. It first appeared in print in 1583, in black letter; and was comprised in six pages quarto. It admits the use of torture in these cases, and states the grounds, on which it was defended

4.Trial and Execution of Father Campion.

AMONG those, who suffered, in the reign of Elizabeth, none attracted so much attention as father Edmund Campion, a Jesuit. We have a full and authentic account of his trial, sufferings and death, in the late Doctor Challoner's Memoirs of Missionary Priests, and doctor Bridgwater's Concertatio, which we have just mentioned. We shall present the reader with an abstract of the trial of father Campion, from the last-mentioned of these works. It will show the manner in which criminal prosecutions were conducted in the reign of Elizabeth against catholic priests.

Father Campion was born a protestant. He was first educated in Christ's Hospital; and thence removed to St. John's College, Cambridge; where he took the orders of deacon in the church of England. Being converted to the catholic religion, he entered into the society of Jesus, was ordained priest, and, for some time, taught in the university of Prague. In all these situations he was respected and beloved for his eminent learning and piety, and for his mild and pleasing manners. He returned to England, in order to exercise his missionary functions. On the 15th of July 1581, he was apprehended, in a secret room, in the house of a catholic gentleman. After remaining during two days in the custody of the sheriff of Berkshire, he was conveyed by slow journeys to London, on horseback; his legs fastened under the horse, his arms tied behind him, and a paper placed on his hat, on which, in large capital letters, were written the words, "Campion, the seditious Jesuit". On the 25th, he was delivered to the lieutenant of the Tower. He was frequently examined before the lord chancellor, or other members of the council, and by commissioners appointed by them. He was required to divulge what houses he had frequented, by whom he had been relieved; whom, he had reconciled, when, which way, for what purpose, and by what commission, he had come into the realm; how, where, and by whom he printed his books. All these questions, he declined to answer. In order, therefore, to extort answers from him, he was first laid on the rack, and his limbs stretched a little, to show him, as the executioners termed it, what the rack was. He persisted in his refusal—then, for several days successively, the torture was increased; and, on the two last occasions, he was so cruelly torn and rent that he expected to expire under the torment. Whilst upon the rack he called continually upon God; and prayed fervently for his tormentors, and for those by whose orders they acted.

On the 12th of November, he and his companions were indicted of high treason; "that, in the last March and April, at Rheims in Champaign, Rome, and other parts beyond the seas, he had conspired the death of her majesty, the overthrow of the religion professed in England, the subversion of the state; and that, for the attempt thereof, they had stirred up strangers to invade the realm; moreover, that on the 8th of the May following, they took their journey from Rheims towards England, to persuade and seduce the queen's subjects to the Romish religion, and obedience to the pope, from their duties and allegiance to her highness; and that on the first of June they arrived in this country for the same purposes."

After the indictment was read:—"I protest to God", said Campion, "and his angels, by heaven and, earth, and before this tribunal,— which I pray God may be a mirror of the judgment to come,—that I am not guilty of these treasons, or any other. To prove these things against me is impossible". The prisoners were then arraigned, and severally pleaded Not Guilty.

On the 20th of November, they were put to the bar for trial. Six were arraigned with Campion. Seven were arraigned on the following day. All, except one, were priests. When Campion was, according to custom, required to hold up his hand, "both his arms", writes a person present at his trial, "being pitifully benumbed, by his often cruel racking before, and having them wrapped in a fur cuff, he was not able to lift his hand so high as the rest did, and was required of him, but one of his companions kissing his hands so abused for the confession of Christ, took off his cuff, and so lifted up his arm as high as he could, and he pleaded Not Guilty, as the rest did".

The first witness produced by the crown, named Caddy, or Craddock,—deposed generally against all the prisoners, that, "being beyond the seas, he had heard of the holy vow, made between the pope and the English priests, for restoring and establishing religion in England, for which purpose, two hundred priests should come into the realm. The which matter was declared to Ralph Shelly, an English knight, and captain to the pope, and that he would conduct an army into England, for the subduing of the realm unto the pope, and the destroying of the heretics. Where to Sir Ralph made answer, that he would rather drink poison with Themistocles, than see the overthrow of his country, and added, that he thought the Catholics in England would first stand in arms against the pope, before they would join in such an enterprise.

The reader must be amazed that such evidence could have been offered; evidence, in which nothing could be brought home to the prisoners; and which, if it did prove anything, proved only the good disposition of the general body of the catholics to the government.

The two next facts, were the allegations of the queen's council, that Campion had conversed with the cardinal of Sicily and the bishop of Ross upon the bull of Pius the fifth. The particulars of these conversations were not mentioned, nor was the slightest evidence brought to show that they had taken place.

The next fact charged on Campion, was, that he had travelled from Prague to Rome, and held a private conference with Dr. Allen, to withdraw the people from their allegiance. No proof of either of these facts was offered. But Campion candidly admitted his journey; a conversation with Dr. Allen, and his mission into this country, but observed, that the sole object of it was to administer spiritual aid to catholics; and that cardinal Allen had strictly charged, nay commanded him, not to meddle with matters of state, or government.

A letter written by Campion, was then produced, in which he grieved for having mentioned, on the rack, the names of some roman-catholic gentlemen by whom he had been entertained; but comforted himself with the reflection, that he had never discovered any secrets therein declared,—Campion replied, that "every priest was bound by vow, under danger of perpetual curse and damnation, never to disclose any offence, or infirmity revealed to him in confession. That, in consequence of his priesthood, he was accustomed to be privy to divers men’s secrets,—not such as concerned the state or commonwealth, but such as charged the grieved soul and conscience, whereof he had power of absolution"

The clerk then produced certain oaths, to be ministered to the people, for renouncing obedience to her majesty, and swearing allegiance to the pope; which papers were found in houses in which Campion had lurked. It does not however appear that any evidence was offered, either respecting the discovery of these papers, or the places in which they were said to have been found. Campion observed that there was no proof that he had any concern in those papers; that many other persons besides himself, had frequented the houses in which he was said to have lurked, so that there was nothing which brought the charge home to himself. As for administering an oath of any kind, he declared, that he would not commit an offence so opposite to his profession, for all the substance and treasure in the world.

Finally,—came the searching charge: "You refuse", said the counsel for the crown, "to swear to the oath of supremacy". "I acknowledge", answered Campion, "her highness as my governess and sovereign. I acknowledged before the commissioners, her majesty, both de facto et de jure, to be my queen. I confessed an obedience due to the crown as my temporal head and primate—this I said then, this I say now. As for excommunicating her majesty,—it was exacted of me,—admitting that excommunicating were of effect, and that the pope had sufficient power so to do, whether then I thought myself discharged of my allegiance or not. I said this was a dangerous question, and that they who demanded this, demanded my blood. But I never admitted any such matter,—neither ought I to be wrested with any such suppositions. Well, since once more it need be answered,—I say generally that these matters are merely spiritual points of doctrine, and disputable in the schools; no part of mine indictment, nor given on evidence, and unfit to be discussed in the King's Bench. To conclude,—they are no matters of fact, they be not in the trial of the country; the jury ought not to take any notice of them."

The judge then proceeded to the other prisoners. The evidence produced against them was of the same nature with that which was urged against Campion. The jury retired, and after deliberating an hour, found them all guilty.

On the first of the following December Campion was led to execution. He was dragged thither to it on a hurdle; his face was often covered with mud, and the people good-naturedly wiped it off. He ascended the scaffold,there, he again denied all the treasons of which he had been accused. He was required to ask forgiveness of the queen; he meekly answered, "wherein have I offended her? In this I am innocent; this is my last breath, in this give me credit. I have, and I do pray for her."

Lord Charles Howard asked him for which queen he prayed?—whether for Elizabeth the queen?"

Campion replied, "yes, for Elizabeth your queen, and my queen".

He then took his last leave of the spectators, and turning his eyes towards heaven, the cart was drawn away. "His mild death, and sincere protestations of innocence", says the writer, from whom this account is taken, "moved the people to such compassion and tears, that the adversaries of the "catholics were glad to excuse his death."

 

XIX.

REASONS ASSIGNED TO JUSTIFY THE SANGUINARY LAWS ENACTED IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH AGAINST CATHOLICS, AND THE RIGOROUS EXECUTION OF THEM.

 

MENTION has been made of the acts, which were passed against the catholics, in the first, second, and fifth years of the reign of queen Eliza­beth. At first, they were not put into particular activity, but towards the tenth year of her reign the system of moderation, if it deserved that name, began to be abandoned. Still the gibbet was not raised, nor the fire kindled during the ten following years, but, from that time, the proceedings of Elizabeth's government against the catholics became sanguinary, and the laws against them were executed with extreme rigor. For this severity, five causes have been assigned:

I. The bull of Pius the fifth, assuming to depose the queen from her throne, and to absolve her subjects from their allegiance to her; and the renewals of it by Gregory the thirteenth, and Sixtus the fifth:

II. The maintenance of the deposing doctrine by the English missionary priests, and the activity of some in giving effect to the bull of Pius:

III. The unsatisfactory answers given by some priests to the six questions on the deposing power, proposed to them by the order of the government:

IV. The establishment of the foreign seminaries, and the missionary labors of the catholic priests in England:

V. The laws, of which we are speaking, were also defended by asserting, that the priests who suffered were not executed for their religion, but for acts, which the law had made treasonable. The plots against Elizabeth, in which the English catholics are pretended to have been engaged, were also said to justify these measures of persecution. They will be the subject of the following chapter.

 

1.First reason assigned for the sanguinary laws against, the catholics.—The Bull of Pius the fifth, and its renewal by Gregory the thirteenth, and Sixtus the fifth.

IN more than one page of his different works, the writer has taken occasion to express his opi­nion, that the claim of the popes to temporal power, by divine right, has been one of the most calamitous events in the history of the church. Its effects, since the Reformation, on the English and Irish catholics have been dreadful, and are still felt by them severely.

The bull of Paul the third, deposing Henry the eighth, and absolving his subjects from their allegiance; and the arrogant answer of Paul the fourth to the ambassador of queen Elizabeth, have been mentioned. We have now to notice the bull, Regnans in excelsis of Pius the fifth. After reciting her offences, this pope, "out of the fullness of his apostolic power, declares Elizabeth, being an heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ; and moreover", continues the pope, "we declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever: and also the nobility, subjects, and people of the said kingdoms, and all others which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be forever absolved from every such oath, and all manner of duty, of dominion, allegiance, and obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents, absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid; and we do command and interdict, all and every the noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her monitions, mandates, and laws, and those, which shall do to the contrary, we do innovate with the like sentence of anathema.

"And, because it were a matter of too much difficulty to carry these presents to all places where it may be needful, our will is, that the copies thereof, under a public notary's hand, and sealed with the seal of an ecclesiastical prelate, or of his court, shall carry altogether the same credit with all people, judicial and extrajudicial, as these presents should do if they were exhibited or shown.—Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of our Lord 1570, the 5th of the calends of May, and of our popedom the 5th year"

Such was this celebrated bull, ever to be condemned, and ever to be lamented. It is most clear, that the pope assumed by it a right, the exercise of which Christ had explicitly disclaimed for himself; that it tended to produce a civil war between the queen's protestant and catholic subjects, and all the horrors of a disputed succession, and that it could not but involve a multitude of respectable and conscientious individuals in the bitterest and most complicated distress. What could have fascinated the pontiff, virtuous and pious, as all historians describe him, to the adoption of such a measure!

Some months after it was published, Mr. John Felton, a catholic gentleman, affixed it to the gate of the palace of the bishop of London. He was apprehended, and tried for high treason, he confessed the fact, was found guilty, and deservedly executed. His conduct was reprobated, and the English catholics never accepted the bull.

Gregory the thirteenth, the immediate successor of Pius, gave, on the 4th April 1580, an explanation of the bull. Father Campion, whose trial and condemnation we have mentioned, was accompanied, in his journey to England, by father Parsons. Before they proceeded on their journey, they re­presented to pope Gregory the thirteenth, that the bull of Pius the fifth should be so understood, "that the same should always bind the queen and the heretics; but that the catholics, it should, by no means, bind, as matters then stood, or were; but thereafter, when the public execution of that bull might be had or made". This, the pontiff granted, by the explanation, which has been mentioned.

It has been a termed a mitigation of the bull of Pius. In respect to Elizabeth and her heretic subjects, it scarcely deserves that description; and, as it recognizes the principle of the bull of Pius, and suspends the action of it only, until it might be executed, it was scarcely less objectionable, than that very reprehensible document.

It was, accordingly, the subject of vehement censure: But, "what evil office", says father Allen, in his Answer to Cecil, c. 2, "have these good fathers done herein? What treason is committed more, than, if they had desired his holiness to have discharged the queen and protestants also of all bond of that bull? How could either they, or the rest of the priests doe more dutifully and discreetly in this case, than to provide, that all such, with whom they only had to deal, might stand free and warranted in their obedience; and commit the rest, that cared not for excommunication, to the judgment of God."

When the Armada was in preparation and almost ready to sail, pope Sixtus the fifth, by a bull, which he directed to be published, as soon as the Spanish army should land in England, but the contents of which were, by the directions of his holiness, immediately notified to the English, renewed the sentence of Pius the fifth, and Gregory the thirteenth, touching and concerning the deposition of Elizabeth, whom he excommunicated, and deposed anew from all royal dignity, and from the tide, right and pretension to the crown of the kingdom of England and Ireland, declaring her illegitimate, and an usurper of the said kingdoms, discharging the subjects, of the kingdom, and all others from all obedience, from the oath of fidelity, and from all' in which they could be obliged to her, or to any one in her name.

The mention of these bulls must be painful to a catholic; but it is an historical obligation; and when he mentions them, it is his duty to condemn them: It is pleasing to add, that they were disregarded by the generality of the catholics of England. How they conducted themselves, when the Armada threatened the coast, we shall afterwards mention. In this place, we shall only add, that the conduct of the clergy was as exemplary as the conduct of the laity. In a petition presented to the queen by some English gentlemen, soon after the defeat of the Armada, (which we shall afterwards have occasion to notice), the subscribers of it say, "we protest to your majesty, before God, that the priests, whoever have conversed with us, have acknowledged your majesty, to be their lawful queen, tam de jure quam de facto, as well of right, as for your actual possession of the throne; that they pray for you, and exhort your subjects to obey you. They profess that it is heresy, and contrary to catholic faith, to think that any man may lift up his hand against God's anointed''.

Thus the English catholics spoke, and thus they acted. The bulls, therefore, which have been mentioned, were no justification of the sanguinary laws against them: on the contrary, their loyalty, in the trying circumstances, which have been mentioned, should have obtained for them the protection and encouragement of the state. It may be granted, that, the papal pretensions made it necessary to watch the catholics with care, and to adopt some precautions in their regard, but, surely, where guilt was not found, there should not have been tortures, gibbets, or fires.

2.Second reason.—The maintenance of the deposing doctrine by the Missionary Priests:—And the activity of some English priests, in giving effect to the Bulls of Pius the fifth, and Sixtus the fifth.

IT was impossible that the proceedings of Elizabeth should not produce great discontents among the catholics. They were fomented by those, whose aim it was to render the catholics odious, and who, for that purpose, endeavored to draw the young, the wild, and the unwary, into conspiracies, of which they themselves always kept the thread, and moved the puppets at their pleasure; by the leaders of the political parties into which the nation was then divided, and each of which sought to increase its own strength by attracting the catholics to it, by the ultra-catholics who believed the lawfulness of the pope's pretensions to the deposing power, and particularly by the Spanish monarch, who, to serve his own views, sought, by forming a Spanish party among the English catholics, to put those pretensions into execution The designs and practices of this monarch, the hollowness of his professions of regard for the catholics, and the ruinous tendency of his endeavors to withdraw them from their al­legiance, are the subject of a pamphlet, entitled. The Estate of the English Fugitives, under the king of Spain, recently republished in The State Papers and Letters of Sir Ralph Sadler, edited by Arthur Clifford.

An interesting and fair account of these different parties, is given by the reverend Charles Plowden, in his Remarks on a book, entitled, Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani.

1. From all the printed and manuscript memoirs which I have seen, (and I have seen many,) it appears, says the reverend gentleman, that political business formed no part of the education of the seminary priests. The bulk of them were solely intent on fitting themselves for the painful duties of missioners, and on preparing themselves for a life of toil and suffering, which they expected and hoped would end in martyrdom. I have seen multitudes of letters, written by them, from England during Elizabeth's reign: they all breathe an exalted spirit of religious zeal; they describe the missionary successes, the piety, the sufferings, the executions of priests and laymen, they frequently deplore the troubles raised by apostates and traitors, and the uneasiness occasioned by the appellant priests; but I have rarely found a word relating to public business or to their own principles, wishes, or interests, in the political concerns of the nation. This must have been an effect of the consummate prudence of Allen, and Parsons, who had forbidden any questions, in which the rights or pretences of princes were involved, to be discussed in the schools, and exercises of the seminaries. It is however certain, that they all considered queen Elizabeth as the capital enemy of their religion; and as the re-establishment of this religion was the ultimate end of all their labors and wishes, they deemed it an happiness to concur to it by every lawful means in their power. I could produce many proofs of this disposition of the seminary priests, but I have never yet found a syllable, which could prove or indicate a plot, or the concurrence of any of them in any plot against the life or the sovereignty of the queen; and it is certain, that the instructions to them from pope Gregory the thirteenth, required their civil obedience to the queen, and their public acknowledgment of her sovereignty.

2. A few of them had deeper views.—I have eagerly searched a number of the letters, and other writings of father Parsons, besides several of Garnet, and of cardinal Allen; and the amount of what I have discovered is as follows: They all considered religion as the first happiness and concern of man; and the destruction of it by Elizabeth as the most unwarrantable abuse of lawless power. They adhered in speculation, to the universal doctrine of their own, and of many preceding ages, which admitted a limited temporal authority in the pope, to be exercised only for the essential service and interests of religion, and of course they never questioned the justice of those temporal and civil deprivations and forfeitures, which, during so many ages, had been connected with the spiritual sentence of excommunication. If this was a crime, it attached equally to all their contemporaries; and surely nothing can be more disingenuous than to maintain, that our priests, who were condemned and executed, merely for their priestly character, did not suffer for their religion because some of them did not roundly deny a doctrine, which almost all Christendom believed to be true. However sincerely I disapprove of the principle, on which the bulls of Pius the fifth, and Sixtus the fifth, against Elizabeth were grounded; I am not surprised that those bulls were approved by cardinal Allen and his friends and it appears that they would have considered the execution of them, if they had taken effect, as just and lawful. It is also certain, (though I find no traces of it in their letters), that, on account of the invalidity of Anne Boleyn's marriage, established by sentence of the holy see, and by various acts of the legislature, they considered Elizabeth as wrongfully placed upon the throne, to the injury of the captive queen of Scotland; from whom they might expect redress for their sufferings, and the re-establishment of their religion, which, of all things, lay nearest their heart. They remembered, with bitter recollection, that this religion, the exclusive truth of which was an essential tenet, had been, a few years before, protected from the throne, and revered throughout the extent of the empire. They had witnessed the crimes of three successive reigns, which had plundered the churches, defaced the altars, and murdered or ejected the ministers; they were now themselves sorely persecuted by the unrelenting queen, and they considered this queen as an usurper. They held freedom of the catholic religion to be the most precious of the rights and dues of mankind, and the obligation of protecting it to be the first duty of the sovereign. On the ancient principle above stated, they conceived the sovereign to be subject to correction from the head of the church, at least for crimes such as Elizabeth had committed; and on these grounds the execution of the bull of pope Pius by Philip the second would, in their estimation, have been a deed of eminent justice. They knew that private individuals, however injured, might not lawfully use violence to redress their grievances, but war, denounced by the Spanish monarch, and sanctioned by the sentence of the pope, was to them at once honorable and lawful. Hence, a few of the leading catholic exiles conceived great hopes from the Spanish armament; and cardinal Allen even wrote a short treatise to prove that the war was just and necessary, to restore the nation to the enjoyment of those essential rights of which Elizabeth had forcibly deprived it. This treatise of the cardinal appears to have been little known at the time; and after the defeat of the Armada it fell into oblivion. Dodd seems to deny its existence. Impartial persons, however, will not be too hasty in condemning the venerable author as a traitor to his country, if they consider, that he was then become, from necessity, a subject of a foreign prince; and conceived himself authorized, by acknowledged authority, to declare enmity against her whom he considered as an usurper; and to whose usurpation he solely attributed all his country's grievances and distresses. Private enmity was foreign from his heart; and his eminent spirit of religion and honor screens him from every suspicion of secret revenge, or unauthorized hostility.

After the failure of the Spanish Armada, the utmost political efforts of cardinal Allen, Parsons, and their friends, seem to have been directed to procure a catholic successor to the queen, and there is evidence, from their letters, that, to effect this, they endeavored to engage the interest of the pope, and other catholic powers. Parsons had labored ineffectually to secure the education of the Scottish king in the religion of his forefathers, and he had rendered to him useful services, in the hope of attaching his confidence to the catholic friends of his family. Though the queen had closed the mouths of politicians on the question of the succession to her crown, it was judged by many, that there would be several pretenders, besides a powerful party at home, to withhold it from James, whose mother had been executed as a traitor by Elizabeth. When Parsons despaired of attaching him to the catholic religion, he seems to have wished the exclusion of James, and, among the possible competitors, to have hoped for success to the pretensions of the infanta of Spain, or the duke of Parma. He repeatedly declares, that he cares not who possesses the throne, provided he be a catholic, that he leaves that concern to the princes who were interested in it; and hopes, that they will give their support to that pretender, who, being a catholic, may be most acceptable to the nation, and to surrounding powers. On this principle Doleman, or the Conference about the succession, was written, with a new, as a letter of Parsons says, to open the eyes of the nation to their main interest, to which the queen's policy forbade them to attend. This book, commonly attributed to Parsons, was the joint production of several: cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield, were probably among the principal compilers, and in the several letters in which Parsons mentions it, he calls it the work of wise and good men; but he nowhere claims a share of it for himself. This may have been a prudential reserve; and as I think it probable that he concurred with the others in the composition, I take it to be certain that he admitted and approved the principles and sentiments which the book delivers. In judging the men who professed these sentiments and principles, it would be very unfair to forget that they followed the general maxims of their age, in which our improved theories of government were unknown and that they applied their principles to an approaching and doubtful event, in which they were highly interested, and on which no superior authority had yet laid down a law, that commanded universal submission.

3. This is a sketch by the hand of a master: a more candid account of the inoffensive conduct of the general body of the catholics of England, in respect to the bull of Pius the fifth; or of the deplorable activity of a few, in recommending the principles, upon which it was framed, and promoting the measures which it suggested, cannot be given. It shows that several clergymen, and the general body of the laity, disapproved of both. This is also shown by several publications, which appeared in the reigns of Elizabeth, and of her immediate successor; and by the admissions of Camden, her historiographer. From these, it is evident, that the catholics, in general, wished to confine the pope to the spiritual government, which St. Peter received from Christ, and blamed those who ascribed to the successors of that apostle, a right to interfere in temporal concerns, or to enforce their spiritual authority by temporal power. Several too, who acquiesced in the bull, thought it unwise to circulate it; deprecated its being put into activity; and lamented the interference of cardinal Allen, and of father Parsons, in seconding the views of Philip the second, and disturbing the succession.

Soon after the accession of the queen, the following quaere, was framed,—"Whether queen Elizabeth was divested of the kingdoms by the deposing bull of Pius the fifth? Or by any other sentence passed or to be passed? Or her subjects discharged from their allegiance"—To this ques­tion the following answer was given; "Notwithstanding this bull, or any other declaration or sentence of the pope, past or to be past; we hold queen Elizabeth to be the lawful queen of England and Ireland; and that obedience and fealty are due to her as such, by all her English and Irish subjects".

(Signed) Richard Watson, John Fecknam, Henry Cole, J. Harpsfield, N. Harpsfield.

Burleigh, in his Execution of Justice, says, that Heath, archbishop of York, and the bishops Poole, Tunstall, White, Oglethorpe, Thurlby, Turberville, and many abbots and deans, acknowledged the same opinion.

Father Caron also mentions, that the Apology for the Catholics, printed at Douay, and presented to James the first, 1604, declared, that "those prelates held themselves to be ready, for the defence of the queen, to expose, and oppose themselves with all their strength, to any external power, whether of the pope, or procured by the pope."

Cardinal Allen himself, as we are informed by Pattenson, Image of Churches, "disapproved of the excommunication, and wished the matter had been left to God.

3.Unsatisfactory answers of the Priests to the Six Questions on the deposing power of the Pope, proposed to them by the Queen's Commissioners: Division of opinions of the Clergy on this subject.

THE writer has now before him, "a brief history of the glorious martyrdom of twelve reverend priests, executed within these twelve months, for the confession and defence of the catholic faith, but under the false pretence of treason, with a note of sundry things that befell them in their life and imprisonment, with a preface, declaring their innocence, set forth by such as were conversant with them in their life, and present at their arraignment, 1582".

The twelve priests who suffered, were, Mr. Everard Haunse, who was executed on the 31st day of July 1581: Father Edmund Campion, a short account of whose trial we have given: Mr. Ralph Shirwin, and Mr. Alexander Bryan, who were executed on the 1st of December 1581:—Mr. Thomas Forde, Mr. John Shert, and Mr. Johnson, who were executed on the 28th day of May 1582:—Mr. William Filbee, Mr. Luke Kerbie, and Mr. Lawrence Richardson, alias Johnson, and Mr. Thomas Cottom, who were executed on the 30 th of the same month:—and Mr. John Paine, who was executed on the 2nd day of April 1582. After trial, they underwent a private examination. The persons who presided at it, were Popham, the queen's attorney-general, and Egerton, the queen's solicitor-general, and two civilians, doctor Lewis and doctor Hammond:

They put the six following questions to the prisoners:

" 13th May, 1582.

 

1. Whether the bull of Pius quintus against the queen's majesty, be a lawful sentence and ought to be obeyed by the subjects of England?

2. Whether the queen's majesty be a lawful! queen; and ought to be obeyed by the subjects of England, notwithstanding the bull of Pius quintus, or any bull or sentence that the pope has pronounced, or may pronounce, against her majesty?

3. Whether the pope have, or had power to authorize the Earles of Northumberland, and Westmorland, and other her majesty's subjects, to rebel, or take arms against her majesty, or to authorize doctour Saunders, or others, to invade Ireland, or any other her dominions, and to bear arms against her, and whether they did therein lawfully, or no?

4. Whether the pope have power to discharge any of her highness subjects, or the subjects of any Christian prince, from their allegiance, or oath of obedience, to her majesty, or to their prince for any cause?

5. Whether the said doctor Saunders, in his book of the visible monarchic of the church, and doctor Bristow, in his book of motives, (writing in allowance, commendation, and confirmation of the said bull of Pius quintus), have therein taught, testified, or maintained, a truth, or falsehood?

6. If the pope doe by his bull, or sentence, pronounce her majesty to be deprived; and no lawful queen, and her subjects to be discharged of their allegiance, and obedience, unto her; and after the pope, or any other by his appointment, and authority, do invade this realm, which part would you take; or which part ought a good subject of England to take?"

In this work, which we have noticed, mention is made of an account, published by government, of these questions, and the answers of each of the twelve priests; and these were stated to be preceded by a preface.

Mr. Bosgrave, the two first secular priests,—the third a Jesuit,—explicitly denied, in their answers, the pope's deposing power. Accord­ingly, they were pardoned:—what afterwards became of them, the writer has unsuccessfully endeavored to discover. In some letters of cardinal Allen, their conduct is mentioned, but neither blamed nor praised. The pardon of them seems to show that a general and explicit disclaimer, by the English catholics, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, of the pope's deposing power, would have both lessened and abridged the term of their sufferings.

That the replies made by the priests to the six questions were unsatisfactory, is too clear. They are either refusals to answer, or evasive answers, or such answers as expressed their belief of the deposing doctrine, or at least a hesitation of opinion respecting it.

We may add, that among the six questions there is not one which the catholics of the present times have not fully and unexceptionably answered, in the oaths which they have taken, in compliance with the acts of the 18th, 31st, and 33d years of the present reign.

The unsatisfactory tenor of the answers of the priests was lamented by several catholics. Among these, Mr. John Bishop, "an hearty papist," says Collyer, "particularly distinguished himself". "He wrote", says Collyer, "against these high fliers of the court of Rome; made it plainly appear that the canon of the council of Lateran, for absolving subjects from their allegiance, was plainly a forgery—That this authority was nothing more than the doctrine of pope Innocent the third; And that, it was never received in England".

The Important Considerations and Decachordon of Mr. Watson,—which, in other respects, are very reprehensible, abundantly show this division of opinion; and that in the reign of Elizabeth several priests, and the bulk of the laity, would have answered the six questions with the same candor and integrity of principle, as all the present catholic clergymen and laity of England would now answer them, and have in effect answered them.

However unfortunate or provoking we may consider the answers of the seven priests, they did not convict them of disloyalty in the opinion of Elizabeth. "The queen herself", says Camden, "generally disbelieved their guilt; and did not consent to the trial of Campion, and his companions, till she was brought by her ministers to think that the sacrifice of them was necessary to quiet the ferment, to which the report of her intended marriage with the duke of Anjou had given occasion".

After all,—every reader of these pages must admit, that a steady adherence to principle, from conscientious motives, however erroneous, in the face of torments and death, is always entitled to respect. Now, to whom, more than to these venerable sufferers can this respect be due? Aware of the racks, the fires, the cauldrons, and the fatal rood, to which unsatisfactory answers to the questions then proposed would probably lead; still,—rather, than express an acquiescence in a doctrine, which,—let it be supposed erroneously, but certainly conscientiously,—they believed to be untrue, or rather believed to be doubtful, they risked death itself in its most hideous form.

4.Fourth reason, alleged in defence of the sanguinary laws against the Catholics;—the establishment of the foreign Seminaries, and the Missionary Labors of' their Priests.

FROM the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth, until the 31st of his present Majesty, no school for the education of catholic youth, in catholic principles, could be conducted, without subjecting the master to the penalties inflicted by the statute of the second year of Elizabeth,—forfeiture of goods and chattels, with one year's imprisonment, for the first offence; the penalties of a praemunire, for the second, and death for the third. Even in the case of domestic education, the parent was liable to the same penalties. Seminaries, the object of which was to qualify persons for the sacred ministry in the catholic church, were still more obnoxious to the law. Thus, catholics were deprived of every means of education, and, in the course of a few years, the catholic priesthood must, under the operation of such laws, have been extinguished. In these circumstances, foreign education was the sole resource left to the catholics, to this consequently they had recourse. In 1568, cardinal Allen established a college at Douay, for the instruction of youth, and the education of priests for the English mission. In 1578, this establishment was removed to Rheims. In 1593, it returned again to Douay.— There it continued, till the general wreck of all that was good in the French revolution. Another establishment on a similar plan, was founded at Rome in 1578. About the year 1579, it was placed under the direction of the Jesuits, but still continued a seminary for the education of secular priests. Similar establishments were formed at Lisbon and Valladolid; and some time about the year 1598, father Parsons founded the college at St. Omer's.

The account given by Hume of these seminaries is extremely imperfect and inaccurate. But something beyond imperfection and inaccuracy may be justly imputed to him, when he informs his reader, that "sedition, rebellion, sometimes assassination, were the expedients by which they intended to effect their purposes against the queen". To this atrocious charge, six unquestionable facts may be opposed.—In the first place, the circumstance which has been already mentioned, that, of the two hundred catholics who suffered death for religion in the reign of Elizabeth, one only impugned her title to the throne, next, that they all, to the moment of their deaths, persisted in denying every legal guilt, except the mere exercise of missionary function: thirdly, that their accusers were uniformly persons of bad lives, and of the lowest character: fourthly, that there is not an instance, in which the tortures inflicted on them produced from any one of them, either a confession of his own guilty or a charge of guilt on others: fifthly, that the barbarous irregularity, with which their trials were conducted, has seldom been exceeded; and sixthly, that even this irregularity never furnished legal evidence of the commission of any legal guilt, except, as we have already noticed, the mere exercise of missionary function. It must be added, that even the exercise of missionary function was seldom proved on them by regular evidence.

Most bitterly did the pious and learned inmates of these seminaries,—(for pious and learned they certainly were),—bewail their exile from their native land.

"Thou know, good Lord!" says cardinal Allen, in his eloquent Apology, and true declaration of the Institution, and endeavors of the two English colleges, the one in Rome, the other now residing at Rheims, against certain sinister information given up against the same. "Thou know how often we have lamented together, that for our sins we should be constrained to spend either all, or most of our serviceable years, out of our natural country, to which they are most due, that our offices should be acceptable, and our lives and services agreeable to strangers, and not to our dearest at home. You know how earnestly we have desired you to incline our prince's heart to admit us into our country, into what state soever and that we might, in poverty and penance never so extreme, serve the poor souls to their salvation; voiding our cogitations of all honors, commodities, preferments, that our forefathers and the realm yielded and gave to such functions, acquitting them, for our own parts, to the present possessors and incumbents, or to whomsoever God shall permit.

You know, how justly we have bewailed our heavy case, that so many strange nations having their churches, with freedom to serve God after their manner, in our country, only catholics, (who in our fathers days, had all, and for whom, and by whom, all churches and Christianity rose,) can, by no intercession of foreign potentates, nor no sighs, nor sorrows of innumerable most loyal subjects, obtain one place in the whole land, to serve their Lord God, after the rites of all good Christian princes, priests, and people of the world: That no Jew, no Turk, no pagan, can, by the law of God, nature, or nations, be forced from the manner and persuasion of his own sect, and service, to any other, which, by promise or profession, he or his progenitors never received, only we, that neither, in our own persons, nor in our forefathers, ever gave consent to any other faith or worship of God, but have, in precise terms, by protestation and promise, bound ourselves in baptism to the religion, faith and service catholic alone,—are, against divine and human laws, and against the protestants’ own doctrine, in other nations, not only bereaved of our christian due in this behalf, but are forced by manifold coactions, to those rites which we never knew, nor gave our assent unto".

It is difficult to believe that the writer of these affecting lines had not an English heart.

In the same work, the cardinal does justice to his friend father Parsons, and to Parsons's spiritual sons. "We protest", he says, "that neither the reverend fathers of the society whom the people call Jesuits,—(an express clause being in the instructions of their mission into England, that they deal not in matters of state, which is to be showed, signed with their late general's hand of worthy memory)—neither the priests, either of the seminaries or others, have any commission, direction, instruction, or insinuation from his holiness, or any other their superior, either in religion, or of the like, to move sedition, or to deal against the state, but only by their priesthood and the functions thereof, to do such duties as be requisite for Christian men's souls, which consists of preaching, teaching, catechizing, ministering the sacraments, and the like".

"Your highness's noble father", concludes the eloquent cardinal, "as of worthy and wise men we have borne, was fully determined to give over the title of supremacy, and unite both himself and his realm to the see and church apostolic again; but being prevented by death, could not accomplish his most honorable designment, and may therefore be both an example and a warning to your majesty, the last of all his dearest children, to accomplish that thing, which, to his great wisdom at the going out of this life, was thought so necessary for his soul, his people, and posterity, which diverse princes and provinces begin now to think upon more seriously than before. Incline your hart, for Christ's love, gracious lady! to our humble suit made for your own soul; and be not offended with, for your poor subjects, for moving your majesty in so plane terms, in God's and the church's cause. Wherein, if our Lord of his secret judgment permit us not to be heard, yet, in doing so dutiful an endeavor, we cannot lose our labors, for which we must be always ready, (as God shall please,) to lose our lives.

"In the mean time, not repugning or resisting any of your majesty's or the realm's temporal laws, we trust no reasonable man can reprove us, if we refuse to be obedient to the pretended laws of religion, which we think in conscience, and can prove to be, against the laws of God, and not consonant to any just and truly called laws of our country."

5.Assertion that the Priests were executed, not for their Religion, but for their commission of acts of High Treason.

A DEFENCE of the sanguinary laws of Elizabeth was made, by asserting that the priests who suffered under them, were convicted, not for their priestly character, or exercising their priestly functions, but for treason. This conveys an idea that the treason for which they suffered, was some act that was treasonable by the ancient law of the land, or the statute of treasons—the 25th of Edward III.

This is a great mistake. It was not even pre­tended that the priests were convicted of any act that was treasonable by the ancient law, on the statute of Edward: the only treasons for which they suffered were those which the statutes of Elizabeth had made treasonable—denying her spiritual supremacy—not quitting or returning to England—or exercising sacerdotal functions.

But, continue the advocates for the justice of these laws, it was competent to the state to make these acts treasonable; and, having enacted that they should be treasonable, those, who did such acts, were legally guilty of treason; and were punished, not for their religion, but for being traitors.

This was the ground on which, by a state-paper, published by lord Burleigh, these sanguinary laws, and the executions which took place under them, were principally defended. It was published in 1583, and is entitled, The execution of justice for maintenance of public and Christian peace against certain stirrers of sedition, and adherents to the traitors and enemies of this realm, without any persecution of them, as falsely reported and published by the traitors and fosterers of the treasons"

To this cardinal Allen replied, by, A true, sincere, and modest defence of Christian catholics, that suffered for their faith at home and abroad, against a false, seditious, and slanderous libel, entitled, The execution of justice in England; wherein is declared how unjustly the protestants do charge the catholics with treason; how untruly they deny their persecution for religion, and how deceitfully about the cause, greatness, and manner of their sufferings, with diverse other matters pertaining to this purpose. It was uni­versally read and admired. The authors of the Biographia Britannica mention that, "as much is said in it, for his cause, and as great learning shown in defending it, as it would admit". The learned Edmund Bolton called it, "a princely, "grave, and flourishing piece of natural and exquisite English." An elegant version of it into the Latin language is published in doctor Bridgewater's Concertatio.

The whole of lord Burleigh's work is founded on an argument, so brittle, that it falls into pieces the moment it is touched. It was not, says his lord­ship, for their catholic religion, or for their sacerdotal character, that the priests underwent the sentence of the law; but for their remaining in or returning to England;—acts, which the law had made high treason.

Now, unless their priests remained in or returned to England, the English catholics would have been without instruction, and without the sacraments or rites of their religion. To remain in England, or to return to it, was therefore an act of the religious duty of the catholic priesthood and for this act of religious duty the priests were executed.

In defence of the edicts against the huguenots, who assembled in bodies for the exercise of their religious worship, might not Louvois have urged, with equal justice, that the offenders were punished, not for their religious principles, but for their illegal practices;—a previous law having made their assembling for religious worship a legal offence

In fact, if lord Burleigh's argument justified the executions of the catholic priests, in the reign of queen Elizabeth, there has seldom been a religious persecution, which a similar argument would hot justify.

 

XX.

ALLEGED PLOTS OF THE CATHOLICS AGAINST QUEEN ELIZABETH.

 

A FURTHER defence of the sanguinary code of Elizabeth is made, by accusing the catholics of various plots against her person and government. The principal of these are,

I. The insurrection of the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland:

II. The treason, as it is usually termed, of Mr. Francis Throckmorton:

III. Doctor Parry's project to assassinate the queen:

IV. Somerville’s plot:

V. And Babington's conspiracy:

VI. These we shall succinctly mention; and then state the result, to which our consideration of them has led us.

It is evidently beside the object of these pages to enter into a particular detail of any of these unjustifiable attempts. The points to be settled, are, whether they can be charged, with justice, on the general body of the English catholics; and, whether they furnish reasonable ground for believing that they proceeded from any principle of the catholic religion, or from any opinion, generally entertained by persons of that communion.

Perhaps the following short statements may lead to a proper conclusion on each of these points.

 

1.The Insurrection of the earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland.

WITH respect to this insurrection;—it is admitted, that the earls were catholics—that the restoration of the catholic religion was one of the avowed objects of their insurrection; and that they attempted to engage in it the general body of the catholics. In the words of Camden, the queen's historiographer, we shall state the result of these attempts, and, without adding a single-reflection, commit the conclusion to the reader. "They sent letters" says Camden, "to the papists all round the kingdom, and advised them to come in to their assistance. But, so far were they from joining with them, that most of them sent the letters, which they had received, with the bearers of them, to the queen. Every one strove who should be foremost in the tender of his service, and the offer of his purse and person towards reducing the rebels."

 

2.The Treason of Francis Throckmorton.

THE real existence of what is termed, Throckmorton's treason, is very dubious. On the suspicion of being engaged in a conspiracy, to place Mary the queen of Scots on the throne, he was taken into custody. Among his papers were found two lists, which, it was said, he had attempted to convey to the Spanish ambassador; one, of the principal harbors in the kingdom, with an account of their situation, and of the depth of water in each; the other, of all the eminent roman-catholics. "At first", says doctor Robertson, "Throckmorton boldly avowed his innocence, and declared that the two papers were forged by the queen's ministers, in order to intimidate or ensnare him; and he even endured the rack with the utmost fortitude; but, being brought a second time to the place of torture, his resolution failed him, and he not only acknowledged that he held a secret correspondence with the queen of Scots, but discovered a design, that was formed to invade England. This confession he retracted at his trial, returned to it once more (probably in hopes of pardon), after sentence was passed upon him; and retracted it once more at the place of execution". "To us, in the present age", continues doctor Robertson, "who are assisted in forming our opinions of the matter, by the light which time and history have brought upon the designs and character of the princes of Guise, (the supposed instigators of Throckmorton's attempts), many circumstances in Throckmorton's confession appear to be extremely remote from truth, and even from probability". "It is strange", says Carte, "that the jury should find him guilty, upon such an extorted confession, part whereof", continues the historian, "was certainly false."

The general opinion of his innocence was great. To counteract its impression, government caused An Account of Francis Throckmorton’s Treason, to be published. "But, notwithstanding the vast art", says Guthrie, "with which it was written, it will be very difficult for any gentleman of the law to discover, upon what evidence Throckmorton was convicted, if he takes from the queen's council the advantage of his own confession, when on the rack."

 

3.Doctor Parry's project of Assassination.

DOCTOR PARRY'S trial is inserted in the first volume of Mr. Hargrave's edition of the State Trials. A note to it states, that Parry was but of low fortune, and very extravagant; and that, having committed a great outrage against Mr. Hugh Hare, of the Temple, with an intent to have murdered him at his chambers, he was tried for the same and convicted."

For his supposed design upon the queen's life, he was tried by a commission, at which lord Hunsdon, the governor of Berwick, presided. Parry pleaded guilty to the indictment. Some days before the trial took place, he delivered a written confession of the Crime, with which he was charged, and the cir­cumstances with which, by his account, it was at­tended : this confession was read at his trial. It appears by it, that Parry was a protestant, and employed by the ministers of the queen to discover the plots, said to be at this time carried on against her, in foreign parts; and that his exertions had been repaid by rewards and promises. Afterwards, he professed himself a true convert to the catholic religion; and was received into the catholic church. According to his representation, the accounts of the sufferings of the English catholics had greatly affected him, and determined him to put an end to them by assassinating the queen. With this view, he procured himself to be introduced to several persons of consideration. In his confession, he states, that his design was approved generally by Thomas Morgan, an active roman-catholic, then residing on the continent, and, more explicitly, by Neville, afterwards created lord Latimer, a relation of Cecil: and who took an active part in bringing Parry to trial: but that Watts, whom he terms a learned priest, plainly denounced it unlawful; with whom, he says, many English priests did agree; that other persons however, both eminent in rank, and distinguished by character, approved it. He declared that he had communicated his project to the pope, to cardinal Como, and to others. These, he said, commended the design, and encouraged it: but no proof of any kind, either of their approbation of the project of assassination, or even of their being acquainted with it, was adduced by him; neither did he so much as refer to the slightest evidence of either. On the contrary, a letter to him, from cardinal Como,—the single document which he brought forward,—mentions only in general terms, the good disposition and resolution which he had towards the service, and benefit of the public:—an expression which the pope or cardinal would naturally use to any person, who appeared to commiserate the sufferings of the catholics, and professed a general intention to exert himself for their relief. It is also remarkable, that, when Parry was charged with cardinal Como's letter by Mr. Topcliffe, (a person employed in those days in discovering and prosecuting catholics), and Topcliffe asserted, that, therein he had promised to destroy her majesty, and was, from the cardinal, as from the pope, animated thereto, he exclaimed, Mr. Topcliffe, you clean mistake the matter! I deny any such matters to be in the letter; and I wish, it might be truly examined and considered of."

After reading the confession, the commissioners proceeded to pass sentence. Parry then pleaded, that his confession was extorted from him by dread of the torture. He cried out in a furious manner, that he never meant to kill the queen, and that he would lay his blood upon her and his judges before God and the world. Even after sentence was passed on him, he summoned the queen to answer for his blood before God.

What then is the evidence of the plot? Parry, on whose single testimony it rests, had been found guilty of an attempt to murder; he was a spy; and false to the party that employed him. He must have acted villainously, either when he made, or when he retracted, his confession. In support of it, no one collateral circumstance of proof was adduced.

Surely, at the tribunal of history, such evidence, particularly when it is brought to charge individuals of rank and character, and a numerous and honorable portion of a respectable community, should not be received.

His confession is composed with great art. The reader may compare it with the language which the celebrated Blood, when he was seized for an assault on the duke of Ormond, held at his interview with Charles the second; and which saved his life. The same, perhaps, was the real aim of Parry's confession.

When there are a confession, and a subsequent retractation, each necessarily neutralizes the other, unless ulterior evidence is produced, which preserves to one its activity. In the present case, some argument in favor of the retractation may be thought to arise from the fear of the rack, under which the confession was given; and from Parry's having often repeated his retractation, and finally adhered to, it, while he stood on the brink of eternity.

 

4.Somerville's Plot.

WITH respect to the plot of which Somerville was accused, both Camden and Echard, as they are cited by the reverend Mr. Potts, the able and judicious author of the Enquiry into the moral and political tendency of the Catholic Religion, insinuate, that it was the invention of lord Leices­ter, and that this was commonly believed. The French ambassador at the court of Elizabeth mentions, in one of his dispatches, the imprisonment of Somerville for a conspiracy against the queen, and the circumstance of his having procured a dispensation from the pope to murder Elizabeth. He treats it as a fiction, devised for the purpose of inflaming the prejudices of the people against the pope and the English papists. His letter is among the Pieces Justificatives in mademoiselle Keralio's fifth volume of her Histoire d'Elizabeth Reine d' Angleterre.

 

5.Babington's Plot.

THAT Babington, and about thirteen other catholic gentlemen conspired to rescue queen Mary, and to assassinate queen Elizabeth, as a measure necessary for the accomplishment of their design, every catholic admits. Every catholic also acknowledges that it was a crime of the bleakest die. But, while the catholics acknowledge the crime of the guilty, and the justice of their punishment, they also insist, that the imputation of guilt should be confined to those, who were involved in it, and that nothing can be more unjust than to charge it on the community. They took no part in Babington's attempt; and their clergy were so far from approving the treasonable attempt, that they ad­dressed a letter to the general body, in which they dissuaded the catholics from disturbing the peace of the country, and employing force against the enemies of their religion.

On the trial of Mary, the unfortunate queen of Scots, strong suspicions were entertained that Babington's conspiracy, though not actually contrived, was artfully fomented and regulated by Cecil and Walsingham, with a view to involve Mary in its guilt, and thereby accomplish her ruin. The subsequent discussions of Mary's alleged criminality by Mr. Goodall, Mr. Tytler, Dr. Gilbert Stuart, Mr. Archdeacon Whitaker, and Mr. Chalmers, seem to render this highly probable; and the light in which an ingenious writer, Mr. d'Israeli, in his Curiosities of Literature, has lately placed the characters of Babington and his associates, adds to the probability of the hypothesis. The argument in support of Mary's innocence arc most powerfully summed up by Dr. Milner, towards the end of the sixth Letter to a Prebendary, which we have so often cited.

Still,—great names,—Hume, Robertson, and Laing, must be ranked among the accusers of Mary; but, it must be admitted, that if some great names may be cited against her, some strong argument maybe urged for her; that some circumstances raise a legitimate prejudice in her favor; and others, a legitimate prejudice against her persecuting relative. The subject ramifies into such a multiplicity of topics, that few possess both time and ability for a proper discussion of them. It is much to be wished, that some gentleman, gifted with adequate leisure and talent, would favor the public with a literary history of the ancient and modern controversy on this interesting subject; stating succinctly, its rise, progress, and variations, and the principal arguments by which each party supports its opinion.

 

6.The Result

SUCH then, are the plots against queen Elizabeth, with which the catholics are charged. Even if all that is said of their supposed guilt were completely true, how very small a proportion of the body would it criminate? Would it be just to implicate the universal body of the catholics,—consisting, at that time, of two-thirds of the whole population of England,—in the crime of twenty or thirty at the utmost, of its members? Had the number been considerably greater, could it be a matter of just surprise? Would it be allowable to assign any other cause for it than the ordinary feelings and passions of human nature?

Warmly attached to their faith, which had twice rescued their country from paganism; and under which, during a long series of centuries their ancestors had enjoyed every spiritual and temporal blessing; they now beheld it proscribed, its tenets reviled, its sacred institutions abolished, its holy edifices leveled with the ground, its altars profaned, all, who professed it, groaning under the severest inflictions of religious persecution; imaginary plots incessantly imputed to them; the subtlest artifices used to draw them into criminal attempts; counterfeit letters, privately left in their houses; spies sent up and down the country to notice their discourses, and lay hold of their words; informers and reporters of idle stories against them countenanced and credited, and even innocence itself, (to use Camden's own words), though accompanied by prudence, no guard to them". They had constantly before their eyes the racks, the gibbets, the fires and the cauldrons, by which their priests had suffered, and they saw other gibbets, other racks, and other fires, preparing for them; they saw the presumptive heir to the crown brought to the block, because she was of their religion, and because, as she was formally told by lord Buckhurst, “the established religion was thought not to be secure whilst she was in being”; they knew the universal indignation which this enormity had raised in every part of Europe against their remorseless persecutor; that Pius the fifth, the supreme head of their church, had excommunicated her, had de­posed her, had absolved them from their allegiance to her, and implicated them in her excommunication, if they continued true to her; they knew that Sixtus, the reigning pope, had renewed the excommunication, had called on every catholic prince to execute the sentence, and that Philip the second, by far the most powerful monarch of the time, had undertaken it; had lined the shores of the continent with troops, ready at a moment's notice, for the invasion of England, and had covered the sea with an armament, which was proclaimed to be invincible. In this awful moment, when England stood in need of all its strength, and the slightest diversion of any part of it might have proved fatal, the worth of a catholic's conscientious loyalty was fully shown. What catholic in England did not do his duty? What catholic forgot his allegiance to the queen? or was not eager to sacrifice his life and his whole fortune in her cause? "Some", says Hume, equipped ships at their own charge, and gave the command of them to protestants, others were active in animating their tenants, and their vassals, and neighbors, in defence of their country"; "some, (says the writer of an intercepted letter printed in the second volume of the Harleian Miscellany), by their letters to the council, signed with their own hand, offered, that they would make adventures of their own lives in defence of the queen, whom they named their undoubted sovereign lady, and queen, against all foreign foes, though they were sent from the pope, or at his commandment; yea, some did offer that they would present their bodies in the foremost ranks". Lord Montagu, a zealous catholic, and the only temporal peer who ventured to oppose the act for the queen's supremacy, in the first year of her reign, brought a band of horsemen to Tilbury, commanded by himself, his son, and his grand­son: thus periling his whole house in the expected conflict".—The annals of the world do not present a more glorious or a more affecting spectacle than the zeal shown on this memorable occasion, by the poor and persecuted, but loyal, but honorable catholics!—Nor should it be forgotten, that in this account of their loyalty, all historians are agreed.

Will not then the reader feel some indignation when he is informed, that this exemplary, may it not be called heroic conduct, procured no relaxation of the laws against the catholics? That through the whole remainder of the reign of Elizabeth, the laws against them continued to be executed with unabated, and even with increased rigor? That between the defeat of the Armada, and the death of Elizabeth, more than one hundred catholics were hanged and emboweled for the exercise of their religion, and that, when some catholics presented to the queen a most dutiful and loyal address, praying, in the most humble terms, a mitigation of the laws against them, no other attention was shown it, than that Mr. Shelley, by whom it was presented to the queen, for presuming, as it was said, to present an address to the queen, without the knowledge and consent of the lords of the council, was sent to the Marshal sea, and kept in it a close prisoner till his death .

Surely, when he peruses this treatment of the catholics, the reader must feel some indignation. But, will not he himself justly excite something of a like indignation, if, after seeing the loyalty of the catholics thus so severely tried, and thus found so eminently pure, he returns to his former prejudices, and allows himself to entertain, even for a moment, a suspicion of their perfect loyalty to their sovereign, throughout the whole of her long, and on some account splendid, but certainly in respect to her catholic subjects,—(and we must repeat that they constituted two thirds of the nation), —her cruel and oppressive reign?

 

XXI

PROTESTATION OF ALLEGIANCE, PRESENTED TO THE QUEEN BY THIRTEEN PRIESTS.

 

IN 1602, thirteen priests presented to the council of her majesty, a solemn protestation of allegiance, expressed in terms extremely well calculated to remove the prejudices entertained by the sovereign and the public against the general body of the catholics. We shall first, mention the circumstance which led to this measure; then, insert the protestation.

1. On the 5th November 1601, the queen issued a singular proclamation. She notices in it, the dissentions between the secular and the regular clergy, and the combination, as she terms it, of some of the former with the latter. She then intimates, that the seculars who preserved their integrity, were, in her consideration, less blamable than the regulars, or those who combined with them. She then orders all to depart the realm within a time expressed, "except such, as before a member of the privy council, a bishop, or the president of Wales, should acknowledge allegiance and duty to her;—with whom she should then take such further order as should be thought most fit and convenient."

2. Availing themselves of this proclamation, some of the leading clergy came forward with the following admirable protestation of allegiance, dated the 31st of the following January.

"Whereas it hath pleased our dread sovereign lady to take some notice of the faith and loyalty of us, her natural-born subjects, secular priests, (as it appeared in the late proclamation), and of her prince like clemency, to give a sufficient earnest of some merciful favour towards us,—(being all subject by the laws of the realm unto death, by our return into the country after our taking the order of priesthood, since the first year of her majesty's reign),—and only to demand of us a true profession of our allegiance, thereby to be assured of our fidelity to her majesty's person, crown, estate and dignity:—We, whose names are underwritten, in most humble wise, prostrate at her majesty's feet, do acknowledge ourselves infinitely bound unto her majesty therefore, and are most willing to give such assurance and satisfaction in this point, as any catholic priests can or ought to give unto their sovereign.

"First, therefore, we acknowledge and confess the queen's majesty to have as full authority, power, and sovereignty over us, and all the subjects of the realm, as any her highness's predecessors ever had: and farther, we protest that we are most willing and ready to obey her in all cases, and respects, as far forth as ever christian priests within this realm, or in any other Christian country, were bound by the law of God and Christian religion, to obey their temporal prince; as to pay tribute, and all other regal duties unto her highness; and to obey her laws, and magistrates in all civil causes, to pray to God for her prosperous and peaceful reign, in this life, according to his blessed will; and that she may hereafter attain everlasting bliss in the life to come.

"And this our acknowledgment we think to be grounded upon the word of God, that no authority, no cause or pretence, can, or ought, upon any occasion, to be a sufficient warrant more unto us, than to any protestant, to disobey her majesty in any civil or temporal matter.

"Secondly, whereas, for these many years past, divers conspiracies against her majesty's person and estate, and sundry forcible attempts for invading and conquering her dominions, have been made, under we know not what pretences and intendments of restoring catholic religion by the sword, (a course most strange in the world, and undertaken peculiarly and solely against her majesty, and her kingdoms, among other kingdoms departed from the religion and obedience of the see apostolic no less than she),—by reason of which violent enterprises, her majesty, otherwise of singular clemency towards her subjects, hath been greatly moved to ordain and execute severer laws against catholics, (which by reason of their union with the see apostolic in faith and religion, were easily supposed to favor these conspiracies and invasions),—than perhaps had ever been enacted or thought upon, if such hostilities and wars had never been undertaken;—we, to assure her majesty of our faithful loyalty also in this particular cause, do sincerely protest, and by this our public fact, make known to all the Christian world, that, in these cases of conspiracies, of practicing her majesty's death, of invasions, and of whatever forcible attempts which may hereafter be made by any foreign prelate, prince, or potentate whatsoever, either jointly or severally, for the disturbance or subversion of her majesty's person, estate, realms or dominions, under color, show, or pretence, or intendment of restoring the catholic religion in England or Ireland, we will defend her Majesty's person, estate, realms, and dominions, from all such forcible and violent assaults and injuries.

''And, moreover, we will not only ourselves detect and reveal any conspiracies, or plots, which we shall understand to be undertaken by any prelate, prince, or potentate, against her majesty's person, or dominions, for any cause whatsoever, as is before expressed, and likewise to the best of our power resist them; but also, will earnestly persuade all catholics to do the same.

"Thirdly, if, upon any excommunications denounced, or to be denounced, against her Majesty, upon any such conspiracies, invasions, or forcible attempts, to be made, as before expressed, the pope should also excommunicate every one born within her majesty's dominions, that would not forsake the foresaid defence of her majesty, and her realms, and take part with such conspirators or invaders; in these, and all other such like cases, we do think ourselves, and all the lay catholics, born within her majesty's dominions, bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like censure; but will defend our prince and country, accounting it our duty so to do; and, notwithstanding any authority or excommunication whatsoever, either denounced or to be denounced, as is before said, to yield unto her majesty all obedience in temporal causes.

"And, because nothing is more certain, than that, whilst we endeavor to assure her majesty of our dutiful affection and allegiance, by this our Christian and sincere protestation, there will not want such as will condemn and misconstrue our lawful fact; yea, and by many sinister suggestions and calumnies discredit our doings with the Christian world, but chiefly with the pope's holiness, to the greatest prejudice and harm of our good names and persons that may be; unless maturely we prevent their endeavors therein : we most humbly beseech her majesty, that in this our recognizing and yielding Cesar's due unto her, we may also, by her gracious leave, be permitted, for avoiding obloquies and calumnies, to make known, by like public act, that, by yielding her right unto her, we depart from no bond of that Christian duty, which we owe unto our supreme spiritual pastor: and therefore, we acknowledge and confess the bishop of Rome to be the successor of St. Peter, in that see; and to have as ample, and no more, authority or jurisdiction over us and other Christians, than had that apostle by the commission and gift of Christ our Savior, and that we will obey him so far forth as we are bound by the laws of God to do, which we doubt not, but will stand well with the performance of our duty to our temporal prince, in such sort as we have before professed. For, as we are most ready to spend our blood in the defence of her majesty, and our country, so we will rather lose our lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's catholic church."

William Bishop, Robert Drury, John Colleton, John Jackson, John Mush, Francis Barneby, Robert Charnock, Oswald Needham, John BosevilleKichard Button, Anthony Hepburne, Anthony Champney. Roger Cadwallader

This protestation was signed by the thirteen priests. It was framed by Mr. William Bishop, whose name stands first on the list of signatures. He was afterwards consecrated bishop of Chalcedon; and the pope conferred upon him episcopal jurisdiction over the catholics of England and Scotland. Two of the other priests by whom it was signed, Roger Cadwallader, and Robert Drury, afterwards suffered death under the penal code of Elizabeth.

The subscribing clergymen had foreseen the misconstruction which would be put on their lawful act, and the sinister suggestions by which it would be attempted to be discredited. It was said to be "an officious obtrusion:" but Elizabeth had invited it by her proclamation. It was said "to convey a reproach of disloyalty upon all other priests and catholics: but it does not contain a word, which either expresses or intimates such censure. It was asked, where and when had catholic priests, or laymen, entered into the conspiracies mentioned in it to have been formed against her majesty's person; and what were the sundry forcible attempts, said in it to have been made for invading and conquering her dominions? What catholics had favored, these conspiracies and invasions?"—Northumberland, it was replied, and Westmoreland, and. Babington, and his associates;—Those also, who, to use the language of the answer to the Memoirs of Panzani, had deeper views than the general body of the missionaries:—who approved of the bull of Pius the fifth, and who thought the execution of it by Philip the second,—(his Armada was certainly a very forcible attempt,)—would have been an act of eminent justice:—finally, those, who wrote to prove that the war against Elizabeth was just and necessary; and who sought to interrupt the lawful descent of the crown, by bringing in a catholic successor. Against these disloyal opinions, and unjustifiable practices, the document, signed by the thirteen priests, was a solemn, an accurate, and an explicit protestation. It was delivered to the lords in council, and satisfied both their lord­ships and the queen.

Much indeed, is it to be lamented, that it was not generally signed by all the catholic clergy and laity of England. But it was opposed by a powerful party: the divines of Louvaine were consulted, and expressed their disapprobation of it. So free, however, was it from any expression of doctrine, really objectionable, that its signature by Mr. Bishop, and his activity in procuring signatures, did not prevent the see of Rome from appointing him, as we have already mentioned, her vicar-apostolic, with ordinary jurisdiction over the catholics in England and Scotland.

It is also to be observed, that the censure passed by the divines of Louvaine on the protestation of the thirteen priests, is expressed in very gentle terms. They mention, that the point submitted to them wholly turned on the question, "whether the pope hath or hath not an indirect power in temporal?"—They assert, that "the affirmative of the proposition is certain; that the negative of it is false; but not contrary to faith; and contrary only to the common opinion. That, the thirteen priests had not, by signing the declaration of allegiance, rendered themselves ineligible to offices, or improper to hold them. That the opinion expressed by them was tolerated in France; that the pope had conferred ecclesiastical dignities on some who maintained it; and that several fathers of the society of Jesus, who had openly professed it, had been, recognized by the other fathers of their order." The moderation of the censure showed the progress of reason.

 

XXII.

TWO BRIEFS OF CLEMENT THE EIGHTH.

 

THE letters of cardinal d'Ossat contain much curious information concerning these briefs. The importance of these letters is increased by the high character of the writer. He was one of those extraordinary personages who have united every voice in their praise. He is mentioned in terms of equal favor by Thuanus and Pallavicini, by Wicquefort in England, and the Jesuit Galucci at Rome. From a situation so low, that his family was never known, he raised himself by his talents, and the undeviating wisdom and rectitude of his conduct, to be vice-ambassador of Henry the fourth of France, to the see of Rome,—the centre, at that time, of the most important negotiations. He possessed the entire confidence of his sovereign; and the pope, as an expression of his esteem for him, honored him with the purple. "His penetration", says l’Avocat, "was prodigious. He formed his resolutions with such discernment, that, in all the various concerns and negotiations in which he was engaged, a single false step has not been discovered."—It is difficult to avoid a digression, when it leads to the contemplation of a character at once so respectable and pleasing.

In a very long, and a singularly interesting letter, of the 26th of November, 1601, cardinal d'Ossat gives a full account of the curious project, that produced the two briefs which we are now called upon to mention. The cardinal analyzes the work written upon the succession to the crown of England, under the name of Doleman which has been mentioned in a preceding page. The cardinal says it was written at the instigation of Spain, and circulated by the Spaniards over the Low Countries, and wherever else they thought it might find readers. Doleman, he says, reduces the legitimate pretenders to the crown of England,—1st. to the king of Spain, as representing the royal house of Portugal, in whom the lineal heirs of the house of Lancaster were found:—2dly, to the house of Scotland, represented by James the sixth; and 3dly, to lady Arabella Stuart: both the last were descended from Margaret, the eldest daughter of Henry the seventh. Each has a place in the genealogy, contained in the 12th chapter of this work. Passing over James, on account of his religion, and because he was born in Scotland, and therefore an alien, the pretenders were reduced to the king of Spain, and to lady Arabella. To the Spanish line, the pope supposed the English would never submit. The lady Arabella consequently remained, and her, the duke of Parma should marry. Unfortunately, he happened to have a wife, but cardinal Farnese, his brother, had none. He therefore was to be secularized; and to him the lady Arabella was to give her hand. The king of Spain, probably with a very bad grace, was to submit to their union; but, after some difficulty both foreigners and subjects would bend the knee, and acknowledge Farnese and Arabella as sovereigns of the two thrones of England and Scotland. Even the king of France was to find his account in it; as a Bourbon could be alarmed at nothing so much as accession of strength to the house of Guise, to which James the first belonged, through his mother, the unfortunate queen. The talents of queen Elizabeth were not admired by Clement, so much as they had been by Sixtus quintus, his predecessor. Clement called her, "An old woman without a husband, and without a certain successor." He said she must, at that time, be straitened for money, on account of the greatness of her former expenses: "Neither you or I", said the pope to the cardinal, "are so old, but that we may yet behold her subdued; England has been conquered often, and may be conquered again". For the present, however, his holiness thought it would be most prudent to wait the queen's decease.

Under these impressions, "the pope", says d'Ossat, "has sent to his nuncio in the Low-Countries, three briefs, to be kept secret, until he should be informed of the death of queen Elizabeth: and then to be forwarded to England; one to the clergy, one to the nobility, and the other to the third estate. By these, the three states of England were exhorted to bind themselves to receive a catholic king, whom the pope should propose to them; and whom they would find agreeable, profitable, and honorable; and all for the glory and honor of God; for the restoration of the catholic religion, and the salvation of their souls." The cardinal proceeds to mention to the king the reply which he made to the pope; and offers several suggestions on the futility of the project.

His letter contains other interesting circumstances, which show how well the cardinal was informed of everything that related to the matters in agitation. He describes the persons most active in the business; and an individual residing at Calais, through whom their correspondence was carried on.

The answer of the king is dated the 24th of December 1601, and shows good sense, a true spirit of justice, and great magnanimity. He treats the project of the pope as a perfect chimera. He observes, that it is founded upon the hopes held out by exiles, promising more than they could perform, feeble instruments, doubtful friends, and dangerous advisers. The party of lady Arabella, his majesty pronounces to be very weak.—"The king of Scotland", he adds, "is the right heir. I desire, like his holiness, that the kingdom of England should fall to the lot of a catholic prince, nor am I ignorant of the reasons which should make me wish that the crown of England should be kept separate from that of Scotland, or of those, which should make me jealous of the connections which the king of Scotland has in this country. But it is an injustice to oppose what is just, and an imprudence to engage in an undertaking, so little likely to succeed, as that which is proposed by the pope.—This, my cousin, is what my confidence in you, and my openness, have induced me to write in answer to your letter.—You may make what use of it you please. But my opinion is, that as much as you can, you should keep the pope from opening himself to you respecting the English succession."

The king tells the cardinal, in another part of his letter, that the papal project would be attended with consequences quite contrary to those which the pope expected, and render the condition of the catholics more miserable than ever, by making them take up arms in opposition to the laws of the kingdom, and to the lawful succession of the reigning monarch.

Such was the project, which, in the following reign, subjected the pope and the catholics to so much censure. The fact was, that though a family estate was never transmitted from father to son with greater ease than the crown of England passed, on the death of Elizabeth, from the house of Tudor to the house of Stuart, a different scene had been generally apprehended. It had been expected that many competitors to the throne would arise; and particularly it had been supposed, that the party, which had been principally instrumental in bringing Mary to the scaffold, would not quietly permit her son to ascend the throne. Those, it was thought, looked towards Arabella, and, being a catholic, her claims, it was imagined, would naturally be favored by that party. These, as we have already observed, constituted, at the time of which we are speaking, the most numerous portion of the subjects of the realm. They considered themselves therefore entitled to a vote at the election, and the pope, seconding their views, claimed all their votes and interest for Arabella.

It appears that there were two briefs only—one, directed to the arch-priest and clergy; the other, to the nobility and gentry of England. On the trial of father Garnet, which we shall afterwards have occasion to mention, sir Edward Coke represented them, as enjoining the catholics "not to admit any person, how near soever upon the line to the throne, after the queen's death, unless such person would not only tolerate the catholic religion, but promote it to the utmost of his power; and engage himself by oath, according to the custom of his ancestors, for that purpose." That these were the contents of the briefs, father Garnet did not deny. He admitted that they were transmitted to him, but he alleged, in his defence that he kept them secret, showed them to very few,— and soon after the accession of James, committed them to the flames. He also alleged, that both the pope and the superiors of his order earnestly recommended to the catholics to bear their sufferings with patience, and to abstain from violence of every kind. This is confirmed by the letters both of father Garnet and of father Parsons, produced by father Andreas Eudasmon, in his defence of Garnet.

 

XXIII.

JAMES I. HIS DISPOSITIONS TOWARDS THE ENGLISH CATHOLICS AT THE TIME OF HIS ACCESSION TO THE THRONE.

1603.

 

ON the 14th March 1603, queen Elizabeth died.

That the disposition of James the first, when he ascended the throne of England, was favorable to the roman-catholics, was certainly, at that time, universally believed. His mother, the unfortunate queen of Scots, and George Darnley, his father, were catholics, and James was baptized by a catholic priest. He was known to be fond of the solemnity of the religious service of the catholics. Their hierarchy, the general habits of obedience of the people to their pastors, and of the inferior to the superior clergy, accorded with his notions of subordination, and seemed to him, as they certainly are, excellently calculated to dispose the public to general order and regularity. On the other hand, he was disgusted with the total absence of gradation of rank in the Presbyterian ministry, with their gloomy devotions, and their leveling doctrines. Their frequent disturbances of the government, and the personal insults which they had offered both to his mother and to himself, increased this disgust. He could not but recollect that the general body of the catholics had been steadily attached to his mother under all her afflictions, while the Presbyterians had been their principal cause. When, therefore, he acceded to the English throne, it was generally expected that some degree of favor would be shown to the catholics. They hoped for a repeal of the sanguinary part of the laws enacted against them, and that the exercise of their religious worship, under certain gentle restraints, would be allowed them.

These just and rational hopes were strengthened by declarations in their favor, which the monarch had made to several individuals. It was even said, that Mr. secretary Cecil, in a conversation with some catholics of distinction, had assured them that the king would not frustrate their expectations. It may be added, that from every part of his conduct, the king appears to have had much more liberal notions of religious toleration than the generality of his contemporaries.

But, soon after he ascended the throne, some circumstances took place which induced the catholics to believe, there was no reason to expect from him any mitigation of the penal laws under which they suffered. He published, almost immediately, a proclamation, in which, after adverting to the dis­putes between the established church and the dissenters; and intimating his hopes of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of these, he announced, that a greater contagion to the national religion than could proceed from those light differences, was imminent, by persons, common enemies to them both;—namely, the great number of priests, both seminarists and Jesuits, abounding in the realm;—partly upon a vain confidence of some innovation in matter of religion, to be done by him, which he never intended, nor gave any man cause to expect. He therefore commanded all manner of Jesuits, seminarists, and other priests whatsoever, to depart from the realm, and never to return, upon pain of being left to the penalty of the law without hope of favour or remission.

His proclamation was speedily followed by a statute which enacted that the laws of queen Elizabeth against Jesuits and seminary priests should be put into execution. Two third parts of the real estates of every offender were directed to be seized for recusancy, and all who had been, or were educated in seminaries, were rendered incapable of taking landed property by descent.

 

XXIV.

THE GUNPOWDER CONSPIRACY.

 

IT is now our painful duty to relate an event, which subjected the English roman-catholics to more than a century of persecution, and general odium.

I. We shall mention the principal circumstances of it:

II. Then inquire, whether it was justly chargeable on the catholics, or justly imputable to their moral, or religious, principles.

 

1.Principal circumstances of the Gunpowder Conspiracy.

WE shall transcribe,—but with some omissions, where we particularly distrust the accuracy of the narrative,—the account given of it by Hume.

"The roman-catholics", says Hume, "had expected great favor and indulgence, on the accession of James. Very soon, they discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised, and enraged, to find James, on all occasions, express his intention of strictly executing the laws enacted against them; and of persevering in all the rigorous measures of Elizabeth. Catesby, a gentleman of good parts, and of an ancient family, first thought of a most extraordinary method of revenge, and he opened his intention to Percy, a descendant of the illustrious house of Northumberland. In one of these conversations, with regard to the distressed condition of the catholics, Percy, having broken into a sally of passion, and mentioned assassinating the king, Catesby took the opportunity of revealing to him a nobler and more extensive plan of treason, which not only included a sure execution of vengeance, but afforded some hopes of restoring the catholic religion in England. In vain, said he, would you put an end to the king's life; he has children, who would succeed, both to his crown, and to his maxims of government; in vain, would you extinguish the whole royal family. The nobility, the gentry, the parliament, are all infected with the same heresy; and could raise to the throne, another prince, and another family, who, besides their hatred to our religion, would be animated with revenge for the tragical death of their predecessors. To serve any good purpose, we must destroy at one blow the king, the royal family, the lords, the commons; and bury all our enemies in one common ruin. Happily, they are all assembled, on the first meeting of the parliament; and afford us the opportunity of glorious, and useful, vengeance. Great preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining, may run a mine below the hall, in which they meet, and choosing the very moment when the king harangues both houses, consign over to destruction, these determined foes to all piety, and religion. Meanwhile, we ourselves, standing aloof, safe, and unsuspected, shall triumph in being the instruments of divine wrath; and shall behold, with pleasure, those sacrilegious walls, in which were passed the edicts for proscribing our church, and butchering her children, lost into a thousand fragments; while their impious inhabitants meditating, perhaps, still new persecutions against us, pass from flames above to flames below, there forever to endure the torments, due to their offences."

"Percy was charmed with this project of Catesby and they agreed to communicate the matter to a few more, and among the rest to Thomas Winter, whom they sent over to Flanders in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish service, with whose zeal, and courage, they were all thoroughly acquainted."

"All this passed in the spring, and summer, of the year 1604; when the conspirators also hired a house in Percy's name, adjoining to that, in which the parliament was to assemble. Towards the end of that year, they began their operations. That they might be less interrupted; and give less suspicion to the neighborhood, they carried in a store of provisions with them; and never desisted from their labor. Obstinate in their purpose and confirmed by passion, by principle, and by mutual exhortation, they little feared death, in comparison of a disappointment; and having provided arms, together with the instruments of their labor, they resolved there to perish, in case of discovery. Their perseverance advanced the work; and they soon pierced the wall, though three yards in thickness; but, on approaching the other side, they were somewhat startled at hearing a noise, which they knew not how to account for. Upon inquiry, they found, that it came from the vault below the house of lords; that a magazine of coals had been kept there; and that, as the coals were selling off, the vault would be left to the highest bidder. The opportunity was immediately seized; the place hired by Percy; thirty-six barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up with fagots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung open; and everybody admitted as if it contained nothing dangerous."

"Confident of success, they now began to look forward; and to plan the remaining part of their project. The king, the queen, Prince Henry, were all expected to be present at the opening of parliament. The duke, by reason of his tender age, would be absent; and it was resolved that Percy should seize him, or assassinate him. The princess Elizabeth, a child likewise, was kept at lord Harrington's house in Warwickshire and sir Everard Digby, Rookwood, and Grant, being let into the conspiracy, engaged to assemble their friends on pretence of a hunting match; and seizing that princess, immediately to proclaim her queen. So transported were they with rage against their adversaries; and so charmed with the prospect of revenge, that they forgot all care of their own safety, and trusting to the general confusion, which must result from so unexpected a blow, they foresaw not that the fury of the people, now unrestrained by any authority, must have turned against them; and would probably have satiated itself by an universal massacre of the catholics."

"The day, so long wished for, now approached, on which the parliament was appointed to assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above twenty persons, had been religiously kept, during the space of near a year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of punishment, no hope of reward, had, as yet, induced any one conspirator, either to abandon the enterprise, or make a discovery of it. The holy fury had extinguished in their breast every other motive; and it was an indiscretion at last, proceeding chiefly from these very bigoted prejudices and partialities, which saved the nation."

"Ten days before the meeting of parliament, lord Monteagle, a catholic, son to lord Morley, received the following letter, which had been delivered to his servant by an unknown hand:—

"My Lord, out of the love, I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation. Therefore, I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift off your attendance at this Parliament. For God, and man, have concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement; but retire yourself into your country, where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir, yet, I say, they will receive a terrible blow, this parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This council is not to be contemned; because it may do you good, and can do you no harm. For, the danger is passed, as soon as you have burned the letter. And I hope, God will give you the grace to make good use of it, unto whose holy protection I commend you."

"Monteagle knew not, what to make of this letter; and, though inclined to think it a foolish attempt to frighten, and ridicule him, he judged it safest to carry it to Cecil, who had been created earl of Salisbury, and made secretary of state. Though Salisbury, too, was inclined to pay little attention to it, he thought proper to lay it before the king, who came to town, a few days after. To the king, it appeared not so light a matter; and, from the serious earnest style of the letter, he conjectured, that it implied something dangerous and important. A terrible blow, and yet "the authors concealed a danger so sudden, and yet so great; these circumstances seemed all to denote some contrivance by gunpowder; and it was thought advisable to inspect all the vaults below the houses of parliament. This care belonged to the earl of Suffolk, lord-chamberlain; who purposely delayed the search, till the day before the meeting of parliament. He remarked those great piles of wood and fagots, which lay in the vault, under the upper house; and he cast his eye upon Fawkes who stood in a dark corner; and passed himself for Percy's servant. That daring and determined courage, which so much distinguished this conspirator, even among those heroes in villany, was fully painted in his countenance, and was not passed unnoticed by the chamberlain.

Such a quantity also of fuel, for the use of one, who lived so little in town as Percy, appeared a little extraordinary; and, upon comparing all circumstances, it was resolved, that a more thorough inspection should be made. About midnight, sir Thomas Knevet, a justice of peace, was sent, with proper attendants; and before the door of the vault, finding Fawkes, who had just finished all his preparations, he immediately seized him; and turning over the fagots, discovered the powder. The matches, and everything proper for the setting fire to the train, were taken in Fawkes's pocket, who finding his guilt now apparent; and seeing no refuge, but in boldness and despair, expressed the utmost regret that he had lost the opportunity of firing the powder at once, and of sweetening his own death by that of his enemies. Before the council, he displayed the same intrepid firmness, mixed even with scorn and disdain; refusing to discover his accomplices, and showing no concern, but for the failure of the enterprise. This obstinacy lasted two or three days. But, being confined to the Tower, left to reflect on his guilt and danger, and the rack being just shown to him; his courage, fatigued with so long an effort, and unsupported by hope, or society, at last failed him; and he made a full discovery of all the conspirators."

"Catesby, Percy, and the other criminals, who were in London, though they had heard of the alarm, taken at the letter sent to Monteagle, though they had heard of the chamberlain's search, yet, were resolved to persist to the utmost; and never abandon their hopes of success. But, at last, hearing that Fawkes was arrested, they hurried down to Warwickshire; where sir Everard Digby, thinking himself assured that success had attended his confederates, was already in arms, in order to seize the princess Elizabeth. She had escaped into Coventry and they were obliged to put themselves on their defence against the country, who were raised from all quarters, and armed by the sheriff. The conspirators, with all their attendants, never exceeded the number of eighty persons; and, being surrounded on every side, could no longer entertain hopes either of prevailing, or escaping. Having therefore, confessed themselves; and received absolution, they boldly prepared for death, and resolved to sell their lives, as dear as possible to the assailants. But, even this miserable consolation was denied them. Some of their powder took fire; and disabled them for defence. The people rushed in upon them. Percy and Catesby were killed by one shot. Digby, Rookwood, Winter, and others, being taken prisoners, were tried, confessed their guilt and died, as well as Garnet, by the hands of the executioner".

"The lords, Mordaunt and Stourton, two catholics, were fined, the former 10,000£, the latter, 4,000 £. by the star-chamber, because their absence from Parliament had begotten a suspicion of their being acquainted with the conspiracy. The earl of Northumberland was fined 30,000£ and detained, several years, prisoner in the Tower; because, not to mention other grounds of suspicion, he had admitted Percy into the number of gentlemen pensioners, without his taking the requisite oaths"

"The king, in his speech to the parliament, observed, that, though religion had engaged the conspirators into so criminal an attempt, yet, ought we not to involve all the roman-catholics in the same guilt, or suppose them equally disposed to commit such enormous barbarities. Many holy men, he said, and our ancestors, among the rest, had been seduced to concur with that church, in her scholastic doctrines; who yet, had never admitted her seditious principles, concerning the pope's power of dethroning kings or sanctifying assassination. The wrath of heaven is denounced against crimes but innocent error may obtain its favor; and nothing can be more hateful, than the uncharitableness of the puritans, who condemn alike to eternal torments, even the most inoffensive partisans of popery. For his part, he added, that the conspiracy, however atrocious, should never alter, in the least, his plan of government; while with one hand he punished guilt; with the other, he would still support and protect innocence." After this speech, he prorogued the parliament till the 2nd of January.

An account of the trial of father Garnet was published by government, with the title of A true and perfect relation of the whole proceedings against the late most barbarous traitors, Garnet, a Jesuit, and his confederates; containing sundry speeches, delivered by the lords commissioners at their arraignments, for the better satisfaction of those that were hearers, as occasion was offered…

Two other jesuits were apprehended, and imprisoned, for their supposed concern in the plot. Father Gerard, and father Oldcorne. The former was never brought to trial; a strong argument in favor of his innocence: The latter, was five several times, racked in the prison and once, with the utmost severity, for several hours: but, neither by his own confession, nor by any other evidence, was the slightest knowledge of the conspiracy proved against him. His only legal guilt was, that, after the plot, and before the proclamation for the discovery of the conspirators, he had received father Garnet into his house, and did not afterwards disclose the circumstance to government. He was found guilty; executed, and, while alive, cut down, and emboweled. It is very remarkable, that the demeanor of father Garnet, on his trial, and at his execution, interested the spectators greatly in his favor. After he had been hanged, and while he was yet alive, the executioner advanced, three times, to cut the cord; and was as often restrained by the cry of the multitude. His servant Owen was so cruelly racked in prison, that he died soon after he was taken off the torture. A general defence of Garnet, and the other priests implicated by the public voice in this unhappy business, is given by Dr. Milner, with his usual ability, in his seventh letter to a prebendary.

 

2.Inquiry whether the Gunpowder Plot can justly be charged on the general body of the Catholics.

THAT much of Hume's relation of this horrid conspiracy is true, may be admitted. The question is, whether the guilt of it can be justly charged on the body of the English catholics.

Now, the smallness of the number of those, who were engaged in it, and the disapprobation ex­pressed of it by the general body, seem to decide the question. No writer has calculated the number of catholics to have amounted, at this time, to less than one half,—and probably it greatly ex­ceeded that proportion,—of the whole population of England. Many catholics, perhaps not much fewer than 30—were, at this time, in the peer-age—and catholics sat, and voted in the house of lords. Sixteen persons only are accused in the bill of attainder, and of these, nine at the utmost, were informed of the design to blow up the build­ings by gunpowder. The others knew something of the general views of the conspirators; but the worst part was certainly concealed from them. James himself, who appears to have formed juster notions of the nature and extent of the conspiracy, than his contemporaries, acquitted, as we have seen, the general body of the catholics from it. In one of his publications, he treats it with great contempt. He calls it "a tragedy to the traitors; but, tragicomedy to the king, and to all his new subjects."

It is also observable, that, of the nine persons, who are supposed to have been privy to the gun­powder part of the plot, the greater part had long outwardly conformed to the protestant religion; and were considered, by the catholics themselves, to have renounced their communion. Lord Monteagle was the first person, out of this band, to whom any intelligence of the plot was conveyed; his lordship was a zealous catholic and we have seen that, in the instant it reached him, he carried the information of it to the secretary of state. The persons, most instrumental in detecting the conspirators were, Cecil earl of Salisbury, the secretary of state, the earl of Suffolk, the earl of Worcester, and the earl of Northampton. The two last were catholics.

In the examinations and trial of father Garnet, the earl of Northampton took a very active part.

With one exception, all the conspirators acknowledged their guilt; and expressed their repentance of it. Fawkes, at first, justified it; but afterwards, acknowledged its criminality; declared his repentance of it, and exhorted all catholics never to engage in any such bloody enterprise, "it being a method never allowed, nor prospered, of God." Sir Everard Digby, almost the only gentleman of character who was implicated in the conspiracy, but who had no knowledge of the worst part of the infernal design, confessed, on his trial, that "he had been generally informed of there being something of consequence in hand, to promote the catholic cause". But solemnly asserted, that "the particulars of it were not mentioned to him". Still, he admitted, that "he was criminal, in not revealing to government the general communications, which had been made to him; and, therefore, pleaded guilty to the indictment". On the scaffold, he made the same protestation; and solemnly declared, that "if he had known it, at first, to be so foul a crime, he would not have concealed it to gain a world". As soon as the particulars of the plot became generally known, the catholics universally expressed their horror of it. Blackwell, their archpriest, and the other heads of their church, immediately circu­lated a pastoral letter, in which they called it, "detestable, and damnable" and assured the catholics, "that the pope had always condemned such unlawful practices". The pope's condemnation of it is also noticed, in Eudaemon's defence of Garnet; he cites several letters, showing the anxiety of Garnet and other Jesuits to allay the resentment of the catholics at the king's unexpected severities, and to withhold them from turbulence of any kind. Soon after the archpriest and the lead­ing clergy had published their letter, the former received a brief from the pope to the same effect: on the receipt of it, he, with the leading clergy, published a second letter, in the same spirit as the preceding.

It is not within the plan of this work to enter into a discussion of the nature, or degree of the guilt of the individuals, who were engaged in the horrid plot. Hume's History of England being in the hands of every one, the writer has transcribed from it, the greater part of his account of the conspiracy: but those, who wish to form accurate notions of it, should, after having read this part of Hume's history, peruse the trials of the accused persons; the Apology of father Eudamon for father Garnet; Dodd's Church History, part 5, art. 3, and Doctor Milner's seventh Letter to a Prebendary.—It may be added, that even several intelligent protestant writers give a very different view of it, from that presented by Hume; some of them even suppose, that it originated with Cecil. Osborne has been frequently cited, as calling the plot, in his Historical Memoirs of James the first "a neat device of the secretary:" the author of the Political Grammar is cited for mentioning that "Cecil engaged some papists in this desperate plot, in order to divert the king from making any advances towards popery; to which he seemed inclinable". James is said to have called the 5th of November, "Cecil's Holiday". And Bevil Higgons assures his readers, that "the design was first hammered in the forge of Cecil: who intended to have produced it, in the time of Elizabeth; that, by his secret emissaries he enticed some hot-headed men, who, ignorant, whence the design first came, heartily engaged in it."

Whatever were the circumstances of the plot, the consequence of it was, that the penal laws against the catholics were immediately carried into execution, with great severity. Eighteen priests, and seven laymen, suffered death, for the mere exercise of their religion. One hundred and twenty-eight-priests were banished; and the heavy fine of 20£ a month, was exacted from every catholic, who did not attend the service of the established church.

 

XXV.

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE FRAMED BY JAMES I

 

THE temperate terms, which James used, in his address to the two houses of parliament, upon the discovery of the gunpowder conspiracy, deserve the commendation bestowed upon them by Hume. With the same conciliating spirit, his majesty caused to be inserted, in a statute of the same year, an oath of allegiance, to be tendered, under the provisions contained in that act, to all roman-catholic recusants. By a proclamation, issued at the same time, he also invited all his English subjects to take and subscribe it.

The circumstances attending this oath form one of the most interesting events in the history of the English catholics, subsequent to the Reformation. "We shall endeavor to present the reader,

I. With a brief account of the motives, which induced James to frame the oath, and to direct it to be tendered to his catholic subjects;

II. We shall, next, transcribe the oath itself,

III. Then, a translation of the two briefs, by which pope Paul the fifth condemned it,

IV. And copy some parts of James's reply to them;

V. We shall give an account of the controversy, to which the oath gave rise;

VI. And of the letters, written by Mr. Blackwell, the arch-priest, respecting the oath, and of his examination before his majesty's commissioners;

VII. We shall mention the controversy, which took place, on the subject of the oath, during the reign of his majesty, and the reign of his immediate successor.

 

1.The motives of James the first in framing the Oath

NOTHING, in the opinion of the writer, could be wiser, or more humane, than the motives of James, in framing the oath. We shall 1st state them, in his own words; 2d. Then examine an allegation, which assigns different motives, if not to the monarch himself, at least to his advisers.

1st. "What a monstrous, rare, and never heard of treacherous attempt," (with these words he begins his apology for the oath of allegiance,)—was plotted, within these few years, in England, for the destruction of me, my bedfellow, and our posterity—of the whole house of parliament, and a great number of good subjects of all sorts, and degrees,—is so famous already through the world, by the infamy thereof, as is needless to be repeated, or published, any more. The only reason the plotters gave, for so heinous an attempt, was the zeal, they carried to the romish religion; yet, were never any of that profession worse used for that cause, as by our gracious proclamation, immediately after the discovery of the said fact, do appear. Only, at the setting down again of the parliament, there were laws made, setting down some such orders, as were thought fit for preventing the mischiefs, in time to come. Amongst which, a form of oath was formed to be taken by my subjects, whereby they should make a clear profession of their resolution, faithfully to persist in their obedience unto me, according to their natural allegiance. To the end, that I might make a separation, not only between all my good subjects in general, and unfaithful traitors, that intended to withdraw themselves from my obedience;—but, especially, to make a separation between so many of my subjects, who, though they were otherwise popishly affected, yet retained, in their hearts, the print of their natural duty to their sovereign. And those, who, being carried away with the like fanatical zeal, as the powder-traitors were, could not contain themselves within bounds of their natural allegiance, but thought diversity of religion, a safe pretext for all kinds of treasons, and rebellions, against their sovereign. Which godly, and wise intent, God did bless accordingly; for very many of my subjects, that were popishly affected, as well priests, as laics, did freely take the same oath; whereby they both gave me occasion to think the better of their fidelity, and thereby freed themselves of that heavy slander, that, although they were fellow professors, of one religion of the powder-traitors, yet were they not joined with them in treasonable courses against their sovereign, whereby all quietly-minded papists were put out of despair, and I gave a good proof, that I intended no persecution against them, for conscience, or cause; but only desired to be secured of them, for civil obedience, which, for conscience cause, they were bound to perform."

In several other parts of his writings on the oath, the king expresses the same sentiments. He de­clares, that, "he never did, nor would, presume to make an article of faith:—that, the oath was ordained only for making a true distinction between papists of quiet disposition, and, in all other things, good subjects and such other papists, as, in their hearts, maintained the like bloody maxims, that the powder-traitors did;—that it was his care, that the oath should contain nothing, but matter of civil and temporal obedience, due by subjects to their sovereign power." As a proof of this care, he mentions the following remarkable fact;—"The lower house of parliament," to use his own words,—"at the first framing of the oath, made it to contain, that the pope had no power to excommunicate me; which I caused them to reform,—only making it to conclude, that no excommunication of the pope, could warrant my subjects to practice against my person and state, denying the deposition of kings to be in the pope's lawful power; as, indeed, I take any such temporal violence to be far without the limits of such a spiritual censure, as excommunication is. So careful was I, that nothing should be contained in this oath, except the profession of natural allegiance, and civil and temporal obedience, with a promise to resist to all contrary civil violence." A more exact description of the different natures of spiritual, and temporal, power cannot be produced.

2. On perusing these, and many other passages of the same spirit, which are to be found in the writings of the royal author, it seems impossible to contend, that the monarch's views were not both kind, and salutary. Other views are, however, at­tributed to his advisers. It is said, that "the wording of the oath was drawn up, in such ambiguous terms, that a tender conscience,—(the best disposed towards paying civil allegiance),— could not digest it—that the wording of it was chiefly committed to archbishop Bancroft, who, with the assistance of Christopher Perkins, a renegado Jesuit, so calculated the whole to the designs of the ministry, that they met with their desired effect; which was, first, to divide the catholics about the lawfulness of the oath; secondly, to expose them to daily persecutions, in case of refusal; and in consequence of this, to misrepresent them, as disaffected persons, and of unsound principles, in regard of government." Such is the statement given of this circumstance, by Dodd.

On this subject, Dodd's authority is certainly entitled to great respect; and his statement receives some confirmation from a passage in the Athenae Oxonienses, where, on the authority of a manuscript review of the court of king James, by Goodman, bishop of Gloucester, Mr. Wood mentions, that "sir Christopher Perkins, (for the Jesuit had been created a knight), had a hand in contriving, and drawing up, the oath of allegiance, while he was intimate with doctor Bancroft. It receives a further confirmation, from a passage in cardinal Bentivoglio's Relationi delle Provincie, in which, as he is translated in the Answer to the Memoirs of Panzani, his eminence,—alluding to the oath of allegiance,—says, that, "in contriving this new machine against the catholic religion, the authors had principally two things in view. One was, to furnish the king an opportunity of proceeding with an increase of rigor against the persons and property of catholics, it being easily foreseen, that many of them would refuse the oath, in which heretical terms were used to deny all authority of the roman pontiffs, under whatsoever interpretation and form, in temporal affairs of princes. The other, was to give new occasion to the discontents among the catholic clergy; it being held for certain, that several of them, either through dread of punishment or tepidity in religion, would be induced to swallow an oath; and to advise others to follow their example." (In a future page, we shall transcribe a further part of this passage.) It is probable, that some at least of his majesty's ministers were not so favorably disposed towards the catholics, as their royal master. But, that James's own views, in their regard, were most benign, the writer has not disco­vered any just reason to doubt.

In support of the allegation respecting the sinister views of the framers of the oath, intentional obscurity and objection at language were imputed to some of its clauses; and the words "impious", "heretical", and "damnable", used in describing the deposing doctrine, were severely condemned.

The great objection to it, however, was its absolute denial of the pope's deposing power. "This", says the Rev. Roger Widdrington, the learned and able Benedictine advocate of the oath, "was the rock of scandal, the stone of offence, on which the bulk of the learned and the unlearned of those times, generally stumbled". Even the illustrious Bellarmine, for that epithet is justly due to his virtues, his learning, and his talents, maintains, that "the assertion,—that the pope, as pope, and by divine right, has no temporal power, and cannot, in any manner, command secular persons, or deprive them of their kingdoms and sovereignty, though they deserve to be deprived of them,—is not so much an opinion as a heresy". This was the burthen of many a page, which the cardinal and his collaborators published, in support of the briefs, which, as will be seen immediately, Paul the fifth issued against the oath. This, therefore, to repeat Widdrington's words, was, the petra scandali, the lapis offensionis. Had the parties agreed on this point, there would have been no final disagreement between them.— In a future page, the complete rejection of the pope's deposing power, by the present English and Irish catholics, in the oaths prescribed to them in the present reign, will be mentioned.

 

2.The Oath of Allegiance framed by James the first.

THE oath is expressed in the following terms: "I, A. B. do truly, and sincerely, acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience, before God, and the world, that our sovereign lord king James is lawful, and rightful, king of this realm, and all other his majesty's dominions, and countries and that the pope, neither of himself, nor by any authority of the church, or see of Rome, or by any other means, with any other, has any power, or authority, to depose the king or to dispose of any of his majesty's kingdoms, or dominions; or to authorize any foreign prince to invade, or annoy, him, or his countries or to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his majesty; or to give license or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence, or hurt, to his majesty's royal person, state or government, or to any of his majesty's subjects, within his majesty's dominions."

"Also I do swear, from my heart, that, notwithstanding any declaration, or sentence of excommunication, or deprivation, made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the pope or his successors, or by any authority derived, or pretended to be derived, from him, or his see, against the said king, his heirs, or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience; I will bear faith, and true allegiance, to his majesty, his heirs and successors, and him, and them, will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies, and attempts, whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by reason or color, of any such sentence, or declaration, or, otherwise; and will do my best endeavor to disclose, and make known, unto his majesty, his heirs, and successors, all treasons, and traitorous conspiracies, which I shall know, or hear of, to be against him, or any of them."

"And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious, and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That princes, which be excommunicated, or deprived by the pope, may be deposed, or murdered, by their subjects, or any other whatsoever."

"And I do believe, and in my conscience am resolved, that, neither the pope, nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good, and full, authority, to be lawfully ministered unto me; and do renounce all pardons, and dispensations to the contrary."

"And all these things I do plainly, and sincerely acknowledge, and swear, according to these express words, by me spoken; and according to the plain, and common sense and understanding of the same words; without any equivocation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation, whatsoever: And I do make this recognition, and acknowledgment, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."

"So help me God."

 

3.The Briefs of Paul the fifth against the Oath of Allegiance.

1. The first brief was translated by James the first, in the following terms.

"Well beloved sons, salutation, and apostolical benediction. The tribulations, and calamities, which you have continually sustained for the keeping of the catholic faith, have always afflicted us with great grief of mind. But, for as much as we understand, that, at this time, all things are more grievous, our affliction hereby is wonderfully increased. For, we have born, how you are compelled, by most grievous punishments set before you, to go to the churches of heretics, to frequent their assemblies, to be present at their sermons. Truly, we do undoubtedly "believe, that they, which, with so great constance, and fortitude, have hitherto endured most cruel persecutions, and almost infinite miseries, that they may walk without spot in the law of the Lord, will never suffer themselves to bee defiled with the communion of those, that have forsaken the divine law.

Yet notwithstanding, being compelled by the zeal of our pastoral office, and by our fatherly care, which we do continually take for the salvation of your souls, we are enforced to admonish, and desire you that, by no means, you come into the churches of the heretics, or hear their sermons, or communicate with them in their rites, lest you incur the wrath of God. For, these things may you not do, without damaging the worship of God, and your own salvation. As likewise, you cannot, without most evident and grievous wronging of God's honor, bind yourselves by the oath, which, in like manner, we have heard, with very great grief of our heart, is administered unto you, of the tenor under written, viz." (I, A. B. &c.)

"Which things, since they are thus it must evidently appear unto you, by the words themselves, that such an oath cannot be taken, without hurting of the catholic faith, and the salvation of your souls: seeing it contains many things, which are flat contrary to faith, and salvation. Wherefore, we do admonish you, that you do utterly abstain from taking this, and the like oaths: which thing, we do the more earnestly require of you, because we have experience of the constancy of your faith, which is tried, like gold, in the fire of perpetual tribulation. We do well know, that you will cheerfully undergo all kind of cruel torments whatsoever, yea, and constantly endure death itself rather than you will, in anything, offend the majesty of God. And this our confidence is confirmed by those things, which are daily reported unto us, of the singular virtue, valor, and fortitude, which, in these last times, does no less shine in your martyrs, then it did in the first beginning of the church. Stand therefore, your loins being girt about with verity, and taking the shield of faith, be you strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might; and let nothing hinder you. He, which will crown you, and does in heaven behold your conflicts, will finish the good work, which he had begun in you. You know, how he had promised his disciples, that he will never leave them orphans: for, he is faithful, which had promised. Hold fast, therefore, his correction, that is;—being rooted and grounded in charity, whatsoever you doe, whatsoever you endeavor, do it with one accord, in simplicity of heart, in meekness of spirit, without murmuring, or doubting. For, by this, do all men know, that we are the disciples of Christ, if we have love one to another. Which charity, as it is very greatly to be desired of all faithful Christians; so, certainly, is it altogether necessary for you, most blessed sons. For, by this your charity, the power of the devil is weakened; who does so much assail you, since that power of his is especially upheld by the contentions, and disagreement, of our sons. We exhort you, therefore, by the bowells of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whose love, we are taken out of the laws of eternal death; That, above all things, you would have mutual charity among you. Surely, pope Clement the eight, of happy memory, had given you most profitable precepts of practicing brotherly charity one to another, in his letters, in form of a brief, to our well-beloved son, M. George, archpriest of the kingdom of England, dated the 5th day of the month of October, 1602. Put them, therefore, diligently in practice; and be not hindered by any difficulty, or doubtfulness. We command you, that you do exactly observe the words of those letters; and that you take, and understand them, simply, as they sound, and as they lie; all power to interpret them otherwise being taken away. In the meanwhile, we will never cease to pray to the Father of mercies, that he would, with pity, behold your afflictions, and your pains; and that he would keep, and defend, you with his continual protection: whom we do gently greet with our apostolical benediction. Dated, at "Rome, at S. Marc, under the sign of the Fisherman, the tenth of the Kalends of October, 1606, the second year of our popedome."

It appears, that, when the brief reached England, great doubts were entertained of its authenticity.— This circumstance produced a second brief. It is translated, in the following terms, by the royal polemic:

"Beloved sons, salutation, and apostolical benediction. It is reported unto us, that there are found certain amongst you, who, when, as we have sufficiently declared by our letters, dated the last year, on the tenth of the calends of October, in the form of a brief, that you cannot, with safe conscience, take the oath, which was then required of you; and when, as we have further straitly commanded you, that, by no mean, you should take it: yet, there are some, I say, among you, which dare now affirm, that such letters, concerning the forbidding of the oath, were not written of our own accord, or of our own proper will; but rather, for the respect, and at the instigation, of other men. And for that cause, the same men do go about to persuade you, that our commands, in the said letters, are not to be regarded. Surely, this news did trouble us and that so much the more, because having had experience of your obedience, (most dearly beloved sons), who, to the end you might obey this holy see, have godly, and valiantly, contemned your riches, wealth, honor, liberty, yea, and life itself; we should never have suspected, that the truth of our apostolique letters could once be called into question among you, that by this pretence, you might exempt yourselves from our commandments. But, we doe herein perceive the subtlety, and craft, of the enemy of men’ salvation; and we do attribute this your backwardness, rather to him, than to your own will. And for this cause, we have thought good to write the second time unto you and to signify unto you again, That our apostolic letters, dated the last year, on the tenth of the calends of October, concerning the prohibition of the oath, were written, not only upon our proper motion, and of our certain knowledge; but also after long, and weighty, deliberation, used concerning all those things, which are contained in them and that, for that cause, you are bound fully to observe them; rejecting all interpretation, persuading to the contrary. And this is our mere, pure, and perfect will, being always careful of your salvation, and always minding those things, which are most profitable unto you. And we do pray without ceasing, that he, that has appointed our lowliness to the keeping of the flock of Christ, would enlighten our thoughts, and our counsels: whom we do also continually desire, that he would increase in you, (our beloved sons), faith, constancy, and mutual charity, and peace, one to another. All whom, we do most lovingly bless, with all charitable affection."

"Dated at Rome, at Saint Marc, under the signet of the Fisherman, the X of the calends of September, 1607, the third year of our popedome."

 

XXVI.

THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE LAWFULNESS OF THE OATH.

 

TO all, who are interested, either in the history of the times, to which these pages relate, or in the history of the pretensions of the popes to tem­poral power, this controversy is of singular importance. This, however, is not the place for detail­ing its particulars. The combatants, who principally distinguished themselves in it, were cardinal Bellarmine, and father Preston, an English benedictine monk, who assumed, in this controversy, the surname of Widdrington. Each wrote, as a scholar and a gentleman. The objections to the oath were numerous; but, as we have already said, and must repeat, in this place, the cardo causae, the hinge, on which the merits of the case principally rested, was, the lawfulness of the absolute denial, expressed in the oath, of the pope's divine right to the power, of deposing sovereigns from their kingdoms for heresy.

To lead the reader to a general view of the history of the controversy, we shall present to him, 

I. An account of the approbation of the oath, by Mr. Blackwell, the archpriest; and the letter addressed to him upon it by cardinal Bellarmine:

II. Of James's apology for the oath:

III. Of the answers to it by cardinal Bellarmine, with a mention of the cardinal's system on the pope's authority in temporals:

IV. Of the answer to James's apology by father Parsons, with a notice of his general character, and of the work, on the succession to the crown, of which, under the name of Doleman, he is said to have been the principal author:

V. And of the Premonition, prefixed by James the first, to the second edition of his apology, and addressed by him to the emperor, and all other sovereign princes and states.

 

1.Mr. Blackwell’s approbation of the Oath. Cardinal Bellarmine's letter to him upon it.

THE first publication on the controversy, was a letter, which Mr. Blackwell, the archpriest, addressed to the English catholics, declaring his opinion to be favorable to the oath; and advising them to take it. This produced a letter to the archpriest, from cardinal Bellarmine, expressing a contrary opinion; blaming the archpriest for having taken the oath and exhorting him to retract it. Some individuals, among whom we may reckon the monarch himself , thought, that the cardinal had mistaken the oath of supremacy, enacted by queen Elizabeth, for the oath of allegiance, proposed by James:—Supposing, at the same time, that the former was the oath, taken and recommended, by Blackwell.

 

2.King James's Apology.

JAMES himself now entered the lists,—and published, an Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, against the two Breves of pope Paulus quintus, and the Letter of cardinal Bellarmine to the archpriest. To this apology several answers were published. The most remarkable were, one, published by the cardinal and another, by father Parsons.

 

3.Cardinal Bellarmine's Reply to King James’s Apology. The Cardinal's system of the Temporal Power of the Pope.

THE cardinal was, at this time, the most illustrious champion of the roman-catholic faith; and the ablest, and most judicious, of the defenders of the papal prerogatives. He had been recently engaged in a controversy concerning these, which had called forth all his powers. In consequence of the refusal of the senate of Venice to release two ecclesiastics, who had been thrown into prison, for murder, Paul the fifth laid the whole territory of Venice under an interdict; and continued it in force, for a year. The senate paid no regard to the interdict; ordered all ecclesiastics within their dominions to continue the celebration of the divine mysteries; and the exercise of their other functions; and banished the refractory. Through the interference of Henry the fourth, the pope recalled the interdict. The Venetians received the ambassador of the pope, when he announced the recall, with the greatest outward demonstration of respect, but, absolutely refused to make the slightest excuse, or apology; or even to accept of an absolution from the pontiff. During the whole of the contest, Italy was inundated with publications, on each side;— the celebrated Fra. Paolo, led the Venetian, and cardinal Bellarmine, the pontifical array; the for­mer, by his Considerations on the Censures of Paul the fifth against the republic of Venice; by his Treatise on Interdicts, and the Rights of Asylums; the latter, by his Treatise de Romano Pontifice. All the works of Bellarmine are distinguished by their precision, their lucid order, and by the fairness, with which he states the objections, and proposes the answers to his doctrines. In the controversy with the Venetians, the good sense, of the cardinal showed him that the time was come, when the lofty language, with which the popes urged their temporal pretensions, would no longer be endured. Rejecting, therefore, the pope's claim of a right to interfere in concerns, merely temporal, and in no wise affecting the cause of religion,—he asserted for him, a right to the use of temporal power, both in temporal and spiritual concerns, provided the good of religion required the exercise of it. Perhaps, the distinction is merely verbal; but his softening the language of the claim revealed its falling fortune. Under the name of Matthias Tortus, he published Responsio ad Librum Jacobi Regis Magnae Britaniae, de juramento Fidelitatis, 1610.

 

4.Father Parsons's Reply to the Apology of King James. Observations on his Character; and on the work, on the succession to the Crown, which he is supposed to have published, under the name of R. Doleman.

FATHER Robert Parsons, the other antagonist of James, was a man of uncommon endowments; and wanted only a larger scene of action, to have had his name enrolled amongst those, who are most renowned in history for political talent. As a writer, it is not going too far to say of him,—that he excelled all his contemporaries. Even at this time, whoever wishes to attain the perfection of the real English style, may usefully give days and nights to the study of the writings of this extraordinary man.

As a spiritual writer, he is chiefly known by his Christian Directory. The editions of this work are numerous. Two, with some alterations, were published by divines of the church of England, for the use of protestants. The works, which particularly relate to the subject of these pages, are,—His Treatise on the three conversions of England, is now become scarce. As an account of the sectaries of the middle ages, and particularly, as a confutation of Fox's Book of Martyrs, the English catholic justly deems it invaluable. As a politician, the extent and accuracy of his knowledge are eminently displayed, in the works, entitled, A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, under the name of R. Doleman, and Leicester's Commonwealth. Neither of these books were, however, acknowledged by him; and it seems probable, that both cardinal Allen, and sir Francis Englefield, had some concern in the former. Still, there can be little doubt that father Parsons held the pen. The Conference on the Succession turns upon these positions,—that the claim of succession to any government, by nearness of blood, is not established by the law of nature, or by the divine law, but only by the human, and positive laws of every particular commonwealth, and consequently may, upon just causes, be varied;— that this is clear from history:—that the want of the true religion is a just cause for excluding the heir apparent;—and that, under all circumstances, the infanta of Spain had the fairest pretensions to succeed queen Elizabeth in the throne of England. Every true whig, must admire Doleman's discussions of the first point —every man of learning, and every antiquary, must be pleased with his discussion of the second. The king of Spain could not have rewarded, too munificently, his discussions of the third and fourth.

But the work of father Parsons, to which the subject of the present pages now leads us to advert, is his Judgment of a catholic Englishman, living in banishment for his religion, written to his private friend in England,—concerning a late book set forth, and entitled, an Apology for the oath of allegiance against two briefs of pope Paul the fifth, to the catholics of England, and a letter of cardinal Bellarmine to Mr. George Blackwell, archpriest, whereby the said oath is showed to be unlawful unto a catholic conscience, for so much as is contained in sundry causes repugnant to religion, 1608.

This elaborate, elegant, and eloquent, composition assumes, as unquestionable,—that it is consistent with the integrity, and sincerity, of true, catholic doctrine and faith, to deny, that the pope has authority, without just cause, to proceed against temporal princes;—and equally consistent with them to deny, that, with just cause, he has directly, such an authority to proceed against them;—but, that it is inconsistent with the integrity and sincerity of true catholic doctrine, and faith, to deny, that, with a just cause, he hath such authority, indirectly.

Assuming this proposition, he proceeds to the discussion of his majesty's apology; and, to do it with greater freedom, professes to believe, that the apology was the composition, not of his majesty, but of some underling writer. The following sections are extracted from it, for the perusal of the reader. He will find, that they contain a noble assertion of the right to liberty of conscience;—some just remarks on the Gunpowder conspiracy; and an affecting account of the sufferings of the catholics under the persecutions, which have been mentioned.

"Let us hear, if you please, one exaggeration of the writer's, concerning his majesty's mildness unto us; and our ingratitude in abusing the same to pride.—His majesty's government, (says he), over them, has so far exceeded that of Elizabeth, in mercy and clemency, as the papists themselves grew to that height of pride, in confidence and mildness, as they did directly expect, and assuredly promise to themselves, liberty of conscience, and equality with us, in all things, that are his best, and faithful subjects, &p.—Do you see, what a height of pride this was? And what an abuse of his majesty's mercy and clemency, to expect liberty of conscience? Why had he not objected, in like manner, that they expected the liberty of breathing, and using the common air, as well as protestants ? For, that neither breathing, nor the use of common air, is more due unto them, or common to all, then ought to be liberty of conscience to Christian men, whereby each one lives to God, and to himself; and without which, he struggle with the torment of a continual death."

"And, surely, I cannot but wonder, that this minister was not ashamed to call this, the height of pride, which is generally found in all protestants, never so humble: yea, the more humble, and underlings, they are, the more earnest are they, both in books, speeches, and preachings, to prove, that liberty of conscience is most conform to God's law; and that wresting, or forcing of consciences, is the highest tyranny, that can be exercised upon man. And this we may see, first, in all M. Fox his history; especially during the time of the three king Henries, and afterward, when those, that were "called Lollards, and Wickliffians, who, as M. Fox says, were indeed good protestants, being pressed somewhat about their religion, did continually bear upon this argument of liberty of conscience; and when they obtained it not, they set up public schedules upon the church doors of London, and made those famous conspiracies of killing K. Henry the fifth, and all his family, which are recounted by Walsingham, Stow, Fox, and other English historiographers."

"In this our age, also, the first opposition of protestant princes in Germanie, against their emperor Charles the fifth, both at Smakald, Austburgh, and other meetings, as afterwards also, the fierce, and perilous wars by the duke of Saxony, Marques of Brandeburg, and other protestant princes, and their people against the same emperor, begun in the very same year, that our K. Henry died. Were they not all for liberty of conscience? So pretended, so printed, so published, so divulged, to the world? The first supplications, memorials, and declarations, in like manner, which the protestants of France set forth in print: as also, they of Holland, and Zeland, in time of the governments, as well of the duchess of Parma, duke of Alva, Commendador Mayor, and other governors: did they not all expressly profess, that their principal grieves were, about liberty of conscience restrained? And did not they cite many places of scriptures, to prove the equity, and necessity, thereof? And do not all protestants the like, at this day; in all places, where they are, both in Polonia, Austria, Hungaria, Bohemia, Styria, and elsewhere? And how then is Jordanis conversus retrorsum with this minister? How, is his voice contrary to the voice and sense of all the rest? How, and with what reason, may he call it the height of pride in English catholics, to have but hopes thereof, which is so ordinary a doctrine, and practice, of all his brethren in foreign nations,—to wit, for us to expect liberty of conscience, at the first entrance of our new king, of so noble, and royal, a mind, before that time, as he was never known to be given to cruelty, or persecution, in his former reign? The son of such a mother, as held herself much beholden to English catholics? And himself in his little golden book to his son, the prince, had confessed, that he had ever found the catholic party most trusty unto him? And thereupon had done sundry favors to divers of them, and given no small hope of greater unto others?

"From this king (I say), whom they so much loved, and honored, received so gladly, and with universal joy, meant to serve faithfully and trusted, that as he had united the two kingdoms in one obedience by his succession,—so would he, by his liberality, unite, and conjoin, the hearts of all his subjects, in bearing a sweet, and equal hand towards them all: From such a king, (I say), for us to expect liberty of conscience, and equality with other subjects, (in this point, at least, of freedom of soul), what height of pride, may it be called?—May it not rather seem height of pride in this minister, and his fellows, that, having been old enemies, and always borne a hard and hateful hand, and tongue against his majesty, both in their sermons, books, speeches, all the time of the late queen's reign; now, upon the sudden, will need be so privileged, and assume unto themselves such a confident presumption of his majesty's special favor as to suffer no man to stand by them; but to hold it for height of pride in us, to hope for any freedom, and liberty, or our conscience at all? What is height of pride and folly, if this be not?

"But,—his majesty is wise and will, as we hope, according to his prudence, in time, look into this sort of men, and manner of proceeding. And,—to return to the apologer, he reckon—(thereby to exaggerate the more our ingratitude),—the particular favors his majesty did unto us, at his first entrance, as, That he did honor divers catholics with knighthood, being open recusants: That he gave audience indifferently to both sides: bestowed equally favors and honors, upon both professions: gave free continual access to all ranks, and degrees of papists in his court and company; freeing recusants from their ordinary payments: gave "order to his judges, with his own mouth, to spare execution of all priests, though they were convicted: gave liberty by his gracious proclamation to all priests, not taken, to go out of the country, by such a day, and all priests, that were taken, were sent over, and set at liberty: and many other gracious favors, and benefits; which, (said he), time and paper would fail me, if I would make enumeration of them all: in recounting whereof, every scrape of my pen, (to use his words), would serve, but for a blot of the pope's, ingratitude, and injustice, in meeting his majesty with so hard a measure for the same. So as I think, (quotes he), I have sufficiently wiped off the tears from the pope's eyes, for complaining upon such persecution, &c".

"Thus wrote this man, who, in naming; the pope's ingratitude, must much more include ours, that are catholics; for that these benefits, such as they were, appertained nothing to the pope, but only, in Christian charity, as a common spiritual father, and pastor, he being otherwise a stranger unto us in blood; and for other worldly respects. And, as for catholics, they accept gratefully, whatsoever least favor had been, or is done, unto them and do not doubt but that if his majesty had not been prevented by sinister information, and persuasion of others, they had tasted of much greater, as do unto them, in that, they are natural borne subjects of the realm ; most loyal in heart and affection, and never meaning otherwise, but to live in most orderly, and dutiful, subjection, and obedience to his highness, as to their liege lord, and sovereign".

"And, whereas this man, for proof of the contrary, name the powder-treason of a few, thereby to discredit the whole, though this calumniation have been answered before: yet now I add further, as one said, Distingue tempora, et scripturam concordabis. If there had been no persecution before that treason this might have been assigned for some probable cause of the subsequent tribulations: but all England know that this is not so:—but, that his majesty's sweet and mild aspect towards catholics, at his first entrance, was soon, by art of their enemies, averted, long before the conspiracy fell out. For that, not only all the most cruel statutes, and penal laws, made by Q. Elizabeth, were renewed, and confirmed, before this, with addition of others, tending to no less rigor, and acerbity : but also the exaction, or the same, was put in practice with great severity:—and namely,—the payment of the twenty pounds a month, or two parts of their goods, and lands, for recusants, (once remitted by his majesty, as here is confessed),—were, not only recalled again, but the arrearages, in like manner, thereof exacted; and for levying whereof, throughout sundry shires of the realm, (especially in the north), there was such ransacking of men’s houses; such driving away of their cattle from their grounds; such straining of their rents; such vexing of their tenants, (not known, perhaps, to his majesty), as if the whole country had been given over to spoil and desolation.

Nor were men’s goods, and persons, only affected, but the lives also of sundry taken away for cause of their religion, before this powder-treason fell out: which desperate treason, to ascribe as an effect, and fruit, of too much clemency in his majesty, (as this minister does), is a strange assertion, no doubt: for so much, as such effects do not proceed, but of exasperated minds; which clemency work not, either in men, or beasts. Neither did ever any learned philosopher, that wrote of the good institution of any common wealth, or of the security of any prince in his government, put such effects, for fruits of clemency, but rather of the contrary manner of proceeding.—And, if all the disastrous ends of the most unfortunate princes, that ever have been destroyed, should be laid together, and the causes thereof exactly inquired, it would be found so: and consequently, that this minister is no good counselor to his majesty, in this so great and weighty affaire. And we hope, that Almighty God, by the mercy of his dearest son, our Savior, and through the prayers of his majesty's good mother, and other holy princes of his royal blood, now in heaven, will never suffer him, at the egging of such exasperating people, to follow so violent, troublesome, and dangerous, a course; and so contrary to theirs, whiles they lived upon earth, and so alienate from his own sweet nature, and princely disposition.

"But, to proceed a little further in the narration of some points of heavy persecution, that ensued, soon after his majesty's being in England,—much before the powder-treason was attempted: who does not know, what afflictions were lay upon catholics, even in the very first year of his majesty's reign, especially towards the end thereof; and much more throughout all the second year, before the said powder-treason fell out. For then, not only in the shires, and provinces abroad but even in London itself, and in the eyes of the court, the violence, and insolence, of continual searches, grew to be such, as was intolerable; no night passing commonly, but that soldiers, and catch-poles, brake into quiet men’s houses, when they were asleep; and not only carried away their persons unto prisons at their pleasure, except they would bribe them excessively; but whatsoever liked them best besides in the house, either of books, cups, chalices, or other furniture, that might anyway seem, or be pretended to belong to religion, was taken for a prey and seized on. And, among others, I remember, that one friend of mine, had a drinking cup of silver taken from him, for that it had the name of Jesus engraven upon it, though otherwise the form thereof did well show, that it was but a cup, and no a chalice. And these searches were made with such violence and insolence, as divers gentlewomen were drawn, or forced, out of their beds, to see, whether they had any sacred thing, or matter, belonging to the use of catholic religion, either about them, or under their beds.

"What shall I speak of the casting into prisons, and condemnation to death, of many catholics, for the same cause, in every corner lightly of the country; as namely, in London, of M. Hill, the priest; and this only for his function, and for coming into England, against the statutes of queen Elizabeth, to the contrary?—Of M. Sugar also, another priest, in Warwicke, that was not only condemned, but executed, with all rigor, in that city, for the same cause; and a layman with him named Robert Grysold, for receiving him into his house? At Oxford also, four priests, being taken at that time, whose names were M. Greene, Tichborne, Smith, and Brisco; —all had sentence of death passed upon them though after many afflictions suffered in prison there, which made them desire much the speedy execution of the sentence given against them, they had, instead of this one death, many deaths laid upon them, by sending them prisoners to the castle of Wisbich, where they received such cruel usage, both in their diet, lodging, and other treats, as made even divers protestants to take compassion of them.—And why was all this, but for their religion?

"I let pass the condemnation to death, of a poor man in Oxford, named Skitell, for that the priest M. Greene had fled into his house, when he was pursued by the searchers through which, condemnation, and perpetual imprisonment, thereupon ensuing, were brought to extreme misery and calamity, his poor wife and children, most lamentable to behold, or hear recounted. And upon like occasion, was apprehended, imprisoned, condemned, and executed in York, about the same time, another layman, named Thomas Wylborne, only for that he had used some words of persuasion to a certain woman to be a catholic, notwithstanding the prohibition of her husband, who followed so hotly the matter against him, as he caused him to be put to death. I preterm it Mistris Shelley, a gentlewoman of good worship, cast into the common jail at Worcester, for that the priest, M. Hassells, was found in her house. The apprehension, in like manner, and condemning to death, of M. Edward Tempest, priest and gentleman, in London, at the same time. I pass over the cruel sentence of cutting of the ears of so ancient and venerable a gentleman, as is M. Tho. Pound, that had lived above thirty years in sundry prisons, only for being a catholic, and now last in his old age, had that honor from God, as to be sentenced, to lose his ears"

"And finally I pass over what was practised in Herefordshire, Lancashire, and other places, in this kind of persecution; and particularly concerning the new pressure, then first brought up, that men should be bound to pay for their wives, that were recusants; a thing never before exacted in the former queen's time. I preterm it also to mention, how his majesty, before this had rejected the common and humble supplication of catholics, exhibited in writing, for some toleration, and mitigation of the calamities; the which supplication was answered with contempt and insultation by a minister, and put in print. His majesty, in like manner, had given public audience, both to protestants and puritans, for three days together, concerning the differences of their religion: but to catholics, he never yielded to give any at all. And how then can this apologer talk so much of equality used in all favors? How can he say that there was no persecution before the powder-treason?

"But let us go forward, yet somewhat further. His majesty had, before this time, upon other men’s importunity, confirmed and ratified, by his letters patents, all that heap of constitutions, and canons, (being in number above on hundred and forty), which the b. b. of London and Canterbury, had devised, and set forth, against catholics, for their greater vexation, and affliction, out of which has flowed since, a hug sea of molestations and exaggerations, by searchings, spoils, citations, apprehensions, excommunications, and other violences, upon innocent and quiet people, by the ravenous hungry persecutors of those prelates, and other their catch-poles, without respect, either of justice, or hope of remedy, for injuries by them offered. There had passed also before this, the speech of the L. Chancellor, in the Star-chamber; and the cannon of the b. of London at Paule's-Crosse, both of them tending to take all hope from catholics of any least favor, that might be expected, and the former expressly charging the judges, in his majesty's name, to use all severity in seeking out, and punishing them. Which things being seen, and far worse feared,—yea, designed also, and threatened, as those gentlemen apprehended it,(especially at the next parliament), cast them into that woeful impatience, and precipitation, which the event declared.

"All this then, which the apologer here tells us, of catholics' ingratitude for so many benefits received, during his majesty's reign, and That it is a main untruth,—(to use his own words): and can never be proved, that any persecution had been in his said majesty’s government; or that anywhere, or are, put to death, or punished, for cause of conscience,—is such a kind of speech, as if it were told in the Indies, many thousand miles off, where nothing is known of our countries affaires, might, perhaps, find some hearers, that would believe it: but in England, to allow such a thing in print, where all men’s outward senses, eyes, and ears, are witnesses of the contrary, is a strange boldness. For, as for persecution in goods and lands, as also of men’s bodies, by imprisonment and other vexations,— who can deny the same, that will not shut his said eyes, or ears, from seeing and hearing, that, which daily passes within the realm. And, when nothing elsewhere, yet those two several, and most memorable, statutes, to wit the 4 & 5, made in the third year of this king's reign,—containing more severe heads of affliction against catholic-recusants, for their mere conscience, than ever perhaps in the world, were seen extant, against any one sort of wicked men, or malefactors before;— do easily convince the untruth of this asseveration about freedom from persecution.

"And, as for death, which is less grievous to many, than those other persecutions, the late example of M. Robert Drury, and now again these last months past, of M. Matthew Flathers, and M. Gervis, priests,—(to omit others,)—that died expressly for refusing this late devised oath, since the powder-treason,—cannot, I think, be answered, except he will say that this oath has no matter of conscience in it for a catholic man to receive the contrary whereof we have evidently showed before, by many demonstrations.

"Wherefore, that, which he add immediately, insinuating, and expressly threatening, that, as there had been no persecution, or putting to death before,—(which is not true, as I have showed:)—so now, for-so-much as the pope has interposed his authority, and forbidden the oath as unlawful, there may chance be greater persecution, and more abundant shedding of blood, which, (as he says), must light upon the pope's head, for this his prohibition:—all this, (I say), is so spoken as each man may see, whither it tends:—to wit, to incite his majesty, by such devises, to engulf himself into the effusion of catholic blood, casting on the pretence of the pope's intermeddling as cause thereof: which is an ancient art of deceit to give non causam, pro causa: for that no injury is ever offered under the name of injury, but of justice, or merit. And our Savior was crucified, as a deceiver of the people, and disloyal to Cesar: and St. Paul pursued, as a disturber of the weal-public, and peace. And no suffering is so honorable as that, which comes with a dishonorable title: so as English catholics must not be dismayed, when they suffer for the false imputation of civil disloyalty to their temporal prince, being witting to themselves, that it is indeed for their religion, and loyalty to God, their eternal prince, and supreme king. And this only shall suffice for this matter. For, if catholics further affliction be determined by their adversaries, and permitted by God, pretences will not want, how to do it. The proverb is already known, as also the fable of Esope, that the lamb must be slain, for that drinking, far beneath the well, he was pretended, notwithstanding, to have troubled the fountain. Catholics must be beaten, for that the pope has resolved a case of conscience, that men may not swear against their own religion.—All be to the glory of God; and then finally will they lose nothing thereby, which is the only comfort in such manner of sufferings."

 

5.King James's Premonition.

IN the true spirit of an author, James would not permit the controversy to drop.—By way of reply to the cardinal, and to the Jesuit, he published a Next edition of his apology, prefixing to it a premonition, to all most mighty monarchs, kings, free princes, and states, in Christendom. It begins with the following address:—"To the most sacred, and invulnerable Rudolph the II, by God's clemency elect emperor of the Romans; king of Germanie, Hungarie, Bohemia, Dalmatie, CroatieSclavonie, &c. archduke of Austria, duke of Burgundy, Stiria, Carinthia, Carniola, and Württemberg, &c. earl of Tyrolis, &c. And to all other right, high, and mighty kings and right-excellent free princes, and states of Christendom, our loving brethren, cousins, allies, confederates and friends: James by the Grace of God, king of Great Britain, Fance, and Ireland, professor, maintainer, and defender, of the true, Christian, catholique, and apostolique faith, professed by the ancient and primitive church, and sealed with the blood of so many holy bishops, and other faithful, crowned with the glory of martyrdom,

“Wish everlasting felicity in Christ our Saviour.

"To you most sacred and invincible emperor; right, high, and mighty kings, right excellent free princes, and states: My loving brethren, and cousins:

"To you, I say,—as of right belong,—doe I consecrate and direct this warning of mine, or rather, preamble to my reprinted apology for the oath of allegiance. For the cause is general, and concern the authority, and privilege, of kings in general, and all super eminent temporal powers".

The premonition contains nothing, which his majesty had not said in the apology, we shall not, therefore, insert any extract from it.—We shall only remark, that, both in the apology, and the premonition, many pages are filled with learned dis­cussions on the vials, mentioned in the book of Revelations.

 

XXVII.

THE EXAMINATION OF MR. BLACKWELL, THE ARCHPRIEST, BEFORE HIS MAJESTY'S ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.

 

THE most important document in the history of this controversy, is, The large examination taken at Lambeth, according to his majesty's direction, point by point, of Mr. George Blackvell,—made archpriest of England by pope Clement VIII.— Upon occasion of an answer of his, without the privacy of the state, to a letter lately sent to him by cardinal Bellarmine, blaming him for taking the oath of allegiance. Together with the cardinal's letter, and Mr. Blackwell's letter, to the romish catholics in England, as well ecclesiastical, as lay.

The commissioners at this examination were the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of London, the bishop of Chichester, Mr. James Montague, Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. J. Bennett, Mr. R. Swate, Mr. Richard Neyle, Mr. John King, and Mr. William Ferrand.

It would be difficult to produce an instance of a legal discussion, or even of a literary investigation, in which the inquiry has been conducted with so much method,—in which the point under consideration has been so completely cleared of extraneous matter,—or in which, by a regular series of inqui­ries,—beginning with the most easy, and arising to the most difficult,—a question singularly complicate and delicate, has been so completely brought to a decisive issue.

The examination began, by Mr. Blackwell’s propounding,—with the leave of the court,—his own system on the spiritual, and temporal, power of the pope. He did this at some length, in perspicuous, and measured language, but, in terms, too general, to satisfy the commissioners. They, therefore, called on him for explanations; and received them from him.

1. He is first asked,—whether, in virtue of the alleged cessions of Henry the second, and of King John, to the popes,—the kingdoms of England, and Ireland; or either of them, were parts of the temporal dominions of the pope?

To this, the archpriest answers, in the words of Sir Thomas More, "Rome never could show" such a grant and, if she could, it were nothing worth."

2. The commissioners then observe, that several canonists,—among whom they particularly notice cardinal Baronius,—affirm, that the pope is as directly lord of the whole world in temporal, as he is head of the universal church in spirituals; and that he has directly a sovereign authority, in respect of such his worldly dominion, over all emperors, kings, and princes, to dispose of them, and their kingdoms, when occasion shall require, as he has, in regard of the spiritual supremacy, over all bishops, and clergymen, to advance and deprive them, when he think it convenient; and that they do deserve it. The archpriest replies,—that, in his answer to "Bellarmine, he had sworn,—that the bishop of Rome, has no imperial, or civil power to dispose, at his pleasure, of the king's majesty. That, as he had sworn, so did he then constantly affirm, that he hold the opinion before spoken of, concerning the pope's direct dominion, and supreme authority, over all the world in temporal,—to be untrue.

3. Advancing in the inquiry, the commission­ers notice to him,—another kind of authority ascribed to the pope, and tending to the same end,—that, in order to things spiritual, and indirectly, all kings and princes, with their kingdoms and countries, are subordinate to the pope, in so much as if he see cause, and that kings, and princes will not be advised by him, he may not only excommunicate them, but, proceeding by degrees, depose them, absolve their subjects from their oaths of allegiance, and rightfully command them, if need be, to bear arms against them.

The archpriest replies, that, the pope's excommunication can produce no such effect as deposition, eradication, absolution of subjects from their oath of allegiance nor any sufficient warrant, either to rebel, or lay violent hands upon the king.—He admits, that some canonists have held the affirmative of this proposition:—but what private men write, should not, he says, be imputed to the doctrine of the catholic church, or to the prejudice of any man, who does not hold it.

4. Diverging somewhat from their strict line of inquiry, the commissioners then cite to the arch-priest, passages in the works of several writers, which assert, that the obedience of catholics at different times to excommunicated princes, was owing, not to their not having a right to resist; but to their not having the means for successful resistance.

The truth of the assertions of these authors, the archpriest denies unequivocally. He expresses his wonder, that they were ever made,—observing, that they would, thus, exhibit the apostles, and martyrs, as mere temporizers; and that, in the early writers of the church, there is not a single syllable of such language.

5. The commissioners then return to the indirect temporal power of the pope.

Here,—the archpriest cites the very strong and decisive facts and arguments, by which cardinal Bellarmine combats the doctrine of the pope's direct power in temporals. He contends, that these apply equally to his alleged indirect temporal power; and concludes by wishing, with all his heart, that either cardinal Bellarmine had not intermeddled with the question of the pope's authority in temporals; or else, that he had been able to handle it, if it have any truth in it, more pithily, and thoroughly. Thereof, concludes the archpriest, the pope's power ought not to be extended beyond the power of the kingdom of heaven, and of the censures of the church, properly so called. He has no authority in temporals, either directly or indirectly, to depose kings, &c.—by what name, or title soever, the said power is called ;—whether he put it in practice, in order to spiritual things, or whether the end he aim at, by such his proceedings, with any king or prince, be spiritual, or supernatural; that is, be pretended to be undertaken for the good of the church, and promoting of Christianity; the same, in his judgment, being neither apostolical, nor agreeing to the practice of the most worthy bishops of Home, in the primitive church, and for a long time after nor available in truth to the catholic church; but rather hurtful, and great hindrance thereto.

He then, truly, and sincerely, from the bottom of his heart, declares, in his conscience, before God, and the world, that king James, his sovereign lord, is jure divino, and by the positive laws of this realm, lawful, and rightful, king of this realm, and of all other his majesty's dominions and countries, both de facto, and de jure and that it was not lawful, either for his majesty's subjects to have withstood him; nor ever could it be lawful for them, now that he is their king, to rise up against him, or seek, by any ways or means, to hurt him, either in his health, or in his regal estate.

6. It might have been expected, that this full, and explicit, answer would have closed the inquiry. The commissioners, indeed, said, that the arch­priest had very well discharged his duty. Still, they involved the interrogation to a higher power,— to the highest, perhaps, to which the inquiry could be carried. "It is possible", they said, that the pope may define the deposing power to be a matter of faith; then, they observed, it must be acknowledged by popish catholics, that his holiness may depose kings, and deal with their subjects, as is aforesaid;—and thus his majesty, and all other Christian princes, as their occasions fall out, must still rest unassured of the loyalty of their subjects, and of their own safeties;—It is therefore, they add, necessary, that the archpriest should clear this point."

To this question, the archpriest replied,—That he was perfectly assured, that the pope would not make such a determination; and that he could not make it; He cannot, said the archpriest, determine it to be lawful, under any pretence whatever, for a man to commit adultery with his neighbor’s wife, no more can he determine it to be lawful, under any pretence whatsoever, for any of his majesty's subjects to bear arms against him;—both of them, being against the moral law of God, which the gospel do, in no one point, prejudice.—Nor, as he cannot, by any pretence whatsoever, make a son to be no son, during the life of his father—no more can he make the born subject of any king, not to be his subject, so long as the king live.

7. Cardinal Allen’s Admonition to the nobility of England,—noticed in a former part of this work, —being mentioned. The archpriest declared, that he could not chose but confess, from all his heart, that he did dislike, and disavow, all the arguments, published in that book, which had any tendency to persuade the queen's subjects to take part with the forces of the king of Spain; because she was deposed by the pope's sentence; and in some other respects therein mentioned; and likewise all the persuasions, and resolutions which were sent into Ireland from Salamanca, or from any place else, tending to the same purpose.

8. Several passages from the works of cardinal Allen, and of doctor Stapleton, being then read by the commissioners to the archpriest:

"Alas! alas!" he cried, "what mean you to increase my sorrow? I have said enough before to show you, how much I do detest these kind of positions, as being infected, if not with a canker, at least with untruths. How glad should I have been, if these kinds of positions, now charged on me, had been left to Buchanan, and such of his followers, as have run that race."— He expressed his humble desire, that he might be no further troubled with these uncatholic, and bloody, novelties; and therein he had his desire.

 

XXVIII.

ULTERIOR OCCURRENCES RESPECTING THE PROTESTATION OF ALLEGIANCE.

 

AFTER some further observations, and replies, the examination closed.—As it appeared to the writer, to contain much interesting matter; and the copies of it are extremely rare, he thought an account of its most remarkable passages would be acceptable to the reader, and probably the reader will be of opinion, that the archpriest's statements and answers were expressed with great precision; and do credit to him, as a sound divine, a loyal subject, and an honest man.—Soon after his examination, the archpriest addressed a second letter to the English catholics, repeating his approbation of the oath, recommending them to take it; and advising them not to be deterred from doing so, by the briefs of the pope. He received a second letter from Bellarmine, under the title of Apologia contra Prefationem Monitorum Jacobi regis. The cardinal published also a reply to his majesty's premonition.

It appears, that the briefs of Paul the fifth withheld the general body of English catholics from taking the oath prescribed by James, and induced some, who had taken it, to retract, as far as it was in their power, their signatures to it. The adver­saries of the catholics availed themselves of this cir­cumstance to inflame the popular prejudices; and demanded, that the laws against popery should be carried into execution, with increased severity. The weak prince obeyed the call; and the miseries of the catholics were greatly aggravated. We shall close the history of the oath, with an account,

I. Of a petition of eight priests confined in Newgate to Paul the fifth, for an explanation of his briefs respecting it:

II. Of the opinion of several doctors of Sorbonne, in favor of the lawfulness of the oath; and of Bossuet's sentiments upon it:

III. Mention will then be made of the final division of opinion of the roman-catholics respecting it:

IV. And of the complete rejection, in the Declaration of the Gallican clergy in 1682, of the pope's deposing power.

 

1.The Petition of eight Priests confined in Newgate, to Paul the fifth, for an explanation of the Briefs.

IN this afflicting situation, eight priests, imprisoned in Newgate, presented a petition to the pope, describing their sufferings, in affecting terms; and imploring his holiness, in the most religious and dutiful language, to commiserate their case; and to specify those expressions in the oath, which were so substantially objectionable, as to make the taking of it unlawful. It does not appear that any answer was given to this application.

Many representations of the same nature were made to the pope, at different times, by several, both of the English clergy and laity, but without effect.

 

2.Opinion of several doctors of the Sorbonne in favor of the Oath. Sentiments of Bossuet respecting it.

THE advocates of the oath then laid it before the doctors of the Sorbonne; and asked their opinion,— "Whether roman-catholics could, conscientiously, take it?" Forty-eight doctors replied in the affirmative. The only clause, which seems to have occasioned any difficulty, was that, by which the party abjured, as heretical, the position, that princes excommunicated, or deprived, by the pope, might be deposed, or murdered, by their subjects.—The doctors propounded the sense, in which the party, who took the oath, was to understand this clause.

But their opinion did not satisfy the adversaries of the oath. They insisted, that the bulls of Paul the fifth which forbad it to be taken, because it contained many things, openly contrary to faith and salvation, must ever remain in force;—that the clause, above cited, did not admit of the interpretation attached to it by the forty-eight doctors;—that this interpretation proceeded on a distinction, above the capacity of the vulgar;—and, perhaps, not admitted by the magistrate, who might tender the oath;—and that six doctors of the faculty,—men, venerable for their age, and learning,—had objected to the oath, and declared, that it could not be taken conscientiously, by a catholic.

The briefs of Paul the fifth, were afterwards confirmed by pope Urban the eighth.

On any point of theology the opinion of Bossuet is important: we are happy to have it in our power, to present to our readers, his opinion on James's oath. In a letter, dated the 28th October 1682, he says,—I understand, that the inquisition has condemned the sense, favorable to the independence of the temporal power of sovereigns, which some doctors of the faculty of theology of Paris, have given to the English oath. All will be lost by this haughtiness. It is not by these means, that the authority of the holy see will be reestablished."

He discusses the oath at length, in his Defense de la Declaration du Clergé de France. "I hesitated long, he says, whether I should speak of the disputes on the English oath respecting our question, because I knew that a consultation on the subject of the oath, which James I, the king of England, exacted, from his catholic subjects, had been put at Rome into the index, in 1683. We believe and say loudly, that, according to the ancient right of the church of France, often confirmed in practice, these sorts of decrees do not bind us."

Bossuet then proceeds to the bull of Paul III, by which he deposed Henry VIII and absolved his subjects from their allegiance. "In this bull," says Bossuet, "Paul commanded many things purely temporal, as well to the subjects of Henry, as to other Christian princes,—and even to kings, whom he excepts only from his censures, without dispensing them from obeying him: still, no one, either in England or elsewhere, took the least step, by land or by sea, to put his orders into execution. The decree of Pius V, by exciting the English to revolt, could only have the effect of exposing or delivering them to a more certain death, without a pretence, or any solid ground, to the glory of martyrdom; as they would have been punished, not as catholics, but as rebels.

Bossuet then states the oath of James I. "It is true", he observes, "that a clause, captious and calculated to render the papal power odious, was inserted in this oath. Simple individuals were forced by it to condemn, as impious and heretical, the opinion maintained conscientiously, and as probable, by many persons of great merit; by many saints, and even by the popes themselves,—that the ecclesiastical power may depose kings, at least for the crime of heresy. Assuredly it was lawful for the English, after an attentive examination of the question, to reject, as we do, this opinion; but it appeared extravagant and rash, to condemn it as heretical, without waiting for the judgment of the church."

"The pope, having reported the oath,—adds, You must perceive by the simple, reading of the bull, that persons cannot take it, and preserve at the same time the purity of the catholic faith, and without exposing their souls to perdition, as it contains many things manifestly contrary to the faith, and to the salvation of souls.

"The pope does not say, which are those things, manifestly contrary to the faith, and the salvation of souls. Many persons thought that the oath was only contrary to the faith and the salvation of souls, inasmuch as it condemned as heretical, a proposition, which the church has not declared to be such. But, (to express my opinion with the sincerity and freedom which becomes a Christian bishop), I believe that the court of Rome was very glad to employ vague terms, and not to explain itself, from a fear of being forced to confess that the proposition, though it did not deserve the qualification of heretical, might be censured with more measured expressions. Do not say that Paul V has raised to a dogma of faith, the opinion that popes may depose kings.

"It is not, in this form, and with this ambiguity of expression, that dogmas are established. For, notwithstanding this bull, several English were accused of a false conspiracy against the king, and condemned to death in 1678, and 1681; and these, in the moment of losing their lives, declared that they acknowledged, with all their heart, Charles II for their true and legitimate king, who could not be deposed by any power; that they considered their opinion as certain and indubitable, and that they never should depart from it. They avoid to treat the opinion, which attributes to the ecclesiastical power the right to depose sovereigns as heretical, because the catholic church, to whose authority they were invariably attached, had not condemned it. This, Richard Langhorne, a celebrated lawyer, declared at his death, in the most clear and precise terms, as well as lord Stafford: and one cannot doubt, that these great men had these sentiments in the bottom of their hearts, since on the instant when they were ready to receive the crown of martyrdom, they declared them publicly.

"The bull of Paul III against Henry VIII, and that of Pius V against Elizabeth, were waste paper, despised by the heretics, and, in truth, by the catholics, as far as their decisions affected the temporal rights of the sovereigns. Treaties, alliances, commerce, everything, in a word, went on as before and the popes knew this would happen: still, the court of Rome, though aware of the inutility of its decrees, would publish them, with the view of acquiring a chimerical title. The heretics took advantage of them, and the catholics suffered much by them, as occasion was taken from them to persecute them, not as catholics, but as public enemies,— as men, ever disposed, when the pope should order, to revolt against the king.

"Let catholic divines, to the utmost of their power, excuse the popes, as we have done or endeavored to do: but if they are compelled to blame some, who, in other respects, have labored with success for the clergy and the advantage of the church, but who unfortunately have, though with good intentions, engaged in affairs, that did not regard them,—let them not believe that, in allowing them faults, they dishonor the holy see; let them believe, that all this turns to the glory of the church, and of God who protects her".

 

3.Final division of opinion on the Oath.

Still, at the period to which the present pages relate, the discussion of the oath was continued. By several, both of the clergy and of the laity, it was taken. Some priests, and some of the religious, says cardinal Bentivoglio, in the extract already cited, from the answer to the Memoirs of Panzani, admitted the oath and, deviating still more from the right path, endeavored to maintain, that it was not repugnant to the catholic faith. But, the number of these priests is very small; and besides, they are the least zealous, and the least valued for learning and virtue. All the rest of the clergy have shown the greatest steadiness in opposing the oath and the same must be said of all the regulars in general. Many of each description, contemning a thousand dangers, and even death itself, have publicly confuted it, with great strength of learning, and intrepidity of mind and have thereby acquired singular merit with the whole church, and the highest veneration among the catholics of that kingdom. But, it should not be unobserved, that cardinal Bentivoglio saw, with very ultramontane eyes; and would, therefore, be disposed to think unfavorably of all, who rejected the papal pretension to temporal power.

A letter written, in 1681, by the chapter of the English catholic clergy to cardinal Howard, stated that, more of the nobility, gentry and commonalty had actually taken it, or seemed resolved to take it: and desired his eminence to oppose an attempt, then supposed to be making at Rome, to procure a censure of those who took it. His op­position succeeded, and no such censure found its way to England.

 

4.Complete rejection, (now adopted by the universal catholic church),—of the pope's deposing power, in the declaration of the Gallican church, in 1682. Magna est veritas,—et pravalebit.

SEVENTY-FIVE years after the date of the last of the briefs of Paul V, the assembly of the Gallican clergy, in 1682, subscribed their celebrated decla­ration respecting the civil, and temporal powers.— It consisted of four articles:—

By the first, they resolved, that "the power which Jesus Christ had given to St. Peter, and his successors, related only to spiritual things and to those, which concern salvation, and not to things civil, and temporal so that, in temporals, kings and princes, are not subject to the ecclesiastical power; and cannot directly, or indirectly, be deposed by the power of the keys, or their subjects discharged by it, from the obedience which they owe to their sovereign or from their oaths of allegiance.

The three other articles are contested by some catholic divines: but, from the first, there is not now, either among the laity, or the clergy,—with the slight exception of a few, a very few aulici vaticani,—a single dissentient voice. Even the present pope, in his negotiation with Napoleon, expressed his willingness to acquiesce in the subscription of it, by the clergy of France. How much then, is it to be lamented, that this better spirit did not animate the pontiffs, Paul III, Pius V, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Paul V, Urban VIII, and, (as we shall afterwards see),—Innocent X, when they published those unhappy, and evil-bearing briefs, bulls, and decrees, mentioned in the series of these pages.

We have now brought the subject of them to the end of the reign of James I.

It has been said, that the severity, with which the penal laws were executed against the roman-catholics, in the reign of James, will, for ever, prove his intolerance:—It would have been more accurate to have said,—that they will for ever prove the cowardliness of his mind. From principle, James was tolerant, but he frequently sacrificed his principles to the clamour of the populace, and to the real, or affected fears of the parliamentary leaders. From an early part of his reign, may be dated the commencement of those political maneuvers, which persuaded the populace to believe, that the sovereign was a favorer of popery and which left him, as he often too readily believed, no means of repelling the charge, except that of causing the existing laws to be executed with new rigor or even of enacting others, still more se­vere and sanguinary. In the reign of James, as well as in the reigns of the two succeeding princes, this stratagem was often practised;—and it is melancholy to add,—that it was always practised successfully.

 

XXIX.

THE PURITANS

 

WHILE the government of England was thus employed in devising and executing the severities, which have been related, against the catholics, a new denomination of Christians had arisen in the bosom of the establishment, had derived strength from opposition, and, at the time, of which we are now speaking, was rapidly advancing to that power, which enabled them, at no very distant period, to triumph over their parent church, and even to overthrow the monarchy. The subject of these pages makes some mention of these necessary. A succinct account of their vicissitudes of fortune will connect, in some measure, the three histories—of the protestants of the established church,—of the protestant dissenters,—and of the roman-catholics of England. We shall, therefore, present the reader with a suc­cinct account,

I. Of the origin of the puritans:

II. Of the points of discipline, in which there was a difference between them and the established church:

III. Of their division into presbyterians,—independents,—and baptists

IV. Of the act of uniformity:

V. Of the court of high commission:

VI. Of the conference at Hampton Court:

VII. Of the legal establishment of the puritans by the long parliament:

VIII. Of the act of conformity:

IX. and of the act of toleration, in the reign of William III. The insertion of the two last articles will break into the chronological order, generally observed in these pages; but, they will occupy a very small space, and the anticipation will enable the writer to close, in this place, the subject of the present chapter.—

X. It will conclude with a brief account of the religious persecutions, suffered and inflicted by the puritans.

 

1. The origin of the Puritans.

IT has been mentioned, that, in the reign of Henry the eighth, those, who favored the reformation, were generally inclined to the Lutheran creed, discipline, and liturgy: that, in the reign of Edward the sixth, they generally inclined to the doctrine of Calvin, and that the change of religion, during the reign of queen Mary, and the consequences of that change, drove some of the most zealous of the English reformers into exile. Their number is supposed to have been about 800. Some settled in Switzerland; but the greater part at Frankfort, or its neighborhood. Many preserved the form of worship of the English church; others preferred the Helvetian rites, on account of their greater simplicity. The former received the appellation of Conformists, the latter, that of Non-conformists, or Puritans. These soon split into parties, and scandalized all the protestants of Germany by their quarrels. In the end, the conformists obtained the ascendancy.

The non-conformists, generally, adopted the doctrine, and discipline, of Calvin. On this account, they were disliked by the Lutherans, and the conduct of these, in their regard, was most uncharitable. They proceeded so far, (as we are informed by doctor Maclaine) as to call the English martyrs, who, in the reign of queen Mary, had sealed the Reformation with their blood,— "The devil's martyrs."

 

2.The principal points in difference, between the Church of England, and the Puritans.

FROM Mosheim, we transcribe the following very accurate statement of this difference.

The principles laid down by the commissioners of the queen's high court of commission, on the one hand, and the puritans on the other, were very different.

1. For, in the first place, the former maintained, that the right of reformation,—that is,— the privilege of removing the corruptions, and of correcting the errors, that may have been introduced into the doctrine, discipline, or worship, of the church, is lodged in the sovereign, or civil magistrate alone; while the latter denied, that the power of the magistrate extended so far, and maintained, that it was rather the business of the clergy to restore religion to its native dignity and luster. This was the opinion of CALVIN, as has been already observed.

2dly. The queen's commissioners maintained, that the rule of proceeding, in reforming the doctrine, or discipline, of the church, was not to be derived from the sacred writings alone, but also from the writings and decisions of the fathers, in the primitive ages. The puritans, on the contrary, affirmed, that the inspired word of God, being the pure and only fountain of wisdom and truth, it was from thence alone, that the rules, and directions, were to be drawn, which were to guide the measures of those, who undertook to purify the faith, or to rectify the discipline, and worship, of the church; and that the ecclesiastical institutions of the early ages, as also the writings of the ancient doctors, were absolutely destitute of all sort of authority.

3dly. The queen's commissioners ventured to assert, that the church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt, and erroneous, in many points of doctrine and government; that the Roman pontiff, though chargeable with temerity, and arrogance, in assuming to himself the title and jurisdiction, of head of the whole church, was, nevertheless to be esteemed a true and lawful bishop; and consequently, that the ministers, ordained by him, were qualified for performing the pastoral duties. This was a point, which the English bishops thought it absolutely necessary to maintain, since they could not, otherwise, claim the honor of deriving their dignities, in an uninterrupted line of succession from the apostles. But, the puritans entertained very different notions of this matter; they considered the Romish hierarchy, as a system of political, and spiritual, tyranny, that had justly forfeited the title, and privileges, of a true church; they looked upon its pontiff as antichrist; and its discipline as vain, superstitious, idolatrous, and diametrically opposite to the injunctions of the gospel; and, in consequence of this, they renounced its communion, and regarded all approaches to its discipline, and worship, as highly dangerous to the cause of true religion.

4thly. The court commissioners considered, as the best, and most perfect, form of ecclesiastical government, that, which took place, during the first four or five centuries;—they even preferred it to that, which had been instituted by the apostles, because, as they alleged, our Savior, and his apostles, had accommodated the form, mentioned in the scripture, to the feeble, and infant, state of the church and left it to the wisdom and discretion of future ages, to modify it, in such manner, as might be suitable to the triumphant progress of Christianity, the grandeur of a national establishment, and also to the ends of civil policy. The puritans asserted, in opposition to this, that the rules of church government were clearly laid down in the holy Scriptures, the only standard of spiritual discipline; and that the apostles, in establishing the first Christian church on the aristocratical plan, that was then observed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, designed it, as an unchangeable model, to be followed, in all times, and in all places.

5thly. The court reformers were of opinion, that things indifferent, which are neither commanded, nor forbidden, by the authority of scripture, such as the external rites of public worship; the kind of vestments, that are to be used by the clergy; religious festivals, and the like, might be ordered, determined, and rendered a matter of obligation, by the authority of the civil magistrate; and that, in such a case, the violation of his commands, would be no less criminal, than an act of rebellion against the laws of the state.— The puritans alleged, in answer to this assertion, that it was an indecent prostitution of power to impose, as necessary, and indispensable, those things, which CHRIST had left, in the class of matters indifferent; since this was a manifest encroachment upon that liberty, with which the divine Savior had made us free. To this, they added, that such rites, and ceremonies, as had been abused to idolatrous purposes, and had a manifest tendency to revive the impressions of superstition, and popery, in the minds of men, could by no means be considered as indifferent, but deserved to be rejected, without hesitation, as impious and profane. Such, in their estimation, were the religious ceremonies of ancient times, whose abrogation was refused by the queen, and her council.

 

3.Division of the English Puritans into Presbyterian, Independents, and Baptists.

1. SUCH were the tenets of the original puritans: the Presbyterians are usually considered as their legitimate descendents.

2. The Independents sprang from the Brownists, the most distinguished of the sects, into which the puritans divided. Brown, the founder of this denomination of puritans, was a man of talent. His aim was, to model his party into the form of the Christian church, in its infant state. Being dissatisfied with the treatment, which he received in England, he retired to the continent and founded churches in Middleburgh, Amsterdam, and Leyden. Thus abandoned by him, his English followers mitigated the extreme simplicity of his plan, in its leading feature—that each congregation is itself a sepa­rate, and independent church, acknowledging no superiority, or right of interference, in any man, or in any body of men. This gave them the name of Independents, or of congregation-brethren. A fuller account of them may be seen, in the writer's Confessions of faith, ch. 12.

3. In the same work may be found a succinct account of the Baptists. It is too long for insertion in this place but cannot, it is apprehended, be very much abridged. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say, that, in their discipline and worship, as well as in the independency of their particular congregations, they very nearly resemble the independents; but differ from them in the administration of baptism. It is observable, that this denomination of christians,—now very respectable, but in their origin, little intellectual,—first propagated the principles of religious liberty.

The separation of the puritans from the church of England began with the act of uniformity; but was not discernible, till the year 1566,—the period assigned for it by Neale, in his History of the Puritans, ch. iv. Some writers, term this,—the first separation: The second, they say, took place, soon after the assembly of the clergy was convened at Lambeth, by the order of James I, in 1604.

The principal cause assigned for these separations, was, the use of certain ceremonies, still practised by the ministers of the established church; particularly the retention of the surplice. In proportion, as the controversy grew warm, more importance was annexed to these circumstances. Cartwright, and his brethren, admitted them to be indifferent, in substance; though, on many accounts, seriously objectionable: At the time of the second separation, they were pronounced to be unlawful and neither to be imposed, nor endured.

 

4.The Act of Uniformity.

ON the accession of queen Elizabeth, the greater part of the exiles returned to their native country. Their distinction, into conformists, and non-conformists, followed them, on their return; and the liberty, which they then enjoyed, rather increased, than diminished, their animosities. A temporary peace was, however, signed; and letters of mutual forgiveness passed between the leaders of the contending parties. It has been mentioned, that queen Elizabeth wished the national creed and discipline to be as comprehensive as possible; but, being once established, she determinately resolved, that all should conform to it. With this view, the act of uniformity, (1 Eliz. ch. 2.), was passed. It enjoined, as we have already shortly stated, that all ministers of the church should use the book of common prayer, authorised by the statute of the 5th, and 6th years of Edward the sixth, with the addition of certain lessons, to be used, on every Sunday, and holiday, in the year; and with an alteration in the form of the litany; and the insertion of two sentences in the delivery of the sacra­ment to the communicants. All persons were enjoined to attend divine service, at their parish church; or at some accustomed chapel, on every Sunday, and also on every other day prescribed by law, under the penalty of one shilling for each absence. This statute was generally called the Act of Uniformity.

 

5.The Court of High Commission.

MENTION has been already made of the statutes, which, in the first year of the reign of queen Elizabeth, conferred upon her the spiritual supremacy of the church of England. A clause, inserted in that statute, was attended with the most serious effects; and, in the reign of her second successor, convulsed, both the church, and the state to their centres. It empowered, the queen, and her successors, to appoint commissioners, to exercise any manner of spiritual, or ecclesiastical, jurisdiction, in England, or Ireland; to visit, reform, redress, order, correct and amend all heresies, schisms, contempts, offences, and enormities whatsoever: With a proviso, that they should determine nothing to be heresy, but what had been adjudged to be so, by the canonical scripture, or by the first four general councils, or any other general council, wherein the same had been declared heresy, by the express, and plain, words of scripture; or such as should, thereafter, be declared to be heresy, by the high court of parliament, with the consent of the clergy in convocation.

Agreeing in little else, Hume, and Neale, perfectly accord in their accounts of the unconstitutional and arbitrary rules of this tribunal and of the enormity of its proceedings. By the former, they are described in the following words:

"The first primate after the queen's accession, was Parker; a man, rigid in exacting conformity to the established worship, and in punishing, by fine, or deprivation, all the puritanical clergymen who attempted to innovate anything in the habits, ceremonies, or liturgy of the church. He died, in 1575; and was succeeded by Grindall, who, as he himself was inclined to the new sect, was, with great difficulty, brought to execute the laws against them, or to punish the non-conforming clergy. He declined obeying the queen's orders for the suppression of prophesying, or the assemblies of the zealots, in private houses, which, she apprehended, had become so many academies of fanaticism; and, for this offence, she had, by an order of the star-chamber, sequestered him from his archiepiscopal function, and confined him to his own house. Upon his death, which happened in 1583, she determined not to fall into the same error in her next choice and she named Whitgift, a zealous churchman, who had already signalized his pen in controversy, and who, having in vain attempted to convince the puritans by argument, was now resolved to open their eyes by power, and by the execution of penal statutes. He informed the queen, that all the spiritual authority, lodged in the prelates, was insignificant, without the sanction of the crown; and, as there was no ecclesiastical commission, at that time, in force, he engaged her to issue a new one, more arbitrary than any of the former; and conveying more unlimited authority. She appointed forty-four commissioners, twelve of whom were ecclesiastics; three commissioners made a quorum; the jurisdiction of the court extended over the whole kingdom, and over all orders of men; and every circumstance of its authority, and all its methods of proceeding, were contrary to the clearest principles of law, and natural equity. The commissioners were empowered to visit, and reform, all errors, heresies, schisms, in a word to regulate all opinions, as well as to punish all breach of uniformity in the exercise of public worship. They were directed to make inquiry, not only by the legal method of juries, and witnesses, but by all other means and ways, which they could devise; that is, by the rack, by torture, by inquisition, by imprisonment. Where they found reason to suspect any person, they might administer to him an oath, called ex officio; by which he was bound to answer all questions, and might thereby be obliged to accuse himself, or his most intimate friend. The fines, which they levied, were discretionary, and often occasioned the total ruin of the offender, contrary to the established laws of the kingdom. The imprisonment, to which they condemned any delinquent, was limited by no rule, but their own pleasure. They assumed a power of imposing on the clergy, what new articles of subscription, and consequently of faith, they thought proper.

"Though all other spiritual courts were subject, since the reformation, to inhibitions from the supreme courts of law, the ecclesiastical commissioners were exempted from that legal jurisdiction, and were liable to no control. And the more to enlarge their authority, they were empowered to punish all incests, adulteries, fornications; all outrages, misbehaviors, and disorders in marriage : and the punishments, which they might inflict, were according to their wisdom, conscience, and discretion. In a word, this court was a real inquisition; attended with all the iniquities, as well as cruelties, inseparable from that tribunal. And, as the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court was destructive of all law, so its erection was deemed by many a mere usurpation of this imperious princess; and had no other foundation than a clause of a statute, restoring the supremacy to the crown, and empowering the sovereign to appoint commissioners for exercising that prerogative. But, prerogative in general, especially the supremacy, was supposed, in that age, to involve powers, which no law, precedent, or reason, could limit, and determine.

 

6.The Conference at Hampton Court.

DURING the whole of the reign of Elizabeth, the contest between the established church and the puritans, was on the increase; and many whole­some severities, to use the language of persecution, were inflicted on the puritans. At first, they seemed to be favored by her successor. He expressed a laudable desire to accommodate matters between the contending parties. With this view, he appointed the conference at Hampton Court. It was attended by nine bishops, and as many, dignitaries, on the one side; and by four puritans, on the other. James himself took a great part in it: and had the satisfaction to hear from Whitgift, the archbishop of Canterbury, that, "undoubtedly his majesty spoke by the special assistance of God's spirit; and, from Bancroft, the bishop of London, that the Almighty, of his singular mercy, had given such a king, as from Christ's time, there had not been. Whereupon, says Strype, the lords, with one voice, yielded a very affectionate acclamation. His majesty was highly delighted with his own display of talent, at this extraordinary exhibition. In a letter preserved by Strype, the royal theologian writes to one of his friends, that "he had kept a revel with the puritans, for two days, the like of which was never seen; and that he had peppered them, as he, (to whom he was writing,) had done the papists: and that he was forced to say, at last, that, if any of them had been in a college, disputing with other scholars, and that any of their disciples had answered them, in that sort, they themselves would have snatched him up, in place of a reply, with a rod."

 

7.The Legal establishment of the Puritans by the long Parliament.

THIS event is shortly related by Mosheim, in the following terms : "After the death of Laud, the dissentions, that had reigned for a long time, between the king and parliament, grew still more violent; and arose, at length, to so great a height, that they could not be extinguished, but by the blood of that excellent prince. The great council of the nation, heated by the violent suggestions of the puritans and independents, abolished episcopal government; and abrogated everything in the ecclesiastical establishment, that was contrary to the doctrine, worship, and discipline, of the church of Geneva; turned the vehemence of the opposition against the king himself; and, having brought him into their power by the fate of arms, accused him of treason against the majesty of the nation; and, in 1648, while the eyes of Europe were fixed on the strange spectacle, caused his head to be struck off, on a public scaffold.

While the long parliament continued, the presbyterians maintained the ascendency. In a great measure, they lost it, when Cromwell usurped the government. Under him, all denominations of Christians, except the catholics and episcopalians, enjoyed full, and unbounded, liberty of conscience; and professed publicly, their religious doctrines. The presbyterians, and independents, were the favored communions; and, at first, had equal favor shown them. But, the protector's jealousy of the influence of the former, procured, by degrees, for the latter, a preponderance in his regard.

 

8.The Act of Conformity.

No sooner,—to adopt generally the language of Mosheim, on this subject,—was Charles the second, re-established on the throne of his ancestors, than the ancient forms of ecclesiastical government, and public worship, were re-established with him. The church of England was completely restored to her former honors. The puritans had hoped, that they should be allowed to share some part of the revenues of the church; but, contrary to their hopes, and to the monarch's solemn declarations at Breda, they were miserably disappointed. In 1662, the act of conformity was passed. In consequence of it, the validity of presbyterian ordination was denounced; the terms of conformity were raised higher, and rendered more difficult, than they were, before the civil war; and the non-conforming ministers were deprived of their livings. It is observable that, in the reign of Elizabeth, the deprived ministers were allowed one-fifth of their benefices, but, the statute of Charles made no provision for them.

 

9.The Act of Toleration.

IN this melancholy state of depression, the puritans remained, till the Revolution. Their affairs then took a more favorable turn. In 1689, the bill for the toleration of all protestant dissenters, from the church of England, passed in parliament, almost without opposition, and completely delivered them from the penal laws, to which they had been subject, by the act of conformity.

 

10.Persecutions suffered and inflicted by the Puritans.

"IT is, said Mosheim, an observation often made, that all religious sects, when they are kept under and oppressed, are remarkable for inculcating the duties of moderation, forbearance, and charity towards those, who dissent from them; but that, as soon as the scenes of persecution are removed, and they, in their turn arrive at power and pre-eminence, they forget their own precepts and maxims; and leave, both the recommendation and practice of charity to those, that groan under their yoke. The events, which form the subject of the present pages, too well exemplify the truth of this observation.

The Presbyterians, no sooner obtained the legal ascendency, under the provisions of the long parliament, than they imposed, with the same rigor, us their predecessors had done, their own creeds and confessions; and invested their magistrates with the same power of punishing with temporal pains and penalties, dissenters from their establishments. Of the persecutions suffered, and inflicted, by the puritans, Robinson, in his History of the Persecutions of Christians, gives the following extraordinary account.

"On the death of queen Mary, Elizabeth succeeded to the throne. Elizabeth, being a protestant, and being likewise taught by suffering, under the reign of her sister,—the protestants blessed themselves, that now their cause was established; and every friend of mankind hoped persecution would now cease. A church, calling itself protestant, was, indeed, established; but, this queen imitated her father, in persecuting both protestants, and papists. Elizabeth was a princess of most arbitrary principles, and character; ambition was her ruling passion, and he, who contradicted her,—died. The protestant bishops were continually employed in preaching in favor of arbitrary power; and persecuting all, who dissented, either from their political, or theological, creed. If anyone wrote anything against arbitrary power, either in church or state, he was immediately condemned, and put to death, as an author of seditious publications, against which, convenient laws were enacted, to please the queen and the priests. If anyone refused to conform to the least ceremony in worship, he was cast into prison, where, for this offence, many of the most excellent men in the land perished.

Two protestants of the Anabaptist faith, this accomplished queen burnt, for heresy, and many more of the same denomination, she banished, for the same crime. She also put two heretics to death, who had adopted the faith of Brown, the father of the independents; and, a little before this, she butchered some papists for their ancient heresy. The archbishops, Parker, and Whitgift, are damned to eternal fame, for the brutal part, they took in this cruel carnage.

Indeed, the whole reign of Elizabeth, though distinguished by the political prosperity of England, as far as great fame, and good fortune abroad can be called prosperity, is nothing but a series of arbitrary, and flagitious conduct, pointing to the destruction of all liberty, civil and religious, and full of murder for religious opinions. Elizabeth herself had no religion; but was openly profane, and addicted to common cursing and swearing. Without the weakness of Mary, she had Mary's heart, thirsting for human blood."

"James the first succeeded Elizabeth on the throne of England; and united the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. Educated a Presbyterian, the friends of Reformation expected, at once, a cessation of persecution, and the protection and countenance of the young king. In both, they were grievously disappointed. The protestant churches of England and Scotland had laid down persecution, as the mark, and evidence, of a false church; but, if their mark were a just one, neither of them merited the honorable appellation of a true church. When James ascended the throne, his first concern appears to have been the maintenance of his prerogative, and the extension of his power. He eagerly looked around him for those, who were best inclined to secure him these advantages. Experience had taught him, that the rough manners of the Presbyterian clergy snowed them to be ill adapted to this purpose. They had too often been to him the instruments of restraint and had shown too little disposition to flatter his vanity, or assert the omnipotence of his power. In the English clergy, and especially the bishops, he found men every way fitted for his purpose. Every tyrant is, in his turn, a sycophant and every sycophant, is, in his turn, a tyrant,— is a maxim founded on experience; and James perceived, that those, whose pleasure was the burning of others, would conform to any tiling to please him, from whom they derived their power. His standing maxim soon was, no bishop, no king, for, he found no other men, whose endeavors were equally to be depended upon in securing unlimited obedience in the people, and asserting unlimited authority in the prince. To bribe their exertions in favor of despotism, he published edicts, full of the old spirit of persecution. Bancroft, the pious bishop, was at once his adviser, and agent. The king published a proclamation, commanding all protestants to conform strictly, and without any exception, to all, and singular, the rites and ceremonies of the church of England; and granted indulgence to tender consciences to none, but roman-catholics, of all his numerous subjects in England.

"The spirit of this proclamation was directed by Bancroft to the heads of thousands of protestant non-conformists. Above five hundred clergy were immediately silenced, or deprived, for not complying with some slight ceremonies. Some were excommunicated; and some banished the country. Every means was used to distress dissenters. They were deprived, censured, fined in the Star-chamber; and used in the most violent and arbitrary manner. Worn out with endless vexations, and unceasing persecutions, many retired to Holland and, from thence, to America, seeking amongst untutored savages, and roaring wild beasts, that mercy, they were denied by protestant bishops, and priests, in their native land. Amongst the most illustrious of these fugitives was Mr. Robinson, the father of the independents in America;—James, dreading the consequence of such numerous emigrations, prohibited them; but without effect. It is witnessed, by a most judicious historian, that in this, and some following reigns, twenty-two thousand persons were banished from England by persecution, to America.

"To stifle the spirit of inquiry, hostile, at all times, to arbitrary power, in church and state, and to promote universal thoughtlessness, and ignorance, James published the book of sports, to be read in churches, which, on their refusing to comply with the requisition to read it, was *the means of depriving and silencing all the clergy of honor, and conscience in the nation.

"When Charles the first ascended the throne, he early discovered very arbitrary principles of government and, agreeable to the schemes of such as have ever attempted to enslave mankind, he flattered the priesthood, in their most daring usurpations. It is an observation of the authors of the Independent Whig, that where there are no dissenters from the established worship, there exists not a freeman in the nation. This is an observation, founded on the experience of ages, that the power of the clergy is the death-warrant of liberty. Charles soon discovered his whole heart by marrying a roman-catholic, and placing the infamous Laud at the head of both state, and church. Laud was another Thomas a Becket; and had powers equally formidable, being arch-bishop of Canterbury, and the first man in the state. He, indeed, lived in times, not quite so benighted yet ignorance, bigotry, and superstition, were even yet almost universal. A proof of this may be found in the conduct of the better sort of priests in Ireland, in this reign. A number of pious bishops, with the famous archbishop Usher at their head, published a protest against the toleration of roman-catholics, not on account of their political principles being supposed dangerous, but because they did not dare to concur in the toleration of catholics, lest they (the protestant bishops!), should be involved in the sin of idolatry. Here are men, prepared to exterminate the human race, because they do not adopt their creed; and piously acknowledge their infallibility!—Laud pushed the great business of persecution to its utmost bounds; and gave the nation more exercise in this way, than it was inclined to suffer. Numbers, torn to pieces by this protestant bishop, in their families and property fled to America and founded the settlement of Massachusetts Bay. They were the fathers of the first assertors of liberty, in the last war."

"AD 1630, the learned Dr. Leighton wrote a book against the hierarchy; and felt, to his cost, that his good mother was inclined to chastise as much as to cherish her offspring; when they called in question her high authority.—He was sentenced in the high commission, in a fine of ten thousand pounds, perpetual imprisonment, and whipping. 1st. He was whipped; and then placed in the pillory. 2dly. One of his ears cut off. 3dly. One side of his nose slit. 4thly. Branded on the cheek with a red hot iron, with the letters S. S.: whipped, a second time, and placed in the pillory about a fortnight afterwards, his sores being yet uncured, he had the other ear cut off; the other side of his nose slit and the other cheek branded. He continued in prison, till the long parliament set him at liberty. Archbishop Laud had the honor of conducting this prosecution.

The singular feature of the persecutions, thus inflicted by the protestants of the establishment on the puritans, is, (to use the expression of Neal) that, in point of faith, there was no substantial difference in doctrine, between the church of England, and the puritans, so that these were turned out of the church, for things, which their adversaries acknowledged to be of mere indifference, whereas the puritans took it in their consciences, and were ready to aver, in the most solemn manner, that they deemed them unlawful. Incredible as it may appear, the point which principally occasioned this animosity was, the habits,—that is, the dress,—particularly the surplice,—of the clergy.

But, no sooner were the Presbyterians possessed of the power of the state, than in their turn they became persecutors.

In 1643, the long parliament, continues Mr. Robinson, interdicted the freedom of the press; and appointed licensers of the press, a singular introduction this, to the establishment of the liberty, they promised.

In 1645, an ordinance was published, subjecting all, who preached, or wrote, against the presbyterian directory for public worship, to a fine, not exceeding fifty pounds; and imprisonment, for a year, for the third offence, in using the episcopal book of common prayer, even in a private family.—Such was the spirit of presbyterian toleration!

The following year, when the king had surrendered to the Scots, the Presbyterians applied to parliament, pressing them to enforce uniformity in religion; and to extirpate popery, prelacy, heresy, schism, agreeably to the solemn league and covenant; and to establish Presbyterianism, by abolishing all separate congregations, and preventing any, but presbyterians, from all offices under government. A resolution of greater folly, madness, and persecution, was never formed by any fanatics, which have disgraced the world. The parliament did not approve of this madness; and the independents, (a sect, which first asserted general toleration), opposed it, with becoming spirit.

Those infallible teachers, the London presbyterian ministers, and the ministers in Gloucestershire, published their protest, and testimony, against all errors; and especially that greatest of all errors, toleration. They seem to be at a loss for words to express their deep abhorrence of the damnable heresy, called toleration, or an indulgence to tender consciences. They call it, the error of toleration, patronizing, and promoting, all other errors, heresies, and blasphemies, whatsoever, under the grossly-abused notion of liberty of conscience. These wise gentlemen needed no liberty of conscience:—they were right;—others were blasphemous heretics, to be damned, for their pleasure hereafter and who ought to have been burnt, for their satisfaction, and delight, here.

On the 2d of May 1648, the English parliament, being ruled by the presbyterians, published an ordinance against heresy, as follows, viz. "That all persons, who shall maintain, publish, or defend, by preaching, or writing, the following heresies, with obstinacy, shall upon complaint, or proof by the oath of two witnesses, before two justices of the peace, or confession of the party, be committed to prison, without bail, or main prize, till the next gaol delivery; and in case the indictment shall be found, and the party, on his trial, shall not abjure his said errors, and his defence and maintenance of the same, he shall suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony without benefit of clergy; and if he recant or abjure, he shall remain in prison, till he find securities, that he will not maintain the said heresies, or errors, any more but, if he relapse, and be convicted, a second time, he shall suffer death"

Such were the offences of each party against the sacred duty of religious toleration. Much has been said, and is still daily said, of the persecuting spirit of the catholics. That they have been frequently guilty of persecution, must be acknowledged: But, is the spirit of persecution less discernible, in the instances, which Robinson has enumerated, and which we have just cited from him?

It is not a little remarkable, that, while the puritans were suffering under these laws, and filling the world with their just complaints against them, they were, by an unaccountable inconsistency, uniformly clamorous for the execution of the laws against the catholics; and for fresh enactments against them. They also repeatedly forced, both the first James, and the first Charles against their own views of policy, and their own natural dispositions, into the most sanguinary measures. The fact was, that the doctrines of toleration were neither understood, nor felt, by any party. All were equally guilty. Men, otherwise most humane, and charitable,—many of them learned, and in other respects, enlightened in the highest degree, were the warm advocates of persecution.

A fairer, a more learned, or a more honorable, name than that of archbishop Usher, the church of England cannot produce:—yet, did this venerable man, with a file of musketeers, enter the catholic chapel, in Cork-street Dublin, during the celebration of divine service; seize the priest, in his vestments; and hew down the crucifix:—Yet, did this venerable man, with eleven other Irish prelates, sign, what is termed, the judgment of diverse of the archbishops, and bishops of Ireland, on the toleration of religion—and declare by it, that the religion of the papists was superstitious, and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous, and heretical; their church, in respect to both, apostatical: that, to give them, therefore, a toleration, or, to consent, that they may freely exercise their religion, is a grievous sin."—It is observable too, that the circumstance, we have just mentioned, took place, at a time, when Charles the first was in his greatest distress; and the catholics of Ireland were straining every nerve to serve him. Surely, the archbishop must have forgotten the just rebuke, which, not long before this time, himself had given, to a clergyman for a want of charity. Being wrecked, on a desolate part of the Irish coast, he applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name, or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly, that he doubted, whether he knew the number of the commandments.—"Indeed I do, replied the archbishop, mildly, there are eleven.

"Eleven!" said the clergyman,—"tell me the eleventh; and I will assist you."

"Obey the eleventh," said the archbishop, and you certainly will.—A new commandment I give unto you,— "that ye love one another."

It is pleasing, however, to add, that, while Usher declared against toleration in Ireland, doctor Jeremy Taylor advocated it in England, in his Discourse on the Liberty of Prophesying,—an immortal work abounding in passages of the closest reasoning; and strains of eloquence seldom equaled. It was published in 1647; and, therefore, long preceded the liberal treatise of Grotius de Jure summorum principum circa sacra, published in 1661: Boyle's Commentaire Philosophique, sur ces paroles de Jesus Christ, contrainez les d'entrer first published in 1686, and Locke's six letters upon toleration, the first of which appeared, in 1689

By preceding these, doctor Taylor has conferred on his country the honour of having produced the first regular treatise on toleration. Long, however, before this time, its existence, in Utopia, had been supposed by sir Thomas More:—and long before Utopia was imagined, St. Martin of Tours had refused to communicate with the persecutors of the Priscillianists, on account of their religious intolerance; and long before Tours was edified by the virtues of St. Martin, the Son of Man had rebuked the sons of Zebedee for wishing that a shower of fire might descend on the incredulous Samaritans. A new edition of doctor Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying has been recently published. The work concludes with the following apologue; it would be well that every child should learn it by heart: "When Abraham sat at his tent-door, according to his custom, waiting to entertain strangers, he espied an old man, stooping, and leaning on his staff, weary with age and travel, coming towards him,—who was an hundred years of age, he received him kindly, washed his feet, provided supper, caused him to sit down; but, observing, that the old man eat, and prayed not, nor begged for a blessing on his meal, asked him, why he did not worship the God of heaven? The old man told him, that he worshiped the fire only, and acknowledged no other god, at which answer, Abraham grew so zealously angry, that he thrust the old man out of his tent, and exposed him to all the evils of the night, and an unguarded condition. When the old man was gone, God called to Abraham, and asked him, where the stranger was: he replied, "I thrust him out, because he did not worship thee"; God answered him, 'I have suffered him, these hundred years, although he dishonored me; and couldst not thou endure him one night, when he gave thee no trouble? Upon this, says the story, Abraham fetched him back again; and gave him hospitable entertainment, and wise instruction.—Go thou and do likewise; and thy charity will be rewarded by the God of Abraham.