"ful in the heart of man, than even the love of " his country, rendered him capable of perceptions " and feelings which reached beyond its limits : "the French Calvinist found himself more in "contact with England, Germany, Holland or Geneva, than with a Catholic of his own country. " This effected a new political division in " Europe; France siding with the separatists from "the Church of Rome, and introducing to the " aid of their common cause the Ottoman power, " became the real head of one power; Austria was the head of the other. But when, upon "the abdication of Charles the Fifth, his German " were divided from his Spanish territories, and "the civil wars of France weakened his connections " with the Protestant powers and the Porte, " Philip the Second of Spain, and Elizabeth " of England, became the conspicuous characters. " Philip, with the aid of Bavaria, was the centre " of the Catholic system: Elizabeth, with the " United Provinces at her disposition, was at the " head of the Protestant. During this period, " Germany, under the peaceable influence of Ru"dolph, took no part in the contest; but all the "temporal, and (which was of much greater con" sequence) all the spiritual power of Rome, co 66 operated with the Spaniard, and placed the Pope " in the van of the Catholic array. Then, if "Schiller's remarks be just, the Protestants in 66 every country subject to the Spanish sway, " would be partisans of Elizabeth, and every " Catholic in the territories subject to her do 66 minion or controul, would be favourable to the designs of Philip and the Pope. Pursuing his " reasoning, it would follow that this would be " particularly the case of the clergy of each di"vision, on account of their nearer interests in the concerns of religion; and still more the case of "the Catholic clergy, on account of their intimate " connection with the Roman See, and graduated "dependence upon her." You tell me, (p. 185), that, "You use my own " words when you add, that Elizabeth's religious "reformation seems to have been conceived on a 66 conciliatory and comprehensive scheme." You refer to my Historical Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 145 and page 234, of the 2d edition. No such expression is to be found in the pages to which you refer: neither is any such expression applied as you apply it, to the general character of Elizabeth's religious reformation, to be found in any of my writings. XV. 2. Your Eulogy of the Pacific Tendency of Elizabeth's first measures respecting Religion. PERMIT me to ask, if, while You brought forward, in this and other parts of your work, the persecution of Protestants by Catholics in foreign countries, You should not have equally brought into view the persecutions of Catholics by Protestants? Justice required it of You. I beg leave to refer You to what I have said upon this subject, in the fifth section of my fifteenth letter to Doctor Southey, and to Doctor Milner's fourth letter to Doctor Sturges. If You compare the different persecutions, either in the provocations of them, or in their length, or their atrocity, You will not find the Catholics more guilty than the Protestants. Let us now inquire, whether the persecuting laws of Queen Elizabeth, speaking of them generally, can be justified upon any general principles of morality and civil justice. 1-At the time of the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the Roman Catholic was the national religion. Two-thirds of the nation professed it; all the bishops, both houses of convocation, and both the universities, protested against the introduction of the Protestant creed. The remaining third part of the nation, but divided into the episcopalian and puritan denominations, favoured Protestantism. Elizabeth herself was, or at least professed herself to be, an episcopalian Protestant. In this situation of things, did any general principles of morality and justice confer a right upon Elizabeth and her government, to make episcopalian Protestantism the religion of the state? Here, the relative merits of the two religions are beside the question: the only point to be considered is, whether morality and justice allowed Queen Elizabeth to make episcopalian Protestantism the state religion, against the will of an immense majority of her subjects? You must, I suppose, maintain the affirmative; -I maintain the negative. 2.-Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the overturning of the national religion of the country, and the substitution of a new religion, contrary to the wish of a great majority of the population, was moral and just, did morality and justice make it the right of Elizabeth and her government, to enact, that the adherence of twothirds of her subjects to the ancient religion of their country, was a crime against the state; and that every exercise by them of their hereditary religion, and even mere non-conformity to the new ritual, was, upon that account, highly criminal, and should therefore be punished by heavy legislative inflictions? If it was not moral and just, Elizabeth's legislation against her Roman Catholic subjects, was wicked and barbarous in the extreme. Converting the case, that is, -supposing the government to be Roman Catholic, and the majority of the nation to be Protestant, would similar laws be justifiable? If You answer in the negative, You are bound to produce some acknowledged general principle that justifies your answer:-I aver that no such general principle can be produced. I agree, with Father Persons, * that " Neither " breathing, nor the use of common ayre, is more "due unto Roman Catholics, or common to all, "than ought to be libertie of conscience to "christian men, whereby each man liveth to "God and himself; and without which, he * Judgment of a Catholic living in banishment for his religion, &c. 8vo. 1608. 6. 66 struggleth with the torment of all-continual lingering death." THIS IS MY CREED; and it is a great satisfaction to me to reflect, that, having advocated Catholic Emancipation during half a century, I never advocated it on any ground that was not applicable to every denomination of dissidents from a state religion. 3. But, let us advance further, and admit that Queen Elizabeth being, as I unequivocally admit and believe her to have been, sovereign of the country, both in fact and in right, did morality and justice allow her and her government, to consider it a notorious fact, that all her subjects, who professed the Roman Catholic religion, and thereforc acknowledged the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, were from this circumstance alone, deficient in true allegiance to her; and that, on this account, both morality and justice sanctioned legislative provisions which, on the mere proof of their acknowledging the Pope's spiritual supremacy, or even refusing to swear to the Queen's spiritual supremacy, and without requiring the slightest evidence of their having committed any one act which the ancient law of the realm made criminal, subjected them to the horrible penalties of treason. |