Nor was it merely from the side of the Catholics that the bishops and the government anticipated serious danger. The men, who, like Hooper, objected to the Edwardine settlement as not being sufficiently extreme, had approached more closely to Calvinism in doctrine and in ritual during their enforced sojourn at Frankfurt and Geneva. They were enthusiastic in their praise of Elizabeth for her attacks upon Rome, but they found fault with her religious programme as flavouring too much of idolatry and papistry. They objected to crosses, candles, vestments, copes, blessings, and much of the old ritual that had been retained in the Book of Common prayer, and insisted that, until religion had been brought back to a state of scriptural purity, the English people should not rest satisfied. Whatever sympathy some of the English political advisers may have had with the Puritans in theory they had no intention of yielding to their demands, as such a policy would have stirred up all the latent Catholicity in the country. The official church “as by law established” was to be a church for the nation, standing midway between Rome and Puritanism, a kind of compromise between both extremes. Elizabeth was determined to put down Puritanism, irreverence, and unlicensed preaching with a heavy hand. As a foretaste of what the champions of innovation might expect, much to the disgust of the archbishop, she struck a blow at the married clergy by ordering the removal of women and children from the enclosures of colleges and cathedrals (1561).
It cannot be said that it was the opposition of Rome to her accession that forced Elizabeth to establish a national church. Paul IV., whose undiplomatic and imprudent proceedings had caused such grave embarrassment to her predecessor, made no protest against the recognition of Elizabeth’s claims, although he was urged to do so by France. The same attitude of friendly reserve was maintained by his successor Pius IV. (1559-65).[12] Shortly after his consecration he addressed a kindly letter to Elizabeth exhorting her to return to the bosom of the Church.[13] His envoy was not allowed, however, to enter England, nor had another envoy, dispatched in 1561 to invite the queen and the English bishops to take part in the Council of Trent, any better success. Though Elizabeth discussed the matter with the Spanish ambassador and even made preparations for the reception of the papal envoy, the necessary safe conducts were not forwarded to Flanders, and in the end a notification was sent that the papal messenger could not be received, nor would the English bishops attend the Council of Trent. Possibly owing to the friendly attitude of the Pope, rumours were put in circulation that he was not unwilling to accept the new English Book of Common Prayer if Elizabeth would consent to acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. That there was never the least foundation for such a statement is now generally admitted, but at the time it helped to confirm many Catholics in the view that to escape fines and punishment it was lawful for them to attend the English service, particularly as they took care to assist at Mass in secret and made it clear both by their actions and demeanour that their presence at the new religious rite was not voluntary. Others, however, refused to follow this opinion, and in order to put an end to the dissensions that had arisen a petition was drawn up and forwarded to the Pope requesting him for permission to attend Common Prayer, but, though the request was supported by the Spanish ambassador, the permission was refused (1562).
Elizabeth’s second Parliament (1563) met at a time when the downfall of the Huguenots to whom England had furnished assistance, the failure of a plot entered into by the nephews of Cardinal Pole for the overthrow of Elizabeth’s government, and the reports from the ecclesiastical commissioners and the bishops, showing as they did that contempt for the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity was still strong, made it necessary to undertake more repressive measures against the Catholics. An Act was passed entitled, “an Act for the assurance of the queen’s royal power” commanding that the oath of supremacy should be administered to members of the House of Commons, schoolmasters, tutors, attorneys, and all who had held any ecclesiastical office during the reigns of Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI. or Henry VIII., and to all who manifested their hostility to the established religion by celebrating Mass or assisting at its celebration. Refusal to take the oath when first tendered was to be punished by forfeiture and life imprisonment, and on the second refusal the penalty was to be a traitor’s death. Had such an Act been enforced strictly it would have meant the complete extirpation of the Catholics of England, but Elizabeth, having secured a weapon by which she might terrorise them, took care to prevent her bishops from driving them to extremes by a close investigation of their opinions regarding royal supremacy. Fines and imprisonment were at this stage deemed more expedient than death.
Convocation met at the same time, but Convocation had changed much since 1559 when it declared bravely in favour of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the Mass, Papal supremacy, and the independence of the Church. The effects of the deprivation of the bishops, deans, archdeacons, canons, and clergy, and of the wholesale ordinations “of artificers unlearned and some even of base occupations” by Parker and Grindal and others were plainly visible.[14] Convocation was no longer Catholic in tone. It was distinctly Puritan. A proposal was made that all holidays and feasts should be abolished except Sundays and “the principal feasts of Christ,” that there should be no kneeling at Communion, no vestments in the celebration of Common Service except the surplice, no organs in the churches, no sign of the cross in baptism, and that the minister should be compelled to read divine service facing the people. The proposal was debated warmly and in the end was defeated only by one vote.[15] One of the principal objects for which Convocation had been called was to draft a new dogmatic creed for the Church “as by law established.” This was a matter of supreme importance. But as it was necessary to affirm nothing that would offend the Huguenots of France and the theologians of Switzerland and Germany, or rouse the latent Catholic sentiments of the English people, it was also a work of supreme difficulty. In other words the creed of the established Church must be in the nature of a compromise, and a compromise it really was. The Forty Two Articles of Edward VI. were taken as the basis of discussion. As a result of the deliberations they were reduced to Thirty Nine,[16] in which form they were signed by the bishops and clergy, before being presented to Elizabeth and her ministers for approval. As an indication to the clergy that the office of supreme governor was no sinecure Elizabeth would not authorise the publication of the Articles until a very important one dealing with the Eucharist had been omitted, and until another one regarding the authority of the Church to change rites and ceremonies had been modified. That influences other than doctrinal were at work in shaping the Thirty Nine Articles is evident from the fact that the particular Eucharistic Article referred to was omitted in 1563 lest it should drive away Catholics who were wavering, and inserted again in 1570 when the government, then in open war with Rome, was determined to give back blow for blow. The catechism drawn up by Convocation for the use of the laity was promptly suppressed by Cecil.
By the adoption of the Thirty Nine Articles as its official creed the English Church “by law established,” cut itself adrift from the Catholic Church and from the faith that had been delivered to the Anglo-Saxon people by Rome’s great missionary St. Augustine. However ambiguous might be the wording to which the authors of the Articles had recourse in order to win followers, there could be no longer any doubt that on some of the principal points of doctrine the new creed stood in flagrant contradiction to the doctrines received by the Catholic world. The Pope, whose spiritual powers had never been called into question till the days of Henry VIII., was declared to have no jurisdiction in England. The Sacrifices of the Masses (as it is put) were denounced as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits; Transubstantiation was regarded as unscriptural and opening the way to superstition; the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence of Christ was implicitly condemned; the summoning of a General Council was made dependent on the will of the secular princes; the fact that such assemblies could err and did err in the past was emphasised; five of the Sacraments, namely, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction were declared not to be Sacraments of the Gospel, and the Roman doctrine concerning Purgatory, Indulgences, the invocation of saints, and veneration of images and relics was pronounced to be a foolish and vain invention, contradictory to the Word of God.[17]
The new repressive legislation, at least in regard to fines and imprisonment, was enforced strictly against Catholics who were still a strong body, especially in the north. On the accession of Pius V. (1566-72) the friendly attitude hitherto maintained by Rome was changed. There could no longer be any hope that Elizabeth would modify her religious policy, as even her former ally and supporter Philip II. was forced to admit, and there was grave danger that the opinion entertained by some, that Catholics should be permitted to attend Common Prayer was a purely legal function, might do considerable harm. Hence a strong condemnation of the English service was published by the Pope, and a commission was granted to two English priests, Sanders and Harding, empowering them to absolve all those who had incurred the guilt of schism (1566). As even this was not sufficient to put an end to all doubts, and as the authority of the papal agent Laurence Vaux was questioned by certain individuals, a formal Bull of reconciliation was issued in 1567, authorising the absolution of those who had incurred the guilt of heresy or schism by their obedience to the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.
Apart from other considerations, this clear and definite statement of the attitude of the Pope towards attendance at the English service helped to stiffen the backs of the English Catholics, and to determine even the waverers to stand firm; but in addition to this the question of the succession to the throne raised considerable discussion. Elizabeth was still without a husband, and for reasons probably best known to herself she refused to allow her Parliament to drive her into marriage, although partly through vanity, partly through motives of policy she was not unwilling to dally with the advances of several suitors both native and foreign. In the eyes of Catholics Elizabeth was illegitimate, and except for her father’s will and the parliamentary confirmation of that will, as an illegitimate she had no right to the throne. Mary Queen of Scotland, the grand-daughter of Henry VIII.’s eldest sister Margaret, was from the legal point of view the lawful heir; but as she was the wife of the Dauphin of France at the time of Elizabeth’s accession, Englishmen generally did not wish to recognise her claim for precisely the same reasons that drove them to oppose Queen Mary’s marriage with Philip II. of Spain. After the death of her French husband and her return to Scotland opinion began to change in her favour, and this grew stronger in Catholic circles, when she fled into England to claim the support of her cousin Queen Elizabeth against the Scottish rebels (1568). A strong body even in the council favoured the plan of a marriage between Mary and the Duke of Norfolk, and the recognition of their rights and the rights of their children to the throne on the death of Elizabeth, as the best means of avoiding civil war and of escaping from the delicate position created by the presence of Scotland’s Queen in England. Norfolk was regarded as a kind of Protestant and was backed by a very considerable body of the council, but his communications with Philip II. of Spain, who favoured the marriage, and with the Catholic lords of the north, who, driven to extremes by religious persecution and by the treatment accorded to Mary in England, were not unwilling to depose Elizabeth, he professed his intention of becoming a Catholic. Elizabeth, however, was strong against the marriage, and Cecil, though he pretended to favour it, supported the views of his sovereign. Rumours of conspiracies especially in the north were afloat. The noblemen of Lancashire had met and pledged themselves not to attend the English service; the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland declared openly their attachment to the Catholic Church; the attitude of Wales and Cornwall was more than doubtful, and the Spanish ambassador was well known to be moving heaven and earth to induce his master to lend his aid.[18]
Elizabeth determined to strike at once before the plans of the conspirators could be matured. The Duke of Norfolk was commanded to appear at court and was soon lodged safely in the Tower (11th Oct., 1569). A peremptory order was issued to the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland to come immediately to London, and as they knew well the fate that was in store for them they determined to stake their fortunes on the chance of a successful rising. They appealed to the Catholic lords of Scotland, to the Duke of Alva, and to Spain for support, and mustered their forces for war. They entered Durham (10th Nov. 1569), where they swept out from the cathedral both the Book of Common Prayer and the communion table, set up the altar once more, and had Mass celebrated publicly. They marched southwards with the object of getting possession of the Queen of Scotland who was imprisoned at Tutbury, but their design having been suspected Mary was removed suddenly to Coventry. A strong force was sent to prevent their march southward, while Moray, the regent of Scotland and Elizabeth’s faithful ally, assembled his troops on the border to prevent the Scottish Catholic lords from rallying to the assistance of their co-religionists. The insurgents, caught between the two fires, were routed completely, and the leaders hastened to make their escape. Westmoreland to the Netherlands, where he lived for thirty years in exile, and Northumberland to Scotland only to be sold again to Elizabeth for £2,000 and executed. Martial law was proclaimed and hundreds “of the poorer sort” were put to death. The trouble seemed to be over for the time, but suddenly in January 1570, encouraged by the assassination of Moray and by the raids of the Catholic borderers, Lord Dacre rose in revolt, and threw himself upon the queen’s forces on their march from Naworth to Carlisle. He was defeated and barely succeeded in escaping with his life. All resistance was now at an end, and more than eight hundred of the insurgents were executed. The failure of the Northern Rebellion served only to strengthen Elizabeth’s power, and to secure for Protestantism a firm footing in England.
While preparations were being made in England for the rebellion, Catholic representatives in Rome, both lay and clerical, pressed Pius V. to issue a decree of excommunication and of deposition against Elizabeth. Such a decree, it was thought, would strengthen the hands of those who were working in the interests of Mary Queen of Scotland, and would open the eyes of a large body of Catholics who stood firmly by Elizabeth solely from motives of extreme loyalty. Philip II. was not acquainted with the step that was in contemplation, though apparently the French authorities were warned that Rome was about to take action.[19] Had the advice of the King of Spain been sought he might have warned the Pope against proceeding to extremes with Elizabeth, and in doing so he would have had the support of those at home who were acquainted most intimately with English affairs. In February (1570) the process against Elizabeth was begun in Rome, and on the 25th of the same month the Bull, /Regnans in Excelsis/,[20] announcing the excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth was given to the world. Had it come five or six months earlier, and had there been an able leader capable of uniting the English Catholic body, a work that could not be accomplished either by the Duke of Norfolk or the Northern Earls, the result might have been at least doubtful; but its publication, at a time when the northern rebellion had been suppressed, and when Spain, France, and the Netherlands were unwilling to execute it, served only to make wider the breach between England and Rome, and to expose the English Catholics to still fiercer persecution.[21] For so far Catholics had been free to combine with moderate Protestants to secure the peaceful succession of Mary Queen of Scotland without any suspicion of disloyalty to Elizabeth, but from this time forward they were placed in the cruel position of being traitors either to the Pope or to Elizabeth, and every move made by them in favour of Mary Queen of Scotland must necessarily be construed as disloyalty to their sovereign. Copies of the Bull were smuggled into England, and one man, John Fenton, was found brave enough to risk his life by affixing a copy to the gates of the palace of the Bishop of London. He was taken prisoner immediately, and subjected to the terrible death reserved for traitors (8th August 1570).
While anti-Catholic feeling was running high, Elizabeth summoned Parliament to meet in April 1571. As danger was to be feared both from the Catholics and the Puritans special care was taken to ensure that reliable men should be returned. Several measures were introduced against the Catholic recusants, who had few sympathisers in the House of Commons, but in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Norfolk, who had been released, pleaded for moderation, and was supported by a small but determined body of the Lords, the feeling was less violent. Bills were both framed and passed making it treason to obtain Bulls, briefs, or documents from Rome. The penalty of Praemunire was levelled against all aiders and abettors of those offenders mentioned above, together with all who received beads, crosses, pictures, etc., blessed by the Bishop of Rome, or by any one acting with his authority;[22] while those who had fled from the kingdom were commanded to return within six months under penalty of forfeiture of their goods and property. It was proposed too that all adults should be forced to attend the Protestant service and to receive Communion at stated times, but the latter portion was dropped probably at the request of the Catholic lords. However subservient Parliament might be in regard to the Catholics it was not inclined to strengthen the hands of the bishops against the Puritans. Notwithstanding Elizabeth’s refusal to allow discussion of the Thirty Nine Articles, or to permit them to be published under parliamentary sanction, the members succeeded in attaining their object indirectly by imposing them on recusants. Elizabeth was determined, however, to show her faithful Commons that she and not the Parliament was the supreme governor of the Church.[23] She took Convocation and the bishops under her protection and empowered them to issue the Articles in a revised form, so that there were then really two versions of the Thirty Nine Articles in force, one imposed by Convocation and the queen and the other by Parliament.
To secure aid against Spain as well as to draw away the French from supporting the Queen of Scotland Elizabeth made overtures for marriage to the Duke of Anjou, and at the same time the party in favour of Mary determined to make a new effort to bring about a marriage between Mary and the Duke of Norfolk. Ridolfi[24] was the life and soul of the conspiracy, assisted by the Duke of Norfolk and by the Bishop of Ross, Mary’s ambassador in London. It was hoped to enlist the sympathy of the Duke of Alva, Philip II. and the Pope, none of whom were unwilling to aid in overthrowing Elizabeth’s rule, but before anything definite could be done Cecil’s spies brought him news of the steps that were being taken. The Duke of Norfolk was arrested in September 1571, and placed on his trial in the following January. He was condemned to death, but as Elizabeth did not wish to take the responsibility of his execution on herself she waited until it had been confirmed by Parliament, after which he was led to the block (2nd June 1572). Parliament also petitioned for the execution of the Queen of Scotland, but for various reasons Elizabeth refused to accede to their request.
Though the new laws were enforced strictly it is clear from the episcopal reports that in London itself, in Norwich, Winchester, Ely, Worcester, in the diocese and province of York, and indeed throughout the entire country Catholicism had still a strong hold.[25] The old Marian priests were, however, dying out rapidly. The monasteries and universities, that had supplied priests for the English mission, were either destroyed or passed into other hands, so that it became clear to both friends and foes that unless something could be done to keep up the supply of clergy the Catholic religion was doomed ultimately to extinction. This difficulty had occurred to the minds of many of the English scholars who had fled from Oxford to the Continent, but it was reserved for Dr. William Allen,[26] formerly a Fellow of Oriel College, and Principal of St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford, and later in 1587 a Cardinal of the Roman Church, to take practical measures to meet the wants of his co-religionists in England. He determined to found a college on the Continent for the education of priests for the English mission, and as Douay had a new university, in which many of the former Oxford men had found a home, he opened a college at Douay in 1568.[27] Depending on his own private resources, the contributions of his friends, and the pensions guaranteed by the King of Spain and the Pope, he succeeded beyond expectation. Students flocked from England to the new college, whence they returned on the completion of their studies to strengthen and console their co-religionists at home. Could Douay College boast only of the 160 martyrs whom it trained and sent into England Cardinal Allen would have had good reason to be proud of his work, but in addition to this the numerous controversial tracts of real merit that were issued from the Douay printing-press, and scattered throughout England, helped to keep alive Catholic sentiment in the country. In Douay too was begun the translation of the Scriptures into English, the New Testament being published at Rheims (1582) whither the college had been removed in 1578, and the old Testament in 1609. In 1576 Allen visited Rome and persuaded Gregory XIII. to found a college in Rome for the education of English priests.[28] Students were sent in 1576 and 1577, and a hospice was granted in 1578 as an English seminary, over which the Jesuits were placed in the following year. A college was established at Valladolid by Father Persons (1589), another at Seville in 1592, and one at St. Omers in 1594.
The failure of the northern rebellion, the repressive measures adopted by Parliament in 1571, and the betrayal of Ridolfi’s fantastic schemes, did not mean the extinction of Catholicism in England. On the contrary there was a distinct reaction in its favour, partly through the failure of the Protestant bishops and clergy to maintain a consistent religious service such as that which they had overthrown, partly to the revulsion created by the fanatical vapourings of the Puritans, but above all to the efforts of the “seminary priests,” as the men who returned from Douay and the other colleges abroad were called. The older generation of clergy who had been deprived on Elizabeth’s accession were content to minister to their flocks in secret, and were happy so long as they could escape the meshes of the law; but the new men who returned from Douay were determined to make the country Catholic once more or to die in the attempt. They went boldly from place to place exhorting the Catholics to stand firm, and they seemed to have no dread of imprisonment, exile or death. Many of them were arrested and kept in close confinement, while others, like Thomas Woodhouse (1573), Cuthbert Mayne (1577), John Nelson, and Thomas Sherwood (1578), gloried in being thought worthy of dying as their Master had died.[29]
Nor did their fate deter others from following in their footsteps. It was reported in 1579 that a hundred students had been ordained and sent into England from Rome and Rheims. The result of the labours of these apostolic men was soon evident. The government, alarmed at the sudden resurrection of Popery, urged the bishops and officials to make new efforts for its suppression. Throughout the various dioceses inquiries were begun which served only to show that recusancy was no longer confined to Lancashire or the north. The bishops were obliged to admit (1577) with sorrow that papists “did increase in numbers and in obstinacy.” They recommended the infliction of fines, and furnished the authorities with a list of recusants and the value of their property. In York the archbishop reported that “a more stiff-necked or wilful people I never knew or heard of, doubtless they are reconciled with Rome and sworn to the Pope,” and what was worse they preferred to be imprisoned than to listen to the archbishop’s harangues. From Hereford it was announced that “rebellion is rampant, attendance at church is contemptuous, and John Hareley read so loudly on his latin popish primer (that he understands not) that he troubles both minister and people.” In Oxford and amongst the lawyers in the Inns of Court and in the Inns of Chancery popery and superstition were still flourishing.[30]
To make matters worse it was soon bruited about that the Jesuits, whose very name was sufficient to instil terror, were preparing for an invasion of England. The invading force it was true was small, but it was select. Persons and Campion,[31] both Oxford men, who having gone into exile joined themselves to the Society of St. Ignatius, were entrusted with the difficult undertaking. The government, warned by its spies of their mission, had the ports watched to capture them on their arrival, but the two priests contrived to elude the vigilance of their enemies, and succeeded in arriving safely in London (1580). The news of their arrival could not be kept a secret, and hence they determined to leave London. Before they separated for the different fields they had selected, to prevent future misrepresentation of their aims, Campion wrote an open letter addressed to the lords of the privy council in defence of his views, which letter having been published was known as “Campion’s challenge.” Persons went through the country from Northampton to Gloucester, while Campion preached from Oxford to Northampton. They took pains to set up a small printing press, which was removed from place to place, and from which was issued sufficient literature to disconcert their opponents. Probably the most remarkable volume published from the Jesuit printing-press was Campion’s /Ten Reasons/,[32] addressed particularly to the Oxford students amongst whom it created a great sensation. At last after many hair-breadth escapes Campion was captured at Lyford and committed to the Tower. He had challenged his opponents to meet him in a public disputation, and now that he was in their hands, worn out by his labours and imprisonment, they determined to take up the challenge in the hope that by overthrowing him they might shake the faith of his followers. But despite his weakness and infirmity they found in him so dangerous and so learned an adversary that the government thought it wiser to bring the controversy to an end, or rather to transfer it to the law courts. Even here the captive Jesuit showed that he was quite able to hold his own with the lawyers. He had been guilty of no treason, he averred; he acknowledged the queen to be his lawful sovereign; but he refused to disown the Bull of Deposition. He was found guilty, condemned to death as a traitor, and was executed with two other priests in December 1581.[33]
During the wild start of alarm and vexation caused by the reports of the rising strength of the recusants, the invasion of seminary priests and of Jesuits, and the help given by Gregory XIII. to the Desmond rebellion, Parliament met (Jan. 1581). An Act was passed immediately making it high treason to possess or to exercise the power of absolving or withdrawing anybody from the established church, and a similar penalty was levelled against those who permitted themselves to be reconciled or withdrawn, together with all aiders or abettors. The punishment decreed for celebrating or assisting at Mass was a fine of 100 marks and one year’s imprisonment. Fines of £20 per lunar month were to be inflicted upon all those who absented themselves from Common Prayer, and if their absence lasted for an entire year the delinquents should be obliged to provide heavy securities for their good behaviour. All schoolmasters or tutors not licensed by the bishop of the diocese were declared liable to a year’s imprisonment, and the person who employed them to a fine of not less than £10 per month. The Act was enforced with merciless severity. Fathers Campion, Sherwin, and Briant were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn (Dec. 1581); eleven other priests met a similar fate before the end of the following year, and two priests and two school-masters were hanged, drawn and quartered in 1583.[34] The news of the execution of Campion and his fellow labourers created a profound impression on the country. In reply to the protests that were raised Elizabeth thought at first of issuing an official statement, but in the end the idea was abandoned and Cecil, now Lord Burghley, published anonymously two pamphlets to justify the action of the government. The jails were so filled with popish recusants that in order to escape the expense of supporting them, a plan was formed to convey them to North America, but it could not be executed owing to the opposition of the Spanish Government. The seminary priests did not, however, allow themselves to be drawn away from their work either by the terrors of treason or by the echoes of the wordy war, that was being carried on between Lord Burghley and his friends on one side, and Dr. Allen and his friends on the other. A catechism introduced by them was bought up so rapidly that in a few months it was out of print. A great body of the English noblemen still held the old faith. In the north Catholics were numerous and active, and even in the southern and western counties and in Wales opinion was veering rapidly towards Rome. Had the seminary priests been left free to continue their work, unimpeded by foreign or English political plots on the Continent, it is difficult to say what might have been the result. Unfortunately new plots were hatched under the protection of France or Spain for the release of Mary Queen of Scotland, and for her proclamation as Queen of England. Throckmorton, who had taken the principal part in this affair, was arrested and put to death; the principal conspirators, men like the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Arundel were sent to the Tower; the jails were filled with Catholics, and five priests were put to death at Tyburn (1584).[35]
Parliament met (1585) at a time when the discovery of the plot against Elizabeth and the news of the assassination of William of Orange had created great excitement through the country. An association that had been formed to defend the life of the queen or to revenge her death was granted statutory powers by Parliament. The queen was authorised to create a special commission with authority to deal with all plotters and to exclude from succession to the throne everyone in whose interest she herself might be assassinated. An Act was passed by which all Jesuits and seminary priests were commanded to leave England within forty days under penalty of treason; all persons not in holy orders studying in any foreign seminary or college were ordered to return within six months and to take the oath of supremacy within two days of their arrival if they did not wish to be punished as traitors; all persons harbouring or assisting a priest were to be adjudged guilty of felony; all who sent their children abroad except by special permission were to be fined £100 for each offence, and all who had knowledge of the presence of a priest in England, and who did not report it to a magistrate within twelve days were liable to be fined and imprisoned at the queen’s pleasure.[36] This Act was designed to secure the banishment or death of all the seminary priests, and if any of them survived it was due neither to the want of vigilance nor to the mildness of the government. Spies were let loose into every part of England to report the doings of the clergy and laity. Wholesale arrests were effected, and great numbers of the clergy put to death merely because they were priests, and of the laymen merely because they harboured priests. Three were executed in 1585, thirteen in 1586, and seven in 1587. To secure the conviction of the prisoners, though the law had made the conviction sufficiently certain, but more especially to create popular prejudice against them in the minds of loyal Englishmen, a series of questions were administered to them known as the “bloody” or “cut-throat” questions, as for example, “whose part would you take if the Pope or any other by his authority should make war on the queen.”[37]
The dismissal of the Spanish ambassador after the discovery of the Throckmorton plot and the assistance given by England to the rebels in the Netherlands helped to increase the hostility between England and Spain, and to induce Philip II. to make renewed efforts for the overthrow of Elizabeth’s government, while at the same time the merciless persecution of the Catholics in England drove many of them who wished to remain loyal to co-operate with their brethren abroad and to assist Philip’s schemes. This unfortunate combination of English Catholics with Spanish politicians did more to mar the work of the seminary priests, and to set back the rising Catholic tide than all that could have been accomplished by Elizabeth’s penal laws or merciless persecution. The large and increasing body of English people who began to look with a friendly eye towards the old faith were shocked by the adoption of such means, and when they found themselves face to face with the necessity of selecting between an Anglo-Spanish party and Elizabeth, they decided to throw in their lot with the latter. The discovery of the Babington plot for the rescue of Scotland’s queen led to the death of its author and the execution of the lady in whose favour it had been planned (1587). The news of Mary’s execution created a great sensation both at home and abroad. To prevent hostilities on the part of Mary’s son, James VI. of Scotland, or of the Catholic sovereigns on the Continent, Elizabeth, pretending to be displeased with her ministers for carrying out the sentence, ordered the arrest of Davison the secretary to the council, and had him punished by a fine of £10,000 and imprisonment in the Tower. Philip II. was not, however, deceived by such conduct, or influenced by the overtures made for peace. Elizabeth’s interference in the affairs of the Netherlands, the attacks made by her sailors on Spanish territories and Spanish treasure-ships, and the execution of Mary Queen of Scotland determined him to make a final effort for the overthrow of the English government. The great Armada was got ready for the invasion of England (1588). But the Spanish ships were not destined to reach the English harbours, nor the Spanish soldiers whom they carried on board to test their bravery and skill in conflict with Elizabeth’s forces on English soil.
Though there is no evidence either from English or Spanish reports that Catholics in England welcomed the Armada, since both Lord Burghley[38] and Philip II. were convinced that Spain could not rely on their co-operation, and though in many parts of the country Catholics volunteered for service to fight the invader, the government determined to wreak its vengeance on the helpless victims in prison. Within three days six priests and eight laymen were executed near London (August); nine priests and three laymen were put to death in October, and before the end of the year thirty-one had suffered the terrible punishment reserved for traitors, merely because they refused to conform. The prisons were so full of recusants that new houses were opened for their detention. The government reaped a rich harvest by the heavy fines inflicted on the wealthy Catholics and took pains, besides, to annoy them at every turn by domiciliary visits in search of concealed priests. Yet the reports from the country, especially from such places as Lancashire and Cheshire, showed that the Papists were still dangerously strong. A new proclamation was issued against seminary priests and Jesuits (1591). Nine priests and two laymen had been put to death in the previous year (1590), and in 1591 fifteen were martyred, seven of whom were priests and the rest laymen. Throughout the remainder of Queen Elizabeth’s reign Catholics in England were not allowed to enjoy peace or respite. If priests, they were by that very fact liable to be hunted down and condemned as traitors; if they were laymen of substance, they were beggared by heavy fines imposed for non-attendance at the English service, or punished by imprisonment, and if they were too poor to pay a fine they could be driven from the kingdom for refusing to conform. Apart altogether from the immense sums levied on Catholics by fines and forfeitures, and from the number of people who died in prison either from confinement or torture, one hundred and eighty-nine were put to death for the faith under Elizabeth, one hundred and twenty-eight of whom were priests; and yet, notwithstanding this persecution, Catholics were still comparatively strong at the death of Elizabeth, and the supply of clergy showed no signs of being exhausted. Over three hundred and sixty priests were in England attending to the wants of their co-religionists in 1603.
Unfortunately the dissensions among the Catholic party in England and on the Continent did more harm to their cause than Elizabeth’s persecutions. The close co-operation of Allen and Persons with Spanish political designs for the overthrow of Elizabeth and the invasion of England was as distasteful to a large body of the lay Catholics in England as it was to many of the clergy.[39] Though serious disputes had broken out long before, it was only after the death of Cardinal Allen in 1594 that the crisis reached a head. Many of the secular clergy objected warmly to the influence of the Jesuits, and ugly controversies broke out in England and in the English colleges abroad. Persons and his friends were supposed to be plotting in favour of the succession of a Catholic to the throne on the death of Elizabeth, while most of their opponents favoured the succession of James VI. of Scotland, from whom they expected at least toleration. To put an end to what the latter regarded as the excessive authority of the Jesuits they insisted on the appointment of a bishop who would take charge of English affairs, but for various reasons the Holy See refused to yield to their request. As a compromise, however, George Blackwell was appointed archpriest (1598) with secret instructions, it was said, to consult Garnet, the Jesuit superior in England. The selection was singularly unfortunate, as neither from the point of view of prudence nor of reliability was Blackwell fitted for the extremely delicate position which he was called upon to fill. The seculars refused at first to obey his authority and appealed again to the Pope, who confirmed the appointment. As many of the seculars were still unwilling to yield some of the leaders were censured by the archpriest. A new appeal was forwarded to Rome. In 1602 Clement VIII. issued a document upholding the authority of the archpriest, and, while firmly defending the Jesuits against the charges that had been made against them, warned Blackwell that he should not take his instructions from any person except from the Pope or the Cardinal Protector of England.[40] This controversy could not be kept a secret. It was known to the entire Catholic body, and it was used with great force and success by their opponents. The government took sides with the secular clergy and offered them facilities for carrying their appeals to Rome, but news of the secret negotiations between the seculars and the authorities having been divulged Elizabeth issued a new proclamation (1602) in which she announced that she had never any intention of tolerating two religions in England.[41] The Jesuits and their adherents were commanded to quit the kingdom within thirty days, and their opponents within three months under penalty of treason. To give effect to this proclamation a new commission with extraordinary powers was appointed to secure the banishment of the Catholic clergy. The seculars, who had opposed the archpriest, encouraged by the distinction drawn in the proclamation between the two classes of English priests, the loyal and the disloyal, determined to draw up an address to the queen proclaiming their civil allegiance,[42] but before it was considered Elizabeth had passed away, and the fate in store for them was to be determined by a new ruler. ———-
[1] Cf. F. W. Maitland in /Eng. Hist. Review/ (April, 1900). Father Pollen, S.J., in /The Month/ (Oct., 1900). Id., /Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots/, xxvi.
[2] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv. 180.
[3] Birt, /The Elizabethan Religious Settlement/, 36-8.
[4] On the constitution of the House of Commons, cf. Froude, /Hist. of Eng./, vii., 40-41.
[5] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv., 179.
[6] For an account of this Conference, cf. /English Catholic Record Society/, vol. i. Foxe, /Acts and Monuments/, 1839, viii., 679 sqq.
[7] Birt, op. cit., 91-2.
[8] Phillips, /The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy/, 112-114.
[9] For a full treatment of the attitude of the clergy, cf. Blirt, op. cit., chap. iv. The best history of the resistance and sufferings of the Marian Bishops is to be found in Phillips’ /Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy/, 1905.
[10] Cf. Estcourt, /The Question of Anglican Orders/, 1873. Barnes, /The Pope and the Ordinal/, 1898. Smith, S.J., /Reasons for Rejecting Anglican Orders/, 1896. Moyes (in the /Tablet/, 1895, Feb.-May, Sept.-Dec., also 1897).
[11] Cf. Birt, op. cit., chaps. iv., v., xii. Kennedy, /Parish Life under Queen Elizabeth/, 1914, chap. vii. Frere, /History of the English Church in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I./, 1904, 61-7.
[12] Pollen, /Papal Negotiations/, etc., xlvi-vii.
[13] Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., iii., app. cccxi.
[14] Frere, op. cit., 60.
[15] Id., op. cit., 99.
[16] Hardwick, /Articles of Religion/, 1859. Gibson, /Thirty-nine Articles/, 2nd edition, 1898.
[17] Cf. Newman, /Tract 90/ (/Tracts for the Times/). Duchesne, /Églises Séparées/, 1896. Lingard, vii., 384 sqq. Moyes, /A Talk on Continuity/ (C. T. Society, authorities cited). /Tablet/ (1911- 12).
[18] /Political History of England/, vi., chap. xv. (The Crisis of Elizabeth’s Reign).
[19] Meyer, /England und die Katholische Kirche/, 64.
[20] Printed in Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. ii.
[21] Meyer, op. cit., 70 sqq.
[22] /Statutes/, 13 Eliz., c. 2.
[23] /Political History of England/, vi., 363.
[24] Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., /The Month/, Feb., 1902.
[25] Kennedy, /Parish Life under Queen Elizabeth/, chap. vii., viii.
[26] Haile, /An Elizabethan Cardinal/, 1914. Knox, /Letters and Memorials of William Cardinal Allen/, 1882. /Allen’s Defence of Eng. Catholics/, 1913 (The Cath. Library, ii.).
[27] Cf. /The English Cath. Refugees on the Continent/, i., 1914. Lechat, /Les Refugiés anglais dans les Pays-Bas espagnols durant le règne d’Elisabeth/, 1914. Bellesheim, /Wilhelm Cardinal Allen und die Engl. Seminare auf dem Festlande/, 1885.
[28] Foley, /Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus/, ii. /Cath. Record Society of Engl./, ii., 1906.
[29] Bede-Camm, /Lives of the Eng. Martyrs/, ii., 204-49.
[30] Frere, op. cit., 206-15.
[31] Persons, /Memoirs Cath. Rec. Society of Eng./, ii., iv., 1906-7. Simpson, /Edmund Campion/, 1896.
[32] Published in Cath. Library Series, vol. 6, 1914.
[33] Allen, /Martyrdom of Edmund Campion, and his Companions/, edited, Father Pollen, 1908.
[34] Bede-Camm, op. cit., 249 sqq.
[35] Burton-Pollen, /Lives of English Martyrs/, vol. i., 1583-88, 1914.
[36] /Statutes/, 27 Eliz., c. 2.
[37] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xvi. sqq.
[38] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxiv. sqq.
[39] Pollen, /Politics of the English Catholics during the reign of Elizabeth/ (/Month/, 1902-4). Law, /Jesuits and Seculars in the reign of Elizabeth/, etc., 1889. Id., /The Archpriest Controversy Documents/, etc., 1896 (Camden Society). /Eng. Catholic Record Society/, vol. ii.
[40] Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. xxxiv.
[41] Dodd-Tierney, app. xxxv.
[42] Id., app. no. xxxvi.
CHAPTER V
CATHOLICISM IN ENGLAND FROM 1603 TILL 1750
See bibliography of chap. ii., iii., iv. /Calendars of State Papers/ (James I., Charles I., The Commonwealth, Charles II.). Knox, /Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws/, 2 vols., 1882-84. Challoner, /Memoirs of Missionary Priests and other Catholics that suffered death in England/ (1577-1684), 2 vols., 1803. Lilly-Wallis, /A Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics/, 1893. Butler, /Historical Memoirs of English, Scottish, and Irish Catholics/, 3 vols., 1819-21. Id., /Historical Account of the Laws respecting the Roman Catholics/, 1795. Willaert, S.J., /Négociations Politico-Religieuses entre L’Angleterre et les Pays-Bas/, 1598-1625 (/Rev. d’Histoire Ecclés/, 1905-8). Kirk, /Biographies of English Catholics in the Eighteenth Century/ (edited by Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., and E. Burton, 1909). Morris, /The Condition of Catholics under James I./, 1871. Id., /The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers/, 1872-77. Payne, /The English Catholic Nonjurors of 1715/, etc., 1889. Id., /Records of English Catholics of 1715/, etc., 1891. Pollock, /The Popish Plot/, etc., 1903. /The Position of the Catholic Church in England and Wales during the last two Centuries/, 1892. Hutton, /The English Church from the Accession of Charles I. to the death of Anne/.
With the accession of James I. (1603-25) Catholics expected if not a repeal at least a suspension of the penal laws. As a son of Mary Queen of Scots for whose rescue Catholics in England and on the Continent had risked so much, and as one whose religious views were thought to approximate more closely to Catholicism than to Nonconformity, it was hoped that he would put an end to the persecution that had been carried on so bitterly during the reign of his predecessor. But whatever might be the sentiments he entertained secretly or gave expression to while he was yet only King of Scotland, his opinions underwent a sudden change when he saw an opportunity of strengthening his hold upon the English people, and of providing for the penniless followers who accompanied him to his new kingdom. Unfortunately a brainless plot, the “Bye Plot,” as it is called, organised to capture the king and to force him to yield to the demands of the conspirators, afforded the more bigoted officials a splendid chance of inducing James to continue the former policy of repression. Two priests named Watson and Clarke joined hands with a number of malcontents, some of whom were Protestants, others Puritans anxious to secure more liberty for their co-religionists; but news of the plot having come to the ears of the archpriest and of Garnet the provincial of the Jesuits, information was conveyed to the council, and measures were taken for the safety of the king, and for the arrest of the conspirators. James recognised fully that the Catholic body was not to blame for the violent undertakings of individuals, especially as he knew or was soon to know that the Pope had warned the archpriest and the Jesuits to discourage attempts against the government, and had offered to withdraw any clergyman from England who might be regarded as disloyal. James admitted frankly his indebtedness to the Catholics for the discovery of the plot, and promised a deputation of laymen who waited on him that the fines imposed on those who refused to attend the Protestant service should not be exacted. For a time it was expected that the policy of toleration was about to win the day, and the hopes of Catholics rose high; but in autumn (1603) when the episcopal returns came in showing that Catholics were still strong, and when alarming reports began to spread about the arrival of additional priests, the wonderful success of their efforts, and the increasing boldness of the recusants, an outcry was raised by the Protestant party, and a demand was made that the government should enforce the law with firmness.[1]
Shortly before the meeting of Parliament in March (1604) James determined to show the country that his attitude towards Catholicism was in no wise different from that of his predecessor. In a proclamation (Feb. 1604) he deplored the increasing number and activity of priests and Jesuits, denounced their efforts to win recruits for Rome, declared that he had never intended to grant toleration, and ended up by commanding all Jesuits and seminary priests to depart from the kingdom before the 19th March, unless they wished to incur the penalties that had been levelled against them in the previous reign.[2] In his speech at the opening of Parliament (March 1604) after announcing his adhesion to the religion “by law established” he outlined at length his attitude towards Rome. “I acknowledge” he said “the Roman Church to be our mother church although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions as the Jews were when they crucified Christ;” for the “quiet and well-minded” laymen who had been brought up in the Catholic faith he entertained feelings of pity rather than of anger, but in case of those who had “changed their coats” or were “factious stirrers of sedition” he was determined if necessary to take measures whereby their obstinacy might be corrected. The clergy, however, stood on a different footing. So long as they maintained “that arrogant and impossible supremacy of their head the Pope, whereby he not only claims to be the spiritual head of all Christians, but also to have an imperial civil power over all kings and emperors, dethroning and decrowning princes with his foot as pleaseth him, and dispensing and disposing of all kingdoms and empires at his appetite,” and so long as the clergy showed by their practices that they considered it meritorious rather than sinful to rebel against or to assassinate their lawful sovereign if he be excommunicated by the Pope, they need expect no toleration.[3] Parliament soon showed that it was guided by the old Elizabethan spirit. An Act was passed ordering that the laws framed during the late reign against Jesuits, seminary priests, and recusants should be rigidly enforced; all persons studying in foreign colleges who did not return and conform within one year, as well as all students who should go abroad for instruction in future should be declared incapable of inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any lands, chattels, or annuities in England; all owners or masters of vessels who should convey such passengers from the country were to be punished by confiscation of their vessel and imprisonment, and if any person should dare to act as tutor in a Catholic family without having got a licence from the bishop of the diocese, both the teacher and his employer should be fined £2 for every day he violated the law.[4] Lord Montague, having ventured to speak his mind openly in the House of Lords against such a measure, was arrested for his “scandalous and offensive speech,” and was committed to the Fleet. The old penal laws and the new ones were enforced with unusual severity. Courts were everywhere at work drawing up lists of recusants and assessing fines. Never before, even in the worst days of Elizabeth, were the wealthy Catholics called upon to pay so much. Numbers of priests were seized and conveyed to the coasts for banishment abroad; one priest was put to death simply because he was a priest, and two laymen underwent a like punishment because they had harboured or assisted priests.
English Catholics were incensed at such pitiless persecution. Had it been inflicted by Elizabeth from whom they expected no mercy, it would have been cruel enough; but coming from a king, to whom they had good reason to look for toleration, and who before he left Scotland and after his arrival in London had promised an improvement of their condition, it was calculated to stir up very bitter feeling. Forgetful of the warnings of the Pope conveyed to the archpriest and the superior of the Jesuits, some of the more extreme men undertook a new plot against the king. The leading spirit in the enterprise was Robert Catesby, a gentleman of Warwickshire, whose father had suffered for his adhesion to the old faith. He planned to blow up the Parliament House at the opening of the session of Parliament when king, lords, and commons would be assembled. Hence his plot is known as the Gunpowder Plot. His followers had to be ready to rise when the results of this awful crime would have thrown the government into confusion. They were to seize the children of the king and to assume control of the kingdom. The scheme was so utterly wicked and impracticable, that it is difficult to understand how any man could have conceived it or induced others to join in its execution. Unfortunately, however, Catesby secured the assistance of Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, an Englishman who had served in the Spanish army, John Wright, Thomas Percy, cousin of the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Everard Digby, and Francis Tresham. A mine was to be run under the House of Commons charged with gunpowder, which Fawkes undertook to explode. An adjoining house was secured, and the cellar stretching under the Parliament buildings was leased. Everything was arranged for the destruction of the king, lords and commons at the opening of Parliament fixed finally for the 5th November 1605, but Tresham, anxious to save his brother-in-law, Lord Monteagle, sent him a letter warning him to absent himself on the occasion. By means of this letter the plot was discovered, and Guy Fawkes was arrested. The other conspirators fled to Wales, where they hoped to stir up an insurrection, but at Holbeche where they halted they were surrounded by the forces of the sheriff of Worcester. In the struggle that ensued Catesby and several of his followers, who defended themselves with desperate courage, were killed, and the remainder were put to death before the end of the month (Nov. 1605).
Whether the plot had not its origin in the minds of some of the ministers, who in their desire for the wholesale destruction of Catholics had employed agents to spur on Catesby and his companions, or, at least had allowed them to continue their operations long after the designs had been reported it is difficult to determine; but immediately an outcry was raised that the plot had been organised by the Jesuits Garnet, Gerard, and Greenway, for whose arrest a proclamation was issued. Garnet had undoubtedly done much to persuade Catesby from having recourse to outrage or violence, and had never been consulted except in such a vague way that he could not possibly have suspected what was in contemplation. He had even secured from Rome a condemnation of violent measures, and had communicated this to Catesby. Greenway was consulted after the plot had been arranged, but apparently under the seal of confession with permission, however, to reveal it to none but Garnet, and according to Greenway’s own statement he had done his best to persuade Catesby to abandon his design. Garnet was then consulted by his Jesuit companion, from whom he obtained permission to speak about the secret in case of grave necessity and after it had become public. When Garnet and Oldcorn had been arrested they were permitted to hold a conversation with spies placed in such a position that all they said could be overheard. Garnet, when informed of this, told his story plainly and frankly. He was condemned and put to death, as was also Father Oldcorn. There is no evidence to show that the Jesuits urged on the conspirators to commit such a crime. On the contrary, both from the statements of the conspirators and of the Jesuits, it is perfectly clear that the Jesuits had used every effort to persuade the plotters to abandon their design, and the worst that could be said of Garnet is that he failed to take the steps he should have taken when he found that his advice had fallen on deaf ears.[5]
Though Blackwell, the official head of the Catholic body in England, hastened to issue a letter urging his co-religionists to abstain from all attempts against the government (7th Nov. 1605), Parliament, without attempting to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, determined to punish Catholics generally. Recusants who had conformed were commanded to receive the Sacrament at least once a year under penalty of a heavy fine. In place of the £20 per month levied off those Catholics who refused to attend Protestant service, the king was empowered to seize two-thirds of their estates. Catholics were forbidden to attend at court, to remain in London or within ten miles of London unless they practised some trade and had no residence elsewhere, or to move more than five miles from their homes unless they got the permission of two magistrates, confirmed by the bishop or deputy-lieutenant of the county. They could not practise as lawyers or doctors, hold any commissions in the army or navy, act as executors, guardians, or administrators, appoint to benefices or schools, or appear as suitors before the courts. Fines of £10 per month were to be paid by anyone who harboured a servant or visitor who did not attend the English service. In order to test the loyalty of his Majesty’s subjects it was enacted that a bishop or two justices of the peace might summon any person who was suspected of recusancy, and require him to take a special oath of loyalty embodied in the Act. If any persons not of noble birth refused to take the oath they should be committed to prison till the next quarter sessions or assizes, and if in these assemblies they persisted in their refusal they incurred thereby the penalty of Praemunire.[6]
Both in its substance and particularly in its form the oath of allegiance was objectionable, and whether or not it was designed with the intention of dividing the Catholic body, it succeeded in producing that effect. Many Catholics thought that, as they were called upon to renounce merely the authority of the Pope to depose princes or to make war on them, they could take it as a sign of civil allegiance without abandoning their obedience to the Pope as their spiritual superior. Others thought differently, however, and as a consequence a violent controversy broke out which disturbed the England Catholics for close on a century. The archpriest Blackwell condemned the oath at first, but in a conference with the clergy held in July 1606 he declared in its favour. Acting on this opinion the lay peers and many of the clergy consented to take the oath. The other side appealed to Rome for a decision, and a brief was issued on the 22nd September 1606, by which the oath was condemned as unlawful. Blackwell neglected to publish the brief probably from motives of prudence, though other grounds were alleged, and in the following year a new condemnation was forwarded from Rome (Aug. 1607). Meanwhile Blackwell had taken the oath himself, and had published letters permitting Catholics to act similarly. As he was unwilling to recede from his position notwithstanding the appeals of Father Persons and Cardinal Bellarmine, he was deposed from his office and George Birkhead or Birket was appointed archpriest (1608). The controversy now became general. James I. entered the lists with a book entitled /Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance/, in which he sought to meet the reasons contained in the papal documents and in the letters of Father Persons and Cardinal Bellarmine. Both writers replied to the royal challenge, and soon hosts of others, both Catholic and Protestant hastened to take part in a wordy war, the only result of which was to disedify the faithful, to turn away waverers from the Church, and to cause rejoicings to the enemies of the Catholic cause. Birkhead, who had been empowered to suspend all priests who did not show some signs of repentance for having taken the oath, acted with great moderation in the hope of avoiding a schism, but at last he was obliged to make use of the powers with which he was entrusted (1611).[7]
The old controversies between the Jesuits and a large section of the seminary priests were renewed both at home and on the Continent. The seculars objecting to the control exercised by the Jesuits in England, in regard to English affairs at Rome, and in the foreign colleges, continued to petition for the appointment of a bishop. Ugly disputes ensued and many things were done by both sides during the heat of the strife that could not be defended. The Holy See found it difficult to decide between the various plans put forward, but at last in 1623 Dr. Bishop was appointed Bishop of Calcedon /in partibus infidelium/, and entrusted with the government of the English mission. During these years of strife one important work, destined to have a great effect on the future of Catholicism in England, was accomplished, namely the re-establishment of the English congregation of the Benedictines. The Benedictine community had been re-established at Westminster in 1556 with the Abbot Feckenham as superior, but they were expelled three years later. Of the monks who had belonged to this community only one, Dom Buckley, was alive in 1607. Before his death he affiliated two English Benedictines belonging to an Italian house to the English congregation, and in 1619 the English Benedictines on the Continent were united with the English congregation by papal authority.[8] The houses of the English Benedictines on the Continent were situated at Douay (1605), at Dieulouard (1606), at Paris (1611), Saint-Malo (1611) and Lambspring in Germany (1643). The members bound themselves by oath to labour for the re-conversion of their country, and the list of Benedictine martyrs who died for the faith in England bears testimony to the fact that their oath was faithfully observed.
While these unfortunate controversies were weakening and disheartening the Catholics the penal laws were enforced with great severity. One martyr suffered in 1607, three in 1608, five in 1610, two in 1616, and five in 1618. Great numbers of priests were confined in prison or transported abroad. Laymen were ruined by imprisonment, and especially by the high fines required by the king to meet his own expenses. According to his own statement he received from the fines of Popish recusants a net income of £36,000 a year. Parliament and the Protestant party generally were anxious about the marriage of Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, and of the princess Elizabeth his sister. If they were married into Protestant families the religious difficulty, it was thought, might disappear; but, if, on the contrary, they were united to the royal houses of France or Spain the old battle might be renewed. Hence the marriage of Elizabeth to the Elector Frederick of the Palatinate, one of the foremost champions of Protestantism in Germany, gave great satisfaction at the time, though later on it led to serious trouble between the king and Parliament, when Elizabeth’s husband was driven from his kingdom during the Thirty Years’ War.
Regardless of the wishes of his Parliament the king was anxious to procure for Prince Charles the hand of the Infanta Maria, second daughter of Philip III. of Spain. To prepare the way for such a step both in Spain and at Rome, where it might be necessary to sue for a dispensation, something must be done to render less odious the working of the penal laws. Once news began to leak out of the intended marriage with Spain and of the possibility of toleration for Catholics Parliament petitioned (1620) the king to break off friendly relations with Spain, to throw himself into the war in Germany on the side of his son-in-law, and to enforce strictly all the laws against recusants. But the king refused to accept the advice of his Parliament or to allow it to interfere in what, he considered, were his own private affairs. The marriage arrangements were pushed forward, and at the same time care was taken to inform the magistrates and judges that the laws against Catholics should be interpreted leniently. In a few weeks, it is said that about four thousand prisoners were set at liberty. The articles of marriage were arranged satisfactorily (1623), due provision being made for the religious freedom of the Infanta, and a guarantee being given that the religious persecution should cease, but for various reasons the marriage never took place. Parliament promised the king to provide the funds necessary for war if only he would end the negotiations for a Spanish alliance, and this time James much against his will followed the advice of his Parliament (1624). A new petition was presented for the strict enforcement of the penal laws against priests and recusants, to which petition the king was obliged to yield. But hardly had the negotiations with Spain ended than proposals were made to France for a marriage between the prince and Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII., and once more it was necessary to be careful about offending Catholic feeling. By a secret article of the agreement with France James promised to grant even greater freedom to Catholics than had been promised them in his dealings with the Spanish court, and as a pledge of his good faith he released many prisoners who had been convicted on account of their religion, returned some of the fines that had been levied, and gave a hint to those charged with the administration of the law that the penal enactments should not be enforced. Application was made to Rome for a dispensation, which though granted, was to be delivered by the papal nuncio at Paris only on condition that James signed a more explicit statement of his future policy towards his Catholic subjects. Louis XIII., annoyed by the delays interposed by the Roman court, was not unwilling to proceed with the marriage without the dispensation, but for obvious reasons James refused to agree to such a course. Finally all difficulties were surmounted, though not before James had passed away leaving it to his son and successor to ratify the agreement. In May 1625, Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta Maria, and in the following month the new queen arrived in London.[9]
During the later years of the reign of James I. the foreign policy of the king rendered a relaxation of the penal code absolutely necessary. In the course of the marriage negotiations with France James I. had pledged himself by a secret agreement to adopt a policy of toleration, and on his death the agreement was ratified more than once by his son and successor Charles I. (1625-1649). But Charles, though personally well disposed towards the Catholics, was not a man to consider himself bound by any obligations if the fulfilment of them should involve him in serious difficulties. At the time of his accession public opinion in England as reflected by Parliament was intensely hostile to toleration. On the one hand the Puritan party, who had grown considerably despite the repressive measures of Elizabeth and James I., was determined to bring the Church into line with Calvinism, while on the other hand a body of able and learned men within the Anglican Church itself longed for a closer approximation towards Catholic beliefs and practices. With both the Bible was still in a sense the sole rule of faith, but the Puritan party would have the Bible and nothing but the Bible, while the High Church men insisted that the Scriptures must be interpreted in the light of the traditional usages of the Christian world, and that in matters of doctrine and practices some jurisdiction must be conceded to the teaching authorities of the Church. The opponents of the latter stirred the people against them by raising the cry of Arminianism and Papistry, and by representing them as abettors of Rome and as hostile to the religious settlement that had been accomplished. As a result of this controversy, in which the king sided with Laud and the High Church party against the Presbyterians and Calvinists,[10] Parliament, which supported the Puritans, clamoured incessantly for the execution of the penal laws.
In the first Parliament, opened the day after Queen Henrietta’s arrival in England (1625) a petition was presented to the king praying for the strict enforcement of the penal laws. Yielding to this petition Charles issued a proclamation ordering the bishops and officials to see that the laws were put into execution, but at the same time he took care to let it be known that the extraction of fines from the wealthy laymen and the imprisonment or transportation of priests would be more agreeable to him than the infliction of the death penalty. Louis XIII. and the Pope protested warmly against this breach of a solemn agreement. Charles replied that he had bound himself not to enforce the penal laws merely as a means of lulling the suspicions of Rome and of securing a dispensation for his marriage.[11] Still, though the queen’s French household was dismissed, the king did everything he could to prevent the shedding of blood. The Parliamentarians, who were fighting for civil liberty for themselves, were annoyed that any measure of liberty should be conceded to their Catholic fellow-countrymen. They presented a petition to Charles at the very time they were safeguarding their own position by the Petition of Rights (1628) demanding that priests who returned to England should be put to death, and that the children of Catholic parents should be taken from their natural guardians and reared in the Protestant religion.[12] Charles defended his own policy of toleration on the ground that it was calculated to secure better treatment for Protestant minorities in other countries, yet at the same time he so far abandoned his policy of not shedding blood as to allow the death penalty to be inflicted on a Jesuit and a layman (1628).[13] So long however as he could secure money from the Catholics he was not particularly anxious about their religious opinions. Instead of the fines to which they had been accustomed, he compounded with them by agreeing not to enforce their presence at the Protestant service on condition that they paid an annual sum to be fixed by his commissioners according to the means of the individual recusants.
The appointment of a bishop to take charge of the English Mission (1623) did not unfortunately put an end to the regrettable controversies that divided the Catholic party. On the death of Dr. Bishop, Dr. Richard Smith was appointed to succeed him (1625), and was consecrated in France. For a time after his arrival affairs moved smoothly enough, but soon a more violent controversy broke out regarding the respective rights and privileges of seculars and regulars, and the obligation on confessors of obtaining episcopal approbation. The dispute became public, and in a short time numerous pamphlets were published in England and in France by the literary champions of both parties. As the Puritans resented strongly the presence of a bishop in England, Dr. Smith was obliged to go into hiding, and ultimately made his escape to France, where he died in 1665. The Pope found it difficult to apportion the blame or to put an end to the strife, but an opportunity was afforded him of learning the facts of the case when an English agent deputed by the queen arrived in Rome (1633). In return Urban VIII. determined to send an envoy into England mainly to settle the controversy between the regulars and the seculars, but also to discover the real sentiments of the court and the country towards Rome. The person selected for this difficult work was Gregory Panzani,[14] an Oratorian, who arrived in England in 1634 and had several interviews with the king and queen. Whatever might have been the hopes of inducing Laud and some of the leading bishops to consider the question of returning to the Roman allegiance, the main object the king had in view in permitting the residence of a papal envoy in London and in sending English agents to Rome was to secure the help of Urban VIII. for his nephew of the Palatinate, and especially to induce the Pope to favour a marriage between this nephew and the daughter of the King of Poland. Very little was obtained on either side by these negotiations, nor did the papal agents in England succeed in composing the differences between the clergy.
In 1640 Laud published the canons framed by Convocation for the government of the English Church. With the object of clearing himself of the charge of Papistry he ordered a new persecution to be begun, but the king intervened to prevent the execution of this measure. At a time when Charles was receiving large sums of money by way of compensation for non-attendance at the Protestant services, and when he foresaw that in the conflict that was to come he could rely on the Catholic noblemen to stand loyally by him, he had no wish to exasperate the Catholics in England, or to outrage Catholic feeling in France and at Rome. In 1640, however, Parliament returned to the charge. The presence of papal agents in England, the payment of £10,000 by the Catholic noblemen to help the king in his expedition against the Scots, and the enrolment of a Catholic army in Ireland by Strafford, were urged as arguments to prove that the king’s failure to carry out the laws against Catholics was due to causes other than had been alleged. Indeed both before and after the outbreak of the Civil War (1642) the king’s cause was damaged badly by his secret alliance with Rome. As a matter of fact the Catholics did rally to the standard of the king, but the persecution to which they had been subjected wherever the Parliament had control made it impossible for them to act differently. During the years that elapsed between 1642 and 1651, twenty-one victims, including priests, both secular and regular, and laymen, were put to death for their religion.[15] When at last Parliament had triumphed a new persecution was begun. An Act was passed in 1650 offering for the apprehension of priests rewards similar to those paid for securing the arrest of highway robbers. Informers and spies were set at work, and as a result of their labours many priests were captured and confined in prison or transported. Yet, though the opponents of the king made it one of their main charges against him that he refused to shed the blood of the clergy, they adopted a similar policy when they themselves were in power. During the whole Protectorate of Cromwell only one priest was put to death in England. But recourse was had to other methods for the extirpation of the Catholic religion, imprisonment, transportation, and above all heavy fines exacted off those Catholics who held property in the country.
From Charles II. (1660-1685) Catholics had some reason to expect an amelioration of their sad condition. They had fought loyally for his father and had suffered for their loyalty even more than the Protestant loyalists. In the hour of defeat they had shielded the life of the young prince, and had aided him in escaping from enemies who would have dealt with him as they had dealt with the king. Mindful of their services and of promises Charles had made in exile, and well aware that he had inherited from his mother, Queen Henrietta, a strong leaning towards the Catholic Church, they hoped to profit by the Declaration of Breda, which promised liberty of conscience to all his subjects. But Charles, though secretly in favour of the Catholics on account of their loyalty to his father and to himself, was not a man to endanger his throne for the sake of past services, more especially as his trusted minister, the Earl of Clarendon, was determined to suppress Dissenters no matter what creed they might profess. A number of Catholics, lay and cleric, met at Arundel House to prepare a petition to the House of Lords (1661) for the relaxation of the Penal Laws. The petition was received favourably, and as there was nobody in the House of Lords willing to defend the infliction of the death penalty on account of religion, it was thought that the laws whereby it was considered treason to be a priest or to shelter a priest might be abolished. But dissensions soon arose, even in the Catholic committee itself. The kind of oath of allegiance that might be taken, the extension of the proposed relaxations so as to include the Jesuits, and the anxiety of the laymen to get rid of the fines levied on rich recusants rather than of the penalties meted out to the clergy, led to the dissolution of the committee, and to the abandonment of their suggested measures of redress.[16]
Clarendon was determined to crush the Nonconformist party notwithstanding the promises that had been held out to them in the Declaration of Breda. He secured the enactment of a number of laws, the Act of Uniformity (1662), the Conventicle Act (1664) and the Five Mile Act (1665) known as the Clarendon Code, which, though directed principally against the Dissenters, helped to increase the hardships of the Catholic body. Once, indeed, in 1662-63, Charles made a feeble attempt to redeem his promise to both Catholics and Nonconformists by announcing his intention of applying to Parliament to allow him to exercise the dispensing power in regard to the Act of Uniformity and other such laws, but the opposition was so strong that the proposed declaration of indulgence was abandoned. The terrible fire that broke out in London (September 1666) and which raged for five days, destroying during that time a great part of the city, led to a new outburst of anti-Catholic feeling. Without the slightest evidence the fire was attributed to the Papists, and an inscription to this effect placed upon the monument erected to commemorate the conflagration remained unchanged until 1830. When Parliament met a committee was appointed to inquire into the increase of popery, and a demand was made that proclamations should be issued for the banishment of all priests and Jesuits.
On the fall of Clarendon (1667) the Cabal ministers succeeded to power. These were Clifford, who was a convinced Catholic, Arlington who if not a Catholic at this time had at least Catholic tendencies, Buckingham, Ashley, a man of no fixed religious opinions, and Lauderdale, a Scotch Presbyterian (1670).[17] The contest for the succession to the Spanish throne was at hand, and Louis XIV. was as anxious to secure the support of England as was Charles to escape from the Triple Alliance and the domination of Parliament. Besides, his brother James, Duke of York, and heir-presumptive to the English throne, had announced his adhesion to the Catholic Church, and his example produced such an effect upon the king’s mind that he determined to imitate it if only France would promise support. It was resolved to conclude a secret treaty with France by which Charles should pledge himself to profess openly the Catholic religion and to assist Louis in his schemes against Holland and Belgium, provided that Louis would supply both money and men to suppress the disturbance to which the king’s change of religion might give rise in England. The treaty was signed in May 1670, but as Charles was more anxious about the subsidies than about the change of religion, and as Louis XIV. preferred that the religious question should not be raised till the war against Holland had been completed, very little, if anything, was done, except to publish a Declaration of Indulgence (1672) in which Charles by virtue of his “supreme power in ecclesiastical matters” suspended “all manner of penal laws against whatsoever sort of Nonconformists and Recusants.” By this document liberty of public worship was granted to Dissenters, while Catholics were allowed to meet for religious service only in private houses.
A strong Protestant feeling had been aroused in the country by the rumour of the conversion of the Duke of York, by the certainty that his first wife, the daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, had become a Catholic on her death-bed, and by the suspicion of some secret negotiations with France. When Parliament met (1673) a demand was made that the Declaration of Indulgence should be withdrawn. The Duke of York urged the king to stand firm in the defence of his prerogatives, but as neither Charles nor his ally Louis XIV. wished to precipitate a conflict with the Parliament at that particular period, the king yielded to the storm by revoking his original declaration. Immediately the Test Act was introduced and passed through both houses despite the warm opposition of the Duke of York and of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. According to the terms of this measure it was enacted that all civil or military officials should be obliged to take the oath of supremacy and allegiance, to receive Communion according to the English service, and to make a declaration “that there is not any Transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the elements of bread and wine at or after the consecration thereof by any persons whatsoever.” James, Duke of York, resigned his office of Lord High-Admiral and his example was followed by Clifford and most of the Catholic noblemen (1673).
From this time forward the Protestant party concentrated their efforts on securing the exclusion of the Duke of York from the English throne. Charles II. had married Catharine of Braganza, by whom there was no issue, and consequently his brother was the lawful heir. At the same time it was clear to everybody, that James was so firmly attached to the Catholic Church that neither the fear of losing the crown nor the zealous efforts of Stillingfleet and other distinguished ecclesiastics were likely to bring about his re-conversion to Protestantism. The news, too, of his projected marriage with Mary the daughter of the Duke of Modena, opening as it did the prospect of a long line of Catholic rulers in England, was not calculated to allay the fears of the Protestants. After he had been dismissed from office the Earl of Shaftesbury set himself deliberately to fan the flames of religious bigotry, in the hope of securing the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne. With this object in view it was proposed either that Charles should procure a divorce from Catharine of Braganza, so as to be free to marry some younger lady by whom an heir might be born, or else that with the consent of Parliament he should vest the succession in his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. Just then, when feeling was running high in England, a wretch named Titus Oates came forward with a story of a Popish Plot. Oates, formerly a preacher and minister of the Established Church, had feigned conversion to Catholicism, and had gained admission to the English colleges at Valladolid and St. Omer from which he was dismissed. Acting in conjunction with Israel Tonge he concocted the details of a plot, according to which the Pope and the Jesuits were to bring about the murder of the king and the overthrow of the Protestant religion. His story was so full of contradictions and absurdities that it is difficult to understand how it could have obtained credence among sane men, but in the state of opinion at the time, it was seized upon by Shaftesbury and others as the best means of stirring up a great anti-Catholic agitation that would bar the way to the accession of the Duke of York. The mysterious death of Sir Edmund Godfrey, a London magistrate to whom Oates had entrusted a copy of his depositions, and the discovery of some French correspondence amongst the documents of Father Coleman, the private secretary of the Duchess of York, helped to strengthen public belief in the existence of the plot. When Parliament met in 1678 both houses professed their belief in the existence of a “damnable and hellish plot,” voted a salary to Oates, ordered all Catholics to leave London and Westminster, procured the arrest of a number of Catholic peers, and decreed the exclusion of Catholics from the House of Commons and the House of Lords by exacting a declaration against the Mass, Transubstantiation and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin (1678). It was only with the greatest difficulty that the king succeeded in securing an exemption in favour of the Duke of York. A number of priests and laymen were arrested, one of whom was put to death in 1678, eleven in 1679, two in 1680 and one, the Venerable Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, the last victim put to death for religion upon English soil, in 1681. In addition to this eight priests were put to death during the agitation merely because they were priests.[18]
Three times the Exclusion Bill was introduced, but it failed to become law owing to the determination of Charles II. to uphold the rights of his brother. At last the storm of passion began to die away, and the absurd statements of Oates, even though supported by the testimonies of infamous hirelings like Bedloe and Dangerfield, were no longer accepted as trustworthy. Shaftsebury was obliged to make his escape from England; the Duke of York returned from exile to take up his residence at court, and for the remainder of the reign of Charles II. Catholics enjoyed a comparative calm. In February 1685 Charles II. became seriously ill, and died in a short time, after having been reconciled to the Catholic Church by the ministrations of Father Hudleston, who had helped to save his life years before, and who had enjoyed the special protection of the king.
The accession of James II. (1685-88)[19] was welcomed by the vast majority of the English people, who had come to admire his honesty and courage, as well as to sympathise with him on account of the violent persecution to which he had been subjected by his unscrupulous adversaries. He had made no secret of his religion and of his desire to abolish the penal laws from which his co-religionists suffered, but at the same time he declared his intention of maintaining the Church of England as by law established. The Tory landowners and the cities were equally loyal to him, and the first Parliament he called was not unwilling to do everything to gratify his wishes, provided, however, he left religion untouched. When the Duke of Monmouth arrived in England to stir up a rebellion (1685) the country in the main rallied to the king, although the cry of “Protestantism in danger” had been utilised to stir up discontent.
The violent persecution that followed the rebellion, and above all the “bloody circuit” of Judge Jeffreys, whose conduct was unworthy of his judicial position, helped to dull the edge of the king’s popularity. The selection of advisers like the unprincipled Earl of Sutherland, the position occupied at Court by Father Edmund Petre,[20] the public celebration of Mass at which the king assisted in state, and the opening of direct negotiations with Rome, were calculated to stir up strong Protestant opposition. During the rebellion the king had found it necessary to dispense with the Test Act in the appointment of officers, and to raise a well equipped standing army, and people began to be alarmed lest he should ally himself with Louis XIV., and by means of French subsidies attempt to make himself absolute ruler of England. Parliament met once more in November 1685. The king had set his heart on securing a modification of the Test Act, so as to be free to appoint Catholics to positions of trust, and had dismissed the Earl of Halifax from the council because he refused to agree to the proposal. But on the two questions, the maintenance of the Test Act and of a standing army, Parliament was unbending in its refusal to meet the wishes of James II., and was on this account prorogued (Nov. 1685).
Most of the prominent opponents were dismissed immediately from their offices. The fact that the late king had embraced the Catholic religion before his death was made known officially, and two papers, in which Charles II. explained the motives which induced him to take this step, were given to the public. The papal nuncio at London was received at court, and Lord Castlemaine was dispatched to Rome to act as the agent of James II. Dr. Leyburn arrived in England as vicar apostolic, to be followed by another in the person of Dr. Giffard, and a little later England was divided into four vicarates, over which were placed four vicars with full episcopal orders and jurisdiction. Several of the Protestant ministers, alarmed by these measures, opened a violent campaign against Popery, particularly in London where anti- Catholic feeling was easily aroused. The king appealed to the Bishop of London to moderate the fanaticism of his clergy, and as the bishop was unable or unwilling to comply with this request, the king established once more a king of High Commission Court, to be presided over by a number of bishops and laymen, with the avowed object of keeping the clergy in subjection.
As Parliament had refused to abolish the Test Act James II. determined to make use of the dispensing powers which he claimed to have as king. To compensate for the absence of parliamentary confirmation, it was decided to secure the approval of the judges. For this purpose Sir Edward Hales, a recent convert to Catholicism, was brought into court for having accepted and retained a commission in the army without having made the necessary declarations. Hales pleaded as his excuse that he had received a dispensation from the king, and that consequently he was not obliged to comply with the terms of the Test Act. The plea was accepted by the judges and the case against the defendant was dismissed. As a result of this decision James II. felt free to confer civil and military offices on Catholics. Four Catholic peers, Lord Bellasis, Powys, Arundell of Wardour and Lord Dover, were sworn in members of the privy council (1687), and later on Father Petre, a Jesuit, took a seat at the council board. For the latter the king sought to obtain a bishopric and a cardinal’s hat, but Innocent XI., who was not an admirer of the imprudent haste shown by James II. for the conversion of the English nation, nor of his alliance with Louis XIV., refused to grant either request. By virtue of royal dispensations a Catholic master and three fellows were appointed to some of the Oxford colleges.
The Tory party that had been so loyal to the king hitherto, took offence at the favour shown to the Catholic body, and as there could be no hope of winning their approval for the measures he had in contemplation, James II. determined to appeal to the Dissenters. The Earl of Rochester was dismissed from his office, and the Earl of Clarendon was recalled from Ireland. In April 1687 a Declaration of Indulgence was published, granting freedom of worship to Dissenters and Catholics, and abolishing all religious tests as necessary qualifications for office. For a time it seemed as if the king were likely to secure the support of the Nonconformists, particularly as measures were taken through the lords-lieutenant of the various counties to influence public opinion in their districts. But the hatred entertained by the Dissenters for Rome overcame their gratitude to the king for the liberty he had granted them, and they preferred to live in bondage rather than allow the Catholics to share with them the advantages of religious toleration. The appointment of several Catholic lords to the very highest offices of state, the public welcome given to the papal nuncio, and the attempt to force a Catholic president on the fellows of Magdalen College helped to increase the feeling of dissatisfaction. Dangerous riots broke out in London, and to prevent still more dangerous manifestations a force of 16,000 was concentrated on Hounslow Heath. In April 1688 a second Declaration of Indulgence was published. By a order in council, published some days later, the clergy were commanded to read this declaration on two consecutive Sundays in all their churches.
A petition was presented to the king by Archbishop Sancroft of Canterbury and six of his episcopal colleagues requesting him to withdraw this command to the clergy (18 May 1688). To make matters worse thousands of copies of the petition were printed immediately and circulated throughout the country. Annoyed by such opposition the king summoned the bishops before the council, and as they refused to give securities for their attendance at the trial, they were committed to prison. The trial opened on the 29th June 1688, and ended with a verdict of acquittal to the great delight of the vast body of the English people.
So long as James II. had no heir many Protestants were inclined to keep silent on the ground that at his death the succession of a Protestant ruler was assured. But during the popular excitement following upon the arrest of the bishops the news spread rapidly that the queen had given birth to a son. Already negotiations had been opened up with William of Orange to induce him to take up the cause of Protestantism in England, but the fact that an heir was born to the throne gave a new impetus to the insurrectionary movement. The state of affairs on the Continent favoured the designs of William of Orange. Louis XIV. was at war with the Emperor and with the Pope, and as James II. was regarded as an ally of France no opposition might be expected from the imperial forces in case William determined to make a descent upon England. Had James II. taken the bold course of inviting Louis XIV. to assist him, the invasion of England from Holland would have been attended with much more serious difficulties, but till the last moment James affected to regard such an invasion as an impossibility. When at last he realised the gravity of the situation he was willing to make some concessions, but soon, finding himself deserted by a great many of the men on whom he had relied, by some of his own relatives, and even by his own daughter, he determined to make his escape from England (Dec. 1688).
During the weeks that preceded the withdrawal of James II. to France violent riots had taken place in London, where several of the Catholic chapels were attacked, and in many of the other leading cities. William III. was not personally in favour of a policy of religious persecution, particularly as he had promised his imperial ally to deal gently with his Catholic subjects. But the popular prejudice against them was so strong that a policy of toleration was almost an impossibility. The Catholics were excluded specially from enjoying the concessions made in favour of the Dissenters, and in the Bill of Rights (1689) it was provided that no member of the reigning family who was a Catholic or had married a Catholic could succeed to the throne, and that any sovereign of England who became a Catholic or married a Catholic thereby forfeited the crown. Catholics were prohibited from residing within ten miles of London; magistrates were empowered to administer the objectionable oath of allegiance to all suspected Papists; Catholics were forbidden to keep arms, ammunition, or a horse valued for more than ten pounds; they were debarred from practising as counsellors, barristers, or attorneys; if they refused to take the oath they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary elections; they were incapacitated from inheriting or purchasing land; and prohibited from sending their children abroad for education; while priests were to be punished with imprisonment for life for celebrating Mass, and spies who secured the conviction of priests were offered £100 as a reward.[21]
During the reign of Anne (1702-14) and during the early portion of the reign of George I. the persecution continued, especially after the unsuccessful rebellion of 1715 in which many Catholics were accused of taking part.[22] After 1722 the violence of the persecution began to abate, and Catholics began to open schools, and to draw together again their shattered forces. Fortunately at the time there was one amongst them in the person of Richard Challoner, who was capable of infusing new life into the Catholic ranks and of winning for the Church the respect even of its bitterest opponents. Richard Challoner (1691-1781) was born in London, and was converted to Catholicism at the age of thirteen. He entered Douay College, in which he remained twenty-five years, first as a student and afterwards as a professor, and vice- president. He returned to London in 1730, and threw himself into the work of strengthening the faith of his co-religionists in all parts of the city. He went about disguised as a layman, visiting the poorest quarters, and celebrating Mass wherever he could find a place of security. Already he had published a book of meditations under the title /Think Well On’t/ (1728), and a little later he found time to prepare for the press /The Christian Instructed in the Sacraments, etc/. In 1740, much against his own will, he was appointed coadjutor to Dr. Petre, vicar-apostolic of the London district. As coadjutor he undertook to make a visitation of the entire district as far as it was situated in England. But his work as bishop did not interfere with his literary activity. In quick succession he published /The Gardin of the Soul/, /The Memoirs of Missionary Priests/, containing the Lives of the English Martyrs (1577-1681), the /Britannia Sacra/, or a short account of the English, Scottish and Irish Saints, an edition of the New Testament (1749), of the old Testament (1750), together with a revised edition (1752).
Besides all this he founded two schools for boys, one at Standon Lordship, the other at Sedgley Park, and one for poor girls at Hammersmith. Though more than once he stood in the gravest danger of having his career cut short by the activity of the priest-hunters, he had the good fortune to survive the storm and to see the First Relief Act of 1778 placed upon the statute book.[23] ———-
[1] Frere, op. cit., 289-90.
[2] Dodd-Tierney, iv., app. no. iv.
[3] Id., iv., 10-13.
[4] /Statutes/, 1 James, c. 4.
[5] On the Gunpowder Plot, cf. Gerard, /What was the Gunpowder Plot/, 1897. Rev. J. H. Pollen, /Arrest and Examination of Father Garnet/; /Trial and Execution of Father Garnet/ (/The Month/, July 1888, Sept., 1888). /The Month/ (Oct., 1878, Sept.-Oct., 1897, Aug., 1898, Aug., 1904). Sidney, /A History of the Gunpowder Plot/, 1904.
[6] /Statutes 3/, 1 James, c. 4, 5.
[7] Many documents relating to this unfortunate controversy are to be found in Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., vol. iv. Appendix. /Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani/, edited by Berington, 1793.
[8] Guilday, op. cit., chap. vii.
[9] /Political Hist. of England/, vii., chap. v., vi.
[10] Hutton, /The Life of Laud/, 1895. Shaw, /The English Church during the Civil War and under the Commonwealth/, 2 vols., 1900. Neale, /History of the Puritans/, 4 vols., 1732-8.
[11] Lingard, vii., 157-9.
[12] Lingard, vii., 168.
[13] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.
[14] /The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani/, 1634-36, etc. Transl. Ed. by Rev. J. Berington, 1793.
[15] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.
[16] /Memoirs of Panzani/, 308-11 (Supplement).
[17] /Political Hist. of England/, viii., 87.
[18] On the Titus Oates’ Plot, cf. Gerard, /Some Episodes of the Oates’ Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1894). Marks, /Further Light on the Oates’ Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1903). Pollock, /The Popish Plot/, 1903. Markes, /Who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey?/ 1905.
[19] Onno Klopp, /Der Fall des Hauses Stuarts/, 1875-9.
[20] Cf. Foley, /Records of the English Jesuits/, v., vii., /The Month/ (1886-87).
[21] Cf. Lilly-Wallis, /Manual of the Law specially affecting Catholics/, 1893.
[22] Payne, /Records of the English Catholics of 1715/, 1889.
[23] Cf. Burton, /The Life and Times of Bishop Challone (1691-1781)/, 2 vols., 1909 (an excellent biography).
CHAPTER VI
THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND
Lang, /History of Scotland/, 1900-2. Bellesheim-Blair, /History of the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1887 (tr. from the German, 2 Bde., 1883). Forbes-Leith, S.J., /Narratives of the Scottish Catholics/, 1885. Id., /Memoirs of Scottish Catholics during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries/, 2 vols., 1909. Walsh, /History of the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1874. Grub, /An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland/, 4 vols., 1861. Dawson, /The Catholics of Scotland (1593-1852)/, 1890. Pollen, S.J., /Papal Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots (1561-67)/, 1901. Lang, /Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 1901. /Catholic Tractates of the Sixteenth Century/ (edited by Law, 1901). Theiner, /Vetera Monumenta Hib. et Scotorum (1216-1547)/, 1864. /Works of John Knox/, (edited by Laing), 1855-64. Herkless, /Cardinal Beaton/, etc., 1891. Gordon, /Scoti-Chronicon/, 1867. Tytler, /History of Scotland/, 1879.
In Scotland a long succession of infant kings and weak regents helped to increase the power of the lords at the expense of the crown. The king or regent had no standing army at his disposal, nor were the resources of the royal treasury sufficient to allow the ruler to invoke the assistance of foreign mercenaries. As a result the king was dependent more or less on the lords, who were prepared to support him if their own demands were conceded, or to form private confederations or “bands” against him if they felt that they themselves were aggrieved. Parliament, which included the spiritual and lay lords, together with representatives of the lower nobility and of the cities, did not play a very important part in the government of the country. For years Scotland had been the close ally of France and the enemy of England. Such an alliance was at once the best pledge for Scotland’s independence, and the best guarantee against England’s successful invasion of France.
To put an end to the controversies regarding the primatial rights claimed by the Archbishop of York over the Scottish Church, Clement III. issued a Bull in 1188 declaring the Church of Scotland subject directly only to the Apostolic See.[1] A further step was taken by Sixtus IV. in 1472, when St. Andrew’s was erected into a metropolitan See, under which were placed as suffragans the twelve dioceses, Glasgow, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Brechin, Dunblane, Ross, Caithness, Candida Casa, Argyll, the Isles, and Orkney.[2] This measure was resented by many of the bishops, but more especially by the Bishops of Glasgow, who were unwilling to submit to the jurisdiction of St. Andrew’s even after it had been declared that the latter in virtue of its office enjoyed primatial and legatine powers over Scotland (1487). In the hope of putting an end to the controversy Glasgow was erected into a metropolitan See with four suffragan dioceses, Dunkeld, Dunblane, Galloway and Argyll (1492). The bishops of Scotland were supposed to be elected by the chapters, but in reality the king or regent enjoyed a decisive voice in the selection of candidates especially during the greater part of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
As a result of this enslavement of the Church, men were appointed to bishoprics without reference to their fitness for this sacred office, and solely with the intention of providing themselves and their relatives with a decent income. Thus for example, James, Duke of Ross, brother of James IV., was appointed to the See of St. Andrew’s at the age of twenty-one, and he was succeeded by Alexander Stuart, the illegitimate son of James IV., when he had reached only his ninth year. What is true of St. Andrew’s is almost equally true of many of the other dioceses of Scotland, though it would be very wrong to assume that all the bishops of Scotland during the latter half of the fifteenth or the first half of the sixteenth centuries were unworthy men.
The religious orders of men were well represented by the Benedictines, Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, etc., while in most of the large cities and towns flourishing convents had been founded. The state of discipline in these various institutions varied considerably according to circumstances, but although serious attempts were made to introduce reforms especially in the houses of the Cistercians, Franciscans, and Dominicans, it cannot be contended for a moment that the Scottish monasteries and convents were free from the gravest abuses. Possibly the erection of such a multitude of collegiate churches in Scotland during the fifteenth century was due to the sad condition of so many of the religious houses, but if it was, the remedy was almost as bad as the disease. In connexion with the monasteries, the chapters, and the collegiate churches, schools were carried on with a fair amount of success, sufficient at least to prepare students for the higher education given at the Universities of St. Andrew’s founded by Benedict XIII. (1410), of Glasgow, founded by Nicholas V. (1451), and of Aberdeen established through the exertions of the learned and holy Bishop Elphinstone with the approval of Alexander VI. (1495) and of James IV. Owing to the close connexion with France many of the Scottish ecclesiastics pursued their studies at Paris.
The Church in Scotland was comparatively wealthy at the beginning of the Reformation movement, though it should be remembered that out of its resources it was obliged to maintain the schools, hospitals, and institutes of charity. Still the wealth of the Church in Scotland instead of being a source of strength was in reality a source of weakness, and in the end it proved to be one of the main causes of its overthrow. It excited the cupidity of the hungry nobles, and made them anxious to share in the plunder of religious houses, particularly after the example had been set across the border by Henry VIII.’s attack on the English monasteries. But before any steps were taken to bring about the forcible seizure of the ecclesiastical property the rulers and lords of Scotland adopted other means of controlling the wealth of the Church and of the monasteries. Members of the royal family or sons of the nobles were introduced into the bishoprics irrespective of their merits, and were induced to enrich their relatives by bestowing on them portions of the diocesan property. Many others of a similar class were appointed as commendatory abbots of religious houses solely for the purpose of controlling the revenue of these establishments. In some cases those so appointed were only children, in nearly all cases they were laymen, and in no case did they do anything for the maintenance of discipline, for the cultivation of a good religious spirit, or for the promotion of the wishes of the founders and endowers of the monastic institutions. What was true of the monasteries was equally true of the convents, in many of which discipline was completely relaxed. Several attempts were made to bring about a reformation, but on account of the exemptions and special privileges claimed by the religious houses, such attempts were doomed to failure, whether they were made by the bishops or by the regular superiors. Nothing less than a papal visitation, in which the visitors could have relied upon the full power of the Church and State, would have sufficed to put an end to the evil, and unfortunately no such step was taken in time to avert the calamity.
As elsewhere, so too in Scotland, it was no uncommon thing to find one man holding several benefices to which the care of souls was attached, notwithstanding all the canons that had been passed against such a glaring abuse. The clergy, following the example of so many of their superiors, showed themselves entirely unworthy of their position. Many of them were quite negligent about preaching and instructing their flock, completely regardless of clerical celibacy, and oftentimes they devoted more attention to their farms and to their cattle than to their religious obligations. One has only to refer to the decrees of the diocesan synods held by Archbishop Forman of St. Andrew’s (1515- 22),[3] to the national synods of 1549-1552, and to the letter of Cardinal Sermoneta to the Pope in 1557[4] to see how grievous were the abuses flourishing in all departments of the Church in Scotland at the time when the very existence of Catholicism in the kingdom was trembling in the balance. The root of all this evil was the destruction of the independence of the Church, and its complete subjugation to the crown and to the lords. As a result, when the crisis came and when most of the lords went over to the party of Knox, they found but little resistance from their unworthy relatives, whom they had introduced into positions of trust, not that they might promote religion, but that they might live by it, and in the end betray it.
It was during the reign of James V. (1513-42) that the religious revolution began on the Continent and in England. Henry VIII. of England was his uncle, and he left no stone unturned to detach his nephew from his alliance with France and from his submission to Rome; but despite Henry’s endeavours James V. refused to join in Henry’s attacks on the Pope, or to listen to the proposals for a closer union with England. The Scottish Parliament held in 1525 forbade the introduction of Lutheran books into the kingdom or the preaching of Luther’s doctrine, and a papal envoy was dispatched to the Scottish court to exhort the king to stand firm in the defence of the Church. The reply of James V. was reassuring. Soon however the new heresy began to make its appearance in the kingdom. Patrick Hamilton, commendatory abbot of Ferne and closely related to some of the most powerful families in Scotland, had come into contact with Luther and Melanchthon during his wanderings on the Continent, and on his return home he set himself to spread their teachings amongst his countrymen. He was arrested, tried for heresy, and handed over to the secular authorities who inflicted the death penalty (1528). His execution did not put an end to the movement in Scotland. In 1533 the Benedictine, Henry Forest, was condemned to death for heresy; in the following year a priest and a layman met a similar fate, and before the death of James V. several others including Dominicans and Franciscans, laymen and clerics, were either burned or obliged to seek safety in flight. James V. set himself resolutely to the task of suppressing heresy, and was supported by Parliament, which forbade all discussion on Luther’s errors except in so far as it might be necessary for their refutation, and ordered all who had Lutheran writings in their possession to deliver them to the bishops within a period of fourteen days.
Political influences, however, favoured the spread of the new doctrine. It had been the dream of Henry VII., as it was also the dream of his son and successor, to strengthen England at the expense of France, by bringing about an alliance and if possible a union between England and Scotland. It was in furtherance of this design that Henry VII. had given his eldest daughter in marriage to James IV., who was slain with most of his nobles in a battle with the English on the fatal field of Flodden (1513). The schemes for a union with Scotland were continued by Henry VIII., particularly after his rupture with Rome had shown him the danger that might be anticipated from the north in case the French or the Emperor should declare war in defence of the Church. A regular contest began at the Scottish court between the friends of Rome and of France and the agents of Henry VIII., the latter of whom took care to encourage those who favoured religious innovations. The queen-mother, sister of Henry VIII., and many of the nobles favoured the plans of Henry, who sought to induce the King of Scotland to join him in the struggle against Rome, and who promised him in return for this service the hand of his daughter the Princess Mary and the friendship of the English nation. James V., backed by the bishops and encouraged by messengers from Rome, refused to come south for a conference with Henry VIII., or to give any countenance to the schismatical policy of his uncle. As a sign that Scotland was still true to France he married the daughter of Francis I. of France (1537), and on her death shortly after her arrival in Scotland, he took as his second wife (1538) Mary of Guise, daughter of the Duke of Guise and sister of the Cardinal of Lorraine.[5]
He was ably assisted in his struggle against heresy and English interference by David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew’s (1539-46) and a cardinal of the Roman Church. The latter was at once a churchman and a politician, loyal to Rome and to France, earnest in his defence of Scottish independence, and determined to defeat the English schemes against both the religion and liberty of Scotland. As friendly remonstrances and invitations failed to produce any effect, Henry VIII. determined to have recourse to war. He felt that he could rely upon the assistance or the neutrality of many of the Scottish nobles whom he had won over to his side, and soon events showed that this confidence was not misplaced. The Scottish army was put to a shameful flight at Solway Moss, probably more by treachery than by the cowardice of the Scottish nobles, and James V. was so heartbroken by the news of this disaster that he died in a few weeks (Dec. 1542) leaving behind him an infant daughter, to be known later as Mary Queen of Scots.
After the death of James V. the Earl of Arran, who as one of the Hamiltons was next after the king’s daughter the heir-presumptive to the throne, and who favoured the new religion and English influence, was appointed regent despite the resistance of Cardinal Beaton and of the clergy. Henry VIII. believed that the favourable moment had come for carrying out his plans. He hoped to be able to imprison his old enemy Cardinal Beaton, to seize the person of the young princess, to arrange for a marriage between her and his own son Prince Edward, and to make himself virtual sovereign of Scotland. To their shame be it said he induced a number of the Scottish nobles, the Douglasses, the Earls of Cassilis, Glencairn, Bothwell, and Angus, together with many others, to agree to his designs and to promise their assistance. Unmindful of their duty to Scotland they consented to sell both their country and their religion for English gold. The regent was only too willing to lend his aid, and before the end of January the English agents were able to announce to “their Sovereign Lord” that the cardinal was a prisoner. Everything seemed to favour the religious change and the plans of union with England. Parliament met in March 1543. It decreed liberty to all to read or to have in their possession a copy of the Bible in the English or the Scottish tongue, and appointed commissioners to treat with Henry for the marriage of Mary to his son. But popular opinion in Scotland supported strongly the religious and political policy of Cardinal Beaton. The clergy of the diocese of St. Andrew’s refused to continue their ministrations until their archbishop was released. The people supported them in their demands, as did several of the nobles, and in the end, despite the protests of the English party, among the lords, the cardinal was set at liberty. The regent, the Earl of Arran, deserted his former friends, became reconciled with the Catholic Church, joined himself to the party of the cardinal and of the queen dowager, and welcomed the arrival of the French forces that had come to defend the kingdom against an English invasion.
The Scottish nobles in the pay of Henry VIII. were convinced, as was Henry VIII. himself, that so long as Cardinal Beaton was alive to guide affairs in Scotland no advance could be made in the work of destroying both the religion and the independence of the kingdom. Several of the Scottish enemies of the cardinal entered into communication with Henry himself or with his agents. They offered to murder the cardinal if only Henry promised a sufficient reward, and Henry expressed his approval of the step that was in contemplation.[6] Meanwhile the cardinal was busy preparing schemes for a genuine reform of the Church to be submitted to a national synod called for January 1546, and in making a visitation of his diocese for the purpose of suppressing heresy. George Wishart, formerly a Greek master at Montrose, had returned from the Continent, and had begun to stir up religious dissension in several cities of Scotland. He was the close ally of the Scottish lords who were in the pay of Henry VIII., and he himself was the trusted messenger employed by Crichton, Lord of Brunston, to communicate to the English court the projected murder of Cardinal Beaton and the destruction of certain religious houses in Scotland.[7] The cardinal, who was probably aware of his plots as well as of his preachings, secured his arrest, and brought him to St. Andrew’s, where he was tried and executed for heresy (1546). The news of the execution created considerable commotion especially in those centres where Wishart had preached, and gave new impetus to the movement for the assassination of the cardinal. In May 1546 some of the family of Leslie, who had grievances of their own to revenge, with a number of other accomplices secured an entrance to the palace of the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s, put his servants and attendants to flight, and murdered him before any help could be summoned. The murder of Cardinal Beaton was an irreparable misfortune for the Catholic Church in Scotland. He was at once an able churchman and a patriot, determined to maintain the independence of his country against the group of pro-English traitors, who were determined to change the religion of Scotland at the bidding of Scotland’s greatest enemy. John Knox, a fanatical priest, who had gone over to the new religion, welcomed the murder of the cardinal as a veritable triumph for the gospel and as a “godly act.” He hastened to join the murderers who had taken possession of the castle of St. Andrew’s, and to whom he preached as the first reformed congregation in Scotland.[8] Henry VIII., no less jubilant for the disappearance of his strongest opponent, was not slow to assist the murderers.
But the assassination of the cardinal did not mean the triumph of the English party. It served only to embitter the feelings of the vast majority of the people, and to force the regent and queen-dowager to throw themselves more unreservedly into the arms of France. A French fleet arrived at Leith and forced the murderers assembled in the castle of St. Andrew’s to surrender. Those of them who were not fortunate enough to make their escape were taken prisoners and condemned to the French galleys. An English army led by the Duke of Somerset marched into Scotland to enforce the English demands, and especially to secure the person of the infant queen. But though it inflicted considerable havoc on Scotland, particularly on several of the religious houses, and though it overthrew the forces of the regent in the battle of Pinkie (1547), it was obliged to re-cross the borders without having secured the submission of the nation. In the following year (1548) a new French force arrived in England to assist the Scotch in their struggle against England. A Scottish Parliament renewed the alliance with France, approved of the betrothal of the young queen to the Dauphin of France, and determined to provide for the safety of her person by sending her into France. After several fruitless attempts made by the English to secure a foothold in Scotland they were obliged to give up the contest in despair, and to conclude a nine years’ peace. For so far the alliance between Catholicism and independence had won the victory against heresy and English influence (1550).
The murder of Cardinal Beaton helped to force the bishops and clergy to realise the danger of their position. They urged the regent to take stern measures in defence of the church, and what was of much more importance they attempted to set their own house in order as the best preparation for the conflict. John Hamilton, brother of the regent, was appointed Archbishop of St. Andrew’s in succession to Cardinal