** Calendar of State Papers, 1635-36; Dom.  Charles I.

*** Gardiner, Fall of the Monarchy of Charles.

The sequel proved that a very real source of danger lay among Laud’s own familiar friends.  The archbishop could not restrain the lengths to which they would go, in following up the track which he himself had laid open.  Burning questions were discussed in the pulpits.  Thus, Panzani, in a letter to Cardinal Barberini, dated March 13/23, 1636, says:—­

“Last Sunday, one of the bishops preached before the King, on the necessity of Sacramental Confession, saying that the Church has never been in a good state wherever it was not practised.”

Panzani, continuing, went on to say that reconciliation with Rome was an event anticipated by all, and that many people thought the clergy refrained from marrying, in order that they might still hold their parishes in case of reunion.  “This,” he adds, “is what I hear, but whether it is true or not, God only knows, who sees the hearts of men.”

In the same letter he mentioned another sermon, which had lately been preached before the king and the court “touching confession, and the preacher said that its origin could be traced to the Gospel better than that of any other doctrine; wherefore he exhorted his hearers to practise it.  All the court are now talking of this sermon,” he continued, “and the King himself at supper afterwards spoke highly of the practise of confession, saying that one ought to mention all the circumstances of a sin.  Someone who was present said he could not think it right to take away another person’s reputation by naming him, if he were concerned in a sin.  The King at once replied that it was not permitted to name accomplices, and turning to Father Philip, who is always present at supper, he asked him if he were not right.  Father Philip answered that he was.  The Earl of Carlisle, a Puritan, who was also there, assured Father Philip that he agreed with us in everything, except that the Pope had power to depose kings.  ’We do not believe that either,’ replied Father Philip, ’we only say that the Pope may do it in extraordinary cases, such as heresy for instance.’  The Earl of Carlisle replied

’You are not all of the same opinion, because I know that some among you maintain that he has.’

“Here the subject dropped.  A lady conversing with Father Philip on the same occasion said that if confession were to be practised, Protestant ministers ought to be like ours.  ‘Why?’ asked Father Philip.  ‘Because,’ answered the lady, ’if they have wives, no one will confess to them for fear of their repeating to their wives, straight off, the sins confided to them.’”

In a former letter, Panzani had written:  “A preacher said lately that the Pope was the true Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, and Chief Patriarch, and he proceeded to enlarge on Papal jurisdiction, when a tumult arose among the congregation, and afterwards the preacher was censured.”