"balance." Why then have you dwelt so little on the edifying parts of the history of the romancatholic church, and so much on its misfortunes? What should you think of a painter, who, professing to give a view of the Alps, should keep its magnificent scenery wholly in the background, and bring nothing prominently in sight, but the few stagnant marshes in its vicinage?

XII. 7.

Doctor Southey's Abuse of former and present Catholic Historical Writers.


You say little on the subject of the divorce; but, when mention the execution of Anne Boleyn, you tell us, that "the romanists were, in that age, "so accustomed to falsehood, that they could not "abstain from it, even when truth might have served their cause. With characteristic effrontery, "they asserted, that her mother and her sister had "both been mistresses of the king, and that she "was his own daughter.

"In this spirit the histories of our reformation were composed, till they perceived that such "coarse calumnies could no longer be palmed 66 upon the world, and then they past into an in"sidious strain, little less malicious, and not more "faithful."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Henry's connexion with the mother of Anne Boleyn is rejected by doctor Lingard; but the connexion between Henry and Mary, the sister of the unfortunate Anne, admits of no doubt. The mo


narch's connexion with the mother of Anne is problematical the argument for it rests principally on the strong assertion of Saunders, and the inferences to be drawn from the marked care and attention which the monarch constantly bestowed on Anne, from the time of her birth; and from the expensive education, and the splendid establishment which she received from him, and for which no other reason can be assigned. Burnet replied to Saunders; le Grand to Burnet; and le Grand's arguments are powerful. But crimes should never be believed without strong, and seldom without positive evidence. This, in the present case, appears to be wholly wanting; and cardinal Pole's total silence upon the charge, in his acrimonious invectives against Henry, is favourable to the monarch. I do not believe the tale: but I cannot think that the historians, who asserted it, deserve the words "fiendish malignity," which you bestow upon them. If they deserve it, what epithet do those deserve, who, in the days of James 11, invented or propagated the story of the warming-pan?

I know of no catholic writer who merits the strong expressions which, in the passage I have cited

from your work, you have applied, without any ex

ception, to all our former and all our present historians of the reformation. You know the great and deserved celebrity of "Doctor Milner's Letters to "Doctor Sturges;" the greatest part of them is of an historical nature; and there never has been a more powerful attack on the characters of the persons, by whom the reformation was primitively

established and supported, than in this work. It appeared in 1800; and thus it has been twentyfour years before the public: seven editions of it have been published.

Can you point out in it one instance of that "falsehood," that "coarse calumny," those "insi"dious strains," that "characteristic effrontery," that "malice," that "insidiousness," or that "faith"lessness," with which you charge our historians in the sentence which I have transcribed from your work?

You probably are acquainted with doctor Milner's "End of Controversy," published in 1818, and now in its third edition; the ablest exposition of the doctrines of the roman-catholic church, on the articles contested with her by protestants; and the ablest statement of the proofs by which they are supported, and of the historical facts with which they are connected, that has appeared in our language. You probably have heard of the "Reply "to it," published by the reverend Richard Grier, vicar of Templebodane, in Ireland, and of doctor Milner's "Vindication," published in 1822. Can you point out in "the End of Controversy," or the "Vindication of it," even a single passage, to which even one of the opprobrious expressions in your work can be justly applied? or can you point out a single passage objected to by Mr. Grier, in which doctor Milner has not triumphantly refuted him?

Doctor Lingard's history is evidently not unknown to you. Does he not appear, in every part of it, to have consulted original writers and docu

ments? Does he not uniformly express himself in the most explicit terms? Does he not regularly mention the dates of every occurrence related by him? Does he not constantly cite the authorities upon which his relations are founded? Is not hist language uniformly temperate? Yet, in the unqualified generality of your opprobrious words, is his excellent history included!

One passage in it--and one only-you parti-cularly advert to:-" It is fit," you say, "that "the reader should know in what manner the re"cent catholic historian, doctor Lingard, speaks "of lord Cobham's trial, before the convocation, at "which Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, presided; he says, that Lord Cobham's conduct was as arrogant and insulting, as that of his judge "was mild and dignified.' It is fitting, indeed, "that we should know in what manner an English "catholic historian speaks of such transactions in "these times."We cannot think the three last words of this sentence,-you yourself print them in italics, are used with good-natured intentions towards us.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


The best account of what passed at lord Cobham's trial, is given in the Acts of the Convocation, published by Wilkins t. If I could place the volume and the pages before my readers, I should be satisfied and silent as every person, who perused them, would acknowledge the accuracy of doctor Lingard's representation. No insulting, no harsh


* Vol. 1, p. 391, note. ››
+ Concilia, vol. 3, p. 353--357.

expression, was uttered by the archbishop; his addresses to lord Cobham were uniformly decorous, dignified, and mild. He adjourned the court for four days, to give lord Cobham time for reflection and defence. Was any thing like this humanity exhibited on the trials of the innocent catholics, in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and her three protestant successors?

Lord Cobham had three times refused to obey the process of the court requiring his appearance; he had fortified his castle to prevent its being served upon him; and, ultimately, he was apprehended by force. When, at length, he was produced in court, he declined giving explicit answers on the points on which he was interrogated: “I "believe," he said, "all that my Lord God would "I should believe."-" Such faith," you remark, "was not sufficient, under the papal tyranny, to "save him from the flames." Was it sufficient to save from the rack or gibbet the catholic sufferers in this kingdom for their religion in any Tudor or Stuart reign? Would it have saved the anabaptists, who suffered in the reign of Elizabeth? or the arians, who suffered in the reign of James? Would it have satisfied any of the judges, who lately tried the Carliles? or the magistrates, who lately committed Hale? Lord Cobham repeatedly denied the jurisdiction of the court who tried him; compared his judges to the Pharisees, to Ananias, to

* In an article of the Quarterly Review for last December, the writer, who probably is known to you, classes the Evangelicals with the Essenes,-the Socinians with the Sadducees,and the Roman-catholics, (whom he politely terms Papists), with

[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »