him
of a thorough participation in their guilt."--_Const. Hist._ i.
554-5.]

With respect to Garnet's knowledge of the conspiracy, it is perfectly
clear that the matter was not merely revealed in confession, but that he
was one of the actors therein. Nor was the plea of confession consistent
with some of his own declarations during his examinations. He admitted,
that the treason was mentioned to him in the way of consultation, as a
thing not yet executed; and moreover Greenwell did not implicate
himself; he merely told of others, and consequently the seal of
confession would not have been broken, even if Garnet had revealed the
whole to the government. He chose, however, on his trial, to adopt this
line of defence, namely, that he was not at liberty to disclose anything
which was revealed to him in sacramental confession. One of the lords
asked him if a man should confess to-day, that he intended to kill the
king to-morrow with a dagger, whether he must conceal the matter? Garnet
replied that he must conceal it. Parsons, the jesuit, maintains the same
opinion. Speaking of Garnet, he remarks, that nothing was proved, "but
that the prisoner had received only a simple notice of that treason, by
such a means as he could not utter and reveal again by the laws of
Catholic doctrine, that is to say, in _confession_, and this but a very
few days before the discovery, but yet never gave any consent, help,
hearkening, approbation, or co-operation to the same; but contrariwise
sought to dissuade, dehort, and hinder the designment by all the means
he could. He, dying for the bare concealing of that, which, by God's,
and the church's ecclesiastical laws, he could not disclose, and giving
no consent or co-operation to the treason itself, should have been
accounted rather a _martyr_ than a _traitor_."--See an answer to Sir
EDWARD COKE'S _Reports_, 4to. 1606.

It is remarkable that in a treatise published A.D. 1600, on auricular
confession, a case is put to this effect; namely, whether if a
confederate discover, in confession, that he or his companions have
secretly deposited gunpowder under a particular house, and that the
_prince_ will be destroyed unless it is removed, the priest ought to
reveal it. The writer replies in the negative, and fortifies his opinion
by the authority of a bull of Clement VIII., against violating the seal
of confession. This treatise was published at _Louvain_. Bishop Kennet
remarks on this treatis