Again; to all those that are “knowing” enough, the facts of this woeful
tragedy “observingly” to “distil out,” the form and substance of this
document of the 12th March, 1605-6, under the hand of Edward Oldcorne,
alike afford evidence——conclusive evidence——that Father Oldcorne regarded
the Gunpowder conspirators as repentant conspirators, through the virtual
_representative_ repentance of one of their own number.
And though it is true that, by the inexorable decree of the Universe, “The
Guilty suffer,” each man for himself and not another, temporal punishment,
searching, terrible, and keen, yet this is not the whole of the truth
governing the perfected ethics of the matter. For “Man learns by
suffering.” And guilt is pardoned on repentance, that is, on the
observance and on the performance of certain equally decreed conditions.
These conditions are (1) confession, (2) contrition, which implies sorrow
and regret, and (3) satisfaction or “damages,” which involves amendment,
withdrawal, or reversal. And when all three conditions have been observed
and performed, then
“Whoso with repentance is not satisfied,
Neither to earth nor heaven is allied.”
Hence, could the great moralist, by a _complexus_ of intellectual acts,
personal and vicarious, justly regard the whole band of plotters as
transgressors released from the abstract guilt of their double crime. For
it is a dictate of reason that the release of one joint debtor operates
derivatively to the release, _ipso facto_, of all the rest.
Now, if Oldcorne possessed a conscious realization that, through the
_repentance, personal and representative_, of the Gunpowder plotters, that
Plot was no longer a plot, then, to speak after the manner of men, he must
have had that realization as the resultant of two particular kinds,
aspects, or sides of _knowledge: ab extra_, from without, that is, passive
knowledge, or communicated, in the _first_ step; and _ab intra_, from
within, that is, knowledge active, or self-bestowed, in the _second_ step.
Now, both passive knowledge and active knowledge here would imply, in the
final analysis, a communication by some external mental agency, the agency
of some living, intelligent being.
It would be implied in the first case, directly; in the second case,
indirectly. But, directly or indirectly, the source would be the same.
Now, who can that aforesaid living, intelligent being, which reason
demands, have been, if not _a repentant plotter himself_?
Therefore, by irresistible inference, the Letter is surely, with moral
certitude, traced home at last.