ANTI-FIMBRIA OR AN ANSWER To the ANIMADVERSIONS Upon the Last SPEECHES OF THE ●IUE JESUITS Executed at TYBURN JUNE 20./ 30. 1679.  Ut Seductores, & Veraces. As Seducers; yet we are sincere. 1. Cor. 6.8. 
By A. C. E. G.  
Permissu Superiorum. M.DC.LXXIX.   

PREFACE.  
FImbria, an impudent Ruffian, having attempted the death of a good, peaceable, and honest citizen of Rome, and wounded him greivously, though not mortally (the poor man by turning a side his body avoided that) indicted him afterwards publicly, for not standing fair to receive his dart, and not permitting himself to be killed out right: Quod non totum corpore telum excepisset, says Cicero. It was his death, that Fimbria designed: and he thought himself wronged, because his attempt proved ineffectual.  
A few factious Ministers have designed the natural, and civil death of the Papists, to kill their Persons and their Reputation: which appears by their Actings. They have been successful upon very many, as to the first part, their natural death, which might satisfy their hatred; but that is only half their design, their reputation remaining entire, and in deed very considerably increased by their Christian Patience in suffering, and their constant asserting of their Innocency, to their last breath, accompanied with so many circumstances evidently confirming their assertions, that the greatest and wisest part of the world, do them justice: wherefore these Ministers arraign the reputation of the suffering Papists by daily shells.  
The greatest, and most considerable of them which hath come to my knowledge, is that printed by Authority which I here undertake to answer: without doubt, the Author of these Animadversions, is the same, who advanced an antidote against the spreading venom of clandestine transcripts: for the reasons there only hinted at, are here enlarged: and in this Pamphlet there is little new, besides citations, and words. So the french answer to that Antidote, if turned into inglish, might serve for these Animadversions. Yet j have been advised to spend some few spare hours, upon these, at least, for the Author's sake, who is said to be in the highest Ecclesiastical dignity, the L. B. of L. Indeed that Character should either suppose, or give a spirit of meekness and Peace, at least free the Person, who is honoured with it, from such an implacable endless malice, which is not satiated with the blood of those he counts his enemies; but passes the Grave: yet his past life, spent for the greatest, and best part in factious times (in which to speak no worse he went with the seditious throng) and some late Pamphlets, which bear his name, and are of the same strain, make the conjecture very probable. Yet j call him whoever he be, Fimbria, because of some great resemblance in their Proceed, equally unjust, and groundless in their Beginning, violent, and cruel in their progress, and implacable, and impudent in their End.  
Yet j say this Copy of these Ministers out does that Original: for had that Innocent Roman presented himself to Fimbria, and quietly permitted himself to be butchered, this Ruffian's malice would have been satisfied. Of these Innocent Romanists many voluntarily put themselves in to their enemy's hands, all offered readily their necks to the Halters, and their Bodies to the executioners knives, they are Hanged and Quartered; yet these meek and Merciful Ministers are not satisfied! The stiff necked jews killed the Prophets and stoned those who were sent unto them. (Mat. 23.37.) But when that was done, they built their sepulchres, adorned their Monuments, (Mat. 23.29.) Canonised their writings, and honoured their memory. And it is unheard of that they Arraigned their Innocency after their Death. That degree of malice is not to be found, as far as j remember, amongst the Ancients: it was reserved for this worst of times, in which ordinary wickedness will not satisfy those, who resolve (and glory in that Resolution) to out do what soever, hath been done, by any before them. That monster, Bradshaw, said: If past ages afford no Precedent to follow, we will give Precedents, for others to follow hereafter. This sentiment, how barbarous, and infamous soever, seems to have passed into the Breast, and possess the soul of those, of whom j speak.  
Did they regard either God, or Men, and consult either Justice, or Honour, they would proceed otherwise. They think it odious te execute Men only for their Religion, or because they are Priests: but is that Odium diminished, by adding to it as odious Calumnies, by framing ridiculous Plots, by seeking out men of desperate fortunes, and wicked flagitious lives to confirm those fables by false Oaths, by rewarding those knights of the Post, for their Perjuryes, and by thinking the world so simple, as to be imposed upon by so ill-contrived-a-tricke? What is this, but to double, nay triple the jniustice, to wash a spot out of white linen, with juk, and to justify one fault, by others as great? Do not these men put an affront upon mankind, acting as if they thought it had lost the use of its reason, at the same time, as they, by their malice, seem deprived of the use of theirs?  
I know scarce any out of England so weak, as to believe, there is, or was any such thing, as a Plot of Papists: not only Papists; but Protestant's themselves openly acknowledge, they think it all fabulous. A very wise man and a great friend to the jnglish, told me ingeniously: he had lost much of the opinion he had of our nation, seeing it capable of being deceived by such fables. A commendatory Abbot, a great Preacher, preaching in Paris before her most Christian Majesty of the labours, and sufferings of Jesuits for the Propagation of the Faith, said: Witness the Blood of those Martyrs, still reaking in our neighbouring kingdom. Cardinal de Retz said: Had j now that Authority, which j had heretofore in Paris (he had been Arch Bishop of it) j would build a chapel in its Cathedral Church, to the honour of these five Martyrs. I know of many others, some great Princes, who have declared publicly the like opinion: which shall be produced as occasion shall require. For the present this may suffice to show, that althô these men of whom j speak have had power enough to work upon their simple auditory in England, yet out of it, they must seek out some unknown Land, if they intent to find credit for such old wives-storyes, as these are, which they charge upon Papists.  
And j have a better opinion of our nation, then that any considerable part of it should really believe such incredible incoherent Fables: however some Politicians promote very hotly the persecution raised on that account, and many others are content to be idle spectators of a Tragedy, in which they think none suffer, but such, as they would willingly see ruined. Each sort of these have their several Ends: yet however they labour to attain them, they never will be able to compass more, than God will permit, to whom they will at last be accountable for all their actions: and to him alone, the Papists have recourse.  
Two things are material, in all this Proceedure, for the honour of our Country. One is that j do not find any of the Prelatical Ministers of any great repute for Learning, or Honour, engaged in the carrying on of these Bloody Contrivances. For j am persuaded they will scarce disgrace their Degree, by owning Oats to be of it: and as for D. Tongue, and the B. of L. if we consider their past lives, we shall have reason to think them in the ministry, but as saul was amongst the Prophets.  
The other: that if it be a dishonour to our nation, that such notorious Perjured men, as Oats, Bedlow, Prance, and Dugdale, were bred and borne in it, it is for its credit and honour, that not withstanding all tentations of the greatest fears, and greatest hopes, only four should be found in it, who yielded to such tentations. To say nothing of Priests, or of Noble men and Gentlemen, who may be thought to have a greater proportion of Learning, of Conscience, and of Honour, we have seen a poor Comedian (Medburne) refuse a reward considerable for one of his condition, 500 L. and choose rather to rot a live in prison, as he effectually did, then acknowledge a crime, of which he was jnnocent, and by that, concur to the death, or ruin of many jnnocent Persons. His example and that of some others, who in alike manner chose rather to be afflicted weth the people of God, than the temporal enjoyments of sinful perjury (Heb. 11.25.) These examples, j say, j use to allege, to restore in the opinion of wise men, the Honour of our nation, which the Perjury of Oats, and his Associate, the Partiality of the Jewry, and Assistants, and the Butcherly cruelty of some of the judges hath brought very low. Indeed j think it a great unjustice, to charge a whole nation with the shameful faults of some few, however invested with some public office, when so many others constantly oppose them.  
But j intent not an Apology for the nation; but a vindication of the persecuted part of it, from those crimes, which are unjustly charged on them even after their Death. Let us hear what is alleged against them.   

ANTI-FIMBRIA etc.  
FImbria page 1. Protestants, who make a conscience of their words, and count it a horrid crime, to speak otherwise, than they think, when they are dying, may be ready to judge those guiltless, who when they are dying, assert their junocency with highest Asseverations.  
Answer. If we may guess at the Disposition of those dying Protestants, you mean, by the whole tenor of their lives, we may conclude, they think it no crime at all, to speak other wise than they think, seeing in their lives they scruple at it so little. We can not judge certainly of the interior sentiments of a man in particular by his actions, seeing these are often contrary to his conscience, Passion prevailing over Reason, and hurrying him to what he knows to be unlawful. Video meliora, proboque: deteriora sequor. But it is almost impossible that a whole People, a nation, should be inclined to commit one, and the same sin, unless the Rules of conscience, which would check them, be first defaced in their mind: because it is morally impossible, that a whole nation should as one time be deprived of the free use of reason, by one Passion.  
Hence it appears, that the Persons you commend for sincerity in their words, have really no scruple of any Lying. For seeing they reward Perjured Persons; and with the greatest threats, and promises endeavour to work upon the frailty of such as are so unfortunate, as to fall in to their hands, to bring them to increase the number of false witnesses, and punish as guilty, of the most heinous crimes such as prefer the Peace of their conscience, and their sincerity before their lives, can we guess they scruple at lying, or Perjury? No, no: it is in vain to pretend to it, for your public actions convince the falsehood of your pretence: and where these are known (as they are to the greatest part of Europe) none will ever believe you count it any crime at all, to speak other wise, than you think. It is true your endeavours have been for the most part frustrated, having not met with many, who have had a conscience hard enough, to bear Perjury: and those too you first made Protestants, before you could make them False witnesses: but the smallness of their number, doth not excuse you, who use such unworthy means, for so dishonourable an End. At least out of your Proceed it is evident you little esteem sincerity, which you punish; nor scruple at Lying which you promote.  
Read the frequent Libels against Papists, which daily appear of late, full of Lies, composed, as j am informed, by some Ministers of the Protestant Church, some by yourself, and without the help of a Revelation, you shall perceive a Lying spirit in the mouth of your Prophets as there was in the mouth of the Prophets of Ahab. 1. kings 22.23. We may with great probability guess, you say as the jews did, Jsay. 28.15. We have put our hopes in a Lie: a Lie shall protect us. A Protestant beyond seas considering this, with some confusion said: Our Reformation began with Lying, continues with Lying, and will end with Lying. And can we think you make a conscience of speaking other wise than you think?  
You know, sir, who in scripture is termed the Father of Lies, (Joan. 8.44.) But at the same time that you delivered up your will to the Workings of Error, God, the God of Truth, struck your Understanding with such a blindness, that you could not tell any Probable, or Credible Lies: as God's Providence shows its self, in joining Antidotes to the Poison of Scorpions. So that the means you use to blast our Reputation, and to ground the opinion of a Plot, do destroy themselves, whilst the things, you say, are not only untru; but also incredible. For what man in his Wits can believe that a superior of a particular Congregation of Religious men should by his letters Patents dispose of all offices civil, Military, and Ecclesiastical, of a whole Kingdom, even those of the Crown, and Bishoprics? That Oats a new man either un known, or too well known to be trusted with any thing, as being thought unfit to live as a private scholar in any of their Colleges, should be entrusted with the distributing these Patents? That such a body as the Catholic Nobility, and Gentry, should acknowlegde that unheard of Authority of that Superior, and accept of his Commissions? That not one of these Commissions should be found, or owned, by any who received them? That a Customary Triennial Assembly of Religious men, to consider of the Superiors of their Province, which is constantly held by Jesuits, and other Regulars, should be esteemed a conspiracy against the king and state? That Oats, who never had been one day, nay one hour, a Jesuit, should be admitted in to that Assembly, when some, who had been 25. years, some above 50. year's Jesuits, could not enter into it? That a war should be designed, and yet nether men, nor Money, nor Arms, nor Provision, nor Ammonition, appear? That after so diligent informations, and search into Papers, and houses, no footstep of so great a business, in fourteen months' time, should be discovered, but that all this machine should still rely upon Oats his word? That when so many thousands were engaged, non, but this one infamous Person should acknowledge so horrible a Plot? That this same Person should several times contradict himself in his Depositions, and yet his present Oath always be true, and men be condemned upon it? That almost all the guilty persons, at least the chief, and most notorious of them, should voluntarily present themselves to the officers of justice? That not one of them all, though invited with assurance of Impunity, and Pardon, and great Rewards should acknowledge the least Gild, even at their last breath; but that all should die, protesting their Jnnocency, not one excepted? That having ruined their Body by so detestable a Plot, they should all unanimously resolve to damn their souls with a Perjury, at that moment when they were to be presented to the dreadful Tribunal of the upright, and all-seing Judge? These things cannot be paralleled in any History, and are so evidently untru, that they ground such a certainty of the Papists Jnnocency, that a greater in moral matters can not be found. And some of these considerations having been represented to the Public in French, an Eminent Person of the Reformed Religion Petitioned his Prince, that they might not be printed in his chief City, saying those evident unjustices acted in England, would, if known, endanger the lives of all the Protestants in his Dominions.  
Fimbria, ibidem. Notwithstanding men will have reason to judge them truly Traitors, if they take notice, how full and clear the Evidence is, by which they were cast: and understand the Principles of the Persons executed, who are by common doctrine, taught amongst them, furnished with expedients, to deny what is true, and affirm what is false, and that with solemn Oaths,— and yet nether lie, nor be forsworn, nor sin in the least degree. Their cheyse Artifice is that of mental equivocation. The use of which is allowed by all sorts of Papists. And you repeat this second part pag. 8. 10. 11. 14. and caet. Indeed your whole discourse relies on it.  
Answer. Here are two Reasons alleged against all those clear proofs, of the Jnnocency of suffering Catholics.  

1. The clearness of the evidence against them.  
2. That they hold mental equivocation Lawful.   
You only hint at the first, and so j shall be short. I never saw any understanding man satisfied with the several Trials, even as you have printed them. That of Mr. Colman is published in other Languages: and several able men, having examined it, with as much attention, and exactness (as they assured me) as if they had been to pronounce sentence in the case, said: that the evidence against him consisted of two parts. 1. What the Witnesses deposed. 2. His letters. That the Witnesses Depositions were insignificant, a being evidently false. That his Correspondence with foreign Ministers, was suspicious, unless with his king's Privity. Yet in the letters themselves there was nothing against the king's life, or state, or Government. So they doubted not of his Jnnocency, as to the crimes contained in his jndictment, for which he was condemned. Now if this be the sentiment of the wiser part of the world, in Colman's case, which is undoubtedly the hardest of all, what think you is their opinion of the rest? It is in the Eye of Europe so clear, that nether all the Perjuries of Oats, nor all your sophistry will ever persuade the contrary.  
Now to that Artifice, which you impertinently, and ignorantly call mental equivocation, a word unknown to Divines and where of one part contradicts the other. You might as well speak of a vocal thought. But let that pass. You say equivocation is allowed by all sorts of Papists. I say this is false: for the Pope, and Cardinals, and the Congregation of the Inquisition are certainly one sort of Papists: and they allow it not; but condemn it by a solemn Decree, published on the 20. Febr. 1678. or 2. March. 1679. Where they censure 65. Propositions. Of which the 26. is as followeth: Si quis vel solus, vel coram alijs, sive interrogatus, sive propria sponte, sive recreationis causâ, sive quocunque alio fine, juret se non fecisse aliquid, quod reverà fecit, intelligendo intrà se aliquid aliud, quod non fecit, vel aliam viam ab eâ, in quâ fecit, vel quodvis aliud additum verum, reverà non mentitur, nec est Perjurus.  
And the 27. Causa justa utendi amphibologijs, est quoties id necessarium, eut utile est ad salutem corporis, honorem, res familiares tuendas, vel ad quemlibet alium virtutis actum: ità ut veritatis occultatio censeatur tunc expediens, & studiosa. In Inglish thus.  
26. If any man either alone, or in presence of others, either upon examination, or of his own accord, or for Divertisement, or for any other intent, swears he did not do, what he really did, imagining he did not an other thing, or that he did not that same thing such away, or any other interior Truth, that man doth nether Lie, nor is Perjured.  
27. A just cause of using Equivocation, is when it is necessary, or useful to preserve our Health, or Honour, or Goods, or for any other act of virtue, so that when these occur, it may be thought expedient and laudable to conceal the Truth. Thus the two Propositions.  
Do they not contain that very Doctrine which you (very Learnedly!) call mental equivocation? and which you assure all sorts of Papists allow? If it be not? Tell us what is. If it be? Hear the following Censure of the Congregation, or rather of the Pope with the Congregation: quicunque, cujuscunque conditionis, status, vel dignitatis illas, vel illarum aliquam defenderit,— vel de ijs tractaverit, nisi fortè eas impugnando, ipso facto incidat in excommunicationem latae sententiae, à quâ non possit,— nisi à Romano Pontifice absolvi. Whosoever, of what quality soever he be, shall hold both, or either of these Propositions, or mention (speak of) them, unless it be to impugn it or them, is ipso facto excommunicated: from which excommunication none but the Pope himself shall absolve him.  
You see, how ignorant you are in the Tenets of our Church, of which notwithstanding, you speak so magisterially: you see that Doctrine forbidden under the greatest penalty, the Church can inflict, which you assure is so much endeared unto us. Own, that we cannot lawfully practise, what we can not speak of, under so severe a sentence, unless it be to impugn, to condemn, to detest it. And seeing your whole Pamphlet is built on our holding Equivocation lawful, & practising it, (for which reason you repeat it, so often) your whole discourse falls to the ground.  
To confirm this opinion of our abhorrency for Equivocations, j appeal to the constant practice of the rigidest Papists, particularly Jesuits, who, as you say, are particularly addicted to these Equivocations. Have they not all unanimously, & constantly refused some Oaths, for containing some things, which they thought untru, which by this their darling Equivocation, might easily be verified had they thought it Lawful? Have not many lost their Liberty, by Imprisonment, and some their Lives upon the Gallows, rather than take some Oaths, which you think we can so easily make innocent? What more foolish, then to hazard the loss of life, or Limb, Liberty or Goods, for indifferent things? Reproach, as long as you pleas, to Jcsuits and Papists, the Doctrine, and Practice of Equivocotion: that calumny cannot be fixed on them, where they are known; their whole conduct, the whole tenor of their lives is a sufficient confutation of it, and a conviction of its untruth. We say with an ancient Father: Apologias non scribimus; sed vivimus. Our actions are our Apology.  
But you discover a greater defect, then want of understanding in this Reproach, viz: want of Discretion, in taxing us with this crime, of which you are as guilty, as we innocent. With respect to your present dignity be it spoken: Did not you M. r Barlo D.D. and now Bishop of Lincoln, move with the seditious Torrent (which bore down all Authority Ecclesiastical and Civil) all the time of the Troubles? Did not you howl with those wolves? Speak the language of Canaan? Take all Oaths tendered by those in (usurped) Authority, how destructive soever they were to Monarchy, and Episcopacy, and contradictory to one an other? If you changed your mind so frequently, and believed sincerely, what you swore, what a Weathercock are you? If you altered not your sentiments, you must either have been often forsworn, or have recourse to Equivocation. Deny not the fact, which public Fame confirms: and the Terrae-Filius of your university reproached you with it very handsomely, saying all things would down with you, besides a Black-pudding. Omnia devorat praeter nigrum fartum: your conscience scruples at nothing but that. You would oblige a considerable part of the world, who wonder at your conduct, in letting it know whither this scruple arises from the prohibition of eating Blood contained in the new, or in the old Law.  
Fimhria p. 2. Garnet and Tresham used equivocation, in their answers, when they were examined: and you cite Casaubon for it.  
Answer. 1. Casaubon's credit in matter of Humanity is great, in Divinity little, but nothing at all, in things of Fact, concerning the actions of Papists, whose professed Enemy he was.  
Answer. 2. Nether Garnet nor Tresham are the rules of my Faith, or Opinion, or Practice. If you could prove, as certainly j believe you cannot, that they equivocated, or Lied, or were forsworn that would not justify me, should j practice either, nor prove, that j imitate them in it, or that j think, that others may with a safe conscience, follow that example.  
Fimbria p. 3. Persons, Navarre, and Sanchez approve of Equivocation.  
Answer. 1. A hundred such Authors do not equal the Authotity of the Pope, as univerfal, and supreme Pastor, teaching the Church, and prohibiting some points of Doctrine under pain of excommunication. To these definitions we submit our understanding.  
Answer. 2. How little we Inglish Catholics ever regarded the sentiments of those, or any other Authors, of what quality soever, in this matter of Eqnivocation, or Oaths, doth sufficiently appear by our perpetual refusing such Oaths, as without having recourse to those petty evasions, could not be verified.  
Fimbria p. 4. Let the world judge, what regard is due to the words of such dying men, whose Doctrine excuses from sin, and Lying, all untruths.  
Answer. You nether have proved, nor shall ever be able to prove, that these men, or any Papist alive holds that Doctrine: we condemn it, we detest it from our hearts, and to convince you, and the whole world, that we do this sincerely, we appeal to our constant unalterable practice, as is above said. But you, who have without scruple swallowed so many Oaths, whereof some must be false, (unless you can make contradictions true) you, j say, may be suspected, without rashness, of Equivocation, in what you speak, or write, or swear.  
Fimbria p. 4. I cannot imagine, how what Gavan says can be true, that the Jesuits allow not the Doctrine of king-killing; but detest, and abhor it: or that none of them hold it lawful to kill a king, but only Mariana.  
Answer. This Assertion contains two parts: 

1. That the Jesuits detest and abhor the Doctrine of king-killing.  
2. That none of them but Mariana taught it.    
Now the first is so true, that j defy you, or any of your Brethren, to name any Jesuit alive, who doth not detest it. I have known several, and conversed with some of the chief of them both, for Learning, and Authority, very familiarly, yet never beard them, or any one of them by the least word approve of it, or speak of it without horror. This testimony j own to Truth, and justice. And if the Protestants please for their own further satisfaction, to consult any of the Inglish Jesuits now in Prison, or any others either in France, or Flanders, (where some Jesuits are ●●ill to be found, althô in your animadversions on the speeches, you say they are banished out of both those places) if you find any ●●e approve of that Doctrine, stone him.  
I acknowledge, that at Louvain lately some Theses were printed, which contained that exploded Doctrine. But that hinders not the Truth of what j have delivered here, concerning the Jesuits. 1. Because they were not Jesuits, who printed those Theses. 2. Because, 〈◊〉 j hear those Theses never were defended. 3. Because the Ma●er, who had delivered that Doctrine, and composed the Theses, was deposed from teaching, and cast out of that university, and all the Netherlands, for that fault, by his Ecclesiastical Superior. By which you may see, how unjustly that Doctrine is charged upon any Catholics, at all, which was so severely punished.  
As to the second: Gavan doth not say, none but Mariana held 〈◊〉; but that he knew none but Mariana, who taught it. There is not one, 〈◊〉 the best of my knowledge, that allows of king-killing Doctrine,— 〈◊〉 Mariana, are his own words. Now althô there should have been 1000 others, of the same fentiments, yet what Gavan said may be true, if he knew nothing of the rest. So j may say truly ●●d sincerely: I know none, but the B. of L. who will take all Oaths wit●●●● scruple: althô probably there may be others of the same Principle of conscience, and Faith, unknown to me.  
Nether is it to be wondered at, that Gavan should know of none 〈◊〉 Mariana, who taught that detestable Doctrine: seeing under 〈◊〉 severest penalties possible all mention of it is prohibited to the ●●suits by their Generals. And he might have been ignorant of Mariana's Paradox too, and the memory of it had been utterly blotted out of all men's minds, had not some hystorians of that time, (which lie out of the common road of schools) and chiefly some scribblers of Libels against Catholics, from time, to time renewed it. I could never find that book of Mariana in any Library of the Jesuits, althô j have had the curiosity to inquire after it. Which is an evident proof of their unjuersall dislike of such Doctrines. And if any Authors are extant in them, who cursorily treat of such things, and incline to the like sentiments, they are left there, for some other useful Treatises, which they contain, and not for that Doctrine: as for alike reason the works of some Fathers are exposed, which contain some errors, or heresies. Yet the dislike of that part, which you so odiously charge upon us, appears by the perpetual silence of all Jesuits, in that matter. Not one, these thirty, nay forty years, ever owned it, even by private Writings, Theses, or Dictates, or in private discourse. Probably not one now alive ever studied the question.  
But say you, Mariana was printed at Toledo and reprinted at Ments. Answer. What then? Cannot a book be printed in a Town, but each part of it must be owned by those of that place? Are not Tertullian, S. Irineus, S. Cyprian, and Cassianus, printed in several places, where no body approves Montanisme, Chilianisme, Rebaptization, or semipelagianism?  
Were j disposed to rake in this kennel, and retaliat, what a Catalogue could j give you of those of your Reformed Protestant Church, who both taught, and practised as seditious Doctrine, as any in Mariana, for aught j know, who never read or saw him: who having under pretence of Evangelicall liberty cast off all obedience to their spiritual Superior, did improve that same pretence to loosen that due to the Civil Magistrate, like true 〈◊〉 of Belial without any yoke? The late times of troubles would afford matter sufficient in the libels, they produced (where of some possibly may have been composed by yourself) for a Large Volume. But j will not imitate your indiscretion, or malice, in renewing the memory of seditious maxims, which all faithful subjects heartily wish, had never been broached, or might never be remembered: Because whilst the memory of them is preserved, when Passion inclines, and occasion invites seditious practices will follow. I ingeniously profess, that j cannot look upon these Reproaches to men, who disowne the Doctrines so reproached, but as an effect of malice against their Persons, and a sly way to continu, and communicate those same Principles: and j fear, that sad experience will convince the world, at least our nation, (where some of the People are imbued with so many Anti-Monar●●●all Principles,) that that way, which the Superiors of the Society of Jesus have taken, and enjoined their subjects to follow, is the most effectual, to settle People's minds, in due subjection to Lawful Magistrates, and to prevent all pernicious consequences, of those pernicious Doctrines.  
Fimbria p. 6. Bonacina (so it should be) Valeneia, Suarez, Lessius, Molina, and Filiucius, concur with Mariana, that it is Lawful for a private man to kill such a Tyrant, as hath no Title.  
Answer. I know no king, who would be offended that a Rebel should be killed, who plots his death, and designs to become king in his place. I know of no Laws divine or humane, Ecclesiastical or Civil, which forbidden it. In causâ Majestatis omnis homo miles est, says Tertullian. When the sacred Person of a king is in eminent danger all subjects are authorized by the Law of nature, and of all nations, to defend him, even by killing the Traitor. The sword in the Arms of the Royal city, London, is a convincing testimony, that kings are not displeased with such attempts, which they have rewarded with such a lasting badge of honour.  
Fimbria p. 9 Kings deposed by the Pope, or by Heresy are no more kings ..... As all the kings of England, Sweden, Denmark, etc. are by the Jesuits Doctrine.  
Answer. Name the Jesuit alive who ever writ, or said, that our dread— Soweraigne is not lawful king of all his Dominions, and let him suffer as a false Traitor: all Jesuits will sign his condemnation. If you can name none, as j am certain you cannot, own that you are a malicious, unworthy calumniatour. The mean while, the dying speeches of their murdered Brethren confute sufficiently this false lie.  
You had had some colour for this calumny, had any Jesuit revived that wicleffian Doctrine, which your pretended Assertor of Monarchy M. r Oates, published in his Dedicatory Epistle to his Majesty: where having said, that the chief end, and work of all supreme Powers, is to suppress vice and encourage virtue.— By Banishing all vicious Livers from their Presence, and converse, and advancing the virtuous in their stead. He adds: By the neglect of which Principal part of their Royal Trust, and office, Princes depose themselves, as USELESS before God, and their own consciences, what ever may be their state, or Glory in fact, and by human Laws, and Power before men. Thus he. What king can be secure of his subjects Allegiance, if they be possessed with that opinion? Which will be easily applied to any Prince how virtuous, and just soever, by a minor: and than who sees not the consequence? Can you have found so seditious a Principle in any Papist, how Tragically would you have descanted upon it?  
Comparisons are always odious, and chiefly in odious matters: wherefore j will not compare the Principles of Catholic Religion, with those of your Reformation, to show, that ours are more conformable to Monarchy. This j will say, that Monarchy flourished more years in the Persons of Catholic Princes, than months in those of Protestants: that it was never shaken till your pretended Evangelicall Liberty, (the ground work of your Reformation) had Loosened the reins of Government, and weakened the hands of the Governors: That before one age had passed, you turned it out of the Throne, and since its happy restauration, you put it to greater Plunges, then in all the time, whilst Catholic Religion prevailed, it endured. Insomuch as j hear some of your own are of opinion that Monarchy in England cannot emerge, or long subsist, without Popery, or Popish Principles.  
You see, sir Libeler, that the whole first part of your Pamphlet, is down right false. For.  
1. We do not hold it Lawful, in virtue of any Equivocation, to tell any untruth, or Lie: much less to confirm it by Oath.  
2. We do not hold it lawful to murder any one, much less, our dread Sovereign. Of which more hereafter.  
3. By your own practice; and Principles, it is evident, you both speak, and swear downeryght Lies, unless you excuse them, by recurring to Equivocation.  
And 4. that your obedience to your Prince hangs but on a very weak thread: seeing your darling and Champion makes it depend 1. On the king's keeping the Law of God. 2. On his banishing all those, who do not keep it.  
Fimbria p. 7. I do not well understand their Prayers for the king. They would have it thought, they had no design to kill the king, who can pray for his prosperous reign. But do they think that his Majesty can truly prosper, till he turn Roman Catholic? This they heartily wish, no doubt: whither they can pray, or no, j know not.  
Answer. You are more moderate here in your censure, than you were in your Reflections on the speeches, where you boldly affirm, they were not prayers of Charity; but curses of their malice. In which words you deliver the disposition of your hart; not theirs, who never gave you any ground for it. Now having better considered them, you say, You do not well understand them: Whence it evidently follows that your former judgement was rash and uncharitable. But how comes it, that your greatwit cannot well understand them? Are not their words plain Inglish? Is not the construction easy? The sense and meaning obvious? Wherein then lies the difficulty, the obscurity? At least we expected so much Charity (which thinks no evil) from a Christian, and a Bishop as to interpret in a good sense what is dubious. But that is not what you seek, nor answers your desires. Had they Blasphemed God, cursed (which God forbidden any should do) the king, reviled their Judges, Jury, and Witnesses, called fire from heaven to destroy the City, and Kingdom, died like desperadoes, and damned their souls for an eternity, you had had your heart's wishes: their words would have been understood: which because they died like true Disciples of Christ Jesus, like true Jesuits, you cannot well understand, I hope no Jesuit will ever purchase that advantage at so dear a rate. And as for these good men's, j am confident all good men, who have not so thick a cloud of envy, and malice in their minds, will easily understand their true Christian meaning, not withstanding all the mist you cast before their eyes to prevent it.  
They would have it thought, say you, they designed not to kill the king, for whose prosperous reign they prayed. But how do you know that was their design? Did they tell it to you? Had you it from God by Revelation? I know no third way, to know what designs a man has in his hart. If you do, bless the world with communicating it. But j weigh your words in the scales of Reason, whilst you consult not Reason; but only your Passion, in what you writ. I think their design clear enough out of their words, to such as seek to find; and do not study to miss it: viz. that having paid their duty to God, by professing their Faith, and to justice, in asserting their Jnnocency, (to comply with the command of the Apostle 1. Timo. 2.2.) they proceeded to pray for the king, the kingdom, their friends, & themselves.  
You ask whither they thought, that his Majesty could truly prosper, till he turn Roman Catholic? A wise question for a Doctor of Divinity. I answer: no Catholic in his senses ever thought temporal prosperity depended on Faith. We all acknowledge with S. Austin, that the Roman Empire was for many ages prosperous: that the Ottoman doth still prosper: that Augustus had a prosperous Reign, as well as Constantin: and that Henry VI. though a Catholic, was unfortunate, as well as Darius a Pagan: It is true, that when we compare the Blessings of this life, with those of the next, all temporal prosperity is not considerable: and we may with reason faith, that the rich Glutton was miserable, and poor Lazarus fortunate. And the Psalmist, Psal. 143.15. denies those to be happy; who enjoy Temporal Prosperity, and assures none ought to be esteemed such, but those who adore the true God. Beatum dixerunt popolum cui haec sunt: Beatus populus cujus Dominus Deus ejus. And j grant what you say, that they heartily wished for this, v●●, that his Majesty were in the true, and only way to eternal Bless. And you cannot blame them for that wish, without condemning S. Paul, who offered a like Prayer for Agrippa, and his whole Auditory. Act. 26.29. But when you add: Wither they can pray; or no, j know not: you bring to my mind the words of Festus to that Glorious Apostle: You are mad: studies have besotted you. And j leave to the Readers consideration, whither they may be applied to you, who having owned that they prayed: and laboured in vain to pervert the sense of their prayers, doubt whither they could pray, or no. As if when you have heard me speak, and discanted upon my words, you should after question, whither j could speak, or no. Sir, the scripture mentions a Drunkenness, which proceeds not from wine: because some Passions have the same effect, as to the hindering the use of reason. Consider whither or no, that is befallen to you.  
Then you tell us, that Garnet prayed for the success of the Gun powder-treason. And Charles V for the Pope's delivery, whom he kept prisonner. I add: and so did the Parliament and Cromwell, and probably you yourself with them, for the delivery of the King, and Peace of the Kingdom, than which nothing was Less intended by them. But what is this, though true, to the five Jesuits, or me?  
Then you fall again upon Equivocation, and from pag. 7. to pag. 12. You pursue it. To all which j answer 1. we condemn Equivocation as well, and more severely, than you. 2. By our constant practice, it appears, we never owned it: as is above said. So j pass to the 12. pag. where j find some thing new.  
Fimbria p. 12. My Author says, it is Lawful in defence of ones reputation to kill another ..... He that reads this, will not wonder, if they did not scruple to murder Sir E. Godfrey, or that some Priests were so forward to be his executioners.  
Answer. The Author you mention, Amicus, being after the first impression in Germany, reprinted at Douai, An. 1642. that whole proposition was blotted out. By which the Jesuits, who oversaw the Print, sufficiently declared their dislike of it. And 23. years after this second Edition, viz: 24. Sept. 1665. Alexander VII. condemned 28. propositions: of which the 17. is that you charge on us in this place. According to this decree we frame our consciences, and direct our actions; and not by the private sentiment of any particular Anthout.  
As for the death of Sir E. Godefrey. j pray God from the bottom of my hart, to grant true Repentance to the Authors of that horrid, and crying sin. Some have already suffered on that score, who were in the judgement of wise men jnnocent of the fact. Some discoveries have been made of the true Author and those so convincing, that all art, and craft of such scribblers, as you are, will not confute them. But j design not to accuse any body, and notwithstanding all that j, and others have suffered, on that score, j desire the murderers, no other harm, than what through sense of their detestable crime, they shall inflict upon themselves, to appease the wrath of Gôd, and prevent the heavy stroke of Divine Justice.  
Fimbria p. 14.15. and 16. You start again Equivocations and follow the game hotly: and so you may for me, who know no Papist a live, that will defend or practise them, since they are condemned by the sea Apostolic.  
Fimbria p. 16. and 17. The Jesuits had great motives to use Equivocations, the Plot could not be more effectually promoted. It makes Protestants stagger in the belief of it: it Weakns the credit of the Witnesses: it allays the spirit of the Nation: it incenses foreign Princes against Protestants: and in fine it entitles the sufferers to Martyrdom. When on the contrary, by acknowledging their conspiracy, they had broken the neck of the Plot, endangered the Lords in the Tower, silenced those, who question the King's evidence, made Popery odious, and spoilt their expectation of Martyrdom.  
Answer. In all this discourse you discover a mind filled with thoughts more becoming a Pagan, or Atheist, than a Christian. A Pagan or Atheist, believing nothing of the life eternal to come, settles all his hopes, all his fears, all his thoughts, and all his affections, on things of this life: and is ambitious, even at his last breath, of the Plaudite which attends the exit of a good Actor on the stage of this world. A Christian on the contrary knows this life to be but a moment, if compared with that to come: that all earthly glory is vanity, pleasures deceitful, health unconstant, and life itself uncertain, so embracing the advice of our Blessed Redeemer. Mat. 6.19.20. Regards not any treasure on earth, where it is subject to so many casualtyes; but prepares one in Heaven, where he is certain he shall never be defrauded of it. He is certain, it will avail him nothing to gain all the world with the loss of his soul. Mat. 16.26. And if any be so unfortunate, as to be engaged during his life, in some designs worldly and Politic, contrary to the Law of God, yet these vanish at the ghastly sight of approaching Death. All hopes and fears of this life then vanishing, and those of the life to come taking entire possession of the soul.  
Now consider what thoughts you fancy in these executed innocents: of malice in Promoting the Plot: spite against the Witnesses: revenge against Protestants in all countries: vanity, and folly in purchacing the name of Martyrs in this world, with the loss of their souls in the other, as if they would fry in Hell fire really for an eternity, provided men upon earth for a time, might say they were brave boys. What ground have you to surmise such Antichristian Dispositions in their minds? At a much easier rate, and with less sin, or rather no sin at all, as you say, they might have purchased their Pardon, and lived contentedly in this world, and died happily for the next, by only owning the crime, of which they were really guilty. What reason have they given you to judge them so silly, or so mad rather? Did they, whilst at liberty, discover any signs of that vanity? No. Did they during the time of their imprisonment? No. Did any such thing appear at their Trial, or execution? Nor then nether. All who conversed with them when abroad, and when Prisoners, all the spectators of the last period of their lives, agree in a far different character of them, from what you so confidently assert of their inclinations, althô possible you never saw their faces. What ground can you have then, for this hard censure? Without yourself nothing occurs: wherefore j am forced to surmise, that all the ground you have is taken from your own hart, which is taken up, and possessed with thoughts of this life, and worldly designs, and that you judged of others by yourself.  
Fimbria p. 17. Upon far less account Equivocation in words, or Oaths is in the judgement of their best Casuists lawful at any time, the hour of Death not excepted.  
Answer. 1. I challenge you to show one Casuist, who since that Decree of Jnnocent XI condemning Equivocation, ever taught it Lawful at any time.  
Answer. 2. These five Jesuits declare they use no Equivocation, but take their words in their natural and obvious sense, which must be a Lie and consequently no jnnocent action, in the opinion of all Jesuits, if their words were not true, in their proper signification.  
Fimbria p. 18. The greatest Lie and falsest Oath that ever was heard in the mouth of a Jesuit, would become as true, as the Gospel, by a secret cast of his mind.  
Answer. What opinion you have of the truth of the Gospel, j can not tell: but this comparison gives ground to suspect more than j will say. At least that transforming quality of the Jesuit turning falsehood in to Truth, is much better, than your turning good things into bad, and Truth into Falsehood: changing (as the Prophet says) judgement into wormwood. Amos 5.7.  
Fimbria p. 18. What the Jesuits were charged with, may be reduced to three heads: a design to introduce Popery: to massacre, or destroy the Protestants of these kingdoms: and to kill the King. Now in their judgement, if we can discern it by their Doctrine, no one of these is a sin. And can you wonder they died impenitent, when the saw nothing to be repent of?  
Answer. You would be a formidable adversary, were your Proofs as strong, as your Assertions are bold. But hitherto we have found you promise much and perform nothing. Let us see whither your attempt be more successful here.  
Fimbria p. 18. Can they count it a sin, to restore the Popish Religion in three kingdoms, and establish it, by advancing a Prince, to the Throne who would count it his glory utterly to extinguish Heresy?  
Answer. There are none, but the factious Presbiterians, who dislike the uniting all the world into one exterior communion. All good Christians, as well as Jesuits wish it done, and profess their sincere endeavours to promote it, by all Lawful means; not other wise: for as the Apostle saith: we are not to do evil, that good may come of it. But you maliciously hint at something, which you dare not speak out: and j am Daws; not Oedipus: so cannot unriddle your mysterious meaning. Yet in expectation of your discovery, j declare, that, j know no Papist, nor Jesuit, alive, who thinks it Lawful to advance any Prince to a Throne, which is not due to him: 〈◊〉 that we do not think it due to him, whilst it is possessed by another lawfully. When you shall further discover your meaning, it shall ●●nd a fuller answer.  
Fimbria p. 18. Do they count it a sin to destroy, or root out, all whom they count Heretics, as they count many hundred thousands in these nations: and then you cite a decree of the Council of Latran, ordering Princes, to root out Heretics.  
Answer. We all count it a sin, to destroy, or root out, any one man, Heretic, or other, by private Authority, or without due form of justice: and a much greater sin to destroy so many. The Decree of the Lateran council is nothing to the purpose, it speaking only of absolute Princes, who have received from God jus gladij, a right to kill: and they may as Lawfully destroy, according to the laws of their Dominions, a Heretic, as any other malefactor. And what is this to the five Jesuits, who never pretended any such power over Lives?  
Fimbria p. 19 Do they think it a sin to kill the King? Their Doctors assure them, it is no sin, to kill a Tyrant, and they will have our King so, one way, or other.  
Answer. This malicious Assertion without any proof is an evident proof of the ill will of your hart; but not of any defect of due Allegiance in the Jesuits. I challenge you to prove, that any Jesuit either by word, or writing, disowned his Majestye's just title to his Imperial Crown. We have seen a shrewd hint in your great Favourite Oates, who teaches that Princes are deposed, when they either do not keep God's Laws, or not punish all who break them. Is not this that very thing, which some ancient, and antiquated Divines, call misgovernment: against whose sentiments you so tragically declaim? There is only this difference betwixt your party and the Catholics, that we have Laid a side all those sentiments, for their manifest bad consequences; and you retain them still.  
Fimbria p. 19.20.21. & 22. Boucher the Jesuit (who never was one) Suarez, Rosaeus, Sà, Bannez, Panormitan, and other hard names, teach strange Doctrine concerning Kings.  
Answer. We are not answerable for their sentiments, unless we make them our own, by approving, or practising them: their Doctrinal faults being no less Personal, than their other sins. For reasons above given j will not recriminate. Nothing in all those men's works of more dangerous consequence, than what Oats lately had the impudence to print. It were more discreet, as well as more charitable, to bury in perpetual oblivion all those shameful, and seditious Principles: in which the reformed church hath surpassed the Roman Catholics, both in Teaching, and Acting.  
Fimbria p. 23. To conclude. I have great reason to be confident, that these speeches were contrived for the promoting of their Grand Plot, upon which their hearts were so set, that the thoughts of Death could not divert them.  
Answer. I have great reason to say, you care not what you say, provided it be against Papists. Prove first there was a Grand Plot, and that designed by these, or any other Jesuits: which you will never do, because there never was any such thing. You may remember, (it is not so long a go) who they were, that under pretence of opposing pretended Popish Plots, carried on a real Plot, to the ruin of the King, and three Kingdoms. You were in being then, and for aught j know, according to your abilities, acted then, as you do now, to promote the opinion of a Popish Plot.  
Fimbria p 23. 
I have endeavoured to clear two things.  
1. That by their Doctrine, though they were as guilty, as any malefactors, that ever suffered, yet they might assert their Jnnocency, with all Oaths, and Asseverations, and that lawfully by the use of a secret reserve, or mental Equivocation. This is so plain in their writings, that j never expect any Priest, or Jesuit in England will disprove it.  
2. That they were as much concerned to maintain their pretended Jnnocency, how guilty soever they were indeed, as they were for promoting their present horrid Plot, or their Catholic interest depending on it.   
Answer. Beyond your expectation you see your endeavours frustrated, and those two points remain as obscure, as ever. The authority of the sea Apostolic is irrefragable to us Papists, in matters of Faith, and good manners: and that forbids under pain of Excommunication that Reserve, to which you have recours, Equivocation. Now according to all Divines that censure never falls, but on a mortal sin. So we all believe, that to teach Equivocation, is a mortal sin. Yet you pretend, the Jesuits thought they might practise Equivocation, even with Perjury, that is, add one mortal sin to another, without any the least sin.  
Your attempt, as to the second, hath been as unsuccessful: for that depending on the real subsistence of a Popish Plot, which now very sew, if any, believe, and j am certain never was in Being, but in Oats his light, and malicious head, that second point must fall to the ground.  
Again. The thing contained in that second point, is a matter of fact, not what might be, but what was the meaning of those words. And it is a secret of their hearts: and who knows that, but the spirit of man which is in him? 1. Cor. 2.11. Now j desire my Reader to consider, not what reason is alleged by this Libeler; but what can be produced in a thing of this nature, except it be from a Revelation from the searcher of hearts, God, or from the testimony of the Persons speaking? And to nether of these this Author pretends. This alone shows, that all his reasons in this case are insignificant to a man of reason.  
Fimbria p. 24. Let me only make this enquiry, and j have done: whether any in Reason, Justice, or Charity, can against such Evidence, as the Justice of the Nation counted clear, pregnant, and convincing, believe those, who thought they might very lawfully deceive us, when they were dying, and apprehended themselves most highly concerned to do it.  
Answer. You state the case very wrong, that so you might steal away your Readers assent. The question is not: whither we shall credit the justice of the nation, or five Persons interessed to deceive their Auditory? For the justice of the nation, as well as the People, relied on the Deposition of Oats, the sole fountain of all these Lies, and mischiefs. For as for bedlow's he was newly come out of a Goal, and his starving condition invited him to second Oats, for a livelihood.  
As for Oates he had been a noted Liar, and a Perjured fellow from his infancy. During his abode at St. Omers, he was notorious and odious for it to all there, And j never heard but two true say of his. The one was, whilst he hoped to be admitted into the Society, in confidence he said to one: j shall either be a Jesuit or a Judas. The other was, when he had received a final refusal, (the Provincial thought him unfit to live amongst any honest men) he said openly: j will be revenged. Both these say he hath made good. And all his Lies against Jesuits are to be ascribed, either to his indigent condition, or this desire of Revenge for this imaginary wrong. Where en passant, j desire the Reader to consider, 1. what this man deserves, who to satisfy his private malice hath disturbed Church, and State, Court, and Country? 2. What honour it is to the Nation, that so great a part of it should be employed, as instruments to Revenge a wrong pretended to be done to that great man, TITUS OATS.  
On the other side are five Persons, of an Jnnocent, irreprochable, virtuo●● life, as all will testify, who had the advantage to converse with them, during 〈◊〉 whole course of it.  
Wherefore, this is the question, rightly stated: whither the Justice of the Notion, and all the rest, are rather to believe 

1. Five men, who are never known to have spoken a false word: or one man, who scarce, ever spoke a true one.  
2. Five, who scarce ever swore; or one who hath been often forsworn.  
3. Five dying men, who should be damned avoidable, if they were forsworn; 〈◊〉 one, who would starve, if he were not.  
4. Five, who would not speak an untruth, to save their Lives; or one, who gets his living by swearing untruths.  
5. Five, who always said the same things; or one who on all occasions altered 〈◊〉 tale, in some very material point.  
6. In fine, five, who say nothing, but what is evidently probable, and credible; 〈◊〉 one, whose story is evidently fabulous, and incredible, if not impossible.    
When this is considered, j doubt not, what verdict any judicious man 〈◊〉 give in this case.  
Let this Libeler, in Authority, D. Tongue, and the whole seditious Presbiter●●●rable, say what they can, to palliate Oats, his Lies, and Perjurys, he will still be a great reproach to our Nation: and the only effect of their Apologyes will be, to make the Authors of them partakers of his sin, and sharers in his infamy. And as for the suffering Papists, as they are, j am confident, all jnnocent, so that innocency will daily become more, and more conspicuous, and all this present shame will hereafter redound to their greater Glory. So that they with joy, 〈◊〉 say as Joseph did Gen. 50.20. Vos cogitastis de me malum, sed Deus vertit illud in 〈◊〉.  
END.