The Condition of Catholics Under James I. / Father Gerard's Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot

by John Gerard

The first chief point of the King's speech.

These be the words of His Majesty's speech in Parliament,[320] wherein we may observe two things. First, that the Puritans had laboured and in some sort prevailed with His Majesty to make him believe, that it is holden by the doctrine of Catholics lawful to kill and murder Princes, &c, wherein that they might the better persuade and work His Highness' mind to their opinion, or rather his opinion to their desire, they did set forth two pestilent books full of subtle falsehood, one of the which I had occasion before to write of, which was directed to that unlawful end to prove all Catholics traitors by the laws of the realm. The other was yet a more impudent and malicious book, entitled The Popish Positions, wherein by a number of Canons and sayings of Popes and Doctors, falsely alleged and sophistically inferred, the Puritans labour to prove that it is by the Catholic doctrine holden and approved for lawful to kill and murder Princes, &c., and therefore not possible they should be good subjects but traitors, and so to be esteemed and used. In which case I leave it to the reader's judgment what was the mark they shot at. But I may not leave him in that error (if by chance he be one that know not our opinions) that we either hold or teach so erroneous and wicked doctrine, as they would infer out of many places which themselves understand not, and others which they falsely allege. I will not stand to answer any particular of the book, which is not for this place, and shall be no doubt much better and more at large performed by others. But this I desire the reader to remember, that out of this very story, wherein yet there is a sorer proof against us in this point, so far as concerneth the only practice of a few, than can be equalled in the examples of many ages; yet doth it plainly appear that Catholics do hold and teach the very contrary, as if it please him to turn back unto the answer which Father Garnett gave unto Mr. Catesby in questions of the [pg 120] like kind but of far less moment, he shall plainly see. For although he was not demanded any such barbarous question as whether it were lawful to murder Kings (unto which his answer would have been quick and sharp no doubt, as becometh a Religious man, whose ears must be hedged about with thorns against any such traitorous tongues), but the demand being only this: “For whom it was lawful to make war and how far to proceed therein,” he showed that no war was lawful without authority, nor any authority able to give leave but from those that had the government of the commonwealth. His answer therefore was much contrary to this malicious inference of his untrue reporting enemies, although he then spoke unto a confident friend, where he feared no rehearsal of the matter; and to one also that he feared to be too forward in those causes, and therefore if he had been desirous to set him more forward in that mind, and had been of that opinion himself, or that opinion true and lawful to be practised, which our enemies slander us withal, surely he would then have delivered his mind plainly to that effect. But the truth is so far on the contrary side, that all Catholics received strict commandment from the See Apostolic, that in no case they should stir or attempt anything against His Majesty or the State, and this both from Pope Clement VIII. of pious memory, and from Paulus Vtus. that now sitteth in the Chair, who both before and since his assumption to that supreme dignity of governing the Church of Christ, hath showed himself most earnest to procure the quiet, safety, and security of our Sovereign, both by liking and allowing of the leagues that other Catholic Princes have made with him, as also by often intimation and signification into England both by letters and message, that no Catholic people should go about to interrupt or trouble the same by their impatient proceedings. This likewise was the commandment sent from the General of the Society and Father Persons to Father Garnett, as [pg 121] hath been showed before. This was also Father Garnett his practice and earnest endeavour, as may plainly be seen in his own letters before set down; and may be seen also in the proof and sequel of this business, sith it may plainly appear he prevailed much with all the best sort of Catholics in England, as his letters do also import that he hoped he should, whereas these conspirators rising in arms, and with protestation that they rise only for cause of religion, unto the which they were well known to be fervently addicted, and no light-headed or hare-brained persons, but men known to be full of valour and of wit, and esteemed also before this action by all that knew them well, to be full of virtue. Yea, although divers of them were much befriended and allied in those countries where they took arms, and the countries also very well stored with many Catholics of worth, yet for all this, so far had Father Garnett prevailed with them, or rather the commandment of His Holiness delivered by him, that none would or did come to help them, or offer to stand for the cause in that kind or course of forcible attempt. No, neither friends to their persons nor friends to their religion would either by themselves or their forces give them any help at all. And yet they sought it earnestly, insomuch that they sent Mr. Thomas Winter to one Catholic gentleman of a noble house and great account, and whose daughter also his brother, Mr. Robert Winter, had married, and yet this gentleman being a known and constant Catholic, and a man otherwise very stout and withal of great power in those parts, he was so far from helping or assisting them in any sort, that he would not so much as hear Mr. Winter speak, but caused his gates to be shut against him. And yet the said noble gentleman was afterwards in great trouble and had like to have lost all his estate, which is very great, upon presumption that he did bear some good will unto them. So that hereby it is most apparent, how contrary the doctrine and practice also both of Superiors [pg 122] and subjects in Catholic religion is from that which the Puritans did labour by their books to persuade, and it seems His Majesty was in part wrought to believe.

But whatsoever the Catholics do herein, it is well known that the Puritans do both hold it for sound doctrine, and are not ashamed to teach it as lawful and necessary, and to practise it also (not as these few Catholics did, out of their own opinion ill-applied, and blamed for it by all of their own side), but as proceeding out of their doctrine, yea and warranted by the same, or rather urged upon the people by the preachers of the said doctrine, for which they say they bring the Word in great plenty.

I will not here cite Luther and Calvin, who are very copious in this kind, and will be fittest for those to bring that answer the foresaid books. It sufficeth here to consider our home examples and that of the chief apostles and pillars of the religion now professed under His Majesty's name and authority in Scotland, to wit, John Knox, the first broacher and preacher thereof, and Buchanan's chief assistant therein, and master also and bringer up of His Majesty's person. Both which in their public writings do not only place the restraint, coaction, punishment, arraignment, condemnation, deposition, yea and execution also of Princes in the people's hands when they govern not well (according to their judgment), but further also do wish that public rewards should be appointed by the same people for such as kill tyrants, as commonly there are, say they, for those that kill wolves or bears or take their whelps. So they. Whereunto if we add these authors' own inference in the same places here quoted, which is, that when the people are negligent in punishing evil Princes, their particular ministers may cite them; yea, and by excommunication cast them into hell, and make them unworthy to enjoy life upon earth, as their own words are. By this doctrine, and by their [pg 123] practice according to the same (whereof His Majesty is best able to bear witness out of his own trial), the reader may judge how different the state of Princes' safety is under the one and the other doctrine and discipline, and from the one and the other sort of subjects. And by this I leave him to discern whether the Catholics or the Puritans deserve better to be compared with Turk, Jew, or Pagan, or the inhabitants of Calicut, in respect of cruelty or disobedience growing out of their doctrine.

And surely His Majesty was not ignorant of the mind and doctrine and manner of proceeding of the Puritans in this point; but out of his wisdom, he thought it best rather to please them for the time in seeming to believe what they had written of us than to rehearse their own doctrine, whereof he had tasted too much, knowing right well that their patience was not able to bear to be rubbed upon the back, which indeed was much galled in that kind of doctrine about government. So that herein we may think it pleased His Highness to practise[321] that in this his grave and princely speech in the Parliament House, which sometimes before he had used to say in mirth, when he would show the difference between the Papists and Puritans, in matter of patient sufferance. For His Majesty would often affirm that he had in his realm two asses, an old ass and a young ass. The old ass, which was the Papist, would willingly and patiently bear what loads soever he laid upon his back; but the young ass, which was the Puritan, was so unruly, that if he laid the least burden upon his back, he would never leave wincing and flinging until he had gotten it off, and perhaps would do much harm in the meantime with his heels. And we must for this time bear with so much the more patience this imputation as a punishment for the ill desert of these few gentlemen, although it be most apparent that our doctrine and our [pg 124] general practice deserve much the contrary, which also His Majesty in the same speech doth seem to allow as true in the minds and manners of most of his Catholic subjects; and in that regard doth wisely and graciously restrain the too great forwardness and fury of the Puritans, which, he saith, he counteth worthy of fire, allowing the Catholics neither for saved souls in Heaven, nor good subjects in earth.

The second chief point of the King's speech.

But yet whereas His Majesty doth distinguish between the learned and unlearned Papists, and seemeth to think those which know the less, and believe and follow the fewer of our grounds and points of doctrine, to be the better sort of Catholics, and more likely to be the better subjects and more obedient both to God in Heaven and to their Kings and Princes on earth: this is the second point I touched before, which I must grant I do not well understand. For being granted that some of our religion be good, and God's servants, and go to heaven, I do not see how it is possible that those who know and practise more of that with which the others were good, can thereby become the worse.

For as it is most assured, that none can have grace in this life, nor glory in the next without faith—“sine qua impossible est placere Deo:”[322] so no faith but the true faith which Christ delivered to His Church, and the Apostles planted in His Church, can be this necessary foundation to this good estate of a soul either in grace or glory. “Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est.”[323] Therefore these simpler Catholics being saved must needs both have had faith, and that the true faith of Christ. Now I suppose the true faith of Christ can teach none to be disloyal. Again this [pg 125] faith of Christ, being but one (as there is but one Lord and one baptism), cannot be divided, or in part believed and followed and in part refused, “quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit, eamque nisi quis integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in æternum peribit.”[324] So that the most simple Catholics both do and must believe and profess the same faith in all points which the learned do, although they are not bound explicite to know all particulars more than the articles of their Creed and the Sacraments and other needful helps to salvation which they are to use; for the rest it sufficeth they believe the Church in all things as being “Columna et firmamentum veritatis,”[325] and the same also one article of their Creed, which all are bound both to believe and know; and so consequently the simpler sort believe implicite and virtually all that is generally taught and believed by School Doctors for matter of faith: and so their faith and the grounds of their faith being all one, can work no different effect. And if there should be any difference, methinks the better lot should not light to the share of the more simple, for then it would be good to be unskilful in the law and in the grounds of faith, contrary to that which God saith by His Prophet, “Conticuit populus meus, eo quod non habuerit scientiam: quia tu scientiam repulisti, repellam et ego,”[326] &c. And this was the ordinary cavil against us in the late alteration of religion (though unjustly imposed), as though we had willingly kept the people in ignorance, and therefore would not permit them the Scriptures in English. But as reason did then, so since experience hath proved that was not the cause; but as nurses that feed their children, as St. Paul [pg 126] did his, first with milk and then with solid meat, so we. And this to prevent their danger, which since we see hath followed, that rule being neglected under pretence, forsooth, of remedying the ignorance which Papists were kept in. But if then the case of the ignorant had been the better, we had the more wrong to be blamed for doing the best. Finally, this faith which may and often hath saved some of the ignorant Papists; as it is but one, and must be entirely believed and professed, so it is also holy, as being the faith of Christ (as before I proved), and the foundation of that Church which is “una et sancta,” &c.: and being holy it cannot follow that the greater measure should hurt, where the less doth good; for as we see, if a little fire give warmth, a greater will give a greater heat, and the sun which giveth light being under a cloud, will shine more brightly when it is fully seen: so that the more virtue is in the agent, and the more the same is applied, the more is the same effect brought forth in the patient, unless it be “propter debilitatem organi,” as in our eye against the light of the sun when we gaze upon it, which defect is not in our soul, the same being made for God Himself as for the final end of man, and therefore capable still of more and more increase of grace, as we see in the Apostles, &c.; and as God saith by His Prophet, “Dilata os tuum et implebo illud.”[327] Therefore it must needs follow that the more and more perfectly and exactly the rules and grounds of this holy faith are known, the more holy it doth make the knowers and believers and followers of the same. Neither can it possibly be otherwise; for as our Lord Himself saith, “Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere.”

Well may it happen, and doth often (as His Majesty did wisely and truly note), that “particular men of all professions and religions have been, some thieves, some murderers, some traitors,” &c., but this then is contrary [pg 127] to their doctrine, if their doctrine be that good Tree of which our Saviour speaketh, and which He planted in His Church. For that being “Arbor bona non potest malos fructus facere,” where we must understand, “quatenus talis arbor.” The best tree that is hath some fruit that doth miscarry. Some are blasted in the bud, some shaken off with the wind, some pecked with birds, some with one mischance and some with another miscarrieth before it come to ripeness or perfection; but by these we never measure the goodness of the tree. But if we see an apple or apricock hang upon the tree of perfect colour, of just bigness and shape, so that we may see it is come to that perfection which the tree can naturally bring it unto, then according to the taste of the fruit, we judge the goodness of the tree. If then the fruit be sour, we call the tree a crab-tree; if bitter, so we also term the tree and say it is nought; and justly, being warranted by Him that made them, “Quia non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, nec arbor mala fructus bonos facere.”[328] So that here is the difference: an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, that is, neither grace nor glory can grow into a man's soul out of evil doctrine, and so that soul not possible to be saved, unless his branch be cut from his own root and grafted into the stock of the good tree to receive the juice and sap of the same, as St. Paul saith we Gentiles were into the trunk of the Jews' fruitful olive. On the contrary part, a good tree may have some miscarry, but then it is not long of the tree, but of other mischances. And so the Catholic doctrine being holy, and in this very point of obedience holy, as teaching that all subjects are bound to obey, not as Luther teacheth, for policy only, making all men equal and to have no superior but Christ; nor as I showed before out of Knox and Buchanan; but as [pg 128] the truth is, and as St. Paul teacheth, that there is distinction of degrees and the subjects bound to obey, and that not ad libitum, or outwardly only, “ad oculum servientes,”[329] but in conscience and of necessity, “et tanquam Domino,” and as to our Lord Himself, to Whom we serve in obeying our superiors according to His commandment. This is the doctrine of the Holy Catholic Faith in this point, wherein although some may miscarry and take wrong courses, as these few of late did, following their own conceits and desires against the direction and wills of those who delivered the contrary doctrine (as hath been declared), yet this is no impeachment to the Tree, nor to the rest of the fruit. This act of theirs cannot be laid upon the doctrine which is holy and bringeth forth no disobedient fruit, but the contrary in great measure, and that so much the more in those that know more and are the more perfect in the grounds thereof, as being the fruit which this “Arbor bona” hath brought to best perfection.

And this clearness and innocency touching this late attempt is not only thus apparently proved to be in the whole body of Catholics, but was then the general opinion of all, the Puritans excepted, who are ever ready to impugn “agnitam veritatem.” His Majesty, as you have seen, did partly affirm it and granted some other part, out of which you see it is convinced.