FImbria page 1. ‘Protestants, who make a conscience of their words, and count it a horrid crime, to speake otherwise, then they think, when they are dying, may be ready to jud­ge those guiltlesse,’ who when they are dying, assert their juno­cency with highest Asseuerations.

Answer. Jf we may guesse at the Disposition of those dying Pro­testants, you meane, by the whole tenor of their liues, we may conclude, they think it no crime at all, to speake other wise then they think, seing in their liues they scruple at it so little. We can not judge certainly of the interiour sentiments of a man in particular by his actions, seing these are often contrary to his conscience, Passion preuailing ouer Reason, and hurrying him to what he knows to be unlawfull. Video meliora, proboque: deteriora sequor. But it is almost impossible that a whole People, a nation, should be inclined to commit one, and the same sin, unlesse the Rules of conscience, which would check them, be first defaced in their mind: because it is morally impossible, that a whole nation should as one time be depriued of the free use of reason, by one Passion.

Hence it appeares, that the Persons you commend for sincerity [Page 8]in their words, haue really no scruple of any Lying. For seing they re­ward Periured Persons; and with the greatest threates, and pro­mises endeauour to work uppon the frailty of such as are so unfortunate, as to fall in to their hands, to bring them to encrease the number of false witnesses, and punish as guilty, of the most hainous crimes such as prefer the Peace of their conscience, and their sincerity before their liues, can we guesse they scruple at lying, or Perjury? No, no: it is in uaine to pretend to it, for your publicke actions convince the falshood of your pretence: and whe­re these are knowne (as they are to the greatest part of Europe) none will euer beleiue you count it any crime at all, to speake other wise, then you think. It is tru your endeauours haue beene for the most part frustrated, hauing not met with many, who haue had a con­science hard enough, to beare Perjury: and those too you first made Protestants, before you could make them False witnesses: but the smalnesse of their number, doth not excuse you, who use such unworthy meanes, for so dishonourable an End. At least out of your Proceedings it is euident you little esteeme sincerity, which you punish; nor scruple at Lying which you promote.

Read the frequent Libels against Papists, which dayly appeare of late, full of Lyes, composed, as j am informed, by some Mi­nisters of the Protestant Church, some by your self, and without the helpe of a Reuelation, you shal perceiue a Lying spirit in the mouth of your Prophets as there was in the mouth of the Prophets of Ahab. 1. kings 22.23. We may with great probability guesse, you say as the jews did, Jsay. 28.15. We haue put our hopes in a Lye: a Lye shal pro­tect us. A Protestant beyond seas considering this, with some con­fusion sayd: Our Reformation begane with Lying, continues with Lying, and will end with Lying. And can we think you make a conscience of speaking other wise then you think?

You know, sir, who in scripture is termed the Father of Lyes, (Joan. 8.44.) But at the same time that you deliuered up your will to the Workings of Errour, God, the God of Truth, struck your Understanding with such a blindnesse, that you could not tell any Probable, or Credible Lyes: as Gods Prouidence shews its self, in [Page 9]ioyning Antidotes to the Poyson of Scorpions. Soe that the meanes you use to blast our Reputation, and to ground the opinion of a Plot, doe destroy themselues, whilest the things, you say, are not only untru; but also incredible. For what man in his Wits can beleiue that a superior of a particular Congregation of Religious men should by his letters Patents dispose of all offices ciuill, Mi­litary, and Ecclesiasticall, of a whole Kingdome, euen those of the Crowne, and Bishopricks? That Oats a new man ether un knowne, or too well knowne to be trusted with any thing, as being thought unfit to liue as a priuate scholler in any of their Colledges, should be entrusted with the distributing these Patents? That such a body as the Catholick Nobility, and Gentry, should acknowlegde that unheard of Authority of that Superior, and accept of his Commissions? That not one of these Commissions should be found, or owned, by any who receaued them? That a Cu­stomary Trienniall Assembly of Religious men, to consider of the Superiors of their Prouince, which is constantly held by Jesuits, and other Regulars, should be esteemed a conspiracy against the king and state? That Oates, who neuer had beene one day, nay one hour, a Jesuit, should be admitted in to that Assembly, when some, who had beene 25. yeares, some aboue 50. yeares Jesuits, could not enter into it? That a war should be designed, and yet nether men, nor Mony, nor Armes, nor Prouision, nor Ammo­nition, appeare? That after so diligent informations, and sear­chings into Papers, and houses, no footstep of soe greate a busi­nesse, in fourteene months time, should be discouered, but that all this machine should still rely uppon Oates his word? That when so many thousands were engaged, non, but this one infamous Per­son should acknowledge soe horrible a Plot? That this same Per­son should severall times contradict himself in his Depositions, and yet his present Oath alwayes be true, and men be condemned up­pon it? That almost all the guilty persons, at least the cheife, and most notorious of them, should voluntarily present themsel­ues to the officers of justice? That not one of them all, though inuited with assurance of Impunity, and Pardon, and great Re­wards [Page 10]should acknowledge the least Guilt, euen at their last breath; but that all should dye, protesting their Jnnocency, not one excepted? That hauing ruined their Body by soe detestable a Plot, they should all unanimously resolue to damne their souls with a Perjury, at that moment when they were to be presented to the dreadfull Tribunall of the upright, and all-seing Judge? These things cannot be paralleled in any Hystory, and are so euidently untru, that they ground such a certainty of the Papists Jnnocency, that a greater in morall matters can not be found. And some of these considerations hauing beene represented to the Publick in French, an Eminent Person of the Reformed Religion Petitioned his Prince, that they myght not be printed in his cheife Citty, saying those euident unjustices acted in England, would, if knowne, endan­ger the liues of all the Protestants in his Dominions.

Fimbria, ibidem. ‘Notwithstanding men will haue reason to judge them truly Traytors, if they take notice, how full and cleere the Euidence is, by which they were cast: and under­stand the Principles of the Persons executed, who are by com­mon doctrine, taught amongst them, furnisht with expedients, to deny what is true, and affirme what is false, and that with solemne Oaths,— and yet nether lye, nor be forsworne, nor sin in the least degree. Their cheyse Artifice is that of mentall equiuo­cation.’ The use of which is allowed by all sorts of Papists. And you repeate this second part pag. 8. 10. 11. 14. and caet. In­deed your whole discourse relyes on it.

Answer. Here are two Reasons alleadged against all those cleere proofes, of the Jnnocency of suffring Catholicks.

• 1. The cleernesse of the euidence against them.
• 2. That they hold mentall equiuocation Lawfull.

You only hint at the first, and soe j shal be short. J neuer saw any understanding man satisfyed with the seuerall Tryalls, euen as you haue printed them. That of M.^r Colman is publisht in other Languages: and seuerall able men, hauing examined it, with as much attention, and exactnesse (as they assured me) as if they had beene to pronounce sentence in the case, sayd: that the eui­dence [Page 11]against him consisted of two parts. 1. What the Witnesses deposed. 2. His letters. That the Witnesses Depositions were insignificant, a being euidently false. That his Correspondence with foreigne Ministers, was suspitious, unlesse with his king's Priuity. Yet in the letters themselues there was nothing against the king's life, or state, or Gouernment. Soe they doubted not of his Jnnocency, as to the crimes contained in his jndictment, for which he was condemned. Now if this be the sentiment of the wi­ser part of the world, in Colman's case, which is undoubtedly the hardest of all, what think you is their opinion of the rest? It is in the Eye of Europe soe cleere, that nether all the Perjurys of Oates, nor all your sophistry wil euer perswade the contrary.

Now to that Artifice, which you impertinently, and ignorantly call mentall equiuocation, a word unknowne to Diuines and where of one part contradicts the other. You myght as well speake of a vocall thought. But let that passe. You say equiuocation is allowed by all sorts of Papists. J say this is false: for the Pope, and Cardinalls, and the Congregation of the Inquisition are certainly one sort of Papists: and they allow it not; but condemne it by a solemne Decree, publisht on the 20. Febr. 1678. or 2. March. 1679. Where they censure 65. Propositions. Of which the 26. is as followeth: Si quis vel solus, vel coram alijs, sive interrogatus, sive propria sponte, sive recreationis causâ, sive quocunque alio fine, juret se non fecisse aliquid, quod reverà fecit, intelligendo intrà se aliquid aliud, quod non fecit, vel aliam viam ab eâ, in quâ fecit, vel quodvis aliud additum verum, reverà non mentitur, nec est Perjurus.

And the 27. Causa justa utendi amphibologijs, est quoties id necessarium, eut utile est ad salutem corporis, honorem, res familiares tuendas, vel ad quemlibet alium virtutis actum: ità ut veritatis occultatio censeatur tunc expediens, & studiosa. In Inglish thus.

26. Jf any man ether alone, or in presence of others, ether uppon exami­nation, or of his owne accord, or for Diuertisment, or for any other in­tent, sweares he did not doe, what he really did, imagining he did not an other thing, or that he did not that same thing such away, or any other in­teriour Truth, that man doth nether Lye, nor is Perjured.

27. A just cause of using Equiuocation, is when it is necessary, or use­full [Page 12]to preserue our Health, or Honour, or Goods, or for any other act of vertu, soe that when these occurre, it may be thought expedient and lauda­ble to conceale the Truth. Thus the two Propositions.

Doe they not containe that uery Doctrine which you (uery Learnedly!) call mentall equiuocation? and which you assure all sorts of Papists allow? Jf it be not? Tell us what is. If it be? Heare the following Censure of the Congregation, or rather of the Pope with the Congregation: quicunque, cujuscunque conditionis, status, vel digni­tatis illas, vel illarum aliquam defenderit, — vel de ijs tractaverit, nisi fortè eas impugnando, ipso facto incidat in excommunicationem latae sen­tentiae, à quâ non possit, — nisi à Romano Pontifice absolvi. Who­soever, of what quality soeuer he be, shal hold both, or ether of these Pro­positions, or mention (speak of) them, unlesse it be to impugne it or them, is ipso facto excommunicated: from which excommunication none but the Pope himselfe shal absolue him.

You see, how ignorant you are in the Tenets of our Church, of which notwithstanding, you speake so magisterially: you see that Doctrine forbidden under the greatest penalty, the Church can inflict, which you assure is soe much endeared unto us. Owne, that we cannot lawfully practice, what we can not speak of, under soe seuere a sentence, unlesse it be to impugne, to condem­ne, to detest it. And seing your whole Pamphlet is built on our holding Equiuocation lawfull, & practicing it, (for which reason you repeate it, so often) your whole discourse falls to the ground.

To confirme this opinion of our abhorrency for Equiuocations, j appeale to the constant practice of the rigidest Papists, particularly Jesuits, who, as you say, are particularly addicted to these Equiuoca­tions. Haue they not all unanimously, & constantly refused some Oathes, for containing some things, which they thought untru, which by this their darling Equiuocation, myght easely be uerifyed had they thought it Lawfull? Haue not many lost their Liberty, by Imprisonment, and some their Liues uppon the Gallows, rather then take some Oathes, which you think we can soe casily make innocent? What more foolish, then to hazard the losse of life, or Limbe, Liberty or Goods, for indifferent things? Reproach, as [Page 13]long as you pleas, to Jcsuits and Papists, the Doctrine, and Pra­ctice of Equiuocotion: that calumny cannot be fixt on them, where they are knowne; their whole conduct, the whole tenor of their liues is a sufficient confutation of it, and a conuiction of its un­truth. We say with an ancient Father: Apologias non scribimus; sed vivimus. Our actions are our Apology.

But you discouer a greater defect, then want of understanding in this Reproach, viz: want of Discretion, in taxing us with this cri­me, of which you are as guilty, as we innocent. With respect to your present dignity be it spoken: Did not you M.r Barlo D.D. and now Bishop of Lincoln, moue with the seditious Torrent (which bore downe all Authority Ecclesiasticall and Ciuil) all the time of the Troubles? Did not you howle with those wolues? Speake the language of Canaan? Take all Oathes tendred by those in (usurped) Authority, how destructiue soeuer they were to Mo­narchy, and Episcopacy, and contradictory to one an other? Jf you chan­ged your mind soe frequently, and beleiued sincerely, what you swore, what a Weather-Cocke are you? Jf you altred not your sen­timents, you must ether haue beene often forsworne, or haue re­course to Equiuocation. Deny not the fact, which publicke Fame confirmes: and the Terrae-Filius of your university reproched you with it uery handsomely, saying all things would downe with you, be­sides a Blacke-Pudding. Omnia deuorat praeter nigrum fartum: your con­science scruples at nothing but that. You would oblidge a consi­derable part of the world, who wonder at your conduct, in let­ting it know whither this scruple arises from the prohibition of eating Bloud contained in the new, or in the old Law.

Fimhria p. 2. Garnet and Tresham used equiuocation, in their answers, when they were examined: and you cite Casaubon for it.

Answer. 1. Casaubon's credit in matter of Humanity is greate, in Divinity little, but nothing at all, in things of Fact, concerning the actions of Papists, whose profest Ennemy he was.

Answer. 2. Nether Garnet nor Tresham are the rules of my Faith, or Opinion, or Practice. Jf you could proue, as certainly j be­leiue you cannot, that they equiuocated, or Lyed, or were [Page 14]forsworne that would not justify me, should j practice ether, nor proue, that j imitate them in it, or that j think, that others may with a safe conscience, follow that example.

Fimbria p. 3. Persons, Nauarre, and Sanchez approue of Equiuo­cation.

Answer. 1. A hundred such Authors doe not equall the Autho­tity of the Pope, as uniuerfal, and supreame Pastor, teaching the Church, and prohibiting some points of Doctrine under paine of excommunication. To these definitions we submit our understan­ding.

Answer. 2. How little we Inglish Catholicks euer regarded the sentiments of those, or any other Authours, of what quality soe­uer, in this matter of Eqniuocation, or Oathes, doth sufficiently appeare by our perpetuall refusing such Oathes, as without ha­uing recourse to those petty euasions, could not be verifyed.

Fimbria p. 4. ‘Let the world judge, what regard is due to the words of such dying men, whose Doctrine excuses from sin, and Lying, all untruths.’

Answer. You nether haue proued, nor shal euer be able to pro­ue, that these men, or any Papist aliue holds that Doctrine: we condemne it, we detest it from our harts, and to conuince you, and the whole world, that we doe this sincerely, we appeale to our constant unalterable practice, as is aboue sayd. But you, who haue without scruple swallowed soe many Oathes, whereof some must be false, (unlesse you can make contradictions true) you, j say, may be suspected, without rashnesse, of Equiuocation, in what you speake, or write, or sweare.

Fimbria p. 4. ‘J cannot imagin, how what Gauan says can be true, that the Jesuits allow not the Doctrine of king-killing; but detest, and abhor it: or that none of them hold it lawfull to kill a king, but only Mariana.’

Answer. This Assertion containes two parts:

• 1. That the Jesuits detest and abhorre the Doctrine of king-killing.
• 2. That none of them but Mariana taught it.

Now the first is soe tru, that j defye you, or any of your Breth­ren, to name any Jesuit aliue, who doth not detest it. J haue knowne seuerall, and conuerst with some of the cheife of them both, for Learning, and Authority, very familiarly, yet neuer beard them, or any one of them by the least word approue of it, or speake of it without horrour. This testimony j owe to Truth, and justice. And if the Protestants please for their owne further sa­tisfaction, to consult any of the Inglish Jesuits now in Prison, or any others ether in France, or Flandres, (where some Jesuits are [...]ill to be found, althô in your animaduersions on the speaches, you say they are banisht out of both those places) if you find any [...]e approue of that Doctrine, stone him.

J acknowledge, that at Louain lately some Theses were printed, which contained that exploded Doctrine. But that hinders not the Truth of what j haue deliuered here, concerning the Jesuits. 1. Be­cause they were not Jesuits, who printed those Theses. 2. Because, [...] j heare those Theses neuer were defended. 3. Because the Ma­ [...]er, who had deliuered that Doctrine, and composed the Theses, was deposed from teaching, and cast out of that uniuersity, and all the Netherlands, for that fault, by his Ecclesiasticall Supe­riour. By which you may see, how unjustly that Doctrine is char­ged uppon any Catholicks, at all, which was soe seuerely punisht.

As to the second: Gauan doth not say, none but Mariana held [...]; but that he knew none but Mariana, who taught it. There is not one, [...] the best of my knowledge, that allows of king-killing Doctrine, — [...] Mariana, are his owne words. Now althô there should haue beene 1000. others, of the same fentiments, yet what Gauan sayd may be tru, if he knew nothing of the rest. Soe j may say truly [...]d sincerly: J know none, but the B. of L. who will take all Oathes wit­ [...] scruple: althô probably there may be others of the same Princi­ple of conscience, and Faith, unknowne to me.

Nether is it to be wondred at, that Gauan should know of none [...] Mariana, who taught that detestable Doctrine: seing under [...] seuerest penaltyes possible all mention of it is prohibited to the [...]suits by their Generalls. And he might haue beene ignorant of [Page 16] Mariana's Paradox too, and the memory of it had beene utterly blotted out of all men's minds, had not some hystorians of that time, (which lye out of the common roade of schooles) and cheifely some scriblers of Libells against Catholickes, from time, to time renewed it. J could neuer find that booke of Mariana in any Library of the Jesuits, althô j haue had the curiosity to en­quire after it. Which is an euident proofe of their unjuersall disli­ke of such Doctrines. And if any Authors are extant in them, who cursorily treate of such things, and incline to the like senti­ments, they are left there, for some other usefull Treatises, which they contain, and not for that Doctrine: as for alike reason the workes of some Fathers are exposed, which containe some errours, or heresyes. Yet the dislike of that part, which you soe odiously charge uppon us, appeares by the perpetuall silence of all Jesuits, in that matter. Not one, these thirty, nay forty yeares, euer owned it, euen by priuate Writings, Theses, or Dictates, or in pri­uate discourse. Probably not one now aliue euer studyed the que­stion.

But say you, Mariana was printed at Toledo and reprinted at Ments. Answer. What then? Cannot a booke be printed in a Towne, but each part of it must be owned by those of that place? Are not Tertullian, S. Irineus, S. Cyprian, and Cassianus, printed in seuerall places, where no body approues Montanisme, Chilianisme, Rebapti­zation, or semi-Pelagianisme?

Were j disposed to rake in this kennel, and retaliat, what a Catalogue could j giue you of those of your Reformed Prote­stant Church, who both taught, and practised as seditious Do­ctrine, as any in Mariana, for ought j know, who neuer reade or saw him: who hauing under pretence of Euangelicall liberty cast off all obedience to their spirituall Superior, did improue that same pretence to loosen that due to the Ciuil Magistrate, like tru [...] of Belial without any yoake? The late times of troubles would afford matter sufficient in the libells, they produced (where of some possibly may haue beene composed by your selfe) for a Large Volume. But j will not imitate your indiscretion, or malice, in re­newing [Page 17]the memory of seditious maximes, which all faithfull sub­jects hartily wish, had neuer beene broached, or myght neuer be remembred: Because whilest the memory of them is preserued, when Passion inclines, and occasion inuites seditious practices will follow. J ingeniously professe, that j cannot looke uppon these Reproaches to men, who disowne the Doctrines soe reproached, but as an effect of malice against their Persons, and a sly way to continu, and communicate those same Principles: and j feare, that sad experience will conuince the world, at least our nation, (where some of the People are imbued with so many Anti-Monar­ [...]all Principles,) that that way, which the Superiors of the Society of Jesus haue taken, and enjoyned their subiects to follow, is the most effectuall, to settle People's minds, in due subiection to Law­full Magistrates, and to preuent all pernicious consequences, of those pernicious Doctrines.

Fimbria p. 6. ‘Bonacina (soe it should be) Valeneia, Suarez, Les­sius, Molina, and Filiucius, concurre with Mariana, that it is Law­full for a priuate man to kill such a Tyrant, as hath no Title.’

Answer. J know no king, who would be offended that a Re­bel should be killed, who plots his death, and designes to beco­me king in his place. J know of no Laws diuine or humane, Ec­clesiasticall or Ciuil, which forbid it. In causâ Majestatis omnis homo miles est, says Tertullian. When the sacred Person of a king is in eminent danger all subiects are authorized by the Law of nature, and of all nations, to defend him, euen by killing the Traitour. The sword in the Armes of the Royall citty, London, is a conuin­cing testimony, that kings are not displeased with such attempts, which they haue rewarded with such a lasting badge of honour.

Fimbria p. 9. ‘Kings deposed by the Pope, or by Heresy are no more kings..... As all the kings of England, Sweden, Den­marke, &c. are by the Jesuits Doctrine.’

Answer. Name the Jesuit aliue who euer writ, or sayd, that our dread — Souueraigne is not lawfull king of all his Dominions, and let him suffer as a false Traitour: all Jesuits will signe his con­demnation. Jf you can name none, as j am certaine you cannot, [Page 18]owne that you are a malicious, unworthy calumniatour. The meane while, the dying speeches of their murthred Brethren con­fute sufficiently this false lye.

You had had some colour for this calumny, had any Jesuit re­uiued that wicleffian Doctrine, which your pretended Assertor of Monarky M.r Oates, publisht in his Dedicatory Epistle to his Majesty: where hauing sayd, that the cheife end, and work of all supreame Po­wers, is to suppresse vice and encourage vertu. — By Banishing all vicious Liuers from their Presence, and conuerse, and aduancing the virtuous in their steade. He addes: By the neglect of which Principall part of their Royal Trust, and office, Princes depose themselues, as VSELESSE be­fore God, and their owne consciences, what euer may be their state, or Glo­ry in fact, and by human Laws, and Power before men. Thus he. What king can be secure of his subjects Allegiance, if they be possest with that opinion? Which will be easily applyed to any Prince how virtuous, and just soeuer, by a minor: and then who sees not the consequence? Could you haue found so seditious a Principle in any Papist, how Tragically would you haue descan­ted uppon it?

Comparisons are allways odious, and cheifly in odious matters: wherefore j will not compare the Principles of Catholick Reli­gion, with those of your Reformation, to shew, that ours are more conformable to Monarky. This j will say, that Monarky flourisht more yeares in the Persons of Catholick Princes, then months in those of Protestants: that it was neuer shaken till your pretended Euangelicall Liberty, (the ground worke of your Re­formation) had Loosened the reynes of Gouernment, and wea­kened the hands of the Gouernours: That before one age had past, you turned it out of the Throne, and since its happy restaura­tion, you put it to greater Plunges, then in all the time, whilest Catholick Religion preuailed, it endured. Insomuch as j heare some of your owne are of opinion that Monarky in England cannot emerge, or long subsist, without Popery, or Popish Principles.

You see, sir Libeller, that the whole first part of your Pam­phlet, is downe ryght false. For.

[Page 19]1. We doe not hold it Lawfull, in uertue of any Equiuocation, to tell any untruth, or Lye: much lesse to confirme it by Oath.

2. We doe not hold it lawfull to murther any one, much lesse, our dreade Soueraigne. Of which more hereafter.

3. By your owne practice; and Principles, it is euident, you both speake, and sweare downeryght Lyes, unlesse you excuse them, by recurring to Equiuocation.

And 4. that your obedience to your Prince hangs but on a uery weake thred: seing your darling and Champion makes it de­pend 1. On the king's keeping the Law of God. 2. On his banis­hing all those, who doe not keepe it.

Fimbria p. 7. ‘J doe not well understand their Prayers for the king. They would haue it thought, they had no designe to kill the king, who can pray for his prosperous reigne. But doe they think that his Majesty can truly prosper, till he turne Roman Catholick? This they hartily wish, no doubt: whither they can pray, or no, j know not.’

Answer. You are more moderate here in your censure, then you were in your Reflections on the speeches, where you boldly affirme, they were not prayers of Charity; but curses of their malice. In which words you deliuer the disposition of your hart; not theirs, who neuer gaue you any ground for it. Now hauing better conside­red them, you say, You doe not well understand them: Whence it euidently follows that your former judgment was rash and unchari­table. But how comes it, that your greatwit cannot wel understand them? Are not their words plaine Inglish? Is not the constru­ction easy? The sense and meaning obuious? Wherein then lyes the difficulty, the obscurity? At least we expected soe much Cha­rity (which thinks no euill) from a Christian, and a Bishop as to interpret in a good sense what is dubious. But that is not what you seeke, nor answers your desires. Had they Blasphemed God, cursed (which God forbid any should doe) the king, reuiled their Judges, Jury, and Witnesses, called fire from heauen to destroy the Citty, and Kingdome, dyed like desperados, and damned their souls for an eternity, you had had your harts wishes: their words [Page 20]would haue beene understood: which because they dyed like tru Disciples of Christ Jesus, like tru Jesuits, you cannot wel understand, J hope no Jesuit will euer purchace that aduantage at soe deare a rate. And as for these good mens, j am confident all good men, who haue not soe thicke a cloud of enuy, and malice in their minds, will easily understand their tru Christian meaning, not with­standing all the mist you cast before their eyes to preuent it.

They would have it thought, say you, they designed not to kil the king, for whose prosperous reigne they prayd. But how doe you know that was their designe? Did they tell it to you? Had you it from God by Reuelation? J know no third way, to know what designes a man has in his hart. Jf you doe, blesse the world with commu­nicating it. But j weygh your words in the scales of Reason, whilest you consult not Reason; but only your Passion, in what you write. J think their designe cleare enough out of their words, to such as seeke to find; and doe not study to misse it: viz. that hauing payd their duty to God, by professing their Faith, and to justice, in asserting their Jnnocency, (to comply with the command of the Apostle 1. Timo. 2.2.) they proceeded to pray for the king, the kingdome, their freinds, & themselues.

You ask whither they thought, that his Majesty could truly prosper, till he turne Roman Catholick? A wise question for a Doctor of Di­uinity. J answer: no Catholick in his senses euer thought tempo­rall prosperity depended on Faith. We all acknowledge with S. Au­stin, that the Roman Empire was for many ages prosperous: that the Ottoman doth still prosper: that Augustus had a prosperous Reigne, as well as Constantin: and that Henry VI. though a Catho­lik, was unfortunate, as well as Darius a Pagan: Jt is tru, that when we compare the Blessings of this life, with those of the next, all temporall prosperity is not considerable: and we may with reason fay, that the rich Glutton was miserable, and poore La­zarus fortunate. And the Psalmist, Psal. 143.15. denyes those to be happy; who enjoy Temporall Prosperity, and assures none ought to be esteemed such, but those who adore the tru God. Beatum dixerunt popolum cui haec sunt: Beatus populus cujus Dominus Deus [Page 21]ejus. And j grant what you say, that they hartily wisht for this, v [...], that his Majesty were in the tru, and only way to eternall Blesse. And you cannot blame them for that wish, without condemning S. Paul, who offred a like Prayer for Agrippa, and his whole Au­ditory. Act. 26.29. But when you adde: Whither they can pray; or no, j know not: you bring to my mind the words of Festus to that Glorious Apostle: You are mad: studyes haue besotted you. And j leaue to the Readers consideration, whither they may be applyed to you, who hauing owned that they prayd: and laboured in vaine to peruert the sense of their prayers, doubt whither they could pray, or no. As if when you haue heard me speake, and discanted uppon my words, you should after question, whither j could speake, or no. Sir, the scripture mentions a Drunken­nesse, which proceedes not from wine: because some Passions haue the same effect, as to the hindring the use of reason. Con­sider whither or no, that is befallen to you.

Then you tell us, that Garnet prayed for the successe of the Gun powder-treason. And Charles V. for the Popes deliuery, who­me he kept prisonner. J adde: and soe did the Parliament and Crom­well, and probably you your selfe with them, for the deliuery of the King, and Peace of the Kingdome, than which nothing was Lesse intended by them. But what is this, though tru, to the fiue Jesuits, or me?

Then you fall againe uppon Equiuocation, and from pag. 7. to pag. 12. You persue it. To all which j answer 1. we condemne Equiuocation as well, and more seuerely, then you. 2. By our con­stant practice, it appeares, we neuer owned it: as is aboue sayd. Soe j passe to the 12. pag. where j find some thing new.

Fimbria p. 12. ‘My Authour says, it is Lawfull in defence of ones reputation to kill another..... He that reades this, will not wonder, if they did not scruple to murther Sir E. Godfrey, or that some Preists were so forward to be his executioners.’

Answer. The Authour you mention, Amicus, being after the first impression in Germany, reprinted at Doway, An. 1642. that whole proposition was blotted out. By which the Jesuits, who ouersaw [Page 22]the Print, sufficiently declared their dislike of it. And 23. yeares after this second Edition, viz: 24. Sept. 1665. Alexander VII. con­demned 28. propositions: of which the 17. is that you charge on us in this place. According to this decree we frame our conscien­ces, and direct our actions; and not by the priuate sentiment of any particular Anthout.

As for the death of Sir E. Godefrey. j pray God from the bottom of my hart, to grant tru Repentance to the Authours of that horrid, and crying sin. Some haue already suffred on that score, who were in the judgment of wise men jnnocent of the fact. So­me discoueryes haue beene made of the tru Authour and those soe conuincing, that all art, and craft of such scriblers, as you are, will not confute them. But j designe not to accuse any body, and notwithstanding all that j, and others haue suffred, on that score, j desire the murtherers, no other harme, then what through sense of their detestable crime, they shal inflict uppon themsel­ues, to appease the wrath of Gôd, and preuent the heauy stroke of Diuine Justice.

Fimbria p. 14.15. and 16. You start againe Equiuocations and follow the game hotly: and soe you may for me, who know no Papist a liue, that will defend or practice them, since they are condemned by the sea Apostolick.

Fimbria p. 16. and 17. ‘The Jesuits had great motiues to use Equiuocations, the Plot could not be more effectually promoted. It makes Protestants stagger in the beleife of it: it Weakns the credit of the Witnesses: it allays the spirit of the Nation: it in­censes foraigne Princes against Protestants: and in fine it enti­tles the sufferers to Martyrdome. When on the contrary, by acknowledging their conspiracy, they had broken the necke of the Plot, endangered the Lords in the Towre, silenced those, who question the King's euidence, made Popery odious, and spoyled their expectation of Martyrdome.’

Answer. In all this discourse you discouer a mind filled with thoughts more becoming a Pagan, or Atheist, then a Christian. A Pagan or Atheist, beleiuing nothing of the life eternall to come, [Page 23]settles all his hopes, all his feares, all his thoughts, and all his affections, on things of this life: and is ambitious, euen at his last breath, of the Plaudite which attends the exit of a good Actor on the stage of this world. A Christian on the contrary knows this life to be but a moment, if compared with that to come: that all earthly glory is vanity, pleasures deceitfull, health unconstant, and life it selfe uncertaine, so embracing the aduice of our Blessed Redeemer. Mat. 6.19.20. Regards not any treasure on earth, where it is subject to soe many casualtyes; but prepares one in Heauen, where he is certaine he shal neuer be defrauded of it. He is certaine, it will auayle him nothing to gaine all the world with the losse of his soul. Mat. 16.26. And if any be soe unfor­tunate, as to be engaged during his life, in some designes worldly and Politick, contrary to the Law of God, yet these vanish at the gastly sight of approaching Death. All hopes and feares of this life then vanishing, and those of the life to come taking en­tire possession of the soul.

Now consider what thoughts you fancy in these executed Jn­nocents: of malice in Promoting the Plot: spite against the Wit­nesses: reuenge against Protestants in all countryes: vanity, and folly in purchacing the name of Martyrs in this world, with the losse of their souls in the other, as if they would fry in Hell fire really for an eternity, prouided men uppon earth for a time, myght say they were braue boys. What ground haue you to surmise such An­tichristian Dispositions in their minds? At a much easier rate, and with lesse sin, or rather no sin at all, as you say, they myght haue purchaced their Pardon, and liued contentedly in this world, and dyed happily for the next, by only owning the crime, of which they were really guilty. What reason haue they giuen you to judge them soe silly, or soe mad rather? Did they, whilest at liberty, discouer any signes of that vanity? No. Did they during the time of their imprisonment? No. Did any such thing appeare at their Tryall, or execution? Nor then nether. All who con­uerst with them when abroad, and when Prisoners, all the spe­ctators of the last period of their liues, agree in a far different [Page 24]character of them, from what you soe confidently assert of their inclinations, althô possible you neuer saw their faces. What ground can you haue then, for this hard censure? Without your selfe nothing occurres: wherefore j am forced to surmise, that all the ground you haue is taken from your owne hart, which is taken up, and possessed with thoughts of this life, and worldly designes, and that you judged of others by your selfe.

Fimbria p. 17. ‘Uppon far lesse account Equiuocation in words, or Oathes is in the judgment of their best Casuists lawfull at any time, the hour of Death not excepted.’

Answer. 1. J challenge you to shew one Casuist, who since that Decree of Jnnocent XI condemning Equiuocation, euer taught it Law­full at any time.

Answer. 2. These fiue Jesuits declare they use no Equiuocation, but take their words in their naturall and obuious sense, which must be a Lye and consequently no jnnocent action, in the opinion of all Jesuits, if their words were not true, in their proper signification.

Fimbria p. 18. ‘The greatest Lye and falsest Oath that euer was heard in the mouth of a Jesuit, would become as tru, as the Ghospel, by a secret cast of his mind.’

Answer. What opinion you haue of the truth of the Ghospel, j can not tell: but this comparison giues ground to suspect more then j will say. At least that transforming quality of the Jesuit turning falshood in to Truth, is much better, then your turning good things into bad, and Truth into Falshood: changing (as the Pro­phet says) judgment into wormewood. Amos 5.7.

Fimbria p. 18. ‘What the Jesuits were charged with, may be reduced to three heades: a designe to introduce Popery: to massacre, or destroy the Protestants of these kingdomes: and to kill the King. Now in their judgment, if we can discerne it by their Doctrine, no one of these is a sin. And can you wonder they dyed impeni­tent, when the saw nothing to be repented of?’

Answer. You would be a formidable aduersary, were your Proo­fes as strong, as your Assertions are bold. But hitherto we haue found you promise much and performe nothing. Let us see whit­her your attempt be more successefull here.

Fimbria p. 18. ‘Could they count it a sin, to restore the Po­pish Religion in three kingdomes, and establish it, by aduan­cing a Prince, to the Throne who would count it his glory ut­terly to extinguish Heresy?’

Answer. There are none, but the factious Presbiterians, who dislike the uniting all the world into one exterior communion. All good Christians, as well as Jesuits wish it done, and professe their sincere endeauours to promote it, by all Lawfull meanes; not other wise: for as the Apostle sayth: we are not to doe euill, that good may come of it. But you malitiously hint at something, which you dare not speake out: and j am Dauus; not Oedipus: soe cannot unriddle your misterious meaning. Yet in expectation of your dis­couery, j declare, that, j know no Papist, nor Jesuit, aliue, who thinks it Lawfull to aduance any Prince to a Throne, which is not due to him: [...] that we doe not think it due to him, whilest it is possest by another lawfully. When you shal further discouer your meaning, it shal [...]nd a fuller answer.

Fimbria p. 18. ‘Doe they count it a sin to destroy, or roote out, all whome they count Hereticks, as they count many hun­dred thousands in these nations: and then you cite a decree of the Councel of Latran, ordering Princes, to roote out Hereticks.’

Answer. We all count it a sin, to destroy, or roote out, any one man, Heretick, or other, by priuate Authority, or without due forme of justice: and a much greater sin to destroy soe many. The Decree of the Lateran council is nothing to the purpose, it speaking only of absolute Princes, who haue receiued from God jus gladij, a right to kill: and they may as Lawfully destroy, according to the laws of their Dominions, a Heretick, as any other malefactour. And what is this to the fiue Jesuits, who neuer pretended any such power ouer Liues?

Fimbria p. 19. ‘Do they think it a sin to kill the King? Their Doctors assure them, it is no sin, to kill a Tyrant, and they will haue our King soe, one way, or other.’

Answer. This malicious Assertion without any proofe is an eui­dent proof of the ill will of your hart; but not of any defect of due Allegiance in the Jesuits. I challenge you to proue, that any Jesuit [Page 26]ether by word, or writing, disowned his Majestye's iust title to his Imperiall Crowne. We haue seene a shrewde hint in your great Fauo­rite Oates, who teaches that Princes are deposed, when they ether doe not keepe God's Laws, or not punish all who breake them. Js not this that uery thing, which some ancient, and antiquated Diui­nes, call misgouernment: against whose sentiments you soe tragically de­clame? There is only this difference betwixt your party and the Catho­licks, that we haue Layd a side all those sentiments, for their manifest bad con­sequences; and you retaine them still.

Fimbria p. 19.20.21. & 22. Boucher the Jesuit (who neuer was one) Suarez, Rosaeus, Sà, Bannez, Panormitan, and other hard names, teach strange Doctrine concerning Kings.

Answer. We are not answerable for their sentiments, unlesse we ma­ke them our owne, by approuing, or practicing them: their Doctri­nall faults being no lesse Personall, then theire other sins. For rea­sons aboue giuen j will not recriminate. Nothing in all those men's works of more dangerous consequence, then what Oates lately had the impudence to print. Jt were more discreete, as well as more charitable, to bury in perpetuall obliuion all those shamefull, and seditious Principles: in which the reformed church hath surpast the Roman Catholicks, both in Teaching, and Acting.

Fimbria p. 23. ‘To conclude. J haue great reason to be confident, that these speeches were contriued for the promoting of their Grand Plot, uppon which their harts were soe set, that the thoughts of Death could not diuert them.’

Answer. J haue great reason to say, you care not what you say, pro­uided it be against Papists. Proue first there was a Grand Plot, and that designed by these, or any other Jesuits: which you will neuer doe, because there neuer was any such thing. You may remember, (it is not so long a goe) who they were, that under pretence of opposing pretended Popish Plots, carryed on a reall Plot, to the ruin of the King, and three Kingdomes. You were in being then, and for ought j know, according to your abilityes, acted then, as you doe now, to promote the opinion of a Popish Plot.

Fimbria p 23.

Answer. Beyond your expectation you se your endeauours frustra­ted, and those two points remaine as obscure, as euer. The authori­ty of the sea Apostolick is irrefragable to us Papists, in matters of Faith, and good manners: and that forbids under paine of Excommunication that Reserue, to which you haue recours, Equiuocation. Now according to all Diuines that censure neuer falls, but on a mortall sin. Soe we all beleiue, that to teach Equiuocation, is a mortall sin. Yet you pretend, the Jesuits thought they myght practice Equiuocation, euen with Perjury, that is, adde one mortall sin to another, without any the least sin.

Your attempt, as to the second, hath beene as unsuccessefull: for that depen­ding on the reall subsistance of a Popish Plot, which now uery sew, if any, beleiue, and j am certain neuer was in Being, but in Oates his light, and malitious head, that second point must fall to the ground.

Againe. The thing contained in that second point, is a matter of fact, not what myght be, but what was the meaning of those words. And it is a secret of their harts: and who knows that, but the spirit of man which is in him? 1. Cor. 2.11. Now j desire my Reader to consider, not what reason is alleadged by this Libeller; but what can be produced in a thing of this nature, except it be from a Reuela­tion from the searcher of harts, God, or from the testimony of the Persons spea­king? And to nether of these this Authour pretends. This alone shews, that all his reasons in this case are insignificant to a man of reason.

Fimbria p. 24. ‘Let me only make this enquiry, and j haue done: whether any in Reason, Justice, or Charity, can against such Euidence, as the Justice of the Nation counted cleare, pregnant, and conuincing, beleiue those, who thought they myght uery lawfully deceiue us, when they were dying, and apprehen­ded themselues most hyghly concerned to doe it.’

Answer. You state the case uery wrong, that soe you myght steale away your Readers assent. The question is not: whither we shall credit the justice of the na­tion, or fiue Persons interessed to deceiue their Auditory? For the justice of the na­tion, as well as the People, relyed on the Deposition of Oates, the sole fountaine [Page 28]of all these Lyes, and mischeifes. For as for Bedlows he was newly come out of a Goale, and his staruing condition inuited him to second Oates, for a liuelihood.

As for Oates he had beene a noted Lyer, and a Perjured fellow from his infancy. During his aboade at S.^t Omers, he was notorious and odious for it to all there, And j neuer heard but two tru sayings of his. The one was, whilest he hoped to be admitted into the Society, in confidence he sayd to one: j shall ether be a Jesuit or a Judas. The other was, when he had receiued a finall refusall, (the Prouinciall thought him unfit to liue amongst any honest men) he sayd openly: j will be reuenged. Both these sayings he hath made good. And all his Lyes against Jesuits are to be ascribed, ether to his indigent condition, or this desire of Reue [...]ge for this imaginary wrong. Where en passant, j desire the Reader to consider, 1. what this man deserues, who to satisfy his priuate malice hath disturbed Church, and State, Court, and Country? 2. What honour it is to the Nation, that so greate a part of it should be employed, as instruments to Reuenge a wrong pretended to be done to that great man, TITUS OATES.

On the other side are fiue Persons, of an Jnnocent, irreprochable, virtuo [...] life, as all will testify, who had the aduantage to conuerse with them, during [...] whole course of it.

Wherefore, this is the question, rightly stated: whither the Justice of the No­tion, and all the rest, are rather to beleiue

• 1. Fiue men, who are neuer knowne to haue spoken a false word: or one man, who scarce, euer spoke a tru one.
• 2. Fiue, who scarce euer swore; or one who hath beene often forsworne.
• 3. Fiue dying men, who should be damned unauoydably, if they were forsworne; [...] one, who would starue, if he were not.
• 4. Fiue, who would not speak an untruth, to saue their Liues; or one, who gets his liuing by swearing untruths.
• 5. Fiue, who allways sayd the same things; or one who on all occasions altred [...] tale, in some uery materiall point.
• 6. In fine, fiue, who say nothing, but what is euidently probable, and credible; [...] one, whose story is euidently fabulous, and incredible, if not impossible.

When this is considered, j doubt not, what verdict any judicious man [...] giue in this case.

Let this Libeller, in Authority, D. Tongue, and the whole seditious Presbiter [...] [...] ­rable, say what they can, to paliate Oates, his Lyes, and Perjurys, he will still be a great reproch to our Nation: and the only effect of their Apologyes will be, to make the Authours of them partakers of his sin, and sharers in his infamy. And as for the suffring Papists, as they are, j am confident, all jnnocent, soe that [...] ­nocency will dayly become more, and more conspicuous, and all this present shame will hereafter redound to their greater Glory. Soe that they with joy, [...] say as Joseph did Gen. 50.20. Vos cogitastis de me malū, sed Deus vertit illud in [...].