1. Anthony à wood (Athenae Oxonienses, 1721, I, 604), to whom he was known as John lones, states that he was born in London of Welsh parentage, and that after being educated at Merchant Taylor's School and St. John's College, Oxford, where he shared rooms with Laud, he became a Catholic and joined the Benedictine Order in Spain, where he was known as Leander a Sancto Martino. After he became a Benedictine he obtained permission, as did a number of other English members of his Order in Spain, to go on the English Mission, and he was much concerned with the re-establishment of the English Benedictine Congregation, of which in 1619 he became the first President. He was generally known in the Congregation as Leander Jones, and as such he will be referred to here.

2. Anthony à Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, 1721, I, 604. Dodd, Charles, The Church History of England, 1742, III, 112.Google Scholar Butler, Charles, Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics since the Reformation, London, 1822, II, 311.Google Scholar

Dunbar Ingram, T., England and Rome, London 1892, pp.381 ff.Google Scholar

Taunton, Ethelred, The English Black Monks of St. Benedict, 1897, II, chap.xiv.Google Scholar

Guilday, Peter, The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent 1558-1795, London, 1914, I, 247.Google Scholar

Albion, Gordon, Charles 1 and the Court of Rome, Louvain, 1935, pp.145 ff.Google Scholar

Jordan, W. K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England, London, 1936, II, 187–8.Google Scholar

Ellis, T. P., The Welsh Benedictines of the Terror, Newtown, 1936, pp. 132–143.Google Scholar

Nedoncelle, M., Trois aspects du problème Anglo-Catholique au XVIIe siècle, Paris, 1951, pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

3. The papers in question are contained in Clarendon MSS 5 and 6, and are printed in Clarendon State Papers, Oxford, 1767, I; hereafter referred to as C.S.P. The texts of the letters and documents sent by Leander to Rome are drafts or copies made by Leander himself and endorsed by Windebank. The letters from Selby to Leander are either originals or copies, and in either case endorsed by Windebank.

4. loc. cit.

5. Wood also noted Prynne's accusation that Laud invited Leander to make a reconciliation between the Church of England and Rome. Laud himself mentions this in the History of the Troubles and Trial (Works, Oxford, 1847-60, IV, 317), but naturally does not commit himself.

6. P. 266. Allanson gives no sources for this information, though he is usually careful to quote his sources.

7. loc. cit.

8. loc. cit.

9. See note 2 above.

10. See note 5 above.

11. MS. Clarendon 5, 238 contains all three original drafts. In the printed version (C.S.P. I, 72) only the final form of the letter appears.

12. Laud was admitted a scholar in 1590, Jones in 1591. They both became Fellows in 1593, but Jones left in 1596. Stevenson, W. H. and Slater, H. E., The Early History of St. John's College, Oxford, Oxford, 1939, pp. 368–9.Google Scholar

13. C.S.P., I, 128.

14. Apart from those mentioned, we only learn that Leander did give his opinions on the Oath of Allegiance to Laud. (Letter from Leander to Windebank, C.S.P., I, 184).

15. The Relation for 1637, together with that for 1633, was edited with an introduction and notes by Dom, Hugh Connolly in Memorials … relating to the English Benedictines (Catholic Record Society, vol. xxxiii), pp. 260–273.Google Scholar The one for 1637 is in Spanish but I have quoted from the English translation provided by Dom Hugh.

16. C.R.S. xxxiii, 263.

17. Blandain was not a house of the English Congregation, but the abbot there had appealed to Leander for help in introducing reforms into his monastery, and Clement Reyner was sent. See “A List of the English Monks of the Spanish and English Congregations drawn up in 1613” published with notes by Dom Hugh Connolly, C.R.S. xxxiii, 237.

18. See the letter accompanying the 1633 Relation, C.R.S. xxxiii, 262.

19. It is significant that Windebank ends the letter written to Leander before the latter came to England—“Your loving friend.” It would be interesting to know when the friendship began. We shall see evidence that he certainly knew Leander well.

20. We learn this from Fr. Baker's Treatise of the English Benedictine Mission. This was completed on 15 January 1636 (N.S.). He says that Leander having left England as a missioner in 1606 remained in France and Flanders “untill June was twelvemonth,” i.e. a year before last June, and in one Ms. the words “was twelvemonth” have been crossed out and “1634” substituted in the margin. C.R.S. xxxiii, 182. Though it is questionable whether Leander was in fact in England as a missioner as early as 1606 (see Gillow, Biographical Dictionary of English Catholics III, 662), Fr. Baker is likely to be correct about his more recent movements.

21. Bentivoglio had been nuncio both at Brussels and Paris. Leander had met him in 1610 on a notable occasion in English Benedictine History (Weldon, Chronological Notes, London, 1881, p. 73), and he must have met him frequently afterwards, for Bentivoglio was nuncio in Paris when the English Benedictine Congregation, of which Leander became first President, was re-established.

22. In a letter to Windebank dated 26 August 1634 (C.S.P. I, 128), Leander says that he is enclosing a copy of a letter he has sent to Cardinal Bentivoglio. This copy, now among the Clarendon Papers (MS. Clarendon 6, 384) is dated at the foot “Londini 12 Jly stylo veteri 1634.”

23. He had evidently written already to Bentivoglio, now a Cardinal in Curia, telling him of his proposed visit to England and promising to write again when he got there. The Cardinal had presumably encouraged the project and to this extent the mission may be said to have had official sanction from Rome, but whether Bentivoglio expected the sort of letter which Leander in fact wrote from England is another matter. As will be seen later, in the event Bentivoglio never received this second letter at all since it was given to Cardinal Barberini instead.

24. “Sunt enim, qui suis occupati pretensionibus, ad majorem Dei gloriam indubie respicientes, omnes tarnen actiones et informationes suas eo colore imbuunt, quern illae ipsae pretensiones secum advehunt.”

25. “Sunt alii peregrini homines, et in rebus Anglicis parum versati, quos audio hue destinatos, ut affectum regni populique fidelis in nonnullis negotiis vobis aperiant.”

26. Albion, Charles I and the Court of Rome, p. 145.

27. “Illi rerum narrationem fortassis insinceram, hi parum perfectam expriment.”

28. These two books were A Patterne of Christian Loyaltie (STC. 13871), and an answer to it by the Jesuit Edward Leedes, alias Courtney. The former had been published ostensibly as the work of William Howard, the second son of Sir Philip Howard and grandson of Lord William Howard of Naworth, but it seems likely that it may in fact have been written by the Cassinese Benedictine Thomas Preston, who from 1611 till his death in 1640 consistently wrote, generally under the pseudonym of “Roger Widdrington,” in favour of Catholics being allowed to take the oath. See the article by W., K. L. Webb, S.J., “Thomas Preston O.S.B., alias Roger Widdrington,” Biographical Studies II, especially pp. 247–8.Google Scholar In a letter to Barberini dated 31 October 1635 (N.S.), Panzani implies his own doubts about Howard's authorship in these works: “There came several times to my house Signor Huard, the so-called writer of the latest book in favour of the Oath “(E venuto più volte a Casa mia il Sre Huard finto autore del libro ultimo per il Giuramento). P.R.O., Roman Transcripts, 31/9/17.

29. “His feelings about His Holiness the Pope are quite cordial and reverent “(satis reverenter atque amanter sentit de sanctissimo Domino Papa).

30. “Egi cum viris nobilibus, prudentibus, moderationis ac pacis amantibus; et inquisivi, quid maxime suggerendum foret sanctissimo ut haec tempestas avertatur, et Regia erga nos dementia porro confirmetur.”

31. ”Serenissimus Rex noster profitebitur, sese hoc juramento nihil aliud postulare, quam veram civilem, et naturalem obedientiam et fidelitatem: nec id agit, ut ulla potestas spiritualis, sanctissimo debita, abjuretur.”

32. “Haec sunt, quae nonnulli prudentissimi nobilissimique viri quos consului judicarunt Sanctissimo insinuando.”

33. “Nec prorsus indignus est serenissimus noster: neque enim haereticus est, quamvis in nonnullis dogmatibus nondum piene est instructus; nec extra gremium ecclesiae egressus est unquam; sed in ea fidei notitia, in qua natus est atque educatus, perstitit adhuc nullis aliis praedicatoribus auditis. Atque adeo dignum est, ut sanctissimus in eum lucrifaciendum incumbat, nec expectet donee Rex ipse reverti incipiat.”

34. “Regi serenissimo ingratum, et Consiliariis maxime Episcopis regiis odiosum”

35. “Credibile enim valde est, sicut Anglia per gradus quosdam ab Ecclesiae Romanae Catholicae gremio recessit, Regibus ac Principibus per vehementes ministros infeliciter exasperatis; ita per quosdam gradus ad ejusdem Ecclesiae gremium sit reditura, Rege nostro per modestos et pacificos Consiliarios placato, et per humaniora officia Sanctissimi honorifice delinito, aliisque Consiliariis ipsius per moderatam pietatem Ecclesiae in ejusdem amorem paulatim pellectis et facilem sibi ac honorabilem reditum ad Ecclesiam fore concipientibus.”

36. See note 15 above.

37. On the revival of these Cathedral Priorships see also below, Appendix B.

38. Albion, op. cit. p. 299 n. .1.

39. C.S.P., I, 152. It is usual for religious Orders and Congregations to have a Procurator who resides in Rome and transacts their business with the Curia. The name of the English Benedictine Procurator at this time appears variously as Selby, Reade or Wilford. In a letter to Windebank endorsed 15 Nov. 1634 (C.S.P. I, 169) Leander gives directions for sending letters to him and says, “Our Procurator in Rome is called, by his proper name, Richard Reade, and is a northern man, as I take it of the Bishoprick of Durham, but according to our custom in the Order of S. Benet changed his name to Bro. Wilfrid; and, because the Italians can hardly pronounce that name he took the name of John Wilfrid Selbye.” He was a monk of St. Gregory's, Douai, and in the old profession book of St. Gregory's preserved at Downside his profession is signed “Fr. Wilfridus Reade de St. Michaele.” In the Acts of Chapter his surname, when given, is Selby, but he usually appears simply as John Wilfrid. This got turned into John Wilford, and he sometimes signed himself John Wilford, sometimes John Selby.

40. If there was a second letter there is now no trace of it.

41. C.S.P. I, 164. The manuscript (MS. Clarendon 6, 406) has the date R the 18 9 ber 1634, that is 18 November old style. He says, “I have spoken with Cardinal Barberino, concerning the letters of 26 Sept., and what you write; he had communicated the letter with the Pope” etc. The letter to Bentivoglio, which was given to Barberini, was (as we have seen) sent on 21 August. There is no record of any letter of Leander's written on 26 September and it is possible that Selby is referring to the date on which he received the letters. At any rate Barberini's remarks to Panzani are perfectly applicable to the surviving letter to Bentivoglio.

42. Barberini to Panzani, 5 December 1634 (N.S.) P.R.O., Roman Transcripts, 31/10/10.

43. MS. Clarendon 6,433; C.S.P. I, 205.

44. Nos qui priorem sensum a doctis viris praesumptum merito damnavimus, Majestati tuae, ut par est, fidem habentes, sensum hunc a te intentum, ipsumque juramentum in eo acceptum, non damnamus.

45. Hortamur Majestatem tuam ut sensum ilium, quern te intendere nobis persuadent viri amantes gloriae tuae, publico edicto declarare digneris.

46. MS. Clarendon 6,544; C.S.P. I, 336.

47. MS. Clarendon 6,405; C.S.P. I, 169.

48. See note 28 above.

49. Biographical Studies II, 249.

50. Webb, loc. cit., pp. 250-1.

51. MS. Clarendon 6,414; C.S.P. I, 180 and 185.

52. MS. Clarendon 6,418; C.S.P. I, 184.

53. …reverenter et simpliciter respondere consuevisse, quidquid sit de aliorum conscientiis aut de intercurrentibus quaestionibus, de quibus certant doctores, mihi homini monacho et timorato propositum esse, revereri pastoris mei supremi sententiam, atque ideo Juramentum, eo modo, eoque sensu, quibus vulgo persuasum est hactenus a judicibus regiis urgeri, a me absque conscientiae meae tortura praestari non posse. (MS. Clarendon 6, 414; C.S.P. I, 186).

54. …quia vos longius positi, et totius Ecclesiae causis occupati, non potestis omnes illas rerum nostrarum circumstantias cognoscere, quas prope positi intuemur; praesertim cum pleraque vobis aut imperfecte, aut imperite, aut insincere, hactenus renunciata fuisse vereamur. (ibid.)

55. MS. Clarendon 6, 432; C.S.P. I, 197. In the first part of his original draft of his Letter to Barberini Leander states that he is enclosing this Report and says that he has received two letters from the Cardinal (he is writing 8 December, probably O.S., so that these two letters were evidently written by Barberini before he wrote to Panzani about Leander's scheme). In the first the Cardinal asked him to look after some English and Scotch Capuchins. The second contained a decree of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide by which he was made Prefect of the whole Benedictine Mission in England (apparently the Cassinese monks were excluded. See C.R.S. XXXIII, 199). He returns his thanks and continues: “And so that it may immediately be clear how sincere I am in my promise, I send Your Eminence an account not only of the state of the Benedictine Mission, but also of that of the whole Apostolic Mission throughout England, together with certain other reflections of my own.” (Et, ut statim appareat, quam sincere id polliceor, mitto nunc Em. Dom) vestrae non solum Missionis Benedictinae statum, verum etiam totius Missionis Apostolicae per Angliam, et nonnullas alias cogitationes meas). In the revised draft this is altered to “I send …an account of the state of the whole Benedictine Mission, together with certain other reflections of my own” (mitto … totius Missionis Benedictinae statum nonnullasque alias cogitationes meas).

The document as we have it is mostly concerned with the Benedictines, but describes also the organization of the Jesuit and secular missioners. Whether it represents a revised form of the report we have no means of knowing. The “other thoughts” are presumably what he has to say about the Church of England, which will be discussed in the text. It is very probable that it was a vague knowledge among the English Benedictines that Leander had been asked to give an account of the state of the English Mission, which gave rise to the tradition that his business in England at this time was a special commission from Rome. He was in fact asked to report only on the Benedictine mission, though, as we have seen, he went beyond his instructions. In any case he was clearly not an agent of Rome in at all the sense that Panzani and his successors, Con and Rossetti, were.

In a letter to Barberini dated 19 January 1635 (N.S.) (P.R.O. Roman Transcripts, 31/9/17) Panzani states that he is enclosing a letter for the Cardinal from Leander. This would appear to mark the actual despatch of the letter re-drafted by Leander in December in response to Windebank's criticisms, and presumably the Report on the Mission did in fact accompany it, as intended.

56. Certam formam ordinationum sacrarum magna ex parte cum formis in Pontificali Romano praescriptis convenientem.

57. Quin et plerique de numero Sacramentorum, et effectu gratiae per ilia produc-tae, de praesentia reali Corporis Christi in Eucharistia, de ratione et nomine venerabilis sacrificii saltern commemorativi ejusdem Corporis Dominici, nobis-cum conveniunt; deque usu et ornatu altarium in Ecclesiis, quamquam in tran-substantiationis modo difficultatem patiantur: confessionem sacramentalem, seu particularem out auricularem non gravate admittent.

58. MS. Clarendon 6,434; C.S.P., I, 207. Such an agent, who was officially to represent the Queen, though appointed, never actually reached Rome in Leander's lifetime. But on 20/30 May, 1635, Panzani writes to Barberini that Cottington has told him triumphantly that the king has agreed to the queen having an agent in Rome (P.R.O. Roman Transcripts, 31/9/17), and he goes on to say that he has been told as a great secret, though he does not regard his source of information as very reliable, that the king wishes to send Leander either to the Emperor or the Pope. Panzani does not think that he is suited for such a mission. A little later, May 27/June 6, he writes to Barberini to say that he understands Leander will not after all be sent, and he says that in truth his health is very bad. In view of the possibility of this mission, it seems that Leander may have written this document for his own benefit in anticipation of being sent himself. In any case he is not likely to have put down his ideas on the subject before about this date, when the matter came up for discussion.

59. Quoted by Albion, op.cit., p. 184, n. 2.

60. It is interesting to note that similar development in his ideas on the Anglican Church took place in the Franciscan, Christopher Davenport. He was a convert who joined the Franciscan Recollects at Douai in 1618, and was known as Franciscus a Sancta Clare. He published at Lyons in 1634 a treatise on justification called Deus, Natura, Gratia to which was subjoined a commentary on the Thirty-nine Articles in which he endeavoured to show that most of them could be interpreted in a Catholic sense. Written at this time it is evidence that other Catholics shared Leander's view of the possibility of a re-union between the Anglican Church and Rome. The book aroused much feeling and was placed on the Index of the Spanish Inquisition. It narrowly escaped the same fate at Rome, but Panzani saved it on account of the offence its condemnation would have given to Charles I. Selby also intervened to prevent its condemnation and there are several references to it in his letters. (C.S.P. I. 152, 168, 271. In the last letter, written on 9 May, he says the book is “altogether forgot.”) But eventually in his Liber Dialogorum, a theological summa published in his collected works at Douai in 1667, Davenport argued strongly that the Church of England had repudiated the power of sacrificing and of consecrating the true Body of Christ (sacrificandi et consecrandi verum illhis [Christi] corpus) (p. 71) and he denied the validity of Anglican Orders. The approbations of this book are dated 1655 and 1660. Davenport returned to the English Mission in 1630 and laboured there till his death in 1680. C.R.S. XXIV, 274.

61. The true title of this is Verax et humilis informatio de Juramento Fidelitatis ab Eminentibus Dominis Cardinalibus perpenda, and it is found in a paper which is apparently the draft of one he sent to Rome. (MS. Calendon 6,431; C.S.P. I, 188). In his letter to Barberini of 19 January 1635 (.N.S.) (see note 55, last sentence) Panzani says that Leander had brought him in great haste a letter to send to the Cardinal et una glosa di esso fatto al giuramento—a commentary made by him on the oath—which seems to be a description of this document.

62. Sensus planus est, jurantem invocare Deum testem quod agnoscat, profiteatur, testificetur et declaret suo quidem judicio nullam talem potestatem in Pontifice sitam esse: quod non contrariae sententiae falsitatem jurare, sed suum dumtaxat de ea judicium sub juramento ad Mandatum Principis proferre.

63. MS. Clarendon 6, 489; C.S.P. I, 271.

64. MS. Clarendon 6, 420; C.S.P. I. 210.

65. Weldon, , Chronological Notes, London, 1881, p. 895. C.R.S. XXXIII, 199.Google Scholar

66. The Panzani and Barberini letters quoted here (in translation) are all taken from the Transcripts in the Public Record Office, Panzani's under the reference 31/9/17, Barberini's under 31/10/10. The letters are not numbered but are in chronological order. The dates are always given in both Old and New Style, but are quoted here under the New Style dates only.

67. In a letter to Leander dated 9 May (MS. Clarendon 6, 489; C.S.P. I, 271) Selby says, “The last week after long instance, I obtained the Congregation to be held upon your letters, and proposition about the Oath.”

68. Panzani to Barberini, 23 February 1635.

69. Barberini to Panzani, 28 February 1635.

70. P.R.O. Roman Transcripts 31/10/10, dated 19 February 1635.

71. Nec laudo si quis juramentum prestitit, nec condemno si quis ex conscientia recuset:

72. Inveni rationes débiles, fundatas in odiosis out seditiosis out falsis principiis, aut ad summum disputabilibus. Propterea posset ostendi Catholicosque meliori-bus rationibus innixos esse declaravi, minusque offensivis quam aliquas etiam alio scripto exhibui. Leander's general meaning is clear, but the Latin of the final sentence quoted is involved and possibly miswritten.

73. Hie et ipse existimabam indignum Catholicis subditis quod, Regi sui mandatum tarn levibus de causis et odiosis declinarent, cum aliquas modestiores et veriores suppeterent.

74. “Heap further sufferings on a man already suffering.”

75. MS. Clarendon 6,472; C.S.P. I, 251. A copy made by Windebank. The letter is dated Rome, 15 April, therefore probably New Style.

76. We only know Courtney's work from the quotations given by his opponents. Judging by those given by Leander in his letter to Urban VIII already discussed (MS. Clarendon 6,405; C.S.P. I, 169), Courtney gave unnecessarily provocative expression to the extreme view in defence of the Pope's deposing power.

77. MS. Clarendon 6,470; C.S.P. I, 249.

78. Utinam non suas potius ideas et pretensiones intueantur, quam majorem Dei gloriam !

79. MS. Clarendon 6,489; C.S.P. I, 271.

80. Sir Arthur Brett, appointed late in 1635 to be the Queen's Resident to the Holy See. Cf. Albion, op. cit., p. 154.

81. See above, note 46.

82. In a letter (MS. Clarendon 6,406; C.S.P. I, 164) dated 18 November 1634 from Selby to Leander figures are used for the proper names and one or two other words, but the original has been deciphered by Leander. In that letter 37 is used to denote Charles I. The context here makes it almost certain that by 51 the king is referred to, but apparently in another cipher. This is the only cipher used in this letter and Leander has not bothered to write in the reference.

83. MS. Clarendon 6,566; C.S.P. I, 360. Leander probably used Old Style in dating his letters.

84. The reference is to an agreement known as the Instrument of Peace and Concord between the Secular Clergy and the Regulars, which was signed on 17 November. Leander was one of the signatories, but the Jesuits held out against it. Taunton, Black Monks, II, 155-6.

85. This presumably means that he died in fact in the early hours of Thursday. The 2 January 1636 (N.S.) was a Wednesday, so the previous Thursday would be 27 December 1635 (N.S.) This agrees with Birt's Obit Book of the English Benedictines, p.17, and with Connolly, C.R.S. XXXIII, 199.

86. Soden, Mr. in his Godfrey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester 1583-1656 (London, 1953), p. 235 Google Scholar, says with reference to this, “It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the bishop was Goodman. The indiscretion is typical of him”; but it might have been Montague of Chichester, or Wright of Coventry and Lichfield.

87. Del. P. Leandro no si puo se no dir bene. Panzani to Barberini, 2 March 1635.

88. In 1632, at the instance of Cardinal Bentivoglio, Propaganda agreed to send him copies of all foreign and oriental books issued from their press. See Downside Review January 1930, p. 82.

89. Allanson, History, I, 115. The Brief of Paul V, Ex Incumbenti, of 1619, which confirmed the re-establishment of the Congregation, also laid down that the President should live outside England while the schism lasted.

90. Allanson, History, I, 202-3.

91. Allanson, op. cit., p. 203.

92. See note 20, above.

93. Allanson, ibid.

94. Allanson, ibid. The Regimen consisted of the President and the five Definitors of the Congegation. ibid., p. 115.

95. MS. Clarendon 6,445; C.S.P. I. 221.

96. MS. Clarendon 6,445; C.S.P. I, 222. The date given is New Style, but Windebank used Old Style and his letter is actually dated 21 January 1634.

97. MS. Clarendon 6,453; C.S.P. I, 233. Caverel uses the New Style date.

98. Merito enim nostra negligere debemus, ut quae ad pacem et tranquillitatem conducunt promoveamus.

99. Weldon, Chronological Notes, p. 175.

100. MS. Clarendon 7,539; C.S.P. I, 331.

101. MS. Clarendon 7,544; C.S.P. I, 336.

102. MS. Clarendon 6,473; C.S.P. I, 252. The letter is endorsed by Windebank 15 April 1635, probably Old Style.

103. The position of bishops was, of course, of great concern to Charles, for it was one of the major issues in his struggle with his subjects. The question which particularly interested him was whether episcopacy was de jure divino, and Panzani records a conversation with the king at table in April 1635—just about the time this letter was written—in which the Catholic view on the subject was discussed. It may have been this interest of the King's which prompted Windebank to raise the question of bishops with Leander, but he does not seem to have asked explicitly whether the office was de jure divino, or at any rate Leander did not answer this. See Albion, op. ext., Appendix II, p. 402.

104. MS. Clarendon 6,475; C.S.P. I, 255.