A. D. 1604. But now every exertion was made use of by the The Church agents of Rome to put a stop to this practice; Papists for these agents being partly foreigners from Spain attendance or Italy, who came over to maintain the struggle at the parish for temporal ascendancy in Ireland, and partly

sake their

churches.

natives of the country, the disciples of those foreigners, who, under such influence, had gone abroad to receive their education and orders in seminaries and colleges beyond the sea, in Spain, and France, and Flanders, &c. By means therefore of their efforts, many of those who had been known as Church-Papists were induced, about this time (A.D. 1604) to discontinue their Act of Uni- attendance at the established worship: for which formity enreason it was thought good to carry into effect, forced in Dublin. at least in Dublin (by way of example to other places), the provisions of the Act of Uniformity, as a means of counterbalancing this foreign influence.*

Proclama

clergy of

Rome to

leave the kingdom, 4th July, A.D. 1605.

But the republication of the Act of Unifortion for the mity was not followed, even in the metropolis, with that ready compliance and submission to its injunctions which might have been anticipated; and therefore, to enforce its observance more effectually, measures of a harsher nature were adopted by the government. Sixteen of the most eminent persons of the city of Dublin were summoned to the Court of Castle Chamber, and See Mant, i. 349.

punished for their denial of conformity by cen- A. D. 1605. sures, imprisonment, and heavy fines, i.e., of £100 in some cases, and £50 in others. Moreover, seeing what seditious intrigues were continually kept on foot among the people, by the priests and other clergy of Rome, a proclamation was issued on the 4th of July, 1605, ordering them all, excepting such as would conform, to leave the kingdom before the 16th of the following December. This proclamation however was but faintly administered, and it was accordingly attended with but little effect.

and schism

papal pasto

1605.

Had the government of that day made use of Disloyalty still greater severity towards the tools of Rome, promoted we should have indeed little occasion to be by a fresh surprised at their proceedings, considering the ral, Dec. 7. incessant efforts which the emissaries of that foreign court were employing for the purpose of keeping up a treasonable agitation in this country. About the very time at present under consideration, we find the partizans of the Italian Church once more encouraged to perseverance in their seditious practices by a Bull from Rome, dated the 7th of December, 1605, and containing an "Exhortation and Remission" to the Roman Catholics of Ireland; wherein the pope declared it to be as safe to sacrifice unto idols as to be present at the Common Prayer; and also promised to them aid of great force of

A. D. 1605. Romans, Germans, and Spanish, by the next harvest, and great store of arms to resist their governors.*

Parochial

worship in

wholly interrupted.

What has been said a little above in reference many places to the continued attendance of the people at their parochial worship, after the introduction of the reformed Liturgy, must be understood to apply only to those parts of the country where divine service was maintained at all, or with any kind of regularity. For in such places as had been the scenes of desolation and war, congregational worship was, of course, necessarily omitted. Such was the case mostly with all the rural parts of the north, during the Earl of Tyrone's rebellion, which had caused a general interruption of divine service throughout Ulster for many years, excepting in cities or great towns. A few years before the time now under consiment of this deration, i. e. A. D. 1600, the Lord Deputy intolerant Mountjoy, writing over to the Lords of the toward loyal Council in England, had taken occasion to exable Roman- press himself as being strongly in favour of the

The govern

period not

and peace

ists.

use of mild and tolerant measures, towards persons who might be opposed to the reformed religion as by law established; "not that I think,” says he, "too great preciseness can be used in the reforming of ourselves, the abuses of our

Loftus MS. Marsh's Library. See the Bull entire in Appendix, No. 58, inf.

own clergy, Church livings, or discipline; nor A. D. 1605. that the truth of the Gospel can with too great vehemency or industry be set forward, in all places, and by all ordinary means, most proper unto itself, that was first set forth and spread in meekness; nor that I think any corporal prosecution or punishment can be too severe for such as shall be found seditious instruments of foreign or inward practices; nor that I think it fit that any principal magistrates should be chosen without taking the oath of obedience, nor tolerated in absenting themselves from public divine service, but that we may be advised how we do punish in their bodies or goods any such only for religion as do profess to be faithful subjects to her majesty, and against whom the contrary cannot be proved."*

Now King James being very anxious to make

Leland, ii. 382. Even the turbulent and factious nobles of the Pale bore testimony to the mildness with which the Act of Supremacy was administered under Queen Elizabeth. In a remonstrance of theirs addressed to King James, on the subject of his first Irish Parliament, bearing date, Nov. 25, 1612, they write as follows:-" Your Majesty's subjects in generall do likewise very much distaste and exclaime against the deposing of so many magistrates in the cities and boroughs of this kingdome, for not swearing th'oath of supremacy in spiritual and ecclesiastical causes; they protesting a firm profession of loyalty, and an acknowledgment of all kingly jurisdiction and authority in your highnesse; which course, for that it was so sparingly and myldly carried on in the time of your late sister, of famous memory, Queen Elizabeth, and but now in your highnesse's happy reign first extended into the remote parts of this country, doth so much the more affright and disquiet the minds of your well-affected subjects here.** See Leland, ii. 443, seqq.; also, Appendix, No. 63, inf.

King James's Test Oath of Allegi

ance,

66

A. D. 1605. a distinction between the two classes of his Roman Catholic subjects here described, and observing that in the Italian supremacy, as understood by the former, there was comprehended an imperial civil power over kings and emperors, to dethrone and decrown them at the pope's pleasure," he was led to bestow much pains on the preparation of a test oath, which without asserting on his part a claim to spiritual supremacy, should contain a full admission of his being a rightful sovereign prince, notwithstanding any denunciation passed or to be passed by the Church of Rome, or in accordance with the heretical deposing doctrine then so popular.†

among the

the Romish Church.

occasions a The publication of this famous test gave controversy occasion to much dissension among all classes followers of of the adherents of the Romish religion, and while from some it called forth the strongest opposition, others willingly consented to accept it as a fair and lawful acknowledgment of the civil obedience due from a subject to his tempoDecision of ral sovereign. To end the controversy however, Paul and Pope Paul V., in a brief addressed to "the Urban, Sept. Catholics of England and Ireland,"‡ pronounced 22, 1606, &c. the king's test unlawful; and while warning them to refrain from incurring the anger of God

the Popes

Leland ii. 420.

† See the Oath of Allegiance of King James, in the Appendix, No. 59, inf. See the Appendix, inf., No. 60.