THE JESUITS IN ENGLAND.
The conspiracy to overthrow the Protestant institutions of Germany
furnished a precedent in dealing with other Governments. That against
England was characterized by some peculiarities, owing to its having
been subject to the spiritual dominion of the pope until the reign
of Henry VIII, and afterwards under that of Mary. As there are no
instances in history where a people have surrendered the control over
their institutions without a struggle, unless previously reduced to
absolute imbecility, the inauguration and progress of this conspiracy
furnish a great many "object-lessons" of special interest to all in
the United States who hold in kindly remembrance the struggles of our
English ancestry for liberty.
When Henry VIII quarreled with the pope, it was only about his
divorce. Religion was not involved. He maintained the dogmas of the
Roman Catholic Church until his death. But in order to give license
to his passions, he caused himself to be recognized by a submissive
Parliament as taking the place of the pope in the religious affairs of
England--not, however, as the head of the National Church, which did
not distinctively exist as such until the subsequent reign of Edward
VI. As between him and the pope, the dispute was about authority, not
doctrine. It excited intense anger in the minds of both, and this was
soon imparted to their respective adherents. Each was familiar with
the methods of persecution and the implements of coercion, long in use
to produce uniformity of faith, and they were equally ready to employ
them. There were, however, differences between them worthy of being
noted. The highest aspiration of Henry was to govern England; the pope
reached out after the spiritual government of the world. The pope,
without the sanction and authority of the Church, claimed personal
infallibility; Henry did not. They were consequently formidable
antagonists. Trained within the same circle of events, with minds
disciplined by the same doctrinal teachings, and entirely agreed about
the employment of compulsion in matters of faith, each dealt with the
other as a mere competitor for power.
The pope--Paul III--endeavored to bring his royal antagonist to
terms by excommunication; but Henry defied it and its accompanying
anathemas. In proportion as the passions of the pope became intensified
by resistance to his spiritual authority, the measures designed to
reduce England to obedience became more violent. Henry was denounced
as a traitor to heaven and the Church, and threatened with all the
consequences implied by that denunciation. The pope endeavored to
induce the Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France to invade England,
make conquest of the country, and bring it again into obedience
to him; but these monarchs feared the consequences, and prudently
declined the undertaking. Disappointed in this, the pope hastened to
solicit the aid of Loyola, who without delay provided Jesuits to be
sent to England as spies, and to plot secretly against Henry. These
emissaries were privately instructed by Loyola himself; and inasmuch
as these instructions have been made known, and are admitted by the
Jesuits, they serve to show the uses to which Loyola intended to put
his society. The philosophy of history is often left unperceived by
omitting to observe the force of such evidence as this.
After counseling them to practice great prudence and circumspection
in conversing with others, so as to unveil "the depth of their
sentiments"--that is, to draw out their secret thoughts--Loyola
proceeded to instruct them that, "in order to conciliate to yourselves
the good-will of men in the desire of extending the kingdom of God,
you will _make yourselves all things to all men_, after the example
of the apostle in order to gain them to Jesus Christ." And he tells
them further that "when the devil attacks a just man, he does not let
him see his snares"--therefore they must imitate him, in order to
entice men into Jesuit snares![75] Taken as a whole, these instructions
were manifestly designed so to train all Jesuits as to make them,
according to Nicolini, "crafty, insinuating, deceitful." Cretineau, a
Jesuit, attempts to argue, continues Nicolini, that they had reference
to religious and not to political matters, and this is the only
defense he offers for them. But this is itself Jesuitical, inasmuch
as these emissaries were sent to England upon a mission involving
politico-religious affairs--that is, the policy established by the
Government of England in regard to the relations between it and the
pope. Whether right or wrong, the English people established these
relations for themselves, as they had the undoubted right to do, and
no alien or foreign power, whether employed by the pope or any other
monarch, could rightfully interfere with them.
These emissaries of Loyola and the pope visited Ireland and Scotland;
but with the exception of intriguing with James V of Scotland, their
mission was ineffectual, and they returned to Rome. Henry was not
seriously disturbed by them. Nor was there any other attempt to
introduce the Jesuits into England until after the death of Queen Mary,
whose persecution of the Protestants was sufficiently satisfactory
to the papacy without their aid. Their introduction during her reign
had been opposed and defeated by Cardinal Pole, an Englishman; but
whether he was hostile to them, or considered the existing system of
persecution perfect enough without them, is not clearly shown.
We are thus brought to a portion of English history specially
interesting and instructive to all who hold in admiration the civil
institutions of the United States; for they have read history to but
little purpose who do not know how the events of that period gave
stability to principles which now constitute fundamental parts of our
national polity. In tracing our pedigree back to its English source, it
is as easy to see our intimate relations with the Elizabethan era as it
is to follow the little rivulets in the valleys or upon the mountains
in their courses to the sea. On this account some particularity
of detail is rendered necessary, or else some matters of historic
interest, not generally observed, may be omitted.
During the reign of Elizabeth the papal authorities renewed their
exertions to put a stop to Protestantism in England, and sent more
Jesuits there for that purpose. "These satellites of the pope," says
the historian, "entered the country under fictitious names, and as
stealthily as nocturnal robbers, mendacious in every word they uttered,
and exciting the people to rebellion against the 'impious' queen."[76]
The vigilance of Elizabeth, however, was of such a character that
she was not easily taken by surprise, and their plottings against
her became less effective than they and the pope had anticipated.
Accordingly other Jesuits were sent to Scotland to encourage Queen
Mary, and hold her steadfast in the faith; but they were unsuccessful
in the attempt to stir up rebellion there, and being fearful of
detection and arrest, escaped out of the country as fugitives from
justice. Nevertheless they accomplished one thing, which was to carry
away with them several young English noblemen, to be educated by the
Jesuits in Flanders, so as to fit them for treason against their own
country--repeating in this the experiment Loyola had made in Germany.
All these movements, although not immediately followed by any direct
consequences, tend to show how ready the Jesuits were to make secret
and incendiary war upon anything or any country upon which the
pontifical curse was resting. And they show, moreover, their subtle
methods of procedure--how they were trained and educated in adroitness
and cunning, the more easily to mislead others; how they raised
hypocrisy and deceit up to the side of virtue; how they endeavored to
attach to falsehood the merit which belongs alone to truth; and how,
in order to be "all things to all men," they were required to be what
they were not, or not to be what they were, in order by deception to
accomplish the subjugation of England to the authority of the pope.
The Jesuits endeavored to become the educators of English youths as
they had those of Germany. They understood, and have not yet forgotten,
the value of this. The pope therefore established an English college
_at Rome_, to educate young Englishmen for the traitorous purpose
of destroying English institutions. Loyola conceived this idea as a
covert and strategic method of uprooting obnoxious Governments, and
the pope accepted it as an effective plan of conspiracy. This college
became a hotbed of treason. The young men were doubtless instructed
that the gates of heaven would be opened to them in no other way, and
that country and patriotism were unmeaning phrases, of no significance
when weighed in the scale against the interests of the papacy and the
Jesuits. None have better understood than they "that he who guides the
youth, directs the destinies of man."
The young Englishmen, educated at this college in Rome to hate their
country and its sovereign, reached the highest round in the ladder
of collegiate culture when they were brought to realize this as the
central feature of religious faith. It takes a peculiar training to
pluck out entirely from the mind all the tender and holy memories of
home and country, of family and friends; and no others in the world
except the Jesuits have ever undertaken it. They boast of this as one
of the prominent principles of their system, and the distinguishing
merit of their society. By means of it they succeeded well at Rome, and
sent back to England a swarm of conspirators, charged with the special
duty of winning a conquest over the Government, plucking Protestantism
up by the roots, and re-establishing the papal scepter, which Henry
VIII, in the pursuit of his illicit amours, had broken.
Elizabeth, as queen, was the great obstacle to papal success. Her
position was a peculiar one. At the beginning of her reign she had been
tolerant towards her Roman Catholic subjects, and they were permitted
to enjoy their religion and mode of worship without interference,
notwithstanding the severities practiced towards the Protestants
during the preceding reign of Mary. All historians agree, and the
Roman Catholic Lingard is candid enough to admit, that she retained
in her royal council eleven of those who had served under Mary, and
appointed only eight of her own selection--an extraordinary instance
of impartiality and conservatism. She preferred the reformed religion,
but "contrived," says Lingard, "_to balance the hopes and fears of the
two parties_,"[77] which she must have done from an honest purpose to
see that justice should be shown to both, and that religious strife
and discord should cease. Her want of success in this most desirable
object can be attributed to no other cause than the machinations of
the Jesuits; for, whatsoever may be thought of the fierce and angry
controversy which followed, the evidence is conclusive that they were
the main reliance of the pope in the subsequent inauguration and
prosecution of civil war in England. If it had not been their special
avocation to enter into plots and conspiracies against all governments
and peoples who rejected the absolute rule of the pope in doctrine
and morals, and if they had not actively engaged in that work during
the reign of Elizabeth, the memory of Mary's bloody and persecuting
reign might, in a large degree, have been blotted out, and this
impartial policy of Elizabeth might have induced the Christians of
different religious faiths to live in peace and mutual toleration, as
they did in Germany before that country was blighted by the curse of
Jesuitism. But taught by the Jesuits not to submit to equality merely,
but to demand absolute and unqualified superiority and dominion by the
entire suppression of Protestantism, the English Roman Catholics were
encouraged to form leagues and combinations and conspiracies against
the queen, Protestantism, and the Government.
Under these circumstances, Elizabeth could not have remained
unresisting if she had desired. To have done so would have been a
treasonable abandonment of the country of which she was the legitimate
sovereign. Not only was she assailed in all her rights as queen, but
the pope, adopting the views and opinions of the Jesuits, impudently
attempted to justify resistance to her authority upon the ground that
she was an illegitimate daughter of Henry VIII by Anne Boleyn, and
therefore had no just right to exact obedience to her authority. He
went further than this, and claimed jurisdiction over her conscience
by commanding her to accept "the communion of the Roman Church,"
which, with queenly dignity, she refused. He required her to send
ambassadors to the Council of Trent, and this she also declined to
do. When she imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots, he usurped jurisdiction
over the case, although Mary was an English subject, and undertook to
procure her release, for the reason only that she preferred Romanism
to Protestantism. He sought the aid of the kings of France and Spain
to make war upon England in the name of religion, to release Mary,
dethrone Elizabeth, and seize upon her crown. Failing in all these
things, and being baffled by Elizabeth, he caused a prosecution to
be instituted at Rome to try "in the papal court" her title to the
crown--a sham and farce as ineffective as it was ridiculous and
discreditable. It is difficult to imagine a more presumptuous and
impotent proceeding; but it is instructive as showing the pretensions
of the popes of that period.
In the papal indictment Elizabeth was accused, among other things,
of rejecting the ancient and supporting the new worship; of having
"received the sacrament after the manner of heretics;" of having
"chosen known heretics for the lords of her council;" and of having
"imposed an oath derogating from the rights of the Holy See." The
queen, of course, did not appear; but, nevertheless, she was held to
be in default, and the trial was conducted in the papal form. Twelve
English Roman Catholics, who are represented as "exiles for their
religion," were examined as witnesses, and, after their evidence was
heard and considered, "the judges pronounced their opinion that she had
incurred the canonical penalties of heresy." The major one of these,
which included all the minors, was the forfeiture of her crown; that
is, her actual dethronement. It is to be supposed that, in the decree
of the Roman Curia, all this was recorded in solemn form. But this
decree, like those of other courts, did not execute itself. Therefore,
the pope provided for its execution by issuing his pontifical bull,
with all necessary gravity and composure, whereby he pronounced
Elizabeth guilty of heresy, deprived of her "pretended" right to the
crown of England, and absolved her subjects from all allegiance to
her.[78]
Notwithstanding the long period intervening between those and the
present times, we are not relieved from the obligation and necessity of
understanding fully upon what pretense of authority Pius V assumed the
prerogative right to pluck from the head of the English queen a crown
placed there with practical, if not absolute, unanimity by the English
people. It is not enough to say that these things occurred in another
age and under circumstances peculiar to that age. This may sufficiently
explain the conduct of individuals, and the character and structure
of governments, all of which have ever been, and will continue to be,
liable to change. But the laws of God, founded in divine wisdom, are
not subject to these changes. The creative power of the Deity alone can
change them. It is the special boast of the papists and the Jesuits
that the system of laws which governs the papacy has the stamp of
Divine approval upon it, and that, therefore, it has always been, and
still remains, the same--"_Semper eadem_," is their motto. Hence it is
important to us to know the nature and extent of the spiritual powers
asserted by Pius V over the English Government and people, in order
to ascertain whether, if a parallel case existed to-day, or may exist
hereafter, the same papal powers may not be again invoked. The question
which most concerns us is not whether they may or may not be asserted,
but whether or no they have been embodied in the Canon law of the Roman
Church, and have been thereby stamped with the character of perpetuity.
No special pleading, however adroit, can make the issue otherwise.
The question tried and decided at Rome by the Papal Curia, in so far as
it involved the right to the English crown, was exclusively political,
and the pope could not rightfully change its character by assuming
that it was brought within his spiritual jurisdiction by virtue of the
universality of his spiritual powers. It was an English and not a Roman
question. By the existing laws of England, Elizabeth was the rightful
and hereditary heir to the throne, and had possession of the crown. It
had been so decided by the Parliament, and ratified by the people with
a unanimity almost unknown in those times. She was queen, not only _de
facto_, but _de jure_. By what mode of reasoning or by what perversion
of language could the pope take to himself jurisdiction over such a
question? England was governed by laws, and whether they appear to us
now to have been right or wrong, they were her own laws, enacted by her
rightful authorities. They were exclusively political laws, provided
for her own Government and people. The pope was the spiritual head of
the Church at Rome, with a recognized jurisdiction over the spiritual
welfare of those who regarded themselves as within that jurisdiction.
By the methods of reasoning then adopted by the English nation, and
now familiar to all intelligent American minds, all who chose to
remain within that spiritual jurisdiction had the perfect right to do
so; all who did not, had an equal right to withdraw from it. Rights
of this character concern individuals, not nations, except as their
populations shall decide, in which case they may submit or not to this
jurisdiction at their pleasure. The English nation, by its domestic
laws, had established a system of government suitable for itself, and
had placed its crown upon Elizabeth's head. To say that the pope had
the divine right, as the spiritual head of the Church at Rome, to set
this National Government aside, and substitute for it another dictated
by himself, and after the papal model, means this, and only this: that
his spiritual power includes political and temporal power over all
nations, to the extent of requiring them to adopt whatsoever form of
religious faith the popes shall prescribe, to the absolute exclusion
of all other forms. And it allows him, moreover, to employ for that
purpose, against every domestic law to the contrary, all the papal
machinery of coercion. The decree pronounced at Rome against Elizabeth
affirms, in effect, that such is the Canon law; that is, the law of the
Church. Have the provisions of that law been authoritatively changed or
abrogated since the time of Pius V and Elizabeth? It may be necessary
to find an answer to this question when we come to see, as we shall,
that, at Jesuit dictation, it has been authoritatively announced that
the time has come, or is rapidly approaching, when the Canon law of the
Roman Church shall be introduced into the United States, to supersede
such of our laws, National and State, as are in conflict with it. For
the present, we must not pass by too rapidly the conflict between
the pope and Elizabeth--to the principles involved in which enough
consideration is not generally given--in order that we may comprehend
fully what it meant, and how, in the end, it turned the nations upon
their progressive courses, and brought them where they now are. In all
history there are few more instructive lessons.
In carrying on the war against Elizabeth, the Jesuits did not forget
the work of educating young Englishmen so as to make them believe that
treason was one of the highest virtues when dictated by what they chose
to consider the interests of religion; that is, of the papacy or of
their society, just as we have seen they did in Germany. Among other
seminaries of learning, they had one at Rheims, in France, established
by the Cardinal of Lorraine, one of the most vindictive persecutors of
the Huguenots. They had another at Douay, also in France. From these,
colonies of Jesuits were sent to England every year, instructed and
trained to subvert the English Government, and particularly to vilify
and calumniate Elizabeth by accusing her of leading a "licentious and
voluptuous private life." It is not easy to understand what force
was intended to be given to this accusation, as an argument against
her right to the crown, in view of the fact that a life tenfold more
licentious and voluptuous than that falsely charged against Elizabeth
did not invalidate the right of Pope Alexander VI to the papal crown
and the headship of the Church at Rome. Nevertheless, the Jesuits
availed themselves of it, without regard either to its truthfulness
or their own consistency. They were educated to this peculiar kind of
work, and it was considered their duty to educate others in the same
way, leaving the consequences to take care of themselves. Hume gives
this account of these Jesuit emissaries to England: "They infused
into all their votaries an extreme hatred against the queen, whom
they treated as a usurper, a schismatic, a heretic, a persecutor of
the orthodox, and one solemnly and publicly anathematized by the holy
father. Sedition, rebellion, sometimes _assassination_, were the
expedients by which they intended to effect their purposes against
her,"[79] pretending to find in the existing state of things in England
justification for all this, even for the assassination of the queen.
Two Jesuit leaders--Campion and Parson--were sent from Rome to give
direction to the movements of the conspirators already there. In order
more effectually to encourage treason and sedition, they "_pretended to
be Protestants_," not being ashamed of this false profession, because
the obligation to practice deception when necessary was instilled
into their minds by Jesuit training, and, on that account, created no
compunctions of conscience. When Parson reached Dover, the better to
practice his disguise, he wore the uniform of an English army officer,
and pretended to be such. In this way he deceived the inspecting
officer, and arranged with him for the safe passage of Campion, whom
he represented as a fellow officer, who would follow in a few days. It
may thus be seen how easy it is to be "all things to all men," when
those who desire to become so have quieted their consciences with the
belief that falsehood and deception may be rightfully employed in
promoting "the greater glory of God." Howsoever incomprehensible may
be the casuistry by which the mind can be brought to this belief, it
is perfectly plain to a Jesuit, and is doubtless explained in their
schools.
It is exceedingly difficult to separate the true from the false in
the history of the times here referred to. The passions of the rival
parties became so intense as seemingly to render agreement between them
impossible, either with regard to facts or conclusions. It may not even
be safe to assume that the truth lies midway between the extremes.
But there is always, in the influences and effects produced by any
given period of time, that which explains the motives and purposes
of the chief actors. By careful investigation of these, we acquire a
knowledge of the philosophy of history. Conducting our investigations
in this spirit, we can not fail to conclude that the interference
with the domestic and internal affairs of England by an alien and
foreign power, was a flagrant act of usurpation, unless the spiritual
authority of the pope gave him rightful jurisdiction over temporal and
political questions in that country. And if he did rightfully possess
this jurisdiction in 1570, when Pius V fulminated his pontifical bull
against Elizabeth, and derived it from the divine law, we, of the
present age, and especially in the United States, can not refrain
from inquiring whether, from the Jesuit standpoint, Leo XIII does
not possess the same jurisdiction derived from the same law? Without
pressing this inquiry here, however, it is deemed more essential to
ascertain still more minutely how far the Jesuits were responsible for
sowing the seeds of discord and civil war in England, when otherwise
Protestants and Roman Catholics might, at the Elizabethan period, have
lived and associated harmoniously together, as they did in Germany
before the Jesuits appeared there. Many intelligent readers of history
fail to give due consideration to the events of this important period.
We have seen--upon the authority of Lingard, a papal historian--that
Elizabeth was, at the beginning of her reign, desirous of holding
an equal balance between the rival bodies of Christians. Her mind
was not fully made up with regard to her own faith, although it is
probable she was inclined to Protestantism. There were reasons for
this, some of which may have been controlling with a masculine mind
like hers. The relations between her father, Henry VIII, and the
papacy must have created impressions not favorable to the pope as
a sharer in her governing power over the English people. And the
reign of her sister Mary must have tended to strengthen, rather than
remove, these impressions. She could not have failed to know that
Mary's marriage to Philip II of Spain had brought with it to England
a series of calamities, the remembrance of which must have made her
not only sorrowful, but indignant. If Mary's natural inclination had
been kindly and her heart benevolent, it must have been apparent to
Elizabeth that these good qualities had been exchanged for others of
the very opposite character, which had incited her to prosecute her
Protestant subjects in the spirit of intense religious bigotry, and as
if God were acceptably served by shedding blood. And when, upon coming
to the throne as the immediate successor of Mary, she found herself
confronted by the terrible condition into which England had been
thrown--with every evil passion aroused, and little ground for hope of
the future--nothing was more natural than the belief that this state of
things had been produced, mainly if not entirely, by the unfortunate
marriage of Mary with Philip II, who possessed such a combination of
bad qualities as left room for scarcely a single good one. Sullen,
morose, and selfish, Philip separated himself from everything in life
calculated to encourage good or benevolent emotions, and gave free
play to that bad ambition which led him to desolate the Netherlands by
cruelties as unparalleled as they were atrocious. He had no affection
for Mary, being incapable of any such emotion. His marriage with her
was a matter of policy alone--one of those political unions which,
in the course of time, have produced evils to all the Governments of
Europe. He had inherited religious fanaticism from his father, Charles
V, but without any of the better qualities of the latter; and gave
such excessive indulgence to his hatred of Protestants that nothing
rejoiced him so much as to know that the dungeons of the Inquisition
were crowded with them, and that none of them escaped the rack,
the thumb-screw, and the flames. The best people in England--Roman
Catholics as well as Protestants--had feared, when this ill-fated
marriage was proposed, that the bloody scenes so often witnessed on
the Continent would be repeated there, and for that reason opposed
it. But State policy prevailed, and the popular will was of no avail.
England, thus united with Spain, became subject to the influence of
Philip, who employed it over Mary, to make her, like himself, the
obedient instrument of papal outrages. English persecution hitherto
had one distinguishing characteristic, in this, that Henry VIII had
visited his vengeance upon both Protestants and Roman Catholics, who
were bound alike to the stake and burned to death because of resistance
to his royal power and assumed right, in imitation of the pope, to
hold the consciences of individuals in subjugation. Elizabeth knew all
this. Her strong and sagacious mind was penetrating enough to foresee
that, unless this disheartening course of events could be in some way
changed, England would remain where Mary had left her--a mere appendage
to the papacy--and thereby reduced to a condition of inferiority among
the nations from which she might never recover.
When Philip proposed to marry Elizabeth--for whom he had no more
affection than he had for her sister--she was brought to realize, if
she had not already done so, that the future destiny of England was
mainly in her hands. From motives of policy she took time to deliberate
before accepting or rejecting this proposition of marriage by Philip.
Whilst holding it under advisement, she suggested that it would violate
the law of the Church, inasmuch as their relationship brought them
within the prohibited degrees. But when Philip proposed that he would
obtain a dispensation from the pope, she saw at once that it was a
well-matured scheme to bring her to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the
pope over English affairs of State, and consequently declined Philip's
proposal. And thus was broken the alliance between the two crowns of
England and Spain, and Elizabeth was left to protect herself against
foreign interference in taking care of the internal affairs of her own
country. The occasion demanded that she should assert herself by taking
the affairs of the nation in her own hands, and the result has long
since proved how well and conspicuously she did so.
Elizabeth was wise. Her bitterest enemies concede this. Whilst she may
have inclined to Protestantism, she had not, at the beginning of her
reign, acquired any positive dislike to the Roman Catholic religion.
On the contrary, the Roman Catholic bishops and lords were disposed
to regard her exhibition of tolerance as indicating that she would,
at least, act with justice and impartiality towards them. Camden, the
historian, says that, during Mary's reign, Elizabeth had intimated to
Cardinal Pole that she had a disposition to prefer Roman Catholicism.
Howsoever this may have been, she not only sometimes attended
confession, but assisted at divine service after the manner of the
Roman Church. Lingard says: "She continued to assist, and occasionally
to communicate, at mass; she buried her sister with all the solemnities
of the Catholic ritual; and she ordered a solemn dirge and a mass of
requiem for the soul of the Emperor Charles V."[80] Influenced by these
considerations, and probably by others of the same character, the House
of Lords--composed entirely of Roman Catholics--declared in her favor,
and the Commons having readily and unanimously approved their decision,
she was proclaimed queen "with the acclamations of the people." Thus
her right to the crown was settled by the highest authority in the
kingdom. There was not a murmur of discontent. Some regretted the death
of Mary, but there was a general desire that the barbarities practiced
during her reign should cease. In that desire Elizabeth manifestly
shared, as is well established by the fact, already stated, that she
retained thirteen of Mary's counselors, and appointed only eight
Protestants. She could have meant nothing else by this than to express
the desire that religious persecution should cease, and that the two
religious parties should in the future live in peace with each other,
and thus enable the country to develop into greatness.
The first attack upon her right to the crown was made by Henry
II of France, and not by her Roman Catholic subjects. Henry was
thoroughly indoctrinated with the persecuting spirit which prevailed
in France among the defenders of the papacy, and was dominated
over by the Guises, one of whom was the Cardinal of Lorraine, and
patron of the Jesuits. His persecution of the Reformers has been
previously mentioned. In assailing the title of Elizabeth, Henry II
had undoubtedly several objects in view, the chief of which were to
humiliate England and probably establish French sovereignty over it,
to continue the policy of Mary in persecuting the Protestants, and to
place the crown of Elizabeth upon the head of Mary Queen of Scots.
Whether one or all these motives influenced him, he solicited the aid
of the pope, and made himself a party to the conspiracy against the
peace of England by endeavoring to obtain a papal decree that Elizabeth
was a bastard, and therefore not lawfully queen. Consequently, when,
after her rejection of Philip's proposal of marriage, she saw the
Roman Catholic powers, with the pope at their head, conspiring against
her, she resolved that her own safety and that of England required
her to dismiss the Roman Catholic members of her council, declare her
purpose to protect and encourage the Reformed religion, and submit the
matter to the people by means of a Parliament to be assembled for that
purpose. This precautionary measure was most commendable, inasmuch as
it proposed to submit to Parliament the question whether or no the two
religions were equally entitled to legal protection. In order that
her purposes might be fully understood, she issued a proclamation
allowing divine service to be performed in the English tongue, and
the Scriptures to be read by the laity--a privilege hitherto denied
them. In order to allay all undue excitement, she expressly prohibited
religious "controversy by preaching," until the meeting of Parliament.
When the new Parliament did assemble, it was addressed in her behalf
by the Keeper of the Great Seal, who announced to the representatives
of the people that the queen had commanded him to exhort them "to take
a mean between the two extremes of superstition and irreligion, which
might _reunite the partisans of both the one and the other religion_ in
the same public worship."[81]
The conciliatory course of Elizabeth, as indicated by her proclamation
and this address to Parliament, exhibited a degree of liberality to
which the English people had been unaccustomed during the reign of
Mary. It is a reasonable supposition that, if her suggestions had been
accepted in the spirit in which they were offered, England would have
bounded forward far more rapidly than she did to the condition she
subsequently reached through severe and protracted trials. The times
were suited to the introduction of compromising measures of peaceful
policy. The people were tired of commotion, persecution, and bloodshed
on account of religious differences, and would readily have acquiesced
in any amicable plan of adjustment. But, unfortunately for England,
and the world as well, neither the interests nor the wishes of the
people were of sufficient avail to bring quiet to the country. The
course of subsequent events may be easily traced. The papal machinery
of Church government had been so constructed at Rome that, in order
to keep the people in subjection, it had deposited unlimited powers
in the hands of the prelates. The Roman Catholic bishops of England,
as well as elsewhere, had been accustomed to rule with a rod of iron,
and the time had not arrived when they could be reconciled to any
diminution of their ecclesiastical authority. They became "alarmed,"
says Lingard, at the position taken by Elizabeth. They undoubtedly
viewed it only in its relation to themselves and the interests of
the Church at Rome--or, rather, of the papacy--without bestowing a
moment's thought upon the general welfare of England. They regarded
conciliation as a form of heresy not to be tolerated. What they desired
was the extirpation of Protestantism and the unity of the Roman Church,
assured by the establishment of its religion to the exclusion of any
dissenting faith. Accordingly, they assembled themselves together to
consult "whether they could in conscience officiate at the coronation"
of a queen who proposed so to adjust religious differences as to put
an end to all interference with the right of individuals to freedom of
conscience. Upon various pretexts they decided not to attend, or to
take part in, the ceremony of coronation. Consequently, the ceremony
was performed with the attendance of only a single bishop, and was made
"to conform to all the rites of the Catholic pontifical." This decision
and conduct of the bishops "created considerable embarrassment," and
might have produced serious consequences but for the withdrawal of this
single bishop from his associates.[82]
The non-attendance of the Roman Catholic bishops upon the coronation
of Elizabeth was a signal for opening the old strife. It was
unquestionably intended upon their part to array their followers in
opposition to the conciliatory measures of the queen; and it did not
take long, in those days, to be so understood upon both sides. The
consequence was that the public excitement was imparted to Parliament,
and led to the repeal of several of the statutes of Mary, and the
substitution for them of others whereby the Reformed religion was
made national, and penalties prescribed for refusing so to recognize
it. This, of course, led to severe measures and to persecution, in
imitation of the example set during the reign of Mary, and produced
the unfortunate condition of affairs with which all readers of English
history are familiar. Upon which side, during the long controversy
that followed, the responsibility rested most heavily, is not easily
decided. Wrongs were undoubtedly inflicted by both sides. But
whatsoever these were, they grew out of the spirit of that age, and
had their origin, as we have seen, in the influences created by the
papacy, aided by Jesuit intrigues. The fact, however, which most nearly
concerns our present inquiries is what has just been stated, that the
first step taken in the direction towards the renewal of religious
agitation was the organized opposition of the bishops to Elizabeth,
formed for the purpose of defeating the measures of pacification she
had proposed to Parliament. It is impossible not to have known that
the defeat of those measures by the combined opposition of the bishops
would lead to a revival of the hatreds which had been encouraged under
Mary, and, therefore, to oppose them was to invite that revival for
which, consequently, these bishops were responsible.
Whether the Protestants would have accepted or rejected the
proposition of Elizabeth can not now be decided with positive
certainty; all the probabilities indicate that they would have
accepted them. One thing, however, is certain, they were rejected
by the Roman Catholics under the lead of their bishops. This, of
course, revived the old animosities, but with increased violence.
Throughout all the departments of society passion became greatly
intensified. Nevertheless, the questions involved were English
questions alone. They were primarily and chiefly political, although
having politico-religious aspects. But they involved only the internal
and domestic condition of England. No alien or foreign power had the
right, by international or other law, or consistently with what is now
universal usage among civilized nations, to interfere with them. But we
have seen that they were interfered with, not only by a direct attempt
to make the policy of the country conform to that dictated by a foreign
power, but in the threatening form of a conspiracy between the king of
France and the pope, to impeach the title of Elizabeth upon the ground
that she was a bastard, to which she could not have submitted without
disgrace. We have also seen how this conspiracy moved stealthily
forward, step by step, until she was tried at Rome by an alien
tribunal, pronounced a usurper by a decree which declared her crown
to have been forfeited and her subjects released from their natural
and lawful allegiance. And in order that her escape from the wrath and
vengeance of the pope should become impossible, swarms of incendiary
Jesuits were turned loose upon the country, to fan the flames of
discord, stir up rebellion and civil war, and carry into execution
the judgment and sentence of the papal court at Rome. If Elizabeth
erred in defending herself and her kingdom against this formidable and
dangerous combination, her error was upon the side of patriotism; and
she is scarcely censurable for it, inasmuch as the life of the nation,
and probably her own life, were the stake for which her enemies were
playing. And whether it be true or not, that the Jesuits attempted
her assassination--as some historians allege--it must be accepted
in her praise that, although a woman, she taught her assailants that
she was "every inch a queen," and that England under her reign became
enabled to convince all these rival powers that she was competent to
conduct her own affairs and take care of herself--facts sufficiently
demonstrated by her advanced position among the modern progressive
nations.
Every American mind should be duly impressed by this portion of
English history, showing, as it does, how fierce and protracted
was the struggle which led, in the end, to popular government, and
the civil and religious freedom which it alone has guaranteed.
Elizabeth was undoubtedly a great queen--great in the qualities of
her intellect, in the steadfastness of her purposes, in that manly
courage which "mounteth with occasion." When she became queen, the
people of England, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, were tired of
religious persecution, and anxious to put an end to it. She favored
and recommended to Parliament measures of pacification, in the spirit
of liberality and toleration. If, obeying the dictates of her own
conscience, she preferred Protestantism to Roman Catholicism, she had
such respect for the conscientious convictions of others as to desire
that all her subjects should be secured in the right to accept either
the one or the other at their own discretion. By the avowal of these
and other kindred purposes, she incurred the opposition of the Roman
Catholic bishops, who, in concert with foreign powers, and backed by
the pope and his Jesuit militia, brought on a civil war which afflicted
England with a long train of evils and calamities. Under the influence
of her liberalism, the bulk of the population became tolerant of each
other, and, by the great unanimity with which they accepted her as
queen, indicated the desire that the protection of the Government
should be given to both forms of worship. And it may be accepted as
a fair inference from what then transpired, that she was defeated in
her plan of conciliation only by the animosities engendered by the
English bishops, the pope, and the Jesuits. Her defeat, however, was
not final; and having survived the machinations of all her enemies,
even the excommunication and anathemas of the pope, together with the
stealthy plottings of the Jesuits, the pages which record the events
of her reign constitute some of the brightest in English history. They
teach a philosophy that will not be forgotten so long as free popular
institutions shall continue to exist.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 75: Nicolini, p. 65. Steinmetz, Vol. I, p. 302.]
[Footnote 76: Nicolini, pp. 151, 152, note.]
[Footnote 77: History of England. By Lingard. Vol. VI, p. 4. See, also,
Hume, Vol. IV, p. 4.]
[Footnote 78: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 110. Nicolini, p. 153.]
[Footnote 79: History of England. By Hume. Vol. IV, p. 182.]
[Footnote 80: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 4.]
[Footnote 81: History of England. By Rapin. Vol. VIII, pp. 217 to 232.]
[Footnote 82: Lingard, Vol. VI, p. 5.]