BOOK
II.

timents, as to themselves, but admitted that their general and the pope approved of them."5

The Jesuits may have since disavowed such doctrines, or at least apparently so; but the question was not, in the days of Elizabeth, What their order would approve of or resolve upon, or choose to sign, one or two centuries afterwards; but, what they sanctioned, taught, or were recommending then?96

94 Le 14 May 1626, les Jesuites ont été mandez à la grand chambre. Messieurs leur ont demandé; 'Do you approve of this wicked book?' Cotton, the provincial of these provinces of Paris, accompanied by three others, answered, If it be necessary, we are ready to write against it, et d'improver all that he has said.' ib. 841.

95 The parliament said, Do you not know that this iniquitous doctrine has been approved by your general at Rome?' Answer: Yes; but we who are here, ne prouvons mais de cette imprudence; and we blame it with all our force.' Le Parl. Tell us if you believe the pope can excommunicate the king; release his subjects from their oath of allegiance, et mettre son royaume en proye. Les Jes. O gentlemen! as to excommunicating the king, he who is the eldest son of the church, will take care never to do any thing which will force the pope to this.' Le Parl. But your general, who has approved of this book, holds for infallible what it contains. Are you of a different belief?' Les Jes. 'He who is at Rome cannot do otherwise than approve of what the court of Rome approves. Le Parl. And your belief?' Les Jes. Is quite contrary. Le Parl. If you were at Rome what would you do?' Les Jes. We should do as those who are there do.' Merc. p. 842-4. When pressed further on this point, they desired time to consult together. The court granted them three days; and then on 16th March 1626, they signed a declaration, that they disavowed and detested the doctrine.' See it in Merc. Jes. 845. The parliament, the next day, ordered all the Jesuit colleges in France to subscribe a similar disavowal, as prepared by the Sorbonne, on pain of being proceeded against as traitors and disturbers of the public peace. See their second arrêt, p. 845-7; and the Sorbonne's censura, p. 847-850; and that of the university at Paris, 854-7.

6

96 I insert this remark, because, in 1761, The model of a declaration was sent to the five provincials of the Jesuits in France, by the chancellor Lamoignon; and a copy of it was desired to be returned to him, signed by the priests and young jesuits of all the colleges and houses in that kingdom,' and they all signed it, by which they stated: 'First, that they hold and profess that in no place, under no pretence of tyranny, or vexation from persecution; on no account of religion; under no other possible pretence, is it lawful, or can it be made law

XXXI.

The great danger to all existing princes who had CHAP. any differences with Rome, or who were not of the Catholic church, was not so much in these temporary publications recommending murder and treason, as in the rooted opinion of the papal hierarchy:That as no part of the priesthood was subordinate or subject to any temporal prince or power, they never could be guilty of treason to any king; because they never were his legal subjects, never answerable to his legal tribunals, and never punishable by any secular law or power.

97

ful for any person, whatever be his state or condition, to make any attempt, directly or indirectly, on the persons of sovereigns; or to speak, write, insinuate, favor, or do any other thing which can tend to endanger their safety; that they condemn and detest, as pernicious and AS DESERVING THE EXECRATION OF ALL AGES, any doctrine to the contrary, which may be found in any works that may have been composed, either by any member of this society, OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON, whosoever he may be.' Butler's Hist. Mem. of the Jesuits, p.lxxvii. This document, if it be as sincere as it is emphatic, proves that the Jesuits of 1761 are not like those of 1570 or 1588. It also affords us the authority of the Jesuits themselves, that our remarks on the conduct and principles of such men as cardinals Pole and Allen, pope Pius V. and Dr. Sanders, and their congenial characters, have not exceeded the sober and moderate truth; because no words of ours amount to more than the phrase applied by this document to such persons and their writings, 'DESERVING THE EXECRATION OF ALL AGES.' We do not wish to add to this reprobation. But have they then expunged the collect and saint-day of Pius V. from their devotional calendar?

97 Thus the Jesuit, Emmanuel Sa: The revolt of a clericus against the king is not a crime of treason, because the clericus is not the subject of a king.' Aphor. des Confess. Ed. 1590, Voc. Clericus. It was in 1604 that the parliament of Paris, by their president, Du Harley, stated to the king, · As the name and vow of the society of the Jesuits is universal, so the propositions in their doctrine are uniform. They acknowlege no superior but our holy father, the pope, to whom they are sworn to fidelity and obedience in all things. They hold it for a maxim indubitable, that he has power to excommunicate kings, and that an excommunicated king is but a tyrant; that his people may rise into insurrection against him; that with all who live in their kingdom, he who has any order, however small, in the church, whatever crime he may commit, cannot be judged guilty of treason, because they are not the king's subjects, nor triable as such. All ecclesiastics are exempt from the secular power, and may with impunity lay their

BOOK 11.

This doctrine applied even to Roman Catholic sovereigns, but still more so to all Protestant princes. These were all considered as continually reigning without right, and no sovereigns at all, because they were heretics or schismatics, and not approved of by the pope; and if excommunicated, they might be killed by any one as usurpers and tyrants.

These principles destroyed all allegiance in the subjects who held them, and all safety to their ruling sovereigns." Nor can we separate the books which teach them, from the full approbation of the rulers of the society, for it was one of their peremptory and most enforced regulations, that no publication should be made by any of its members without their general's permission." But it will be just to make the important distinction, that these were the principles of the

100

bloody hands on sovereigns, tho anointed. This is what they write, and they impugn the opinion of those who hold contrary propositions.' Remonstrances de la Cour de Parl. Merc. Jes. p. 543.

96 Andre Philopater stated this fully in 1593: It is not only certain, but a matter of faith, that every Christian prince who departs from the Catholic faith, and seeks to draw others from it, loses all right to his power and dignity. His subjects are absolved from all oaths of fidelity; and if they have the power, they may and ought to expel him from every Christian state, as an apostate and heretic.' Reponse a l'Edit d'Elizabeth, sect. 2, No 157. Bellarmin wished to limit this to those whom the pope deposed. Controv. 1. 5. c. 7. But Bridgewater, Emmanuel Sa, and others, give more latitude.

"De Thou states, that at Louviers, in 1591, the bishop of Evreux was taken, a famous theologian.' His books were secured, and among his papers was found a writing, in which he justified the assassination of Henry III. and endeavored to prove qu'il etoit permis de tuer le roi de Navarre.' v. 11, p. 362.

100 The doctrines of several eminent Jesuits, on treason and regicide, are quoted in the Resumé de la Doctrine des Jesuites, printed at Paris in 1828, from their published works; and that it is among the rules of this institution, that no book shall be published without the permission of the general. If after any corrections the author makes any corrections, he shall be severely punished. The revisers in the provinces must send their observations to Rome, and wait for the orders of the general. Those who publish without permission, shall be punished corporally.' Monclar's Compte Rendu.

XXXI.

Catholic clergy only; and not the general tenets of CHAP. the Catholic laity.

In England, the laity, while left to themselves, were usually loyal in their conduct, considered as a body; and as to their majority, whatever may have been their private wishes and sentiments; but many individuals, often of great rank and influence, were perpetually drawn off into the treasonable persuasions; and so liable were they to be so affected, that there never was a full certainty of any lay Catholic, that he would not be induced to adopt and act upon these disturbing principles, because it could not be foreseen up to what period he would keep his mind from being governed by his disaffected priesthood."

6

101

101 It was not Jesuits or the clergy only, who maintained these doctrines, for even the lawyers were drawn to their side, and wrote in their behalf. In 1588, Louis d'Orleans, an avocat, published his Reponse desVrai Catholiques François à l'avertissement des Catholiques Anglois,' and in this he maintained these abominable sentiments, and directed them also against Elizabeth.

He urges that excommunication for heresy includes, by a necessary consequence, deposition.' p. 324. That it would be inutile' without it. 326. That the council of Lateran, on which the pope founded his bulls of deprivation in 1585, gave him that power, 295-7: That Philip's elder son and presumptive heir was put to death for his heresy, p. 460, an assertion which reveals to us what the papal advocates considered at the time to be the real cause of the death of Don Carlos: That heresy in the master deprives him of all power over his Catholic serf, 285; and, like adultery, is a sufficient cause for the separation and dissolution of marriage, 284: That a heretic is worse and more detestable than a Turk, Pagan, Jew, or any infidel, p. 271: That no war is so just as against them, p. 267: That the pope and prelates have the power, against all heretic kings, of absolving their subjects from their oath of allegiance, 261: That the extirpation of heresy is the duty of a king, 254; and that Elizabeth was a natural child and a bastard, as the pope had declared her mother's marriage null, p. 50. He calls her Jezebel, p. 25, and inveighs against her laws as to the Catholics, p. 25-29. He applies all he has said of the pope's bulls against Henry IV. to those which had been issued also against Elizabeth, 306; he declares it to be certain, that both England and Ireland are the patrimony of St. Peter,' and had paid 'cens et tribut annuel' to the holy see, till Henry VIII. in 1534 revolted from it. We say the pope cannot only declare your kings inhabiles de votre royaume, but can appropriate it to himself in the case of

II.

BOOK Up to this hour, Elizabeth is considered by most, if not by all Catholics, both laity and clergy, as a queen de facto, and not de jure; as one reigning without right, and against right; and in theory, therefore, an illegitimate usurper.

heresy, as Philip Augustus confiscated to himself all John's Norman dominions, as those of his liege vassal.' p. 306. The popes may punish the felony of the English as their vassals.' p. 309. Have not the princes of the world a most corrupted judgment, to suffer these seeds of a state poison to live?' ib. Such were the doctrines and writings of the papal supporters, by which the life and crown of Elizabeth were assailed in 1588.

That these doctrines were no verbal theories or merely papal declamations; but were acted upon even by the Romish laity, whenever they promoted a lay object, we repeatedly find in the documents of this period. One instance is now before my eye. In February 1585, the earl of Derby went as ambassador to Paris, from Elizabeth to Henry III., to invest him with the order of the garter, and who received him magnificently. But Thomas Morgan, the agent of the queen of Scots at Paris, resolved, if possible, to counteract this cordial and honorable reception. He reported what he had done for that purpose, to Mary, on 25 Feb.: To the end that the English should want some part of the honor they expect, I thought good to intimate secretly into the heads of the cardinals and good prelates of the church, THE SENTENCE OF EXCOMMUNICATION denounced by Pius V. against her of England, which sithence is yet in force; and was never revoked and so I alleged, that the said cardinals and prelates might not assist with their presence any ceremony, which is put to favor the excommunicate: and for the maintenance hereof, I have delivered among them a true copy of the said sentence.' Four cardina's and many prelates met to debate on this insidious piece of malice, and thereupon the cardinal of Bourbon declared, that he thought not with his presence to assist and honor the negotiations of the queen of England. Lett. in Murd. p. 468. Now Pius V. had been dead thirteen years. This was written only the year before Mary's trial, and evinces the light in which she and her confidential agents considered Elizabeth, and the spirit in which they were acting towards this queen. It was with this person that Babington, in the July following, concerted his plot to assassinate Elizabeth; and Morgan recommended both the plot and plotter to Mary, by his letter to the queen, of 26 July 1585, printed in Murdin, p. 453.