uestion might be eluded: and this practice was publicly defended in a
treatise licensed by Garnet and Blackwall. Certain instances are given
in the work as illustrations of the doctrine. The following is one of
these cases. A man arrives at a certain place, and is examined on oath
at the gate, whether he came from London, where the plague is supposed
to be raging at the time. The man, knowing that the plague is not in
London, or that he did no more than pass through that city, may swear
that he did not come from London. It is argued, that such an answer
would agree with their intention, who proposed the question simply with
a view to ascertaining, whether their own city would be endangered by
his entrance. Such was the doctrine of equivocation, under the plea of
which Garnet sheltered himself when he denied many things which were
proved against him, and which he had himself confessed. Even Sir Everard
Digby resorted to this papal doctrine of equivocation, as will be seen
from the following extracts from his letters discovered in 1675, and
published by Bishop Barlow, in 1679:--"Yesterday I was before Mr.
Attorney and my Lord Chief Justice, who asked me if I had taken the
sacrament to keep secret the plot as others did. I said that I had not,
because I would avoid the question of at whose hands it were."--"I have
not as yet acknowledged the knowledge of any priest in particular, nor
will not do to the hurt of any but myself, whatsoever betide me."
Speaking of a particular priest, he says in another letter; "I have not
been asked his name, which if I had, should have been such a one as I
knew not of." Again; "If I be called to question for the priest, I
purpose to name him Winscombe, unless I be advised otherwise." And,
alluding to the same in a subsequent letter--"You forget to tell me
whether Winscombe be a fit name. I like it, for I know none of it." In
another letter--"As yet they have not got of me the affirming that I
know any priest particularly, nor shall ever do to the hurt of any one
but myself." It is evident that he deemed it lawful to deny anything
calculated to bring reproach on his church; and that he did not scruple
to give a false name on his examination. From the manner in which he
speaks, there can be no doubt, that he believed he might lawfully
equivocate. And from whom had he learned this monstrous doctrine? From
the church and her authorized teachers!!

The earl of Salisbury alluded on the trial to his