J.S.

Feb. 7. 1850.

_Treatise of Equivocation._--I shall feel happy if, through your

very opportune medium, I can obtain some information respecting a

very extraordinary and mysterious book, as to its existence, local

habitation, and any other _material_ circumstance, which has the title

of _A Treatise of Equivocation._ The first recognition of the work is

in the _Relation of the Proceedings in the Trial for the Powder Plot_,

1604. At signat. I. the Attourney-General, Sir E. Coke, appeals to it,

and affirms that it was allowed by the Archpriest Blackwel, and that

the title was altered to _A Treatise against Lying and Fraudulent

Dissimulation_. He proceeds to describe some of its contents, as

if he were himself acquainted with the book. Thomas Morton, Bishop

of Lichfield, and Coventry, afterwards of Durham, in his _Full

Satisfaction concerning a double Romish Iniquitie; Rebellion and

Equivocation_, 1606, refers to the work as familiarly acquainted

with it. (See Ep. Dedic. A. 3.; likewise pages 88 & 94.) He gives

the authorship to Creswell or Tresham. He refers likewise to a Latin

work entitled _Resolutio Casuum_, to the same effect, possibly a

translation, to which he subjoins the names of Parsons and Allen.

Robert Abbot, in his _Antilogia_, 1613, pp. 13, 14. emphatically and

at length produces the same book and facts; but they are merely copied

from the _Relation_ of the Powder-treason Trial. Henry Mason, in his

most satisfactory work, _The New Art of Lying, &c._, 1624, has spoken

of the {264} _Treatise_ with the same familiarity (see p. 51.), and

elsewhere, if my memory does not deceive me. Dodd, in his _Church

history_,--when will the new edition begin to move again? Can

Stonyhurst tell?--ascribes the work to Tresham. Hardly any of the

similar works in these times belong to _one_ author. It may just be

added, that Parson's _Mitigation_ contains, perhaps, all the substance

of the Roman equivocation, with not much reserve or disguise. It was

published in answer to Bishop Morton's work in 1607. Foulis has, of

course, substantially all the above, but nothing more.

Now, the questions which I want to have solved are these:--Was the

book ever extant in MS. Or print? Is it now extant, and where? Who

has seen a copy? What is its size, date, and extent? Has the Durham

Cathedral Library, in particular, a copy? Mr. Botfield might have

informed us. In fact, where is any effectual intelligence of the

fugitive to be found?

Notes and Queries, Number 17, February 23, 1850 · 第 25 / 76 题