"succession, was written, with a view, as a letter "of Parsons says, to open the eyes of the nation "to their main interest, to which the queen's

66

66

policy forbade them to attend. This book, com"monly attributed to Parsons, was the joint pro"duction of several: cardinal Allen, and Sir Francis Englefield, were probably among the principal "compilers; and in the several letters in which "Parsons mentions it, he calls it the work of wise "and good men; but he no where claims a share "of it for himself. This may have been a pru"dential reserve; and as I think it probable that "he concurred with the others in the composition, "I take it to be certain that he admitted and "approved the principles and sentiments which "the book delivers. In judging the men who "professed these sentiments and principles, it ❝ would be very unfair to forget that they followed "the general maxims of their age, in which our " improved theories of government were unknown; "and that they applied their principles to an ap "proaching and doubtful event, in which they "were highly interested, and on which no superior "authority had yet laid down a law, that com "manded universal submission."

3. This is a sketch by the hand of a master:a more candid account of the inoffensive conduct of the general body of the catholics of England, in respect to the bull of Pius the fifth; or of the deplorable activity of a few, in recommending the principles, upon which it was framed, and promot

ing the measures which it suggested, cannot be given. It shows that several clergymen, and the general body of the laity, disapproved of both. This is also shown by several publications, which appeared in the reigns of Elizabeth, and of her immediate successor; and by the admissions of Camden, her historiographer. From these, it is evident, that the catholics, in general, wished to confine the pope to the spiritual government, which St. Peter received from Christ; and blamed those who ascribed to the successors of that apostle, a right to interfere in temporal concerns, or to enforce their spiritual authority by temporal power. Several too, who

acquiesced in the bull, thought it unwise to circulate it; deprecated its being put into activity; and lamented the iuterference of cardinal Allen, and of father Parsons, in seconding the views of Philip the second, and disturbing the succession.

66

Soon after the accession of the queen, the following quære *, was framed," Whether queen Eliza, "beth was divested of the kingdoms by the deposing "bull of Pius the fifth? Or by any other sentence passed or to be passed? Or her subjects dis "charged from their allegiance ?"—To this ques tion the following answer was given; "Notwithstanding this bull, or any other declaration or "sentence of the pope, past or to be past; we "hold queen Elizabeth to be the lawful queen of England and Ireland; and that obedience and

* Caron's Remonstrantia Hibernorum contra Lovanienses ultramontanasque censuras, c. 5, §. 4.

fealty are due to her as such, by all her English "and Irish subjects."

Burleigh, in his Execution of Justice, says, that Heath, archbishop of York; and the bishops Poole, Tunstall, White, Oglethorpe, Thurlby, Turberville, and many abbots and deans, acknowledged the same opinion.

Father Caron also mentions, that the Apology for the Catholics, printed at Douay, and presented to James the first, 1604, declared, that "those pre❝lates held themselves to be ready, for the defence "of the queen, to expose, and oppose themselves "with all their strength, to any external power, "whether of the pope, or procured by the pope." Cardinal Allen himself, as we are informed by Pattenson, Image of Churches, p. 503, disapproved of the excommunication, and wished the "matter had been left to God."

66

XIX. 3.

66

Unsatisfactory answers of the Priests to the Six Questions on the deposing power of the Pope, proposed to them by the Queen's Commissioners: Division of opinions of the Clergy on this subject.

THE writer has now before him, "a briefe his"torie of the glorious martyrdom of twelve revé

"rend priests, executed within these twelve months, "for the confession and defence of the catholic "faith, but under the false pretence of treason, with "a note of sundry things that befell them in their "life and imprisonment, with a preface, declaring "their innocence, set forth by such as were conver"sant with them in their life, and present at their "arraignment, 8vo. 1582."--The twelve priests who suffered, were, Mr. Everard Haunse, who was executed on the 31st day of July 1581: Father Edmund Campion, a short account of whose trial we have given: Mr. Ralph Shirwin, and Mr. Alexander Bryan, who were executed on the 1st of December 1581:-Mr. Thomas Forde, Mr. John Shert, and Mr. Johnson, who were executed on the 28th day of May 1582-Mr. William Filbee, Mr. Luke Kerbie, and Mr. Lawrence Richardson, alias Johnson, and Mr. Thomas Cottom, who were executed on the 30th of the same month :-and Mr. John Paine, who was executed on the 2nd day of April 1582. After trial, they underwent a private examination. The persons who presided at it, were Popham, the queen's attorney-general, and Egerton, the queen's solicitor-general, and two civilians, doctor Lewis and doctor Hammond:

~66

They put the six following questions to the prisoners:

"13th May, 1582." "1. Whether the bull of Pius quintus against the queene's maiestie, be a lawfull sentence; and ought to be obeyed by the subiects of England?

66

"2. Whether the queene's maiestie be a lawfull queene; and ought to be obeyed by the subiects of England, notwithstanding the bul of Pius quintus, or any bul or sentence that the pope "hath pronounced, or may pronounce, against her "maiestie?

166

"3. Whether the pope have, or had power to "authorize the Earles of Northumberlande, and "Westmorland, and other her maiestie's subjects, "to rebell, or take armes against her maiestie, or 66 to authorize doctour Saunders, or others, to "inuade Irelande, or any other her dominions, and "to beare armes against her; and whether they did "therein lawfully, or no?

66

4. Whether the pope have power to discharge any of her highness subiects, or the subiects of any "christian prince, from their allegiance, or othe of "obedience, to her maiestie, or to their prince for "any cause?

66 5. Whether the said doctour Saunders, in his "booke of the visible monarchie of the church, and "doctour Bristowe, in his booke of motives,

66

(writing in allowance, commendation, and con"firmation of the said bul of Pius quintus), have "therein taught, testified, or mainteined, a truth, "or falsehood?

"6. If the pope doe by his bull, or sentence, pro“nounce her maiesty to be depriued; and no law"full queene, and her subiects to be discharged of "their allegiance, and obedience, unto her; and "after the pope, or any other by his appointment, "and authoritie, doe inuade this realme, which part