CHAPTER XI. The Gunpowder Plot and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.

Facts and History against the Jesuits.

THERE is no event in English history which should be more carefully remembered than this of the Gunpowder Plot. Yet it has become the fashion to ignore it, or speak of it as if it had been an event of long past ages. Romanists, who not so long since were thoroughly ashamed of it, speak of it now in an airy fashion, as something with which they really had no concern. Even the Jesuit fathers, whose Society was the sole origin of this, and so many other plots, to deprive Englishmen of their religious and political liberty, give lectures on the subject, and declare that it is all a mistake to credit them with the plot, it was a “put up job” to throw them into discredit. Fools may believe them, but the historical evidence against them is far too strong to allow of honest denial. Facts are “stubborn” things, and the facts and the history are all against the Jesuit.

However, it may be said, because it can be proved that neither history nor Scripture are of much account with these men, and either can be re-modelled to suit their peculiar views. We have already given evidence of this. Besides, when the Church of Rome has power, she will at once destroy all historical evidence which tells against her. It is useless to say that she will not do this, for she has already announced her intention to do it to a generation which will not listen to a voice of warning. In the Jesuit scheme for the “reformation” of England, republished by the Jesuits in 1889, with the highest commendation, this one particular point is insisted on. “Public and private libraries are to be searched and examined for books, also all bookbinders and stationers,” and all books which the Church pronounces heretical are to be at once destroyed. What havoc will be made one day of the British Museum when it becomes the Pope’s library. What has been done in England may be done again. In the reign of that Queen who has been justly called Bloody Mary, a law was passed that any one who had heretical books, if they did not burn them at once, without showing them to any one, should be hung. How terribly afraid Rome is of knowledge.

Clemency of Elizabeth, Cruelty of Mary.

Romanists naturally make light of the persecutions of Mary, but when did Elizabeth ever issue such a tyrannical enactment. But for Romanists, history must be believed and written according to Rome. We have already shown how this is done in colleges under Jesuit control. It is remarkable that Romanists are now declaring openly that they require not only that they shall have schools where they may teach their own religion, but that they must also have schools where they may teach their own history.*

* A speech was made by the Roman. Catholic Bishop of Newport at Cardiff, in which it is plainly stated that Romanists will insist on teaching their own history, and even their own geography, as well as their own religion. He said, Sometimes nonCatholic? would ask with amazement. what objection Catholics could have to a Board school, where no religion was forced upon them. In Board schools history and geography were taught by teachers trained in Protestant views, and general information was imparted by men and women who were saturated with anti-Catholic prejudice Catholicism touched history and general knowledge at a thousand points.— Tablet, January 18th, 189?.

As a specimen of how history is expurgated for the use of Romanists, we may say here that in the Clifton Tracts, a Roman Catholic publication, it is stated that the persecutions under Mary and the cruelties practised by the Inquisition are all “nursery fables.”

The Gunpowder Plot was simply a last despairing effort of the Jesuits to secure a Roman Catholic succession for England, and to place her under the heel of Rome. Plot after plot had been discovered and frustrated ere this fiendish scheme was planned. And here it should be noted that Romanists are constantly bringing forward those who suffered in the reign of Queen Elizabeth as martyrs for their faith, and thereby securing the sympathy of a certain class of Englishmen. But the facts are very different. In the reign of Mary, men, women, and even those who might also be called children, were burned alive and tortured, simply because they would not submit to the Roman Catholic Church. In the reign of Elizabeth those who were executed had an open, public, and fair trial, and they were executed simply and solely for treason. But here, again, the duplicity of Rome comes in to falsify history.

The Popes tried to bribe Elizabeth.

These men knew well that they were simply hung for plotting and doing their evil best against the Queen and throne of England, but they did not call this treason, for they openly avowed and openly taught that they owed no allegiance to Elizabeth, that their sole allegiance was to the Pope, and that as he had excommunicated Elizabeth, it was their duty to assassinate her, and an act of loyalty to the Pope. A consideration of the subject from this point of view is important, because. there is so much historical misrepresentation at the present day. For all the facts here stated there is ample historical proof. How sad it will be if English children are not allowed to read for themselves the true history of their native land.

Now the facts of the case are very simple, and there is abundant indisputable evidence to prove them. When Sir Edward Carne, the English ambassador at Rome, notified Paul IV. of the accession of Elizabeth to the throne, “he told Carne that England was a fief of the Holy See, and that it was great temerity in Elizabeth to have assumed, without his participation, the title of Queen.” Pope Paul IV., finding that Elizabeth was firm and determined to hold her own, offered to let things remain as they were, provided she would acknowledge his primacy and a Reformation from him. Pius IV., his successor, proffered the same conditions to the Queen by letter, written May 5th, 1560, wherein he offered to comply with all her requests to the utmost of his power, provided she would allow of his primacy, and Pius V. (the same Pope who afterwards issued the Bull of excommunication against Elizabeth), thirty three years after Elizabeth’s birth, and in the seventh year of her reign, offered to reverse the Papal sentence which declared her illegitimate, if she would submit to his rule. The Spanish ambassador in England, De Silva, assured Queen Elizabeth that she had only to express a desire to that effect, and the Pope would immediately remove the difficulty.

Camden, in his “Annals of Elizabeth,” gives the text of a letter addressed by Pope Pius IV. to Elizabeth, under date May 15th, 1560, wherein he addressed her as “our most dear daughter in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England,” expressing his “great desire . . . to take care of her salvation, and to provide as well for her honour as the establishment of her kingdom!”

It is one of the special prerogatives of a pope to be able to make or unmake sin at his pleasure. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin of incest for a nephew and niece to marry. But the Pope can unmake the sin and allow it to be committed, provided a sufficiently large sum of money is paid into the Papal treasury.

Elizabeth’s Courage and Moderation.

So in the case of Queen. Elizabeth. If she had submitted herself and her kingdom to the Pope, and allowed his Italian Cardinal to rule her country, we should have heard nothing of her illegitimacy.

One scarcely knows which to admire most, the courage of Queen Elizabeth or her moderation under circumstances which were of the most exasperating character, especially to a woman of her temperament, and these noble traits are fully admitted by so many Roman Catholic priests that we can only make a selection from their writings on this subject.

Bitterly, indeed, did the secular priests complain, and not without ample cause, of the ruin brought not only on England, but on the Church of Rome itself, by the plots and intrigues of the Jesuits.

In the year 1601 “sundry secular priests” published, during the reign of Elizabeth, a statement of their case, with an epistolary introduction written by priest Watson. It is entitled “Important Considerations which ought to move all true and sound Catholics, who.are not wholly Jesuitised, to acknowledge, without all equivocations, ambiguities or shiftings, that the proceedings of her Majesty [Elizabeth] and of the State with them since the beginning of Her Highness’s reign, have both been mild and merciful.” “It cannot be denied,”.. say the secular priests, the writers of this document, “but that for the first ten years of Her Majesty’s reign, the state of England was tolerable, and, after a sort, in some good quietness.”

These secular priests tried even to induce the Jesuits to cease from their disloyal and felonious attempts to murder Elizabeth and overthrow her government. They said, “In the beginning of her kingdom, she did deal somewhat more gently with Catholics, none were then urged by her or pressed, either to her sect, or to the denial of their faith. All things, indeed, did seem to proceed in a far milder course—no great complaints were heard of.” And these secular priests for themselves state — “For whilst Her Majesty and the State dealt with the Catholics as you have heard (which was full eleven years, no one Catholic being called in question of his life for his conscience all that time), consider with us how some of our profession proceeded with them.” And they then describe the plottings of the Jesuits in this country, which brought upon them the retribution they richly deserved.. They conclude by admitting that “these foreign Jesuitical practices had been the cause of all their troubles,” and that “they might have. continued in peace, and none making them afraid, were it not for the treasons and rebellions stirred up by the Jesuits and their party against the Queen and the lawful government of the country.”

Secular Priests denounce the Jesuits.

It should be observed here, however, that these priests make no objection to the teaching of the Jesuits, they themselves would teach the same moral code. They do not object to the Jesuits because their teaching is unscriptural, but because they are busy bodies, plotters and incessant disturbers of the public peace, and because they wanted to control everyone.

Before it is said or believed that Rome has changed, it would be well to know what Rome is doing today. At the urgent solicitation of the late Cardinal Manning and of the Jesuit and Oratory Fathers, and of his own infallible will, the present Pope has canonised the men who defied the authority of their Queen, and one of whom, John Felton, posted a copy of the Bull of Pius V., excommunicating Queen Elizabeth, his lawful sovereign, on the doors of the Bishop of London’s palace.

Elizabeth was no longer the Pope’s “most dear daughter in Christ.” The Bull of “damnation and excommunication of Elizabeth, Queen of England, and her adherents,” bore date “5th of the Kalends (the first day of every month in the Roman calendar) of March, 1570.” The Bull anathematised and excommunicated Elizabeth as a slave of impiety, a heretic and a favourer of heretics. The Pope deposed her, and deprived her of her alleged pretended right to the crown of England, as illegitimate. He absolved all her subjects from their allegiance, and all others from their oaths, and that for ever. He positively enjoined disobedience under penalty of the same anathema and excommunication as were denounced against the Queen, and placed the whole land under his curse and interdict. This was an open declaration of war against England, and the Pope was the aggressor. John Felton, who published the Bull as stated above, was canonised recently for the act, and it is worthy of note that when Pius V., who issued this bull was canonised, one of the “great deeds” for which he was given this honour, was the issue of this bull deposing the lawful Queen of England, and for urging her secret assassination. Romanists declare that these men whom they have so recently canonised were martyrs for their religion, thereby making it the duty of the good Catholic to murder and rebel against their rulers, since the doing of it procures for the doers the highest honours which their Church can pay them.

Men Hung for treason canonised by Leo XIII.

So many are the inconsistencies of Rome that one is not surprised to find the same canonised Pope at one moment denouncing Queen Elizabeth for allowing married priests, and in the next declaring in no measured language, that his Church was reeking with the impurities of his unmarried priests. In an apostolic letter, addressed to the Archbishop of Saltsburg, Pius wrote “that he had been informed by the best authority on the spot, that the greater part of the beneficed and dignified clergy in Germany, who ought to set the best example without fear of God or man, kept concubines openly, and introduced them into churches and public places like lawful wives, giving them titles of their own dignities and offices, that from the contempt thus brought upon the clergy by themselves, they had lost all authority, and hence the increase of heresy which can never be repressed till the abominable vice of concubinage is extirpated.”

It would be impossible to relate here the many plots which the popes and the Jesuits made to assassinate Elizabeth, and to ruin England. That the game treason would be practised today were it at all possible, and that it may be made possible and practised ere long, there can be no manner of doubt, since today the men,who perpetrated these crimes have received the highest honours which the Church can pay them. Before the Church of Rome canonises anyone she makes the most exact and rigorous inquiries as to their life, and the books, if any, which they have written, are all most fully approved down to the most minute particular. In the case of those who “shed their blood for the faith” no such minute inquiry is considered necessary, but it is clear that when the Roman Catholic Church canonises men solely because they were hung for treason, she thereby sets the seal of her highest approval on treason, indeed, she could scarcely do otherwise since Rome claims universal and temporal Sovereignty.

It should also be said that treason and assassination were especially taught as a religious duty in Roman Catholic colleges, as, indeed, they are at the present day.

Camden informs us that out of these seminaries (the Jesuit colleges in France and Rome), first a few young men, and then more as they grew up, entering over hastily into holy orders, and being instructed in such principles of doctrine as these, were sent forth into divers parts of England and Ireland to administer (as they pretended) the sacraments of the Romish religion, and to preach. But the Queen and her Council found that they were sent underhand to withdraw the subjects from their allegiance and obedience due to their prince, to bind them by reconciliation to perform the Popes commandments, to raise intestine rebellions under the seal of confession, and flatly to execute the sentence of Pius Quintus against the Queen.

Evidence of the seditious instruction given to the missioners sent forth from these colleges is furnished by the letter of Cardinal d’Ossat to Henry IV. of France, November 26th, 1601, in which the Cardinal writes that “the chief thing attended to in these colleges is to instill into the youths the belief that the King of Spain is the rightful heir to the crown of England.”

The Gunpowder Plot.

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT—THE REIGN OF James I.

But as all the attempts made during the reign of Elizabeth proved abortive, and as the Jesuits were enraged to madness by the failure of their plots, they saw now that assassination of kings and princes was not so easily accomplished, so they devised a new and horrible scheme for the attainment of their ends. As usual, their plans were laid with consummate cunning. The Provincial of their Order, Henry Garnet, came to England attended by Jesuits chosen with the greatest care for the work. These men disguised themselves in every way possible, so as to escape notice, and to reach and converse with Roman Catholics without detection.

Again they used the confessional for their fell purpose. Though Catholics had then perfect liberty for the exercise of their religion, it was often a matter of some difficulty for them to get confession, as priests were comparatively scarce, and locomotion was then very slow and difficult. Besides, the prestige of the Jesuits made them especially acceptable as confessors, and they did not fail to uphold their own cause, or to extol the special privileges which they had forced or cajoled from the Holy See from time to time… This, then, was their opportunity, and they knew how to use it. Words said in the confessional are viewed by Romanists as veritably and actually said by God himself. How easy then was it to arouse the feelings and inspire the hopes of the kneeling penitent! The one word was, Claim England for Rome. No sin could be committed which would not be pardoned, if the penitent placed himself, and above all his fortune, in the hands of his Jesuit confessor for this purpose. It needs to know something personally of the tremendous power of the Church of Rome to realise the way in which it controls and possesses the bodies and souls of men. No doubt many of these men were very unwilling to embroil their country again in a religious war, above all when there was no question of being deprived of the free exercise of their religion. But what matter, the word of the priest, above all the word of the Jesuit, must prevail, and the consent was given to any measure that might be proposed.

Garnet was attended by other Jesuits, all disguised, and all bent on the same fell design. But there was need for great diplomacy. It was necessary to throw odium on King James, and it is so easy for infallible popes to make and unmake legitimacy, or to make and unmake sin, that it needed only a whisper from the confessor that after all James had no right to the throne, for he was “probably” illegitimate. Not a word, be sure, would have been said on this subject if James had played into the hands of the Jesuits.

The Jesuits make and unmake Kings.

A candidate was also provided. The Jesuits do not do their work by halves. The king once got rid of, no matter how, it was absolutely necessary to have a substitute ready on the spot, and the substitute was found. The Jesuits, who could make and unmake kings and nobles at their own sweet will, discovered that after all the “rightful” heir to the throne of England, was not James I., but a Lady Arabella Stuart, the daughter. of the Earl of Lennox. She was prepared to accept the crown from the Jesuits, and it only needed to assure the Romanists, who wavered, that it really was their duty to see that the right heir “had her own.” And then there was the name of Stuart to conjure with, fatal as it has been to its possessors.

It is amazing, and if the subject were not so serious it would be amusing, to see with what consummate skill the Jesuits have hoodwinked the public. How they must rejoice at their success, and what a fund of amusement their dupes must afford them. They ask the deepest sympathy, and too often get it, for men who were hung for treason, who would have been hung or shot for the same crime in any country, but whom they represent as having been martyrs to their religion, because that tells so well, and so effectively with the English public. In modern times the position of our by no means remote ancestors is scarcely understood, subject as they were to continual plots against their liberties and treasons against their Government and Queen.

After a time the “Manchester martyrs” will be proposed for canonisation, and they will be quite as worthy of it. The spies whom the Jesuits sent all through the length and breadth of England, are also represented as suffering for “their faith” when they were discovered and justly punished. These men would simply have been shot on sight if they had attempted such exploits elsewhere. They came to spy out the land for a foreign prince, and to excite by every means in their power, those who were most inflammable against their lawful rulers. Short work should be made of all this nonsense, and the common sense of the people of this country should be aroused to see its true character. If any English king or queen had acted in a similar manner in regard to the popes who made war on them, how very differently the matter would be represented by Romanists!

And, in the meantime, while all these beguilements are being used to blind honest people, Rome is teaching openly the doctrine of rebellion against lawful kings, and the duty of freeing subjects from their allegiance whenever she pleases to depose a sovereign.

In his “Essays on Religion,” Cardinal Manning says: “If, therefore, an heretical prince is elected or succeeds to the throne, the Church [of Rome] has a right to say, ‘I annul the election, or I forbid the succession,’” and, again, that “The Pope can inflict temporal punishments on sovereigns for heresy, and deprive them of their kingdoms, and free their subjects from obedience.”

Why Severe Laws became Necessary.

There is ample historical evidence that Romanists had almost absolute liberty for the exercise of their religion during the first twelve years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Nor were they ungrateful, as they frequently declared. It was not until the restless and evil spirit which possessed the Jesuits had its sway that a renewal of severities was commenced. During the closing years of the life of Elizabeth severe laws were enacted and enforced against the Catholics. But this was an absolute necessity. If the kingdom was to be preserved from a deluge of blood, if Englishmen were to rule their own country and possess their liberties, something needed to be done for their protection from a foreign foe. There is one remarkable difference between the manner in which Protestant and Christian England acted when obliged to prosecute her enemies and the enemies of God, and the way in which Papal and half pagan Rome acted when she desired to possess herself of these fair realms. We do not find that Englishmen made plots for the assassination of the Pope, or carried on secret war in his country, as he did in England, And such has ever been the marked difference between the action of the children of light and the children of darkness.

Unhappy Ireland ! taught and practically governed by papal Rome, has her secret crimes and midnight assassinations, her cruel outrages on dumb animals, her thefts of property. England, too, alas! has her crimes, but they are the crimes of a fallen humanity, and not the crimes of demons.

The death of the brave Elizabeth gave new hopes to the plotters of treason. James I. was believed to be a Catholic at heart. The Jesuits, at least, hoped that he would repay them for all they had done, or tried to do, for his hapless mother, Mary Queen of Scots. But they soon found their mistake. Probably he had seen quite enough of their restless plotting to have learned a lesson which stood him in good stead. He at once issued a decree, by which the Jesuits must still remain abroad, in fact, he placed them in the same position as that in which they had found themselves during the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth. Probably his indolent and easygoing nature made him averse to political broils or secret plottings, and so he took prompt precautions to free himself and his kingdom from those who were sure to embroil it. But he gave a large measure of toleration to English Romanists, who, if they pleased, could have lived as peaceful Englishmen in amity with their fellow countrymen.

The Gunpowder Plot Conspirators.

There is ample evidence that English Catholics would have been contented and peaceful subjects if they had been left in peace by the ever restless and ever plotting Jesuit. But this was not to be. The Jesuits determined on a wholesale massacre of heretics, and acting on the principle so lately and so highly approved by their fathers, they determined to secure a Roman Catholic succession by murdering all the Protestant royal family at one fell blow.

The history of the Gunpowder Plot is so well known that it needs only to be related here in outline. Garnet had made the acquaintance, on the continent, of Robert Catesby, an English Catholic of good family. Catesby was ambitious and ready for revolt. Garnet applied to him on his arrival in England, and induced him to join in the plot. It was necessary to be most circumspect in the selection of his fellow conspirators, so that the number was not complete till the close of the year 1604. Their names were Thomas Percy, a young profligate and spendthrift, but bold even to rashness, from the celebrated family of the Earls of Northumberland, Thomas and Robert Winter, two brothers, who had suffered under the government of Elizabeth, Guido Fawkes, a soldier and formerly an officer in the Spanish service, Francis Tresham and Ambrose Rookwood, both of noble blood, and intimate friends of Catesby, Everard Digby, a man of considerable means and great talents, Robert Keyes, Christopher Wright, John Grant, and lastly, Tom Bates, a servant of Catesby, just the man for such a purpose, as he had been initiated into his masters secret from the beginning. Still, Catesby considered it well, before the formal commencement of the conspiracy, that this latter, on account of his vacillating scruples of conscience,should be especially schooled by Father Oswald Tesmond.

But the Jesuit leader of the conspiracy found an unexpected difficulty amongst his followers. More humane and more just than he was, when they had realised the enormity of the plan and the fearful loss of life which it must cause, they asked what was to become of so many of their own faith who most certainly would be present at the opening of Parliament, and who must also perish. But the Jesuit would have his end, even if it needed to wade in the blood of his own people to attain it. He assured the unhappy men who hung on his word as on the word of God, that this would be merely the usual fate of battle, that they might be obliged to attack a walled-in city and that many Catholics might suffer as well as the heretics whom they must destroy, and they were satisfied. The word of the priest was all that was needed to make crime a virtue.,

The Plot Revealed.

But, after all, these men were human. They had, some of them at least, the best instincts of humanity, and these instincts triumphed over their false religion. We shall show later that Garnet was fully cognizant of the plot, and that the only scruples which these unhappy men had were removed by him. They asked if it was right to kill so many of their own faith who would inevitably suffer in the general massacre. But Garnet promptly silenced all their difficulties. Let us give a meed (an earned award or wage) of pity to these victims of a cruel and Christless religion. The conspirators should indeed be condemned and condemned justly for their crime, but our just and most earnest reprobation should be reserved for the Church which urged them to commit it, and which has not only never repented of her evil deed, but rather has at the present day, placed the seal of her highest approval on her dupes by canonising them.

The people of England are indebted to the humanity of one of the conspirators, for deliverance from one of the most horrible plots and outrages which has ever been attempted in the world’s history. And yet there are those at the present day who listen with attention to Jesuit fathers who declare that this plot was none of their doing, and then laugh at the folly of the dupes who believe them. The conspirator Tresham was the revealer of the plot. His sister was married to Lord Mounteagle, and Lord Mounteagle would certainly be present at the opening of Parliament, perhaps also Lady Mounteagle might be there. There is ample corroborative evidence to show that the mysterious letter addressed to this nobleman was written by his brother-in-law. This, and this alone, saved England. God alone knows what misery, what bloodshed, what fiendish atrocities would have resulted if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded.

Everything had been planned to follow up the blow. For the moment Protestant courage might have been crushed when the mangled corpses of the king, the princes, and hundreds of the leading men of the country had been seen lying in their gore in Westminster precincts. But it is quite certain that the shock would have been only temporary, and the reprisals would have been terrible and sure. Who could have blamed the Protestants if, after such a destruction, they had risen up in their strength and enacted a massacre which would have included every Catholic in the land? Yet such a massacre would have been justified if any enemy had adopted such tactics in ordinary warfare.

England was saved, but how near England, was to this most awful peril at the hands of Rome should never be forgotten.

The acumen or the fears of the king saved England. The Stuarts were generally fools when their own interests were in question, but they were not without wit in other matters. The result is well known. It is a matter of history. It is history which is well known, but which should never be forgotten, though Rome makes useless efforts to conceal her share in this and kindred subjects.

The Mysterious Letter.

On the night of the 4th of November the vaults were searched, the conspiracy was discovered, and England was saved from the most diabolical plot which the mind of man has ever conceived.

But we shall be told by confiding Protestants and even by worldly minded Christians, that such terrors are impossible at the present day. Can we be sure of this? Has Rome changed? She declares herself solemnly that she cannot change. I admit, however, that one proved fact is worth a thousand assertions. In a serial now publishing, which I do not wish to advertise by giving the name, a plot to murder every Protestant, i.e., every member of Parliament who is not avowedly Roman Catholic, a plot quite as clever and, if possible, more diabolical than the Gunpowder Plot, is openly revealed.

The plotters are named because they have died recently, but they were Irish. Roman Catholics. Irish Roman Catholics do not commit deadly crime without the knowledge and full approbation of their “spiritual” guides. God help them, and may God forgive the Christian people who support and encourage this cruel religion.

Fair Trial given to the Jesuit Garnet.

The Jesuit conspirators did not all escape. The principal men engaged in the plot were taken alive, but Catesby and several others were killed by the soldiers who were sent to effect their capture, but not until they had suffered themselves from an explosion of gunpowder which took place by accident when they were drying powder. Even these hardened men, when the suffering came to themselves, realised in some slight degree the crime which they had committed. But it was too late to repent even if they~ had any desire to do so.

The details of the various trials of the conspirators are simply a sickening history of equivocation and subterfuge. Each was anxious to know what had been revealed by the other, and each made admissions however trifling, which, when compared, helped to the utter condemnation of all.

But here we must observe the wide difference between these trials and the practices of the Inquisition. The prisoners were all allowed to speak in their own defense. The Jesuit Garnet especially took considerable advantage of this permission. It is true that torture was used in some cases in the Tower, but this was the evil custom of the age, which had been introduced by the Roman Catholic Church and persistently practised by the Inquisition — It is remarkable how easily Protestants are led astray on this subject. Rome demands the utmost sympathy from them for those who were tortured in this and other cases, but Rome smiles grimly when she does so, knowing that she first introduced these cruelties, and that she practised them as no other church ever did. Where or when has she ever expressed her sympathies with her victims?

A word must be said about Tresham, the betrayer of the plot. In order if possible to save himself he blamed and accused the conspirators one after another, and especially included the Jesuit Garnet. But as he lay dying, such is the power of Rome and the terrible fear which it impresses on its followers, he dictated a letter which he gave to his wife to deliver to the Earl of Salisbury after his death, in which he retracted what he had said of Garnet, and swore “on his salvation” that Garnet knew nothing of the plot and moreover that he had not seen him for “sixteen years before.” He swore too much, for there was already undeniable proof that he had frequent intercourse with Garnet, and that he had stayed at Tresham’s house in Northamptonshire a few days before the discovery of the plot.

Lying and Equivocation.

“This is the fruit of equivocation,” writes Sir Edward Coke to Lord Salisbury, “to affirm manifold falsehoods upon his salvation when he was in articulo mortis (the moment of death) .” When Tresham was apprehended, a book, which he had apparently well studied, was found in his desk entitled, “A Treatise of Equivocation,” an alteration on the title page in Garnet’s handwriting was found, which ran thus “A Treatise against Lying and Fraudulent Dissimulation.” This book was published at the close of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. No doubt Garnet’s equivocal title was well adapted to induce honest people to read this dishonest book, and perhaps to lead them to appreciate practically the advice which it gave.

Even from a worldly point of view honesty is the best policy, for the Jesuits have failed again and again in their most important undertakings, and have not even gained the ends which they sought in such an evil fashion.

Digby, Winter, Grant and Bates, were executed at the same time and place. Digby said he had committed no offence against his religion, which was true, but what a religion it is which justifies and indeed requires such crimes. Winter never asked mercy of “God or the King.” According to his religion he had committed no offence against God and none against the king. Grant excused himself also on the ground of “conscience ” and religion. Bates asked forgiveness of God and the king, and said what was probably true, that he had been led into the plot from love to his master.

The next day, Winter the “younger,” Rookwood, Keyes, and Guido Fawkes, were executed, and no doubt all these men will be canonised later by the Church which they served so well. Winter expressed some regret for his crime, but declared his faith in the religion which had practically obliged him to commit it. Rookwood spoke in much the same manner. Keyes did not attempt any excuse, and was followed by Guido Fawkes, who seemed some what sorry for his crime, and so ended life in this world for the tools of the Jesuits.

One and all were inspired by the same idea, that they were meriting heaven by attempting the murder of a whole nation in their representatives. Their descendants have at least the consolation of knowing that the Church, in whose interest they suffered so cruelly, has shown, even at the present day, her high appreciation of their efforts, by placing the seal of her highest approval on their conduct. Surely they have the best encouragement which their Church can give for any attempt, however diabolical, which may be made at the present day to alter the succession to the throne of England.

The one great object of these unhappy men seems to have been to screen the men who taught them to murder from the consequences of their crime. But one and all admitted that both the Jesuit Garnet and the Jesuit Greenway knew all the plans of the conspirators “under the seal of confession.” Now a great deal has been made of the sacredness of the seal of confession, and even Protestants have been taken in by the idea that it is a question of honour.

Under the Seal of Confession.

They say, naturally, as honourable English gentlemen, these priests are to be respected because they will not betray such a sacred confidence. This is all very fair they say, if we are to have confession we must have secrecy. But there is another and a very grave side to this question which is quite overlooked. One word of disapproval from the priest would at once put an end to such plots. Let us take an example. When Guido Fawkes, or Digby, or any of the conspirators went to confession to their Jesuit guides, one word of disapproval from the priest would have at once put an end to the whole matter. When any of the Irish “invincibles” went to confession, as all such men admit they have done before committing crimes, one word from the priest would prevent the murder. But the priest never says the word, and the priest gives absolution, and the men know that the work which they have taken in hand has the blessing, and even the highest encouragement of the Church, and hence they believe of God.

Hence the excuse of the priest that he cannot reveal plots which have been told to him in the secrecy of confession is a mere pretense. He knows them, he could prevent them with a word. He is therefore not only guilty in an ordinary sense, but he is guilty in the highest sense, for he places the seal of the Divine approval as far as it is in his power to do so on the most deadly crime. He may blind a confiding public with the supposed high sense of honour, but he cannot deceive the Almighty.

A man who will not prevent deadly crime when he could do so with a word, is far more guilty than the hapless wretches who have committed it.

Garnet was tried at the Guildhall, London, on March 28th, 1606. Never had criminal a fairer trial. A special commission was appointed, amongst whom were the following noblemen and gentlemen: The Lord Mayor of London, the Earls of Nottingham, Suffolk, Worcester, Northampton, and Salisbury, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and several judges and aldermen. The king and many of the nobility were present secretly. The charge was high treason. Garnet having objected to one of the jurors, he was at once removed. How very differently would a Protestant have been treated in the Inquisition! How very differently would Garnet himself have been treated if he had offended his own society! In that case there would have been no trial, and no defense, for life and death then hung without trial or inquiry, on the word of the General.

Garnets defense, if such it can be called, was one continued tissue of equivocation, and of excuses for equivocation. The matter was after all very simple, though he was obliged to cloud it with as much verbage as possible to deceive the public. He had committed the crime of treason according to law and justice, but as this crime was an act of the highest virtue, according to the teaching, then and now, of the church to which he belonged, he considered himself justified not only in committing it, but also in denying it. The full details of his trial were published at the time. We had purposed to have given large extracts from it, but space will not admit, and they would not be of interest to the general reader. Some valuable documents concerning it have “disappeared” from public offices. The only wonder is that so many have remained.

Hanged without Equivocation.

Garnet was executed on May 3rd, 1606, not for his religion, except in so far as in the exercise of it he committed treason, and gave his sanction and encouragement to a vile and cruel crime. Sir Dudley Charleton said in a letter still preserved, that he doubted not that Garnet “would equivocate on the gallows, but that he would be hanged without equivocation.”

It should be noticed here that Garnet was accused of having had improper intercourse with a Mrs. Anne Vaux, and that he denied this on the scaffold, but of what avail were his denials. Whether he was falsely accused or not, it is at least certain that she followed him everywhere, and that they had a very close correspondence and friendship. It was also remarked by those who were near him on the scaffold that he appeared very much frightened, and that his prayers were uttered with little apparent devotion, and were chiefly addressed to the Virgin Mary. There was no earnest expression of hope in the love or mercy of God, nor of love for Christ or desire to go to Him.

By the king’s command he was left hanging from the gallows until he was dead, a merciful deed, considering how Garnet had prepared so cruel a death for his lawful sovereign.

The usual story of miraculous events was got up after his death. A youth, named Wilkenson, declared that he visited the place of Garnet’s execution for the purpose of finding a relic, and naturally did find one. This was a bit of straw, on which the appearance of a man’s face was rudely pictured, and which was reputed to have been done miraculously. Probably this relic was neither more nor less genuine than the “straws” which were venerated in Belgium for some time, which the poor people were assured had been taken from the bed on which the Pope was obliged to be when put in prison by Victor Emmanuel, his cruel persecutor.

The Massacre of St. Bartholomew.

The story of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew must be briefly told. In the whole history of Christendom never was such an outrage perpetrated. It is idle to say that it had not the approval of the — Pope. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

The teaching of the Church of Rome is so plain and clear on the subject of equivocation that no Roman Catholic can be believed on his most solemn oath on any subject whatsoever, and denials are of little avail when facts are opposed to them. No wonder that Rome has special men trained to write for the Press of this country, and to supply the leading magazines with essays and articles teaching insidiously her own views on all subjects, especially on history. No wonder that she depreciates the late professor of history in Oxford. Mr. Froude was far too honest, and made too many revelations which disclosed facts that Rome would fain have hid, to obtain even her toleration. Ere long she will have the Protestant universities of England in the hands of her own professors, since the thin end of the wedge has been put in, and when those who have been accepted by Protestants as “liberal Roman Catholics ” shall have served her turn, she will replace them by others who will teach all she desires.

The Massacre of St. Bartholomew was carefully and deliberately planned. The object was simply the extermination of the Protestants of France, men who had fought for their country and loved it. The bloody plot was arranged by Catherine de Medici and the Duke of Alva. These worthies met at Bayonne, in the south of France, in the year 1565, and while they amused the public with games, they spent their own time planning the murder of their defenseless subjects, whose only crime was that they loved God better than the Pope, and that they worshipped Christ and looked to Him alone for salvation, instead of to the Church and the Virgin. The Pope wrote to Catherine, “It is only by the entire extermination of Protestants that the Roman Catholic religion can be restored completely.” Henry of Bearn, subsequently Henry IV., and then a little child, who it was supposed was too young to understand what was said, overheard and remembered a sentence in the conversation of the plotters. “The head of one salmon is worth that of ten thousand frogs.” This he repeated to his governor, who at once suspected danger, and warned the Protestant party without delay, the result being that the massacre had to be deferred. But it was only deferred. A wedding took place in the cathedral of Notre Dame, in Paris, on the 18th August, 1572. This was part of the plot. Protestants were invited, who came, suspecting no evil, when Margaret of France and Henry of Bearn were united in holy wedlock. Jeanne d’Albret, mother of the bridegroom, was a noted Protestant, but in a weeks time she died with every appearance of having been poisoned.

“Blood, Blood.”

The massacre commenced at daybreak on Sunday, August 24th, 1572. The unfortunate King, Charles IX., hesitated long before he would consent to the crime, but his mother and the priests were too strong for him. Lest he might relent at the last moment, and forbid the savage act, the queen mother had the signal given an hour earlier than the time which had been decided on. The brave and noble Admiral Coligny was the first victim, and then the fiendish butchers waded in the blood of the best, the noblest, the purest men and women of France. So well had the plot been arranged, and so far in advance, that even the Protestant troops had been removed from Paris on a specious pretense.

Nor was the massacre confined to Paris. The same bloody deed was enacted all over France, so that it was estimated that some 70,000 persons perished. Charles, it is said, became maddened by the sight of the rivers of blood which flowed before his eyes at the very gates of his palace, and then himself shot down his faithful and loyal subjects who fled to him hoping they might find mercy at his feet.

But God’s retribution was to come. In less than two years after the massacre Charles was stricken down by an illness, which the most indifferent admitted to be a just judgment. He died in agonies of remorse, crying out perpetually, “Blood, blood.” And blood poured from all the pores of his body until at the last it gushed from his mouth, and so he died.

Not all the consolations of the Church, for which he had committed one of the blackest crimes in history, could save him from despair. There is deep in the heart of every man a conscience which tells him what is good and what is evil, and that conscience will speak. The unhappy king was but in the twenty fifth year of his age when he came to this miserable end. Nor did his inhuman mother fare better. She died at Blois some years after her son, universally execrated and hated.

In Rome great rejoicings took place at the success of this diabolical massacre. The messenger who took the dispatch received a reward of 1000 gold crowns. Cannon was fired from St. Angelo, bonfires lighted, and, Pius V. being then dead, Pope Gregory XIII. went in great state to the church of St. Mark to return thanks to God for so great a blessing to the Roman Catholic Church. Over the portico of the church a cloth was hung on which the Papal share in the guilt of Charles IX. was directly acknowledged in letters of gold, stating that the massacre had occurred after “counsels had been given.” Thrice the Pope went in state with all the Cardinals and foreign Ambassadors then in Rome to return thanks to God for the massacre. He caused medals to be struck in commemoration, and the Vatican to be decorated with paintings representing the murder of Coligny and his friends.

The Pope approves the Massacre.

Now with regard to this medal a word must be said. Romanists, however much they may glory in the massacre, know well that it is something which tells against them in the minds of all honest men, hence they wish to clear the Pope of all complicity in the matter as far as possible. To this end, they have strenuously denied that the Pope ordered this medal to be struck, and as many copies of it as possible have been destroyed. But facts are the best argument. One copy remains at present in the British Museum. I have seen that medal, and compared it with a facsimile which I possess. The initials of the name of the maker of the medal are on it. He was a well known artist of the time and age. If it be said that the Pope did not order the casting of the medal, and it should be remembered that the Pope was then both spiritual and temporal king of Rome and the Italian States. Is there anyone who will dare to say that such a medal could have been struck without his full permission? The doer of such a deed would have soon found himself in the Inquisition.

But there is yet another, and if possible a stronger . proof that the “Church” approved the crime. We find in the lately published life of Cardinal Manning the following statement —

“It is, therefore, undeniable that the Pontiffs were morally within their right in the Crusades, the Armada, and in the condemnation of boycotting and the Plan of Campaign.”—“Life of Manning,” vol. II., p. 625.

Why then should they not have been “within their rights” in approving this wholesale massacre of Protestants?

THE REVOCATION OF THE EDICT OF NANTES.

On this subject we do not propose to enter here, except so far as to show that it was directly the act of the Jesuits. The letter in the appendix will prove this past dispute. The Jesuit in the confessional, and the Jesuit as director, has never failed in doing what he believes to be his duty. Who is there who will not give a meed of pity to the hapless princes who believed in them, and submitted to their dictation like whipped hounds? The pity of it is that today these men are invited to England and encouraged there, and their pupils are given the first places of trust and importance in this country.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: