MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.

* * * * *

TREATISE OF EQUIVOCATION.

(Vol. ii., p. 168.).

As supplementary to J.B.’s valuable paper on the Treatise of Equivocation, I transcribe the following from the Smith Manuscripts (num. lxix. 5. p. 35.), thinking it may leave an interest for some of your readers:—­

    “Apud, D.P. 13th of May, 1597.

    Gerard the Jesuite, his Defence of AEquivocation.

John Gerard, the Jesuite, being told that, upon the arraignment of Sowthwell the priest of high treason, one of the witnesses being asked upon her oath by one of the judges, in open court, whether Sowthwell were ever in Bellamie’s house, said that she had been perswaded by Sowthwell to affirme upon her oath, that she did not see Sowthwell in Bellamie’s house and to keep this secret in her mind, of INTENT TO TELL YOU, whereas in truth she had seen him diverse times in Bellamie’s house; and Sowthwell being charged therewith, openly confessed the same, and sought to justifie the same by the place out of Jeremie, that a man ought to swear in judicio, justitia, et veritate.  Now, this John Gerrard, being asked what his opinion and judgment was concerning Southwell’s opinion above said, said that he was of the same opinion, and seemed to justifie the same by the example of our Saviour Christ, who said to His disciples, that you shall go to Jerusalem, Ego autem non ascendam, keeping this secret to himself, of INTENT TO TELL YOU.  And also sayeth that our Saviour Christ said, that the Son of Man did not know of the day of judgment, keeping this secret to himself, OF INTENT TO TELL YOU; for he sayeth, that as he was Son of Man he knew it, and could not be ignorant of any thing:  and furder sayeth, that a witness being examined, juridice and of temporal things, not concerning religion or Catholics, cannot answer with such aequivocation as is above said.  And, forasmuch as this opinion and the defence thereof seemed to be damnable and blasphemous, he was required to sett down his own opinion therein, least he should be mistaken; but he denied the same, not because it is untrue, but because he would not publish it.  Then being required to subscribe the same, denied the same also.

  RICHARD BARKLEY. 
  WILLIAM WAAD. 
  EDWARD COOK. 
  THOMAS FLEMING.”

The reference “Apud.  D.P.,” which stands as I have placed it above, may perhaps enable some of your contributors to point out the source from which this account is derived.  The date at the top appears to have been added by a later hand.

J. SANSOM.

Oxford, Nov. 1850.

* * * * *

RIOTS IN LONDON.

(Vol. ii., pp. 273. 332.)