Presently after her imprisonment, there were many false rumours spread and slanders raised, according to their custom in such cases (where they desire most to obscure the most known virtues and best deserving persons) for it was reported in many mouths that Father Garnett was married to this gentlewoman, and such like stuff, which forsooth they would have therefore the rather believed in that she was forward to adventure for him, and to go to see a man in so great danger as he was: not understanding how much more force true charity hath than fond affection, but “Animalis homo non percipit ea quæ Dei sunt.”[373] And they measure others by their own desires, not feeling any spark of that heat which moved so many good Maries to follow Christ and His Apostles, nor tasting any part of their comfort, who ministering corporal food unto their spiritual Pastors, receive also from God by their ministration that heavenly manna “quod nemo novit nisi qui accipit.”[374] But those reports soon died, when they saw her sober and modest behaviour, giving very good example and as great edification by her carriage as she did satisfaction by her answers in all the time of her imprisonment, never relenting or repenting the forward zeal she had showed to help her good Father in his need; but rather contrary, that [pg 173] she should as willingly bestow her life as her labour to do God service in that kind. And so my Lord of Salisbury did give her testimony at Father Garnett's arraignment.
About this time also was Mr. Garnett, the Priest in the Gatehouse, brought into further trouble for the letter he had received by the treacherous keeper, although it was signed and so licensed with the Lieutenant his hand, who had also, notwithstanding this leave given, seized upon all such necessaries as were then sent unto Father Garnett by this good Priest, and he was now also called into question about the whole matter, and strictly examined, and so removed from the Gatehouse to the Tower, where he remained in likely expectation both of torture and death for his charity shown to Father Garnett, to whom no man could show any friendship, and be withal esteemed “amicus Cæsaris.”
Then the Council appointed a set time of coming to the Tower to examine Father Garnett upon this advantage they had by cunning won of him out of his own words. There came thither to that end the Lord of Salisbury, the Lord of Suffolk, the Lord Northampton and others. How Father Garnett had been used in the meantime for his preparation to this business we cannot learn, but we have cause to think it was not so well at this time especially, as he out of his modesty was content to affirm of his usage in general, being asked the question at his arraignment. For when he was brought before the Lords, he was in a very strange plight, so thirsty as not able to spit or speak; beer was called for, and he drank two glasses before them; withal he was so drowsy, as not able to hold up his head; he complaining that he had not slept in five nights before. It was reported by divers of good intelligence in London, that he was watched of purpose and kept from sleep to make his head light, and himself less able to bear that which should be imposed upon him; also that he had some [pg 174] mixtures of intoxicating drink given him which should obscure his understanding and distemper his body. But in respect that Father Garnett being asked the question in public, did not take knowledge of any extraordinary hard usage in those kinds, I for my part do rather think it was done, but in such manner as himself could not perceive, by mixing his drink or meat with such confections as might work both those effects to distemper his body and hinder his sleep, and yet the Father not know when or how it was procured.
At this time he was so heavy in his head, that being not fit to be examined, the Lords permitted him to go sleep an hour, and then being awaked, he was brought unto them again, but was little better. Then they did examine him of many things concerning the Powder Treason, and particularly seemed to take knowledge that one had confessed something of him in that kind, and asked seriously whether there were not some one that could accuse him therein: which he confidently denied as thinking himself as secure from being accused in the knowledge of the matter as he was in conscience clear from all consent or approbation of the thing itself. When they saw him so absolute in denying this point, they carried him to the house of torture and there did torture him for some time; it is thought not very long.[375] For then they opened the whole secret, how he had been overheard speak at the hole in the wall with Father Ouldcorne, and that he said, there was one man that could accuse him, of which words they produced two witnesses that said they heard him speak them; and how many more were brought in we know not. But Father Garnett then seeing his trust deceived and the matter discovered, thought it best for divers reasons not to stand in it any longer; but said that “in tantâ nube testium,”[376] he would utter the matter justly as [pg 175] it was, that being the time wherein he might lawfully do it, and before he could not: the knowledge that he had being a secret committed to him in confession, which the penitent did only license him to utter, to save himself from torture, but not in any other case.
Then being taken down from the torture, he was demanded, how far he was of counsel or a furtherer of the Plot of Powder. He answered he was never any furtherer of it, but did ever both mislike it in his heart, and in what he could did hinder it. And being asked how it was, or by whom he might then be accused; he answered that he could not be otherwise accused of it, but that he had only a simple knowledge of it, and that also in so secret a manner as that it was never lawful for him to utter it, being in confession. They asked him how it came to be more lawful now to utter it than before. He said, in respect that now he had leave granted by the penitent, who had licensed him to utter it, rather than endure torture for keeping his confession secret. And being urged by some of the Lords, why it might be lawful to utter the secret of confession to save himself from torture, and not lawful to utter it for the saving of so many great persons from death, &c, he answered it was lawful in neither case, but by the license of the penitent, who only could “dilatare” or “restringere sigillum secreti,”[377] which appertained to himself. Being then required to tell who that party was; he answered, they should see, he would deal plainly with them in all things, it being now lawful to utter his knowledge therein; and said, “the man was Father Oswald Tesimond.”
This acknowledgment of Father Garnett's was after censured by many; and even by some of his friends and well-wishers esteemed a weakness in him. But if the causes that moved him thereunto be well weighed (as they were no doubt very well considered by him) the matter will not be found to deserve any imputation of fear or imprudence in [pg 176] Father Garnett. For after it was once bolted out at the hole in the wall that he was to be accused of it (which thing indeed made the overture to all) if he had then insisted upon denial, that would neither have saved his life, nor his estimation touching that matter; yea rather, it would have left him suspected of further practice as a principal plotter of the matter, and withal would have made all the rest of his true assertions the more distrusted. Whereas by telling the plain truth, that he only heard it in confession, he did both show himself and the party from whom he heard it to be free from being either principals or parties in the action, especially declaring unto them as he did how the matter passed, to wit, that Father Tesimond came unto him much troubled about the matter, desiring for the ease of his conscience to go to confession, and therein declared, that such an intention and practice was opened unto him; wherein he might have some doubt whether he had done his duty. For though (as I have heard it affirmed by some of credit, that since have spoken with Father Tesimond) he did utterly mislike the practice, and refuse to assist them any way, either by counsel or otherwise, yet doubts or scruples fit for confession might arise in his mind two divers ways. First, on the one side he might be doubtful whether he had sufficiently dissuaded them from it, and used the best and most effectual reasons to withdraw them from proceeding therein, both in respect of the matter itself and of the charge he had from his Superiors not to meddle with any matter of State, much less of that quality that concerned the life of any, or attempts against the Prince. So on the other side, he might have some motions to doubt whether in that case[378] God did not intend by them to punish heresy and revenge the cause and quarrel of his servants with a temporal [pg 177] affliction to some of their chiefest afflictors, which he knew well would be much more severely punished in the next world if it be not repented in this. Therefore being uncertain of the secret judgments of God, and seeing them so resolute in it, and to protest they did it only for the redeeming of the Church from persecution in England and like danger in other places, if the root of heresy should continue; but especially that they did it to save so many souls as daily were cast away, whilst heresy was in that strength and power, against which also, they said, no other means was left in human likelihood by which they could hope redress of so many evils, much greater without comparison than the loss of such as were to perish in the action. Remembering therefore the reasons they alleged, though he was sure he might not himself be an actor or furtherer thereof in any kind, yet perhaps he might doubt how far he was bound to hinder it in others. And so the matter on both sides might breed some doubts, and whether he feared he had done too much, or too little, in the cause, yet his fear on either side might be cause sufficient of confession;[379] and his confession a sign that he rather disliked than approved the Plot in any sort. For either he must confess that he had hindered it or not. If that he had hindered it, then he was no furtherer of it; if that he had not hindered it sufficiently, then it was apparent he misliked the Plot, and meant to hinder it. But the truth indeed was (as I have heard it) that he had sought to hinder it by persuasion; but was doubtful whether in so earnest and effectual manner as might be likely to prevail with so absolute resolutions.
Father Garnett, therefore, opening the plain truth of the matter according to the leave he had of the penitent in that case, did not any way prejudice, but rather relieve, [pg 178] both his own and his penitent's case as things then stood. But some will say, what needed Father Garnett have opened the name of the party, and not rather indefinitely have affirmed that some one in confession did open it unto him. But this (if it be well considered) would not have served. For, first, if he had named no person, he could never have taken away the fear and jealousy of the King and State, knowing assuredly that one man yet lived that was privy to the matter, and for ought they knew might be still in the same mind, and live in place, or be of power, to effect some mischief. Besides, by such concealment, he might fear great troubles would follow to many Catholics, especially that all the friends of the Society would have been troubled with continual examinations, searches, and vexations; and that his particular acquaintance should assuredly have been suspected, imprisoned, and convented before the Council as traitors under this pretence; and so to save one man from trouble he should have been the cause of trouble to many, besides his own extremity of torture, which would have been with all force and fury laid upon him until he had told the truth. And to name any other person living, it was not lawful, because not true; and to name one of the gentlemen that were slain would not have been sufficient, he having said that one man living might accuse him. And to name in particular Father Tesimond did not seem to give any just cause of increase to the hard opinion they had of him before, knowing by Mr. Winter of his going into Spain with him (though they mistook the cause) and by Bates[380] of his going unto the gentlemen in Warwickshire after they were up in arms, though there also they misinterpret his intention. But this supposed, and he thereby as much laid for and as likely to suffer (if he were taken) by their former conceits, as by this one particular, this circumstance of his uttering it in confession might rather extenuate than [pg 179] aggravate his peril in just reason and the opinion conceived of him. For as I showed before, it proved a dislike of the action, or an endeavour against it, or both, and this before his confession. Then Father Garnett adding thereunto his further charge, that he should do his uttermost to dissuade and divert them from their purpose, and he promising to do his best, all these points do prove sufficiently that he was neither contriver nor counsellor, nor yet consenter to the Plot, of all which he stood then accused in the proclamation, so that the knowledge of the truth might seem to help and not to hinder him in anything.
All others of the Society apparently cleared from any knowledge of the Plot.
These and many more effectual reasons no doubt were considered by Father Garnett, which moved him not to conceal the whole truth of his knowledge, and the means how it came unto him; which cannot therefore be justly imputed to any frailty or imprudence in him, but rather esteemed as an argument of his care to take away jealousies from the King, who could not fear any further power or practice in Father Tesimond; to prevent troubles from Catholics; to free himself and the other also from opinion of any consent unto the Plot; but especially to clear all the rest of the Society from so much as the least knowledge that any such thing was intended. Which truth may evidently be proved out of Father Garnett's words, “That one only could accuse him of his knowledge thereof;” for if any more of the Society had known thereof, it is certain they would and must have confessed the same to him, if they took it for a fault; if otherwise, at least have sought his advice out of confession. So that no more imparting the matter to him, it was apparent no more did know of it; and therefore very likely to be God's especial providence that Father Garnett should be overheard to speak these words unto his confident friend in private (whereby it was most apparent he meant not to be heard by others), that thereby all others might be cleared; though [pg 180] for the time it occasioned his further trouble, which God doth often permit to His elected servants, for their further increase of glory in another world.
This, therefore, Father Garnett acknowledged then in his examination before the Council, that they might see, as he told them, he dealt truly and plainly with them in all things. And they asking him why he did not before acknowledge so much, but did protest against it, he answered it was not before lawful for him to do it, because he had no leave but in that case; and that it was a thing both lawful in all laws, divine and human, and ordinary also in their own practice, for men to plead not guilty, until they be convicted by witness, which he especially might do in this case, this being no sin or crime in him, and was bound to do until this time, it being before “sigillum secreti confessionis,”[381] which now was released by the penitent's leave.