"know in what manner an English catholic histo"rian speaks of such transactions in these times." -We cannot think the three last words of this sentence, you yourself print them in italics,-are used with good-natured intentions towards us.

The best account of what passed at lord Cobham's trial, is given in the Acts of the Convocation, published by Wilkins*. If I could place the volume and the pages before my readers, I should be satisfied and silent as every person, who perused them, would acknowledge the accuracy of doctor Lingard's representation. No insulting, no harsh expression, was uttered by the archbishop; his addresses to lord Cobham were uniformly decorous, dignified, and mild. He adjourned the court for four days, to give lord Cobham time for reflection and defence. Was any thing like this humanity exhibited on the trials of the innocent catholics, in the reigns of queen Elizabeth and her three pro

testant successors?

Lord Cobham had three times refused to obey the process of the court requiring his appearance; he had fortified his castle to prevent its being served upon him; and, ultimately, he was apprehended by force. When, at length, he was produced in court, he declined giving explicit answers on the points on which he was interrogated: "I 66 believe," he said, "all that my Lord God would "I should believe."" Such faith," you remark, "was not sufficient, under the papal tyranny, to

* Concilia, vol. 3. p. 353-357.

"save him from the flames." Was it sufficient to save from the rack or gibbet the catholic sufferers in this kingdom for their religion in any protes tant reign? Would it have saved the anabaptists, who suffered in the reign of Elizabeth? or the arians, who suffered in the reign of James? Would it have satisfied any of the judges, who lately tried the Carlisles? or the magistrates, who lately committed Hale? Lord Cobham repeatedly denied the jurisdiction of the court who tried him; compared his judges to the Pharisees, to Ananias, to Caiphas: he told them, that "Rome was the very nest of antichrist; and that out of that nest came all the disciples of him, of whom prelates, priests, and "monks were the body, and the piled friars the "tail. Your possessions and lordships," he told the archbishop," are venom, shed by Judas unto the "church-ye never followed Christ." Can Can you say, that this language was not arrogant, or not insulting? I use your own translation of it.

66

66

-

I trust that this, though a succinct, will be found a true representation of what past between the archbishop and lord Cobham. I now ask, whether, if a person should, at this time, conduct himself in any spiritual or temporal court, in the same manner as lord Cobham did in the court of convocation, before archbishop Arundel, he would not be punished? Yet you laud lord Cobham's conduct throughout.

You then inform us, that the court "excom"municated lord Cobham, and pronounced him

"accursed; and not him alone, but all who should "in anyway receive, help, or defend him." The word accursed, is your own addition: no such word was used by the court. You call it a "cruel and "inhuman" sentence: how many sentences equally cruel and inhuman have been passed by protestant courts on catholics, not only less culpable than lord Cobham, but perfectly innocent of the crimes of which they were accused? and their innocence of which is now acknowledged?

In a former part of your work, you transcribe the terrible words in which excommunication was expressed you observe, that no form of heathen "superstition could have been so revolting, as when "a christian minister called upon the Redeemer of "Mankind to fulfil execrations which the devil "himself might seem to have inspired." I do not defend the words to which you object; they were devised in an age of barbarism, when the most forcible language only had any effect on the populace they were an abusive application of the curses in Deuterono:ny*; and, I believe, they were resorted to only on singular occasions, and that, before the revival of letters, they had fallen into desuetude. By perusing the document in Wilkins, to which I have referred, you will observe, that the sentence of excommunication, past by archbishop Arundel on lord Cobham, does not contain these execrations. According to the actual jurisprudence of

Deut. c. xxxviii.

England, excommunication is yet attended by many civil penalties and disabilities.

All, who peruse your account of lord Cobham, and your censure of doctor Lingard, should recollect that, in an earlier part of "the Book of the " Church," you inform us, that "the Lollards held principles incompatible with the peace of society;

66

opinions founded in gross error, and leading to "direct and enormous evil;" and that "lord "Cobham was confessedly their head and leader." I trust I have successfully vindicated doctor Lingard against the only particular charge you have brought against him.

"Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, "and Scottish Catholics," have been published by another hand you may, perhaps, find some things in them which you think objectionable; but I feel a strong confidence, that they do not merit any of the undistinguishing and unqualified expressions of gross abuse, which you apply to the historical productions of every catholic historian of the reformation.

You close the chapter, by an insinuation in favour of Henry VIII. You intimate, that "he was not "the mere monster which, upon a cursory view, he "must needs appear to every young and ingenuous "mind:" yet you mention, in the preceding line, "his many revolting acts of caprice and cruelty;" and, in a subsequent line, "his sending a wife and "a minister to the scaffold with as little compunc"tion, as he would have in sending a dog to be "drowned."

The frequent repetition of these enormities, in every part of his reign; his general profligacy; his prodigality; his wicked interferences with the courts of justice; his unjust and ruinous wars; and his general oppression of his people, are confessed by all his historians: all represent him,—to use the language of one of the most eminent among them,as a tyrant, "who never spared woman in his lust, nor man in his wrath; so that, if all the patterns "of a merciless prince had been lost in the world, they might have been found in this king*." Such is the character given, even by his protestant historians, of Henry; if it be true, it justifies your expression,―he was not a mere monster, he was more: I wish you to mention the vices which he did not possess; or the talents which he possessed, and did not abuse.

66

Cromwell, his active minister, particularly in his rejection of the pope's supremacy, and the dissolution of the monasteries, you highly extol: but you omit to mention that he died in the roman-catholic faith; and that, from the scaffold, he solemnly professed, and called on the spectators "to bear him "record, that he died in the catholic faith, not doubting in any article of his faith."

* Heylin's Hist. p. 15; he citing Sir Walter Raleigh.