Guy Fawkes Part 6

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 p.r.o.nounced 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 a.s.sisted 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 p.r.o.nounced _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 va.s.sals 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tutions 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 c.u.menical 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 const.i.tutions 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 punis.h.i.+ng 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 CNA 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 a.s.sert the contrary a.s.suredly argues either great obstinacy or egregious folly.

To the bull _In Cna 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 a.s.serted in the theology of Dens, and taught at Maynooth, and doubtless in other similar inst.i.tutions, that heretics are the subjects of the church of Rome[29].

A host of writers might be alleged, who a.s.sert that it is lawful to punish heretics with death. So numerous are the pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 cla.s.s-book at Maynooth.]

Nearly allied to the punishment of heresy is the question of the pope's deposing power. It is a.s.serted in the canons already quoted, and which cannot be disputed; and it is also a.s.serted 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 a.s.sumption 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 p.r.o.nounce 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 Glas...o...b..ry, 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 a.s.serted 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 pa.s.s, 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 G.o.d. 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 a.s.sert that Christ is born of a woman; but if we add of a virgin; then, according to human reason, we cannot a.s.sent 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 circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.sa.s.sin, 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 a.s.sa.s.sin; 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 a.s.sa.s.sins 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 ma.s.sacre 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 G.o.d for so great a blessing as the destruction of the heretics.

It appears that the tidings of the ma.s.sacre reached Rome on the 6th of September, 1572. The consistory of cardinals was immediately a.s.sembled, when the letter from the papal legate, containing the particulars of the ma.s.sacre, was read. It was immediately determined to repair to the church of St. Mark, where their solemn thanks were offered up to G.o.d for this great blessing. Two days after, the pope and cardinals went in procession to the church of Minerva, when high ma.s.s was celebrated. The pope also granted a jubilee to all Christendom, and one reason a.s.signed was, _that they should thank G.o.d 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 amba.s.sadors, to the chapel of St. Lewis, where he himself celebrated ma.s.s. 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 pa.s.sing through France, gave a plenary absolution to all who had been actors in the ma.s.sacre. 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 ma.s.sacre, 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 ma.s.sacre. 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 caedes;"_ and in another part, _"Rex Colignii caedam probat."_

Let it be remembered that the principles of the church of Rome are unchanged, and, as the Romanists themselves aver, unchangeable. The circ.u.mstances 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 ma.s.sacre 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 cla.s.s 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 a.s.sa.s.sins 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 a.s.surance, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 a.s.serted 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 G.o.d, he immediately replied, that the justice of the cause must not be determined by the event, for that the eleven tribes were commanded by G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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?