« AnteriorContinua »
"wards dean of Durham, commending it, and testifying that it was approved by the chief "divines of the place."* Thus has the deposing doctrine been held and taught in the Protestant church.
As to the practice of it by Protestants, it is an undoubted fact, that "more sovereign princes were deposed on the whole, or in part, of "their dominions, by their Protestant subjects, "during the first century after the Reformation, "than have been deposed by the Popes, for the "time of their first pretending to such power."† Thus, Sir, Protestant doctors have maintained the doctrine, at least, as far in theory, and assuredly much further in practice, than the Catholics. Peaceful men disturb the ashes of neither.
3. You say, (p. 254), that," the principles upon which the gunpowder plot was planned were sanctioned by the superiors of the Ro"manists, and by the Popes, whom they vene"rated." I admit that, to the extent I have mentioned, the deposing doctrine was sanctioned by several of the superiors of the Roman Catholics. But I affirm, that not a single Catholic teacher or writer did, at the time of which we are speaking, or before that time, maintain those doctrines to such an extent, or in such a manner, as would justify the gunpowder plot.
4.-You say, (p. 255), "That the conspiracy "must be imputed to the Romanists of that day,
Dr. Milner's Sixth Letter to Doctor Sturges.
"as a body, because it was the inference from the principles generally taught by the Jesuits, and "intended to be carried into effect, as a religious
duty, by the members of the Romish church "only. No political evil was a subject of complaint, which might have united other classes of "his Majesty's subjects in the efforts to remove "the grievances. It was a deliberate act, to "which the principal leader, Catesby, was resolved "by the Jesuits, that it was both lawful and meri"torious; and herewith, says Lord Coke, he per"suaded and settled the rest, as any seemed to "make any doubts. They took an oath of secrecy, which was administered by the Jesuits "Gerard and Greenway, and received the sacra"ment to make that oath more solemn."
Here you bring two accusations against the Jesuits both are atrocious, and both, groundless.
The first is, that "the infernal plan was "resolved by the Jesuits to be lawful and meri"torious." I defy You to produce the slightest evidence that warrants this charge. Lord Coke, upon the trial of Father Garnet, brought this charge against them, but did not produce any evidence of it: I appeal to the account of the trial published by Government.
So far as Sir Edward Coke supported his charges by evidence, I admit them without hesitation. Nothing that rests on his own assertion, has any weight. Like You, I wish that the examinations in the State Paper office, on the gunpowder plot, were
published. I have no apprehension that the cause of the Roman Catholics would suffer from the publication; but, even if I foresaw this would be the case, I should wish, as every friend to historic truth must do, that the evidence was published. I take this opportunity to observe, that all the examinations have not yet been discovered. It is clear, from Casaubon's letter to the Jesuit Fronto le Duc, and from Abbott's Antilogia, that some examinations, not yet discovered, were taken.
1.-You refer to the conversation between Catesby and Garnet, respecting the murder of the innocent with the guilty:-Surely justice required of You to mention, that no evidence which supports Your representation of it has been produced; and that Garnet uniformly declared, that the question, as it was put to him, and as he understood it, had no reference to Catholic concerns, and turned only on the general lawfulness of attacks in war, by which the innocent as well as the guilty were equally exposed to death.
In page 259, You address me in these terms:"In your History of the English Catholics, You quote from Mr. Hume these words; "the conspirators, with all their attendants, never exceeded the number of eighty persons;" "yet You
"have so entirely forgotten your own former "quotation, as well as the latter perusal, which "elicited your very complimentary gratitude to "the Secretary of State, that you assert, sixteen "Catholics at the most were privy to the gun"powder plot."
I must express some surprize at Your professing to find any contradiction in these passages. Mr. Hume evidently speaks of all the conspirators and all their attendants, when they took the field in Warwickshire; I speak only of the sixteen included in the act of attainder. I must also mention, that of these, nine, at the most, were privy to the design to blow up the building by gunpowder.
3. You tell me, (page 260), that, "I conclude "the plot to be improbable, because the Romanists, " as well as the Protestant peers, would have been "its victims."
I have never said or intimated that the plot is improbable."
That it really existed, cannot be denied: I believe no Roman Catholic has denied its existence, or that some Roman Catholics were actively engaged in it.
5.-You quote, (page 277), an expression from the Historical Memoirs, in which I say, "that "Garnet might be found guilty in a court of law, "while a court of honour would think gently of "the case," as if it referred to the whole of Garnet's case, and particularly to his equivoca
If this expression stood single, it would be very reprehensible; it might be thought an approbation of all Garnet's conduct, and particularly of his equivocations. But, in justice to me, You should have noticed, that my expression applied only to Garnet's concealment, not of the powder plot, but of the anterior turbulent designs of some Catholics-highly blameable, it is very true, but wholly unconnected with the powder part of the conspiracy. I acknowledge, in the passage from which You have extracted the passage in question, that Garnet's concealment of these was misprision of treason; and this, I observe, Garnet himself appears to have admitted. I then proceed to suggest some reasons, which,—still confining the concealment in the manner I have mentioned, appear to me to extenuate it, and to render Garnet an object of compassion. As the charge which You have brought against me is so serious, I shall transcribe the whole passage which contains it: You must see, when You peruse it, that it has no reference to his knowledge of the powder plot, or to his equivocations; and that it merely attempts to show, that, in the unhappy situation in which he was placed, with the indistinct knowledge which he had of the circumstances of the case, and with the hopes which he might reasonably entertain that the whole would come to nothing, it might not be dishonourable for him to pause before he made the communication. passage is thus expressed :