Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 05.djvu/153

 haveing notice of his distress dealt so with the officer who had the principal charge of that business that after three dayes he was content two of her servants should come to that house at the time when the guard was chang'd, take Mr. Blackwell out of the hideing-place, and convey him away, as they speedily did, bringing him betwixt them, he not being able to go alone, to their lady's house, where, after some dayes for refreshing he had stay'd, she sent him safe to the place he desir'd to go' (Lives of Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, and of Anne Dacres, his wife, 216, 217). It would seem that he sometimes visited the continent, as he is said to have formed a personal acquaintance with Cardinal Bellarmin And other eminent writers, who give an excellent character of his learning and capacity which they discovered while he had occasion to reside in Rome (, Church Hist. ii. 380).

After the decease of Cardinal Allen the affairs of the English catholic clergy fell into a state of confusion, owing to the absence of any means of enforcing regular discipline. The petitions for the appointment of a bishop were not favourably received at Rome, but on 7 March 1597-8 Cardinal Cajetan, the protector of the English nation, addressed a letter to Blackwell, announcing to him the command of the pope, Clement VIII, that he should be archpriest over the secular clergy. Unlimited power was given to Blackwell to restrain or revoke the faculties of the clergy, to remove them from place to place at his pleasure, and to punish the refractory by deprivation or censures. The cardinal named six persons to be his assistants, and empowered him to appoint six others. 'The Jesuits,' the cardinal continues, ' neither have nor pretend to have any jurisdiction or authority over the clergy, or seek to disquiet them ; it seemeth, therefore, a manifest subtlety and deceit of the devil, complotted for the overthrow of the whole English cause, that any catholic should practice or stir up emulation against them.' This letter was accompanied by private instructions, which prohibited the archpriest and his twelve assistants from determining any matter of importance without advising with the superior of the Jesuits and some others of the order.

The appointment of Blackwell gave rise to serious and protracted dissensions among the clergy, which were secretly fomented by the English government (, Records, i. 12 et seq.) Thirty-one secular priests, headed by Dr. Bishop, sent an appeal to Rome, and on 6 April 1599 the pope issued a bull, fully recognising and sanctioning the letter of Cardinal Cajetan, and the appointment of the archpriest and his acts, declaring the letter to have been valid from the first, and explicitly ordering it to be obeyed and its regulations to be complied with. The appellant priests at once submitted to the bull without any limitation. It was contended, however, that the actual submission of the appellants did not undo or atone for the criminality of their former appeal, and on this ground the archpriest and his adherents continued to treat them as schismatics. They again appealed to Rome, and the pope addressed to the archpriest a brief (17 Aug. 1601), recommending him to temper severity with mildness, and exhorting all parties to a general oblivion of the offence. This letter, however, did not entirely pacify the troubles ; the clergy sent a third deputation to Rome, and a second letter was addressed by the pope to the archpriest (6 Oct. 1602). His holiness blamed him for proceeding by suspension and censures against the appellant priests, and commanded him to communicate no business of his office to the provincial of the Society of Jesus, or to any members of the society in England, lest it should be a cause of animosity and discord between the society and the appellants ; and with the same view he revoked the contrary injunctions given by Cardinal Cajetan. Thus the matters in dispute were finally settled by papal authority.

For some time after this Blackwell exercised his authority as archpriest without opposition ; but he eventually got entangled in a controversy of another kind, and drew upon himself the censures of the holy see. In 1606 the government of King James I im-posed on catholics a new oath, which was to be the test of their civil allegiance. The wording of the oath was entrusted to Archbishop Bancroft, who, with the assistance of Sir Christopher Perkins, a 'renegade Jesuit,' so framed it as to give to the designs of the ministry the desired effect, 'which was first to divide the catholics about the lawfulness of the oath ; secondly, to expose them to daily prosecutions in case of refusal, and, in consequence of this, to misrepresent them as disaffected persons, and of unsound principles in regard of civil government' (, Church Hist. ii. 366). Blackwell told his clergy by a circular letter, dated 22 July 1606, that it was his holiness's pleasure that they should behave themselves peaceably with regard to all civil matters. 'Sua sanctitas nullo modo probat, tales tractatus agitari inter catholicos: imo jubet, ut hujusmodi cogitationes deponantur.' Previously, on 28 Nov. 1605, he had written a similar letter to the catholic laity. At several meetings of the secular and regular clergy, convened to consider the oath, Blackwell advised them to take it. Cardinal