« VorigeDoorgaan »
that the jesuits were leagued with government, to withhold the catholics from asserting their rights.
The rack, as usual, was resorted to.—John Owen, a servant, was put to the torture, when he was labouring under a rupture : his bowels burst; he was then removed, taken to bed, and died soon afterwards.-Father Gerard, a jesuit, was, without the slightest evidence of his guilt, sent to the Tower; his hands were screwed into two iron rings, and by those he was fastened to a column, at a height that did not allow his feet to touch the ground: He was kept in this excruciating torture during one hour; a block was then placed under his feet, and he remained in that state during five more hours; he was then removed. On the next day the same torture was inflicted upon him, and he fainted from excess of pain : He was recalled to sense, by pouring vinegar down his throat, but the torture was continued : On the following day he was ordered to it for the third time, but the
governor of the Tower interfered, and prevented it. He was never brought to trial, and, after some time, escaped from prison. After he had reached the Continent, he, in the most solemn manner, protested his absolute innocence of the charge.--Father Oldcorne, another jesuit, was racked five times, and -upon one occasion, with particular severity, during several hours: Not even the slightest evidence was produced of his having been concerned in the plot, or of his having been acquainted with any circumstance connected with it; he was, however, tried for misprision of treason, found guilty, hanged, cut down alive, and embowelled.—Guy Fawkes was put to the torture: By a document in the State-paper office, king James gave particular directions for the management of his torture ; he desired that it might proceed from less to greater severity, -per gradus ad ima,-his majesty's own expression.
In respect to father Garnet's complicated and melancholy tale, a full account of it is necessary to make it understood ; I must therefore beg leave to refer you for it, to " the Historical Memoirs of “ the English, Irish and Scottish Catholics *.”
But I beg leave to add, that Mr. Peel having granted me, in the most liberal manner, permission to examine the documents respecting the gunpowder conspiracy, in the State-paper office, I have availed myself of it at different times. The result of my researches has been favourable to the catholic cause : I have communicated it to doctor Lingard, and I therefore wait, with great impatience, for the next volume of his elegant, accurate, and impartial work. I must use this opportunity to thank Mr. Peel, for the free access which he gave me to the State-paper office. A roman-catholic
A roman-catholic may be permitted to wish, that his opposition to catholic emancipation was much less able; but he cannot wish it more honourable, or more liberal.
Whatever were the circumstances of the plot, the penal laws against the catholics were carried into execution with great severity. Eighteen priests, and seven laymen, suffered death for the mere exercise of their religion : one hundred and twenty-six priests were banished, and the heavy fine of twenty pounds was exacted, with the greatest rigour, from every catholic, who did not attend the service of the established church.
* Ch. xliv. xlv. xlvi.
The Oath of Allegiance required by James I. from the
English Roman-catholics. You mention the beatification of father Garnet; - then inform us, that “ the parliament thonght “ it necessary that an oath of allegiance should be “ taken from every catholic;"—that the pope
forbade them to take it, as being “ injurious to his “ authority, and destructive to their own souls;" that it was however taken without apparent scruple « or reluctance : but that catholic writers of the “ first eminence abroad maintained the papal pre“ tensions in their whole extent;" and that “the “ protestants were thus confirmed in their opinion, “ that the doctrine of equivocation, which was pub
licly taught by the roman-casuists, and the belief “ of the pope's absolute power, rendered it impos“ sible to confide in the oaths of men, whose con“ science was not in their own keeping.” Permit me to say, that this representation contains many mistakes.
Father Garnet has not been beatified. Of this, catholic-writers have more than once explicitly assured the public in works of celebrity, and in considerable circulation. Perhaps you are not aware of what constitutes a beatification: When the
canonization of any holy person is solicited, a commission is issued by the Congregation of Rites, for the purpose of ascertaining the general opinion of his sanctity and miracles. If the report of the commissioners be favourable to them, the process for the canonization is instituted: it proceeds through various stages, until it is ascertained, by the most solemn and strict proofs, that the party possessed the virtues of faith, hope and charity, in an eminent, or,—to use the language of the proceeding, in an heroic degree; and that miracles were worked by him, or through his intercession. This proof being obtained, a consistory of cardinals is convened; a very solemn deliberation ensues; and if the consistory is of opinion that the proof required is satisfactory, the cause proceeds; and then, but not until then, the pope pronounces the party to be
among the blessed.” This is termed “beatifi“ cation.” Here the process frequently stops.—A further process, in which proof of other miracles is required, leads it to canonization. When he is beatified, he is termed “ blessed;" when he is canonized, he is termed “ sanctified,” or “ saint." Now, no process for the canonization of father Garnet has ever been begun; he has not therefore been beatified : it is even irregular to call him “ blessed.” If any roman-catholic writér has applied that epithet to him, (which I think doubtful), he unquestionably intended to use the word in its ordinary, not in its appropriate sense.
As to the oath of allegiance:-Some Transalpine divines carried their opinions in favour of the papal
power so high, as to maintain that the pope possessed, by divine right, and directly, supreme power, both in temporal and spiritual concerns: others lowered this pretension considerably, by maintaining that the pope, by divine right, possessed directly no temporal power; but that, when the great good of any state, or any individual required it, he might exercise temporal power, or cause it to be exercised over that state or individual. This gave him, indirectly, temporal power in spiritual concerns. At the time, when James proposed his oath of allegiance, this opinion was maintained by many respectable roman-catholics, and some, who disbelieved it, thought the authority of these so great, as to make it unsafe to disclaim it upon oath, or with any harsh expressions. The opinion is now abandoned in every part of the world, except the precinct within the walls of the Vatican: the English, Irish and Scottish roman-catholics have solemnly disclaimed it by their oaths.
The persons, who took the oath prescribed by James I, disclaimed the pope's deposing power absolutely, and without any qualification; and abjured, “as impious and heretical, the damnable doctrine, “ that princes excommunicated, or deprived by the
pope, might be deposed or murdered by their “ subjects, or any other whatsoever.” The pope, by two briefs, forbade the catholics to take the oath; and there is no doubt, although he did not venture to avow it, that it was on account of its disclaimer of his deposing power.-I wish that I could say wiìh you, that “it was taken by the catholics with