THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE CONSPIRATORS ACTED.
In this chapter I purpose to give a short account of those principles,
on which the conspirators acted, and which were regarded by them as
those of their church. I am ready to allow, that many Roman Catholics
deprecated the plot and the course taken by the conspirators; but still
it is by no means easy to defend the church of Rome from the guilt of
the transaction, since she then entertained principles, which appeared
to justify the attempt of the parties who were implicated in the
treason. That the jesuits were the life and soul of the conspiracy has
already been shown in the narrative. They animated the conspirators when
they were dispirited,—warranted the proposed action when they were in
doubt,—and absolved them from its guilt after the discovery. Nay, they
pronounced the deed to be meritorious. They swore them to secresy, and
bound them together to the performance of the treason by means of the
sacrament. The great wheels, therefore, by which the whole was set in
motion, were the jesuits; but the arch-traitor was the pope himself, who
had sent his bulls into England, to endeavour to prevent the accession
of King James; for it has been shown that the treason originated in
those bulls.
I shall _first_ briefly state the principles of the church of Rome, on
the question of heresy and heretical sovereigns; and _secondly_, examine
their practices prior to, and at the period in question, to show how
they corresponded exactly with the principles then publicly avowed and
defended.
It is an acknowledged principle of the church of Rome, that the
decisions of general councils are binding on all. There are disputes
amongst her divines respecting some of the councils, whether they were
general, or not; but concerning the decisions of those councils which
have never been disputed, there is no question with Romanists. Now some
of the undisputed councils enforce doctrines at variance with Scripture,
and destructive, not merely of the welfare, but of the very existence,
of Protestant states and Protestant sovereigns, provided the papal see
is sufficiently powerful to carry out her principles into action. No
king was completely master in his own dominions, when the papacy was at
its height.
The first council to which I refer the reader is _The Third Council of
Lateran_, convened by Pope Alexander III., A.D. 1179. Its efforts were
directed especially against the Albigenses and Waldenses, who were
guilty of no crime, except the unpardonable one of opposing the errors
of the church of Rome. Twenty-seven canons were framed by this council;
all of them on matters of trivial importance with the exception of the
last, which is directed against the poor exiles who were bold enough to
prefer their own salvation to a blind submission to the church. The
_Twenty-seventh_ canon imposes a curse on all those who maintained or
favoured the Waldensian opinions. In the event of dying in their alleged
errors, they were not even to receive Christian burial[24].
[Footnote 24: “Although ecclesiastical discipline, being content
with the judgment of the priests, does not take sanguinary
revenge, yet it is assisted by the decrees of Catholic princes,
that men may often seek a saving remedy, through fear of
corporal punishment. On this account we decree to subject them
(the heretics) and their defenders to anathema: and, under pain
of anathema, we forbid that any receive them into his house, or
have any dealings with them. Nor let them receive burial among
Christians.” See the original, _Labb. et Coss._, Tom. x.
1518-9.]
The fourth council of Lateran was held A.D. 1215. One of its canons,
the _Third_, is even more horrible than the preceding. All heretics are
excommunicated, and delivered over to the secular arm for punishment;
while temporal princes are enjoined to extirpate heresy by all means in
their power[25]. This exterminating canon is still unrepealed, and may
be acted on whenever the church of Rome may have the power to enforce
it. It has been attempted in modern times to deny the genuineness of the
_Third Canon_; but the attempt was unsuccessful. It has also been
pronounced _obsolete_. It is undoubtedly inoperative, simply because the
church cannot carry it into execution; but it is still the law of the
Roman church.
[Footnote 25: “We excommunicate and condemn every heresy, which
exalteth itself against this holy and Catholic Faith. Let such
persons, when condemned, be left to the secular powers, to be
punished in a fitting manner. And let the secular powers be
admonished, and, if need be, compelled, that they should set
forth an oath, that to the utmost of their power, they will
strive to exterminate all heretics, who shall be denounced by
the church. But if any temporal lord shall neglect to cleanse
his country of this heretical filth, let him be bound by the
chain of excommunication. If he shall scorn to make
satisfaction, let it be signified to the supreme pontiff, that
he may declare his vassals to be absolved from their fidelity.”
_Labb. et Coss._ Tom. xi. 147-9. This canon was also received
into the _Canon Law_, by Gregory IX. It was carried into effect
against the Albigenses.]
The council of Constance, A.D. 1415, decided that faith was not to be
kept with heretics to the prejudice of the church; and, therefore, John
Huss was committed to the flames, in violation of the solemn promise of
the emperor.
By these councils all heretics are devoted to destruction. They proclaim
principles exactly similar to those on which the conspirators acted;—in
other words, the conspirators acted on the principles promulgated by
these councils, as those of the church of Rome. On these principles did
the jesuits justify the treason, and declare the traitors innocent.
Attempts are made in modern times to prove that the canons alluded to
are not binding on the church; but the hand of Providence has made the
church of Rome set her seal to her own condemnation in this matter; for
by the decrees of the council of Trent every papist is pledged to
receive the decisions of all general councils[26]. The only question,
therefore, to be decided is this, namely, whether these councils are
regarded as _general_ by the church of Rome. Respecting the _third_ and
_fourth_ Lateran councils there never was any doubt; and the creed of
Pope Pius IV., as well as the council of Trent, expressly enjoins the
reception of the decrees of all general councils[27]. It is very
remarkable, nay, I may say providential, that the Fourth Lateran council
is especially alluded to by the council of Trent. One of the decisions
of this very council is specified and renewed by the Trent decrees. The
church of Rome has declared, therefore, by her last council,—a council,
too, by which all her doctrines were unalterably fixed,—that the
Lateran council is to be received by all her members; and, as if to
prevent all cavil on the subject, and also to prevent any Romanist from
saying that this council was not a general one, and consequently not
binding on the church, the council of Trent has expressly designated it
a general council. And still further, as if to remove all doubt on the
subject, the council of Trent has particularly specified one of the
Lateran decrees, by quoting the first two words. The language of the
council is remarkable: “All other decrees made by Julius the Third, as
also the constitution of Pope Innocent the Third, in a general council,
which commences _Qualiter et Quando_, which this holy synod renews,
shall be observed by all[28].” Two things are here to be noted. First,
the council held under Innocent III. is expressly termed a general
council; and this council was the _Fourth Lateran_. Secondly, a
particular canon of the council is specified and renewed, so that no
doubt can possibly exist as to the particular council to which the
reference is made. It is not possible to establish any point with
greater precision than this, that the charge of holding persecuting and
exterminating doctrines is fastened upon the church of Rome, by these
decrees of the council of Trent.
[Footnote 26: “The holy synod decrees and commends, that the
holy canons, and all general councils, and also all
constitutions of the Apostolic See, which have been made in
favour of ecclesiastical persons and of ecclesiastical liberty,
and against the infringers of it, (all of which it revives by
this present decree,) be exactly observed by all, as they ought
to be.” _Conc. Trent._, Sess. xxv., _De Ref._, Can. 20. It is
observable, too, that emperors and kings are commanded to
observe these canons. This is surely a revival of the Lateran
canon.]
[Footnote 27: The creed is most explicit on this subject: “I do
undoubtedly receive and profess all other things which have been
delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons, and
œcumenical councils, and especially by the holy synod of Trent;
and all other things contrary thereto, and all heresies
condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church, I do
likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize.”]
[Footnote 28: _Council of Trent_, sess. xxiv., cap. 5. It is
therefore vain for any papist to pretend, in the face of such
authority, that there is a doubt whether the Lateran was a
general council. In all the editions of the councils it is so
designated; it is found in the list of councils appended to the
editions of the canon law; and in the canon law itself it is
thus reckoned. It is recognised by the council of Constance; and
last, though not least, by the council of Trent itself.]
The reader will also perceive that the council of Trent revives and
confirms all the constitutions of the apostolic see; that is, all the
determinations of the canon law. It would be easy to justify persecution
and death from innumerable portions of the canon law. And how can any
Romanist allege that the canon law is not binding, when it is expressly
confirmed by the council of Trent? It includes all the bulls and decrees
of the popes. None of the persecuting decrees have been repealed; and
until the church of Rome renounces them by a solemn and public act, she
will be obnoxious to the charge of maintaining the duty of persecuting
heretics. None of the laws respecting heresy have ever been relaxed; no
sovereign was ever censured for punishing heretics; no council has ever
relieved the papal sovereigns from the execution of the laws to which I
have alluded; nor was any one ever condemned by the head of the church
for putting Protestants to death. Until, therefore, Rome repeals her
exterminating decrees, she must submit to the heavy charge of
maintaining the right to persecute men for their religious belief.
It is well known that the BULL IN CŒNA DOMINI is read in the hearing of
the pope every Maunday Thursday. By that bull all Protestants are
excommunicated and anathematized; and will any one say that the church
of Rome would not execute the sentence of excommunication if she
possessed the power? To assert the contrary assuredly argues either
great obstinacy or egregious folly.
To the bull _In Cœna Domini_ may be added the oath to the pope taken by
every bishop on his elevation to the episcopal dignity, by which he
engages to _persecute and attack heretics_.
Such are the principles of the Romish church as embodied in her councils
and her canon law. If they are true, then the gunpowder conspirators
were justified in their proceedings, nay, they were acting a meritorious
part in the prosecution of that design.
Nor have the doctors and eminent supporters of that church hesitated to
avow the same principles in days that are past, though in modern times,
it has been attempted to deny them, or explain them away. How modern
Romanists can consistently deny that such doctrines are enjoined by
their church, appears to me inexplicable, except on the jesuitical
principle of equivocation, which will enable them to pursue any course
calculated to advance the interests of the apostolic see; and though
Romanists generally repudiate such doctrines, yet it is asserted in the
theology of Dens, and taught at Maynooth, and doubtless in other similar
institutions, that heretics are the subjects of the church of Rome[29].
A host of writers might be alleged, who assert that it is lawful to
punish heretics with death. So numerous are the passages in Romish
authors on this topic, and so well known, that I abstain from any
quotations. Still I will meet an objection not unfrequently alleged by
Romanists, when pressed in an argument by the authority of names in high
repute in their church, namely, that “the church is not bound by the
views of particular individuals.” The views of these individuals,
however, are those of the church, as I have already proved. But further,
why are not these views censured if the church does not maintain them?
The church of Rome has published an _Index Prohibitorum_, in which all
Protestant works are included; and an _Index Expurgatorius_, in which
many passages in the works of well known Romanists are marked for
erasure as containing sentiments akin to those of the Protestant
churches. As, therefore, the church of Rome has not hesitated to expunge
passages from the writings of her own members, when she has deemed them
at variance with her principles, why, if she views those portions of the
works to which I allude, and which enforce the persecution of heretics
even to death, to be erroneous, does she not adopt the same process
respecting them? As she has not done so, the undoubted inference is,
that these writings are not disapproved of by the church. It is not
possible for any Romanist to object to this line of argument; nor can
it be charged with unfairness.
[Footnote 29: DENS. ii. 288. Reiffenstuel quotes the third canon
of the fourth Lateran no less than eighteen times in one
chapter, and he declares that impenitent heretics are to be put
to death. This work is a class-book at Maynooth.]
Nearly allied to the punishment of heresy is the question of the pope’s
deposing power. It is asserted in the canons already quoted, and which
cannot be disputed; and it is also asserted by numerous writers, whose
works have never been censured in an _Index Expurgatorius_. Bellarmine
says, “It is agreed upon amongst all, that the pope may lawfully depose
heretical princes and free their subjects from yielding obedience to
them.” Can it be denied, therefore, that such was the doctrine of the
church of Rome in the time of Bellarmine? And if such was the doctrine
of that church then, it must be the doctrine of the same church now,
since none of her articles of faith have been changed, none of her
doctrines have been repudiated. It is true that the doctrine is not
insisted on by modern Romanists; but what security have we that the
claim would not be revived if the church of Rome should ever possess
sufficient power to enforce it? We must therefore insist on charging
these and similar doctrines on the church of Rome, until she renounces
them by a solemn and public decision.
Tillotson’s observations on this question, in his sermon on the fifth of
November, are so just that I shall make no apology for quoting them.
“Indeed, this doctrine hath not been at all times alike frankly and
openly avowed; but it is undoubtedly theirs, and hath frequently been
put in execution, though they have not thought it so convenient at all
times to make profession of it. It is a certain kind of engine, which is
to be screwed up or let down as occasion serves: and is commonly kept
like Goliah’s sword in the sanctuary behind the ephod, but yet so that
the high-priest can lend it out upon an extraordinary occasion. And for
practices consonant to these doctrines, I shall go no further than the
horrid and bloody design of this day.”
It is singular that there is no express mention of the deposing power in
the council of Trent. The pope and the fathers perceived that times were
already altered, that sovereigns were not likely to submit tamely to
such an assumption of authority, and that their proceedings must be
managed with more craft than formerly. Still the deposing power was
established by implication, in the ratification of the decrees of the
Lateran council; and we know that it was exercised at a subsequent
period against Queen Elizabeth. Parsons declared, in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, that it was the doctrine of all learned men, and agreeable to
the apostolic injunctions; and that the power of deposing kings has not
only been claimed, but acted upon, may easily be proved. It was not
always treated as a speculative doctrine. History shows that many wars
have been waged through this very principle. In some cases the papal
sentence has been carried into effect, and in others it has led to war
and bloodshed, some states having always been ready to attempt to carry
the sentence into effect.
The following list will show how frequently the Roman pontiffs in the
days of their glory, claimed and exercised the power of deposing
sovereigns.
A.D.
1075. Gregory VII. deposed Henry IV. the emperor.
1088. Urban II. deposed Philip, king of France.
1154. Adrian IV. deposed _William_, king of Sicily.
1198. Innocent III. deposed the Emperor Philip, and King John
of England.
1227. Gregory IX. deposed the Emperor Frederic II.
1242. Innocent IV. deposed the emperor.
1261. Urban IV. deposed Manphred, king of Sicily.
1277. Nicholas III. deposed Charles, king of Sicily.
1281. Martin IV. deposed Peter of Arragon.
1284. Boniface VIII. deprived Philip the Fair[30].
1305. Clement V. deposed the Emperor Henry V.
1316. John XXII. deprived the Emperor Lodovic.
1409. Alexander V. deposed the king of Naples.
1538. Paul III. deprived Henry VIII. of England.
1570. Pius V. deprived Queen Elizabeth, as did also some of his
successors.
[Footnote 30: This pope in his bull says, _“We declare and
pronounce it as necessary to salvation, that all mankind be
subject to the Roman pontiff.”_ This bull is a part of the
_canon law_.]
This is a sample of papal attempts against kings; and it proves that the
popes have always lost sight of St. Peter’s character, though acting as
his successors. Our own sovereigns have often felt the weight of the
papal power. King Edgar was enjoined by Dunstan, the abbot of
Glastonbury, not to wear his crown for seven years, to which he was
compelled to submit. Henry II. was forced to walk barefooted three miles
to visit Becket’s shrine, and there to receive fourscore lashes from the
monks on his bare back. King John was compelled to resign his crown to
the pope’s legate, and take it back on condition of paying a yearly sum
of a thousand marks to the pope.
The pages of history are pregnant with proofs that, from the period of
the Reformation, down to the time when the papacy became shorn of much
of its strength, the practices of the church have exactly corresponded
with the principles asserted in the canons already specified, in the
canon law, and in the works of their eminent writers. I have alluded to
the bulls issued against Elizabeth, and to the attempts of nations, and
of individuals, to enforce them. Elizabeth escaped; but several
continental sovereigns fell a sacrifice to the fury of the church of
Rome. Henry III., of France, was murdered in 1589, by a Dominican
friar, who was encouraged to the commission of the act by the prior of
his convent. Henry was a member of the church of Rome; but he was not so
zealous as the pope wished, in executing the laws against heretics. On
account, therefore, of his supposed want of zeal, he was devoted to
destruction by the church. The deed was lauded in sermons and in books,
throughout the French territories; while the murderer, who was destroyed
on the spot, was deemed a martyr in the cause of the church. At Rome,
the fact was applauded by the pope in a set speech to the cardinals. The
act was contrasted by his holiness, with those of Eleazar and Judith,
and the palm was given to the friar. Nay, it was compared in greatness
to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I give the following
extract from this most blasphemous speech:—
“Considering seriously with myself, and applying myself to these things
which are now come to pass, I may use the words of the prophet Habbakuk:
‘Behold, ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously; for
I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be
told you;’ i. 5. The French king is slain by the hands of a friar. For
unto this it may be compared, though the prophet spake of our Lord’s
incarnation. This is a memorable and almost incredible thing, not
accomplished without the particular providence of God. A friar has
killed a king. That the king is dead, is credible; but that he is killed
in such a manner is hardly credible: even as we assert that Christ is
born of a woman; but if we add of a virgin; then, according to human
reason, we cannot assent to it. This great work is to be ascribed to a
particular providence.”
In this strain did the head of the Roman church laud the murder of Henry
III. of France. The deed was reckoned by his holiness as glorious a
work as the incarnation of the Saviour, and his resurrection from the
dead. Surely, the principles and practices of the church, were in exact
correspondence at that time. The principles have never been
relinquished; but circumstances control the actions of the church, so
that she cannot kill and slay with impunity.
Henry IV. of France also fell a sacrifice to the same principles. He had
been an advocate of Protestant doctrines; but from motives of human
policy he united himself with the church of Rome. Still, as he did not
persecute his Protestant subjects, the sincerity of his conversion was
called in question by the church. In less than one month after his
public profession of the papal faith, an attempt was made on his life by
an assassin, who had been encouraged by the reasonings of certain friars
and jesuits. After several escapes, he was stabbed in the street, by a
man who had formerly been a monk. His death was not celebrated publicly
by the pope, as was that of Henry III., but the jesuits and the friars
justified the act, and proved that, on the principles of the church, it
was lawful to put him to death, though a Romanist, since he was not
zealous against heresy, and in the cause of the papal see. King Henry
had also communicated secret information to Cecil, prior to the
discovery of the Gunpowder Treason, respecting the machinations of the
jesuits and seminary priests. The particulars of their treason were
unknown; but the very fact that the French monarch should convey
intelligence to King James, was a deadly crime in the eyes of the
jesuits. It was supposed at the time, and nothing has since transpired
to lead to a different conclusion, that the part he acted, in
communicating information to the English court, hastened his tragical
end. I have remarked, that the pope did not publicly applaud the act of
the assassin; but it is a fact, that his memory was in consequence held
in great veneration at Rome, for a considerable period after the event.
Henry was supposed to be lukewarm in the cause, and therefore it was
determined to remove him out of the way. The assassins of both these
monarchs acknowledged, that they were prompted to commit the murders, by
the instigation of two jesuits, and the reading of the works of a third.
The massacre of St. Bartholomew is too well known to need the recital of
its horrid particulars. I allude to it merely to show how the principles
and practices of the church of Rome correspond, whenever she has the
power to act. The deed was applauded at Rome, by the head of the church.
The crime was consecrated by the pope, who went in grand procession to
church, to return thanks to God for so great a blessing as the
destruction of the heretics.
It appears that the tidings of the massacre reached Rome on the 6th of
September, 1572. The consistory of cardinals was immediately assembled,
when the letter from the papal legate, containing the particulars of the
massacre, was read. It was immediately determined to repair to the
church of St. Mark, where their solemn thanks were offered up to God for
this great blessing. Two days after, the pope and cardinals went in
procession to the church of Minerva, when high mass was celebrated. The
pope also granted a jubilee to all Christendom, and one reason assigned
was, _that they should thank God for the slaughter of the enemies of the
church, lately executed in France_. Two days later, the cardinal of
Lorraine headed another great procession of cardinals, clergy, and
ambassadors, to the chapel of St. Lewis, where he himself celebrated
mass. In the name of the king of France, the cardinal thanked the pope
and the cardinals, for the aid they had afforded his majesty by their
counsels and prayers, of which he had experienced the happy effects. On
his own part, and on the part of the church, the pope sent a legate to
thank the king for his zeal in the extirpation of the heretics, and to
beseech him to persevere in the great and holy work. The legate, in
passing through France, gave a plenary absolution to all who had been
actors in the massacre. On the evening of the day on which the news
arrived at Rome, the guns were fired from the castle of St. Angelo; and
the same rejoicings were practised as were common on receiving the
intelligence of an important victory. The pope looked upon the massacre,
as one of the greatest felicities which could have happened at the
beginning of his papacy.
In addition to these public rejoicings on the part of the pope and his
cardinals at Rome, other means were adopted to indicate the sense of the
church on the massacre. Medals were struck to commemorate the event. On
the one side was a representation of the slaughter, an angel cutting
down the heretics, and on the other, the head of the pope, Gregory XIII.
On these medals, was this inscription, _“Ugonottorum Strages, 1572.”_
The slaughter was also deemed worthy of being commemorated on tapestry,
which was placed in the pope’s chapel. In the paintings which were
executed, the slaughter of the Huguenots was depicted, _“Colignii et
Sociorum cædes;”_ and in another part, _“Rex Colignii cædam probat.”_
Let it be remembered that the principles of the church of Rome are
unchanged, and, as the Romanists themselves aver, unchangeable. The
circumstances of Europe are widely different from what they were in the
sixteenth century; and Romanists themselves are under the restraint of
wholesome laws and public opinion; but were the popes of modern days to
be supported by sovereigns like Charles IX. of France, or were they
possessed of the same power as was once enjoyed by their predecessors,
is it reasonable to suppose, that the principles which are still
retained, would not be carried out into practice; or that the same
scenes, which then disgraced the civilized world, would not again be
enacted in every country, in which the jesuits and other active
emissaries of the papacy could obtain a footing?
Is it not clear from the preceding facts, that the murderers of Henry
III. and IV. and the actors in the massacre of St. Bartholomew
considered that they were acting a meritorious part? They were taught
that the pope could depose kings and grant their kingdoms to others; and
they knew that the pope had often exercised that power. The Gunpowder
conspirators were men of the same class and influenced by the same
views. Knowing that all heretics are annually excommunicated, they
believed that they were authorized to carry the sentence into effect;
and having been taught that heretical princes might lawfully be deposed,
they considered themselves at liberty to attempt their destruction. The
assassins of the French monarchs and the Gunpowder traitors, being
encouraged by the authority of the church, as explained by their
spiritual directors, entered upon their deeds of darkness, with an
assurance, that they were merely obeying the commands of their ghostly
fathers.
The pope endeavoured to clear himself from the guilt of being privy to
the Gunpowder Treason; yet some of the planners and contrivers of the
plot were protected at Rome. Had his holiness been sincere in his
professions to King James, he would have delivered up those jesuits who
were implicated in the treason, and who escaped to Rome. The surrender
of the conspirators would have been the strongest proof of his
sincerity. But not only did he not give them up to the sovereign, whose
life they had sought; he did not even call them to account for the part
which they had taken in the conspiracy. I would not charge the guilt of
that conspiracy on the members of the church of Rome indiscriminately,
for there were many who were horror-struck at the deed, and there always
have been many who did not receive all the principles maintained by the
church; but I contend, that the head of the church, the pope of that
day, approved of the act, or he would never have adopted the course
which he then pursued; and in his guilt all the leading members of the
conclave were also implicated. We can only judge of men by their
actions; which, if they mean any thing, certainly involve the church of
Rome of that period in the guilt of the treason. Garnet was regarded as
a martyr, not as a traitor; and the absurd miracle of the _Straw_, was
sanctioned at Rome. These facts certainly involve the then church of
Rome in the treason; and as her principles are unchanged, there would be
no security against the same practices, were circumstances to favour her
ascendency[31].
[Footnote 31: Hallam remarks, “There seems, indeed, some ground
for suspicion, that the Nuncio at Brussels was privy to the
conspiracy; though this ought not to be asserted as an
historical fact.” _Const. Hist._ i. 554.]
It is also worthy of remark, that the jesuits who were privy to the
design, and who escaped from the knife of the executioner, never
expressed the least remorse for the part they had taken; on the
contrary, they never failed to speak of the treason as a glorious and
meritorious deed. When Hall the jesuit, _alias_ Oldcorne, was reminded
of the ill success of the treason as a proof that it was displeasing to
God, he immediately replied, that the justice of the cause must not be
determined by the event, for that the eleven tribes were commanded by
God himself to fight against Benjamin, and were twice overthrown; and
that Lewis of France was conquered by the Turks. By reminding some of
his dispirited companions of many glorious enterprises, which had failed
in the first instance, he hoped to encourage them to persevere, and to
induce them to expect that God would, in the end, enable them to
accomplish their purposes. Who can deny, after these facts, that the
church of Rome was deeply involved in the gunpowder treason? Or who can
exculpate her, even at present, from the charge of maintaining
principles subversive of Christian liberty and Protestant governments?
When one of the conspirators, who was received by the governor of
Calais, was condoled with, on being banished his country, he replied,
“It is the least part of our grief that we are banished our native
country; this doth truly and heartily grieve us, that we could not bring
so generous and wholesome a design to perfection.”
Sir Everard Digby was a mild and amiable man, and, with the exception of
his participation in the plot, no stain rests upon his character; yet he
seems to have considered that, by engaging in this treason, he was
really doing God service. His letters, written during his imprisonment,
and published by Bishop Barlow in 1679, illustrate the influence of the
principles of the church of Rome on the mind of an otherwise excellent
individual. They were written with the juice of lemon, or something of
the same kind: written, too, when he had time to reflect in his solitary
cell, yet it is evident that he thought he was advancing the cause of
true religion in the part which he took; and, further, that he was never
convinced that the deed was sinful, so completely had the jesuitical
principles of the prime actors in the conspiracy warped his judgment and
influenced his views. The papers were discovered in the house of Charles
Cornwallis, Esq., who was the executor of Sir Kenelm Digby, the son and
heir of Sir Everard. They were once in the possession of Archbishop
Tillotson, as he testifies in one of his sermons.
The letters were by some secret means conveyed to his lady, and were
preserved in the family as sacred relics. “Sir Everard Digby,” says
Archbishop Tillotson in his sermon on the fifth of November, “whose very
original papers and letters are now in my hands, after he was in prison,
and knew he must suffer, calls it the best cause, and was extremely
troubled to hear it censured by Catholics and priests, contrary to his
expectations, for a great sin.” The letters were also, once in the
possession of Bishop Burnet, as he himself informs us. From him we learn
how they were discovered. “The family being ruined upon the death of Sir
Kenelm’s son, when the executors were looking out for writings to make
out the titles of the estates they were to sell, they were directed by
an old servant to a cupboard that was very artificially hid, in which
some papers lay that she had observed _Sir Kenelm_ was oft reading.
They, looking into it, found a velvet bag, within which, there were two
other silk bags, (so carefully were those relics kept) and there was
within these a collection of all the letters that _Sir Everard_ writ
during his imprisonment.”
A few extracts will show what his sentiments were concerning the plot.
“Now, for my intention let me tell you, that if I had thought there had
been the least sin in the plot, I would not have been of it for all the
world; and no other cause drew me to hazard my fortune and life, but
zeal to God’s religion. For my keeping it secret, it was caused by
certain belief, that those which were best able to judge of the
lawfulness of it, had been acquainted with it, and given way unto it.”
“Now, let me tell you, what a grief it hath been to me, to hear that so
much condemned, which I did believe would have been otherwise thought on
by Catholics.”
“Oh! how full of joy should I die, if I could do any thing for the cause
which I love more than my life.”
On the proceedings which were to have been adopted in the event of the
success of the plot, Sir Everard remarks:
“There was also a course taken to have given present notice to all
princes, and to associate them with an oath, answerable to the league in
France.”
Respecting the pope’s concurrence he has the following passage:
“Before that I knew any thing of the plot, I did ask Mr. Farmer, what
the meaning of the pope’s brief was: he told me that they were not
(meaning priests) to undertake or procure stirs; but yet they would not
hinder any, neither was it the pope’s mind they should, that should be
undertaken for Catholic good. I did never utter thus much, nor would not
but to you; and this answer, with Mr. Catesby’s proceedings with him and
me, gave me absolute belief that the matter in general was approved,
though every particular was not known.”
Then alluding to the presence of some Romanist peers at the opening of
parliament, he adds:
“I do not think there would have been three worth saving that should
have been lost.”
In another letter he observes:
“I could give unanswerable reasons, both for the good that this would
have done for the Catholic cause, and my being from home, but I think it
now needless, and for some respects unfit.”
The last letter is a long one, and is addressed to his sons; but though
he exhorts them to continue in the faith of the church of Rome, yet he
does not express any sorrow for his crime; nor does he caution them
against being engaged in similar conspiracies. It is, therefore, clear,
that he viewed the deed as laudable and meritorious, even at the close
of his career.
It appears certain that many of the Romanists, both at home and abroad,
were aware that some extensive conspiracy was on foot. A particular
prayer was used, it is said, by numbers in England, for the success of
the conspiracy; it was couched in the following terms: “Prosper, Lord,
their pains, that labour in thy cause day and night; let heresy vanish
like smoke; let the memory of it perish with a crack, like the ruin and
fall of a broken house.” It would appear that this prayer was framed by
one who was privy to the conspiracy; nor can it be doubted that it was
intended to convey some intimation of the nature of the treason. I am,
aware, that no Romanist would in the present day justify the deed; but
the preceding facts prove, that the act was applauded and justified at
the time by the whole church almost, and for a considerable period
afterwards. To justify the treason now, would be to expose the parties
who did so, to the execration of an indignant public. The principles of
Rome, however, are exactly what they were when the bulls of the pope
were sent to Garnet, and when the gunpowder treason was planned.
Tillotson forcibly observes, “I would not be understood to charge every
particular person, who is, or hath been in the Roman communion, with the
guilt of those or the like practices; but I must charge their doctrines
and principles with them. I must charge the heads of their church, and
the prevalent teaching and governing part of it, who are usually the
contrivers and abettors, the executioners and applauders of these cursed
designs[32].”
[Footnote 32: TILLOTSON’S _Works_, 12mo., Vol. i., 349.]
It was decided by Pope Urban II. that it was neither treason nor murder
to kill those, who were excommunicated by the church. So that any
treason or murder could be justified on such principles. Nor has any
change been effected in the principles of the church of Rome. “Popery,”
says Burnet, “cannot change its nature, and _cruelty and breach of faith
to heretics_, are as necessary parts of that religion, as
_transubstantiation_ and the _pope’s supremacy_[33].” Andrew Marvel
wittily remarks of the pope’s claim, “He has, indeed, of late, been
somewhat more retentive than formerly as to his faculty of disposing of
kingdoms, the thing not having succeeded well with him in some
instances, but he lays the same claim still, continues the same
inclinations, and though velvet-headed hath the more itch to be pushing.
And, however, in order to any occasion he keeps himself in breath,
always by cursing one prince or other upon every Maundy Thursday[34].”
[Footnote 33: BURNET’S _Eighteen Papers_, 84.]
[Footnote 34: _The Growth of Popery_, p. 9.]