less odious. The standard by which it judged of heresy, was the doctrine of the Universal Church, believed to be infallible in her teaching; the culprits were those who had been baptized, and had acknowledged her authority, since the tribunal did not claim power over unbaptized persons, or such as had been brought up in heresy; so that its operation was confined to apostates, or to those who dissembled their heresy, in order to spread it more widely. The Star Chamber was composed of men who acknowledged no infallible authority, and whose opinions varied from those which for nearly a thousand years had prevailed in the nation. Its victims were men who, from conscientious conviction, clung to the faith of their ancestors, and without tumult or display, sought to practise the duties and enjoy the consolations of religion. In the use of the rack, both tribunals were alike, inasmuch as this mode of eliciting a confession was then adopted in all courts; in the ultimate penalty they resembled one another, although the Inquisition did not order its infliction; but in every other respect, as far as humanity, justice, and truth are concerned, the Inquisition had vastly the advantage of the Star Chamber. You impute all the cruelty of this tribunal and of the laws made under Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth, to the principles of Popery, which the reformers had not yet unlearned, of which you find evidence in the statute for the burning of heretics, "de hæretico comburendo," passed in the fifteenth century, in conformity, as you allege, with the canon of Lateran. As the Reformers professed no respect for the principles of the Church, and boasted of extraordinary light in the work which they had undertaken, we should have expected them to have soon rid themselves of any prejudice so repugnant to humanity. The statute alluded to was enacted in the year 1400, nearly two centuries after the Council of Lateran, and without any reference to its canons. The civil law, long before that Council, attached the penalty of death to heresy, and the English statute was passed conformably to that general jurisprudence, when the Lollards, by riots and insurrection, awakened the fears of the government. To the honor of England it must be said, that very few instances occurred of punishment on the score of religion, up to the time of Henry VIII. The principle on which the English courts proceeded, is stated by the late Chiet Justice of Delaware, Thomas Clayton, in justification of his judgment in a case of most revolting blasphemy, to which he attached an extremely mild penalty: "Infidelity is proved by all history to be in character not less intolerant than fanaticism. In all cases where the tendency of any man's acts or words was, in the judgment of a common law court, to disturb the common peace of the land, of which it was the preserver and protector, or to lead to a breach of it, and the good order of society, considered merely as a civil institution, the common law avenged the wrong done to civil society alone. He, therefore, who subverted, reviled, or ridiculed the religion of our English ancestors, was punished at common law, not for his offence against his God, but for his offence against man, whose peace and safety, as they believed, was endangered by such conduct. To sustain the soundness of this opinion, their descendants point us to the tears and blood of revolutionary France during that reign of terror, when infidelity triumphed, and the abrogation of the Christian faith was succeeded by the worship of the goddess of reason, and they aver that WITHOUT THIS RELIGION, NO NATION HAS EVER YET CON"'* TINUED FREE. The same principle was doubtless common to the legislators and courts of other Catholic nations, although from the usual connection of violence with heresy, the mere profession of it came to be regarded as a crime punishable by the civil authority. Catholic jurists and divines supported this legislation, and the Reformers, Calvin, Beza, and many others, expressly maintained it, with this difference, that they limited its application to those who, like Servetus, denied the leading mysteries of faith, or extended it to * State vs. Chandler, 2 Harrington, Delaware, p. 557. those who clung to the ancient religion. The punishment of Jerom of Prague, and John Huss, with which you reproach us, was not for innoxious errors, but for tenets which sapped the foundations of society, by making obedience dependent on the moral integrity of the ruler. It was not in violation of the safe conduct granted to them, which was in general terms to secure them from molestation, that they might present themselves for trial, without defeating the ends of justice. It was not the act of the Council, which expressly declared that its power did not extend beyond the sentence of excommunication.* It is untrue, then, that, as you assert, "the fathers had the satisfaction of committing them to the flames." In regard to all that has been done at any time according to legal process, it is fair to examine the nature of the errors professed, and the actions of the sectaries themselves, before we pronounce judgment. St. Augustin, when reproached by the Donatists with the persecuting laws enforced against them, replied: "If any severity inconsistent with Christian lenity has, at any time, been exercised towards them, it displeases all true Christians;"t and although he defended the laws as rendered necessary by their outrages, he deprecated the infliction of capital punishment: "No good man * Sess. XV. in the Catholic Church approves of the capital punishment of a heretic."* If, in after ages, ecclesiastics have defended such enactments, it has been in consequence of the peculiar atrocities which accompanied the profession of heresy. As to treachery, assassination, and massacre, words cannot express our horror for those crimes, by whomsoever they may be committed. The massacre of St. Bartholomew was the unpremeditated act of Charles IX., instigated by his mother, Catharine, under the apprehension. of a conspiracy against the royal family, as well as religion. The rejoicings at Rome arose from the false representations of the French ambassador, who stated that by an act of summary justice, the machinations of the rebels had been frustrated. The crimes which they had already perpetrated, the assassinations, revolts, and sacrileges of which they had been guilty, prepared men to believe the evil designs which were imputed to them. In like manner the assassinations ordered by Henry III., and the countenance given by him to the enemies of religion, caused his own assassination to be regarded as a just visitation of Providence, although the treachery by which he fell deserved all execration. Cardinal Gotti maintains that Clement, * Contra Crescon. 1. iii. c. 4, n. 55. † See vindication of certain passages in the fourth and fifth volumes of the History of England, by J. Lingard, D.D. |
