Jump to content

Archpriest Controversy

From Catholicism Wiki

The Archpriest Controversy was the debate which followed the appointment of an archpriest by Pope Clement VIII to oversee the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church's missionary priests in England at the end of the sixteenth century.

The discussion became an acrimonious church intrigue, active approximately from 1598 to 1603. The English government saw advantage in its continuation and supported the appellants or opponents of the archpriest; the controversy is also widely known as the Appellant Controversy. It produced a rich pamphlet literature. Interpretations of its underlying substance have differed: one question to the fore was the allegiance of recusants to the English crown, but it is now argued that internal church matters were central. Other factors were the role of the Jesuits in the English mission and tensions between Catholic clerics and laymen.[1]

Background

At the time, under Queen Elizabeth I's Protestant religious settlement, the Roman Catholic faith suffered legal disabilities. Foreign powers, most notably Spain and France, supported the training of English Catholic clergy on the European mainland. These priests came principally from two backgrounds: Jesuits and seminary priests. The seminary priests were trained at the English College, Douai in Northern France, an establishment set up by Cardinal Allen and associated to the University of Douai.

The root of the controversy stemmed from two different views of the state of the Roman Catholic Church in post-Reformation England. The Jesuits saw England as a missionary field, almost a clean slate, while many of the secular clergy saw their church's survival as a continuation of the institutions of the past. There were also suspicions in England that Jesuit missionaries supported Spanish foreign-policy aims, endangering English Catholics through their political entanglements

Appointment of Blackwell

In 1598, some four years after the death of Cardinal William Allen in 1594, the Cardinal Protector of England appointed an archpriest to oversee the mission in England, with the permission of Pope Clement VIII. Enrico Caetani had taken on the role of Cardinal Protector, given that the obvious successor to Allen in terms of involvement in the English mission, Robert Parsons, was not broadly acceptable. There were early misgivings about Caetani's choice, however. The archpriest was to have authority over all secular clergy in England, and George Blackwell was chosen: he was close to the Jesuits, and his letter of appointment included instructions to co-operate with them. The new nuncio in Brussels was Ottavio Mirto Frangipani who had jurisdiction over the archpriest, and he believed the arrangement gave excessive control to the Jesuits.[2] At the same time, Richard Barret was given control of secular priests in the Spanish Netherlands other than those answerable to the nuncio there, and was told to co-operate with Blackwell, and to act against disruptive English priests.[3]

Resistance to Blackwell

Affronted, and fearing their loss of independence, a vocal minority of seminary priests refused Blackwell's authority. William Bishop and Robert Charnock travelled to Rome to represent their views and appeal against Blackwell's appointment. They arrived in December 1598; but Parsons had them arrested; and the Pope excluded Bishop from both Rome and England.[4] Some of the seminary priests supported Blackwell, with others continuing to appeal to Rome for his removal. The latter group came to be known as "Appellants". Their leaders included Christopher Bagshaw, Thomas Bluet, John Colleton, the layman Anthony Copley, John Mush and William Watson.[5] Bagshaw and Parsons had been at odds since 1574.[6] Henry Constable, a poet and theological polemicist, was a prominent lay Catholic advocate for the appellant side.[7]

The approach taken in appealing against Blackwell changed over the space of about four years. The first appeal of 1598/9 was quite clumsy. In 1602 negotiations were backed by a decision of the French theologians of the Sorbonne,[8] and had much greater success.[9] As framed by Thomas Graves Law, the controversy turned on Blackwell's relationship to the Jesuits as laid down by Caetani, and this was the central thrust of the appeal of 1600.[10] It was dated 17 November 1600 from Wisbech[11] (where in Wisbech Castle around 30 priests were interned).

Official resolution

In 1602, the Pope settled the quarrel by reaffirming Blackwell's authority in a brief of 11 October, but making concessions to the Appellants.[5] He ordered that the next three vacancies among Blackwell's assistants were to be filled from among the Appellants, and he rescinded the instruction that Blackwell was to consult with the Jesuits, instead forbidding such consultation. Relations between the two factions of seminary priests then improved; though there was an attempt to make out the fine print of the brief to disadvantage three appellant clergy (Bluet, Watson and William Clark).[12]

The Protestation of Allegiance

Some Appellants went to the Queen, requesting religious toleration in return for their declaring allegiance to her and for her expelling the Jesuits from England. Seeing a chance to divide the Catholics, Elizabeth initially welcomed these approaches, and her government gave some of the Appellants access to printers during the pamphlet war. However, in 1602, disappointed at the Pope's settlement of the dispute, Elizabeth issued a proclamation accusing the Appellants of disloyalty, offering them mercy only if they gave themselves up and signed a "protestation of allegiance". Thirteen of the Appellants publicly asserted their loyalty to Elizabeth in this manner: they were Bishop, Colleton, Mush, Charnock with Roger Cadwallador and Robert Drury (future Catholic martyrs), Francis Barnaby, Anthony Champney, John Boseville, Richard Button, Anthony Hebourn, John Jackson, and Oswald Needham.[13]

Richard Bancroft and the Appellants

A bitter pamphlet war followed from the inflammatory manuscript Adversus factiosos in ecclesia circulated in 1598 by Thomas Lister.[14]

The royal policy of helping the appellants print pamphlets was implemented by Richard Bancroft as bishop of London. Leading printers were used: Robert Barker, Thomas Creede, Richard Field, James Roberts and three others. The authors included the French writers against the Jesuits, Antoine Arnauld and Étienne Pasquier.[15]

Bancroft cultivated his contacts with individual appellant priests. He supported Thomas Bluet's wish to travel to Rome and see Pope Clement VIII, with permission and contacts in Parliament.[16] In September 1601 William Watson was resident at Fulham Palace, under the protection of Bancroft.[17] Francis Barnaby was another appellant contact of Bancroft's, who communicated for him with Christopher Bagshaw, in Paris, and had worked with William Clark in writing a 1603 pamphlet against the English Jesuits.[18][19]

From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

Archpriest Controversy — This controversy arose in England on the appointment of George Blackwell as archpriest with jurisdiction over the secular clergy of England and Scotland, by the Holy See on 7 March, 1598. The last member of the ancient hierarchy, Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph's, had died in 1585, and thenceforth Cardinal Allen exercised informal jurisdiction with the acquiescence of the pope and by common consent of the missionary priests, then numbering about three hundred. After Allen's death in 1594 the want of a superior made itself felt. For some years there had been trouble at the English College in Rome, resulting in difficulties between the Jesuits and the secular clergy, which were accentuated by the dissensions among the priests imprisoned at Wisbech. In 1597 Father Persons, who had general charge of the Jesuit mission in England, went to Rome, where the troubles at the English College had come to a head, and settled matters by becoming rector there himself. Some of the secular clergy, resenting the growing influence of the Society in the affairs of the English Catholics and distrusting the political views of Father Persons, drew up a memorial against the Jesuits to be presented to the pope. Others wished for concord with the Jesuits, and believed that the true solution of difficulties so deeply prejudicial to Catholic interests in England lay in the appointment of a bishop. Persons himself at first favoured the appointment of one or more bishops, preferably one to live and work in England and another to live in the Low Countries so as to organize and direct affairs while free from personal danger. But this plan was given up, the appointment of an archpriest being decided on and effected by Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal-Protector of England. This absolutely new form of ecclesiastical government was actively resented by a small but influential body of secular priests, who claimed that they had the sympathy of a larger number of their brethren. Two of them, William Bishop and Robert Charnock, were sent to Rome to dispute the validity of the appointment and to explain their grievances, but on their arrival in December, 1598, they were arrested and confined as prisoners in the English College. On 6 April, 1599, a Brief was issued confirming the appointment of the archpriest, and the imprisoned priests were released and dismissed from Rome, but forbidden to return to England. In England Thomas Lister, a Jesuit, charged the appellant priests with schism, in a pamphlet which stirred up a controversy in which both sides employed unmeasured and violent language.

Though the Brief confirming the archpriest was at once accepted by the secular clergy, Blackwell insisted that the appellant priests should make reparation for the guilt of schism. They denied that they were guilty of schism in appealing to the pope, and referred the question to the University of Paris, which decided in their favour. Blackwell issued a decree condemning this judgment, and renewed another decree which he had published in the previous January, forbidding the publication of any defence of the appellants' conduct under pain of suspension. On 17 November a formal appeal to Rome was signed by thirty-three priests. This they supported by various pamphlets, which had been published early in 1601. The English Government now knew of the trouble, and the Protestant Bishop of London entered into negotiations with Bluet, one of the imprisoned priests, with the result that Bluet was brought before the Privy Council and induced them to "banish" four of the appellant priests that they might prosecute their appeal. Bagshaw, Champney, Bluet, and Barneby were chosen, but finally Mush and Cecil took the places of Bagshaw and Barneby. Bagshaw published a violent work called the "True Relation", and Watson, a priest, issued extravagant tirades against Blackwell and the Jesuits. On 26 January, 1602, Blackwell published a Brief dated 17 August, 1601, which had been in his possession since Michaelmas. This again confirmed the appointment, but condemned the archpriest's irritating conduct, suppressed all publications about the controversy, refused to admit any appeal, and urged mutual charity.

In Rome, however, the appellants succeeded with the help of the French ambassador in gaining a hearing, and on 5 October, 1602, a new Brief was issued (text in Tierney, op. cit. infra, III, clxxxi) which Tierney summarizes as "condemning the conduct of the archpriest, and justifying the appellants from the charges of schism and rebellion, which had been urged against them.... It limited his jurisdiction to the priests educated in the foreign seminaries; forbade him, in future and for the sake of peace, to communicate either with the superior of the Jesuits in England, or with the general of the Society in Rome on the concerns of his office; commanded him to supply the first three vacancies that should occur in the number of his assistants with persons selected from amongst the appellant priests, and having ordered him to receive and transmit all appeals to the Cardinal Protector, concluded by condemning the past, and prohibiting all future publications in any manner connected with the present controversy". On the other hand the appellants failed to secure episcopal government, or the prohibition, which they sought, to restrain priests, whether secular or regular, from provoking the Government by interference in political affairs. Nor did they obtain their request that all Catholics should be bound to manifest any designs against the queen or State of which they should learn. Elizabeth and her ministers were disappointed at the tenor of the Brief and retaliated by a proclamation (5 November, 1602) for the banishment of all Catholic missionaries. In reply to this thirteen of the appellants, including two future martyrs, drew up their famous address to the queen assuring her of their loyalty. (See Tierney, op. cit. infra, III, 55-56, and clxxxviii sqq.) The papal Brief of 5 October, 1602, finally settled the question, but an unfortunate legacy of mutual distrust and sore feeling remained behind and embittered the relations of the parties for many years to come. Government by archpriest never worked well, and the secular clergy became unanimous in their desire for a bishop. This was granted to them after the death of William Harrison, the third archpriest, in 1621, when the Holy See selected William Bishop, one of the leading appellants, to be the first Vicar Apostolic of England.

TIERNEY, Dodd's Church History of England, III (London, 1840); LAW, The Archpriest Controversy (2 vols., Camden Society, 1896-98); IDEM, Jesuits and Seculars in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1889), with a bibliography of contemporary pamphlets; GERARD, The Archpriest Controversy in The Month (January, 1897).

References

  1. Back to citation Patrick Collinson, Elizabethans (2003), pp. 233–4; Google Books.
  2. Back to citation Paul Arblaster, Antwerp and the World: Richard Verstegan and the international culture of Catholic reformation (2004), p. 63; Google Books.
  3. Back to citation Williams, Michael E. "Barret, Richard". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1518. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)
  4. Back to citation Holmes, Peter. "Bishop, William". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/2474. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)
  5. Back to citation occurrence 5.0 Back to citation occurrence 5.1 Houliston, p. 121; Google Books.
  6. Back to citation Carrafiello, p. 92; Google Books.
  7. Back to citation Carrafiello, p. 161 note 52; Google Books.
  8. Back to citation Thomas Graves Law, The Archpriest Controversy vol. 1 (1898), pp. xviii–xix; archive.org.
  9. Back to citation Houliston, p. 126; Google Books.
  10. Back to citation Thomas Graves Law, The Archpriest Controversy vol. 2 (1898), p. xviii; archive.org.
  11. Back to citation Robert Southwell, An Humble Supplication to Her Maiestie (1953 edition), p. xiii; Google Books.
  12. Back to citation Dictionary of National Biography, Clark, William (d. 1603), catholic priest, by Thompson Cooper. Published 1887.
  13. Back to citation Charles Dodd, Dodd's Church History of England, Volume 3 (1840 edition), p. xcxi; Google Books.
  14. Back to citation Michael C. Questier, Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate of George Birkhead (1998), p. 90 note 31; Google Books.
  15. Back to citation Lisa Ferraro Parmelee, Good Newes from Fraunce: French anti-league propaganda in late Elizabethan England (1996), p. 42; Google Books.
  16. Back to citation Bernard Bourdin, The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State: The Controversy Between James I of England & Cardinal Bellarmine (2010), p. 54; Google Books.
  17. Back to citation Cranfield, Nicholas W. S. "Bancroft, Richard". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/1272. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)
  18. Back to citation Sheils, William Joseph. "Barnaby, Francis". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/67452. (Subscription, Wikipedia Library access or UK public library membership required.)
  19. Back to citation A Replie unto a certain Libell latelie set foorth by Fa. Parsons, in the name of the united Priests, intituled, A Manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit of certaine in England calling themselves Secular Priestes, 1603.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://catholicism.wiki/index.php?title=Archpriest_Controversy&oldid=49267"