reform the viciousness of her court and ministry, she would not only have kept within her proper sphere, but acted more suitably to the decorum becoming the character of a virgin queen. But before I take my leave of queen Elizabeth I shall make a few remarks upon that penal statute of her's, whereby saying mass is made high treason, and being present at it felony; and accordingly both the one and the other punishable with an infamous death. Now to the best of my judgment, penal laws can never change the nature or essence of things; nor do they make such or such actions, for the punishment whereof they are made, become crimes that were not so before, but they suppose them to be so in their own nature. So that they would be the same enormous crimes, both in themselves and in the sight of God, though there were no human laws to punish them.Thus robberies, murders, rebellions and treasons, are justly punished with death, as being in themselves crimes of such an enormous and pernicious nature that persons guilty of them deserve to be regarded as the public enemies of mankind, and treated with the utmost rigor. Hence it follows, that if queen Elizabeth's law was just, saying mass both is, and has always been a sin of as black a die in the sight of God as that of high treason. But how is that credible? Will any one have the confidence to say, that all the bishops and priests of Great Britain, for nine hundred years together, amongst whom there were a great number emi nent for holiness of life and working of miracles, lived in the daily practice of a deadly sin? Did those great doctors and pillars of God's church, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and such others, commit as many erroneous crimes as they said masses? Did St. Gregory incur the guilt of three mortal sins upon every Christmas day, by saying three masses on that day, as he himself says he did? Finally, did St. Augustin and his followers who converted England, begin their holy mission with setting a pattern to all their successors of committing daily a crime of such a heinous nature, as deserved to be punished with the most cruel and infamous death? These surely are such monstrous absurdities as will not enter into the imagination of any man in his right senses. Yet if the above said penal statute of queen Elizabeth was just, all these absurdities, how monstrous soever, would follow. Penal laws that are just, appoint punishments proportioned to the enormity of the crimes against which they are made. If, therefore, the same infamous and cruel death which the law inflicts upon traitors, was justly incurred for saying mass, it follows, that saying mass is of its own nature, and in the sight of God, as black a crime as that of high treason against the state; and, by consequence, all the eminent saints I have named, lived in the continual practice of as great a sin as if they had daily committed treason against their sovereigns; which if it be not a supposition, which any man of sense and religion will blush to own, nothing can be imagined extravagant enough to shock him. And therefore I cannot but regard that sanguinary statute of queen Elizabeth, which during her long reign was executed with the utmost violence and rigour, as one of the blackest stains in her character. CONCLUSION Containing some penal laws, and the death of the Queen of Scots. We will now proceed to those cruel oppressions and persecutions of Protestants towards Catholics, which have come down even to our own times. For this end, more than a hundred cruel and unjust laws were made. We will only examine a few. Catholics could not possess the estates of their fathers, or relations, nor buy lands after the age of eighteen, except they would turn Protestants.They could not teach nor keep a school, under pain of perpetual imprisonment. The Catholics paid double taxes. If a priest said mass he forfeited 200 marks, or 133l. 68. 8d. and if a person heard mass, he forfeited 100 marks, or 661. 138. 4d. and each suffered one year's imprisonment. If any Catholic sent his child, or any other person out of England to be educated in the Catholic religion, both he and his child were deprived of every thing but their lives; for they lost all their goods and chattels, and likewise all their real estates for life, and were not allowed to be employed in the kingdom. If a Catholic did not go to a Protestant church on Sundays and holidays, he forfeited twenty pounds for every month he stayed away; besides which he was looked upon as excommunicated; he could hold no office, or employment; he could not keep arms in his house; he could not come within ten miles of London, on pain of forfeiting 1007.; he could bring no action at law; he could not travel above five miles from home, upon pain of forfeiting all his goods; he could not come to court under pain of forfeit. ing 1007. No marriage, or burial of such a Catholic, or baptism of his child, was lawful except performed by the parsons of the church of England. A married woman, if she was a Catholic, forfeited two-thirds of her dowry; she could not be executrix to her husband, or have any part of his goods; and during their marriage she was to be kept in prison, unless her husband redeemed her at the rate of 10%. a month, or the third part of all his lands; and lastly, all Catholics were to be imprisoned, if they did not forsake their religion and become Protestants; they could be transported for life by four justices; and if they refused to go, or come back without the license of the king, they were guilty of felony, and suffered death as felons, without the benefit of clergy. A Catholic gentleman could not keep arms in his house, nor ride a horse above the value of five pounds. Catholic bishops, or priests, |