AN IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF Those Speeches, Which pass under the Name of the FIVE JESUITS LATELY EXECUTED. Viz. Mr. Whitebread. Mr. Harcourt. Mr. Gawen. Mr. Turner, and Mr. Fenwick. In which it is proved, That according to their Principles, they not only might, but also aught to die after that manner, with Solemn Protestations of their Innocency.  
LONDON: Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXIX.   

AN ANSWER TO THE Late SPEECHES of the Five Jesuits.  
THE words of dying persons have always been esteemed of greatest Authority, as Mr. Harcourt in his Speech doth observe: and at the first sight, what was spoken by him and his Associates just before their Execution, doth seem to command it; when Mr. Gawen after the like Preface doth add, I do solemnly swear, protest and vow by all that is sacred in Heaven or on Earth, and as I hope to see the Face of God in Glory, that I am as Innocent as the child unborn, etc. A Speech of so great Assurance, that if it were not for the clearness of the Evidence that was brought in against them, the impartiality of the Court which they stood before and were Condemned by, the Order which they were of, and the cursed Principles held by that Order; and Lastly, other things spoken by them at the same time that were manifestly untrue, I should have had so much charity as to believe. But when all this and more doth appear against them, and confute what they have with so much confidence maintained before God and the World, it will be a work of Justice and Charity to detect their Hypocrisy, and to show that the Jesuits have a Gospel by themselves.  
And this I shall do:  
First, By showing that their present case is such, that although they had been guilty, such a Protestation of their innocence was necessary, if it might be consistent with the principles of Religion.  
Secondly, That such a Protestation is consistent with their Principles, and what is agreeable to the practice of their Order.  
Thirdly, That from the consideration of their circumstances, and a careful perusal of what was said by these persons at the time of their death, there is sufficient reason to believe that they acted upon such Principles.  
First, It was necessary for them at this time, and in their circumstances, though never so deeply guilty, to stand upon their own vindication, and to vindicate themselves after the most solemn way imaginable. For if this Plot should be believed, and they discovered to be the Contrivers and Promoters of it, it would be a foul blemish to their Religion, and so great a disparagement to their Society, that all their Art and Industry could never be able to wipe it off. It would awaken the Princes of Christendom, and they would never think themselves secure till this Order followed that of the Templars, and was Universally dissolved and extirpated. It would make those that mean well too among themselves to abhor them, and open a fair way for Protestantism to enter in upon them. And therefore it concerned them as much as might be to prevent it; and how could it be prevented, but by this way that they have taken. For if they had been silent under so great a charge as this, all the World would have concluded them Guilty; or if they had but faintly denied it, when the Evidence was so full and peremptory against them, the suspicions that are abroad would have increased, and the Evidence already given in would be further enquired into and made out. It was not a sorry Evasion, or some puny Equivocation that would put a stop to these mischiefs, and set them right in the opinion of the World, as they well enough understood; and therefore it concerned them, if the honour of their Religion, or that of their Society was dear to them, to betake themselves to the most formal Protestations to ensure it; if so be it might be done with consistency to their Religion, or their own safety in another World.  
Secondly, I shall therefore show that such Protestations are consistent with their Religion, and that although they were never so Guilty, they might stand upon their own Innocency and Justification to the Death. And that is to be done upon these Principles. (1) If what they are charged with be made Legitimate by a Superior Authority. (2.) If they are under a precedent and sufficient Obligation not to confess what they are justly charged with. (3.) If they are indemnified and declared Innocent. (4.) If they are charged before an incompetent Authority. (5.) If the Charge itself be laid wrong.  
First, If what they are charged with be made Legitimate and allowable by a Superior Authority; which may be done two ways.  
First, By a dispensation from the Pope, or by others ordinarily deputed thereunto in their Church. This is what they do now deny amongst us, confidently maintaining that a Dispensation is never given beforehand. But this is vainly alleged, whether we consider the nature of a Dispensation, which hath a relation to an action yet to be done, or to the continuation of it; or whether we consider the practice of their Church, of which we have a very modern instance. For whereas the Marrying of a Brother's Wife, the Brother being yet alive, is both contrary to the Law of God and Nature; there is a Prince now in the World that is dispensed with in that matter, and enjoys the Wife and Kingdom of his Brother by virtue of the Pope's Authority. Now if the Pope hath a Power of altering the nature of things, and of giving a Dispensation for what would without that Dispensation have been in itself unlawful; then the doing of an Action otherwise evil is, by virtue of that Dispensation, no sin; and he that hath that for his Authority, is so far Innocent.  
Secondly, The Action may be made Legitimate, by virtue of the command of such a Superior, as they are bound fully and universally to obey. And this is the case of the Jesuits, who are under a perfect Subjection to their Superiors, and whose commands they are not to dispute. This is the first thing which they are taught, to be so Conformable to the Catholic Church (which in their sense is the Pope) that if it defines that to be black, which appears to them to be white, they are notwithstanding without more ado to account it black 
a Ignatii Exercit. Spirit. p. 141. reg. 13. Antw. 1635. . And this is an obedience which they are not only bound to yield to the Apostolic Chair, but to the rest of their Superiors, and which their Founder Ignatius writ an Epistle on purpose to confirm them 
b Epist ad Patr. & Fratr. Societ in Lusit.  in. An Epistle, that nothing can be added to, or taken from, saith their General Fr. Borgia 
c Epist. ad Patres & Fratres Aquitaniae, p. 63. num 9 . An Epistle that is truly Divine, saith their General Mutius Vitellescus 
d Epist. ad Patres prov. Societ. p. 441. . In this Epistle it is that Ignatius doth lay down these things.  
First, That they must look upon their Superior, not as a person obnoxious to error, but as Christ himself— who could not be deceived, nor would deceive.  
Secondly, That Whatever their Superior commands or thinks, that they must always be ready to defend, and by no means to reject.  
Thirdly, Whatever he commands, that they must resolve to look upon as the command of Christ, and with a blind Resolution without any doubt or delay, resolve to do 
e N. 16. 17.  without giving way to any humane reasonings and discourses, as their General Aquaviva expounds it 
f Cl. Aquavivae Industriae, cap. 5 num. 6. , that they renounce not only their own wills, but understandings also, and submit them wholly to his, without calling any thing into question; for otherwise the excellent virtue of blind obedience would fail, as Ignatius saith 
g Ibid. n. 3. 9 & n. 12. . That every one must persuade himself, that he is acted and governed by Divine Providence, through his Superiors Orders, and that he ought to be in that case as a Carcase, which suffers itself to be carried or disposed of any way; or as a staff in an old man's hand, which he directs as he pleaseth, as it's fully expressed in their Constitutions 
h Pars 6. c. 1. . Now if they are thus obliged blindly to obey their Superiors, and that whatever they command them, is without any demur to be done, they are so far innocent in their own account, and think that they may safely without doubt, purge themselves as such.  
But they may say that they are only obliged to this obedience in things Lawful, and no further, according to what Ignatius himself doth say 
i Epist. p. 25. n. 18. , and is further confirmed by their constitutions 
k Pars 6. c. 1. p. 234. . But is this likely to be the sense, when their Superior is in the place of Christ 
l Aquavivae Industriae, c. 5. n. 6. Constitut. par. 6. c. 1. p. 234. & par. 4. c. 10. p. 183. etc. , and whom they are to submit to as to him, and whom they are to attend to, whatever he be, how weak or insufficient soever, as he represents the person of him, whose wisdom cannot be deceived, as Ignatius saith 
m Epist. n. 3. p. 13. ? Is this likely to be, when they must universally and wholly submit their own understandings to his, and are without delay or doubt to do what he requires? And that it is not so, whatever they pretend, is evident from their own Constitutions 
n Pars 6. c. 5. p. 256. , where the Title of one Chapter is, that the Constitutions do not bring any under an obligation to sin; but how little it answers that Title, any one that reads the Chapter may perceive; for its the●e said, that it seems to us— that no Constitutions, etc. can bring under an obligation to mortal or venial sin, unless 
Visum est nobis nullas constitutiones, declarationes, vel ordinem ullum vivendi posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere, nisi superior ea in nomine D▪ N. J. Christi, vel in virtute obedientiae juberet, quod in rebus vel personis illis in quibus judicabitur, quod ad particulare uniuscujusque vel ad universale bonum multum conveniet, fieri poterit.  the Superior in the name of Christ, or in the virtue of obedience should command it: and then that may be done in the cases so judged of, which tends much to a private or universal good. So that a general or particular good may make it lawful for a Superior to command what otherwise would be a sin; and the Vow of obedience makes it necessary for him that is under command to obey. By which means any sin shall be none, and the greatest Criminal be Innocent.  
2. They may justify themselves if they are under a precedent and sufficient obligation not to confess what they are justly charged with. And such an obligation is (1.) the disadvantage of Religion, or the injury of another. For which reasons it was that Sir Everard Digby did clear all the Priests before the Lords; and when asked by the Lord Chief Justice, if he had not taken the Sacrament to keep secret the Plot as others did, boldly said, that he had not; because, saith he, I would avoid the question, at whose hands it were. 
* Sir Everards' first Paper, printed at the end of the Gunpowder-Treason, 1679.  And upon this Principle Parsons the Jesuit doth proceed, when he saith, 
‡ Mitigation, c. 13. p. 549.  that if a Priest taken in a man's house, of whose overthrow he either must be a cause, or doth suspect that he may be so, should be asked whether he is a Priest, he is bound to deny himself so to be.  
2. Such an Obligation also is Confession; of which I shall give you their sense in the words of Parsons. 
‖ Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 1. p. 408.  If a Confessor that hath heard another man's Confession should be demanded, whether such an one had confessed such a sin unto him or not, he may not only say I know not, but answer directly, that he hath not confessed any such thing unto him, albeit he had so done; and that the said Confessor may not only say, but swear also this answer of his, understanding and reserving in his mind, that the Penitent hath not confessed unto him so as he may utter it, etc. All Divines and Lawyers do hold that in this case of Confession, the obligation of secrecy is so great, as for no respect whatsoever, nor to what person soever, though he be never so lawful a Judge, Prince, Prelate, or Superior, nor for saving of a whole Kingdom or Commonwealth, and much less the lives of any particular men or women, or of the Confessor himself; no, nor of the whole world together, if it were possible, or to work never so much good thereby might he utter the same. To which another Author of the same Order 
* Henr. Henriq. sum. Theol. moral. de Sacr. poenit. l. 3. c. 19 praeversie religionis, & omnium Sacramentorum intentata demolitio.  adds, though the matter confessed was no less than the subversion of Religion, and the destruction of the Sacraments.  
This was the Defence which Garnet made for himself, why he at the first did not discover the Conspiracy of the Gunpowder-Treason, and why he afterwards did obstinately deny his knowledge of it; because as he pretended, it was disclosed unto him by Greenwel the Jesuit in Confession, and that it would endanger the lives of divers men 
* Proceedings against the Traitors, p. 190. : by which he said he was so bound up, that if one confessed this day to him, that to morrow morning he meant to kill the King with a Dagger, he must conceal it 
‖ Ibid. p. 215. . The case than is, That if at any time a dangerous Conspiracy is made known to them in Confession, which they themselves were actually before egaged in; yet it being thus complicated, that their own concurrence in it is joined with the others confession, they then may and are bound to stand upon their own innocence, because they cannot plead guilty, though they are so, without betraying what they heard in Confession.  
3. They may justify themselves, when they are indemnified and declared innocent by Absolution. Pardon is a discharge from punishment, and Absolution is a legal declaration of Pardon; and in itself is not a making Innocent, but only an assurance, that a person, notwithstanding his former crimes, shall be dealt with as if he were such. But they extend this further, for such a growing thing is power in the Roman Church, that it would bring every thing within its compass. Sometimes Sin by the Pope's power shall be made none; and a Man shall violate his Oath, and by virtue of a Dispensation from his Holiness shall become perjured without Sin. Sometimes the Guilty shall be made Innocent, and by the power of Absolution shall be able to swear it. For if a person by confession to a Priest, and Absolution from him, hath what is sufficient to Salvation, and to set him right in the sight of God (as is the common opinion among them 
* Navar. Man. c. 25. n. 38. Dia. Sum. V. Reus. n. 12. etc. ) than it may be thought sufficient also to make him innocent amongst Men, and to give him reason to think so. This seems to be the ground of the present practice amongst them; as when Gurphy, after his Absolution denied at his Death with all assurance imaginable, That he was guilty of that Burglary, which he was in Ireland condemned for; though the Rope breaking he lived to confess it 
† Vid. The late printed Relation of it, in a Letter to the Earl of Essex. . And this principle hath so far prevailed at this day; that Mr. Prance doth ingenuously acknowledge 
‖ Pag. 24. of his Narrative. , That if he had been absolved after the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, as Hill, and his other Accomplices in it were, that he should have probably persisted in avowing his Innocence, as they did, and never, or without extreme difficulty have been brought to any acknowledgement.  
Agreeable to this is that which is said by Lud. Lopez, 1. p. Instruct. c. 42. who is quoted as good Authority by Raynaudus the Jesuit, ut supra. A Woman that hath been false to her Husband, doth sin, if she without cause doth swear that she is Innocent, and doth so swear because she hath done Penance for the same; unless her Husband doth unjustly compel her to swear. The meaning of which is, that if she doth swear it vainly, when not put to it, and there is no reason for it, than she offends; but if her Husband threatens, and she is in danger (for that is often the meaning of unjustly in the sense of these Casuists) than she may safely swear that she is Innocent, forasmuch as she hath repent, and given satisfaction to the Priest, and been Absolved by him.  
From whence it appears, that if persons be compelled to swear unjustly, as (in their opinion they all are when made to swear before Heretics) that then they may swear, though never so Guilty, that they are Innocent and without fault, as having been Absolved for it.  
4. They may plead their own Innocency, and justify it with an Oath, etc. if they stand charged before an incompetent Authority. Of this Opinion is Parsons, for he saith, 
a Mitigation in Equiv. c. 8. part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52.  If a Judge be not lawful or competent, the party charged may answer as if he was alone, and no Man by, for that he hath no necessary reference to him at all, etc. And much to the same purpose saith Lessius. 
b De Just. & jure, lib. 2. c. 42. dub. 9 n. 47.  Now an incompetent Judge, is one that hath no lawful Jurisdiction over a Person; as may be gathered from Parsons. 
c Mitig. c. 11. Sect. 9  And such with them are  
(1.) All Heretics, who are incompetent, because they are uncapable of rule, as Gab. Vasquez saith; 
d Com. in 1. 2. Thom. Tom. 2. dist. 152. Sect. 8.  and as soon as a Prince is fallen from the Catholic Religion, he presently falls from all his Power and Dignity, saith Parsons. 
e In his Philopater, p. 194. for he is said to be the Author of it, by Watson in his Quodl. p. 11, 71, 284.  And thus was the case determined with an especial respect to England, as you may see in Greg. Martin in lib. resolute. cas. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon, on Matt. 10. 16. p. 42.  
(2.) Such again, according to Them, are all Lay-Magistrates, with respect to the Clergy. A Priest being exempted from all civil Jurisdiction, saith Bellarmine 
f Lib. de Cler. c. 30. p. 554, 80. . The belief of which led Emanuel Sa, so far as to say, 
g Apher Tit. Clericus. Edit. Antwerp. & Colon.  That Rebellion in a Clergyman is no Treason, because he is not subject to the Civil Power. And Bellarmine saith little less, when he maintains 
h Ibid. c. 28. p. 538.  that Kings are not the Superiors of the Clergy, and therefore such are not bound to obey them, but only as to matter of direction. This is clearly stated and applied to our purpose by Parsons 
i Mitig. c. 8. Part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52. ; If a Judge, saith he, be not lawful or competent; as if a Lay-Magistrate in a Catholic Country would inquire of matters not belonging to his Jurisdiction, as for example, sacred or secret: then he may answer as if he were alone, and no man by, for that he hath no reference to him at all. For, as he saith afterward. 
k Ibid c. 10. Sect. 3. p. 415. n. 11.  Priests both by divine and humane Law, according to Catholic Doctrine, are exempted from laymen's Jurisdiction. When therefore Priests are brought before Lay-Magistrates, and Catholics before Heretics, they have a liberty to say what they please, and what may best serve their purpose and convenience: they may protest and swear that they are Innocent, though never so guilty, that they know not what they know, and did not what they did.  
And if they may thus stand upon their own Vindication, how unjustifiable soever their case be in itself, before incompetent Authority; then they may as well do it before incompetent Witnesses and Auditors. For the Heretics at Tyburn have no more right to Truth, than those at the Old Bailie; and they may as well protest and vow by all that is sacred, that they are innocent, when they come to die, as when they were upon their Trial; since the People there, as well as the Judges here, were alike incompetent and heretical.  
5. They may plead Innocency when the Charge is laid wrong. This we acknowledge, when we say that a Person guilty of the Fact, may yet plead not guilty as to matter and form. But now the Charge with them shall always be laid wrong, when they answer to it by Equivocation or Mental Reservation. For than it is not what the Charge is in itself, but what they charge themselves with, that they direct their answer to. As if a Person be charged with a Crime, but by an incompetent Authority, or illegally, he may securely say, I did not do it, reserving within himself that he did not do it in Prison; or that he had no design upon the King, thereby meaning a painted King 
l Lessius de Instit. l. 2. c. 42. Dub. 9 n. 47, 48. . And this is a current Opinion among them. If a Judge be not lawful or competent, the Defendant may answer as if he were alone and no Man by, and may frame to himself any Proposition that is true of itself, and in his own sense and meaning, though the other that heareth, understandeth it in a different sense, and be thereby deceived, saith Parsons 
m Mitigat. c. 8. part 3. Sect. 2. n. 52. . If he be guilty, in such Cases he is to turn himself to Almighty God the Judge of all, and frame to himself some true reserved sense, may say, I have not done it, I have not seen him, I have not killed him; understanding thereby that he hath not done it, so as the Examination or Punishment of it is subject to that Tribunal, or he subject to their Jurisdiction, whereby he is bound to utter the same to them; as that Author further saith 
n Ibid. c. 10. Sect. 4. n. 21. . But what if he be put to his Oath? Lessius answers, 
o Ibid. n. 48.  That as often as it is lawful to use a doubtful Speech, or a secret Reservation, it is lawful to use an Oath, if necessity or some notable Cause requireth it, namely, to avoid a great evil, etc. And accordingly Parsons 
p Ibid. Sect. 6. n. 29.  doth lay it down from Azorius, etc. If the Judge that exacteth the Oath be not a lawful Judge, or proceedeth not lawfully in exacting the same; then hath he that sweareth, no Obligation to swear to his Intention at all, but may swear to his own, etc.  
Amongst other Examples of this way, we have in Dr. Abbot's Antiologia, p. 12. b. of one John Underwood, that being examined before the Arch▪ bishop of Canterbury, 1612. denied that ever he was beyond Sea; and affirmed, That he was Married, and had six Children, and was an Husbandman. And yet acknowledged afterward, that he had been formerly six years at Rome in the College, was admitted there into Orders, and was a Jesuit, and that his true Name was Cornford; and that in what he said before, he meant, That he was married to his Breviary, and that he had six Spiritual Children; and that he had not been beyond Sea, so as to confess it to the Archbishop. This Answer was much talked of, and what Sancta Clara hath defended under his own hand, as is yet to be seen. This was also the opinion of Garnet, and the way he took 
q Is. Casauboni Epist. ad Front. Ducaeum p. 118, 123. , for having an Oath administered to him, and being examined upon the word of a Priest, whether he had ever sent or writ to Greenwel the Jesuit, since they were together at Coughton? answered, No; and when convinced of it by the Letters produced, said, he had done nothing in his denial but what was lawful. But supposing this should be at the point of Death, may this then be practised? Lud. Lopez 
r 1 p. instruct. c. 37. as quoted by Raynaudus in his Defence of Lessius against Barns, c. 15. n. 9  saith, That if a Woman having been excommunicated for not living with her Husband, should at the point of Death, to obtain Absolution, swear, if she recovered, to return to him; reserving in herself, if it might be without Sin, she shall not be guilty of Perjury (if she knew an impediment) though she recovers and lives from him. And this was Mr. Tresham's case, 
a Proceedings against the Traitors, p. 176, 219, 220, 221.  who having accused Garnet of the Spanish Treason, for fear this might be to the prejudice of the Jesuit, three hours before he died subscribed a Paper, in which he testified upon his Salvation, that he had not seen him of 16 years before: whereas Garnet himself confessed, that within two years before they had frequently been together. All which Garnet said he believed, Mr. Tresham might have done, as he meant to equivocate. And it is an Example may safely be followed, as he maintained 
b In some Papers of his, quoted by Is. Casaub. Epist. ad Ducaeum. p. 122. . This was the Case of Parry, that attempted the Life of Queen Elizabeth, who upon his Apprehension, and after at his Trial, confessed it; but at last denies it, lays his Blood upon the Queen and Judges, and summons the Queen to answer for his Blood before God 
c Foulis Romish Treasons l. 7. c. 4. p. 442. .  
But what if they voluntarily renounce all Equivocations, and Mental Reservations, or are required so to do in Oaths and Protestations; Is this defensible upon their Principles? So saith Parsons 
d As quoted by Barns, contra Aequiv. Sect. 20. p. 174, and Sect. 22. p. 200. ; When thou answerest to a Judge, that is incompetent, by Equivocation: If he ask, whether you Equivocate, or not? You may answer, No, but with a further Equivocation. If he urges again, and asks whether you did not Equivocate in your denying it? You may answer, No, with another secret Equivocation, and so as often as you are asked. Nay, he saith further 
e Mitigat. c. 10. Sect 5. p. 426. n. 26. ; When a Judge is not lawful, though a Person hath first sworn to answer directly, he may use doubtful words; which if they prevail not, then say the Doctors, that he may deny, and say, I know nothing, I have seen nothing, etc. reserving in his mind, that he knoweth nothing which in that unjust Examination he is bound to utter. This was the measure Garnet the Provincial of the Jesuits took; for when he was called before the Lords, and was asked, Whether Hall the Jesuit and he had any Conference together in the Tower? and being desired not to Equivocate; he stiffly denied it upon his Soul, reiterating it with many detestable Execrations: And yet when proved against him, cried the Lords Mercy, and said, He had offended, if Equivocation did not help him 
* Proceedings, p. 195. Casaub. Epist. p. 117. .  
Of this we have a notable Instance 
‖ Rob. Abbotti Antilogia. c. 2. p. 12.  in one John Coome, that Anno 1609, being examined by the Bishop of London, and required to set down his Answer in writing, did it after this manner; Whatsoever I now affirm, I affirm upon the Faith of a Christian, without all Equivocation and Mental Reservation, or secret Interpretation kept to myself; and affirm it according to the plain sense of the Words by me spoken; So God me help, through Jesus Christ. First, I say, therefore that my Name is John Coome, neither have I been called by any other Name here, or beyond Seas; and particularly that my ordinary Name is not Scammel, neither is it my true Name. Furthermore I affirm, upon the Faith of a Christian, that I never was in Orders according to the Way of the Church of Rome, and did never enter into a Vow according to the Rule of the Jesuits; nor ever studied in any English Seminary in Spain or Flanders. And to the truth of all this I have subscribed, and of my own accord have subscribed, John Coome. These things he swore, and yet did all by Equivocation and Reservation; for he afterwards confessed that he was a Priest, and Jesuit, and did commonly write his name Scammel. And that they may use Equivocation when they declare against it; see it further made good by Dr. Stillingfleet in the sore-quoted Sermon, pag. 39  
If we reflect upon these Propositions, we may be able to reconcile all that Mr. Whitebread and his Brethren did declare at their late Execution, or whatever they are made to say in these Speeches that pass up and down in their Names, to the justice of the Sentence they suffered by. It's true, amongst Protestants, nay amongst Heathens, such solemn Protestations would be harkened to; and those that are honest and sincere, could hardly think those that use such Asseverations to be otherwise. But if we consider what hath been before said, we have reason to judge of Them by other measures. For some of their Principles do show that they may do it. As those of being dispensed with in it; and of having Absolution after it; and of denying and swearing, with Reservation before an incompetent Authority. But others of the abovesaid Principles make it necessary, and show that they ought to do it. As if they were required so to do by their Superiors, whose Commands they are not to question or dispute: If it were for a notable Good, or preventing a considerable Mischief; or if they heard it in Confession; In these cases they are obliged to deny, and to deny again; to equivocate upon Equivocation; to die, and, I had almost said, to damn themselves, rather than confess when they are thus bound to be secret.  
But that they need not fear, for besides the security that they have otherwise, it's said, in a famous Book of theirs, 
* Imago primi Saec. Societ Jesus. p. 650.  that God granted to their Order, that for the first 300 years, none of them should be damned. And perhaps they may think it worth the while to venture Purgatory to secure their present Plot from Miscarriage; as the Lord Cordes is said 
‖ Bacon's Henry the 7th.  to have been content to lie seven years in Hell, on condition Calais might be recovered from the English.  
That if we consider their Circumstances, and peruse 
3 General.  their Speeches, it may be presumed that they acted according to these Principles. And here I shall not repeat what I before said to make it evident, that if they had been guilty, this way of proceeding was necessary to maintain the credit of their Religion and Society, etc. But shall observe, (1.) That there are not in any of these Speeches, higher Protestations and Appeals to God, than what was in the words of Garnet, and the writing of Co●me before spoken of; which yet were plainly Sophistical, as the Sequel showed. (2.) That there is in the most material parts of them such an agreement, and that in the phrase itself, (as hath been already observed) as if they were to act a prescribed part, and to observe particular Orders in what they should say. (3.) That the Elder, and those who its likely were to give absolution, spoke with greater caution and reservedness, whilst the others spoke with greater freedom and boldness. (4.) That notwithstanding all, there are some things notoriously false, and in which at least they do equivocate; which may give just reason to suspect that they do equivocate also where it is not so evident. And this falls the hardest upon Mr. Gawen, who thus delivers himself; Because they [Jesuits] are so falsely charged for holding King killing Doctrine, I think it my duty to protest to you with my last dying 
Mr. Gawen's Speech.  words, that neither I in particular, nor the Jesuits in general, hold any such opinion, but utterly abhor and detest it; and I assure you, that among the multitude of Authors, which among the Jesuits have printed Philosophy, Divinity, Cases or Sermons, there is not one to the best of my knowledge that allows of King-killing Doctrine, or holds this position, That it is lawful for a private Person to kill a King although an Heretic, although a Pagan, although a Tyrant; that is to say, not any Jesuit that holds this, except Mariana the Spanish Jesuit, and he defends it not absolutely, but only problematically, for which his Book was called in again, and the Opinions expugned and sentenced. Now towards the clearing of this, four things are to be enquired into.  

1. What the Opinion of Mariana was touching killing of Kings?  
2. Whether Mariana held it problematically only?  
3. Whether and how Mariana was censured for it?  
4. Whether any of the Jesuits besides Mariana were of that Opinion?   
1. What the Opinion of Mariana was touching killing of Kings? Mr. Gawen saith, That he held it lawful for a private Person to kill a King, if an Heretic or Tyrant, etc. His Opinion is to be sought for in his Book, De Rege & Regis Institutione 
* Lib. 1. cap. 6, & 7. Edit. 2. Typis Wechel. p. 59, 60. ; where he thus delivers himself, (1.) If a lawful Prince becomes a Tyrant, and doth oppress and violate the public Laws, etc. he is to be admonished; and if he afterward persist therein, he may be declared a public Enemy, and may be killed (if otherwise the Commonwealth cannot be defended) and that by a private Person. (2.) That in case there cannot be a public Convention of the People (as a Parliament) that then the common Voice of the People shall be sufficient to warrant it; and he who then favouring the Public Wish doth attempt his Life, doth nothing unjustly. (3.) That yet it is not lawful for any private person to kill a King. So that he takes a private person in two senses; (1.) For one that doth it upon a private account, as for his own Pleasure, or Revenge; and then he declares it to be unlawful for such an one to kill a King. (2.) For one that is commissioned by Authority, as by a Pope, or Convention of People, or that doth it for a general Good; and than it is lawful and honourable for him so to do.  
2. Whether Mariana held this problematically only? So saith Mr. Gawen, and so did also Eudaemon. Johannes 
* In Respons. ad Amic. c. 1. , saying, That he delivered his Opinion with doubt The advantage they take of saying so, is from what Mariana saith towards the conclusion of Chap. 6. viz. This our Opinion doth certainly proceed from a sincere mind; in which, since I may be deceived, as a man, I will thank any one that shall bring better. But this is no more than what is ordinarily said, even by those that write most positively. Thus did Father Barns begin and end his Book against Equivocation 
‖ Dissertatio contra Aequiv. Epist. Dedio. & p. ult. libri. ; If I commit an Error, yet since I submit my Writings to the Canonical Censure of your Holiness, (writing to the Pope) my Error is not obstinate. I am a Man, and if I err, it is only an humane Error: And yet that Learned Person was conceived to be so dogmatical in the Point, that he was fetched to Rome by the contrivance of the Jesuits, against whom he wrote it, and died distracted in Prison. But there is nothing more evident, than that Mariana was as positive in this Opinion, as Mr. Burns in the other; For he not only commends the Murder of Henry the Third of France 
a C. 6. p. 53, 54. , but also saith, That the lawfulness of killing a King, in the Cases above mentioned, is as clear as the day 
b C. 6. p. 60. ; and who is so void of counsel as not to believe it 
c Ibid. p. 62. ? and saith, to exterminate such out of the society of men, is a glorious Work 
d C. 7. p. 64. : And determines for the lawfulness of killing him by Poison, provided it be not in his meat 
e P. 66. .  
3. Whether and how Mariana was censured for this? Mr. Gawen saith, That the Book was called in again, and the Opinions expugned and censured. But I would fain know when the former of these was done. I know that there was once a great talk of a Book of Mariana's censured by the Pope, and the Jesuits took an occasion from thence to stop the mouths of those that understood no better; but alas, it was far from any thing of this Nature; for whereas a Book of the change of money was written by Mariana; in which, saith an Author of theirs 
* Alegambe in Biblioth. Scrip. Societ. Jesus, p. 258. , He had sharply censured some corruptions in that kind; he contracted there by so much displeasure, that at the instance of the Spanish Ambassador, Pope Paul the 5th did prohibit it for a while till the storm was over. But as for the other Book, De Rege, etc. there is not a word in the foresaid Author concerning any such Censure, though he is so particular as to tell where and when it was first printed; and who would doubtless have made some remark upon it, if any such thing had been. Which doth mightily confirm what is said by the Abbot Silvius 
a Continuat. Thuani p. 101. Francof. 1638.  (or whoever was the Author of the Inscriptio ad Gallos ingenuos) that the Censure of this Book of Mariana by the Jesuits at Paris, in 1606, and the Letter of Aquaviva their General to them upon it, was wholly fictitious, and brought in by Father Cotton to serve a turn, and a little to cast off the odium from themselves, after the Murder of Henry the 4th, and the Decree of the Parliament of Paris for burning this Book of Mariana's by the Common Hangman, as containing many cursed blasphemies against King Henry the Third; and principles pernicious to the Lives of Kings, etc. 
b Ibid. p. 86.  as it's there declared. And that which doth more discover the imposture is, since Aquaviva is there made to say, That he was troubled that he knew nothing of this before; which how unlikely it is, will be evident, if it be considered, that it was about seven years betwixt the first publishing of this Book of Mariana, and this Letter said to be written by Aquaviva; the Book being licenced Decemb. 1598., and printed at Toledo 1599, and the Letter was written 1606. Now that their General should be so long ignorant of a Book written by one of their Order, and by so learned a Man as Mariana, and a Book that had set the World in a flame, cannot be conceived. But indeed I do not find this Censure at Paris much insisted upon by themselves. And the recalling of it is much like the Censure, for besides that Edition at Toledo, there was another at Mentz by Balthasar Lippius, which the Jesuits there did revise sheet by sheet; not to speak of that printed at Frankford by the Heirs of Wechelus, which a Learned Person saith they did by the instruction of a famous Jesuit 
c Casauboni Epist. ad Ducaeum, p. 48. .  
But however the principles of it are expugned and censured, saith Mr. Gawen. I will take that at the present for granted, which an Author of theirs saith 
d Eudaem Joh. ad Amic. c. 1. , viz. That upon a Consultation of the Jesuits at Rome, their General Aquaviva, made a Decree, whereby he forbade to teach, either by Word or Writing, that it was lawful for any person whatsoever under any pretext of Tyranny, to kill Kings, or to plot their Death. A Decree that looks very speciously; but (1.) we are here to observe, That there is no censure of what hath been already written or taught, or the persons so writing or teaching. (2.) We may very well suppose that the any person whatsoever, will admit of their common limitation, and is to be understood of any private person, that doth it without the command or sentence of the Judge, according to the words of the Decree of the Council at Constance 
e Non expectata sententia aut mandato Judicis Concil. Const. Sess. 15. . And I have the greater reason so to think, because when it was objected that the Council of Constance had condemned this Position (that the Tyrant may and aught to be killed by any one of his Subjects whatsoever]. Suarez 
f Defence. Fid. l. 6. c 4.  answers, Where do you find, in the Acts of that Council, that it's spoken of Princes excommunicate by the Pope, or degraded? (3.) There is no little exception to be taken against the word King, as it's here laid; for in their sense, an Heretical, Excommunicated and Deposed King, is no King; and he only is with them a King that is not under such a censure, and so the kill of such an one only is to be declared against. (4.) And this we may be the more assured of, since it's said only under any pretext of Tyranny; but it's not said under any pretext of Heresy, Excommunication or Deposition. So that after all, here is no security for a King, if an Heretic; or for a Catholic King, if Deposed or Excommunicated: And the Doctrine is still left much where it was before the Decree. So that this deserves the like Censure given by the Abbot Silvius of that before spoken of, that it's a Censure full of Equivocations and doubtful Expressions 
g Continuat. Thua. p. 101. . But the best way to find out the strength and validity of this Decree, is to observe their practice. Were these Principles never reassumed by them? What must we think of the book of Suarez, printed at Colein, 1614 
h Defence. Fidei Cath. adv. Angl. Sect. , and which was condemned by the Parliament of Paris to be burnt, as containing Propositions highly Scandalous and Seditious, and which tended to the subversion of Kingdoms, and the stirring up Subjects to murder their Kings 
i Contin. Thuani, p. 410. . And upon which occasion the Senate sent for Amandus, and the chief of the Jesuits, to let them know how little respect was had to the above said Decree of their General, in Anno 1610. What shall we say to a book of Sanctarellus the Jesuit, printed at Rome 1625 
k Tractatus de Haeresi, etc. , not only under the Eye of Vitelliscus their General, but with his express Allowance? in which were eleven Propositions condemned by the Parliament of Paris, and for which it was commanded to be burnt by the Common Hangman.  
Amongst which it is maintained, That the Pope may depose Princes, if insufficient or negligent, and adjudge them to Death, etc. When this Book was produced, the Parliament sent for several of the Jesuits, and asked them what they thought of that Book? Father Cotton answered in the name of the rest, That they disapproved it. Being further examined, How it came to pass that they condemned what their General did allow? He replied, That their General being at Rome, could do no less. When it was asked again, What they would do if at Rome? He replied, They should think as they do at Rome. This you may see particularly set down by Gramondus 
l Gram Hist. p. 676. Francof. 1674. , a Friend of Cottons. So that such Declarations as these are of no force, but are only to serve a present need, to pacify Princes, or please the People, but what they themselves are not obliged by: therein making good that Character of them, which I find in a sober Author of their own, 
m Jesuits Cat. l. 3. p. 234. Engl. 1602.  That a Jesuit is every man; of which that book will afford some other instances, p. 235, 236.  
4 And so way is made to consider: Whether any of the Jesuits besides Mariana have been of that Opinion; I hope it will be granted, that some there are, by what hath been already said; and it will be further allowed,  
(1) That they are of the same mind with him that do commend him for having well acquitted himself upon that argument: Such are Stephen Hoieda, Visitor of their Society in the Province of Toledo, that licenced it, and those that gave their approbation of it to him; such again are Scribanius 
n For he is said by Alegambe to be the Author of Amphitbeat. Honor.  Gretser, Becanus, etc.  
(2) They again are of his Opinion, that do hold, not only that a King may be deposed by a Prince or People; but that also, when deposed, he is no King. So Suarez 
o Defence. Fid. l. 6. c 4. Sect. 4. & 18. , When a King is deposed, than he is neither lawful King nor Prince. So 
p De Instit. l. 2. c 9 Dub. 4. Sect. 10, 12.  Lessius, Greg. Valentia, and many others.  
(3) They are of Mariana's Opinion, that hold a Deposed King may be killed. So Lessius 
* Ibid. , Prince's Tyranny grow intolerable, Depose him, etc. whereby any thing may be attempted against his Person, because he than is no more a Prince. So Becanus 
a Controu. Ang. p. 115. , The Pope may deprive Princes, and if contumacious, he may have them deprived of their Life. So Suarez 
b Ibid. ut prius. , Eman. Sa 
c Aphor. Tyrannus. , Molina, etc.  
(4.) They are of his Opinion, that say, A private person may kill a King so Deposed; The Sentence being issued out, any one may be the Executioner of it. So Eman. Sa 
d Ibid. ; so Molina 
e De Instit. Tom. 4. Tract. 3. Disp. 6. Sect. 2. . The People may Depose their King, and punish him when he is deposed.  
So that we see Mariana is still a Jesuit, and they have no Reason to clamour against him, and to cry out of the rashness of one man, as Mr. Gawen doth, when as it's the prevailing Opinion amongst them; and it is disingenuously done of them, to do by him as the Deer by one that is wounded, clear themselves of his Company, when he is of the same Herd with them.  
Indeed after all that Mr. Gawen hath said towards the Vindication of himself and his Order, he hath said but what Mariana did before him; for Mariana held, as I have before showed, That it's not lawful for a private person to kill a King; and therefore saith, 
‖ Cap. 6. fin.  That John Duke of Burgundy was condemned by the Council of Constance, because he caused Lewis Duke of Orleans to be killed, Non expectata Sententia Superioris, without attending the Sentence of a Superior, as the Pope, i. e. he did it upon his own head, and out of private Revenge. And if this be the meaning of Mr. Gawen, which is the received Sense of those of his Order, we are much beholden to him. For than our Prince is left to the Mercy of the Pope's Bull, or that of the People; for as soon as he is by them declared against, or is an Heretic, or grows intolerable, or is deposed, than any private Man is the Minister of Justice, and doth right to God and his Church, or the People, if he kill him. If Mr. Gawen had meant honestly, he should have told us that it was not his Opinion, that a King may be Deposed, or that upon Deposition he is no King, and that though thus deposed it was unlawful for any Person whatsoever to attempt his life. But as long as he useth the current phrase among them, we must take their Interpretation of it also; and then he must say any private Person may kill a King in the Circumstances before spoken of; so that a King is only secured against private Revenge, or the present rage of his Subjects; but if they have Warrant for so doing from the Pope or People, than Lord have mercy on him, for he is like to find none from them.  
So that after all his renouncing of Equivocation, etc. he in his last dying words is found basely to Equivocate, whilst he neither tells us what the King is whom a private person ought not to kill, nor what that private person is, that ought not to kill him. And when if he means according to the stile of his Order, it is no more but that whilst a lawful King is not Excommunicate, an Heretic, or deposed, no one may kill him: and when he is either of those, no one of a private revenge or malice may be allowed so to do: But if the public good be concerned in it, or there be Authority or Commission from Superiors [that is, Pope or People in Parliament] then the private person is no private person, and there is no bar to secure a Prince's life from the Assaults even of such.  
And if there be such a notorious Equivocation in this so set a performance of his; and that he acted so conformably to his own Principles, of obeying his Superiors in whatever they commanded, in denying whatever may be to the prejudice of their Cause or Party, in using mental reservations, even whilst he renounced them, for these and the other ends before spoken of; what hinders but we are to think that all the rest wrote after the same Copy with him; as when they say that they are as innocent as the Child unborn, of treasonable crimes; is not this reconcileable to the principles of Dispensation and Absolution? (which last they might, and it's probable did give one to another) Is it not reconcileable to the Excommunication and Deposition of his present Majesty, and to the Title which the Pope challengeth to these Kingdoms, by the ancient claim of Surrender? When they speak of the King, might they not apply it either to the Pope or a Successor, doing therein much as a certain Priest did, that when asked who was Supreme in all Causes in the Church of England, presently answered the King, meaning thereby the King of Heaven, as he afterward Expounded it? 
* Abbot. Autilog. cap. 2. p. 12. b.  When they do declare against a Plot for the Alteration of Government, is not that easily applied to the kind or form, or some main parts of it? When they renounce Equivocations, etc. Did not Garnet and Coome do the same, and yet in the mean while did Equivocate or Lie? Did they do all this at their Death, and call God to Witness, and pawn their Souls to verify and confirm what they said? Is this more than what was practised by Mr. Tresham and Gurphy; and what is frequently done by Villains at their Execution without such Reasons for it from Religion or Interest as these Men had? When I read their Speeches, I can hardly but believe them; When I think of their Accusations, their Principles, and the Practices usual amongst them, I begin to tremble: To think that at such a time, and in so great a case as this is, men should prevaricate, and to deceive the World, care not what becomes of their own Souls; or else that they can be so stupid as to think that the Salvation of their Souls can be consistent with such Impieties. I question not but that time will make this as clear as the day, and then what they did to strengthen their Cause, will be the greatest blow to it that perhaps it ever yet had. When it shall be upon record, and published before all the World, That so good may come of it, the good of their Church and Order, they care not what Evil they do, nor how they Subvert the Laws of God and Nature, so they may establish their own.  
FINIS.