But as Garnet’s moral character was almost certainly good on the whole, the conclusion that Justice suggests in reference to this letter of the 28th August especially is that, through intense grief and anguish of mind, Garnet had lost his head, and was not wholly responsible for either his words or actions.[B] [Footnote B: After Father Tesimond had told Garnet (with Catesby’s leave) of the Plot, thereby bringing the matter as a natural secret indirectly under the seal of the Confessional, Garnet could not sleep at nights. Now, sleeplessness, combined with carking care and keen distress of heart, would inevitably tend to unbalance even the very strongest of human minds, at least, temporarily. Tesimond told Garnet _generally_ of Catesby’s diabolical plan “a little before” St. James’-tide (_i.e._, the 25th of July, 1605), at Fremland, in Essex, but by way of confession. The Government, however, it seems to me, from the report of the trial in Jardine’s “_Criminal Trials_” and from Lingard, condemned Garnet _not_ because he did not reveal particular _knowledge_ he had received _in the Confessional from Tesimond_, but because he did not reveal _general knowledge_ he had _from Catesby outside the Confessional_. This, in fairness to James I., Salisbury, and the King’s Council, should be faithfully borne in mind. Moreover, according to one school of Catholic moralists, in _either case_ the Government ought to have been communicated with _if_ Garnet could have done so without risk of divulging Tesimond’s name. Indeed, Garnet himself took this view——the view which most princes and statesmen will prefer, I should fancy. Garnet, however, had not the machinery ready to his hand to carry _both views_ into practical effect. _Therefore Garnet, to my mind, was eminently justified in not divulging the particular knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession. For according to the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Aristotle, a natural secret may be indirectly_ protected by the seal of the Confessional if the priest _promises_ so to protect it. I conclude, however, that (1) according to the dictates of right reason the promise may be _either implied or expressed_, and (2) that in the case of overwhelming necessity the promise may be broken, as in the case of High Treason, _if the priest_ can avoid, _with absolute certitude_, exposing the name of the depositor of the wicked secret. It was because Garnet could not avoid exposing Tesimond’s name _practically_ that he was justified in not acting upon his own _abstract_ principles in relation to the knowledge he had from Tesimond by way of confession.] CHAPTER XLIX.