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. 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 inore than from these Fathers, it will be a great wonder. 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 with out 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 couut 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 ailedge 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, tom. 2, Concil. p. 948. 20 person; so Aquinas, whom multitudes of their doctors follow: my author names near twenty a little before, many of them Jesuits. 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 If they grant that he ever had any good shall possess them without controul, and pre- title to the crown (which some of them dare serve them in the purity of the faith. This is question and deny too in terms too intolerable one of those decrees, how sanguinary soever it to be mentioned) yet they will have him a be, which they will have all Catholics high and tyrant on the account of misgovernment: for low to observe and obey as the precepts of God so (as they teach) is every heretical prince. and Divine Constitutions. And they are not Suarez describing these kind of tyrants, conexcused from this bloody obedience, but for cludes thus: "Amongst Christians that want of power to execute it with safety to prince is most of all to be reckoned amongst themselves, as Bellarmine (a) and others de- this sort of tyrants, who induces his subjects clare. And now at last, after so many years into heresy, or other kind of apostasy, of public patience perforce, they had power enough in schism;"(e) and others of them express themtheir prospect. An army of 40 or 50,000 selves to the same purpose. Now of the killarmed men ready to be levied, under officers ing of such a one thus this great Jesuit deter whom the pope thought worthy of commissions mines after Soto (f): "A king who is for that service, backed also with Catholic asa tyrant in respect of misgovernment, may not sistance from abroad; might be thought suffi- be killed by whom you will; but after sencicnt to execute this merciful canon effectually.tence is once passed, any one may be made his 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 throughly 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. (5.) 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. executioner (g)." After sentence is passed they say, but what kind of sentence they express not. That he may be lawfully killed by a pri vate hand; they think it requisite that he be first deprived, and that must be done by sentence of the pope. But many of them deter mine, that when the crime is notorious (for ex ample, 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 est 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. S. (2) Licèt Rex in solo regimine tyrannus, non possit à quolibet interfici; latâ verò sententiâ quisque potest institui executionis mimister. Suarez ubi suprà, num. 18. 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 proceed 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 beretical 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 theologoruin 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, bocque ante dictam sententiam Supremi Pastoris ac Judicis contra ipsum prolatam-atque bac certa, definita et indubitata doctissimorum virorum sententia est," (k) "Cum est crimen notorium, non est opus declaratione sententiæ excommunicatioais. 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 judginent, tells us, It is the common doctrine of their modern writers. So that by this doctrine, so common amongst thein, 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 punishment 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, boud 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 inen." 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, aud 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. 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 in 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 interest being so deeply concerned in it) that the tended 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 hauds, 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 heretical 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 læse 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, bit 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. Ideo ctiam Doctores dicunt contra hunc Tyrannum non committi crimen læsæ Majestatis, quia in tali Tyranno nulla est vera Majestas. Suarez ubi supra n. 7. fr Dicunt etiam, nomine Principis non 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 asse verations, 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 ideo 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. positions; and it is so plain in their writings, being premised, let me only make this inquiry that I never expect any priests or Jesuits and I have done: whether any in reason, jusin England will disprove it. (2.) That tice or charity, can against such evidence as the they were as much concerned to maintain justice of the nation counted clear, pregnant and their pretended innocency, how guilty so-convincing, believe those, who thought they ever they were indeed; as they were for might very lawfully deceive us, when they were promoting their present horrid plot or their dying, and apprehended themselves most Catholic interest depending on it: and this is highly concerned to do it? manifest by the last proposition. Now this The following Particulars relating to the Conduct before Execution of the preceding Convicts, on account of the Popish Plot, were published under the Title of R An Account of the Behaviour of the Fourteen late Popish Malefactors whilst in Newgate. And their Discourses with the Ordinary, viz. Messrs. STALEY, COLEMAN, GROVE, IRELAND, PICKERING, GREEN, HILL, BERRY, WHITEBREAD, HARCOURT, FENWICK, GAWEN, TURNER, and LANGHORN. Also a Confutation of their Appeals, Courage, and Cheerfulness, at Execution. By Samuel Smith, Ordinary of Newgate, and Minister of the Gospel. "He who is first in his own cause, seems just; | received me with great willingness, and said, but his neighbour comes, and searches him," Prov. xviii. 17. "It is not probable, that such who will perjure themselves, to calumniate Protestants, should be capable of giving any real testimonies for themselves.". Ir being desired of me by a worthy divine, that I should publish what I said to Staley, who was condemned for treasonable speeches: likewise my discourses with the other twelve Jesuitical and popish conspirators, before their being drawn out to their execution: I could not (though with some reluctancy at first) but grant him his request; hoping that this narrative may be of public use and benefit to all, into whose hands it shall come; to acquaint them with the truth of what I spake to them, by way of advice, to prepare them for their approaching death? and that I may give some satisfaction, to such as are apt to be; staggered in the belief of their abominable crimes, because they frequently avowed their innocency. Which satisfaction I shall perform in order as they suffered. I. Mr. STALEY. The first person executed, was Mr. Staley, who spoke treasonable words against his majesty, which expressly threatened to take away his sacred life. I did frequently, after the sentence of death was past on the said Staley, visit him in order to prepare him for his execution. In my first address to him, I told him, I came not to insult over him, but out of conscience to discharge the duty of my office: He He had great terror upon his conscience for the guilt of his many and great sins; yet utterly he stood condemned. I told him that the readenied the speaking of those words for which diest way to be free from those terrors, was to make an ingenuous penitent acknowledgment; and that for tongue-sins or secret heart-sins formerly indulged, God might justly desert him to ensnare himself by such treasonable words. He said, He never had any thought of mischief against the king's person. I replied, that words were the natural product of thoughts, and a frequent prologue to the most abominable actions. He persisted in denying, that he spoke any words tending to that sense; but when I told him, that his friend, who was drinking with him, could, or had deposed upon oath, that he spoke those very words: He replied, Nay, if my friend will swear so much, it is probable I might (in the heat and extravagancy of passion) utter them, though they never were intended in my heart. He had great remorse for the sinfulness of his life, and expressed some particulars which I shall not mention. I told him, if he expected any settlement of true serenity in conscience, that he must not seek it in adhering to the Romish religion; for false and loose principles can never produce solid and lasting comfort; then I undertook to convince him from the sacred scriptures, of the many absurdities which are maintained by Popish doctors, that it is a presumption not to doubt of salvation, and yet that a person may merit it, which is utterly inconsistent; for if any man doubt of his future happy estate, how can he merit it? and if |