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 partic.i.p.ation 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 G.o.d service. His letters, written during his imprisonment, and published by Bishop Barlow in 1679, ill.u.s.trate 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 t.i.tles 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 G.o.d"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 a.s.sociate them with an oath, answerable to the league in France."
Respecting the pope"s concurrence he has the following pa.s.sage:
"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.]
CHAPTER IX.
THE ACT FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF THE DAY-A SERVICE PREPARED FOR THE OCCASION-ALTERATIONS IN THE SERVICE TO SUIT THE LANDING OF KING WILLIAM-REFLECTIONS.
As the Act of Parliament which enjoins the observance of the Fifth of November is not generally known, or at all events is not within the reach of ordinary readers, I shall insert in this place. It was couched in the following terms:-
"Forasmuch as Almighty G.o.d hath in all ages shewed his power and mercy, in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of his Church, and in the protection of religious kings and states, and that no nation of the earth hath been blessed with greater benefits than this nation now enjoyeth, having the true and free profession of the Gospel under our most gracious Sovereign Lord King James, the most great, learned, and religious king that ever reigned therein, enriched with a most hopeful and plentiful progeny, proceeding out of his royal loins, promising continuance of this happiness and profession to all posterity: the which many malignant and devilish papists, jesuits, and seminary priests, much envying and fearing, conspired most horribly when the king"s most excellent majesty, the queen, the prince, and all the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, should have been a.s.sembled in the Upper House of Parliament upon the Fifth day of November, in the year of our Lord 1605, suddenly to have blown up the said whole house with gunpowder: an invention so inhuman, barbarous, and cruel, as the like was never before heard of, and was (as some of the princ.i.p.al conspirators thereof confess) purposely devised and concluded to be done in the said house, that when sundry necessary and religious laws for preservation of the church and state were made, which they falsely and slanderously call cruel laws, enacted against them and their religion, both place and person should be all destroyed and blown up at once, which would have turned to the utter ruin of this whole kingdom, had it not pleased Almighty G.o.d, by inspiring the king"s most excellent majesty with a divine spirit, to interpret some dark phrases of a letter shewed to his majesty, above and beyond all ordinary construction, thereby miraculously discovering this hidden treason not many hours before the appointed time for the execution thereof: therefore the king"s most excellent majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal, and all his majesty"s faithful and loving subjects, do most justly acknowledge this great and infinite blessing to have proceeded merely from G.o.d his great mercy, and to his most holy name do ascribe all honour, glory, and praise: and to the end this unfeigned thankfulness may never be forgotten, but be had in a perpetual remembrance, that all ages to come may yield praises to his Divine Majesty for the same, and have in memory this joyful day of deliverance:
"Be it therefore enacted, by the king"s most excellent majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons in this present parliament a.s.sembled, and by the authority of the same, that all and singular ministers in every cathedral, and parish-church, or other usual place for common prayer, within this realm of England, and the dominions of the same, shall always upon the Fifth day of November say morning prayer, and give unto Almighty G.o.d thanks for this most happy deliverance: and that all and every person and persons inhabiting within this realm of England, and the dominions of the same, shall always upon that day diligently and faithfully resort to the parish-church or chapel accustomed, or to some usual church or chapel, where the said morning prayer, preaching, or other service of G.o.d, shall be used, and then and there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the said prayers, preaching, or other service of G.o.d there to be used and ministered.
"And because all and every person may be put in mind of his duty, and be there better prepared to the said holy service, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, that every minister shall give warning to his parishioners, publicly in the church at morning prayer, the Sunday before every such Fifth day of _November_, for the due observation of the said day. And that after morning prayer or preaching on the said Fifth day of _November_, they read publicly, distinctly, and plainly, the present Act[35]."
[Footnote 35: I give the Act entire, because I am not aware that it is to be found in any popular form; and it is desirable that the present generation should know how this treason was viewed by their ancestors.]
A particular service was prepared to be used on the Fifth of November, and was published in 1606. I have not been able to ascertain whether it was framed by the convocation; but I am disposed to think that it was arranged by the bishops, as is still the case in particular prayers on special occasions, and then set forth by the authority of the crown. In my copy of the original service printed by Barker and Bill, printers to the king, the words "Set forth by authority," stand on the t.i.tle-page.
The authority of the crown is evidently intended, and not that of convocation.
The original service was used on this day until the alterations were effected in 1662, except during the period of the Commonwealth, when forms of prayer were altogether discarded. It appears, however, from Fuller, that in his time, the observance of the day was very much neglected. "If this plot," says he, "had taken effect, the papists would have celebrated this day with all solemnity; and it would have taken the upper hand of all other festivals. The more, therefore, the shame and pity, that amongst Protestants the keeping of this day (not yet full fifty years old) begins already to wax weak and decay; so that the red letters, wherever it is written, seem to grow dimmer and paler in our English calendar. G.o.d forbid that our thankfulness for this great deliverance, formerly so solemnly observed, should hereafter be like the _squibs_ which the apprentices in London make on this day; and which give a great flash and crack at first, but soon go out in a stink[36]."
[Footnote 36: FULLER, book x. 38. From several of the incidental notices in the works of writers of the times of James I. and Charles I., we learn that the observance of the day was gradually neglected. In a curious work of the date of 1618, there is a notice to the effect that the people were cold in praising G.o.d for their deliverance. See GAREY"S _Amphitheatrum Scelerum_. 4to. 1618. In the reigns of Charles II. and James II., when the dread of popery was general, the people universally observed the Fifth of November as a day of thanksgiving to G.o.d.]
This was written, or, at all events, the work was published, during the Commonwealth; and it would seem that the various religious parties of the period, though hostile to popery, did not pay much attention to the observance of the day, probably because it had been set apart as a holy day by the church of England. The fact that the day was observed by the Anglican church, was quite sufficient to induce the presbyterians and sectaries to disregard it. On no other ground can I account for the omission or neglect of which Fuller speaks; for the religious parties of that period, were all animated with feelings of the bitterest hostility towards the church of Rome.
After the restoration, the day was again solemnly observed in all the churches of the kingdom; and when the Book of Common Prayer was revised and set forth, the service for the Fifth of November was revised also, and published with the Liturgy. The original service was submitted to the convocation, by whom several alterations were made, which may be seen by comparing the service published in 1606 with that which is annexed to the Common Prayer subsequent to 1662, and which continued in that state until after the Revolution. The t.i.tle of the original service is, _"Prayers and Thanksgiving to be used by all the King"s Majestie"s loving Subjects, for the happy deliverance of his Majesty, the Queen, Prince, and States of Parliament, from the most traiterous and b.l.o.o.d.y intended ma.s.sacre by gunpowder, the 5 of November, 1605."_ In the service as it was revised in 1662, some few alterations were made in the t.i.tle. They may be seen by any one, who compares the above with the t.i.tle in the service at present in use, for in this particular it has undergone no change since 1662. In the commencement of the original service are two verses from 1 Timothy ii. 1, 2: in the revised form of 1662 they are omitted. The rubrics, also, in the service of 1662, respecting the method to be adopted when the day falls upon a Sunday or holy-day, are not found in the service of 1606. The psalms appointed to be read are also different in the two services. In the service as altered in 1662, and as it stands at present, one of the homilies against rebellion is appointed to be read, whenever there is no sermon, while in that of 1606, no mention is made of anything of the kind[37].
[Footnote 37: I notice these alterations, because the original service is very rare, and consequently accessible only to a few.]
The service of 1662, like the original, was framed to commemorate one event only, namely, the deliverance from the gunpowder plot; but when King William came to the throne, it was deemed desirable, as he had landed on the same day, to commemorate that event also. It became necessary, therefore, to alter the service so as to make it suit both events; _first_, the deliverance from the gunpowder treason; and _secondly_, the deliverance of the country from popish tyranny and superst.i.tion by the arrival of King William. It has been supposed, that the service was altered into its present state by the convocation in 1689; but there is no evidence to prove that such was the case. It seems pretty certain that it was altered by the authority of the crown. A twofold deliverance, therefore, is commemorated in the present _service_ for the Fifth of November; _first_, from the powder plot, and _next_, from popery coming in upon the country in a manner more insidious, but not less dangerous in 1688, when the king on the throne was a papist, and all possible means were used to establish the papal ascendancy.
It was very natural, that the country should have been struck with the circ.u.mstance of King William"s landing on the Fifth of November,-a day so remarkable in the calendar of the English church. To the Roman Catholics the observance of this day is anything but agreeable; but they can scarcely censure Englishmen for commemorating an event so favourable to Protestantism. Had such a conspiracy been discovered against the church of Rome, all papists would regard the day with special reverence.
Protestants are surely to be permitted to enjoy the same liberty, in celebrating the merciful interposition of Providence in rescuing the country from destruction.
By some modern writers, the _Revolution_ of 1688 is designated a _Rebellion_! It is astonishing, that any Protestant should speak of that event in such terms; since Queen Victoria must be an usurper, if the revolution was a rebellion. To the principles then established, our queen is indebted for her crown; and we are indebted to the same principles, for our civil and religious liberties. The men, who can call the revolution a rebellion, cannot be members of the church of England; for had not King James been expelled from the throne, the Anglican church would have been destroyed. Rebellions can never be lawful; but revolutions, similar to that in 1688, are perfectly just. Such men can never read the Service appointed for the _Fifth of November_; at all events, they cannot read the following pa.s.sages:-"Accept also, most gracious G.o.d, of our unfeigned thanks, for filling our hearts again with joy and gladness, after the time that thou hadst afflicted us, and putting a new song into our mouths, by bringing his majesty King _William_, upon this day, for the deliverance of our church and nation from popish tyranny and arbitrary power." And again, "And didst likewise upon this day, wonderfully conduct thy servant King _William_, and bring him safely into _England_, to preserve us from the attempts of our enemies to bereave us of our religion and laws." And the following, "We bless thee for giving his late majesty King _William_ a safe arrival here, and for making all opposition fall before him, till he became our king and governor." It is not possible that the men, who can call the revolution a rebellion, should concur in those prayers. Had these individuals lived at the time, they would have quitted the church with the nonjurors; and with such views, respecting the revolution settlement, I cannot conceive how they can conscientiously remain in a church connected with, and supported by a government which owes its very existence to that event, which they designate a rebellion. Is it not high time for such men to quit the pale of the Anglican church?
The dangers which threatened the country during the reign of James II.
were very great; and their removal can only be ascribed to Him, in whose hands are the issues of life. James was determined to reduce the country into subjection to the papal see, or lose all in the attempt. William III. was the destined instrument under G.o.d, to secure the liberties, which James laboured with all his might to destroy. The revolution of 1688 was a bloodless one; yet it was complete. It is always dangerous to alter the succession to the crown; it is a expedient never to be resorted to except in extreme danger. In 1688, the departure from the direct line was an act of necessity; for unless such a course had been adopted, the liberties of England, both temporal and spiritual, would have been sacrificed. Nor can any one say how long the country would have been in recovering them from the grasp of the papacy. In such an emergency the nation looked to the prince of Orange, who responded to the call, and came to our rescue. When King James quitted the country, and all hope of his being prevailed upon to govern justly was lost, the people saw the necessity of departing from the direct line of succession. Still they were resolved to depart as little as possible.
They looked therefore to the next Protestant heir, being determined to exclude papists from the throne for ever. That _heir_ was the princess of Orange, the daughter of King James; and as the prince had been so instrumental in rescuing the nation from the yoke, he was a.s.sociated with her in the government. James, therefore, would not have been rejected if he had governed righteously; but when he had deserted the throne, it was determined that it should never again be filled with a papist. Such were the principles on which the revolution was conducted.
When the prince of Orange set sail from Holland, he was driven back by contrary winds; and it was feared that the attempt would fail, and that King James would succeed in his designs. A second time, however, were the sails unfurled, and a propitious wind bore the fleet to the coast of Devon, where a landing was effected on the Fifth of November, 1688.
The Fifth of November, 1605, and the Fifth of November, 1688, are remarkable days in the annals of England-days never to be forgotten by a grateful people. Had not the prince of Orange arrived, James would have imposed his yoke upon the English nation. Had he not been resisted, the laws and liberties of the country must have been prostrated in the dust, and the church of England sacrificed to popery.
King James, as a papist, felt himself bound to make every effort to restore popery, and root out Protestantism. All his actions tended to this point. Motives of policy even did not restrain him in the course upon which he had entered. His proceedings, therefore, were against the liberties of the people, and the laws of the land; and on this account alone was he set aside. The parliament acted as a Protestant parliament, and enacted a law, that none but a Protestant should ever occupy the British throne. The parliament of that day well knew that the same principles would be productive of similar results, and that Protestantism, and the civil liberties of the nation, would be endangered by a popish king. Now, had not King William arrived, James would have been able to execute all his projects respecting the church and nation; so that every Protestant has reason to be thankful for the success, which attended the efforts of William III., and to observe the _Fifth of November_ as a day of thanksgiving to G.o.d for his gracious interposition.
Never was a people less disposed to rise against their sovereign than were the English against James II. Yet, as he was trampling upon their liberties, and preparing a yoke of spiritual bondage, what could they do? Their rights as men and as Christians were at stake; nor could the danger by which they were threatened, be averted, but by the expulsion of that sovereign, who had broken his solemn promise, and proved himself unworthy of being trusted again by his subjects. Our ancestors at the period of the revolution, acted on the principle of self-defence. It was necessary to deprive him of his royal power, when that power would have been employed in depriving the people of their civil and religious liberties.
It was admitted by an ill.u.s.trious statesman in France, in the seventeenth century, that it was the true interest of England to maintain and defend her Protestant church against popery. As his observations are so striking, and also so applicable to our present circ.u.mstances, I shall not hesitate to quote them. The book bears this t.i.tle, _The Interest of the Princes and States of Christendom_, and consists of several chapters, in each of which he treats of _The Interest_ of a particular country. There is a chapter on _The Interest of England_, from which I quote the following pa.s.sages: "Queen Elizabeth (who by her prudent government hath equalled the greatest kings of Christendom), knowing well the disposition of her state, believed that the true interest thereof consisted, _first_ in holding a firm union in itself, deeming (as it is most true) that _England is a mighty animal, which can never die except it kill itself_. She grounded this fundamental maxim, _to banish thence the exercise of the Roman religion_, as the only means to break all the plots of the _Spaniards_, who under this pretext, did there foment rebellion." Alluding to some other particulars of that reign he adds:-"By all these maxims, this wise princess has made known to her successors that besides the interest which the king of England has with all princes, he has yet one _particular_, which is that, _he ought_ thoroughly to acquire the advancement of the Protestant religion, even with as much zeal as the King of Spain appears protector of the Catholic." This was the language of a statesman. King James, therefore, did not seek the _interest_ of his country, but _that_ of the papacy[38].
[Footnote 38: See _The Interest of the Princes and States of Christendom, by the Duke De Rohan, translated into English by H.
H._ Page 53, 12mo. 1641.]