what is termed the "admonition of Queen Elizabeth." In the very year in which the act enjoining the oath of supremacy was passed, Elizabeth published a body of "Regulations of the discipline and order of the Church.' In one of those she professes to notice the misconstructions of her claims to the spiritual supremacy.' Our next landmark is the Bull of Pius V., in which the Pope, 'out of the fulness of his Apostolic power, declares Elizabeth, being an heretic, and a favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ . . . and to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects and people of the said kingdoms, and all others which have in any sort sworn unto her to be for ever absolved from any such oath, and all manner of duty, of dominion, allegiance and obedience; and we also do, by the authority of these presents, absolve them and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended right to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid; and we do command and interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, people and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her monitions, mandates and laws, and those which shall do to the contrary we do innodate with the like sentence of anathema.'† Here was indeed a good case against every Catholic in the realm a case that has never been repudiated at the source from which it emanated. In 1602 thirteen priests signed a protestation of allegiance, directed against such radical distrust of their loyalty as the claims set forth in the Bull of Pius V. seem to justify. In this act the signatories declare that though 'the pope should also excommunicate every one born within her majesty's dominions that would not forsake the foresaid defence of her majesty and her realms, and take part with such conspirators or invaders; in these and all other such like cases, we do think ourselves, and all the lay-catholics born within her majesty's dominions, bound in conscience not to obey this or any such like censure.' They end with a profession of loyalty and obedience to the Holy See, and two of the signatories suffered death for their faith. The oath of allegiance framed by James I. declares Historical Memoirs.' Vol. I. pp. 158, 159. ↑ Ibid., pp. 194, 195. 'that the pope, neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church or see of Rome, or by any other means, with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the king, or to dispose of any of his majesty's kingdoms or dominions; or to authorize any foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his countries; or to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his majesty; or to give license or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his majesty's royal person, state or government." Now the object of this oath was, in the words of the king, 'to make a separation not only between all my good subjects in general and unfaithful traitors. . . but especially to make a separation between so many of my subjects who, though they were otherwise popishly affected, yet retained, in their hearts, the print of their natural duty to their sovereign.'t This oath was condemned by Pope Paul V., and Catholics were forbidden to take it. This is not the place to enter on a discussion of the ensuing controversy, but it is plain that a chief question in point was that of the deposing power of the Holy See; and, once more, it was a charge of doubtful loyalty under which English Catholics continued to lie. As Charles Butler remarks: 'It is greatly to be lamented that, when on this and other similar occasions, the popes condemned the formularies of religious or civil opinion, which were tendered to the English Catholics, or framed by them, they did not specify the particular propositions to which they objected, and confine their condemnation of the formulary to these. 'In the dreadful state of persecution in which the English Catholics were then placed, and in which an absolute and unequivocal disclaimer of the pope's deposing power might have served them so essentially . . . was it quite just or quite humane for any pope to pronounce a formal condemnation of it?' We now pass on to the time when English Catholics, and particularly Catholic laymen, began to take more independent action in the matter of their own political liberation: times of which the writer of the Memoirs, from which the above quotations are taken, had personal and direct knowledge. In 1778 the Roman Catholic peers and commoners of Great Britain addressed a petition to His Majesty King George III. *Historical Memoirs.' Vol. I., p. 311. † Ibid., p. 305. In this petition they plead, first of all, for the right to approach the king in order to declare their allegiance and affection. They state that their dissent from the legal establishment in matters of religion is 'purely conscientious' and not political. They express their utter detestation of the designs and views of any foreign power against the dignity of his majesty's crown.' The Relief Act of 1778, of which this petition was the prelude, was coupled with an oath of which Charles Butler gives the text; of which, significantly, his adversary, John Milner, in his attack on the Memoirs,* makes no mention whatever ; and which the Rev. W. J. Amherst, S.J., also overlooks in his account of the Relief Act of 1778. Of this oath Charles Butler writes as follows: 'As soon as the terms of it were arranged, to the satisfaction of his majesty's ministers, it was communicated to the four Vicars Apostolic, and admitted by them all. Lord Petre, and some other gentlemen, waited upon the late Bishop Challoner, and put it into his hands. He perused it, with great deliberation, and explicitly sanctioned it. He observed, however, that it contained some expressions contrary to the Roman style; that these might create difficulties at Rome, if Rome were consulted upon it before-hand; but that Rome would not object to the oath after the bill was passed. He therefore recommended to the gentlemen, who waited upon him, to avoid all unnecessary delay in procuring the act. This fact is known to every person who has lived in habits of intimacy with Lord Petre... the writer himself has frequently heard Lord Petre mention it.' Any person taking this oath did thereby 'renounce, ' reject and abjure the opinion that princes excommunicated 'by the pope and council, or by any authority whatsoever, * See 'Supplementary Memoirs' by the Rev. J. M., D.D. †These Vicars Apostolic were bishops in partibus, and carried out the episcopal duties of the Church of England until the re-establishment of the hierarchy. Historical Memoirs.' Vol. II., pp. 82, 83. Of this same Lord. Petre, Charles Butler relates the following anecdote: In 1798, when there was fear of invasion, he raised, equipped, and trained, at his own expense, with leave of the government, a corps of 250 men for His Majesty's service, and asked that his son might be appointed to their command. His religion, however, was objected; so Lord Petre placed his corps at the disposal of the government, and his son served in it as a private. VOL. 228. NO. 466. Y may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any person whatsoever." Charles Butler remarks: A more complete and unreserved disclaimer of the deposing doctrine, than is found in this oath, language cannot express.'* On May 3rd, 1787, at a general meeting of English Catholics, it was decided to form a committee' to watch over and promote 'the public interest of the English Roman Catholics.' This Committee was constituted, in the first instance, of laymen, viz., Lord Petre, Lord Stourton, Mr. Throckmorton, Sir Henry Charles Englefield, Mr. Fermor, Lord Clifford, Sir John Lawson, Sir William Jerningham, Mr. Thomas Hornyold, and Mr. John Towneley. These were the names of men who had borne with persecution and suffered under disabilities. They felt that the time had come to take their part once more in the life of their country. Mr. Charles Butler, writer of the Memoirs, was their secretary, and two bishops and a Benedictine monk were soon added to their numbers. Through this Committee a Memorial was presented to Mr. Pitt in 1788, on behalf of the Roman Catholic body in England. The Memorial makes reference to the oath above cited, and afterwards, in pursuance of Mr. Pitt's suggestion, three questions were submitted to certain Catholic Universities abroad, to which the following answers were obtained : 'I. That the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, has not, nor have, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England. 2. That the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, cannot absolve or dispense his majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance upon any pretext whatsoever.' The third answer regards the keeping of faith with heretics.† These events were followed by the signing of a Protestation, which became afterwards the subject of much dispute. The fact, however, remains that it was signed by the Catholic Committee, and also by the Vicars Apostolic. In this Protestation the Catholics of England once more repudiate the doctrine that the Pope has the right to absolve subjects from their *Historical Memoirs, Vol. II., pp. 84, 85. † Ibid., II., p. 108. allegiance to their sovereign, or to oblige them to take up arms against the government of their land. They declare: 'Whereas we positively deny that we hold any such obedience to the pope, and general council, or to either of them. . . . We acknowledge no infallibility in the Pope; and we neither apprehend nor believe that our disobedience to any such orders or decrees (should any such be given or made) could subject us to any punishment whatsoever. And we hold and insist that the Catholic Church has no power that can, directly or indirectly, prejudice the rights of Protestants, inasmuch as it is strictly confined to the refusing to them a participation in her sacraments and other religious privileges of her communion, which no church (as we conceive) can be expected to give to those out of her pale and which no person out of her pale will, we suppose, ever require.'* This Protestation was followed by the framing of a new oath, which was condemned by the Vicars Apostolic, though it is difficult to differentiate it from the Protestation which it embodied. It was at this stage of the proceedings that the lay and clerical elements of the Catholic party began to display their natural characteristics, and a figure arose, in the person of John Milner, to represent the traditional principles of the official Church. For a further account of the controversy readers may be referred to the works quoted at the head of this article; they will probably find none more honest and reliable than the Memoirs of Charles Butler. The point of interest in our present discussion is the constantly recurring one of the rival claims of the spiritual and the civil power. The Catholic Committee, and the Cisalpine Club which succeeded it, represent the efforts of a faithful Catholic laity to distinguish their political from their ecclesiastical duties. Had they worked their way unchecked, they might have sacrificed the spiritual principle for which Sir Thomas More laid down his life. Had they implicitly accepted the dicta of their ecclesiastical superiors, they might have remained political nonentities. The characteristic of the struggle was its English sense of rightful independence, sometimes excessive, sometimes tainted by worldly considerations, but, on the whole, religiously sound and wholesome. We may pass over further developments of the same theme, * Ibid., II., pp. 115, 116. |