whereby he termed us his rebels, as he termed the Low Countries*." He proceeds: "The King of Spain's designments are to invade England and Ireland. His preparation 360 sail of Spain. Two manner of forces are to be handled. Assistance to the Low Countries, and defence by force otherwise. We are bound to help them in honour. The heads of their miseries are the Spanish Inquisition by Placard, using strange tortures not to be suffered: great impositions without and against law, sending some of their people into Spain, and there tyrannized over: their noblemen done away: taking their towns, and setting tyrants over them to use them like dogs. The Queen's dealing there is warranted by Godt." Speaking of the intended invasion, the same great man remarks: "The principal root thereof, the Council of Trent, which agreed to extirpate the Christian religion, (which they term heresy) whereunto divers princes assented and bound themselves in solemn manner. Pope Pius V. sent his excommunication against her Majesty: Dr. Morton, and Mendoza, a Spanish Ambassador, bestirred them: a northern rebellion was bred, the Pope and the rest practised for the Scottish Queen, and she being acquainted proceeds by their means. Pope Paulus XIII. proceeds and sends Jesuits and seminaries to England. Pope Sixtus V. imitateth the other Popes to execute their former devices. Invasion should have been made into England last year, Parliamentary History, vol. iv., p. 313. + Ibid. 310.

*

and not unlike to be attempted this year*.? In these extracts the truth is stated both with respect to the Low Countries, and also as it regards the cause of the war. Philip even called the English his rebels: yet Dr. Lingard puts forth the falsehoods, which former Popish writers invented, as the truths of history.

In the extract from Dr. Lingard, the reader will perceive an allusion to Philip's conduct towards Elizabeth during the reign of Mary. The Queen is represented as ungrateful. This matter might be passed by, if the doctor did not quote Osborn as if the charge had been grounded on his authority. It is true that Philip interposed to save Elizabeth: but he had a selfish motive in doing so. This ought to have been stated: and, by not stating it, and referring to Osborn, who does state it, Dr. Lingard has laid himself open to the charge of dishonesty. Osborn's words are as follows: "which attempt of hers might have worse succeeded but for the protection Philip the Second afforded during the infancy of her power, flattered to it in the hope of marriage, no less than compelled out of a fear to see England possessed by the Scots, a people ever in conjunction with France, and therefore likely to prove malignant to his affairs. And as these considerations had made him solicitous of her safety during his match with her sister, they continued still so prevalent, as he did not only forbear himself, but restrained others from making use of that

Parliamentary History, vol. iv., p. 313.

advantage, so fatal a defection could not but afford*." From this passage it is clear that it was Osborn's opinion that Philip had been actuated by selfish motives in favouring Elizabeth during her sister's reign: yet Dr. Lingard's reference would lead the reader to believe, that he was of the same opinion with himself. A man who can quote an author, in such a way as this, is not to be trusted. Such, however, are Popish writers on matters affecting the character of their Church.

The reigning Pontiff was Sixtus V., one of the J prime actors, in this great movement. Twice had the Queen been excommunicated by the Pontiff's predecessors, namely, by Pius V., and Gregory XIII. The former, in his celebrated bull, absolved the Queen's subjects from their allegiance, and also exhorted all Popish princes to take up arms against her, assuring them that such a course would be highly meritorious. The bull was renewed by Gregory XIII., and by Sixtus V. The Pope takes away the Queen's royal: dignity, title, and right to the kingdoms of England and Ireland; declares her to be illegitimate and a usurper; absolves her subjects from their oaths, and threatens all persons with eternal ruin, who do not labour to bring her to punishment. And to crown the whole, the Pontiff grants a full pardon to all who ) ◄ should engage in the enterprise.

This celebrated bull was readily renewed by the Pope at the instigation of King Philip, who was con

* OSBORN'S Works, 358, 359.

tent to act as the son and servant of the Church in reducing England to obedience. It had been usual with the court of Rome to grant indulgences to those who entered into the wars which were waged against the infidels; and now the same privileges, the privileges of a crusade, were granted to those who joined the expedition against the English heretics. A fuller account of the bull will, however, be given in a subsequent page.

Philip's flatterers, those individuals who quitted England on account of the suppression of Popery, persuaded him that he had an undoubted right to the English crown. Mary, Queen of Scots, had, some time before her death, conveyed to Philip her right to the crown of England. She had not, indeed, the power to make such a disposition of her right but such was the view of the Church of Rome. Mary saw that no other means could be devised for the restoration of Popery. The doctrine of the Church of Rome is this, that heretics are unworthy to reign: Philip, therefore, put forward another claim in addition to the will or desire of Queen Mary. He was the nearest Popish heir to the throne after the Queen of Scots, being descended from a daughter of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, fourth son of King Edward III*. Thus he was influenced by various motives: he was himself (descended from the house of Lancaster: Mary of Scotland had pretended to make over to him her own right or interest in the crown of England: and, above * RAPIN, ii. 145.

all, the Pope had deprived the Queen of her kingdom, and bestowed it upon King Philip. The last claim was deemed the strongest by the King: at all events he chose to accept the kingdom from the Pope, and to hold it as a fee from the holy see. On this point Dr. Lingard, who finds it necessary to speak in a style different from what was adopted formerly, affects to censure King Philip. "Of all men, the Spanish sovereign should have been the last to acknowledge in the pontiff the right of disposing of the crowns of princes. In former times he had not hesitated to declare war against Paul IV., and by his general, the Duke of Alva, had dictated the terms of peace in the Vatican. Revenge and ambition taught him a different lesson. In confidence he communicated his object to Sixtus V., the reigning Pope, and solicited his co-operation in an attempt, which had for one of its objects the restoration of the papal authority in England*." Two things are admitted by Dr. Lingard: the one, that Philip did acknowledge the Pontiff's deposing power: the other, that one of the objects of the proposed invasion was the restoration of Popery. It is admitted by Papists, therefore, that Sixtus V. claimed the power of deposing Elizabeth: and has the Roman Pontiff ever renounced that claim? As it respects the second point, can Dr. Lingard, as an honest man, assert that there were more than two objects contemplated by Philip, namely, the restoration of

* LINGARD, vol. v., p. 489.