sistency and piety, when a Protestant bishop does the same for a móż narch elected by a Protestant people! As well might the modern editors of John Fox charge the death of Louis XVI. in 1793 to the account of Boniface, as the deposition of Childeric, because pope Pius VII. some years afterwards crowned Napoleon Bonaparte emperor of France. These events in temporal affairs are the inscrutable designs of Divine Providence to chastise indolent kings as well as depraved people, in which religious faith has as little share as the "few plain Christians" partake of common sense. This act of the meek and lowly Pius has given rise to much animadversion on the part of many stanch and good Catholics, which is a flat contradiction to the pretended doctrine imputed to Boniface, that the conduct of a pope is not to be censured, be his life ever so wicked or scandalous.

"

66

66

The affair of deposing Childeric is thus stated by Alban Butler, in a note to the life of St. Boniface :-"The Merovingian race, so called "from king Meroveus, in whom the French crown was first made hereditary, filled the throne three hundred and thirty-five years, under "twenty-two successive reigns of kings in Paris. The Carlovingian line, so-called from Charles Martel, possessed the crown during four"teen reigns, and terminated in Lewis V. in 987, who died without "issue. The nobility passing by his uncle Charles duke of Lorrain, "chose Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the great, the powerful count of Paris, who defeated Charles, and imprisoned him for life. The Capétian race of French kings reigns to this day, but was subdivided "into two younger branches; the Valesian, which begun in Philip VI. "of Valois in 1328; and that of Bourbon, which was called to the "throne in Henry IV. in 1587, and was descended from Robert, fourth son of St. Lewis count of Clermont, who marrying Beatrix of Bour"bon, his posterity took that title. The kings of France of the first race, from Clovis II. son of Dagobert I. in 643, to Childeric III. in 752, during ten reigns successively through a whole century, had given themselves up to an inactive life, and were sunk in indolence, never concerning themselves with the state, in which the supreme authority was entrusted to the mayor of the palace: and this magistracy was often the cause of wars, and became at length hereditary. Thus, the kings were merely titular. This form of government was a source of continual factions, and other disorders, very prejudicial "to the public weal. The crown, in all the barbarous nations which came from the north, was originally elective, as Robertson shews in "his learned preliminary discourse to his history of Scotland; but "among the French and most others it soon became hereditary. The "constitution of the French government being become inconsistent "with itself, on this occasion, it was judged necessary to restore the original form, and for this purpose to transfer the crown upon "whom the laws of the state had already vested with the whole regal power and authority. Childeric III. surnamed the Stupid, having "been titular king nine years, was shaved a monk at Sithiu or St. "Bertin's in 752, and died there in 755.... How difficult soever (the σε writer adds) it may be to excuse Pepin from taking ambitious steps 66 to prepare the way for this revolution, the case is very different as "to the persons who only acquiesced in an unanimous resolution taken

66

66

66

him

OF

For's Book of Martyrs,

CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL.

1970 Printed and Published by W. E. ANDREWS, 3, Chapter- Price 3d. house-court, St. Paul's Churchyard, London.

No. 13.

EXPLANATION OF THE ENGRAVING.-This cut represents the actual blowing up of king Henry Darnley, husband of the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots, with all his servants and attendants, as he lay sick at his house of Kirk-a-field. The contrivers and perpetrators of this act of villany, were the Protestant earls of Murray, Morton, Bothwell, Lethington, &c. the principal leaders, with Knox, in the reformation of Scotland.

1

by those who were best acquainted with right and law in a succession, which till then seemed only hereditary, under certain restrictions, as frequent examples in the French, English, and other new 'kingdoms, of the same original, from the northern transmigrations, "shew....The circumstances of the dethroning of Childeric, and of Pepin's election, are related so differently, and the true history is so obscure, that it is easy for every writer to give it his own gloss... That the election of Pepin was unanimous, and a transaction of the "whole nation, and of all the powers that could be consulted in it, is proved in note 43 on Serrarius Rerum Mogunticar, by Georgius "Christianus Joannis. Francoi. 1723, p. 332."

From this authentic statement. the reader will be able to pronounce the infamy due to the assertions of the modern editors of Fox, to defame the character of a godly martyr," who is acknowledged by the martyrologist himself to have been an honour to his country. Boniface deposing a king by his own authority! Was ever so idle a calumny

before invented? What authority could Boniface possess of himself, when it is clearly and repeatedly stated by Fox, that the martyr held himself in obedience to the pope, and that he received his commission or authority from the see of Rome. Deposing power indeed! Who ever exercised the deposing power so effectually as the heroes of the Reformation, so called, of the sixteenth century? Much clamour we know has been raised against the supposed deposing power of the popes, and Catholics are obliged at this day to renounce on oath this power, which never was an article of their faith, while Protestants claim the right of exercising it under certain conditions. Not an instance can be produced of a sovereign being actually deposed by a pope, though many were deprived of their dominions by "Protestantascendency." The reformers of Scotland deposed Mary, the unfortunate queen of that country, after blowing up her husband with gunpowder. Christina, queen of Sweden, was obliged to resign her sceptre by her reforming subjects. The Protestants tried hard to depose Charles the fifth of Germany; and many attempts were made by the Huguenots of France to depose their sovereigns. Did not "Protestantascendency" endeavour to shut Mary out of the throne of England; and were not Charles I. and his son James II. deposed by Protestants ? Is it not a part of the statute law of the kingdom, at this moment, that should the sovereign become a Catholic, or marry a Catholic princess, he is instantly deposed? Is it not a principle with Orangemen to swear allegiance to the king conditionally? And are Catholics still to be taunted with the deposing power attributed by bigots to the popes, but never allowed them by the church! We are not sorry that the charge has been made, because it has given us the opportunity of rebutting it with facts that are incontestible and overwhelming. When the Catholic religion was introduced among Pagan nations, no alteration was made in the civil privileges or customs of the country, where they were not contrary to faith and morals. The system of Catholicism is purely spiritual and not of this world, therefore it is adapted to every form of civil government, nor has it any divine commission to interfere in the concerns of kingdoms and states.

The martyrologist proceeds to give an account of " Massacres by the Saracens," and the death of " Winceslaus, duke of Bohemia," which we shall pass over, as containing nothing worthy of remark. His next subject is "Adalbert, bishop of Prague," on which we must be allowed 'to say something. After stating the great virtues and endowments of Adalbert, he says, that soon after the decease of Dithmar (the archbishop), an assembly was held for the choice of a successor, which "consisted of the clergy of Prague and the nobility of Bohemia. Adal"bert's character determined them to raise him to the vacant see, "which they did on the 19th of February, 983, and immediately dispatched messengers to Verona, to desire Otho II. would confirm the "election. The emperor granted the request, ordered Adalbert to re"pair to court for investiture, gave him the ring and crosier, and then "sent him to the archbishop of Mentz for consecration. That cereσε mony was performed on the 29th of June the same year; and he was received at Prague with great demonstrations of public joy." From whence Fox takes this account we are not told; all is assertion;

ર

not a single authority is quoted: and we have reason to conclude that it is wholly groundless. Hitherto, as in the case of St. Boniface, Fox has acknowledged the supremacy of the pope, or bishop of Rome, but now he makes an attempt to shift the supremacy to the emperor Otho. The emperor was requested to confirm Adalbert's election, he says, on which the monarch sent for the prelate-elect to court for investiture, and there giving him the ring and crosier, ordered him off to the archbishop of Mentz to be consecrated. This tale is very plausible, but not quite correct, if we are to believe the Rev. A. Butler, in his life of this saint; and as the latter martyrologist has given us authorities for what he has related, it is more reasonable, we think, to give credit to a writer who brings forward evidence in support of his relation than a man who does not. Mr. Butler says, Adalbert was chosen by an assembly held a few days after the death of his predecessor, that he endeavoured to prevent his election, but ineffectually, and was consecrated in 983 by the archbishop of Mentz. Not a word about going to court, and receiving the ring and crosier from the emperor; and it would seem, from Mr. B.'s account, that the emperor did not see Adalbert until some years after he was made bishop. The claim of investiture had not then, we believe, been raised by the temporal sovereigns; and if it had, the emperor could not have issued orders for consecration to the archbishop, for that being a purely spiritual act, no temporal authority could be exercised to enforce it. The pope and the pope only could grant spiritual jurisdiction, and it is he, by virtue of the authority given by Christ to Peter and his successors, that confirms the election of all bishops. In the eleventh century, it is true, the kings of Germany, of France and England, laid claim to the privilege of investiture, which is a term used to express the right and the act of investing persons with certain powers, both ecclesiastical and civil. The ceremony as regarded bishops and abbots was the delivery of the ring and crosier, but as it bore the appearance of simony, the act was condemned by the supreme pontiffs, and resisted by those prelates who were remarkable for the sanctity of their lives and the uprightness of their conduct. Of these St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of William Rufus, was a brilliant example.

Fox next states, that Adalbert "divided the revenue of his see into "four parts, according to the directions of the canons extant in the fifth century. The first was employed in the building and ornaments of "the church; the second went to the maintenance of the clergy; the "third was laid out for the relief of the poor; and the fourth reserved "for the support of himself and family, which was always made to in"clude twelve indigent persons, to whom he allowed daily subsist66 ence." Mr. Butler adds, that these twelve poor men were kept in honour of the apostles, and that the holy prelate employed the whole of his own patrimony in alms. "He had in his chamber a good bed," writes Mr. B. "but on which he never lay; taking his short rest on a sackcloth, or on the bare floor. His fasts were frequent, and his "life most austere." Hence, then, it is clear, that this martyr, honoured by Fox, was a Catholic and not a Protestant bishop. The latter prelates are so little inclined to relinquish the comfort of a good bed,

66

that they add to the enjoyment by taking bed-fellows besides, and bed-fellows too that would not share lodgings with them if they slept on sackcloth, like the holy Adalbert. But we wish particularly to impress upon the mind of the reader, especially if he be a Protestant, the admission here made, by Fox and his modern editors, that by the canons extant in the fifth century, the revenues given to the church were divided into four parts, namely, one to raise and repair places of worship, a second to maintain the clergy, a third to relieve the poor, and the fourth to support the bishop. We wish him also to bear in mind, that while this kingdom was Catholic, the church revenues were thus invariably appropriated, and oftentimes made to contribute largely to the exigencies of the state. But is this the case now? Has the nation bettered itself by the change introduced at the reformation, so called, of the sixteenth century? Who is the individual, not interested in the question, that will answer us in the affirmative? In the time of Adalbert, and in all Catholic countries at this period, the clergy are enjoined celibacy, so that their wants are few, and their cares for a family less. When this country was Catholic, nó rates were raised beyond the tithe to build and repair churches; none to support the poor, nor were taxes levied to relieve the indigent clergy and their families. The most heautiful fabrics were raised to become temples of worship for the living God; alms-houses and hospitals were erected for the poor and infirm, and all this without a tax, except the tithe levied for the civil establishment of the clergy. But when the state began to meddle with religion; when it was thought necessary to reform that system of divine revelation which was never to be altered or stand in need of alteration, what a change has this intermeddling made in the situation of the country. The revenues heretofore destined to works of charity and hospitality, were given to hungry and corrupt courtiers; and, as the practice of good works and self-denial were laid aside, as superstitious customs, the clergy were allowed to marry. Till this period a married clergyman was a nonentity, and by the laws of the country, the offspring of an ecclesiastic, if such were unfortunately born, were rendered incapable of inheritance, so strong was public feeling against the abuse of a discipline derived from the apostles, and held sacred by the Catholic church.

The adversaries of this church, however, as we before observed, had no taste for restraints of the flesh, but they gave an unbridled license to the passions, and secured, as far as they could, the means of gratifying them. Laws were passed to allow the reformed clergy to marry and legitimate their issue; while, for the support of their families, the whole of the tithes were given to them, leaving the churches and the poor wholly unprovided for. The impolicy of this system soon made its appearance, by the disturbances and discontents of the indigent, and new laws were passed to levy rates on land and trade to maintain the poor and keep the churches in repair. At first these measures bore lightly on the people, and the delusive dread of Popery, which the interested were continually instilling into the public mind, prevented the bulk of the nation from discovering the woful change that had been made from an unmarried to a married clergy. The present posture of affairs has, however, contributed greatly to open the eyes of the peo