against Elizabeth's heavy yoke was, to say the very least, as justifiable as the rising of the Netherlands against the Spanish throne, which was continually supported by England, and was to Philip cause sufficient for a war against Elizabeth? Had not the Catholics of England at least as good cause for attempting rebellion against Elizabeth, by whose tyranny their most sacred interests were violated, as the Greeks for rising against the Turks, and the Poles against Russia ?6

Roberto Ridolfi of Florence, who lived in England, was commissioned by the captive Mary Queen of Scots in 1571 to obtain her freedom from the Pope and the King of Spain.7 Pius V., who had her freedom much at heart, was deeply interested in the envoy, who seemed, moreover, well acquainted with the state of things in England; the Pope gave him a letter to King Philip, in which he expressed the interest he felt ; he also earnestly commended the release of the Queen of Scots to the Catholic king through his nuncio the Archbishop of Rossano. But when and where did the Pope hire an assassin? Leaving out of the question the fact that Ridolfi's design of assassination has never been proved, there is not the smallest proof that the Pope, who was so deeply concerned for the Queen of Scots, in any way even favoured, far less instigated, such a plan, or that he desired means to be employed so wholly unsuited to the noble end of the release of the unhappy queen. It is fortunate that the accusers of St. Pius are not judges in a criminal court; for by their mode of procedure, and with their idea of judicial proof, there would every day be imminent danger of judicial murder.

1 Huber, p. 50. Also Döllinger, in the statement of March 13, 1872. 2 Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II. t. ii. p. lvi. seq., gives many evidences of the sanctity of Pius V. Cf. also Ranke, Hist. of Popes, i. 350-354; iii. 307-309 (Germ. ed.); and Falloux, Hist. de St. Pie V. Paris, 1843.

3 Huber, p. 51.

4 Ranke, Englische Gesch. Berlin, 1859, vol. i. p. 376.

5 Ib. pp. 372, 375, 501.

It is remarkable how severely the rising of Catholic nations in favour of their legitimate rulers has been condemned by the liberal enemies of he Church, who extolled the attempt made against Ferdinand II. of

Naples, the Duke of Parma and others, and the dethroning of the Italian princes since 1859; and who have ever sought to justify the revolutionary unification of Italy. The Spanish rising of 1868 against Isabella was justified by them, and they even placed a son of Victor Emmanuel on the throne of St. Ferdinand; but Carlist risings are in their eyes merely wicked rebellions.

Gachard, Correspondance de Philippe II. t. ii. 180 seq.

Mignet, Hist. de Marie Stuart, t. ii. App. p. 423.

Vide Germ. ed. of F. A. Mignet's Hist. of Mary Stuart, Leipzig, 1851, c. ii. pp. 279-291.

§ 7.

The increasing persecution of Catholics in England under King James led in November 16051 to the notorious Gunpowder Plot, and upon its failure all Catholics, even those who had no share in it, suffered grievously for the guilt of a few. Father Garnet's trial was evidently conducted so as to prove, cost what it might, the guilt of the Catholic priesthood, and in particular of the Jesuits. In his examination contradictory statements were recorded which he did not acknowledge as his own; the rack was freely employed to force the desired confession from him and from the other accused; no heed was paid to the binding nature of the seal of confession for a Catholic priest, nor to the self-possessed and conscientious behaviour of Father Garnet in his most difficult position. Had other persons instead of Jesuits been concerned, this trial would have received a far different colouring from that in which men now endeavour to represent it. Jesuitical plots at that time, and long after, played a great part in England, even when they were such arrant fabrications as the Titus Oates plot in 1678.5 What effectual measures the Jesuits could have taken to hinder the Gunpowder Plot without breaking the seal of confession, which is binding on a Catholic priest under all circumstances, has as yet never been made known.

1 The Calvinists of Antwerp had set the example by their attempt on the Duke of Parma. Crétineau-Joly, Hist. de la Comp. de Jésus, t. iii. c. ii. p. 78 seq.

2 Huber, pp. 57-59. Cf. Döllinger, A. Z. March 15, 1872.

3 Lingard's History of England, ix. p. 59 seq. Riffel, Die Aufhebung des Jesuitenordens, 2d ed. pp. 306-311, note. The condition of Catholics

under James I., Father Gerard's Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, by John Morris, S.J., London, 1871. It appears from the documents made known by Crétineau-Joly, t. iii. p. 83 seq., that the conspirators most feared hindrances on the part of the Jesuits, and also the death of innocent Catholics, which could not be avoided if the catastrophe occurred; that they put their questions figuratively and ambiguously before Fr. Garnet; that even before the end of the trial the report was spread on the Continent that Fr. Garnet was the chief instigator of the plot, and the endeavour was being made to throw the blame altogether upon the Jesuits.

As early as the reign of Elizabeth many spies were kept, who searched the houses of Jesuits, even on the Continent, to find out pretended plots. De Thou, Hist. 1. viii. a. 1580, p. 541 (French trans.).

Ranke, Engl. Gesch. vol. v. 1865, p. 76 seq. Nota in Defens. Cleri Gallic. 1. iv. c. xxiii. p. 388.

§ 8.

The oath of allegiance imposed by parliament upon English Catholics in consequence of the Gunpowder Plot1 was in spirit precisely analogous to the oath of supremacy. Besides designating the king as the highest ruler, which implied in this context that the Pope was a subordinate authority, Catholics taking this oath were forced expressly to acknowledge in words that the said oath, which treated of questions of faith, was demanded of them lawfully by a legitimate and plenary authority. This was nothing less than to acknowledge in a temporal prince authority to decide and guide the faithful in matters of faith.2 Moreover, it is hurtful to faith and the welfare of souls to anticipate the judgment of the Church, and to condemn as impious and heretical an opinion which the Church has not thought good to condemn, which many pious and learned men hold in all good faith, and which has had many most distinguished defenders in the schools of theology. English Catholics in taking the oath of allegiance were guilty of sin; because in the oath the doctrine that the Church, in certain cases, especially for apostasy and heresy, can declare sovereigns to be deposed and their rights forfeited, was condemned as impious and heretical, and thus the Church was made guilty of tolerating heresy, and her very essence was attacked. The Catholics of England, like those of France at a later time, might indeed hold this doctrine to be doubtful, not in accordance with revelation, and even to be

false; but to condemn it as impious and heretical without awaiting the judgment of the Church was a grievous wrong, violating Christian love and every principle of the Church, and appears even to Bossuet to be exaggerated and rash. The oath moreover attributed to the Roman Church, only in order to make her hated, the doctrine that any private person might put to death at will an excommunicated prince,5 a doctrine which was at that time rejected and stigmatised by almost all theologians. Impartial Protestant historians have fully acknowledged that the Apostolic See had good ground for rejecting the form of the oath. Thus Ranke says (will he next be called a Jesuit in disguise) that had this oath been accepted the supremacy of the king would have been in fact acknowledged, and the adherence of the English Catholics to the Papacy would have come to an end."

་

Huber, p. 60.

2 Gosselin, ii. pp. 282-288.

3 Cardinal Barberini, in reply to a Scotchman, is said to have declared: Francis morem non esse, ut in hujusmodi quaestionibus Romanos consulant; consultos vero ab Anglis hoc sine dubio resoluturos quod juri suo magis congrueret, interim vero theologis Britannis fas esse sicut et Francis, ut jus suum persequantur' (Remonstrantia Hibernorum a R. P. Caron, P. i. c. iv. § 4, p. 8, ad Calcem. t. ii.; Tractatuum des droits et libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane, t. ii. ed. 1731). The note to Bossuet, 1. iv. c. xxiii. p. 389, adds: Optime Barberinus et candide.'

Defens. Decl. Cleri Gall. P. i. 1. iv. c. xxiii. p. 387: Et quidem ab ea sententia abhorrere, prospectis melius rebus, uti nos Franci facimus, erat licitum ac bonum; damnare ut haereticam, absque Ecclesiae auctoritate, nimium et temerarium videbatur.'

* The words are: 'Je jure encore que j'abhorre de tout mon cœur comme impie et hérétique cette damnable doctrine et assertion, que les princes excommuniéz ou privéz de leurs états par le Pape peuvent être déposéz ou tuéz par leurs sujets, ou par quelque autre personne que ce soit' (Rapin Thoyras, Histoire de l'Angleterre, t. vii. 1. xviii. a. 1606). Ranke, Engl. Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 544, 545.

$9.

Paul V. is charged with having sacrificed the reunion of England with Rome to his own ambition for political power, and reference is made to a diplomatic document of 22d July 1609 in the National Library in Paris. But is the charge proved?

The document does not treat of claims to political power, but of the setting aside of ecclesiastical rules in order to stigmatise a doctrinal opinion held in high esteem in the Church, and perhaps shared by the Pope himself. The French ambassador in Rome, M. de Brèves, announced that James had desired to recognise the Pope as the first Bishop and Head of the Church, if only he would renounce the pretension that Popes have authority to depose kings; and that the Pope had declared himself unable to do so 'sans être taché d'hérésie." It may still be doubted whether the French diplomatist had got hold of the Pope's exact words; for diplomatists seldom enter into theological distinctions, and even at the present time in such circles the Syllabus of 1864 is spoken of as though all the propositions condemned therein in globo were to be considered as so many heresies. There was no formal declaration drawn up on the part of Paul V. Whoever defends an opinion approximate to heresy may be said to be 'stained by heresy,' and theologians of that day set down the denial of the indirect power as proxima haeresi. In any case, it went against the conscience of the Pope to suffer the condemnation of an opinion defended by the most renowned theologians and truest adherents of the Holy See, knowing the injurious consequences which would ensue from such a sentence; even had he not personally shared this opinion, he could not at that time have left it exposed to its enemies. This is shown by a glance at the theological literature of that day. Any one too who is acquainted with the condition of England under James I. must be aware that the king, even had he desired it, could never have brought about a reunion with Rome; the recognition of the Pope as first Bishop and Head of the Church2 would have been altogether illusory, and somewhat like the later idea of Charles II., who desired a reunion with Rome, but without a complete restoration of the Pope's authority, and retaining as much independence as possible for his Anglican Church.3 James I. was still further from the Roman See, and held to the maxim uttered on his accession to the throne: 'I make law and gospel as pleases me.'4 Rome may have been unwilling openly to call in question either James's good intentions or the suffici