The Jesuites plea. In ansvver to a letter written by a minister, entituled, Lying allowable with papists to deceive Protestants.

THE Iesuit's Plea. In ANSWER to a LETTER Written By A MINISTER, ENTITULED, Lying allowable with PAPISTS to de∣ceive PROTESTANTS.

I Should be extreamly unjust, if I in the least doubted sincerity in the solemn Asseverations of the late Executed Jesuites at Tyburn, for I must suppose them either Atheists, or no A∣theists; if Atheists, What would they not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 done or confessed to save their Lives? for in that sup∣position their Summum bonum would have been the pleasures of this life. If not Atheists, they either acted at their Death according to Conscience, or a∣gainst Conscience; if against Conscience we must be∣lieve that they wittingly went about to damn them∣selves without remedy, dying in Perjury known to themselves as such, to Judge this is very uncharitable,

if they acted according to Conscience, professing Innocency for what they were Cōndemned for, and yet were guilty; then were they the most grosly igno∣rant, or of the weakest Capacity or Judgment of any that ever were Executed, and proceeded by palpable Contradictions: they must have believed a God, and not believed his Essence, nor believed his Essential Verity; For he cannot believe God to be essential Verity, who believes that he can•• Autho∣rise a Lye; wherefore whosoever calls God to Wit∣ness a Lye, and acts according to Conscience, grosly and palpably contradicts himself, and to Judge this of the Jesuites, would argue gross folly and ignorance in any knowing Person, no reasonable Creature in ••hose Circumstances could have dared to appear im∣mediately before the Throne of the Eternal, Great, and All-seeing Judge of the Living and the Dead, as it were glorying in the most Uncharitable falsities that ever yet were pronounced by Men. If Cri∣minal, did they not in vindicating themselves Ar∣raign and Condemn the Law and Common Justice of the Nation, and with Vanity, Countenance, Perju∣ries, Infidelities, and Treasons against both King and Kingdom, the blackest of all Crimes? Can you believe they should think God can comply with any, even the least sin in any Circumstance? is it not most detestable to his Nature? is not sin the greatest ill, and even the only ill, and God the greatest Good, and the only absolute goodness? Sin a negation of all good, a non Entity, a want of all due rectitude in any action done, and malum per••se, God goodness it self, and perfection it self, the Essence of Existence as he defined himself in Scripture Ego sum qui sum, the only absolute being or entity, from whom it emanes or flowes to all Creatures? What then more oppo∣site

than God and Sin? Were it not then Sacrilegious to avouch that God cannot be displeased with a Creature when he sins, or that he can approve a Lye? Besides, if a Lye were in any Circumstance to be allowed by God, it would argue deficiency in God, as that any thing should be possible to be com∣passed out of the Sphere of Divine Activity, by assistance of the Divel the Father of Lies; Nor could his Omniscience be less questionable, as reasonably imputing to it an ignorance of effecting his designs, but by the unjust ways of iniquity; likewise would his Providential Goodness and Justice be censured, as allowing sin the medium to obtain Heaven, nay himself who is the end of all Righteousness; This is Blas∣phemy, and to Arraign God in all his Attributes; this is so absurd, that it will be folly to spend more time in this Argument; or to believe it possible, that Men whose Educations and Breeding have been in Schools, should be either so ignorant as to hold such silly Opinions, or so wicked Christians as to seem to believe the highest Crimes damnable, and Sacrilegi∣ous Lyes, Perjuries, Treasons, and Blasphemies, as meritorious Virtues, alleadging God as Witness in justification of such infernal Acts, horrid to every Christian Ear, abominable to Common sense, oppo∣site to the very hight of nature. And that this is not only according to the Doctrine of St. Paul al∣leadged by Harcourt, that no ill is to be done, that good may come thereof; but is also the Doctrine of the Jesuites; You may learn from Father Berry an eminent Jesuite, and modern Author, in his ex∣cellent Book called The Sollitu de of Philargie, ap∣proved by Anthority, and not called in again as Ma∣riana's, and was wrote for the practice and daily Meditations of all sorts of People, where to express

the mallice of Sin, he says that it were better that the An∣gels were annihilated, and that all the World perish, than to offend Godiby the least Sin, even of an idle word; this considered, the inhumane expressions of your Paper no ways touch me, nor is my amazement, as yours, grounded on their Proclaiming themselves in∣nonent (for if so, then to manifest it publickly to the whole World upon so solemn an occasion, was but Justice to others, as well as to themselves) but at your not crediting such pregnant circumstances, at your belying and slandering the Dead, and your guil∣ty detractions which I believed inconsistent with the Principles of Christians, and therefore admire it in the practice of a Christian Minister.

Scripture and all true Morality teach us, to do as we would be done unto, to Judge no otherwise of o∣thers than we would be Judged by others; and I thought it the Principle and due practice of every Christian to make the best exposition of the Words and Actions of others, to make the charitablest In∣terpretation words will bear, especially the words of dying men, delivered with Christian Courage, Mo∣desty, Resolution, and Constancy, and not Spider∣like to suck venome from sweetest Flowers. Can you believe they proceeded so maliciously at the hour of Death? I have so much Charity for you, as to think, that were you under the same Circumstances as they were when they pronounced those Speeches, immedialely expecting Death, not then to be tempt∣ed by any Allurements of Pleasure, Greatness or Fortune, not capable of Worldly Advancement, or vanity, dreading the consequences of Eternity, you would then detract such rash Judgments, even of the worst of Men, and conclude it a time to be serious, and not to use Quirks and Equivocations to deceive,

or impiously to hide truth. Now as to what you alleadge to prove, they might well be guilty, for all their Protestations to the contrary is very frivolous. We must believe (say you) that every of them recei∣ved plenary Absolution of all their sins, from their Birth to this day, upon which Absolution they may affirm themselves as free from, and as innocent of any Crime laid to their charge, as the Child unborn, because whatever the Crime is, 'tis forgiven. So not to count you very malicious, I am forced, as the less evil, to think you very ignorant. Where did you ever read in any Cathol. Author, that after Absolution for any Sin, the Penitent might think himself as innocent of it as the Child unborn? How then can he swear it? who knows not that when by the Prophet 'twas de∣clared to David that his Sin was forgiven him, yet he was not so innocent, but that God punished him afterwards temporally for it, as in Scripture is de∣clared? and who knows with such certainty as is re∣quisite for an Oath, whether he had a due Disposi∣tion necessary to Absolution? No Man knows whether he be worthy of Love or Hatred from God, is the sense of the Scripture, and Doctrine of the Catholick Church, and that we must work our Salvation with fear and trembling, with Christian humility, and not presumptive confidence. Moreover should it be granted, that Absolution before hand might justifie that expression of being as innocent as the Child un∣born, yet could it not justifie Mr. Whitebread, say∣ing that to pray to God to bless his Majesty, is all the harm that he ever intended or imagined against him; and that he never did learn, teach, or believe, that it is Lawful upon any occasion or practice whatsoever to design or contrive the death of his Majesty, or any hurt to his person; Mr. Harcourt saying, We hold it

in all Cases unlawful to Kill or Murther any person whatsoever, much more our lawful King. Mr. Gavan, I do attest that I never in my life did machine or contrive either the deposition or death of the King. Mr. Turner, I never accus'd my self in confession of any thing that I am charged with. Mr. Fenwick, I know nothing of it, (viz. Of plotting the Kings death) but what I have learned from Mr. Oates and his Com∣panions, and what comes originally from them. Mr. Langhorn, I neither am, nor ever was at any time, or times guilty, so much as in my most secret thoughts of any Treason, or misprision of Treason whatsoever. These sayings, even supposing a Revelation, that Absolution has taken away all guilt, so as to render them as innocent as the Child unborn cannot be al∣lowed without having been ever innocent of the fact charged against them; for even the absolute power of God cannot effect that not to have been which was, nor could their Absolution take away their memory, or allow them to declare they knew not that which was in their memory. But say you, If they sinned in that their declaration of Innocency, yet they might safely do it, having a power to absolve each other just as they were going out of the World, as I believe they did when they laid their heads together.

Sir, Give me leave to teach you again what is the Catholick Doctrine, for I find you have very gross mistakes therein. Observe then Sir, That there is not one Catholick nor Christian Author I believe ex∣tant in the World that holds it sufficient to have the words of Absolution pronounced over him, but that then is requisite in the Penitent a real aversion, detestation, or turning away in his heart from sin, and conver∣sion to God, to render him a fit or disposed subject to receive the effect of Absolution; Is it then likely

that any Christia should be so presumptive at the hour of his death, as wilfully to sin upon confidence of such disposition immediately after, knowing that his sorrow must be from a supernatural motive, and not in his power, but by the grace of God whom he then offends? this is certainly the highest presump∣tion imaginable, and not to be paralled. What Sin∣ner knowing he had but three Moments to live, would make use of two to offend God upon confidence of the last? Who can think so meanly of God, as to ima∣gine him so subservient to Man, as that he as it were may lure down from Heaven supernatural grace at his will and pleasure? who has that faculty to love and hate the same thing so immediately, as if the one were a disposition to the other its contrary, and not Sin the punishment of preceding Sins, but grace as a•• reward? How stands this with that place of Scripture, Neque volentis neque currentis sed mise∣rentis est dei? What more absurd and wicked than such proceeding, or more nonsensical and uncharita∣ble to suppose it, not only in any learned Christian, but even in any illiterate Mahometan? this is to bid farewell to all Charity, Religion, Reason, Prudence and Common sense. But say you, If to Rob, Spoil, kill Protestants, burn their Cities, and depose Kings, be no sin, but good and lawful, then they might de∣clare themselves innocent, though never so guilty, for Romanists tell us 'tis no sin to take from those they count Haereticks all they have. For this you cite the Late∣ran Councel, sub Innoc. 2. and Syloc••ter N. 23. Q. 3. Cap. 1. First in Answer to it, we must distinguish be∣twixt the Articles of Faith declared in Councels, and the Constitutions of Government or Laws; The first are unalterable, infallible, and irresistable, the other fallible, alterable, and resistable, and may be suspend∣ed,

and abrogated, and are so upon sundry occasions. For example, the Counsel of the Apostles Con∣demned that Doctrine, holding Circumcision neces∣sary, this Article of Faith can never be opposed, but the Decree they made against eating of strangled meats and blood, became quickly of no force, and is now wholly abrogated.

Secondly, The Canon Laws so farr forth as they relate to temporals oblige; or are in force only there, where they are received, or approved by the tempo∣ral Authority of the Kingdom, Principality or State (and where do you find the Three States of Eng∣land, the antient and present Government of this Kingdom, consenting to depose Kings for Haeresie, or to dispose of their Lands, &c.) and such Canons must be formally promulged there by the Governing Authority in due method, otherwise they are of no validity; this is seen by the Councel of Trent, which though it be received throughout the Catholick World as to its Decrees concerning Belief, or Articles of Faith, yet as to, in other Canons, or Constitutions of Government, is in some places wholly rejected, in o∣ther places in part received, in others wholly. And this Kingdom when Catholick in part, rejected the Canons of the Third Councel of Lateran for making Children legitimate after Marriage, born before, saying Nolu••••s leges Anglia mutari. So that upon the whole matter it implies no more, then to say that any King, Prince, or State may make or agree to such penal Laws against Dissenters in Religion, as they in pru∣dence shall think fit, and so may either take, or reject the advice of Pope or Councel.

Thirdly, That Canon of the Lateran Counsel was made against the Subordinate, and Fuditary Princes of Germany and France; as the Prince of Berne, Earl

Cominge, the Earl of Foix, and the Earl of Tholous, who then countenanced and abetted the Albigenses, the Emperors of the East and West, the King of France and most Kings thereto consenting by their Ambassadors, and their Authority used to suppress those Albigenses, and to prevent dissention and re∣bellion in the Empire of France, and other Kingdoms; this was the motive of that Canon which begins, Si Dominus terrae, &c. not naming Kings, Emperors, or absolute Princes, but inferior Lords, nor Kingdoms, but Lands Terras, and not Regna.

Fourthly, Were such a Canon in force in England, yet could not such a Law be executed against the King, who was never denounced Haeretick, nor any personal Excommunication pronounced against him, or was ever heard, or admonished by Pope or Coun∣sel (the fame may be said of all the Protestants in England) so that I say, were any such Canon admit∣ted, even by Act of Parliament, or Constitutions of this Kingdom, it would not reach his Majesty nor England as guilty.

Fifthly, Though I should suppose contrary to truth, that such a Canon did reach the King and this Kingdom, yet could it not be executed by pri∣vate persons, no more than a Jesuite or Priest can by a private Person or Authority be hang'd, drawn; and quarter'd: He or they must be first publickly Tryed, and legally Condemned and then Executed only by the appointed Executioner; that Canon then doth no ways Impower or Authorize in the least any person living, Jesuite or other, to per∣petrate those Crimes you mention, wherefore upon many demonstrative Reasons, those aforementioned Crimes must by all be accounted or denied horrid, and unchristian, and no one can justly declare him∣self

innocent who hath committed them. Next as to your proving it law ful by Dr. John Dun-Scotus, &c. To Swear with Equivocations upon just Cause, makes not at all to your purpose nor what you alleadge of Bonnacina; For the Jesuites in their last Speeches tell you with great Asseverations that they make use of no Equivocation, mental Reservation, &c. Nor from those Authors can it be proved, that any one may Swear contrary to the sense the words properly bear, but all you can deduce is, that is words Amphilogious, doubtful, or of two senses, I may swear to that sense I think the truth, though it perhaps be understood in another sense by him that hears me; and this only upon a just cause (as Abraham did about Sarah his Wife, calling her his Sister) which he there explains.

The Jesuites protested they spoke in the plain sense the words bear, and averred it with great im∣precations, and I believe you, nor any body living, can find any proper, or other sense to their words, but that of Innocency: and I did hope with Fenwick, That Christian Charity would not have let you thought, that by the last Act of his life he would cast away his Soul, by sealing up his last breath with a damnable lye; Were not this greater want of Charity, than to say, He that dies an obstinate Haeretick cannot be saved. The usual Objection against Catholicks.

In the next place you cite Soto, saying, Mendacium si non habet, &c. A Lye, if it have no other malice than that of falsehood, it is no mortal sin? What is this more than to say, every Lye is not a mortal Sin; for every Lye has the malice of falshood; and doth this argue, or can any one deduce from hence, that no Lye is a mortal Sin; that a Lye that has besides the malice of falshood, the malice of prejudice or

wrong to my Neighbour, a false accusation of ano∣ther by protesting my own Innocency with a Lye, or to lye with perjury and imprecations upon falshood, can any inferr from thence, these not to be mortal? and such had been the Lyes of the Jesuites, were they guilty of what they were accused. Lastly, You ground your calumny upon these words, Certum est obligationem hujas praecepti, &c. It is certain that the Obligation of this precept (to conceal what is re∣veal'd in Confession) in no Case, and for no end, even the defence of the Commonwealth from very great ill, ei∣ther Spiritual or Temporal; can be violated or broken, to this you alleadge Durand, Scotus, and many more. What of all this? did the Jesuites, if guilty, know of the Plot only by hearing the Confessions of o∣thers? If so, they could not be Actors in it, as they were accused to be, and Condemned for; where do you find a Precept of not revealing or owning my own Actions, although I had confessed them before? Now give me leave here (mention being made of this Precept) to shew you that this Precept is so far from being of any ill consequence to any Kingdom, as that on the contrary, 'tis very advantagious, a great hin∣drance, and no incouragement to Treason. Who∣soever Sacramentally confesseth Treason owns it a Crime; the Priest that has a precept of concealing it, has also a precept not to absolve him unless he hear∣tily repent, and if the Treason be only intended, he must indispensably require him to desist from such in∣tention, he must with all possible diligence exhort him to detest such Intention or Treason in his heart, and to discover his Complices, if he have any, as in Conscience he is absolutely bound to do, here is Confession by the admonition and direction of the Pastor and Spiritual Physitian of his Soul (who

hereby knows the Disease and State of his Soul) a great means to his Spiritual Cure, to cast out of his Heart all Treasonable thoughts, and to prevent the Actions, but if there were not that precept of se∣cresie, who would confess to be Accused and Im∣peached? 'Tis Confession that is the great security of all Catholick Kingdoms from Treason; for when any guilty in fact or intention come to this Sacra∣ment. they are pressed to declare their Complices, and obliged to retract and hinder what is not ef∣fected therein, knowing they cannot be Absolved without it, whereby most Treasons are timely pre∣vented. For this Reason we find that success in Rebellion against Government, has commonly been joyned with Rebellion in Religion, as pretended Reformation in Religion and Rebellion against their Sovereign, set up together in Holland, and in seve∣ral Principalities of the Empire; whereas Catho∣licks, remaining such, contradict by Treason their own Principles, and must acknowledge such practice damnable; wherefore had the Jesuites been guilty, you would have had from them an acknowledge∣ment of the Crime, as done or acted contrary to their Conscience and Principles of their Religion; but 'tis no Principle of any Religion to accuse ones self falsly. Wherefore wonder not that they should rather dye professing Innocency to the Crimes ob∣jected against them, with hope of Salvation and Par∣don of God for all their real Offences, than to live by his Majesties Pardon with false accusation of them∣selves and others, and displeasure or anger of God. And I must not wonder to find their Words and Speeches so misrepresented, whereas even the Word of God is dayly traduced by false Glosses, to the ruine of many. And what wonder that those Five

Jesuites, and many more, though never so Loyal have been thus Condemned, and Executed as Traitors to his Majesty. Where by pretended Justice and course of Law, one of the best of Kings has been Condemn∣ed and Executed as a Traitor to his Country. By thus suffering they have as Christians imitated Christ, and as loyal Subjects imitated their King Charles the First, God bless King Charles the Second. Amen.

FINIS.