to bear in mind, was a CATHOLIC king, governed by the divine precepts of the CATHOLIC church, while the "few plain Christians" tell us that the Catholic religion is inseparable from persecution, and its professors bloodthirsty and superstitious.

Fox says

"the ascen

We must now return to the martyrologist. dency of the popes was never more fully evinced than by a remarkable "fact in the history of our own country;" which fact turns out to be the surrender which John made of the crown of England to Innocent III. This fact he has taken care to envelope in much darkness, and when placed in its true light, the ascendency of the popes in those days will appear to be not half so pernicious as the ascendency of an Orange faction in our own. It is confessed by Fox that John was hated by the barons and people for his cruel and tyrannical measures, and that they offered the crown to Louis, son of the French king. It is true they did so; and it is also true that this offer was made subsequent to the surrender of the crown by John to Innocent, so great was the ascendency of the popes in those days! Fox places this circumstance before the affair between the king and the supreme pontiff, whereas, as we have just said, it should have been put after the mighty resignation. The case was this: John was a faithless and perfidious character; he divorced his wife, and murdered his nephew; which latter crime drew upon him the indignation of his subjects, and the Bretons, in particular, swore to be revenged on the murderer. His foreign dominions in Normandy were attacked, and John was compelled to retire to England, where he raised forces, and applied to the pope to compel his antagonist, the French king, by ecclesiastical censures, to observe his engagements.

It must here be noticed, that at the period we are treating of, the principle upon which our ancestors were governed was the feudal system; and it was no uncommon thing to see the king of England doing homage as the vassal of the king of France; and the king of Scotland swearing fealty to the king of England; the one for territories held in Normandy; the other for lands held under the English crown. Hence in many of their disputes, when the fate of arms was doubtful, or had turned out disastrous, the soverign pontiffs were appealed to as the common father of Christendom, to use their spiritual influence, which was almost invariably exercised on the side of justice. In the case with John, the pope entered warmly into the affair, and endeavoured to bring about a reconciliation. The matter, however, turned out disastrous to the English monarch's interests, and he soon found himself involved in a dispute with Innocent himself.

In those times the choice of a bishop was not as now, a mere matter of course, at the will of a minister, but a canonical election was deemed necessary, and the church being independent of the state, in point of spirituals, a rigid adherence to forms was the consequence. It happened that the see of Canterbury became vacant, and John wanted to put one of his own creatures into the primate's chair; the monks, who had the right of election, differed from the king, and elected another candidate, but fearing John's displeasure, they disregarded the first choice, and made a selection of John de Grey, bishop of Norwich, according to the recommendation of the king. As this was an affair that regarded the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, recourse was had to

The

the pope, who pronounced both elections void, and ordered a canonical one to be entered into, when Stephen Langton, an Englishman of great eminence and learning, who had been honoured by Innocent with the purple, was chosen, and his election confirmed by the pope. bishop of Norwich not being willing to lose the object of his ambition, insinuated bad advice into the ear of his royal master, who refused to acknowledge the election of Langton, and in the fury of disappointment, he turned his rage upon the monks, seized on their revenues, and banished them from the kingdom. Innocent tried by persuasive means to bring the king to a state of reason and justice, but he was inexorable; three bishops, by order of the pope, beseeched him in the most moving terms, to accept the new bishop; but he only answered them with oaths and insults. The king was then laid under an interdict, ánd was subsequently excommunicated, in the hope of bringing him over to justice. John continued to deride these measures till he found the barons were not to be relied upon, so great was their detestation of his conduct and injustices, and his crown was threatened by his rival the French king. He was then panic-struck, and in a fit of guilty cowardice, he resigned the crown into the hands of the pope's legate, and swore fealty to the Roman see. Fox insinuates, that this transaction originated in the willingness of the popes to increase the power of the church; but if this were the case, Innocent must have felt himself much disappointed, as his power did not receive the least augmentation by the transaction, as we shall find in the sequel.

The king being reconciled, the new archbishop Langton, was allowed to take possession of his see and the revenues thereof. The first act of the archbishop, on revoking the sentence of excommunication, was, we are told by Dr. Lingard, to make the king swear, "that he would abo"lish all illegal customs, and revive the laws of the good king Edward." John took the oath, but he did not mean to keep it, so perfidious was his disposition. Some of the barons having fallen under the king's displeasure, he resolved to punish their disobedience by military execution. In this resolution the monarch found himself opposed by the noble-minded and honest archbishop, who reminded him that it was the right of the accused to be tried by his peers. John disregarded his admonitions, on which the archbishop told the king, says the last named author, that if he " persisted to refuse them the justice of a trial, he "should deem it his duty to excommunicate every person, with the ex"ception of the king himself, who should engage in so impious a war"fare. John yielded with reluctance, and for the sake of form, sum"moned the accused to appear on a certain day before him or his jus"tices." This conduct of the archbishop, may be thought by some as insolent and disrespectful to the sovereign; but to those who admit that a monarch holds his crown for the benefit of the people, it will appear an act of the purest patriotism, and shew how beneficial it is that churchmen should not owe their situations to the crown, but be independent of ministerial influence for their elevation.

The continued treachery and vexations of John, induced the cardinal archbishop to seek other measures to ensure the safety of persons and property from the lawless rapacity of the king. Accordingly, at a meeting of the barons at St. Paul's, he called them aside, read to them

the chapter of liberties confirmed by Henry I. and commented upon its provisions. The barons swore upon oath to conquer or die in defence of their liberties. The reader will observe that during these proceed`ings, John held his crown in fealty to the pope, and was courting his support against the barons, as well as against the king of France, with whom he was at war. The contest with France proved unsuccessful, and John having concluded a truce of five years, returned to England to receive further mortification. On the 20th of November 1214, the barons met at the Abbey of St. Edmundsbury, where they took a solemn oath before the high altar, to demand in a body of the king, a redress of their grievances and a restoration of their civil liberties. This was done accordingly, and the king demurring, both parties appealed to the pope, who took the part of his vassal, John. In a letter to Langton he condemned the conduct of the barons as unjust, accused the archbishop of being the fomenter of the dispute, and commanded him to exert all his authority to restore harmony between the king and his subjects. The question was not one of spirituals, but a political struggle for temporal claims, and Langton knew how to distinguish between the two authorities. While he bowed submission to Innocent as head of the church, he declined to obey his mandate as lord paramount of the state, when the command was contrary to the rights and interests of the nation. Thus, when the cardinal primate was urged by the legate and the bishop of Exeter to excommunicate the barons, Langton refused to listen to their propositions, and told them that unless John dismissed the foreign troops he had introduced into the kingdom, he should think it his duty to oppose them with all his power. The barons thus fortified by this courageous dignitary of the church, again pressed their demands on the king, who wished to refer the question to the pope, but the barons refused to let the matter be sent to Rome, and at length obtained on the plains of Runnymead the signature of the king to that charter of liberties, which is referred to at the present day as one of the fundamental pillars of British freedom, and is called the Great Charter.

Thus it is clear, that whatever might be the ascendency of the popes, and however disgraceful the conduct of John might be in surrendering the crown to Innocent, a Catholic cardinal and bishop, and Catholic barons and knights knew how to treat this ascendency, when it stood in the way of their rights and grievances. The idea of the dominions of England and Ireland being held in farm from the pope may suit some prejudiced minds, but the page of history will prove that none were more attached to the see of Rome, on subjects of spiritual jurisdiction, nor more opposed to the court of Rome, when the rights and independence of the country were interfered with, than our Catholic ancestors. They knew, as we have before observed, how to distinguish between the two authorities, and if they occasionally appealed to the pope to heal any differences between crowned heads, or between the rulers and the people, when any stretch of power was exerted on the part of the pontiffs, there were always professors of the canon and civil law to point out the act of encroachment, and all parties were at liberty to abide by it or reject~ it. So much for this mighty bugbear, which was conjured up to alarm the haters of Popery out of their senses, as well as out of those liberties which our Catholic forefathers were so tenacious in preserving.

After John had signed the charter of liberties, he used every endeavour to render the privileges granted by it nugatory, and sought to wreak vengeance on the heads of those who were instrumental in foreing him to sign that important document. His cruelties were unparalleled, and his rapacity insatiable; which induced the barons to offer the crown to Louis the son of the king of France. Louis accepted the offer, and an unsuccessful attempt was made by the pope's legate to prevent both father and son from invading a kingdom, which, he said, was a fief of the holy see. Here we have another proof how little the pretended ascendency of the popes was regarded, when it stood in the way of kingly ambition. The fact is, as we have frequently repeated, and it ought not to be forgotten, the ascendency of the popes, arose from the high situation they held, and the general opinion entertained of their virtues and learning, and love of justice. Innocent III. like Gregory VIII. was a divine renowned for his great knowledge and stern integrity. Of Innocent, who governed the church eighteen years. Blondus, amongst other authors, writes thus, "The fame and odour of this pope's gravity, holiness of life, and greatness of actions, was most sweet throughout all France," &c. (Blond. decad. 2. 1. vii, p. 297.) The Rev. Alban Butler says, that Innocent III. was "famous for his great actions, and for several learned and pious books which he composed." There are writers to be sure who have endeavoured to blacken the fame of this eminent pontiff, but their slanders are evidently the effect of malicious or prejudiced minds, and therefore, wholly unworthy of credit. Innocent convened the fourth general council of Lateran, and condemned the Albigenses; it is therefore, no wonder that he should be abused by Fox and his modern editors, the "few plain Christians," who claim so near a kindred in religion with that impious and diabolical sect.

66

66

66

Let us now see what the character of John was from the best historians. Dr. Lingard thus describes it :-" When Geraldus delineated the cha "racters of the four sons of Henry, John had aleady debased his facul "ties by excess and voluptuousness. The courtly eye of the preceptor "could indeed, discover the germ of future excellence in his pupil "but history has recorded only his vices: his virtues, if such a mon "ster could possess virtues, were unseen, or forgotten. He stands be "fore us polluted with meanness, cruelty, perjury, and murder; uniting "with an ambition, which rushed through every crime to the attain "ment of its object, a pusillanimity which often, at the sole appearance "of opposition, sank into despondency. Arrogant in prosperity, abject "in adversity, he neither conciliated affection in the one, nor excited "esteem in the other. His dissimulation was so well known, that it "seldom deceived: his suspicion served only to multiply his enemies : "and the knowledge of his vindictive temper, contributed to keep open "the breach between him and those who had incurred his displeasure. "Seldom perhaps was there a prince with a heart more callous to the suggestions of pity. Of his captives many never returned from their dungeons. If they survived their tortures, they were left to perish "by famine. He could even affect to be witty at the expense of his "victims. When Geoffry, archdeacon of Norwich, a faithful servant, "had retired from his seat at the exchequer on account of the interdict,

"the king ordered him to be arrested, and sent him a cope of lead to "keep him warm in his prison. The cope was a large mantle, cover"ing the body from the shoulders to the feet, and worn by clergymen "during the service. Wrapt in this ponderous habit, with his head "only at liberty, the unhappy man remained without food or assistance "till he expired. On another occasion he demanded a present of ten thousand marks from an opulent Jew at Bristol, and ordered one of "his teeth to be drawn every morning till he should produce the money. The Jew was obstinate. The executioners began with his "double teeth. He suffered the loss of seven: but on the eighth day solicited a respite, and gave security for the payment...

66

66

John was not less reprehensible as a husband, than he was as a "monarch. While Louis took from him. his provinces on the conti"nent, he had consoled himself for the loss in the company of his beau"tiful bride but he soon abandoned her to revert to his former habits. The licentiousness of his amours is reckoned by every ancient writer among the principal causes of the alienation of his barons, many of whom had to lament and revenge the disgrace of a wife, or "daughter, or sister."....

We have here given a faithful account of the circumstances which occured between Henry IV. of Germany and Gregory VII. and John of England and Innocent III. together with a true character of these respective personages from the best authorities. It will here be seen that the auxiliaries pressed by Fox into his cause are of the most worthless and irreligious cast, whose crimes bring discredit on human nature, and whose deeds are a blot in the history of nations. On the other hand, the "infernal artifices" attributed by: him to the "popes, monks, and "friars," we find have led to the most beneficial consequences, and have been the means of exalting the human mind; extending the arts and sciences through every country where Catholicism was planted, and in none more so than in our own beloved island, as the remains of our ancient buildings and the stately cathedrals that now adorn the kingdom bear testimony. The foreign wars and civil broils that convulsed Europe are also imputed to these "infernal" artificers; with how much truth let the admirable laws and regulations of those days, in our country, the work of the most pious kings and learned divines, bear witness. We have shewn how the Catholic religion was planted by the -care of popes in this country, and how the purest maxims of justice and civil government were established under its benign influence; another picture now remains to be unfolded, in which the depravity of error will appear in that light which Fox and his modern editors have endeavoured to cast upon the ministers and disciples of the Catholic church.

Before we enter on this comparison, we must be allowed to lay before our readers another detectable tale by the martyrologist, which he has headed thus: "AN EMPEROR TRODDEN ON BY THE POPE."—Oh horrible!! Who could ever have supposed such a thing! The popes must be "monsters" indeed, to tread upon emperors! But let us see what Fox himself says upon his extraordinary deed. "The papal usur"pations," he writes, "were extended to every part of Europe. In Germany, the emperor Frederic was compelled to submit to be trod"den under the feet of pope Alexander, aud dared not make any resist