1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering[pg 244]directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer,‘De[pg 245]die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’436But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is‘mendacium officiosum,’to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples,‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’437And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast,‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’438which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered.“For you teach it,”said he,“to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take[pg 246]us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?”To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.“The second point of our doctrine,”said he,“that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining[pg 247]and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.”Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered,“My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.”Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him.“My Lord,”said he,“I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.”Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.2. Concerning recusants in general.After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general,“who,”saith he,“are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh[pg 248]year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service439with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refusedin divinisto communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.”Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying,“You go about to seduce the people.”The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would[pg 249]not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:3. The Jesuits in general.“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.4. Father Garnett in particular.“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,440that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,441that[pg 250]he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail,‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’442saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he[pg 251]did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself,“and,”said he,“for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.”To this he answered,“That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.”(Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.)“And, Mr. Attorney,”said Father Garnett,“howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,443without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him.“Mr. Garnett,”said he,“did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?”“Yea, my Lord,”said he.“Why,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the[pg 252]Pope?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.”(Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.)“Nay I am persuaded,”said the Father,“that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the[pg 253]affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”444Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered:“What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.”Then said Mr. Attorney:“You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.To this the prisoner answered:“That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard[pg 254]The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.”Father Garnett answered“that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely,‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.”“Indeed,”said Mr. Attorney,“you said you would so colour it.”“No, in truth,”said the Father,“that was my true intention.”Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he[pg 255]would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us.“And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?”(Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver,“convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”445for he answered,)“No,”said he,“we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.”“No,”saith my Lord of Salisbury,“if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken.“No,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a[pg 256]place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.”(Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.)“For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?”“My Lord,”said the Father,“I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession,“being no sacramental confession by your own laws,”said he,“for it had no contrition and wasde futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.”(This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:)“Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal[pg 257]it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.”Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.Then said the Earl of Nottingham,“Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?”“My Lord,”said he,“unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.”Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said,“In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all446means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’”447“My Lord,”said the Father,“I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.”My Lord of Northampton replied,“Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?”Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner.“Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.”The Father answered,“What sin soever is[pg 258]heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.“But,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.”“Yea, but,”replied the Earl of Salisbury,“did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.”And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of[pg 259]fourteen years before.“Now,”said Mr. Attorney,“to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,”saith Mr. Attorney,“they will swear and forswear anything.”The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;448but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said,“I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;”but whereas he said,“I did not see him of fourteen years before,”he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had[pg 260]made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it,vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered,“Perhaps he was.”On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing[pg 261]somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the[pg 262]Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.449He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he[pg 263]could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner.“Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon ofNos Sanctorumto prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned[pg 264]to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering[pg 244]directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer,‘De[pg 245]die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’436But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is‘mendacium officiosum,’to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples,‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’437And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast,‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’438which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered.“For you teach it,”said he,“to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take[pg 246]us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?”To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.“The second point of our doctrine,”said he,“that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining[pg 247]and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.”Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered,“My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.”Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him.“My Lord,”said he,“I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.”Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.2. Concerning recusants in general.After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general,“who,”saith he,“are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh[pg 248]year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service439with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refusedin divinisto communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.”Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying,“You go about to seduce the people.”The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would[pg 249]not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:3. The Jesuits in general.“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.4. Father Garnett in particular.“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,440that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,441that[pg 250]he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail,‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’442saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he[pg 251]did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself,“and,”said he,“for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.”To this he answered,“That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.”(Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.)“And, Mr. Attorney,”said Father Garnett,“howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,443without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him.“Mr. Garnett,”said he,“did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?”“Yea, my Lord,”said he.“Why,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the[pg 252]Pope?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.”(Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.)“Nay I am persuaded,”said the Father,“that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the[pg 253]affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”444Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered:“What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.”Then said Mr. Attorney:“You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.To this the prisoner answered:“That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard[pg 254]The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.”Father Garnett answered“that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely,‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.”“Indeed,”said Mr. Attorney,“you said you would so colour it.”“No, in truth,”said the Father,“that was my true intention.”Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he[pg 255]would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us.“And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?”(Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver,“convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”445for he answered,)“No,”said he,“we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.”“No,”saith my Lord of Salisbury,“if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken.“No,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a[pg 256]place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.”(Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.)“For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?”“My Lord,”said the Father,“I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession,“being no sacramental confession by your own laws,”said he,“for it had no contrition and wasde futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.”(This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:)“Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal[pg 257]it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.”Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.Then said the Earl of Nottingham,“Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?”“My Lord,”said he,“unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.”Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said,“In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all446means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’”447“My Lord,”said the Father,“I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.”My Lord of Northampton replied,“Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?”Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner.“Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.”The Father answered,“What sin soever is[pg 258]heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.“But,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.”“Yea, but,”replied the Earl of Salisbury,“did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.”And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of[pg 259]fourteen years before.“Now,”said Mr. Attorney,“to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,”saith Mr. Attorney,“they will swear and forswear anything.”The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;448but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said,“I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;”but whereas he said,“I did not see him of fourteen years before,”he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had[pg 260]made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it,vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered,“Perhaps he was.”On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing[pg 261]somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the[pg 262]Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.449He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he[pg 263]could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner.“Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon ofNos Sanctorumto prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned[pg 264]to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering[pg 244]directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer,‘De[pg 245]die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’436But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is‘mendacium officiosum,’to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples,‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’437And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast,‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’438which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered.“For you teach it,”said he,“to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take[pg 246]us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?”To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.“The second point of our doctrine,”said he,“that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining[pg 247]and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.”Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered,“My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.”Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him.“My Lord,”said he,“I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.”Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.2. Concerning recusants in general.After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general,“who,”saith he,“are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh[pg 248]year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service439with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refusedin divinisto communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.”Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying,“You go about to seduce the people.”The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would[pg 249]not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:3. The Jesuits in general.“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.4. Father Garnett in particular.“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,440that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,441that[pg 250]he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail,‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’442saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he[pg 251]did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself,“and,”said he,“for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.”To this he answered,“That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.”(Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.)“And, Mr. Attorney,”said Father Garnett,“howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,443without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him.“Mr. Garnett,”said he,“did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?”“Yea, my Lord,”said he.“Why,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the[pg 252]Pope?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.”(Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.)“Nay I am persuaded,”said the Father,“that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the[pg 253]affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”444Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered:“What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.”Then said Mr. Attorney:“You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.To this the prisoner answered:“That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard[pg 254]The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.”Father Garnett answered“that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely,‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.”“Indeed,”said Mr. Attorney,“you said you would so colour it.”“No, in truth,”said the Father,“that was my true intention.”Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he[pg 255]would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us.“And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?”(Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver,“convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”445for he answered,)“No,”said he,“we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.”“No,”saith my Lord of Salisbury,“if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken.“No,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a[pg 256]place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.”(Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.)“For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?”“My Lord,”said the Father,“I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession,“being no sacramental confession by your own laws,”said he,“for it had no contrition and wasde futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.”(This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:)“Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal[pg 257]it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.”Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.Then said the Earl of Nottingham,“Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?”“My Lord,”said he,“unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.”Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said,“In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all446means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’”447“My Lord,”said the Father,“I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.”My Lord of Northampton replied,“Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?”Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner.“Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.”The Father answered,“What sin soever is[pg 258]heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.“But,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.”“Yea, but,”replied the Earl of Salisbury,“did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.”And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of[pg 259]fourteen years before.“Now,”said Mr. Attorney,“to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,”saith Mr. Attorney,“they will swear and forswear anything.”The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;448but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said,“I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;”but whereas he said,“I did not see him of fourteen years before,”he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had[pg 260]made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it,vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered,“Perhaps he was.”On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing[pg 261]somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the[pg 262]Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.449He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he[pg 263]could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner.“Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon ofNos Sanctorumto prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned[pg 264]to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering[pg 244]directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer,‘De[pg 245]die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’436But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is‘mendacium officiosum,’to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples,‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’437And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast,‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’438which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered.“For you teach it,”said he,“to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take[pg 246]us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?”To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.“The second point of our doctrine,”said he,“that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining[pg 247]and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.”Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered,“My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.”Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him.“My Lord,”said he,“I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.”Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.2. Concerning recusants in general.After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general,“who,”saith he,“are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh[pg 248]year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service439with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refusedin divinisto communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.”Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying,“You go about to seduce the people.”The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would[pg 249]not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:3. The Jesuits in general.“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.4. Father Garnett in particular.“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,440that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,441that[pg 250]he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail,‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’442saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he[pg 251]did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself,“and,”said he,“for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.”To this he answered,“That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.”(Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.)“And, Mr. Attorney,”said Father Garnett,“howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,443without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him.“Mr. Garnett,”said he,“did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?”“Yea, my Lord,”said he.“Why,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the[pg 252]Pope?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.”(Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.)“Nay I am persuaded,”said the Father,“that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the[pg 253]affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”444Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered:“What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.”Then said Mr. Attorney:“You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.To this the prisoner answered:“That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard[pg 254]The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.”Father Garnett answered“that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely,‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.”“Indeed,”said Mr. Attorney,“you said you would so colour it.”“No, in truth,”said the Father,“that was my true intention.”Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he[pg 255]would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us.“And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?”(Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver,“convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”445for he answered,)“No,”said he,“we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.”“No,”saith my Lord of Salisbury,“if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken.“No,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a[pg 256]place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.”(Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.)“For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?”“My Lord,”said the Father,“I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession,“being no sacramental confession by your own laws,”said he,“for it had no contrition and wasde futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.”(This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:)“Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal[pg 257]it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.”Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.Then said the Earl of Nottingham,“Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?”“My Lord,”said he,“unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.”Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said,“In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all446means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’”447“My Lord,”said the Father,“I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.”My Lord of Northampton replied,“Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?”Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner.“Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.”The Father answered,“What sin soever is[pg 258]heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.“But,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.”“Yea, but,”replied the Earl of Salisbury,“did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.”And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of[pg 259]fourteen years before.“Now,”said Mr. Attorney,“to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,”saith Mr. Attorney,“they will swear and forswear anything.”The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;448but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said,“I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;”but whereas he said,“I did not see him of fourteen years before,”he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had[pg 260]made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it,vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered,“Perhaps he was.”On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing[pg 261]somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the[pg 262]Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.449He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he[pg 263]could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner.“Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon ofNos Sanctorumto prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned[pg 264]to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.
1. Concerning Catholic doctrine in general.
“And for the first, Mr. Attorney inveigheth greatly against that point of doctrine wherein we teach that equivocations in some cases may be lawfully used, as a doctrine which he supposeth to hinder Martyrs from their crowns and to break the bonds of human society; neither of which can ensue out of that doctrine, as we do teach it. For we do not teach (as Mr. Attorney affirmeth) that it is lawful to equivocate in matters of faith; but we teach the contrary most expressly, rejecting that doctrine as an heresy, condemned long since in the Priscilianists. Yea, some Catholics have suffered death for answering[pg 244]directly to questions which they might have avoided, but that they feared they should then equivocate in matters of faith, or seem to deny their religion. And, my Lords, because I have discoursed to your Lordships of this point heretofore, and to other learned men sent to me in the Tower, I will be the shorter at this present: and as I say, it is never lawful to equivocate in matters of faith, so also in matters of human conversation, it may not be used promiscually, or at our pleasure; as in matters of contract, in matters of testimony, or before a competent judge, or to the prejudice of any third person: in which cases we judge it altogether unlawful. But only we think it lawful when it is no way prejudicial to others and to be used for our own or our brother's good, or when we are pressed to questions that are hurtful to be answered unto, or urged upon examination to answer to one who is no competent judge, or who would force us to open matters not liable to his court: as if they should examine me of the secrets of my heart, or the secrets I have heard in confession; because these secrets are not liable to any external court, I may in these cases, for avoiding of inconvenience, and redeeming my own vexation, lawfully use some reservation. Neither doth this liberty prejudice any whit human conversation; but it is conformable to reason, agreeable to the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and to the consent of all learned men, without contradiction of any one that ever I heard or read of, who teach generally with St. Thomas of Aquin, affirming the same which I have said, in several places, and specially in that place where he teacheth that if a Confessor should by any man whosoever be examined concerning points which he knoweth only by confession, he may lawfully, yea, he is bound to disavow them. And this doctrine is also found in the Scripture itself; for confirmation whereof, I will cite only two places. The first is that place where our Saviour being demanded concerning the Day of Judgment by His disciples made answer,‘De[pg 245]die illâ nemo novit, neque Angeli Dei, neque filius hominis, nisi solus Pater.’436But certain it is that Christ our Saviour did know of the Day of Judgment, not only as He was God, but as He was Man also, as all holy Doctors and Divines do constantly affirm. Wherefore it cannot be denied but therein He used some mental reservation. For lying can no ways be tolerable and much less practised by Him that is the rule and measure of all truth, as St. Augustine excellently proveth in that place where he distinguisheth eight kind of lies, all of them being sins; and the least of those when it is‘mendacium officiosum,’to the good of some, without the hurt of any. So that seeing this saying of our Saviour cannot be verified otherwise but, as St. Augustine expoundeth it, with this secret reservation that He knew it not to reveal it, it cannot be denied but these reservations in some cases are lawful. The second example is, where He said to His Disciples,‘Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc: ego autem non ascendo ad diem festum istum.’437And yet, notwithstanding, the Evangelist affirmeth that after they were gone to the feast,‘tunc et ipse ascendit ad diem festum non manifeste, sed quasi in occulto,’438which argueth that in this general denial to go, He meant only that He would not go in public, which in His mind He reserved.”
Here my Lord of Salisbury interrupted the prisoner and said, that because the truth was oftentimes more plainly discovered by interposition of questions and answers, than by a continual speech delivered together, he would ask of Mr. Garnett one question concerning that doctrine he delivered.“For you teach it,”said he,“to be unlawful to equivocate before a competent judge, and I trust you take[pg 246]us to be such. At the least I do. Now did not you deny in the Tower unto me with earnest asseveration, that you had not any conference with Hall, until the witness was produced against you, and then you confessed it? Is not this to equivocate before a competent judge, and in a matter of small consequence?”To this the prisoner answered that he did so because, until the witness came, he did think the matter wholly secret, and therefore not liable to the examination of any judge, though otherwise competent; besides he deemed it prejudicial to a third person, whom then he accounted an honest man. Then he went forward in his speech.
“The second point of our doctrine,”said he,“that Mr. Attorney greatly inveigheth against, is the doctrine of deposing of Princes and excommunicating of Kings. Whereof although I could discourse at large, yet for that I am unwilling in this honourable assembly to speak anything which may be offensive to His Majesty or to them, I will only say a word or two in just excuse of myself and my brethren, the Catholics of England. And, first, I beseech your Lordships to consider that our doctrine in this point is the very same which is taught and holden by all Catholic Divines and other subjects in all Catholic Universities and countries of the Christian world, which subjects are not by their Princes censured for this doctrine or condemned as traitors, nor their doctrine judged to be seditious or treasonable. And therefore I cannot see why we, concurring with them and with all our predecessors in this kingdom, without innovation or changing any one principle or tittle in that matter, should be so severely branded with such notes of infamy. Secondly, for clearing our case the more, I will observe a great difference to be made between our Sovereign that now is, and other Princes that have once embraced and professed the Catholic faith and do afterwards revolt and decline into heresies, parting themselves from that body unto which they were before united, disjoining[pg 247]and dividing themselves from that Head to whom before they had submitted themselves and by whom they were governed; for they incur the censures which those authors, cited by Mr. Attorney, do speak of, and are punishable by that power which in precedent times they admitted. But His Majesty's case is different from theirs; for he maintaineth no other doctrine than that which from his cradle he hath been nourished and brought up in. And therefore those general sentences are not by any private man to be applied to his case in particular.”Here the Earl of Salisbury again interrupted him and demanded if the Pope could excommunicate King James, his Sovereign. The prisoner answered,“My Lord, I cannot deny the authority of His Holiness.”Then my Lord of Salisbury demanded, whether if he should be excommunicated, it were lawful for his subjects to rebel against him.“My Lord,”said he,“I have already answered that point. I beseech your Lordship to press me no further. You have my opinion in the Canon of Nos Sanctorum which I before alleged.”Then Mr. Attorney produced the Canon, which was publicly read with derision of divers standers-by, who thought it ridiculous that the Pope should have such authority over Princes.
2. Concerning recusants in general.
2. Concerning recusants in general.
After this the Father proceeded and the second thing he would answer unto, should be recusants in general,“who,”saith he,“are accused by Mr. Attorney that they only grounded their recusancy upon the excommunication of the Queen by Pius Vtus, which, if it were true, then Mr. Attorney did infer that, seeing that our Sovereign that now is stands not excommunicate, it were lawful to repair to the churches and service of England. But if this were lawful, doubtless Catholics would have done it before this, thereby to avoid the penalty of those statutes which in that case are enacted. Neither is it true, that Mr. Attorney so constantly avoucheth, that till the eleventh[pg 248]year of Queen Elizabeth all Catholics did resort to their churches. For I knew many Catholics at that time living, that I am certain never went to Protestants' churches in their lives. And Sir Thomas Fitzherbert of my knowledge did not only refuse it before that time himself, but also had written a treatise to prove that it could not be tolerated in any Catholic; and it is apparent to the world that before that time many Catholic Bishops and Priests were imprisoned for their refusal. Whereby it is evident that their recusancy is not founded upon any excommunication; but only upon mere matter of conscience, judging it unlawful to communicate in their service439with such as have separated themselves from the Church. Which doctrine is as ancient as the condemnation of the Arian heresy; for even then the Catholics refusedin divinisto communicate with the Arians, albeit they had Priests, Masses, Altars and their whole service, the same both in substance and ceremony. Which doctrine hath also been taught by the most learned of the Protestants, Calvin, Luther, Beza and others, who all teach it to be unlawful to be present at our service, not only at Mass, which they count idolatry, but at Evensong also. Yet I grant this point was not so clearly understood by Catholics here until the Council of Trent, where twelve most grave and learned men were appointed to consult and conclude of this matter; who without controversy determined, that it was in no case lawful to communicate with the heretics in their service, no, not to avoid any torment whatsoever. And their decision was by the whole Council approved; although the same was also concluded of by the Council of Nice above 1,300 years ago.”Here again he was interrupted by my Lord of Salisbury, saying,“You go about to seduce the people.”The rest of his speech only tended to the City of London, and seemed to tell them they should see such an anatomy of the Popish doctrine, that he hoped after that it would[pg 249]not have so many followers, with other words to like effect; which speech being ended, the prisoner resumed his discourse and said:
3. The Jesuits in general.
3. The Jesuits in general.
“The third thing I determined to speak of was the Jesuits in general; of whom some have been by Mr. Attorney accused of undertaking several treasonable attempts, as the matters of Patrick Collyn, Yorke, Williams, and Squire, of all which I can say no more but this, that I have had the hands and protestations of those Fathers that are accused, as Father Holt and Father Walpole, who on their salvations affirm they never treated with the parties concerning any such matter; and that it was very unlikely, seeing the enterprisers of them were no Catholics, or but feigned Catholics, as Yorke and Squire were, who died Protestants, and were of so little acquaintance with those Fathers that it was no way probable they would employ them in matters of such weight. And howsoever they might in time of torture, or for fear, be brought to accuse themselves, yet at their death some of them discovered the practices and protested they died innocent of the facts for which they suffered, as Williams and Squire did. And for Father Sherwood, accused also by Mr. Attorney, there neither is nor was any such Father of the Society. Indeed there was one of that name that entered the Society; but he died before he came to be Priest. But I am sure there was none such of the Society, as Mr. Attorney accuseth.
4. Father Garnett in particular.
4. Father Garnett in particular.
“Now for myself in particular. First I protest I am clear from approving, and much more from furthering, either this or any other treasonable attempts, and have ever thought and taught them to be unlawful; and have by all my best endeavours laboured to divert and suppress them. True it is,440that I did understand in general by Mr. Catesby,441that[pg 250]he would have attempted something for the good of Catholics; which I dissuaded him from so effectually, that I well hoped he would have desisted from all such pretences. And this I revealed not, because as a Religious Priest I thought to suppress it between him and me; which course our Saviour prescribeth, warning us, that if our brother offend in anything, we should admonish him between him and us: and if this prevail,‘Lucratus es fratrem tuum,’442saith our Saviour; and if that reclaim him not, then we may proceed further. Now, my Lords, because I was persuaded that upon this admonition he would give over his former designs, I held myself in conscience discharged from making any further discovery of that practice. Howbeit that in your common law I think that insufficient, in regard it deemeth it not convenient to leave the safety of the commonwealth depending on the discretion or peculiar provision of any private person. But yet, my Lords, that I did dislike such proceedings, and as much as I could did endeavour to reclaim them, your Lordships may gather by the express commandment which I procured by means of our Superior, whereby was expressly forbidden all attempts against the King in general, and also by the endeavours I used as seriously as I could to procure the like prohibition, and that under pain of some heavier censure: which I would never have endeavoured, if I had any way approved it. And I knew very well His Holiness much disliked all such courses; and, as I was informed, commended my care and vigilancy in seeking to repress the former stirs, wherein Watson and Clarke did join with others the first year of the King's coming into England. And lastly, in that I knew them to be contrary to our Religious obedience (of which virtue in the Society we make special account), by which we were expressly forbidden to meddle in any such causes.”
Here Mr. Attorney interrupted him and said, that he[pg 251]did not forbid them, for he could prove no such matter, but only by his words, who used to speak the best in favour of himself,“and,”said he,“for that prohibition which you procured, I do not think you did it for love to us, but for your own ends, lest that by some matter of small importance your main plot should be prevented and hindered.”To this he answered,“That all were prohibited in general, and therefore it could not be in favour of any one in particular.”(Besides that prohibition was procured long before Father Garnett knew of this particular designment of those gentlemen, which as it appears by all proofs, was long after the powder was all placed, and but a little time before it should have been put in execution.)“And, Mr. Attorney,”said Father Garnett,“howsoever you labour to misconstrue my intentions, my meaning was so as I have said. And to proceed further, I am blamed also for giving letters of commendation to Mr. Thomas Winter and Faulks and others that went over (as now it appears) for accomplishing of treasons. And to this I answer, that I gave them indeed letters of commendation; but I protest I knew not that they went over about matters of treason, for that I never inquired of their businesses. But if I knew them to be Catholic men and of good conversation, then,443without further inquiry, I gave them letters to testify so much to my friends beyond seas, desiring their favours and furtherance for them in any ordinary matter of courtesy or charity. And the like letters I have given to divers other Catholics that were no ways to be touched with any treacherous attempts: and these were altogether unknown to me.”
Here my Lord of Salisbury did interrupt him.“Mr. Garnett,”said he,“did you give them the letters without knowing the end why they were sent over?”“Yea, my Lord,”said he.“Why,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“did not you yourself tell me that you did nominate Sir Edmond Baynham as a fit man to go over to the[pg 252]Pope?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I told your Honour thus much: that it was thought convenient that some one should inform His Holiness of the estate of our country, and that it was a great charge to send over one of purpose for that business; knowing therefore that Sir Edmond Baynham was going over, and had been so resolved for above two years, I thought it better, that now he might discharge that care and save that charge, than that one should be sent over to the Pope of set purpose to inform of the state of England.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you told me that Sir Edmond Baynham went over to acquaint the Pope with this Plot of Treason, and that therefore you would not have him said to be sent by you, because the Pope would be offended that you employed a layman in that business.”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“at the going over of Sir Edmond Baynham I did not know of that treason myself, and therefore could not think that Sir Edmond went to acquaint him with it.”(Note the modesty of this Father that would not contradict the Earl, although the matter touched him very near; but rather proved, by a necessary consequence, that he could not say so unto him, than he would seem to aver the other had misreported his words.)“Nay I am persuaded,”said the Father,“that Mr. Catesby would not have revealed the matter in particular to the Pope himself. Howbeit, afterwards I imagined with myself that peradventure Mr. Catesby by his means might intend to acquaint His Holiness with some pretence in general for the Catholic cause, which they would undertake if His Holiness should approve it And this I supposed only because Mr. Catesby promised me that he would not go forward with any attempt till the Pope had been acquainted and made privy to it And I said to your Lordship, that therefore I would not that Sir Edmond should be sent from us; for that it would displease the Pope we should send or employ any person whomsoever in the[pg 253]affairs of England; but refer them to others, whom it more concerned.”444
Then Mr. Attorney replied that Mr. Faulks had confessed that Sir Edmond Baynham was to give notice unto the Pope of this their attempt: and to this effect was produced a confession of Faulks which said that Sir Edmond Baynham was sent to Rome to acquaint the Pope with the matter when the blow should be given, and to crave his assistance and furtherance in all. To this he answered:“What they determined, I know not. And it may be, they thought at that time to have conveyed him some letter to give him notice thereof. But it is more than I know, and very unlikely that the first news should come by me, for the common fame and rumour thereof would have prevented my letters by a great while.”Then said Mr. Attorney:“You see, my Lords, what great care this man had for the preventing of this so great a danger; and yet he saith he did not approve nor consent to it. But I will prove that he did both; for, as I have said before, he gave Catesby the resolution that it was lawful to be done not in that case, but in another like to it; which notwithstanding was the sole ground Catesby stood upon, as appeareth by Rookwood's confession, before alleged and now again produced and read. Besides he made a prayer for the good success of the Powder Treason, about the time it should have been put in practice, he having known thereof in particular before by Greenway his confession.”
The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.
The case concerning innocents, answered by Father Garnett.
To this the prisoner answered:“That the case was proposed to him in general, and so he resolved it, being a case common in all just wars, where if a town could not be taken, or a wall beaten down without the death of some innocents, all casuists do hold that fact to be lawful. But that Mr. Catesby misapplied this general question, was neither fault nor approbation of mine; which when I heard[pg 254]
The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.
The prayer objected to Father Garnett answered by him.
of, I conceived a great horror at the thing itself, and thought it would be a scandal and disgrace to Catholics; and therefore, besides the former means which I had used to suppress it, I did also in my prayers desire some milder course might be taken, if it were God's will.”“Nay,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“you prayed not with that condition; for you said to me in the gallery, that although we did not approve of your Masses, yet you did think assuredly that they had done us good; for you prayed heartily that it might not come to pass, except it were for the good of the Church.”Father Garnett answered“that he said not so; but that he desired God to make a milder course, if it were His holy will. As for the prayer upon All-Hallow Day, wherein you note those words so precisely,‘Gentem auferte perfidam,’you must understand it was the hymn of the same Feast, which in my exhortation I admonished the hearers to iterate unto Almighty God for the Catholic cause, the Parliament being then at hand, and great fears in us of more severity ensuing towards us; and therefore I meant not the Powder Treason, but to desire God that He would put in the mind of His Majesty and the Lords there assembled in the Parliament not to permit those rigorous laws to pass against us, which we feared would at that time be concluded of, and to restrain the too much forwardness of some others in the company that were more violent against us.”“Indeed,”said Mr. Attorney,“you said you would so colour it.”“No, in truth,”said the Father,“that was my true intention.”
Then witnesses were called into the Court which had heard the interlocution; and Mr. Attorney spake in commendation of one of them, saying he was a great linguist, a Justice of Peace, and a learned man, and one that would do wrong to no man. Father Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken, for that which he said was no more but that he could answer that point very well, for he[pg 255]would say (as in truth it was) that he meant, that the laws intended might not pass against us.“And how say you, Mr. Fawcet, bethink yourself, were you not mistaken?”(Here one may see the good Father had some hope left, that some sparks of grace and true dealing had been left in the man according to his former promises of friendly meaning; but he found the contrary, and that they were agreed together what they would aver,“convenientes in unum adversus christum Domini,”445for he answered,)“No,”said he,“we both understood it so and writ it down so, and have had so great care to do you no wrong, that we omitted divers things wherein we agreed not, and nothing was set down, but with both our consents.”“No,”saith my Lord of Salisbury,“if we would touch you with the testimony of one witness, we could charge you with further matters than these, but we will not do so, that the world may see what mildness and mercy we use in execution of justice, and to this end my Sovereign determined that your trial should be in this honourable assembly. For who is Garnett that he should be called hither; or we should trouble ourselves in this Court with him? which I protest were sufficient for the greatest Cardinal in Rome, if in this case he should be tried. No, Mr. Garnett, it is not for your cause that you are called hither, but to testify to the world the foulness of your fact, the errors of your religion, and His Majesty's clemency. For these causes His Majesty ordained your trial should be in this Court before this honourable assembly, wherein we may glory as much as if the greatest Cardinal in Rome were pleading at the bar. And, therefore, the witness is a man of reputation and who would do you no wrong.”
Mr. Garnett said he thought so too, but he might be mistaken.“No,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“he was near you enough to understand your words: for Hall and you, of policy, were lodged so near one to the other and in such a[pg 256]place where your interlocutions might be easily heard.”(Here it appears Mr. Attorney his speech was idle when he said it was for want of rooms and by chance that they were overheard; but he did not foresee that the Earl meant to make the truth in this point of policy serve his turn for a further policy, as here it appeareth. Unto which end also the good usage was directed to satisfy the Ambassadors who were then present, and others that were like to inquire of his usage in particular.)“For Christian policy is not to be condemned in any well-governed commonwealth, and if we should not use such courses, I know not how we should deal with such people as you. You have in your pamphlets so described us for cruelties and persecutions. But let him testify that is here at the bar, whether he hath not been used with extraordinary favour? How say you, Mr. Garnett, is it not so?”“My Lord,”said the Father,“I must acknowledge my entreaty to have been very honourable, for which I esteem myself much bound to His Majesty.”
Then my Lord of Salisbury urged that he was bound to have discovered the Powder Treason which he knew by Greenway his confession,“being no sacramental confession by your own laws,”said he,“for it had no contrition and wasde futuris, and so could not be a Sacrament in your own religion.”(This point is answered where the thing itself is particularly declared at the time and place when it happened. Here the Father did only answer to the Earl's chief intention and said:)“Though he nothing doubted but Mr. Greenway had contrition and all things needful to make it a sacramental confession, yet howsoever the party were penitent or not, the Confessor may not reveal it without mortal sin, if he utter himself in confession, and not in derision of the Sacrament.”Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, Greenway in his reservative clause was more careful of you than of the King or commonwealth, in giving liberty to you to reveal[pg 257]it in time of your own danger, which should have been rather to have prevented the danger to the King and commonwealth.”Father Garnett answered that Mr. Greenway having it himself also from them by confession, was restrained and limited how far he should give leave to open it; and that the Confessor hath no extensive liberty at all further than the penitent gives unto him.
Then said the Earl of Nottingham,“Mr. Garnett, if a man should tell you in confession that he would stab the King with a dagger to-morrow, are you not bound to reveal it?”“My Lord,”said he,“unless I could know it by some other means, I might not.”Hereupon the people fell into a great laughter, not understanding that the secrecy of confession concerneth a greater good in the life of many souls, than the corporal life can be of any particular man. When the laughter ceased, the Father proceeded and said,“In that case, my Lord, my duty were to dissuade the party from it, to refuse to give absolution, and by all446means to labour to divert it, which might not open the confession.”
Then said the Earl of Northampton,“Mr. Garnett, you were consenting to the Powder Treason, for you did not forbid it: and it is a case by every good Priest approved, that‘Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet.’”447“My Lord,”said the Father,“I did prohibit it, as much as in me lay.”My Lord of Northampton replied,“Why did you not then make it known to those that could and would have hindered it?”Father Garnett answered, as before, that he could not do it, because he knew it only in confession. Then the Attorney pressed him in this manner.“Although you could not discover Mr. Greenway, by whose confession you knew it, yet might you have well discovered what you understood concerning Catesby and his associates, whose confessions you heard not.”The Father answered,“What sin soever is[pg 258]heard in confession, although it concern not the penitent but some other, cannot lawfully be revealed.”
Mr. Attorney then urged him with his being in Warwickshire at that time when these troubles should have happened, amplifying it again, as in his former speech he had done. To which Father Garnett answered that by reason of a journey which he had made that summer to St. Winifred's Well, he passed through that country, and was by the entreaty of some of his friends and some occasion also of business detained there for a time, not suspecting any such troubles would have happened in that place: which, if by any forecast he could have foreseen, they might well imagine he would in discretion have been a good way off from that place and country.
“But,”said my Lord of Salisbury,“what did you, Mr. Garnett, the 6th day of November, when Bates came to you with a letter from Catesby, after the Plot was discovered and they in open rebellion?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“I said I would not meddle with him that had wrought himself into such treasonable attempts, and thereby endangered himself and his friends.”“Yea, but,”replied the Earl of Salisbury,“did not you send Greenway to Catesby, who went to raise the countries abroad?”“My Lord,”said Father Garnett,“he went without my knowledge; neither could I gather by any speech of his that he had any such intention, as Bates could testify, if he were alive.”And indeed Bates had said as much as that in his letter, before set down verbatim in the 11th chapter, which was more than Father Garnett could know of.
Then, for conclusion, Mr. Attorney desired license to read a letter written by Mr. Tresham, lying upon his death-bed in the Tower, wherein upon his salvation he cleared Father Garnett of any notice of the Spanish treason, protesting that he had wronged him in it, and that he had not seen Father Garnett of[pg 259]fourteen years before.“Now,”said Mr. Attorney,“to prove this untrue, here is a confession of Mrs. Ann Vaux, who (though otherwise a very obstinate woman) yet in this she confesseth plainly, that within these three years Tresham had been several times at her house with Father Garnett, and twice this last year, at which times Father Garnett had given him very good counsel. So that you see,”saith Mr. Attorney,“they will swear and forswear anything.”The like said my Earl of Salisbury upon the same occasion.
But they did not (or would not) mark, that Mrs. Ann Vaux her confession doth make nothing at all against Mr. Tresham his protestation; for he said not he had not seen Father Garnett within the last three years; but that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the Spanish treason, which was the year before the Queen's death; as his words are plain, and the cause also of his writing doth make it plain, for his intention was only to clear the Father of the Spanish treason, which he had wrongfully accused him of, and therefore it was a very material proof that he had not seen him of fourteen years before that business;448but they would needs draw his meaning to be, that he had not seen him of fourteen years before the writing of the letter. But this was their misconstruing, not his equivocating; yea, then his words had been very unproper, for he should rather then have said,“I have not seen him of fourteen year, or this fourteen years;”but whereas he said,“I did not see him of fourteen years before,”he must needs mean of fourteen years before the time he spake of, which was the Spanish treason. Therefore they were to blame, that did so much insult upon Mr. Tresham after his death, as though he had been found to have protested an untruth. But they did it to take occasion to infer thereby that other protestations also were like to be untrue, which divers of the conspirators had[pg 260]made before their death to clear the Fathers. But against theirs, no pretence of exception could be alleged; but only that theirs might be false, because this was false: which had been an evil consequence, although this had not been true. But this of Mr. Tresham's was true: and the others undoubted, and no ways to be disproved. And it is worthy to be noted how Almighty God did permit them now, at the end of this long day's trial of Father Garnett, to bring forth this letter (whereby they thought so clearly to disprove such testimonies as might be afterwards brought for Father Garnett), which letter did indeed so clearly prove him innocent in that former dealing with Spain, whereof there were more likely presumptions against him than about this Powder Treason.
The cause and manner of writing this letter was this. Mr. Thomas Winter had confessed that six gentlemen were acquainted with that Plot, but could say nothing of Father Garnett, that he did so much as know of it. Mr. Tresham acknowledged in his first examinations that himself was acquainted with it,vdlt., that money and men should have come from thence; and being found more fearful and easy to be wrought upon than the rest, he was urged to confess Garnett to be privy thereunto; to which he answered,“Perhaps he was.”On which words reflecting afterwards when he lay in extremity of sickness in the Tower, and prepared himself to die, he thought the Council would take advantage against Father Garnett by that which he had said: therefore before his death he caused his man to write in his name unto the Earl of Salisbury, protesting upon his salvation, that Mr. Garnett was not acquainted therewith, &c, as before was set down out of the letter read. This letter he was not then able to sign himself, he was so weak at that time, and therefore caused his wife to do it, and commanded her, as she would answer it before God, to deliver it to my Lord of Salisbury, for the discharge of his conscience; but afterwards growing[pg 261]somewhat better, he did call for the writing again, and signed it with his own hand. And his wife after his death, because she could not be admitted to come to my Lord of Salisbury, inclosed it in a letter of her own, and sent it to his Lordship. And the man that wrote this letter, being afterwards taken by Sir William Wade, Lieutenant of the Tower, for fear of his threats, affirmed his master had written the letter himself (not daring to be known, that he had written it at his master's appointment), but afterwards being at liberty, he went to the Recorder and affirmed before him, that it was his master that had caused him to write it, and had himself subscribed it: and for this the man was committed to a close and strait prison, to Bridewell, the worst prison about London.
Notwithstanding all this, upon the reading of this letter, my Lord of Salisbury presupposed it as granted that Mr. Tresham did mean to equivocate in this letter, which the good Father did not contradict, not observing perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Tresham his words before alleged, which was no marvel, being clean wearied out with so long standing at the bar, and answering to every man's questions before, which more concerned himself; and himself so often interrupted in his own discourse, that it was misliked by divers of the standers-by; yea, the King himself, who was there in private, sent word at length to my Lord of Salisbury, he should give the prisoner leave to speak freely. My Lord of Salisbury therefore took occasion upon this supposition to speak at large, and said, though he would not meddle with Mr. Garnett in matters of divinity, yet because he had been particularly employed in that service, he desired to demonstrate with what sincerity and moderation His Majesty's justice was carried in all points. And so he discoursed of the manner of the proceeding therein, and said it was not performed with such solemnity in respect of Garnett, who was but a private man, but to discredit in his person his religion, and to credit the[pg 262]Gospel, and also to show the King's just proceedings to the world, and withal to favour the City of London, in doing it in the sight of the city. Then he showed how gently Father Garnett had been used, more like a nurse-child than otherwise, and that in this arraignment divers things had been permitted to be read, which made for Father Garnett; as namely this testimony of Mrs. Vaux, who, said the Earl, would sacrifice her life to do him good. And so he concluded, affirming that the whole course of proceedings in that matter had been mixed with such clemency, as he thought there was none so malicious that could calumniate. My Lord of Northampton also made a speech much to the like effect, to show the foulness of the Plot of Powder, the just and merciful proceedings of the King, and the presumptions of Father Garnett his being guilty.
Which done, the jury was willed to go together, and Father Garnett, ere they departed, desired them they would take such things as he had denied, to be justly and truly disavowed, except they had more evidence to the contrary; and desired them to give their verdict only upon that which was acknowledged to be true, and not upon any other presumptions. And so indeed (by God's providence) it was performed: for they went together for a short time, and presently returned and pronounced him guilty directly for not revealing this treason.449
He was then asked whether he had any more to say for himself, and my Lord of Salisbury told him it was the King's pleasure he should have free leave to speak (but this leave was pronounced very late, after so many hours of continual interruption). The Father answered he had no more to say but God save the King; and referred himself to the mercy of God and the King, and that he desired their Lordships to recommend his cause unto His Majesty, whom if it would please to grant him life, he would labour to deserve it the best he[pg 263]could, his conscience reserved. If otherwise, he was prepared to die.
Then Serjeant Crooke prayed judgment might be given. The crier was willed to proclaim silence. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir John Popham, pronounced sentence of judgment against him, which was, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
The Earl of Northampton made a second speech to this effect unto the prisoner.“Nothing is, that hath not been: nor nothing hath been, that is not. That all which hath been spoken this day might be rightly understood, you are condemned not for religion or your profession; but for treason verified by pregnant proofs. It is necessary to look into the ground of this action and safety of the King; which by the Scripture is sufficiently commanded and proved, that there is no cause sufficient to depose Princes, neither tyranny, nor adultery, nor idolatry, nor apprehending of Priests, nor simony, nor heresy, nor apostacy. No power upon earth can dispossess him. That Popes have attempted it sometimes, hath been abuse crept in within these five or six hundred years, but the ancient Popes would never do it, yea, St. Gregory calleth the Emperor, his Lord. No man may lay hands upon the King, as is proved by many examples in the Old Testament. You are commanded in the New Testament to obey your Princes; and so all the ancient Fathers teach. For the Prince's life is in no man's power, but in the hands of God Himself. All examples of Scripture prove you ought not to touch his body, but to persuade his soul. You allege the Canon ofNos Sanctorumto prove it in the Pope's power to depose Princes for some causes; but it never can be proved lawful by any learning or law for this 1600 years. Therefore whosoever doth maintain it, is in a foul and most gross and grievous error.”
This was about six or seven o'clock at night. Then the Court broke up; and Father Garnett being condemned[pg 264]to die was returned back to the Tower until the day of his execution. The King as he went from the place of trial, where he had been in private, was heard to say, they had done the prisoner wrong to interrupt him so often; and also, that if he had been in the prisoner's place he could have defended himself better in some points. The Protestants were generally much appalled at the beginning of Father Garnett his speech, and some that came from the hall said, that never any man did speak so at that bar. But towards the end, they did weary him exceedingly with so many interruptions and interrogations. But it did comfort the Catholics much that he was condemned only for concealing the treason which he had only heard in confession; and consequently his condemnation and death was only for concealing confession, which is a most happy cause, and the case of a martyr, as all the Catholics did then account him, and as the justice of his cause did then approve him: and God hath since his death declared by diverse signs, of which I will afterwards speak in their fit place.