READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
HISTORICAL MEMOIRS RESPECTING THE ENGLISH,IRISH, ANDSCOTTISH CATHOLICSFROM THE REFORMATION TO THE NINETEENTH CENTURYByCHARLES BUTLERI. 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
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 exultemus, Te 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 Boseville, Kichard 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, Croatie, Sclavonie, &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.
|
||