ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΑΚΡΙΤΟΙ.  
OR, THE Jesuits condemned by their own Witness. Being an Account of the Jesuits Principles, In the matter of EQUIVOCATION, THE POPE'S POWER TO DEPOSE PRINCES, THE KING-KILLING DOCTRINE.  
Out of a Book Entitled AN ACCOUNT OF THE Jesuits Life and Doctrine. By M.G. [a Jesuit] Printed in the Year 1661. And found in possession of one of the five Jesuits Executed on the 20th of June last passed.  
Together, with Some Animadversions on those passages, showing, that by the Account there given of their Doctrine in the three points , those Jesuits lately Executed, were, in probability, guilty of the Treasons for which they suffered, and died Equivocating.  Impudentissimum est Jesuitas, tantarum veritatum lucem contumeliosam sibi dicere, quasi aliâ ratione fama eorum salva esse non possit, nisi omnes homines caecos faciant, & vel ment vel memoria spolient. 
LONDON: Printed for Charles Harper, over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet. MDCLXXIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
SINCE the Sophistry of the five Jesuits lately executed, in their dying Speeches, hath been already over and over convincingly discovered to the World by abler hands; and thus the main end of these Papers, which was to disabuse the credulity of honest well meaning people, is obtained. I take myself obliged to satisfy the Reader, that it is not without reason that I have proceeded to make them public.  
I had made considerable progress in, and almost finished these remarks, before the * two last and most satisfactory pieces on this Subject came to my sight. 
Animadversions on the last Speeches of the Jesuits, etc. Impartial considerations on the Speeches of the five Jesuits, etc.  I had no desire to increase the swarm of Pamphlets, which the present licentious freedom of the Press sends abroad; and therefore upon reading the Impartial Considerations, etc. I resolved to suppress these Papers, but hearty wished I had been acquainted with the Learned Author of those Considerations, and with his intention to publish them, that I might have imparted my purpose to him, who would have improved this Evidence to better advantage than I have done, or can do.  
Having thus utterly laid aside all thoughts of Printing, or indeed of finishing what I had gone on so far with, I was pressed by a worthy Friend not to desist, for that these Papers would not be wholly unnecessary or unserviceable, in regard my Medium was altogether new, and untouched by all former Animadverters; and it affords an Argument against the English Jesuits in general, and Mr. Gawen and his Fellow-sufferers in particular, which concludes, with great probability, that they were guilty of the Treasons sworn against them, notwithstanding their obstinate denial, and earnest protestations of their Innocence at their Execution, might and did die prevaricating.  
There is extant in English, a little Book, Entitled, An Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine, by M. G. Printed in the Year 1661. Who ever was the Author, no doubt it was written by order, and he had the assistance and direction of the whole body of English Jesuits. The design of the Book was to vindicate the Jesuits from such hard thoughts of them as both Protestants, and the more moderate Roman Catholics had not undeservedly entertained; and to represent them so excellent and useful to Human Society, so innocent and so little dangerous, either for their principles or practices to Government, that they might stand fair for an equal share with other roman-catholics in the favour and clemency of his Majesty, who retained a kind remembrance of those good services had been done to his Father and himself by some of that Religion in the late Civil Wars. Thus much may be fairly collected from the Preface, where he brags, that many of the Society were in his Majesty's Camp, where some lost their Lives, others being taken endured Imprisonment, and other hardship. That there is scarce one Jesuit in England who cannot reckon some of his nearest Relations that died for his Majesty, and that all that depended on the Jesuits sided with his Majesty, etc.  
Now in order to begetting in other roman-catholics, as also in his Majesty and the Government, the desired good opinion of the Jesuits: It must be our Author's first business to represent to the best advantage the great Piety of Ignatius Loyola their founder, the excellent design he had in founding their Society, together with the admirable Rules and Orders of the Society, to show the blessed fruits of the Institution, and what advantages, both Temporal and Spiritual, mankind reaps from the Labours of the Jesuits for their good, which our Author performs with a great deal of Art in the first three Chapters of this Book.  
The remaining part of his task was to evade with as much dexterity those bloody Objections that are made against the Jesuits Practices and Principles, for which they are decried, not only by Protestants, but also by all sober Papists. He must so blanche over both their black and their crimson Actions and Doctrines, that they may appear never to have offended either in deed or word, but as innocent of those horrid crimes wherewith all the world charges them, as is the Child unborn. And really herein, in the remaining four Chapters, he acquits himself bravely, and like a Jesuit, and hath approved himself an Artist in framing and using Equivocations, and may be turned lose to all the World.  
In this brief account of their Life and Doctrine, you find the sum of whatever can be said either in honour or defence of the Society. And their Emissaries may furnish themselves here with tools to rivet the affections of their Votaries and admirers; and to take off the prejudices of such others as are offended at them.  
Among the five Jesuits lately Executed, none played the Orator for himself, and the Society, like Mr. Gawen, who very handsomely summed up, in a few words, the most that could be said for the vindication of both. And 'tis evident he borrowed that part of his Speech which contains the Apology both for himself and them from our Author. It cannot be expected that so short a discourse should afford many Arguments to prove it, and yet I have four to offer for it.  

1. Whereas Mr. Gawen citys King Henry the fourth of France, the Royal Grandfather of our present Gracious King, in a public Oration— saying, he was satisfied with the Jesuits Doctrine concerning Kings, as believing it conformable to what the best Doctors of the Church taught. It is observable, that our Author hath twice quoted the same passage in Answer to the third Objection, and hath cited no other passage out of the whole Speech. He citys it first with the very same flourish that Mr. Gawen makes. 
p. 106. — I prove, by the Authority of Henry the great, our dear Sovereign's Grandfather (much stress lies on that Relation) who— said, I am certain, that in averring and defending the Pope's Authority, they differ not from other Catholic Divines. And again, within four Pages, This is that which King Henry the fourth said, 
p. 110.  that he was sure Jesuits taught nothing in this matter which did differ from other Catholics. It is one and the same passage, with that cited by Mr. Gawen, though he varies the Phrase, and words it more pompously in honour of the Society.  
2. Doth Mr. Gawen deny that any Jesuit ever taught the Doctrine of kill Kings, except Mariana the Spanish Jesuit? So did our Author before him, only Mr. Gawen hath outstripped our Apologist, and speaks without Book, in asserting, 
That Mr. Gawen learned out of Philanax Anglicus, p. 94.  that Mariana defended it not absolutely, but only problematically. He saith, all the Authors of the Society, EXCEPTING ONLY MARIANA— teach the contrary. And whereas Mr. Gawen saith his Book was called in, 
p. 116.  and the opinion expunged, our Author tells us, 
p. 115.  the Society would gladly have called it in, and that their General took order to have the place corrected.  
3. As Mr. Gawen complains. Is it not a sad thing, that for the rashness of ONE MAN— a whole Religious Order should be sentenced? So our Author complains of those, 
p. 116.  who will have it, that the fault of ANY ONE of the Society must, like Original Sin, infect all for ever, and unpardonably. Both you see take care that the Society may not suffer upon Mariana's account.  
4. Mr. Gawen, and our Apologists, agree in the use of a word very exotic and unusual, Mr. Gawen saith, I never did in my life MACHINE or contrive the Deposition, or Death of the King. Our Author tells us, 
p. 115.  that the Jesuits are prohibited— advising that it is lawful to kill King or Princes, or MACHINE their Death. The word MACHINE is commonly, in the English Tongue, used as a Noun Substanstive, but I am persuaded there cannot be many instances produced, beside these two, of its being made a Verb.   
And I think it not impertinent to add, that the Book whence I transcribed the following passages, was bought among other Books of one of the Jesuits Executed with Mr. Gawen, and I am apt to believe not one of the five but had it.  
Now in regard Mr. Gawen so far honoured this Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine, as to borrow, what he said in vindication of himself and his Order, thence, and one more, and probably all the rest of his Fellow-Sufferes had it, there is little reason to doubt their approbation of it. And the nature of the thing itself, being an Apology, requires, that the Account given of those scandalous and horrid Doctrines held by the Jesuits, should be as fair, cautious, and moderate as it could be contrived; nay, that it should (as 'tis apparent it doth) mince the matter, and extenuate even the common and universally received opinions of the Doctors of the Society. So that we have reason to believe, that Mr. Gawen and his Brethren held the objected Points to the height of what this Author owns and allows, and did renounce or disclaim them no further than he hath done: We cannot suppose their Principles more moderate and innocent than they are here represented.  
Hereupon I thought it might be of use for the further satisfaction of such honest minds, as are apt over-easily to credit whatever any person takes on his death (measuring others by their own integrity, and never considering how much their consciences may be debauched by bad Principles, and seared by suitable practices) to represent the sentiments of the Jesuits in this Author's words, who is an English Jesuit, and an Apologist for them, and one that seems to have been in good credit and esteem with these very Persons Executed June the 20th. That they may see how far one of the most sober and moderate of them, even while writing on purpose to palliate their dangerous Principles, asserts the Doctrine of Equivocation and Mental Reservation, and the Poes' power to Depose Princes, and withal how saintly and fallaciously he denies the King-killing Doctrine.  
The Principles of those Executed, so far as we can learn them from their Speeches, are the very same; however they cannot be reasonably supposed better than our Authors. Now there being a most Hellish Plot against our King and Religion, by God's wonderful mercy, brought to light, and horrid Treasons being expressly and legally proved against them to the satisfaction of the Court and all impartial Auditors; when they understand rightly their Principles, these honest well-meaning Persons, not only Protestants, but even moderate Roman Catholics, will be more ready to credit the King's Evidence, and be satisfied in the Justice of the Kingdom, which is now most impudently traduced. And they will further see cause to believe that in their confident protestations of their Innocence, these Jesuits made use of Equivocations and Mental Reservation, or that fine shift mentioned indeed by Mr. Gawen, but nót renounced by any of the rest, material prolocution, i. e. To speak the words materially, so as to utter the sound of them without intending that any thing should be signified by them. 'Tis apparent from the passages hereafter cited out of this Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine, that the Jesuitical Principles no way restrain men either from such Treasonable Practices, or from those vile Arts of concealing them.  
The passages cited are all in the VI Chapter of this Account. In the citation I have used all possible Fidelity. I have transcribed them entire, and as they lie in order. I have omitted nothing but the second Objection and its Answer, as not pertinent to my design, though liable enough to Animadversion, and some reproaches cast upon other Roman Catholics and Protestants, which serve no way for the Jesuits vindication.  
I thought it was but necessary to add some strictures by way of Animadversion, on the passages I am forced to cite, for an Antidote against the poisonous Doctrines which are contained in them. If I had not said all that might be expected, I have purposely omitted many things, being unwilling, without necessity, to repeat what hath been already said by others; and withal, the refutation of this Author, is beside the main end and design of making these Papers public, which is to make use of him as good evidence against the Jesuits in general, and especially against those five last Executed.   

An Advertisement.  
THESE Papers were sent to the Press in the beginning of the Vacation, but the delays they met with thereby have occasioned their late and almost unseasonable appearance in Public.  
You are directed to the Page of the Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine, whence these passages are cited, by the Figure over against them in the Margin.   

ERRATA.  
PAGE 1. Line 13. in the Paragraph. l. 29. as Statera norum doth. p. 172. p. 2. l. 30. in his VIII, IX. and the following Epistles. l. 37. which are as good. l. 47. r. silence. p. 3. l. 4. declared her to be. p. 5. l. 42. not out of dread. l. 52. for which this account. p. 6. l. 42. Chastel. p. 7. l. 37. Loiola. p. 8. l. 23. for the honour of the renowned. l. 21. blot out, I passage. p. 9 l. 47. the Jesuits than had. p. 11. l. 47. but they have politicly. p. 14. l. 7. their. p. 15. l. 18. themselves.  
In the Margin, p. 1. deal p. 172. p. 3. l. 7. ubi supra, add ut. l. 36. He quotes Ofiander, a violent Lutheran, charging the Calvinists with a Doctrine they all renounce and abhor. p. 8. l. 6. Lincoln's Letter in 8. p. 60.   

CHAP. VI Objections made against the Jesuits Doctrine. 
p. 100   
M. G. FROM these adversaries, not of Learning, but of Truth, proceed the Objections against the Jesuits Doctrine, which I intent to take notice of in this Chapter.  
Answ. A Casuist of the Society teacheth, 
Tambourin cited in the Jesuits Morals, p. 345.  That one accused of a Crime which cannot be legally proved by the Accuser, [i. e. not because falsely Objected, but for want of corroborating evidence] may not only deny his crime, but also say his Accuser lies and slanders him. Thus our Author treats the Objectors, and to be beforehand with them, giveth his Reader an Antidote against all their Objections, by saying, they proceed from the Adversaries of Truth, i. e. as he describes them in paragraph just before, men who impugn the Jesuits Doctrine by railing, clamours, forging and falsifying their Books, who deserve no Answer, but in the Ancient Catholic way of confuting obstinate Heretics, by Fire, and the hand of the Hangman.  
M. G. And their first Objection is, That the Jesuits teach the Doctrine of Equivocation and Mental Reservations, and therefore cannot be trusted.  
Answ. The Objection hath Truth in its antecedent, and Reason in its Consequence, which is firm and undeniable. All who teach and practise those Arts of deceiving, viz. Equivocation and Mental Reservation, are Persons not to be trusted: Ergo, If the Jesuits teach and practise such Arts (which our Author denies not, but defends them) the Jesuits are persons not to be trusted.  
M. G. I answer, the Jesuits teach nothing in this matter which is not the common Doctrine of all Schools and Universities, none excepted.  
Answ. How, none excepted! I know not what Artifice can bring him off without downright lying, for Protestant Schools and Universities all expressly condemn it.  
M. G. Nor do I see how it can be denied, unless we will say that it is lawful to lie, as Statera morum doth, for than we may infer as that Book doth, 
p. 101.  That it is clear they are in an error, who scorning the name of a Lie, 
p. 172.  make use of Equivocation. But that Author will not find any of his opinion, nor doth he lessen but increase the difficulty.  
Answ. If the Author of Statera morum maintain the lawfulness of lying he doth ill. But I think he is much in the right, as to the matter of Equivocation, which is but another and a finer name for the same thing.  
M. G. The sum therefore of the Doctrine concerning Equivocation is this: That it is always ill done to Lie, but not always ill to conceal the Truth by ambiguous Speech, that is, Equivocation and Mental Reservation.  
Answ. That is, in plain English, a simple, plain, old-fashioned Lie, without either welt or guard is a sin: but a curious, new-fashioned, artificial Lie, such as our Author saith the Jesuits, and all Catholic Doctors, hold lawful, and sometimes necessary, is no sin at all.  
M. G. when there is a just cause to conceal the Truth, than it is lawful (say the Divines) to use ambignous Speech; on the contrary, when there is not a just cause to conceal the Truth, than it is a sin to equivocate. Now when the cause to conceal the Truth is just, or not, dependeth on the particular circumstance of every occurrence, for which there is no rule can be set.  
Answ. One will find it a very hard matter to catch a Jesuit without a just cause to Equivocate or use Mental Reservation, if you consult their Casuists on the Question, when there is just cause, and when not. But what need of a Casuist to resolve it? Our Author leaves every man to judge for himself, whether he have just cause or not; and then no doubt, both themselves and all that depend on them, will find causes enough to justify the use of ambiguous speech when ever it may do them service.  
M. G. This is the Doctrine of Equivocation, wherein the Society hath nothing particular but teaches that and only that, in which both Catholic and Protestant Doctors agree.  
Answ. Admirable Doctrine! 'Tis much the Society should have nothing particular in it. If all Catholic Doctors agree with them herein, the more is their shame. But sure our honest Country man, Joseph Barns, a Benedictine Monk, who wrote a Book against Equivocation, was of another opinion: and one would be apt to think, that the Sorbon Doctors, who approved and commended Barus his Book, were so too. I am sure he most unconscionably slanders the Protestants in pretending their consent.  
M. G. Among the Catholic Doctors that teach this, 
p. 102.  are St. Augustine, S. chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and after him a Torrent of School Divines.  
Answer. He had very ill luck to stumble first upon St. Augustine, 'tis pity St. Jerome had not lain in that place. 
Com. lib. 1. in Ep. ad Galat. cap. 2. Utilem verò simulationem & assamendam in tempore, Jehu regis Israel nos doceat exemplum.  St. Jerome indeed speaks somewhat favourably out of devotion to the Prince of Apostles, maintaining that St. Peter was not in earnest reproved by St. Paul, and in vindication of it wrote an Epistle to St. Augustine, citing seven Authors for it; but St. Augustine hath so bafflëd him in his VIII, and ●X Epistles, that he made him weary of the Controversy. It's true, about St. Augustine's time, some Writers of good account, spoke too favourably of officious Lies. But St. Augustine 
* Lib. de Mendac. ad Consent. Lib. contra mendacium: Enchir. ad Laurent. c 22. Com. ad Psal. 5. & alibi passim.  condemns all Lies without exception, whether Pernicious, Officious, or Jocose, although he grant the two latter are not so damnable as the first. And that Father salves the best Arguments that could be urged in favour of Officious Lies, which as good as any, that Equivocation, or Mental Reservation will bear. Perhaps a passage in his Book Contra Mendacium, might encourage our Apologists Author (for he citys at second hand) to abuse that Father as a Patron of the Jesuitical Doctrine, 
Aug. contra Mendac. C. 10.  of concealing Truth by Equivocation and Mental reservation; the passage is this, Non est mendacium cum SILENDO absconditur VERUM, sed cum LOQVEN DO promitur FALSUM. But this passage makes directly against Mental Reservations and condemns them as Lies, he saith, It is not a Lie, when TRUTH is concealed by SILENCE, but when FALSHOOD is vented by Speech. 'Tis evident that the only way of concealing Truth allowed by St. Augustine, is silenced, and he esteems it a Lie to speak any thing that is false. Now in Mental Reservation that which is uttered is absolutely false, intended to deceive, and in the judgement of the Jesuits themselves, would be a Lie but for the help of a secret reserve in the Speakers breast, which can no way alter the real quality of the proposition uttered.  
That this must be that Father's meaning, will appear by the occasion he had so to determine in that point; the Priscillianists defended Lying as the Jesuits do Equivocation by the example of the Holy Patriarches, particularly of Abraham in the case of his Wise. 
Aliquid ergo veri tacuit, ron falsi aliq●id dixit, tac●it ux rem dixit sarorem. Aug. uti sapr.  St. Austin denies that Abraham Lied, he did not deny her to be his Wife, which had been a Lie, but declared to be his Sister, which was true; he concealed the Truth, but spoke Truth also.  
As he hath abused St. Augustine, who held it not lawful to Lie upon any account, no not to save a Soul; so I am apt to believe he doth Aquinas, whom he calls St. Thomas. For I find 
* Sepulveda de ratione dicendi testim. cap. 17.  Sepulveda impugning the use of ambiguous Speech in giving evidence, saith that none of the ancient and eminent Divines allow it, and before telling whom he meant by those ancient Divines, expressly saith, such was Themas Aquinas. How he hath used St. chrysostom and St. Ambrose, I have not had opportunities to examine, I fear ill enough: he citys no place, nor so much as refers to any, and I believe quotes Fathers as he doth Protestants upon trust, and from no very honest Authors.  
M. G. Among the Protestants are divers mentioned in the Protestants Apology, as P. Martyr, Zuinglius, Willet, Melancthon, Luther, Musculus, Wieleff, and divers others cited at length, in the 7 Section of the 3 Tract, under the letter M. number 76. and in the 703 page of the Impression. An. Dom. 1608. Though of the Authors there cited, some will not use the name of Equivocation or Mental Reservation, but call these doubtful Speeches Officious Lies, which notwithstanding they say one is sometimes bound to use: So Luther, there cited, saith of Rahab, and concludeth, that there is an Officious Lie by which men provide for the same and safety of their Neighbour. Igitur honestum ac pium mendacium est, ac potius officium charitatis appellandum. And Osiander there cited, saith of the Calvinists, Hane maximan seu regulam habent Calvinistae, licere pro gloriâ Christi mentiri. The Calvinists have this for a ground or principle, that it is lawful to Lie for the glory of Christ.  
Answ. I confess I was at first amazed to find there had been any such Protestant Apology, taking it for granted (as our Author, whose honesty appears answerable to those principles he is maintaining, desires his Reader should) that it was an Apology for the Protestant Religion, and written by some Protestant, but upon enquiry, I find that his worthy Author is Mr. Breerly, who hath written a Book entitled, The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church; a Book fraught with many prevarications, one of which cited here by our Author, gave me enough of the Apologist, and he and our Author may go together for their veracity.  
M. G. Yet Catholics generally do not allow of Lying, but (as many Protestants) of concealing the Truth by Equivocation.  
Answ. Here he stily and maliciously insinuates, that Protestants are more favourable in the point of the lawfulness of Officious Lies, which he calls doubtful Speeches, than the Jesuits or other Popish Doctors generally are: but the malice and falsehood of this insinuation, will readily appear to any man who is able, and will take the pains to compare the Casuists on both sides.  
M. G. Now that this Doctrine may, and sometimes must be allowed, examples will make manifest. I will instance in one: When His Majesty after Worcester Fight was constrained to shelter himself in Boscobel, There was, as we all know, very narrow search made after him. Among the rest, one of the Pendrils, (those Loyal Subjects ever to be commended in all History) was asked where the King was; he answered, that he knew not, meaning that he knew not for to tell them: He thought he might and ought in that case conceal the Truth: And all the Jesuits in the World are of his opinion. He was bound there under pain of High-Treason to Equivocate. And those that deny Equivocation to be lawful, let them say what they would have done. Sure I am, that if they would not in that case have used Equivocation or Mental Reservations, they must have been either Liars or Traitors.  
Answ. Here he triumphs in a cunning instance, and seemingly invincible, 
A. D. 1661.  which suited very well the time of Publishing his Book. The happiest instance sure that ever was thought on, which (besides the fair opportunity it gives him to extol the Papists Loyalty) seems to prove Mental Reservations not only lawful, but even meritorious. He would make us believe, that we own the great blessing of his Majesty's preservation after Worcester Fight to a Mental Reservation, and to that honest Jesuit Pendrills Confessor, who taught him dextrously to use it. I am apt to believe Pendrills is a made case, and not a real fact. Be it how it will, I conceive a Protestant might have as laudably saved his Majesty by a Lie, as Mr. Pendrill did by a Mental Reservation. I honour and commend his Loyal affection and zeal for his Majesty's preservation as much as our Author, and thus far I concur with him and all the Jesuits in the World, That in this case he ought to conceal the Truth, but that he ought to do it in that way, by such a Mental Reservation I utterly deny. If we may not Lie for God, neither may we for the King. And there is not a pin to choose between Equivocation, Mental Reservation, and a Lie.  
But since we will not admit Equivocations, or Mental Reservation, what would we have done in Pendrils case? he says, we must have been either Liars or Traitors, there is no avoiding it.  
By his leave, I am of opinion, that there is no necessity of either. I think I can fit him, 
Aug. lib. de Mendac. ad Consentium. c. 13. Quanto ergo fortius, quanto excellentius dices, nec prodam, nec mentiar? Fecit hoc Episcopus quondam Tagastensis Ecclesiae Firmus nomine, firmior voluntate, etc.  with a case very like this, out of St. Augustine, which will make out what I have said, and withal show, how much that Father was a friend to Equivocation. He tells us, that Firmus Bishop of Tagasta in afric, had received a man (belike some persecuted Christian) and hide him: the Emperor sent his Officers to search for him, who demanding where he was, he answered, Nec mentiri se posse, nec hominem prodere, passusque multa tormenta corporis (nondum enim erant Imperatores Christiani) permansit in sententiâ, that is, he would be neither a Liar nor a Traitor; and having endured much torturing (for Emperors were not as yet Christians) he persevered in that resolution. It is a plain case, this good old Bishop never dreamt what service a Mental Reservation might have done him; and 'tis further evident, that if St. Augustine (who so highly magnified his Heroic constancy) had approved this Doctrine of Equivocation, he would rather have pitied the poor Bishop's simplicity, than have commended his example to imitation. So that it appears, our Author's dilemma hath not so perilous and unavoidable horns as he imagines.  
To conclude, though the forementioned be an example of veracity in gradu heroico, and perhaps constancy would often fail good men in the same circumstances, yet I am sure that as strict conscience would not have permitted any man to betray his Majesty, so neither would it have allowed him to make use of a Lie, either plain, or artificial for his Majesty's preservation. In such a straight he must have put on a resolution, to suffer any thing rather than be a Liar or a Traitor, and to have committed the keeping of himself and his Sovereign to the alwise providence of a faithful Creator, 
1 Pet. iv. 19  who knew how to provide for the security of both, without the help of such indirect means and unworthy shifts.  
M. G. The Doctrine therefore of Equivocation teacheth only this, that when there is a just necessity of concealing the Truth, than you may Equivocate; but when there is not a just reason to conceal the Truth, than it is a sin to Equivocate, because such Equivocation containeth fraud and double dealing, contrary to Christian Charity, and that candour and sincerity, which is necessary for commerce among men.  
Answ. If our Author seem to have a more tender conscience than his brethren, and will admit that it is sometime a sin to Equivocate; you must consider, that he is an Apologist for the Society, and must very warily unfold this Mystery of Jesuitism: But if you please to consult 
* Op. mor l. 3. c. 6. num. 22.  Sanchez, and some other less rigid Casuists, you will find very slight causes may serve to justify Equivocation, even sport itself, if a man do not swear to it.  
M. G. And in this the Jesuits be no way singular, they teach but what all teach.  
Answ. If the Jesuits are no way singular herein, or as he saith above, 
p. 101.  herein the Society hath nothing particular, but all Roman Catholics agree with them in this point, than they are even all to be trusted alike. But I will do our Author and the Society thus much right, they have above all other Writers obliged the World with these fine new Names for Officious Lies, unknown till Navarrus read Casuistical Divinity to the Jesuits College at Rome; and further, by communicating the art of framing and using Equivocations and Mental Reservations with the greatest dexterity imaginable.  
M. G. The third and main objection against the Jesuits Doctrine is, 
p. 105.  that they maintain the Pope's Authority in prejudice to Sovereignty, teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Kings. This is the objection with which the Jesuits are every where cried down: And because it is so much made of by the adversaries of the Society, 
p. 106.  I shall humbly entreat the Reader to give me leave to be a little more large in my Answer.  
Answ. The Objection is very considerable, and such as, after all his shuffling, he cannot get clear of: For what he saith doth not so much justify the Jesuits, as impeach all other Romanists of the same Traitorous Tenant.  
M G. I say therefore as to matter of fact, for I mean not to meddle with the Question otherwise, that the Jesuits never did at any time teach in this matter otherwise than what was the common Doctrine of other Doctors in the Catholic Church, and for the present they are less chargeable with this Doctrine than any others.  
Answ. There needs no extraordinary measure of sagacity to Divine why our Author balks the Question, and will not meddle with it otherwise than as matter of Fact. It is not of dread of Damnation for disobedience to Father Mutius his precept: But the true reason is, because he cannot meddle with it, without spoiling the design of his whole Book. He is an Apologist for the Jesuits, and is obliged to give such an account of their Doctrine as may represent their Principles honest, and no way dangerous to the rights of Princes. Now should he have undertaken the Question, this design were utterly defeated. All the world knows, our Author being a Jesuit, one of the Pope's Janissaries, he must maintain the Pope's power to depose Kings, and determine the Question in such a way, 
England, and A. D. 1661.  as considering the time and place for this account of the Jesuits Doctrine was calculated, would have proved of dangerous consequence to the Society. But that the Society is never a jot the less chargeable with this Doctrine than other Papists, notwithstanding F. Mutius Vitelleschi's precept of obedience, I will show when I come to consider it by and by.  
M. G. The first part of this Assertion I prove by Authority of Henry the Great, our dear Sovereign's Grandfather, who (when the Doctrine of the Pope's deposing Kings was objected against the Jesuits, as an Argument why they ought to continue banished out of France) said to the Parliament these words, I am certain that in averring and defending the Pope's Authority they differ not from other Catholic Divines. This the French Stories aver, this the Speech of that great King makes appear, 
This Speech is Printed at the end of this Book. p. 137.  this the Actions of the same King (if his words were not extant) would make plain to all the world: For how can it be imagined, that he who was in the account of all a very wise man, should admit into his Kingdom men that held Treasonable Doctrine? 
p. 107.  How should he possibly be supposed so forgetful of his own good, and the safety of his own posterity, as that he should plead for men charged to hold Doctrine prejudicial to Monarchy, without examining whether their accusations were true? No, no, he was not so weak as to become the Orator for his own ruin. He would never have made it his business to plead for the Jesuits, and command their admission; nay, further to take them into his familiar acquaintance, make them his Confessors, and build them Colleges, and bequeath his heart to them, if he had not been fully satisfied that their Doctrine contained nothing singular to the prejudice of Sovereignty.  
Answ. He makes a great flourish with the Authority of King Henry the fourth of France, our dear Sovereign's Grandfather, in an Oration, which Mr. Gawen in his Speech at Execution tells us, he pronounced himself (and he saith well, for few believe it was composed by himself, but by the Jesuits for him) in defence of the Jesuits. It is very well known, that when the King made that Speech to the Parliament of Paris, he came resolved to gratify the Pope (who had long, and with great earnestness pressed the revocation of Jesuits from banishment) and not to take advice of that Assembly what was fit to be done. Had he admitted a fair debate of things, and suffered the weightier reasons to preponderate, Harlay, one of the Precedents of that Parliament gave reasons unanswerable against their revocation. But the truth of the matter was plainly thus;  
The same necessity of affairs, which at first enforced that great King to embrace the Romish Religion, now also constrained him to  the Jesuits from banishment. While he was a Protestant he saw, there was no hope of sitting quiet upon his throne, so long as the Leaguers (with whom the 
* Oratio Harlai apud Thuanum, lib. 130. ad An. 1604.  Jesuits unanimously sided, and not so much as one single man of the Society took part with the King) could have the pretence of Heresy to excite his Subjects to Rebellion. When he was turned Roman Catholic, one Chaste, a Scholar of the Jesuits, attempted to kill him, and confessing that he had learned that Doctrine, which animated him to this attempt, among them, whom he had often heard, call the King Tyrant, saying, it was lawful to kill him, and that he was out of the pale of the Church, etc. and upon searching Father Guinart's Chamber, having found several papers owned by himself to be his writing, which contained that dangerous Doctrine; the Jesuits were, at the Petition of the Universities of France, banished the Kingdom, and Guinart was hanged. During their exile, he saw himself in continual danger of Assassination by their Friends: He was plied with earnest solicitations from the Pope on their behalf, 
Rivet. Jes. Vapulans. cap. 12. n. 5.  as may be seen in Cardinal d' Ossat's Letters, and at last saw he should never make any interest in the Court of Rome, unless he would comply with the Pope in their Revocation. He therefore thought it good policy to make necessity a virtue, and try if by an unexampled piece of Clemency he might at once oblige the Pope, and appease their restless malice. Hereupon he repeals the Sentence of their Banishment, receives them into more than ordinary favour, admits one of the Society for a Confessor, bequeathes his heart to them, and by all Arts endeavours firmly to oblige them to his Interests, hoping he might find them as serviceable to him for the future as formerly they had been to the Spaniard against him. Otherwise 'tis notorious to all the World, that this great King retained too much kindness for his old Religion, to be Bigot enough for the Jesuits: It was fear made him Court them, and after all the flourishes our Author makes, 'tis more than probable he was their Orator for his own Ruin. And when the Jesuits found him not for their turn, they soon sent him after his Predecessor, having hopes of playing their Cards to better advantage with a King in minority, and an Italian Queen Regent.  
M. G. I easily believe that those who have already calumned the Society in this matter will endeavour some sleeveless answer to this Authority of the words and actions of so great a King, but withal I confide, that his Majesty will give more credit to the single Assertion of his Grandfather, 
p. 108.  than to ten thousand detractions, and all wise men will join in his Majesty's opinion.  

If so much stress lie on the Authority of his Majesty's Grandfather, why should not the Authority of King James be as valid against the Jesuits, as that of King Henry the 4th of France for them. But if you would understand truly the sentiments of King Henry the 4th: See the instructions given to Villeroy his Anbassador at Rome, where he paints them out in their proper Colours.  Answ. This, or whatever else shall be offered, may be pre-judged and called a sleeveless answer, but I am sure 'tis as considerable as the Argument, which is an Authority of more pomp than strength. And methinks the Jesuits have little reason to triumph over the Protestants upon account of the Testimony of King Henry the fourth, [That their Doctrine concerning the Pope's Authority over Kings differs not from that of other Catholic Divines] which if true, is really, though not intentionally, rather an accusation of the Popish Religion in general, than any Apology for the Jesuits.  
M. G. But to go on and prove both first and second part of what I asserted. Nothing else need be said to make all my Assertion evidently clear, but only to give a true Historical account of what hath been done in this matter, which I will do sincerely and faithfully. The opinion then of the Pope's Authority in deposing of Princes, was held by many Religous, and Clergy men, before any of the Society writ of it.  
Answ. That other Orders, and that before Ignatius Loyala had founded the Society of Jesus, were Assertors of the Pope's Authority in deposing Kings I deny not. And I further acknowledge that the Jesuits have not maintained the Hildebrandine Doctrine at that extravagant rate as many of the Canonists have done: They have too much Learning, too much Wit, and I wish I might add Honesty to boot, but I must not ascribe too much to that. No, they have as much affection for the cause as any Canonist of them all, but they are fallen into too knowing an Age to bear it. Their Order was Erected and Confirmed by Pope Paul the III. A. D. 1540 at a time when Learning was much retrieved, and when those trifling proofs, would not satisfy, nor would those Arguments convince which had passed for demonstration, uncontrolled for four or five hundred years before.  
M. G. For example, there were ordinarily cited for this opinion, of the renowned Order of the Benedictines, Gregory the VII. and other Abbots that joined with him (as Desiderius Abbot of Mont Cassin, Anselmus Lucensis did) and Panormitanus, etc. of the Order of St. Augustine, Aegidius Romanus, Augustinus Triumphus, etc. of St. Dominicks Order, St. Thomas, St. Antoninus, Cajetan, etc. of the Franciscans, St. Bonaventure, Joannes de Capistrano, Relagius Alvarius, Alexander Alice, etc. of the Carmelites, Waldensis and Bacon; of the 
* That is, Seculars. p 109.  Clergy, very many Priests, and Bishops and Cardinals, as Gerson, Doctor of Paris, etc. of the Lawyers, Bartolus and Baldus, etc. these and many more were cured in Schools for this Doctrine, which Barclay rightly calleth the common Doctrine of both Canonists and Divines.  
Answ. All this plainly discovers that the Popish Religion as Popish, is dangerous to the rights of Princes; all Orders, by reason of their immediate dependence on the Pope, are injurious to them, but yet more than any, or indeed all the rest the Jesuits. Pursuant to this Doctrine, there hath been for several years carried on an Hellish Plot for the subversion of our Government and Religion; and in order to the ruin of both, for the Assassination of His Sacred Majesty. There were engaged in it, as hath been sworn, of the renowned Order of the Benedictines; Corker, Howard, etc. of St. Domincks Order, Keimash Dominick, Collins, etc. of the Franciscans, Armstrong and Napper. of the Carmelites, Hanson, Trevers, etc. of the Clergy, many Priests, Bishops and some Cardinals. But it was first hatched by the Jesuits, and there are more of the Society accused than of all Orders besides. But yet I must not forget, or omit, one passage I passage I remember I have read (in a French Book, Entitled, Traite de la Politique de France) for the Renowned Order of St. Benedict. In a Chapter, where, among other things, he prescribes methods for the utter ruin of the English Nation, the Author advises, that a promise should be made to the Benedictines, that they should be reestablished in all their Ancient Possessions according to the Monasticon, which, saith he, will make those Monks move Heaven and Earth to bring all into confusion. So that you see the Benedictines, of how good repute soever they have been, are none of the most quiet Spirits. As the Jesuits are the Pope's Janissaries, so are the Benedictines his Spahi.  
M G. Though not withstanding it is to be observed, that none of these, nor no Catholic Divine, ever gave the Pope an Arbitrary Power to depose at his jest, as now some, though very falsely presume; Their opinions were modified, so that their Books stood in esteem, and were not thought to have deserved so ill at Prince's hands as now some would make them seem.  
Answ. In the Paragraph before, he hath given them such a wound, as the Plaster he lays upon it in this, will neither cover nor cure. It is well known, 
See my Lord Bishop of Lincoln. 8. pag. 60.  that very small reasons, have been thought by the Pope cause enough for the deposing of Kings. And by accusing all Protestant Prindes of Heresy, these Authors plainly give the Pope power to depose them at his list.  
M. G. All which I do not say to defend their opinions as good, but only a declaring matter of Fact. I say, these and many more were cited in Schools for this Doctrine, as a common opinion, before the Society was in the World: as beside what I have said, is manifestly proved, in the Oration which Cardinal Perron made to the third Estate in France.  
Answ. Having made a fair Apology, to little purpose, for others, he now makes another with as little success for himself, All which I do not say to defend their opinions as good. Well said, but what then Sir? Dare you condemn these opinions? Do you any where so much as insinuate that they are bad? much less do you any where profess to disown them as traitorous and false.  
M. G. Whilst then this was the opinion of the Schools, Bellarmine writ his Controversies, and in the matter De summo Pontifice; 
p. 110.  he taught this Doctrine, and he took his Arguments, as be professeth himself, out of Sanders a Secular Priest.  
Answ. It seems the common opinion of all their Divines and Canonists, with a Pope at the head of them, amounts to no more than a School point. He insinuates, that though this Doctrine formerly was the opinion of the Schools, 'tis otherwise now. I should be glad to hear that this point is at present determined otherwise than it was formerly wont in Popish Schools; But I doubt I may expect till I am a weary before I hear so good news: For aught appears to the contrary, our Author, and the rest of the Society, are still of Bellarmine's opinion.  
But to serve the present design, an Apology must be made for Bellarmine, and what is it? Why alas unhappy man! It was his ill luck to write in a time when this Doctrine was commonly received. And was it so? It had been worthy Bellarmine's great Learning, to have rectified that vulgar error, to have disabused the World, and answered Sanders his Arguments rather than to have urged them further, and confirmed so dangerous a Doctrine by his Authority. Those virtues for which Silvester the Petra Sancta celebrates him, would have inclined him to this, but 'tis apparent the Genius and Interest of the Society swayed him the contrary way.  
M. G. After Bellarmine, partly to vindicate him, and partly upon other accounts, four or five Jesuits more writ on the same matter, alleging Authors who had writ before them, taking for the most part their reason out of former writers, that stood in Libraries, and were read without control in Schools: And this is that which Henry the fourth said, That he was sure Jesuits taught nothing in this matter which did differ from the other Catholics. But it was not enough for the Society to be as wary as others.  
Answ. If those four of five Jesuits have been misled by Bellarmine and former Writers, the Society ought to have censured both him and them, and should have obliged those Authors to recant. Till the Society set some public brand upon them for this scandalous Doctrine, that its Authors may be no more in a capicity to misled others, the Society is justly charged with that Doctrine, and all those ill consequences thereof, which it hath in its power so easily to redress.  
M.G. their Doctrine therefore after the death of Henry the fourth, their great Protector, was highly contradicted, especially in France, and much noise there was. The Jesuits them seeing that this Doctrine was Lapis offensionis, and bred disgust because they taught it, to take away all complaint of the Society, resolved never to say more of that matter. So F. Claudius Aquaviva the fifth General of the Society made a Prohibition concerning this matter on the 5th of Jan. 1616. 
p. 111.   
Answ. Observe, I pray you, the reason of these Prohibitions which he thinks make the Society less chagerable with this Doctrine than others. It is no dislike of it, but rather the contrary that occasioned their silence. It seems the Jesuits had (as they still have) a very ill name, and Doctrine, that was ever a whit suspicious, if taught by them was the worse received for the teacher's sake. Now it grieved them to see this Darling Doctrine, and consequently the Papal Power lose ground, and themselves hated and reviled for teaching it: therefore to stop those mouths which were every where open against them, and because the Doctrine was likely to be propagated with better success, by more acceptable persons, they resolved for the future to be silent in that point.  
M. G. But because that Prohibition seemed not efficacious enough to prevent all inconveniences, and give the World full satisfaction, Father Mutius Vateleschi, the sixth General of the Society, in the Year 1626. or the 13th of August, made a precept of obedience, by which all Jesuits are obliged, upon pain of damnation, never to write, dispute, teach or print any thing concerning that matter: The Precept is extant in an Epistle of Father Mutius, and from thence inserted as a perpetual Precept into the eighth Congregation, in fine it runneth thus, Ordinamus in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae nequis in posterum materiam de Potestate summi Pontificis super Principes, eos deponendi, etc. tractet aut libris editis, aut scriptis quibuscunque nec publicè disputet aut doceat in Scholis, ut occasiones omnis offensionis & querelarum praecidantur. This is the Precept which hath now steed this 35 years, and never was infringed by any one; since the year 26 nothing hath been said of this Question in Schools or Sermons, 
p. 112.  or public discourses, nothing hath been Printed of it in the Society. This care the Society hath had to avoid all offensive Questions, etc.  
Answ. How little effect Aquaviva's precept had, or how little it was regarded, may be plainly seen by the Publishing of Sanctarellus his Book, in the year 1625. and that approved by Father Mutius the self same General of the Jesuits, who Published the Precept of August the 13th 1626. This Precept, upon pain of Damnation, was but necessary to a tone for approving Sanctarellus' Book, and manifestly appears to have been intended merely to prevent clamour, and maintain the reputation of the Society, more than the Authority of Princes. It provides but slenderly for securing their rights; for though it prohibits writing Books, public Disputations, and Lectures on that Subject, yet it leaves them at liberty to instill that Doctrine in private, wheresoever they see it likely to find a favourable reception. Nay, for aught appears, 
Libris editis out scriptis quibuseunque nec publicè disputet out doceat in Schuli.—  it may be still vented in Sermons, (we have only our Authors bare word that nothing hath been said in Sermons for 35 years) for the Prohibition extends only to Writing public ●isputations and Lectures in the Schools, if they forbear it in the Pulpit, their obedience outgoes the precept. Since the publishing of this Account. we have reason to believe, (as we are informed upon Oath) that this Doctrine hath been preached by some Fathers of the Society in Spain.  
And if we observe the 0151 0146 V 2 consideration upon which F. Mutius was induced to prohibit the publishing of this Doctrine, 
Ut occasiones omnis offensionis & quirel exam praecidantar.  viz. To take away all occasions of offence and quarrel, we shall not find the Princes of Europe much obliged to him for this precept. For first, hereby, if there ever should be any of the Society so honest as to assert the rights of Princes against the Pope's Usurpations, they are prohibited doing it under pain of Damnation. And Secondly, there is no regard had to their Interests, but merely to the credit of the Society.  
M. G. 
p. 113.  The fourth Objection against the Jesuits Doctrine is that they teach the kill of Kings, 
p. 114.  though under the name of Tyrants. So Mariana the Spanish Jesuit teacheth, and therefore had his books burnt at Paris.  
Answ. This fourth Objection he propounds very blindly, and not in those terms we make it. That we charge them with is plainly this. That they hold that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed and murdered by their Subjects. This we put them to renounce in the Oath of Allegiance. And upon Trial we find more Patrons of the King-killing Doctrine than a single Mariana whom they so freely give up.  
M. G. I answer that Mariana did in the year 1599 print a book entitled de Rege & Regis institutione, which he dedicated to Philip the second King of Spain; in this Book he did teach a Doctrine (after Dominicus Soto l. 5. de Justitia & Jure qu. 2. Art. 3.) contrary to the Judgement of the Society, of killing, not Kings, but Tyrants; which Doctrine the Society condemned and forbid, and the other Doctors of the Society all unanimously impugned it.  
Answ. There is a great deal of craft in thus frankly giving up Mariana. 

1. As Bellarmine was excused before, he borrowed his Arguments from , a Secular Priest, so here Mariana is not the first Author of this Doctrine, he learned it of Soto.  
2. It is represented as a small slip, a single Proposition that is saulty.  
3. They give him in composition for the whole Society, and pretend that all the other Doctor Etors of the Society unanimously impugned it. Whereas besides that it discovers the Author's passion for Mariana, it shows that 'tis not the King-killing Doctrine they disavow, but have politicly picked out a single Proposition, that they may have somewhat to condemn for their credit: Whereas no less than two whole Chapters are able to exception for that scandalous Doctrine. And the King-killing Doctrine in the terms we charge them with it, is as much the Doctrine of all Jesuits who have written on that Subject, as 'tis Mariana's.    
M. G. That you may know the truth, I must do as in the last Objection, that is, give you a Narrative of the passage. When then the General of the Society, Claudius Aquaviva, understood that Mariana had put out an opinion of so dangerous consequence, he writ to the Fathers of the Society in France, who had acquainted him with the whole matter, in these words, as Father Coton sets them down in a Letter to the Queen Regent of France. 
p. 115.  We have been very sorry that no body perceived the fault until the Books were Printed, the which notwithstanding we have presently commanded to be corrected, and will use great care hereafter that such things happen no more. This passed in the Year 1606. four years before the Sorbou condemned Mariana's Book, which was An Dom 1610. July the 4.  
Answ Clandius Aquaviva's Epistle to the Fathers of the Society in France is Apocryphal, it is extant no where save in Father Cotons' letter to the Queen Regent, and he who consulted an ginger teaching the Death of the King, and betrayed his Confessions to the Spamard, as Father Coton did, would not stick to sorge a Letter from Clandius aquaviva to the Fathers of the Society in France, at a time of need, as that was, when Father Coton wrote to the Queen Regent, after the Murder of Henry the 4th by Ravilliack, who was said to have been animated to commit that Parricide by reading Mariana. But admit Clandius Aquaviva did write such an Epistle, and at the time pretended, is it credible, (considering that strict correspondence the Provincials of all Order throughout the world keep with their General at Rome) that a Book which made so much noise, should sell off a whole Impression, and be reprinted twice, pass seven years, and yet the General of the Order know nothing of that scandalous Doctrine it contains. But suppose him to know no more on't than the Pope of Rome, I am confident any single Proposition, so much in favour of Princes, against the Pope's Usurpations, should not have escaped the censure of Claudius Aquaviva seven Months, nor yet seven Weeks.  
M. G. According to this the General of the Society did give order for correcting that place, and inppressed the Book, till it were corrected.  
Answ. That place, a● though it were but a single Proposition that needed amendment, and yet I am confident a Copy of Mariana, with that Proposition expnuged, would be a rarity few Scholars in Europe ever saw.  
M. G. But some Copies being abroad (before the error was known to the General) which the Society would gladly have called in; the Heirs of one Wechel a Protestant, or as some French Authors call him an Huguenot, Printed it again at their own charges. And this for no other reason, as it may be presumed, but for lucre or malice to the Society.  
Answ. Some Copies, those were no fewer than two Impressions, the one Printed in Spain, the other at Mentz.  
Whoever offends the Protestants must suffer for it, Wechel's Heirs Printed it again for lucre, or malice to the Society. Whose avarice or malice was it that procured the Moguntine Edition. A. D. 1605?? Was Balthasar Lippius an Huguenot? I have been informed from a good hand, That the Prackfort Edition was procured by a Jesuit, who chose wechels Heirs, that he might at once publish this precious Doctrine, and cast the blame upon the Protestants when he had done.  
M. G. After this the General sent a strict Command to all of the Society (as appeareth Congreg. 8. tit. Censurae) under pain of Excommunication, inability, and divers other penalties, prohibiting all of the Society from writing, or teaching in private or in public, or advising that it was lawful to kill Kings or Princes, 
p. 116.  or MACHINE their death upon any pretence of Tyranny. And all the Authors of the Society (excepting ONLY MARIAN A) both before and since him, perpetually taught and teach the contrary; saying Anathema to all that teach or practise any such Doctrine condemned long since by the Council of Constance.  
This is what the Society hath done to stop that Book, and root out the opinion, which I conceive will clearly show that this Doctrine is not reasonably laid to the Society; nor could it be objected but by them, who will have it, that the fault of ANY ONE of the Society, must like Original sin, infect all for ever, and 
* That Original sin is an unpardonable infection is strange Divinity, I thought the Jesuits had not esteemed Original sin so great a matter.  unpardonably, to whom I can give no other answer, but that I wish them more wit and less malice.  
Answ. How ineffectual this Command of their General hath been, and how true it is that all other Authors of the Society teach the contrary to the King-killing Doctrine, which our Author, and Mr. Gawen, say, may appear by the writings of Suarez and others of the Society, who have, since the Year 1606, Published the same Doctrine with Mariana, though they have baulked that very Proposition, That it is lawful for a private Person to kill a King, This Position they condemn in Mariana, but how far they disallow the King-killing Doctrine, our Author acquaints us, viz, as it is condemned by the Council of Constance, and no further. Now that Council hath condemned this Proposition only. Quilibet Tyrannus potest & debet licitè & meritoriè occidi per quemcunque vasallum suum vel subditum, 
Caranza. edit. Duac. 1659. pag. 630.  etiam per clanculares insidias & subtiles blanditias vel adulationes, non obstante quocunque praestito juramento, sen consaederatione facta cum eô NON EXPECTATA SENTENTIA JUDICIS cujuscunque. Any Tyrant may, and aught to be killed, lawfully and meritoriously, by any Vassal or Subject of his, even by Clandestine snares, or subtle Blandishments or Flatteries, notwithstanding any Oath or League made to or with him NOT WAITING FOR THE SENTENCE OR COMMAND OF ANY JUDGE WHATSOEVER. How slender security doth this Decree afford Protestant Princes, charged with HERESY, Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope, and SENTENCED to death by the General, Provincial, and a whole Consult of Jesuits? But there are many other fallacies couched in that Proposition, and the Decree which condemns it, which are fully detected by my Lord Bishop of Lincoln, to whom I refer my Reader, That a Prince Excommunicate and Deposed by the Pope, 
In his Letter to a Person of Honour. 8. p. 163. That Princes excommunicate by the Pope may be Deposed and murdered by their Subjects.  may be put to death by his Subjects, is a Doctrine none of the Jesuits disown; and if Mr. Gawen would have cleared himself and the Society of this scandalous Doctrine, he would have more effectually done it, by renouncing it in the words of the Oath of Allegiance, and have averred, that all Authors of the Society teach the contrary. But this had been too bold a Lie; as I shall have occasion in the close of these Papers to show, and therefore neither our Author, nor Mr. Gawen, hath any reason to charge us as guilty of meeting them that hard measure, of condemning all Jesuits for the rashness of one.  
M. G. Our Author says, For my part, 
p. 118.  I do sincerely make this protestation in the sight of God; I do acknowledge his Majesly, CHARLES the II. to be my lawful Sovereign, and Liege Lord: I believe that I am bound to respect, honour and obey him, and that not only for fear, but also for conscience sake, as the Scriptures teach me. I do believe that whosoever resisteth him, resisteth God, and whosoever rebelleth against him, reballeth against God, and procureth to himself Damnation. And accordingly, I do promise to be a true and faithful Subject to His Majesty, and not only never to Act against Him, or Abet any that shall Act against Him, 
p. 119.  but also to defend and maintain, according to the best of my skill, His Life, Crown, Dignities and Prerogatives. And if I refuse the Oath of Allegiance, as now it is couched, it is not because I refuse Allegiance, but because I must not renounce my Faith to God. That to take that Oath, as now it lies, is to renounce the Catholic Faith, I am taught, etc.— and p. 120. He saith, If it may please His Sacred Majesty, and the Honourable Houses of Parliament, to make such an Oath of Allegiance, as may, without trenching upon conscience, contain all imaginable civil Duty in the strongest expressions, that can be conceived, I shall be exceeding glad, and most ready to take it myself, and invite all others to take it.  
Answ. You see how fair professions and promises he makes, I was tempted to believe he meant honestly. But this is only a small sprinkling of Holy Water: After all, he refuses to take the Oath of Allegiance, and says, to take it, were to renounce his Faith to God. To what God I pray you Sir? I am sure, to take the Oath of Allegiance implies nothing contrary to the Word of God, nor to any Article of the three Creeds. Sure enough you mean your Lord God the Pope, and your Faith given to him, which is inconsistent with fidelity to any Protestant Prince, or indeed any Prince whatsoever. It's plain for all your fair words, what you dislike in the Oath of Allegiance. You have no mind to renounce the Pope's usurped power over Princes, to Excommunicate and Depose them, nor will you be brought to abjure the King killing Doctrine, for you promise and profess every thing else contained in that Oath, and your unwary acknowledgement that you are taught, that to take the Oath of Allegiance, as it now lies, is to renounce the Catholic Faith, strongly implies, that those Doctrines are in your esteem matters of Faith. And give me leave to add, That His Majesty, and the Parliament, have little reason to credit your promise, that you will take an Oath containing all imaginable Civil Duty in the strongest expressions that can be conceived, since such a Formulary contrived by Roman Catholics, and professing no more than Civil Duty, I mean the Irish Remonstrance, met with so much opposition and persecution from the Jesuits, 
See F. Walsh his History of the Irish Remonstrance.  the Pope's Nuncio, and the Cardinal Protector, and is last come to just nothing.  
IN these recited passages we have either an Account of, or an Apology for the Jesuits Doctrine in the matter of Equivocation. The Pope's power to Depose Princes, and the King-killing Doctrine. Whether our Author truly assert, that in these points the Jesuits differ not from other Roman Catholics, it concerns them more than us to inquire, and do themselves right.  
Before I represent their Doctrines, stripped of those disguises wherein our Author hath dressed them up, I shall desire, and I think my request not unreasonable, that these four points be granted me.  

1. That our Author is a Jesuit, and a professed Apologist for them, and accordingly hath given us the most plausible and favourable account of their Principles that could be contrived, so that the Jesuits Executed, could not be more moderate and innocent, in these points, than the Society is here represented.  
2. That seeing Mr. Gawen was the only man of the five that spoke any thing in vindication of the Society, 'tis probable that in regard he was a very Eloquent man, and had a passionate moving way, he was appointed by his Superior to that service, and that what he said was the sense of the Provincial and the other three.  
3. That M. Gawen borrowed what he said in vindication of the Society, 
See my Reasons in the Preface.  out of this Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine.  
4. That Mr. Gawen and his Brethren concurred with this Author in their Principles, as to the three points .   
This premised, I shall prove that by the account here given,  

1. The Jesuits, and indeed the Papists in general, do allow the Pope power to Depose Princes.  
2. That they prevaricate in denying that they hold the kill of Kings: For they deny not that Princes Deposed by the Pope may be put to death by their Subjects.  
3. That the Jesuits allow the concealing of Truth by Mental Reservations, when there is a just necessity, and that Mr. Gawen and his fellow-sufferers had, in the judgement of their own Casuists, such necessity of Equivocating at their Execution.   
1. That the Jesuits, and indeed the Papists generally, allow the Pope a power to Depose Princes, according to our Author. He saith, That the Jesuits never did— teach other than the common Doctrine of the other Doctors of the Catholic Church, p. 106. He citys Pope Gregory the VII. and with him Divines, not only of the Secular Clergy, but of all Religious Orders, and Canonists for it, p. 108. That when Bellarmine wrote his Controversies, this was the Doctrine of the Schools. That Bellarmine in his Book de summo Pontifice taught this Doctrine, that four or five Jesuits more followed and defended him in it, p. 110. It never was condemned by the Society in any of those Authors. And though two Generals of the Jesuits successively forbid the publishing of it, yet neither censured it as dangerous or erroneous, but did prohibit it merely to avoid clamour and complaint. Our Author no where professeth to dislike this Doctrine, neither doth he so much as intimate that he is of any other opinion, than that commonly received, viz. That the Pope hath power to Depose Kings, though not arbitrarily (as he saith to palliate the matter) and at his list, yet if they be Heretics, or favourers of them, Schismatics, diminishers of the Church Rights and Revenues, severe to Roman Catholics, etc. And I presume none will deny but that His Sacred Majesty is, in the Judgement of the Roman Court, obnoxious to the Pope's Censure upon all these accounts.  
11. In the matter of the King-killing Doctrine, this Author and Mr. Gawen shuffle basely, and balk the point. The dangerous Doctrine we charge them with is this, That Princes Excommunicate by the Pope may be Deposed and Murdered by their Subjects. 
Si sub voce Excommunicationis comprehendatur depositio, & ●●ss●●atio quae p●… sententiam Canonicam interdum sit, sic conti●… propositionem, impan● dep●●i vel OCCIDI à QUIBUSCUDIQUE posse, docer Suarez. Desens. sid. Cathol. lib. &. c. 6. §. 24. Suariz. ibid. cap. 4. §. 14. Eil. de sum. ●●nt, l. 5. c 8. Bican. de Controv. Anglic. Suarez ibid. § 20. I abjure that Heretical and Traitorous Position, etc.  If the Sentence of Excommunication contain a Deposition and Absolution of the Subjects from their Allegiance, which is sometimes done by Canonical Sentence, than that Proposition is true, that he, viz, [the Excommunicate Prince] may he Deposed or killed by any whatsoever, without incurring any penalty, saith Suarez. And the same Author saith, That after Sentence passed upon him— he may be treated as a Tyrant, and killed by any private person. Both Bellarmine and Becan prove the Pope's power to Depose Kings, and to condemn them to death, by the Example of Jehoiada the High Priest, who first deprived Athalia of the Kingdom, and afterward of her Life. So that you see more than a single Mariana, defend the King-killing Doctrine, which while they renounce and impugn unanimously, in that Proposition condemned by the Council of Constance, they as unanimously maintain, when the Pope interposes his fatal Sentence, and altars the Case. 'Tis plain the Jesuits thenmseves think that Decree of the Council of Constance, affords no security to Princes against the Pope's Sentence. What saith Suarez. to King James. where doth the King read in the Council of Constance such a word, as a PRINCE EXCOMMUNICATED or DEPRIVED by the POPE? I have heard some Jesuited Papists say (whether in sincerity or not, God knows) that they would take the Oath of Allegiance, were the word HERETICAL abated them; they say the Civil Magistrate may declare what is Treason, but 'tis the Prerogative of the Church to declare what is Heresy. Now whosoever upon this score objects against the Oath, must acknowledge that the Council of Constance hath not Condemned the King-killing Doctrine, nor do the Jesuits say Anathema to it. For did the Decree extend to the condemnation of the Doctrine abjured in the Oath of Allegiance, they might abjure it as Heretical, being condemned by a General Council, but so long as they refuse it on this account, 'tis evident they do not believe the Council ever intended to censure it, and certainly it never did.  
So that for aught that our Author or Mr. Gawen hath said, it is reasonable still to object these bloody Tenants to the Jesuits, who appear to this day to have kept on foot that League for the extirpation of Heretical Princes, which F. Campian saith, all the Jesuits in the World had entered into in his days near 100 years ago, 
Campianus Ep. ad Considiarias Regi●ae Argliae p. 22.  and notwithstanding the many defeats Providence hath given them in their erterprises, yet they despair not of effecting it.  
Infer. Seeing then the Jesuits Principles even as represented most plausibly by an Apologist of their own, are so dangerous and destructive to Princes, especially such as are of the Protestant Religion; and since we have so much reason to believe Mr. Gawen, and the rest were of the same Principles, in the forementioned points with our Author, and there have been treasonable practices agreeable to their Principles, so legally and fully proved upon them, as satisfied the Jury and Bench to Convict and Condemn them. I think that person wants both Faith and Charity, who will not believe them guilty: He little knows what a Jesuit is, and is utterly unacquainted with the mystery of Mental Reservations, who suspends his judgement, till one of them shall confess.  
III. Touching the matter of Equivocation, you see what our Author's judgement is, he doth not merely assert that it is lawful to conceal Truth by doubtful Speech, 
p. 100 & p. 101.  that is, Equivocation or Mental Reservation, but impudently pretends the consent of all Ages and Parties, all Schools and Universities, none excepted, as though it were an uncontroverted point. Which, were it true, would make Equivocation and Mental Reservation, a Doctrine more truly Catholic than Transubstantiation, or Invocation of Saints, which they deny not to be unanimously contradicted by Protestants.  
Our Author saith, that when there is a just cause to conceal the Truth, than it is lawful (say the Divines) to use Ambiguous Speech, that is, Equivocation and Mental Reservation.  
We are now further to inquire what is a just cause to Equivocate, and see whether the Jesuits lately Executed had such cause as might, in the Judgement of their Casuists, make it lawful for them to die thus concealing the Truth.  
Our Author plainly tells us. 
p. 102. — When the cause to conceal Truth is just, or not, depends on the particular circumstance of every occurrence for which no rule can be set. This, you will say, is pretty fair, he leaves every man to judge for himself, when he hath just cause to Equivocate, which a Jesuit will never fail to have, as oft as this Art may do him service.  
If you please to consult other Casuists of the Society 
* Quoties id necessarium aut utile est, ad salute corporis, honorem, res familiares tuendas. Op. mor. l. 3. c. 6. n. 19  Sanchez will tell you. the defence of Life, Honour, or Goods, is a just cause. When a Question is 
* Ibid. num. 27. Sed qui praecipuè aequivocatione excoluerint, eo video suisse Anglos. Ep. ad Fr. Duc. p. 108.  asked by any Incompetent Judg. And 'tis notorious the Jesuits deny any Layman to be the Competent Judge of ecclesiastics; or if a Competent Judge ask a Question extrajudicially. Here is scope enough.  
But perhaps it were more advisable to consult Jesuits of our own Nation, for * Casaubon observes, that they of all men have taken most pains in cultivating the Art of Equivocation. And I may add, have always practised it most licentiously.  
Now what hath F. Garnet given under his hand in this matter. As oft as there is occasion, for necessary defence, for avoiding of some injury and damage, 
See Proceed against the Traitors. sheet u fol. 4. Mitig. c. 7. n. 14.  or for obtaining some good of moment, without the peril of any man, Equivocation is lawful.  
And Father Parsons resolves, that Equivocations must sometimes be practised when no other evasion can be found for defence of Innocency, Justice, SECRECY, or the like urgent occasions.  
Let us now inquire whether the Jesuits had not several of these causes to deny what was sworn against them, and take it upon their death, that they were as innocent as the Child unborn.  

1. The defence of their own Honour and Reputation, which would have been irreparably ruined, should they either by an ingenuous Confession, or but by silence have owned themselves guilty.  
2. The Honour of the Society was at stake, which would have been utterly lost, should a Provincial, a Procurator, and other principal Fathers have owned themselves guilty of so Hellish a Plot.  
3. To avoid those severities, which though in truth might justly have been inflicted on Roman Catholics, yet the Jesuits esteem injuries as well as damages. Should the dormant Laws be throughly awakened, as 'tis no doubt but they would (should these Jesuits have made a free Confession) the Popish Interest would lose ground apace. 
Bzovius de Pontij. Rom. cap. 46. p. 621. Pa●sors ●iscus. of the Answer of W. B. p. 22, 23.   
4. 'Tis a good of no small moment to purchase themselves the Reputation of Innocents' and Martyrs, as in opinion of Bzovius and Parsons, Campian and Garnet were, and all that follow them in the same cause are sure to be reputed. And this will much advance the good of the Catholic Cause, which would be in danger of losing many well meaning people, by their sincere Confession, who will be confirmed in the Romish Communion, when they see these Jesuits protest their Innocence with their dying breath.  
5. They had a mighty work upon their hands, no less than the Conversion of three Kingdoms, and for aught they knew, the subduing of a Pestilent Heresy which hath domineered over a great part of this Northern World a long time, as Mr. Coleman said. 
See his Letter to F. lafoy Chaise.  And the same work appears to be still carrying on, and I am sure requires secrecy, for 'tis a work of Darkness. Now I shall argue as our Author did. There being such a design in hand, for the good of their Holy Mother the Church, and their most Holy Father the Pope, whose Interests are, no doubt, as dear to them, as ever was the preservation of His Majesty, and when these two stand in competition, as it seems at present they do, the former are much dearer. For to betray the Interests of the Church, or to procure its hurt (as a free confession of guilt would have done) is not only Treason but Sacrilege. In this case 'tis probables' the Jesuits thought they might and ought conceal the Truth; and our Author, (if he were not one of them) and all the Jesuits in the World are of opinion that they were bound under pain of the highest Treason and Sacrilege to boot, to equivocate. If they would not they must, by our Author's Logic, have been Liars or Traitors. And such, I fear, in both requests they died, for all the help of Equivocation.   
Inference. Seeing then the Jesuits Principles, as represented by our Author, allow Equivocations and Mental Reservations in just necessity; and those lately Executed had, in the opinion of their own Casuists, a just necessity of concealing Truth, upon such evidence of their guilt, we have reason to believe, that in their protestations of Innocence, at Tyburn, they acted suitably to their Principles, and died like Jesuits as they had lived, prevaricating and juggling.  
There are two things, I observe, stick with some persons, the one is, that Mr. Gawen professes that he doth not make use of any Equivocation; Mental Reservation, or Material Prolocution. So the rest.  
But for the satisfaction of such persons, I desire them to consider what Father Parsons teaches, 
Vide citat. apud Abbot Antilog. fol. 13. Ita & Sanchez Op. mor. l. 3. c. 6. nu. 45. See others cited in the Animadv. on the Jesuits last Speeches, p. 14.  That if you be asked whether you do not Equivocate, you may answer no, but with another Equivocation— and so, as often as you shall be asked this or the like Question, you may deny that you did Equivocate with a fresh Equivocation, so that their renouncing all Equivocation, is no security of their sincere dealing. And if it be replied, here was no such necessity, they were not examined, but offer freely to speak plainly, and without Equivocation, that varies not the case. For the Casuists allow the use of Equivocations, Sive interrogatus sive propria sponte, whether a man answer a question, or speak of his own accord. 
Si quis vel solus vel cum ali● is; sive interrogatus sive propria sponte— jaret se non fecisse aliquid, etc. Sanchez. op. mor. l. 3. c. 6. n. 16.   
The other is, that they used such dreadful Imprecations, and high Asseverations, and this at the point of Death, when persons of the most prostitute conscience, are not without scruples and remorse.  
But they who regard this objection, little consider how far a different Notion the Jesuits have of such Ambiguous Speech, from what they have. They behold Equivocations as a sort of Lies, and not too without sin; but the Jesuits look upon them as perfectly blameless, as sometimes necessary and laudable, and so innocent, as that to use them was not inconsistent with our 
* Parson's Mitig. c. 9 n. 45. Sten. nu. 58. nu. 72.  Saviour's perfection, who did no sin, 
So Heissuis: Resut. Aphor. c. 4. Aph. 4. nu. 130.  neither was there guile found in his mouth, and a remedy against lying and perjuries. And if men have such apprehensions of Equivocating, I see no reason, why at their Death they should in the least scruple a practice so harmless and innocent, more than at any other time. 
Gunpowder Treason. p. 219, 220, 221.  We see it hath been often practised. Tresham, one of the Gunpowder Traitors, confessed that Garnet was privy to the Treason, and had talked with him about it. After, upon his Deathbed, not above three hours before his Death, under his hand, and upon his Salvation, he revoked what upon his Examination he had Confessed; and averred that he had not seen Garnet in sixteen years before, this Protestation was afterwards proved false upon Oath, and Garnet himself acknowledged the contrary, and that he had often seen him within two years. Hereupon Garnet being asked what he thought of Treshams' dying Protestation? answered, It might be he meant to Equivocate. Which shows, that in Garnets' judgement, to Equivocate on ones Deathbed, and that upon his Salvation, as Tresham did, and as these Jesuits protested their Innocence, is no such horrid matter as to Protestants it appears. And I observe, in the History of the Gunpowder Treason, 
Gunpowder Treason. p. 227. I am sorry that I did dissemble with them; but I did not think they had such proof against me. See the late Trials and particularly Mr. Jennisons Deposition.  that as Garnet himself practised Equivocation, and that with so many detestable Execrations as wounded the hearts of the Lords of the Council to hear him, yet when he came to his Execution, though he asked those Lords pardon for his dissembling with them, deeming it an offence against good manners, yet begs no pardon of God for it, judging it no offence against him at all.  
As for the Jesuits lately Executed, we see Ireland, who (as I am informed) took it on his Death, that he was all the latter part of August in Staffordshire, hath been proved by several witnesses to have been in London at the same time. And it is notorious, by how vile subornations the rest have attempted to defend themselves upon their Trials, which was but one Stage short of their Execution, so that they appear to have been men of no very tender consciences.  
But suppose they were, we have no reason to believe they would stumble at the use of Equivocation. 
Parson's Apology of Ecclesiastical subordination. c. 12. in the end.  For Parsons acquaints us that Equivocations are allowed principally to men of scrupulous Conscience, for avoiding of Lying. So that upon the whole matter it appears. That they are all a pack of Jugglers. Those of them who have little or no conscience will lie without scruple, and those who are of scrupulous conscience will Equivocate without scruple, and therefore we may justly despair of ever learning the Truth from them.  S. Augustinus de Haeresibus cap. Lxx. de Priscillianistis. 
Propter occultandas autem contaminationes & turpitudines suas habent in suis dogmatibus hac verba:  
Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli.  
This principle jumps with those of the Jesuits, and may be thus Englished,  

Swear and forswear you must, and not  
Confess one tittle of the PLOT.   
FINIS.