Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/445

 GARNET

387

GARNET

carried out with Father Ciarnet's approval in Feb- ruary, 1595. An earnest attempt to settle the differ- ences that ensued was made in October, anil, though it was not immediately successful, the division was given up in November, and a reconciliation elTected so warm and so hearty that, had it not been for a sub- sequent quarrel on a different matter, the " Wisbech Stirs" might have been chiefly remembered as a jelii culpa. The letters to and from Garnet over the happy settlement do him the greatest credit (Dotitl-Tierney, Church History of England, III, App. pp. civ-cxvii).

The subsequent trouble, with which Garnet was also concerned, was that of the "Appellant Priests" of 1598-1602. To understand it one must remember that Elizabeth's government had rendered the pres- ence of a bishop in England impossible. Cardinal Allen (see Allen, William, Cardinal) had governed the missionary priests first from Douai, then from Rome, but after his death in 1594. a new form of government had to be essayed. As usual in mission- ary countries the first beginning was made with a sacerdotal hierarchy. Prefects of the Mission were appointed for the clergy in Belgium, in Spain, and in Rome, while those in England were put under an archpriest, and this arrangement lasted till the pres- ence of a Catholic Queen, Henrietta Maria, allowed of a bishop being sent to England without seriously endangering the flock (see Bishop, William). But George Blackwell, the man selected for the post of archpriest, proved a failure, and had eventually to be deposed. On paper his qualifications seemed excel- lent; in practice his successes were few, his mistakes many. Difficulties arose with his clergy, over whose missionary faculties he exercised a somewhat brusque control. Hence anger, sharp letters on both sides, and two appeals to Rome. In the end his authority was maintained and even strengthened, but his man- ner of government was reprehended. Part of the censure for this shoukl perhaps fall on Garnet, with whom Blackwell sometimes took counsel. As to this a serious misunderstanding needs correction. It has been alleged that the archpriest received " secret orders to follow the advice of the Superior of the Jesuits in the affairs of the clcrgij on all points of special import- ance" [The italicized words, which are erroneous or misleading, will be found in Dodd-Tierney, III, 51 ; Lin- gard (188.3), VI, 640; or Taunton, "Black Monks", (London, 1901), I, 250]. One of the appellant clergy wrote in still stronger terms, which merit quotation as an example of the extremes to which controversy was sometimes carried: " All Catholics must hereafter de- pend upon Blackwell, and he upon Garnet, and Garnet upon Persons, and Persons on the Devil, who is the author of all rebellions, treasons, murders, disobedience and all such designments as this wicked Jesuit hath hitherto contrived" ("Sparing Discoverie" 70; Wat- son in Law's "Jesuits and Seculars", London, 1889, p. Ixv). All that Cardinal Cajetan's" Instruction" really said was, " The archpriest will take care to learn the opinion and advice of the Jesuit superiors in matters of greater importance."

Considering the difficulty of finding advisers of any sort in that time of paralysing persecution, the ol> vious meaning of the words is surely perfectly honour- able, and becoming both to the cardinal and to the archpriest. After they had been objected to, how- ever, they were withdrawn by a papal brief, which added that " the Jesuits themselves thought this was necessary" under the changed circumstances.

The conclusion of Garnet's life is closely connected with the Gunpowder Plot, under which heading will lie found an accoimt of his having heard from Catesby in general terms that troulile was intended, and from Father Greenway, with Catesby's consent, the full de- tails of the plot on the distinct understamling that, if the plot were otherwise discovered, he was to be at liberty to disclose the whole truth. After the plot had

been discovered, and Garnet had been arrested, he thought it best in his peculiar circumstances to con- fess the whole truth about his knowledge, and for this he was tried and executed at the west end of old St. Paul's, 3 May, 1606.

Garnet is thus described in the proclamation issued for his arrest — "Henry Garnet, alias Walley, alias Darcy, alias Farmer, of a middling stature, full faced, fat of body, of complexion fair, iiis foreliead higli on each side, with a little thin hair coming down upon the niiddest of the fore part of his head: the hair of his head and beard griseled. Of age betweene fifty and three .score. His beard on his cheeks cut close, and his chin very thinne and somewhat short. His gait upright, and comely for a feeble man."

The execution was watched so closely that very few relics of the martyrdom were secured by Catholics, but a head of straw stained with his blood fell into the hands of a young Catholic, John Wilkinson. Some months later he showed it to a Catholic gentleman, who noticeil that the blood had congealed upon one of the husks in the form of a minute face, resembling, as they thought, Garnet's own por- trait. The mat- ter was m u c h talked of, and the Protestant .\rcli- bishop of Canter- bury personally conducted an ex- amination of sev- eral witnesses, who had seen the strange phenome- non. 'Their evi- dence abundantly proves the reality of the lineaments which might be discerned in the _. husk But to Pri"* by Wierix, Stonyhurst College

what extent the imaginations of the onlookers (which were undoubtedly excited) contributed to the recog- nition of Garnet's features in particular, can hardly be decided now, for the straw, though carefully preserved by the English Jesuits at Liege, was lost during the troubles of the French Revolution (J. Morris, "Life of Father John Gerard", London, ISSl, 393-407).

As the Gunpowder Plot marked a new era of cruelty in the Protestant persecution of Catholics, so Protestant efforts to e.xcuse their fault by blaming Garnet were at one time untiring, and even to the present day his case is discussed in an unfriendly spirit by non-Catholic writers (e. g. Jardine and Gardiner). On the other hand, the great Catholic theologians, who opposed King James in the matter of the Oath of Allegiance have spoken in Garnet's rlefence (especially Bellarmine "Apologia" XIII, xiii, 186, and Suarez "Defensio Fidei Catholicse", VI, xi, §6) — a matter of good omen, considering the theological intricacies that beset his case. It is a matter of regret that we have as yet nothing like an authoritative pronouncement from Rome on the subject of Garnet's martyrdom. His name was indeed proposed with that of the other English Martyrs and Confessors in 1874, and his cause was then based upon the testimonies of Bellarmine and the older Catholic writers, which was the correct plea for the proof of Fama Martyrii, then to be de- monstrated (see Beatification and Canonization). But the.se ancient authors were not aeciuainted with Garnet's actual confessions, which were not known or published in their time. The consequence was that, as the discussion proceeded, their evidence was found to be inconclusive, and an open verdict was returned;