CHARLES IT.

3°7

These religionists could not be engaged to com- chap.mit that crime from policy , in order to deter other i.x'H.magistrates from acting against them. Godfrey’s I6 ? 8 *fate was nowise capable of producing that effect,unless it were publicly known, that the Catholicswere his murderers; an opinion, which, it waseasy to foresee, must prove the ruin of theirparty. Besides , how many magistrates, duringmore than a century, had acted in the most violentmanner against the Catholics, without its bgingever suspected, that any one had been cut oft byassassination ? Such jealous times as the presentwere surely ill fitted for beginning these danger-ous experiments. Shall we therefore fay , thatthe catholics were pushed on, not by policy,but by blind revcnnc against Godfrey? But God-frey had given them little or no occasion ofoffence in taking Oates’s evidence. His part wasmerely an act of form , belonging to his office ;nor could he, or any man in his station, possiblyrefuse it. In the rest of his conduct, he lived ongood terms with the Catholics, and was far fromdistinguishing himself by his severity against thatsect. It is even certain , that he had contractedan intimacy with Coleman , and took care toinform his friend of the danger, to which , byreason of Oates’s evidence , he was at presentexposed.

There are some writers, who, finding it im-possible to account for Godfrey’s murder by themachinations of the Catholics, have recourse tothe opposite supposition. They lay hold of that

X*