CHAPTER LIX.

Now, the contention is this: That regard being had to the extraordinary heinousness of the Gunpowder Plot, in point of underhand stealthiness and secrecy as well as of deliberateness, malice, magnitude, and cruelty, no man of moral uprightness and intellectual keenness could be--without doing a violence to his human nature that is all but incredible--so unspeakably reckless and utterly insane as to fling broadcast to the winds, for the wayfaring man and the fool to pick up and con for their own and their hapless fellow-creatures' moral destruction, an _oral statement_ as to this diabolical Plot, that expressed ways of looking at the Plot merely speculative and simply in the abstract,[A] _save and except_ on one condition only, namely, that such speaker had had both from without and from within, _et ab extra et ab intra_, a special _knowledge_.

[Footnote A: It is to be noted that in this momentous Declaration of the 12th March, 1605-6, Oldcorne in the first part reserves or conceals "_partial truth_;" that is to say, in _this_ case, _truth in the concrete, or truth in action_. While in the second part of the Declaration Oldcorne orally disclaims, denies, or dissembles integral truth, that is here a special and particular knowledge of the end the plotters had in view, and the means they purposed to adopt. The knowledge he had received was of a nature _official_, and at least conditionally, though not absolutely, _private_ knowledge.]

Furthermore, _a special knowledge, with absolute cert.i.tude_, which _warranted_ the speaker in mentally surveying that Plot not merely as it _then_ was at the moment when he was giving utterance to his speculative statement concerning it, but, as he full well knew, at some point of time prior to that fateful day, November the 5th, 1605, it had been destined to be perpetually, namely, A PLOT _ante factum in aeternum_, a mere abstract mental plan for ever. Aye, a mere abstract mental plan to all eternity; because trans.m.u.ted and transformed by some process wherein that speaker had himself taken a primal, an essential, a meritorious part.[A]

[Footnote A: The argument is that a man at once good and clever, like Edward Oldcorne, would not, according to the rules that govern human nature and daily experience, have clothed in words and then let loose to wander about the world seeking whom it might fall in with and victimize, a bare abstract proposition regarding the Plot, _unless_ he had been first absolutely certain that the foundation-thing, the Plot itself, was too attenuated and ghost-like to work hurt or mischief to any human creature.

Now, since Littleton propounded his question _after_ the 5th of November, Oldcorne had an _ordinary_ ground for allowing himself to speak of the defunct Plot purely in the abstract. But this was an obviously very dangerous thing to do, both for Littleton's sake, the general public's sake (Catholic or Protestant), and for the speaker's own sake. Therefore the fact that Oldcorne did so speak postulates something _more than ordinary_. Hence, as Oldcorne was a man of virtue both intellectually and morally, the reasonable inference is that Oldcorne _had an extraordinary ground_ for his answer which endued him with a special liberty of abstract speech in regard to the matter. _That extraordinary ground, I maintain, was based deep down within the depths of his own interior knowledge._]

CHAPTER LX.

But it may be objected that instead of a.s.suming that Father Oldcorne was a man not only of mental keenness but also of moral uprightness, and proceeding forthwith to build an argument on such an a.s.sumption, the writer ought in truth and justice to have proved, by evidence or reason, the latter part of the proposition. And this the rather, seeing that so many of the co-religionists both in our own day as well as in the days of Father Oldcorne have regarded that society, whereof Oldcorne was a distinguished English member, with not merely unfeigned suspicion but with sincere dislike, and even with genuine loathing.[A]

[Footnote A: The most formidable adversaries of the Jesuits far and away have been Roman Catholics of a particular type of mind. Blaise Pascal, that colossal genius, has been probably their most successful enemy.]

Now, the unbiased historical philosopher is content not only to let the dead bury their dead but also to let theologian deal with theologian. To the historical philosopher, a Jesuit is a man and nothing more: nothing more, that is, so far as his being ent.i.tled to receive at the former's hands the benefit of all those natural rights which belong to all members of the human species. For all men (including Jesuits) are, in the mind of the philosopher, "born free and equal."

Hence it follows that when, amid the chances and changes of this mortal life, the historical philosopher is thrown across the path of a Jesuit, he looks at him, as a matter of duty, straight in the face, just as he looks at any other rational creature; and then seeks to ascertain, by dint of normal touchstones and tests, what manner of man the person is whom that philosopher, by the ordinances of fate, has then and there confronted.

Now, in the case of Edward Oldcorne, the Text of this Inquiry, and also the Notes thereunto, supply abundant proof that Oldcorne came of a good, wholesome, Yorkshire stock--hard-working, honest, and honourable; that his own mental nature was broad, rich and full, high-minded, just, and generous.[A]

[Footnote A: Father Henry Garnet, S.J., landed in England in 1586 along with the gifted Robert Southwell, whose prose and poetical works belong to English literature. Father Weston was then the Jesuit Superior. Father John Gerard landed, along with Father Edward Oldcorne, off the coast of Norfolk, in August, 1588, shortly after the decisive fight with the Spanish Armada, off Gravelines. As ill.u.s.trating the conscientiousness and courage of this Yorkshire Elizabethan Jesuit, the following quotation from Foley, vol. iv., p. 210, may be of interest: "Father Oldcorne was employed sometime in London by Father Garnet, diligently labouring in the quest and salvation of souls. He was ever of a most ready wit, and endeavoured as far as possible to adapt himself to the manner of those with whom he lived. There were exceptions, however, in which, consumed with an ardent zeal of a.s.serting and defending the Divine honour, he could not refrain from correcting those whom he heard uttering obscene and injurious language either towards G.o.d or their superiors. When in London, in the house of a Catholic gentleman, he struck with his fist and broke into pieces a pane of stained or painted gla.s.s representing an indecent picture of Venus and Mars, which he considered wholly unfit for the eyes of a virtuous family."

[The curious philosopher wonders whether this Elizabethan Catholic gentleman, having been deprived of his "Venus and Mars" in such a high-handed fashion, afterwards became anti-Jesuitical.]]

Therefore is it, alike by evidence and reason, borne in upon the mind of the philosopher that, on grounds of probability so high as to afford practical cert.i.tude, he may proceed to build his argument upon the a.s.sumption that Edward Oldcorne was a man not only of intellectual ac.u.men but also of moral integrity, as has been already predicated of him.

CHAPTER LXI.

Now, in the first part of his Declaration, Father Oldcorne uttered concerning the Gunpowder Plot a proposition which expressed partial truth alone. Because he expressed truth in the abstract only, not truth in the concrete also, concerning that nefarious scheme.

In other words, Father Oldcorne severed in thought the two kinds of truth, the two aspects of truth, the two parts of truth, which being _unified_ gave the _whole_ truth respecting the moral mode of judging the Gunpowder Treason Plot.

Oldcorne severed concrete truth from abstract truth,[A] practical truth from speculative truth, and so far as his hearer, Humphrey Littleton, was concerned, held that concrete truth, that practical truth, suspended at the sword-point over Littleton's head.

[Footnote A: Or, it may be said, Oldcorne separated concrete truth from abstract truth, practical truth from speculative truth, holding the former in solution, and putting into the hands of Littleton the latter alone, in the form of a dangerous precipitate.]

Now, I maintain that, regard being had to the terrific danger of Littleton's occasioning mischief, either through stupidity, malice, or both, a man of the intellectual and moral calibre of Edward Oldcorne would have never suffered his tongue to give utterance to a proposition dividing, as with a sword, concrete truth from abstract truth, practical truth from speculative truth, and then holding the former suspended above the head of his questioner, _unless and until_ that great Priest and Jesuit had been first possessed of the living consciousness that he had had, and then was, at that very instant of time when speaking, having that Plot, which represented "the sum of all villainies," in that it involved "sacrilegious murder,"[A] _firmly and unconquerably crushed under his feet_.[164]

[Footnote A: This phrase is used by Shakespeare in "Macbeth" (1606), I suggest, with indirect reference to the Gunpowder Plot, which Shakespeare must have followed with the most breathless, absorbing interest. For Norbrook was in Snitterfield, where his mother (Mary Arden) had property; while Coughton was the home of the Throckmortons, the Ardens' relatives.

Clopton House, where Ambrose Rookwood was living from Michaelmas, 1605, Lapworth, where John Wright resided from May, 1605, and where Christopher Wright and Marmaduke Ward visited him (all of which places were in that "garden of England," Warwickshire), must have been as familiar to the poet almost as his own Stratford-on-Avon.

I find the name "Robert Arden," of Pedmore, Worcestershire, 1-1/2 miles from Stourbridge, down as "a popish recusant" for the year 1592, in the "_Hatfield MS._," part iv.]

CHAPTER LXII.

And how could this be?

It could be only by dint of a _two-fold knowledge_, a two-fold, warranting, justifying, vindicating knowledge, which this Priest and Jesuit held stored-up deep down within the depths of his conscious being, a knowledge _pa.s.sive_ or receptive which had come to him "from without,"

_ab extra_; a knowledge _active_ or self-caused which he had bestowed upon himself "from within," _ab intra_.

Now, the pa.s.sive knowledge "from without" was the knowledge Oldcorne had had from the penitent plotter of that penitent's resolve to reveal the Plot to his lawful Sovereign by the most perfect means for so doing that by the human mind could be devised.

The active knowledge "from within" was the knowledge that Oldcorne had possessed, and was at that moment possessing, of his own sublimely conceived and magnificently executed act and deed: although even this active knowledge "from within" was itself _indirectly_ traceable to that penitent plotter's repentant resolve and repentant will.[A]

[Footnote A: We know on the authority of Sir Edward c.o.ke himself that one of the conspirators was supposed to have revealed the Plot, and indeed such _must_ have been inevitably the case. Now, the proved position of Thomas Ward in the work of communicating with Thomas Winter suggests that Ward was the diplomatic go-between. But it is obvious that Ward cannot have himself penned the Letter; for if he had been in the service of Elizabeth's Government his handwriting would be known to the Government.

Now, circ.u.mstantial evidence tends to prove that Father Oldcorne did.

Therefore the relationship of priest and penitent and the machinery of the Tribunal of Penance is forthwith, naturally and easily, brought into play.

Now, in these days of "_emanc.i.p.ated and free religious thought_," it is difficult for us readily to realize the _stupendous_ force that the alleged supernatural facts of historical Christianity had upon _the mind of all those who lived consciously_ hemmed in, as it were, by an alleged supernatural tradition of Christianity, _whether_ Calvinistic _or_ Roman Catholic, at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Those alleged facts were a.s.sumed and deliberately calculated upon as among the ruling and controlling _realities_ of daily life. Now, a Yorkshire Roman Catholic--especially one brought up in the Wright, Ward, Babthorpe, Ingleby, Mallory circle--might be easily frightened, nay, terrified, into confession and avowal of his crimes, and _therefore_ into satisfaction, and _therefore_ into reversal, by the mere fact that about the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, 11th October (old style), 1605, when "examining his conscience" he came to realize the tremendous and awful wickedness of his two crimes, sacrilege and murder. For the Archangel "_Michael--who is like unto G.o.d_"--would be to _him_ a being as real and living and of transcendently greater _power_--an important consideration--than even the stern reality of the hangman of the gallows-tree and the ripping knife; while a close-natured, thoughtful Yorkshireman like Christopher Wright would vividly realize, with his shrewd instinct for values and tendencies, that, _unrepentant_, his ultimate fate--either here or hereafter--was not worth while the risking.

For, on the one hand, he may have peradventure, consciously or unconsciously, argued there is the certainty of falling, sooner or later, into "the Hands of the Living G.o.d," and of being by Him consigned to the charge of Michael, the Minister of His Justice; while, on the other, there is the going, _not_ to the chill, viewless wind, but to a sympathetic rational creature with a brain, heart, eyes, hands, and feet, and the getting _him_, in the solid reality of flesh and blood, to put a speedy stop, here and now, to the whole unhappy business, and so save further trouble. (A man of middle age, well educated, belonging to an old Yorkshire Roman Catholic family that "had never lost the Faith," told a relative, not long ago, that "after being on the spree" he should have certainly committed a great crime had he not been stayed by the knowledge that, if he did so, "_he would go plump into h.e.l.l_." I mention this to show how, at least, sometimes the Catholic conscience works even in these "enlightened" days. Hence, the antecedent probability of the truth of my suggested solution of _how_ the revealing conspirator was motived to reveal the conspiracy. For an Inquiry into the Gunpowder Plot is a great philosophical study of human _motives_ as well as of _probabilities_; and the case of Christopher Wright (_ex hypothesi_) is, in relation to the example just cited, an _a fortiori_ case.)]

CHAPTER LXIII.

But, it may be plausibly objected, if it were of such dangerous tendency _indiscriminately_ to give utterance to bare, abstract, moral principles only, how came it to pa.s.s, then, that Oldcorne, who was a good man, morally, as well as a clever man, intellectually, suffered himself _thus_ to act when questioned by Humphrey Littleton respecting the moral lawfulness, or otherwise, of the Gunpowder Plot?

Now, Oldcorne, as we have already seen in his Declaration quoted above, has recorded a--that is one--reason why he left Littleton _in abstracto_--that is furnished with truth in the abstract merely. And beyond a doubt, as subsequent events so signally proved, the astute Jesuit's judgment of Littleton's character had not erred one whit.

Littleton, as Oldcorne justly feared, was a "dangerous fellow," one who was likely to entrap the innocent, and one who was, therefore, not ent.i.tled, either in Justice or in that more refined kind of justice called Equity, to have his question dealt with by anything other than a flanking movement; or, in other words, by anything other than such an intellectual manuvre as would _turn aside the question_ Littleton had elected to propound to the great mental strategist--as would turn aside the question Littleton had elected to propound, on the face of it, probably, and as the event proved, certainly, from sinister motives and with crooked aims.

Hence, _partly_ because of his questioner's inferred insincerity and pernicious purposes _did Oldcorne sever speculative truth in thought from concrete truth in action_; or, in other words, _Oldcorne gave to Littleton an answer "sounding" in partial truth alone_.

CHAPTER LXIV.

Now, _partial truth_, as has been affirmed already, _is not, in its proportion, less true than the full orb of truth_.[A] And many are the times and many are the circ.u.mstances in this strangely chequered human life of ours, with its endless movements and its perpetual vicissitudes, when apparently conflicting and antagonistic duties can be in justice, equity, and honour reconciled on one condition only, namely, that man shall leave to Omniscience alone, "from Whom no secrets are hid," a knowledge of the full orb of certain degrees of some particular kind of truth, governing some particular subject-matter under consideration.[165][B]

[Footnote A: _It is never morally lawful to tell a lie_, that is, to speak contrary to one's mind, or to deceive by word contrary to that law of justice which bids a man render to all rational creatures their due.