shown to be disputable.

*Letter to Miles Prance, March, 1681. L'Estrange, Brief History,
iii. pp. 195-201.
**Lords' MSS., p. 48; Pollock, p. 93, and note 2.
***L'Estrange, Brief History, iii. pp. 188, 190, 195.
****Examen, p. 201.
^Anglicised version of the author's original Greek text.

Dugdale's talk was thought, at the time, to clinch the demonstration
that the Jesuits were concerned in Godfrey's murder, L'Estrange
says, and he brings in his witnesses to prove, that the London
rumour existed, and could reach the country by post. In fact,
Chetwyn, on the evidence of Sanbidge, suggested this improvement of
his original romance to Dugdale, and Sanbidge contradicted Chetwyn.
He knew nothing of the matter. Such is the value of the only
testimony against the Jesuits which deserves consideration.

We do not propose to unriddle this mystery, but to show that the
most recent and industrious endeavour to solve the problem is
unsuccessful. We cannot deny that Godfrey may have been murdered to
conceal Catholic secrets, of which, thanks to his inexplicable
familiarity with Coleman, he may have had many. But we have tried
to prove that we do not KNOW him to have had any such Catholic
secrets, or much beyond Oates's fables; and we have probably
succeeded in showing that against the Jesuits, as Sir Edmund's
destroyers, there is no evidence at all.

Had modern men of science, unaffected by political and religious
bias, given evidence equivalent to that of the two surgeons, one