stant patience whereby they go through so great and hard matters, and bear so many and so heavy crosses.

15. Neither do I esteem them the worse, for that they be so observant of their rules and constitutions. This is that whereby the society doth increase, flourish and better itself every day more and more. For this reason I thought not good to change any of their constitutions or rules, though I have made some change in others, which was not approved of all. But that is no matter.

16. The Fathers of the society hath many back friends, among some that seem holy and religious persons, who speak ill of them. This no wise man will wonder at. Our age is not come to that sanctity, that ignorance should cease to hate learning, or corruption of manners leave to envy integrity of life. It was so in times past, and so it is still. These moths always gnawing on learned works. No prosperity so circumspect, that can escape the tooth of malice, hatred and envy, always attended the highest things. I observed, when it was consulted about the recalling of the Jesuits into France, that two sorts of men did specially oppose themselves, heretics, and loose living church-men: the one was moved thereunto by their bad faith, the other by their bad life. But I am so far from being hereby moved to alter my intended purpose, that I am more confirmed in my resolution.

17. The Fathers of the society speak and think honourable of the pope, so they should, and so do I; I join with them, since I am certain that in averring and defending the pope's authority, they differ not from other Catholic divines.

18. Neither did their doctrine ever give occasion to clergymen to deny me tribute. Now is there any to be found whom these Fathers words or books animated to killing of kings. Whatsoever some have patched together to bring them to discredit, is all a fiction and mere fable. Thirty years and more are passed since the Fathers began to instruct the youth of France both in virtue and learning. Of these some have gone through with all their studies in their schools. Others have broke off, and applied themselves to physic or law. Tell me whether any of these ever learnt of their masters to lay hands upon kings, and to kill them? I tell you the Fathers are so clear, that they are content to appeal even to their enemies judgment, There are some pulpit-men, among the heretics, who were trained up in the Fathers schools: ask these men their judgment concerning the Jesuits lives and doctrine: but whose cause is so good as to desire to be tried by enemies? Yet I am sure in their case this has been done, the ministers have been asked their judgments of the Jesuits and they have given no other answer, but, that the Jesuits lives cannot be reprehended, and for their doctrine, that it is in too clear a sun for to be questioned. Surely few can be found that will dare to stand to their enemies judgment, their security of conscience must needs be great, that fears not any adversaries verdict.

19. The confession of Barriere, who attempted against my person, doth not infringe that which I bave said. For so far was any Jesuit from that fact (which you nevertheless affirm) that one of these Fathers of good credit advised me of it in time, and another of them dehorted and deterred Barriere from his attempt, proposing to him God's heavy judgments due to such malefactors.

20. As for Catel, all imaginable torments were not able to wrest the least word against Varadius or any one Father of the society. If this be not so, why spared you the guilty? Why let you them go when you had them fast? Why punished you them not according to your laws and court?

21. But to grant you that that never was; suppose some one of the society had attempted against my person. Will you condemn all the apostles for one Judas? shall the punishment light on my head, for whatsoever any of the soldiers shall trespass in military license? I acknowledge the hand of God, whose will it was to have me pressed and humbled at that time; the same hand raised me, and set me safe again. God's goodness and providence be thanked. I have learnt to forget and forgive injuries for God's sake, as I willingly do for that king who is greater than myself. And now I will be so far from remembering injuries done unto me, or revenging the same, that I will daily offer up prayers for my enemies. All of us have need of God's mercy, which is no ways better to be obtained, then by promptly and readily pardoning those who have offended us."

Now it is plain by this discourse, that this great and wise prince had well considered what he spoke of; and had he found their doctrine to be such as is pretended, he would have been too nearly concerned to have become their advocate and protector.

As for the pretended horrid ceremony for consecrating a person and dagger, designed for a royal massacre. I will only speak of it in the author's own words; that it is an invention of men worse than devils, a lie indeed of so impudent a nature, that it is enough to amaze heaven itself, to see how devils incarnate can out-do in malice the spirits of everlasting darkness.

Let any impartial eye observe the countries our author sums up to banish the Jesuits; and besides that, he will find false causes assignedin most, if not all the examples; he does in his last overthrow all that he has said, for if Ferdinando king of Sweden was expelled his kingdom for endeavouring the re-admission of the Jesuits, then it is as plain that he did not believe they held tenets destructive to kings, as it is that these did who destroyed him, as much as in them lay by expelling him his kingdom for defending the Jesuits. Thus malice makes men blind: but above all, who can believe him, when he says Father Harcourt's letter about sir Edmondbury Godfrey's murder written three hours after it was done is so publicly

to be seen, when any man that reads the trial may perceive it could not be produced; and if it were found since, and so public as he pretends, no doubt our author would have as well recited, as referred to it, for doing so would have been worth all he hath said.

As to their prayers for the judges and accusers, in my judgment they were more likely to proceed from charity than malice, let our good natured author be of another opinion if he pleases, but his reason for the contrary is none; for it is well known St. Stephen at his stoning did the same, and yet desired neither prayers nor tears of those that were not of his own profession; but it is true those prayers may become curses to the witnesses, if the deposition against them be as false, as it is evident some of what they have deposed to king and council hath been, as I could instance in the case of Don John, and divers other matters, if I were minded to disparage the king's witnesses, as they call them but this I cannot forbear observing, that it may be justly said of some of them, as doctor Dun says of witches, that they confess things impossible. But leaving them to the great Judge of all things, I will only remind them of this truth, that if they betray innocent blood for gain, and make God's name contemptible, by invoking it to a falsehood; no equivocation, nor mental reservation, will shelter them from his dreadful vengeance which he in his due time will visit them with: and it is a thousand to one he will for terror to others and despair to themselves, make them the most miserable and contemptible wretches breathing in this world; but if they have sworn truth, let them give a lustre to it by amending their lives, that they and the nation they have saved by their discoveries may glory in one another, to the confusion and destruction not only of these, but all other its enemies.

But to conclude, I will desire but any reasouable man to consider the absurdity of their arguing, who pretend that not only these last five, but the eight others condemned by the same evidence, had dispensations to die with lies in their mouths: and that by the doctrine of equivocation and mental reservation, they and all other papists can say and swear any thing, when it is plain to all the world, that nothing but their fearing to swear falsely lays them liable to the laws against popery; can it he believed that men who forfeit peerage, offices of honour, trust, power and profit, lose two thirds of their estates, and make themselves more obnoxious to more severe laws than ever was in force against Christianity during the first ten persecutions, and all this because they will not swear against conscience, can have dispensations so convenient to their earthly well being, and make no use of them; nothing can be more contradictory to human reason than these calumnies, nor can any indifferent person chuse but see through such absurd contradictions. In ine there has thirteen men, of which one a Protestant, have died already by the accusa tion of these four witnesses, all have gone out

of the world absolutely denying the matters they were accused of, any one of them might have secured a pardon by confessing his charge; they have been all of them of approved honest conversation in their several callings during the rest of their lives, and yet we must not believe one tittle of their last words spoke so plainly, (if false) to their destruction both here and hereafter; to their destruction, and not the least to their interest: yet on the contrary we are not so much as allowed to doubt the fidelity of their accusers, though men notorious for scandalous and wicked lives; men who from abject qualities assume to themselves by this means dignities, and pretend to honours and titles; and who from the extremest poverty and necessity are advanced to opulency and plenty for accusing persons of consulting with them about affairs of so high a nature as the alteration of kingdoms, and murdering the best of monarchs. Persons of such qualities and fortunes, as would with Job have disdained to set them with the dogs of their flock, who if they would have made use of such pitiful instruments, would certainly have taken care for their support, and not have seconded their imprudent election of such counsellors in matter of so great trast, with a second error of suffering them to want when they had trusted them, but would have provided for them as those we see do sufficiently, who now make use of their service; but though we may not call them perjured persons until convicted, which their protectors will easily prevent, by not per mitting them to be indicted, yet none can deny us the liberty of thinking that men will easily discern the difference between the dying and the living testimonies, let their pretences and lies be never so many; but to the God of truth we refer both causes, not doubting but in his good time all these secrets will be brought to light to his everlasting glory.

P. S. Since the former, there is come forth another paper, called An Answer to the Jesuits Speeches, by Esrael Tongue, D. D.' full fraught with labour and studied falsehoods, but so plainly malicious, that nobody who had not been a witness of the success of their ill spun improbable stories in their first pretended discoveries, could have had the least hope, these should have prevailed with one man, so contrary to the sentiments of human nature. No, we all too well know sophistry vanishes at the approach of infallible death, and that Dr. Tongue, and the more hardened impostor his companion in title and design, will find at the approach of that grim usher to their eternal abodes, no resolution but a good conscience can make them follow him smiling, this truth writ with an indelible character in every breast will save us a labour to answer his frivolous anatomizing those mens last words, delivered so cheerfully and heartily at their execution; only we may safely make reflection on the last paragraph of his impious and uncharitable paper, where he says, It is no more than they

|

PROTESTANTS, who make conscience of their words, and count it a horrid crime to speak otherwise than they think when they are dying, may be ready to take the measures of others by themselves, and to judge those guiltless, who, when they are dying, assert their innocency with the highest asseverations. But they will see reason to judge otherwise, if they take notice how full and clear the evidence is by which these Jesuits were cast, and withal understand the principles of the persons executed, and their associates, which they were greatly concerned to put in practice, are such as destroy all confidence in their words living and dying. For by the common doctrine taught and received amongst them, they are furnished with expedients whereby they may deny what is most true, and affirm what is most false; and that with most solemn oaths or dreadful imprecations, and yet neither lie, nor be forsworn, nor any way sin in the least degree; and so may without any scruple endeavour to deceive others by the use of such falseness, as at other times, so even when they are dying. Their principal artifice, to wave others, is that which they call mental equivocation, not on account of the ambiguousness in the words, though they may make their advantage of this also; but because of a double sense in some proportion, partly expressed, and partly reserved in their minds; so that it is true in their own sense, but false in the sense of all that hear it. The use of it is allowed by all sorts of Papists, and particularly the Jesuits; it is much endeared to them, and more familiarly used by them than any other fraudulent arts, because the fraud herein is both more easy, and undiscernable, and innocent in their account, and the advantage of it admirable; there being nothing so false but it may be made true, nothing so true but it may be made false

by this art. And therefore it is no wonder if they decline it not at trials in courts of judicature, no nor when they are dying and approaching the dreadful tribunal of the Judge of Heaven and Earth, though truth and sincerity be then, if ever, necessary. They have the confidence to plead the examples of God, of Christ, of the ancient saints recorded in scripture, in justification of it. But our Jesuits have more pertinent instances, those of the same principles, and in the like circumstances, to encourage them with oaths and asseverations to assert what could not be true, or deny what is not false, but by this device.

F. Garnet, predecessor of F. Whitebread both in his office and practices, being principal of the Jesuits, and chief promoter of the Powder plot,(a) when after secret conference between him and Hall, another Jesuit in the Tower, he was asked before the Lords Commissioners, whether Hall and he had any conference together, and was desired not to equivocate; he swearing upon his salvation, reiterating it with so many horrid imprecations as wounded their hearts to hear, he denied again and again that he had any discourse; yet afterwards when he knew that the thing was known, and that Hall had confessed it, he cried the Lords' mercy, and said he had offended if equivocation did not help him.(b) Another time being asked whether he did not swear upon the holy evangelists, that he had neither writ nor sent to the Jesuit Tesmond, which he knew to be false? He answered, That he swore so lawfully enough, not knowing then that his letters were intercepted, and thinking they could not have disproved him.

(a) Gunpowder-Treason, p. 176. a Casaub. Ep. ad Front. Duc.

(b) Ibid. p. 200. Gunpowder-Treason, p. 194.

Tresham, (c) one of the chief undertakers in the Powder Plot, upon the examination did confess that F. Garnet was privy to the treason; but afterwards by the importunities of his wife, three or four hours before his death, he protested and took it upon his salvation, setting it down under his hand, That his former confession was false, and that he had not seen Garnet in sixteen years before, at the least; and so he died. His protestation and oath were not long after proved to be untrue; yea, and Garnet himself confessed that within that space he had seen him many times. Whereupon being demanded what he thought of Tresham's dying oath and protestation? He answered, It might be he meant to equivocate.

Hereupon Garnet thus resolves the case about the lawfulness of equivocating at point of death, as it was found in his papers communicated to Casaubon by king James: "If any one," says he, "shall enquire whether it be lawful to imitate Tresham's equivocating in the very article of death, upon some necessity, as to free a friend from danger? It is truly lawful," says he, " and we may prove it by an argument drawn from confessions; and since it is lawful for any one to use this in the course of his life, why may it not be used also by a dying man?" Časaubon, ibid. p. 202.

Hereby we see that these were their prac tices of old, and justified by their teachers as lawful even at the hour of death; therefore we should not be surprised, if we find our Jesuits use these arts in their last speeches; this is not new to them, nor unwarrantable either at public trials or executions.

But their principles are further considerable, of which take an account in some severals.

First, by their doctrine they may lawfully say what is false, making use of a inental reservation, by virtue of which that which is false in itself, will be true in their reserved sense; and therefore though it be gross untruth, as expressed, and they know it to be so, and use it with an intent to deceive others, yet they count it no lie, and therefore no sin, and so they need not fear to use it when they are passing out of the world. That it is no lie, they generally maintain. "If a man," saith P rsons, ❝use mental reservation, he doth not offend against the negative precept which forbiddeth to lie. It is freed from the nature of a lie, by the due and just reservation in the speaker's mind (d)," says he. "By understanding something in our minds," saith Navarr, we may make that true which we affirm, though it be false; and that false which we deny, though it be true (e)." And Sanchez the Jesuit more fully: "If a man do swear that he did

66

not do something which indeed he did do, understanding within himself some other thing else which he did not do, some other days than that wherein he did it, or any other addition that is true, this man does not indeed either lie or forswear (f);" producing many authors for it, and referring to divers others (g).

It seems mysterious, that the same thing should be both true and false; that he should speak what is false in itself, and in his own judgment, and that which tends to deceive others, and yet not lie. But they would clear it thus; A proposition formed in this case has two parts, one expressed and the other concealed; that which is expressed is false, but the part concealed being added to it, the entire proposition is true, e. g. F. W. did not design to kill the king, this is false; but adding some secret reserve, viz. king Harry, or king Charles before he was born, or in Scotland, and the whole is true. And by this device our Jesuits, though they as fully designed to kill Charles the 2nd, as ever Ravillac did Harry the 4th; yet they may deny it with all asseverations, and yet not lie at all (as they believe by virtue of this device): they may assert their innocency in terms which are false in the sense of all the world, yet by such a reserve all will be true in their own sense; and so in averring that which is most false, they persuade themselves they do no more lie, they do no more sin, than the child unborn.

And here let the world judge what regard is due to the words of those, though they be the words of dying men, whose doctrine assures the most guilty persons in the world, that if they persist in a false defence of their inaocency, even unto death, yet by this method they teach them, it will be no lie, it will be no sin at

all.

This may be enough to satisfy us concerning the common expressions wherein they all agree to disclaim all guilt. But there is something singular in F. Gavan's speech, which requires a particular consideration, and yet it may be grounded on the common principle. I cannot imagine how that which he protests with the last words of a dying man to vindicate his Society (for which I wish he were not more solicitous than for his soul) can be true without some fraudulent reserve, since it is very false in itself, that the Jesuits allow not the doctrine of king-killing, but detest and abhor it, or that none of them hold it lawful for a private person to kill a king, but only Mariana. I suppose the principles of the Jesuit Sanctarellus are little more favourable to kings than those

(f) Si quis juret se non fecisse aliquid quod ' revera fecit, intelligendo intra se aliquid aliud, quod non fecit, vel aliam diem ab ex, in qua 'fecit, vel quodvis aliud additum verum, revera non mentitur nec esset perjurus.' Op. mor; lib. 3, cap. 6. num. 15.

(g) Angelus, Sylvester, Navarr, Valentia, Salon, Toledo, Manuel, Philiarchus, Suarez, Leonardus, Sa.

2 N

of Mariana, his book on that account being condemned and burnt by the parliament at Paris; yet it was printed at Rome, and approved by Mutius Vitellescus, the general of the Jesuits. And when the chief of that order in France were examined, whether they did believe as their general did at Rome? or would do so if they were at Rome? It was answered by F. Cotten in the name of the rest, That they would change their judgments with the country, and would believe as they did at Rome, when there, though he ridiculously denied that they did believe so while they were in France.

However Mariana had many of the Jesuits who expressly owned his doctrine; Ribadeneira, Scribanius, under the name of Bonarscius, Becanus, Gretserus, do partly praise him," and partly defend his opinion. Another patron of the Jesuits says plainly in an English treatise, That they are enemies of that holy name of Jesus, that condemned Mariana for any such doctrine. And his book having been before printed at Toledo with the approbation of the superiors of the Society, there was a new edition of it at Mentz by the procurement of the Jesuits there. It is much if J. G. could make all these to be but one Mariana. And wherein does Emanuel Sa (g) come short of Mariana in that particular wherein the Jesuit would clear the Society? Or Becanus in his English controversies? Or Suarez? a Jesuit of such reputation, that his judgment alone is valued more than a thousand other authors, who expresses himself thus:

"When a king is deposed, then he is neither lawful king nor prince; and if therefore he endeavour to keep the kingdom under him by strength, then he is an usurper, no lawful king, having no true title to the crown; for that (h)| after the decree of deposition, he is altogether deprived of bis kingdom, so that he cannot with a just title possess, and so may be used as a tyrant or usurper, and by consequence may be slain by any private man.'

Here we have multitudes of Jesuits in one, allowing the killing of kings by any private man for not only divers bishops, but the provincial Jesuits of Portugal and Germany, testify their approbation of his judgment; and a whole university declares, "That there is nothing in it but ought to be approved, every thing being according to their own opinion and judgment (i)." Add but one F. Campian,

(g) Vid. Aphor. v. tyr. num. 2, p. 115. (h) At vero post sententiam latam omnino privatur regno, ita ut non possit justo titulo illud possidere: ergo ex tunc poterit tanquam omnino tyrannus tractari, et consequenter a quocunque privato poterit interfici.' Defens. fid. lib. 6, cap. 4, num. 14 and 17.

(i) Nihil est in toto hoc opere a nostro ' omnium sensu discordans, cum de hac re sit omnium nostrum eadem vox idem animus eademque sententia, Cens, academiæ Complutensis.

who may be instead of all. He declares, "That all the Jesuits spread far and wide through the whole world, have entered into a league to make away all heretical kings in any manner whatsoever: nor will they despair of effecting it, so long as any one Jesuit remains in the world (k)."

There is no room to alledge particular doctors, which might easily be multiplied. That which we charge the Jesuits with, in reference to the murdering of kings, may be reduced to two heads:

1. That the pope has power to depose kings for heresy especially.

2. That being deposed, any one may kill them, at least by the pope's order.

The former is the doctrine of their church, and not of particular doctors only; being established not only by the opinion of all sorts of their authors, but by the determination of popes, and the decrees of general councils; so that hence the famous Jesuit Lessius declares, that if the pope had not this power of deposing kings, the church which has taught it must of necessity err: and to hold that is heretical, and a more intolerable error, than any about the sacrament can be. And a greater than he, Cardinal Perron, (in his Diverses Oeures, and Recueil General des Affaires du Clerge de France) declares it as the sense of the whole clergy of France (who of all the Romanists are accounted least favourable to the papal power), that all who maintain the contrary, are heretics and schismatics. (1)

For the latter, we have the declared sense of the whole body of the Jesuits in France (than whom, none of the society in any part of the world, were more favourable to kings) in an Apology for their doctrine on this subject, to Harry the 4th; yet there they declare in the words of Valentia, consonant to the doctrine of Aquinas, Cajetan, Sotus, Coveruvius, Salonius, and others, That a Tyrant who has no just title, but usurps authority, may be killed by any one. (m) Now there is none of them who

(k) In Epist. ad Concil. Reg. Anglii, p. 22. (1) Defens. decret. concil. Lateran. p. 46. Ergo tam est certum posse Pontificem coercere vel punire principes temporales, his pænarum generibus, quam est certum non posse ecclesiam in fide et moribus errare. Here Suarez maintains it to be as certain, as that this church is infallible, Defens. fid. 1. 3. c. 23. n. 16.

(m) Si est tyrannus secundo modo (viz. per arrogatam sibi in justam potestatem) quilibet possit illum'occidere, Apol. Societ. Jes. in Gall. 1599. append. p. 115, &c. Suarez Defens. fid. lib. 6. c. 4. n. 14. Si rex talis post depositionem legitimam, in sua pertinacia perseverans regnum per vim retineat, incipit esse tyrannus in titulo, quia non est legitimus Rex, nec justo titulo regnum possidet. Assertitur hunc tyrannum quoad titulum, interfeci posse, a quacunq. privata persona, idem, ibid. num. 7.