The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter, Being a Proof, with Moral Certitude, of the Authorship of the Document: Together with Some Account of the Whole Thirteen Gunpowder Conspirators, Including Guy FawkesSpink, Henry
History
The Gunpowder Plot and Lord Mounteagle's Letter, Being a Proof, with Moral Certitude, of the Authorship of the Document: Together with Some Account of the Whole Thirteen Gunpowder Conspirators, Including Guy Fawkes
Spink, Henry
Gunpowder Plot, 1605; Monteagle, William Parker, Baron, 1574 or 1575-1622
[Footnote A: We know on the authority of Sir Edward Coke 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, circumstantial 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 “_emancipated 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 assumed 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 God_”——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 God,” 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
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account