Now for the subsequent circumstances Mr. Attorney produced, an interlocution between Father Garnett and Father Ouldcorne in the Tower; which thing is before declared at large and therefore needs not here be set down, the chapter growing too long by other points not before so much declared. Only this here is to be noted, that Mr. Attorney reported the matter otherwise than it was; for he said, that by reason the Tower was full of prisoners, the Lieutenant was constrained for want of room to lodge them in two chambers joining one upon another, which they perceiving did often discourse together, and being overheard by the Lieutenant's men passing to other prisoners, some of them were placed near adjoining to overhear them.[431] And so out of that interlocution, and Father Garnett his confession taken by the Lords after the same, he proved that Father Garnett was told in confession of the Powder Treason; which point alone he was able to prove against Father Garnett, and the which Father Garnett acknowledged, but proved it to be both lawful and necessary for him to proceed as he did therein. Then Mr. Attorney began to exaggerate the greatness of the treason, because it was intended against so worthy a Prince, and so noble a progeny, in whose praises he spent a long time; but not needful to be set down in this place. Then he praised and sought to please the City of London, affirming that the King, in desire to give contentment unto the city, had caused that solemn trial to be made in that place, which belonged to the public justice of the city.
Then he returned to Father Garnett, and said that he and the Jesuits had plotted these foresaid treasons against all these so worthy persons; and that the Jesuits were Doctors of four D's; first of Dissimulation, wherein he made an invective against the doctrine of equivocation, showing a [pg 242] written book of that matter which had been taken in some search, the title whereof was written with Father Garnett his own hand, “Against lying and untruths;” and, said Mr. Attorney,[432] “If this doctrine might be admitted, that men may swear and forswear what they list, there would be no martyrs: the holy Ridley, Cranmer, and Latimer would not have been martyred.” (These were three notorious heretics burnt in Queen Mary's time.) “The thirty-two Popes, that were virginal martyrs, would not have suffered on a row. This doctrine was begun by Arius, who having a schedule of the Catholic doctrine in his left hand, and another of his own opinion in his bosom, laid his right hand upon his breast and sware he believed and would maintain that doctrine he had in his hand during his life.” (Many such things he said against “equivocatio,” either mistaking or misreporting wholly the state of the question.) The second D, he said, was Deposing of Princes, for which he produced a place out of Philopater, affirming that heretics cannot bear rule over Catholics; and another out of Dolman's book of titles to the like effect, also two places of Simanha, whom he termed the Spanish Jesuit. The first, that all heretics were excommunicate de jure at Easter, and were excommunicate de facto. The second was that a Prince once excommunicate “amittit jus regnandi;”[433] and not only for himself, but for his heirs. The third D, is the Disposing of kingdoms, for proof whereof, he alleged that they would have disposed of the kingdom of England to the Infanta of Spain, without any memory of King James. The fourth and last D, was the Deterring of Princes with fear of their excommunications, and I know not what. And then, with some invectives against Jesuits, he dehorted all men from conversing with them, with this saying, “Qui cum Jesu itis, non itis cum Jesuitis.” “Neither,” said he, “are [pg 243] their Priests less perilous than they of whom I hope I may presage the destruction near at hand; for seeing I am informed they are in number about four hundred, they may fitly be resembled to the four hundred false prophets that Micheas had in his company;[434] for as they were possessed of lying spirits and then perishing, so may we hope that these Priests and Jesuits publicly teaching this doctrine of lying and equivocating are near their downfall.” And then making a low reverence he concluded his speech.
Father Garnett his speech.
Mr. Attorney having ended,[435] Father Garnett, having first made his reverence with a very modest countenance began his speech, first craving pardon for the weakness of his memory, if he should fail to give them satisfaction in any particular that had been objected against him. “But I trust,” said he, “with the help of Mr. Attorney, I shall fail in nothing of consequence. And considering the whole discourse of Mr. Attorney, I find the things by him treated of, may be reduced to four principal heads: the first, concerning our doctrine in general; the second, concerning recusants in general; third, concerning Jesuits in general; the last, concerning myself in particular.
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.’[436] But 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.’[437] And 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,’[438] which 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 service[439] with 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 refused in divinis to 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: