[10]
Our play’s a parallel: the Holy League
Begot our Covenant; Guisards got the Whig.
Vol. VII. p. 19.
[11] “Our attention, therefore, was to make the play a parallel betwixt
the Holy League plotted by the house of Guise and its adherents, with the
Covenant plotted by the rebels in the time of Charles I. and those of the
New Association, which was the spawn of the Old Covenant.”—Vol. VII. p.
146.
[12] I wish the fervour of Dryden’s loyalty had left this exhortation
to such writers as the author of “Justice Triumphant,” an excellent new
song, in commendation of Sir George Jefferies, Lord Chief Justice of
England. To a pleasant new tune, called, _Now the Tories that glories_.
Loyal Jefferies is judge again. }
Let the Brimighams grudge amain, }
Who to Tyburn must trudge amain. }
[13] “And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink, for there is
a sound of abundance of rain.
“So Ahab went up to eat and to drink; and Elijah went up to the top of
Carmel, and cast himself down upon the earth, and put his head between
his knees;
“And said to his servant, Go up now, look toward the sea; and he went up
and looked, and said there is nothing; and he said, Go again seven times.
“And it came to pass at the seventh time, that he said, Behold there
comes a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand: And he said, Go,
say unto Ahab, prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop
thee not.
“And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with
clouds and wind; and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode and went to
Jezreel.”—1 _Kings_, xviii. 41-46.
[14] Joash king of Israel, having visited the prophet Elisha while on
his death-bed, was desired, by the dying seer, to take a bow, and shoot
an arrow towards the east, and he shot. “And he said, the arrow of the
Lord’s deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Syria; for thou
shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek till thou have consumed them.
“And he said, Take the arrows, and he took them. And he said unto the
king of Israel, Smite upon the ground, and he smote thrice and stayed.
“And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldst have
smitten five and six times, then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst
consumed it, whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.”—2 _Kings_,
xiii. 14-20.
[15] Our readers need hardly be reminded, that the League was a
confederacy formed under pretence of maintaining the Catholic religion,
and excluding Henry of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV., from the throne, on
account of his being a Huguenot. It was only dispersed and subdued after
the long and bloody war which was terminated by his ascending the throne
in 1594.
[16] Louis XIV.
[17] _i.e._ The association of the Huguenots, under the Prince of Conde,
Coligni, and others.
[18] It would not have been decent to remind the Grand Monarque of such
arguments, as dragoons, banishment, and the gallies.
[19] Peter Victor Palma Cayet studied at Geneva, and was a domestic
in the house of Calvin. He afterwards became a reformed minister and
chaplain to Catherine, sister to Henry IV. Being addicted to alchemy,
and having written a work in defence of public stews, he was deposed by
a synod from his ministerial functions, as a wizard and a libertine.
Upon this disgrace, he abjured the reformed doctrine, and was considered
by the Catholics as a convert of such importance, that the Pope himself
honoured his proselyte with a letter of congratulation. His historical
works are, an Account of the War between the Turks and Hungarians,
published in 1598; his “Septennary Chronology” comprizing from 1598 to
1604; and his “Novennary Chronology,” giving an account of the nine years
war, which broke out in 1589, and was terminated by the peace of Vervins.
Cayet died in 1610.
[20] He was assassinated, by Jaques Clement, on the 2d August, 1589, when
he had besieged Paris with every prospect of success.
[21] To which kingdom Charles repaired upon the invitation of the
Presbyterians, whose clergy, however, treated him with an indecent
rigour, which he never forgave to the sect.
[22] See some account of these fanatics, and the ravages which they
committed in Munster, in the Notes on “Hind and Panther,” Vol. X. p. 145.
[23] In the preface to “Religio Laici,” Vol. X. p. 25.
[24] John Spottiswoode, archbishop of St Andrews, who wrote a valuable,
and, the times considered, a moderate history of the church of Scotland,
with a bias, as was natural, to the interests of episcopacy. It is a
valuable record of Scottish history. James’s harassing disputes with the
Presbyterian clergymen, of course make a great figure in his annals.
Spottiswoode was born in 1565, and died in 1639, just about the breaking
out of those troubles which ruined the Scottish episcopal church.
[25] In 1603, when the king heard, at Hampton-Court, the bishops’ dispute
against Dr Reynolds, Dr Sparks, Mr Knewstubs, and Mr Chadderton, James,
infinitely better skilled in the subtleties of polemical divinity, than
in the arts of ruling a great kingdom, threw his influence into the
scale of episcopacy with such ingenuity, that even the pious Whitegift,
then primate of England, did not hesitate to avow his persuasion, that
“the king spoke by the very spirit of God.” It was therefore no wonder,
that Dr Thomas Sparks, although so learned as to be called the Pillar of
Puritanism, and so zealous a despiser of forms, as to appear in a Turkey
merchant’s gown at the conference, instead of canonicals, should be so
melted and overcome by the king’s eloquence and argument, as to become,
in future, a strict conformist. He died in 1616, after having experienced
the favour of James, which indeed was due to a proselyte of his own
making. Sparks wrote several tracts in favour of the establishment; as,
“A Brotherly persuasion to Unity and Uniformity,” &c.
[26] Robert Bellarmine, one of the most able controversialists whom
the church of Rome has produced, and whose very name became a sort of
war-cry of polemical divinity. He was born at Monte Pulciano, in 1542,
and entered, in 1560, the order of Jesuits, of which he soon became
a distinguished ornament. In the year 1599, he was honoured with a
cardinal’s hat, but not till he had carried the principle of “Nolo
Episcopari” so far, that the pope was obliged to threaten an anathema,
should he persist in declining the proffered honour. Bellarmine died 17th
September, 1621, leaving behind him sundry huge volumes of polemical
divinity.
[27] See similar arguments for fixing the same principles of disregard
to civil authority upon the Catholics and the Puritans, in the preface
to “Religio Laici,” Vol. X. p. 18. Our author little foresaw his near
approaching conversion to the faith of Rome.
[28] Queen Elizabeth was very much startled by these and other similar
reasons which John Knox assigned to persuade the nobility to depose the
queen-regent, Mary of Lorraine; and the reformer was obliged to humble
himself before he could obtain her forgiveness for broaching doctrines so
deeply fraught with danger to monarchy.
[29] Dryden alludes to the conspiracy of Amboise, in 1559, by which, the
Huguenots, under direction of the Prince of Conde and Coligni, meditated
to surprise the court, possess themselves of the person of the king, and
drive from his councils the family of Guise. It was dissipated by the
policy of Catherine of Medicis and the bravery of the Duke of Guise.
[30] This passage affords Tom Brown grounds for a flat sneer at our
author. See Vol. X. p. 267. The “Advices to a Painter,” to which Dryden
alludes, were a series to satires upon Charles II. and his court,
published under the name of Denham, but, which in reality, were written
by Andrew Marvell. They are printed in the State Poems.
[31] The Cardinal of Lorraine, brother to the Duke of Guise, and the
political head of the Leaguers. He was assassinated at the same time with
his brother. Dryden compares him to Shaftesbury.
[32] A fiery and gallant adherent of the Duke of Guise. He distinguished
himself by his bravery in the battles, and his forwardness in the
councils, of the League; and, on the famous day of the barricades,
entered the Queen’s garden by force, supposing his patron’s life in
danger, and swearing, if the game was to be played, he would have his
stake in it. He was created Marshal of France in 1593, by the Duke of
Mayenne, and afterwards governor of Champagne. These honours cost him his
life; for the young Duke of Guise having requested him to withdraw some
troops from Rheims, and receiving an insolent refusal, drew his sword and
killed him on the spot.
[33] “There was scarcely any thing to be seen in the army of the League
but gold and silver embroideries, upon costly and magnificent coats of
velvet, of all sorts of colours, and an infinite number of banderolles
fluttering about their thick forest of lances.”—DRYDEN’S _Translation of
the History of the League_, p. 778.
[34] Father Edmund Bourgoing, prior of the convent in which Jaques
Clement, who assassinated Henry III., was a jacobin monk. As he
vindicated the action when committed, and compared the murderer, in his
sermons, to Judith, it was not doubted, that he had prompted, or at least
confirmed, his execrable resolution.
[35] Robert Ferguson, called the Plotter, who told the conspirators, that
if they took off Charles on a Sunday, the day would sanctify the deed,
and proposed to consecrate the blunderbuss with which he was to be shot.
See Vol. IX. p. 363.
[36] Evidences for the king on the trial of the conspirators for the
Rye-house plot.
[37] This is apparently an allusion to the designs of Lord Russell and
others, who meditated a change of councils, not of government, by the
schemes which they agitated.
[38] A tract in octavo, published in October 1680, shortly after the
sitting of the short parliament. The author was Henry Neville, second son
of Sir Henry Neville, knight, who made some figure among the speculative
commonwealth’s men, yet was not so much attached to their doctrines, as
to prevent his submitting to be one of Cromwell’s council of state. He
died 20th September, 1694.
[39] Mr Hunt’s book was entitled, a “Defence of the Charter and Municipal
Rights of the City of London.” See vol. vii. p. 127. Our author was
fiercely attacked in that work, and defended himself in the Vindication
of the Duke of Guise.
[40] The author alludes to the exertions made by the crown to secure the
election of sheriffs; see vol. ix. p. 450.
[41] Among the absurdities sworn to, and believed at the time of the
Popish plot, Bedloe’s assertion, that 40,000 pilgrims, assembled in Spain
to pay their devotion to Saint James, were to be employed in the invasion
of England, was not the less terrifying because so eminently incredible.
A false report that the Pilgrims had actually landed, obtained general
credit, and one nobleman gallopped to London with the news.
[42] Many of the opposition members, particularly those for the city of
London, went armed and escorted to the parliament of Oxford, so that they
resembled Titus Oates, who in his days of splendour was always attended
by a guard. See vol. ix. p. 355.
[43] Jean Le Clerc, otherwise called Bussy, once a _procureur_ before
the parliament of Paris; being a bold, active, and ferocious man, he
was created governor of the Bastile by the Duke of Guise, and employed
in seizing the persons of the President Harlai, and other counsellors
of parliament, and exercising severities on all those suspected of
disaffection to the cause of the League. Dryden compares him to Waller,
whom the Catholics accused of pillaging their houses, under pretence of
searching for relics during the times of the plot. See him described
under the character of Arod in “Absalom and Achitophel,” pp. 11. 335; and
the note, p. 381, Vol. IX.
[44] Francisco de Faria, who designed himself interpreter and secretary
of languages to Gaspar de Abreu de Freitas, ambassador from the crown
of Portugal, was one of the witnesses concerning the popish plot.
He pretended he had been employed by the Portuguese ambassador to
assassinate Oates, Bedlow, and Shaftesbury. His narrative was licenced
for publication on 19th November, 1680; and concludes with an impudent
affectation of admiring the Divine Providence, which had brought him,
“from almost the utmost parts of the far distant habitable world, to be
an instrument, in England, to detect, or at least more convincingly to
prove the truth of these horrid treasons and conspiracies.” Faria was a
native of Fernambuco, in Brazil, and apparently a Portuguese Jew.
[45] Sir Robert Peyton was expelled the House, and committed to the
Tower, on account of expressing some hesitation as to the credibility of
Oates.
[46] White was the dress affected by those who crowded to see Monmouth in
his western tour. See Vol. VII. p. 257. Mr Trenchard undertook to raise
1500 men in and about Taunton alone. See _Lord Grey’s Account of the
Rye-house Plot_, p. 18; where the plan of the city insurrection is also
distinctly detailed.—Pp. 32-40.
[47] Louis Maimbourg was born at Nanci, in 1610, and became a Jesuit
in 1626. But he was degraded from that order by the General, because
he espoused, in some of his writings, the cause of the Gallican church
against the claims of the Roman see. He retired to the Abbey of St
Victor, where he died in 1686. His historical writings, which are
numerous, are now held in little esteem, being all composed in the spirit
of a partizan, and without even the affectation of impartiality. They
are, however, lively and interesting during the perusal; which led an
Italian to say, that Maimbourg was among the historians, what Momus was
among the deities.
[48] Maimbourg’s History of the League was first published at Paris in
1683.
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF
YORK’S PAPER.
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN DRYDEN AND STILLINGFLEET, CONCERNING THE DUCHESS OF
YORK’S PAPER.
One of the first acts of King James the Second’s reign, was the
publication of two papers found in the strong box of his deceased brother
Charles, assigning various reasons to prove, that the church of Rome
was the only true church; with a copy of another written by his first
duchess, Anne Hyde, stating the grounds of her conversion to the Catholic
faith.[49] These papers were announced to be published by his majesty’s
command; and, thus authenticated, were industriously dispersed over the
kingdom. The learned Stillingfleet stood forward as the champion of the
church of England, in refutation of the arguments alleged in the papers
of the royal proselytes.[50] In answer, appeared “A Defence of the Papers
written by the late King, of blessed Memory, and Duchess of York, against
the Answer made to them. _By Command_. London, 1686.” This defence, like
the answer of Stillingfleet, was divided into three parts, applying to
the three papers; and it seems that these were drawn up by different
hands.
Dryden informs us, that he was concerned in the _last_, which seems to
exclude the idea of his having any share in the first and second parts of
the Defence;[51] which, indeed, are written in a style more approaching
to polemic controversy than that assumed by Dryden. Stillingfleet
returned to the conflict, and published a “Vindication of his Answer;” in
which he is severely personal upon Dryden, “the brisk defender,” as he
calls him, of the duchess’s paper, and the “new convert” to the church of
Rome. Dryden, personally assaulted, made a personal retort, both directly
upon Stillingfleet, and upon Burnet, his coadjutor in the controversy;
and to this we probably owe the character of the Buzzard in “The Hind and
Panther,” as well as the reflections upon the moderate clergy, or Low
Church divines, with which that piece abounds.[52]
In order to understand Dryden’s defence, it is necessary to prefix the
duchess’s paper, and Stillingfleet’s answer to it.
COPY OF A PAPER WRITTEN BY THE LATE DUCHESS OF YORK, &c.
It is so reasonable to expect, that a person always bred up in the church
of England,[53] and as well instructed in the doctrine of it, as the
best divines and her capacity could make her, should be liable to many
censures for leaving that, and making herself a member of the Roman
Catholic church, to which, I confess, I was one of the greatest enemies
it ever had;[54] that I rather choose to satisfy my friends by reading
this paper, than to have the trouble to answer all the questions that may
be daily asked me. And first, I do protest, in the presence of Almighty
God, that no person, man or woman, directly or indirectly, ever said any
thing to me since I came into England, or used the least endeavour to
make me change my religion: it is a blessing I wholly owe to Almighty
God, and, I hope, the hearing of a prayer I daily made him ever since I
was in France and Flanders; where, seeing much of the devotion of the
Catholics, (though I had very little myself,) I made it my continual
request to Almighty God, that, if I were not, I might, before I died,
be in the true religion. I did not in the least doubt but that I was
so, and never had any scruple till November last; when, reading a book
called “The History of the Reformation,” by Dr Heylin,[55] which I had
heard very much commended, and have been told, if ever I had any doubt
of my religion, that would settle me; instead of which, I found it the
description of the horridest sacrileges in the world; and could find
no reason why we left the church, but for three, the most abominable
ones that were ever heard of among Christians. First, Henry VIII.
renounces the Pope’s authority, because he would not give him leave to
part with his wife, and marry another in her lifetime; secondly, Edward
VI. was a child, and governed by his uncle, who made his estate out of
church-lands; and then Queen Elizabeth, who, being no lawful heiress
to the crown, could have no way to keep it but by renouncing a church
that could never suffer so unlawful a thing to be done by one of her
children. I confess I cannot think the Holy Ghost could ever be in such
counsels; and it is very strange, that if the bishops had no design but
(as they say) the restoring us to the doctrine of the primitive church,
they could never think upon it, till Henry VIII. made the breach upon so
unlawful a pretence. These scruples being raised, I began to consider of
the difference between the Catholics and us, and examined them as well as
I could by Holy Scripture, which though I do not pretend to be able to
understand, yet there are some things I found so easy, that I cannot but
wonder I had been so long without finding them out; as—the real presence
in the blessed sacrament, the infallibility of the church, confession,
and praying for the dead. After this I spoke severally to two of the
bishops[56] we have in England, who both told me, there were many things
in the Romish church which were very much to be wished we had kept: as
confession, which was no doubt commanded by God; that praying for the
dead was one of the ancient things in Christianity; that, for their
parts, they did it daily, though they would not own it. And afterwards,
pressing one of them very much upon the other points, he told me,—that if
he had been bred a Catholic, he would not change his religion; but that
being of another church, (wherein he was sure were all things necessary
to salvation,) he thought it very ill to give that scandal, as to leave
that church wherein he received his baptism.
All these discourses did but add more to the desire I had to be a
Catholic, and gave me the most terrible agonies in the world within
myself: for all this, fearing to be rash in a matter of that weight, I
did all I could to satisfy myself; made it my daily prayer to God, to
settle me in the right; and so went on Christmas-day to receive in the
king’s chapel: after which, I was more troubled than ever, and could
never be at quiet till I had told my design to a Catholic, who brought
a priest to me; and that was the first I ever did converse with, upon my
word. The more I spoke to him, the more I was confirmed in my design; and
as it is impossible for me to doubt the words of our blessed Saviour,
who says,—the holy sacrament is his body and blood; so cannot believe,
that he, who is the Author of all truth, and has promised to be “with
his church to the end of the world,” would permit them to give that holy
mystery to the laity but in one kind, if it were not lawful so to do.
I am not able, or if I were, would I enter into disputes with any body;
I only, in short, say this for the changing of my religion, which I take
God to witness I would never have done, if I had thought it possible to
save my soul otherwise. I think I need not say, it is not any interest in
this world leads me to it. It will be plain enough to every body, that
I must lose all the friends and credit I have here by it; and have very
well weighed which I could best part with,—my share in this world, or the
next: I thank God, I found no difficulty in the choice.
My only prayer is, “That the poor Catholics of this nation may not suffer
for my being of their religion; that God would but give me patience to
bear them, and then send me any afflictions in this world, so I may enjoy
a blessed eternity hereafter.”
_St James’s, Aug. 20, 1670._