inconvenience or injury is like to befal us, by speaking plainly. Or as they express it more generally, when a man is concerned to keep something secret; so Toledo, (a) equivocation may be used, especially when it is expedient to conceal a thing: So Sanchez, (y) alledging for it, Sylvester, Sotus, Ledesma, Navarr. tion to kill him: So that there can no credit be given to their words or oaths, unless they can secure us that they do not equivocate. To secure us of this, they swear they do not equivocate; ay, but their writings, and those particularly which were calculated for them in such circumstances, assure us, that by their doctrine they may lawfully equivocate when they swear that they do not so; and that they may use equivocation when they are swearing against it; and that how often soever a man swears, he will use no equivocation; yet so often he may law fully equivocate in swearing it. Thus their doctrine plainly bids us despair that we can ever be secured from their equivocating, and so long as we cannot be herein secured, we can have no ground to believe either their words or oaths; and if we will believe without ground, especially when we have just cause to think they have a design upon us, as unquestionably they had in those speeches, we shall in plain English shew ourselves no better than fools, and such as herein neither exercise true charity nor common reason. Fourthly, By their doctrine they may law fully use such mental reserve or equivocation, which in their account makes their speaking or swearing falsely to be innocent, either without any reasonable cause, or upon a slender occasion, much more when they apprebend weighty | reason for it. Filliucius (q) enquires, "What sin it is to make use of equivocation without any reasonable cause?" And concludes that in rigour it is no lye, nor any perjury. F. Garnett when prisoner in the Tower, being required to declare his Judgment concerning this point, gave it in writing, and it is yet kept upon record; "Concerning equivocation, this is my opinion—(”) As often as there is occasion for necessary defence, or for avoiding some injury or damage, or obtaining some good, without the peril of any man, then equivocation is lawful." A man, says Diana, /s) may swear what is simply false, adding something in his mind to make it true, as often as there is just cause; now a just cause may be necessity, or profit, in respect of body, honour, or estate. "There is just cause," says Sanchez, (t) " for using equivocation, whenever it is necessary or profitable for the securing of bodily safety, or honour or outward enjoyments, &c." It is not unlawful, says Bonacina, (u) to equivocate as often as any (q) Dico secunde probabilius videri non esse mendacium, nec perjurium, Mor. Tom. 2. Tract. 25, cap. 11, n. 330, p. 204. (r) Casaub. Epist. ad Front. Duc. p. 197, where he observes the words, without peril, revera non nisi ad speciem adjiciuntur. (s) Potest aliquis jurare simpliciter falsum addendo aliquid, &c. part. 3, tract. 6, resol. 30. (t) Causa vero justa utendi his amphibologiis quoties ait necessarium aut utile est ad salutem corporis, honorem, res familiares tuenda, &c. Op. Mor. lib. 3, cap. 6, n. 19. (u) Ex quo sequitur non esse illicitum uti verbis amphibologicis, addendo restrictionem Now no person can be more highly concerned to keep a thing secret, than these men to conceal the plot; both for the dangerous consequences of their discovering it, and the great advantages they might expect by concealment ; by insisting on their own innocence, and asserting it even unto death, they might expect vast advantages. The plot cannot be more effectually promoted, than by making us believe there is none; and it will hardly be believed that there is any conspiracy of this nature, wherein there is no Jesuit; and it may be concluded there is no Jesuit in it, if the principles of the society (such as these were) had no knowledge of it. Their denying all tends to make all, before taken for granted, to be again called in question, and to encourage those who are still carrying on the design to proceed vigorously, since they may still work under-ground, and not be discovered, no not by those that suffer for it. Also to make some weak-minded Protestants stagger who hear the confident words of these dying priests, but are not acquainted with their fraudulent arts, nor suspect any depth of Satan in so smooth language, and will hardly believe (knowing what their own religion teaches) that any Christian durst go out of the world with false oaths in his mouth; or that there can be any device, which will make such a horrid thing to be innocent. It tends also to weaken the credit of the witnesses, and disparage the justice of the nation; and occasion such alteration in the ministers thereof, as may be more for the security of the conspirators. It may also allay the spirit of the nation rouzed and appearing in some heat, against those who were before apprehended to be the contrivers of its utter ruin. It may also incense foreign prince both against us, and innocent Protestants under them, for proceeding against priests or papists as such, without any other crime, but what is pretended. In fine, hereby they might expect to die as Martyrs in the account of Papists, and as innocent persons in the judgment of others; whereas, if they had confessed all they were conscious to, it is like they might have been rather looked on as monsters, or incarnate devils. Such advantage they might expect, and more they might fancy than I can give account of, by defending their innocency to the last breath. But on the aliquam in mente retentam, quoties aliquid incommodi vel injuriæ nobis impendit, loquendo ad mentem interragentis, Tom. 2, disp. 4, quest. 1, punct. 12, n. 4. (x) Potes nunc uni æquivocatione maxime cum rem celare expedit, lib. 4, summæ, cap. 21, 1, 9. (y) Ubi supra. zealots have accused them as traitors to the grand design and the Catholic interest, so much concerned in it, if they had exposed all their concerns to hazard by an open and free confession; when as they had a way to deny and forswear all that they knew themselves, or others were guilty of, without the least sin in the world? Instruct but the greatest malefactors in this art, and assure them that they may use it without sin, without any danger to their souls, and if ever you hear of any confession of crimes from them at the gallows more than from these Fathers, it will be a great wonder. other hand, if they had confessed what they were charged with, they had gone near to have broke the neck of their own design, which seems dearer to them than all their concerns; and exposed the hopefullest plot that ever the society was big with, for the utter extirpation of the Protestants, and their religion, to apparent hazard of miscarrying. They had endangered their whole party engaged with them; the lords in the Tower, and other persons of eminency had been hereby prejudged, and in a manner half condemned before their trial. They had quite silenced those, who have yet the confidence to question the evidence of the king's witnesses. They had encouraged other of the conspirators to follow their leaders herein, and confess what they knew, and so a full discovery had been made of the plot; it had been quite dissected, and all the horrid wickedness in the bowels of it exposed to public view, and thereby popery itself in danger to be rendered odious to the world, and renounced by those that love the christian name, as utterly repugnant and most reproachful to christianity, and to be abhorred by mankind, as that which bids defiance to humanity itself. In short they had gone near hereby to have spoiled an expected martyrdom, if they had confessed themselves criminals; or at least to stain the glory of it, as F. Garnet did by confessing something, though no more that what was clearly proved against him, being not altogether so impudent as his successors, to out-face all evidence. "Now upon far less accounts than these, equivocation in words or oaths is in the judgment of their best casuists lawful at any time, the hour of death not excepted. Nor will it be any sin by the help of this art, to say or swear what is simply false, when there is occasion. Nay they count it not only lawful, but necessary in less urgent cases than this before us. And can any imagine our Jesuits to be so silly, so unreasonably scrupulous as not to venture on a few innocent oaths in the prospect of such advantages on one hand, and such dangers on the other hand, as did not only invite, but inforce them to it, and made it not only lawful, but necessary? Would they not have been decried by their own party as fools and dastards, if they had not stood it out to the last, since those criminals are so accounted by them, who having denied the crimes they are guilty of at trial, yet confess all at execution? When it had been the business of so many years, when they had been at so great charge, and run so many hazards to advance an heroic design, would they let it fall rather than support it by lying and swearing a little, when in the judgment of their best doctors they might lawfully do both? What though it could not be done without false oaths, they knew very well they can easily make them true, by a sly, but harmless trick. There is not the greatest lie nor the falsest oath that ever was heard, but if it were in the mouth of a Jesuit, with one secret cast of his mind, he could make it as true as the gospel. Might not their VOL. VII, But it may be said, These persons that suffered were christians and teachers of others, and not without some apprehensions of death and judgment; and so it will be uncharitable to think, that they would so little regard their souls, as not by some confession to disburden their consciences, but pass into eternity without the least touch of repentance, if they had been guilty of the horrid crimes they stand charged with. I answer, The Papists have found out other rules for the ordering of themselves in life and death too, than the gospel prescribes and good christians will observe. But if they had been better christians than they are, they would have done no better, unless they had been of another judgment. For how can it be expected, that they should particularly confess themselves guilty of any crimes, when they did not think any thing they died for, to be a crime? What they are charged with may be reduced to three heads, a design to introduce popery, to massacre or destroy the Protestants of these kingdoms, and to kil! the king. Now in their judgment, if we may discern it by their doctrine, no one of these is a sin. And can you wonder that they died impenitent, when they saw nothing to be repented of? (1.) Could they count it a sin to restore the Popish religion in the three kingdoms; and establish it, by advancing a prince to the throne, who would count it his glory utterly to extinguish what they count heresy, both in these nations and other parts of the world? No sure, they look upon this as an heroic, a glorious design, more fit for a triumph than any remorse, and at the furthest distance from any thing criminal. (2.) Do they count it a sin to destroy and root out all whom they count Heretics, as they do count all those many hundred thousands in these three nations? This looks like a crime prodigiously bloody and barbarous; but this is so far from being a sin with them, that it is a necessary duty, and as much so as what God himself commands. For proof of this, I shall not alledge the opinion of particular doctors, but that which is of more weight and authority with them than hundreds of such testimonies; and that is a decree of a general council, the most numerous of any we meet with, viz. that of Lateran under Innocent the third. There all secular lords and princes, * Vid, Crab, ton. 2, Concil. p. 948. 20 higher and lower, are injoined to root out all Heretics out of their territories; and if they neglect it, their dominions are to be seized on by Catholics, who exterminating the Heretics shall possess them without controul, and preserve them in the purity of the faith. This is one of those decrees, how sanguinary soever it be, which they will have all Catholics high and low to observe and obey as the precepts of God and Divine Constitutions. And they are not excused from this bloody obedience, but for want of power to execute it with safety to themselves, as Bellarmine (a) and others declare. And now at last, after so many years patience perforce, they had power enough in their prospect. An army of 40 or 50,000 armed men ready to be levied, under officers whom the pope thought worthy of commissions for that service, backed also with Catholic assistance from abroad; might be thought sufficient to execute this merciful canon effectually, And as obedience herein is necessary, and such as in conscience Roman Catholics cannot decline; so it is meritorious (and how far is that from being sinful?) The reward of their merit who will engage thronghly in this blessed work, for the utter exterminating of Heretics (Protestants) every where, is no less than pardon of all sins, and a greater measure of glory in Heaven. So that our papists may not only skip clear over purgatory, and jump up into Heaven immediately, but obtain a more glorious crown there, than others; by doing such barbarous execution upon Protestants. But this you may find more insisted on (b) elsewhere. (3.) Do they think it a sin to kill the king? They do not, they cannot think so, if they understand and believe their own doctrine. Their doctors assure them, it is no sin to kill a tyrant (c); and they will have our king, and others in his circumstances to be tyrants one way or other, either for want of just title, or upon the account of misgovernment, if not both ways. person; so Aquinas, whom multitudes of their doctors follow: my author names near twenty a little before, many of them Jesuits. If they grant that he ever had any good title to the crown (which some of them dare question and deny too in terms too intolerable to be mentioned) yet they will have him a tyrant on the account of misgovernment: for so (as they teach) is every heretical prince. Suarez describing these kind of tyrants, concludes thus: "Amongst Christians that prince is most of all to be reckoned amongst this sort of tyrants, who induces his subjects into heresy, or other kind of apostasy, or public schism;" (e) and others of them express themselves to the same purpose. Now of the killing of such a one thus this great Jesuit determines after Soto (f): "A king who is a tyrant in respect of misgovernment, may not be killed by whom you will; but after seutence is once passed, any one may be made his executioner (g)." After sentence is passed they say, but what kind of sentence they express not. That he may be lawfully killed by a private hand; they think it requisite that he be first deprived, and that must be done by sentence of the pope. But many of them determine, that when the crime is notorious (for example, when a prince is notoriously known to be a heretic) which is our case, there is no need of a declaratory sentence; the pope's constructive will, though he express it not, will serve instead of such a sentence, having the full power and virtue of it. So that when it may be supposed, that it is his holiness will to have a prince excommunicated or deposed (as it must be always presumed in case of notorious heresy) though he declare it not in any formal way, yet it is as good to all effects and (e) "Et inter Christianos maximè cst in hoc ordine (viz. tyrannorum) numerandus Princeps, qui subditos suos in hæresin, vel aliud apostasiæ genus, vel publicum schisma inWhen they deny him to have any title, as ducit." Ubi suprà, num. 1. So Reynolds : they always do upon supposition of the pope's" Facile constat cum qui quamcunque tuetur deposing him, and sometimes without respect to any formal deposition, then their common doctrine carries it clear, and with a strong current, any private person may lawfully kill him : : (d) It is asserted, that a tyrant, on the account of title, may be slain by any private (a) Bellarmin. de Laicis, 1. 3, cap. 22, pag. 1319. Bannez in 22. Thom. quæst. 12, artit. 2. Boucher. lib. de justa abdicat. Henric. 3, pag. 278. (b) Practical Divinity of the Papists, cap. 7, sect. 5, pag. 206. (c) "Tyrannum occidere honestum est, quod cuivis impunè facere permittitur, quod ex communi consensu dico." Dr. Boucher the Jesuit, ubi suprà, pag. 362. (d) "Nam asseritur hunc tyrannum quoad titulum, interfici posse à quacunque privata persona." Suarez defens, fid. 1. 6. cap. 4, num. 7. hæresin apud Christianos, non minùs propriè perfectèq; tyrannum effici; quàm qui apud Philosophos spreta civitatum conservatione, omnia in Republica stupris, rapinis, et hominum cædibus implet Rosæus, pag. 157. Masconius, tenens regnum contra formam juris et mentem Papæ, dicitur Tyrannus, De Imper. Reg. pars 1, cap. 2. (f) Lib. 5, de Justit. quæst. 1, artic. 3. (g) Licèt Rex in solo regimine tyrannus, non possit à quolibet interfici; latâ verò sententiâ quisque potest institui executionis minister. Suarez ubi suprà, num. 18. And Emanuel Sa verb. Tyr. n. 2. Tyrannicè gubernans justè acquisitum imperium, non potest spoliari sine publico judicio: latâ verô sententiâ potest quisque fieri executor. this Victorellus confirms there by the concur rent judgment of Valentia, Aquinas, Soto, Salonius, Baunez, Sylvester, Tolet, Aragon, pag. 678. purposes as a declaratory sentence of excommunication or deposition. Bannez a great doctor in their schools tells us, "This is the judgment of Felinus, and Cajetan, and the common doctrine of Aquinas's followers," (h) that subjects may shake off all allegiance to their prince, even "before the sentence declaratory of the judge;" and tells us, they prove it by what is now alledged, because "in this case the constructive will of the pope has always the force of a sentence." The Jesuits agree herein, if we may believe Father Parsons, who says, "It is universally concluded both by divines and lawyers, that every heretical prince is utterly deprived of all power and dignity, both by the law of God and man, and this before the sentence of the pope." (i) Their great Panormitan laid the ground of this conclusion long before, who determines, "That where a crime is notorious, there is no need of a declaratory sentence." (k) So that by their common doctrine, our king, (or any prince whose heresy is notorious) may be, or is deprived (and consequently may be lawfully killed by any one) before the pope has excommunicated him by name, or deprived him by any public declaratory sentence. And their practice is answerable. The wisdom of the Roman Court will have it so ordered, when the pope is in a capacity to make an open attempt upon a supposed heretical prince by force of arms, then he publishes a declaratory sentence, as he did against queen Elizabeth before the Spanish Invasion in 1588; but when a private murder is designed, it is not advisable to pro- | ceed so openly; the circumstances of the attempt require secrecy and so in this case, either a sentence not published, or the presumptive will of the pope, or the general excommunication thundered against all heretical princes and persons every Maunday-Thursday, will be enough; and Guy Fawks was not much out, when he alledged that as a sufficient warrant to blow up both king and parliament. But they have yet another way (though less taken notice of) to leave those whom they count heretical kings, without any title to their (h) "Nam in casu posito adest semper voluntas interpretativa Pontificis-sed hæc voluntas obtinet vim sententiæ." In. 2. 2. quæst. 12. artic. 2. conclus. 2. (i) Philopater sect. 2, p. 109. "Hinc etiam infert universa theologorum et jurisconsultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola, et est certum, et de fide, quemcunque Principem Christianum, si à Religione Catholica manifesto deflexerit, et alios avocare voluerit; excidere statim omni potestate et dignitate, ex ipsa vi Juris tum Divini tum Humani, hocque ante dictam sententiam Supremi Pastoris ac Judicis contra ipsum prolatam-atque hæc certa, definita et indubitata doctissimorum virorum sententia Est." (k) "Cum est crimen notorium, non est opus declaratione sententiæ excommunicationis. Cap. cum in homine, extrà de Judiciis." kingdoms; and so make them tyrants and usurpers, liable to be killed by any hand lawfully, without any declaratory sentence of the pope. Suarez (a) having declared that a prince deposed by the pope, becomes tyrannus sine titulo; tells us, this is more clear in au heretical king. For he, as soon as ever he is tainted with heresy," ipso facto loses some way his propriety and title to the kingdom." And that which he minces, their authors generally assert without restriction, That heretics from the first day that they are so, lose all title to what they possess, even before any judicial sentence. Sanchez (b) produces above forty doctors for this, and himself saith, It is exceeding probable. And Suarez (c) after he hath named many of their more ancient authors of this judgment, tells us, It is the common doctrine of their modern writers. So that by this doctrine, so common amongst them, an heretical prince is deprived of all title to the kingdom he possesses, the very first day that he is an heretic, without expecting the sentence of pope or other judge. And this they will have extended to an heretic's children to the second generation, though they prove catholics. For though this seem severe, and it was more favourably determined in the Code, exempting catholic children from the punishinent incurred by their parents; yet in the new canon law (as Suarez (d) tells us) it is otherwise decreed. And catholic children are declared to have no title, if their progenitors lost it by heresy. For this being spiritual treason, the punishment must be proportionable, and reach both the criminal and his heirs. Thus for example, king James being in their account an heretic, he lost all title to these crowns, both for himself and his children, and childrens children, whether they be Roman catholics or no. So that the duke of York can have no title, unless the pope will take off the attainder, and then revive the title for him, which hath been by their rules extinct in this royal family from generation to generation. This is the condition of protestants, and all whom they count heretics, they lose all propriety and title to their estates and possessions, for them and their heirs to the second generation and princes are to expect no more favour herein than others. "For," say they," in the crime of heresy, no regard is had of any special state, of any personal dignity or nobility: but in favour of the faith, noble and ignoble for heresy are equally punished." So Roias, Felinus, Carerius, Simancha, and Suarez (f) after them, who adds: "This is established upon the best reason; for in matters of faith, and such as pertain to the salvation of souls, there is no distinction betwixt Jew and Gentile, bond or free," as Paul to the Romans and to Philemon. Nay it proceeds with more force against kings. (a) Defens. Fid. lib. 6. cap. 4. num. 14. "For heretical princes," saith Simancha," (g) | a sin to kill other kings, yet not ours, not any deserve more grievous punishment than private heretical prince, not any whom the pope has men. Therefore they who will have all other deposed, or which is all one, declared heretic, supposed heretics to lose all title to what they either formally or virtually. For they are no possess, before any sentence past, must in all kings in the Roman stile, but tyrants./n) Furreason conclude this of princes, being equally ther, by this we may discern, upon what accomprehended under their common law for count they may disclaim with oaths, as these confiscation. So that by this doctrine the king- priests here do, the use of all pardons, absoludom of an heretical prince is confiscated, and tions, dispensations, or indulgences: For there his right to it extinct by his heresy, as soon as is no occasion for these, but upon supposition ever he is infected with it, before and without of some sin, whereas they did not judge any any sentence past against him: and if he or thing wherewith they were charged to be sinful. his children to the second generation do pos- And in fine, if these detestable crimes were no sess it, they invade what they have no right to, sins in their judgment, who could expect they they are mere usurpers, and liable as tyrants should make any confession? If such horrid sine titulo to be killed by a private hand, any enormities may be consistent with the greatest one may be made their executioner. innocency, why not any other wickedness whatsoever? And therefore whatever they were guilty of, it is no wonder if they should all swear, as one of them does, that he is the most innocent man in the whole world. They that offer violence to kings opposing the faith, and die on this most holy account, they are not to be judged traitors to king or country, but Martyrs of Christ, and deserve not punishment of God, but eternal rewards in heaven, Reynolds Rosæus, p. 638. Hereby it further appears with what truth J. G. asserts in the words of a dying man, that none of the society, besides Mariana, holds it lawful" for a private person to kill a king, although a heathen, or a pagan, or a tyrant." It is hereby evident, That not only the Jesuits, but other orders, will have it lawful for private persons to kill kings, when they can suppose them to be without title; but then they call those tyrants whom we count kings, and so they may kill all our kings successively, and yet swear (truly in their sense) that they never killed any king actually, nor ever designed or attempted to kill any one; because, forsooth, they assassinated none but tyrants, nor ever intended any other. And I do not doubt but if Mariana were alive, he would swear as readily as any other, that his book was not to defend or incourage the killing of any by private hands, save tyrants only. But then I question whether we can find any (excepting J. G. and excluding mental reserves) who will either swear or say, that there is any considerable difference betwixt Mariana, and the rest of the Jesuits, about the doctrine of king-killing. They are all for killing of tyrants by private persons; and he is for the killing of no other. But then both he and they are for the killing of beretical kings, for these they all count tyrants. But to proceed; upon this account their doctors say, That against such a prince no treason can be committed: for that is a violation of majesty, 'crimen, læsæ majestatis,' whereas in such a prince there is no true majesty.(1) And by the help of this, might our dying priests protest and swear, that they were guilty of no treason, but as clear as the child unborn, of any treasonable crimes, or of any plot against the king's most excellent majesty; and so they might all disclaim king-killing, or any design or contrivance of the king's death: For the doctors also declare, such a tyrant is not called prince or king; (m) and therefore if they should count it (g) Instit. Cathol. tit. 23. sect. 12. (1) Ideo etiam Doctores dicunt contra hunc Tyrannum non committi crimen læsæ Majestatis, quia in tali Tyranno nulla est vera Majestas. Suarez ubi supra n. 7. () Dicunt etiam, nomine Principis non 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 much set (their catholic interest being so deeply concerned in it) that the thoughts of death could not divert them. Their design in that was to destroy us and our religion, and in order thereto, by these specious words they would deceive us; knowing well, that they might ruin us more easily, more suddenly, more unavoidably, if they could persuade us that no such thing is intended. If they find us so weak, so facile as to believe some fraudulent expressions, against so much rational evidence, and thereby gain this point upon us, their work is in a manner done; and they will do more at their death by putting out our eyes, than they could do in all their life. To prevent this, I have endeavoured to clear up to others two things, which to me are as clear as the day, and will be so, I doubt not, to those, who duly consider the premisses. (1.) That by their doctrine, though they were as guilty as any malefactors that ever suffered, yet they might assert their innocency with all oaths and asseverations, and that truly and lawfully by the use of a secret reserve, or mental equivocation, which it will be no sin to use when they are dying, though then they protest that they use none. This is done in the three first pro venire hujusmodi tyrannum, et idco decreta quæ dicunt non licere principem interficere, hunc tyrannum non comprehendere, ut videri potest in Gigante Tract. de crim. læs. Majest. quæst. 65. idem ibid. (n) In Doctrina Hildebrandica, tyrannus audit, quamvis legitimus Rex, qui à Pontifice fuerit excommunicatus, Casaub. ubi supra, pag. 163. vid supra. |