God is the only judge between two, that is supreme. Now, if a difference happen between two subjects, and it cannot be decided by human testimony, why may not they put it to God to judge between them by the permission of the prince? Nay, what if we should bring it down, for argument's sake, to the swordmen. One gives me the lie; it is a great disgrace to take it; the law has made no provision to give remedy for the injury; (if you can suppose any thing an injury for which the law gives no remedy) why am not I, in this case, supreme, and may, therefore, right myself?

2. A duke ought to fight with a gentleman. The reason is this: the gentleman will say to the duke, "It is true, you hold a higher place in the state than I; there is a great distance between you and me-but your dignity does not privilege you to do me an injury: as soon as ever you do me an injury, you make yourself my equal; and as you are my equal, I challenge you:" and in sense the duke is bound to answer him. This will give you some light to understand the quarrel betwixt a prince and his subjects: though there be a vast distance between him and them, and they are to obey him, according to their contract, yet he hath no power to do them an injury; then they think themselves as much bound to vindicate their right, as they are to obey his lawful commands, nor is there any other measure of justice 'left upon earth

but arms.

EPITAPH.

An epitaph must be made fit for the person for whom it is made for a man to say all the excellent

things that can be said upon one, and call that his epitaph, is as if a painter should make the handsomest piece he can possibly make, and say it was my picture. It holds in a funeral sermon.

EQUITY.

1. Equity in law is the same that the spirit is in religion, what every one pleases to make it; sometimes they go according to conscience, sometimes according to law, sometimes according to the rule of court.

2. Equity is a roguish thing; for law we have a measure-know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot, a chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot: it is the same thing in the chancellor's conscience.

3. That saying, "Do as you would be done to," is often misunderstood; for it is not thus meantthat I, a private man, should do to you, a private man, as I would have you do to me, but do as we have agreed to do one to another by public agreement. If the prisoner should ask the judge, whether he would be contented to be hanged, were he in his case, he would answer-No: Then, says the prisoner, do as you would be done to. Neither of them must do as private men, but the judge must do by him as they have publicly agreed-that is,

both judge and prisoner have consented to a law, that if either of them steal, they shall be hauged.

EVIL SPEAKING.

1. He that speaks ill of another, commonly before he is aware, makes himself such a one as he speaks against; for, if he had civility or breeding, he would forbear such kind of language.

2. A gallant man is above ill words: an example we have in the old lord of Salisbury, who was a great wise man. Stone had called some lord about court, fool; the lord complains, and has Stone whipped: Stone cries, "I might have called my lord of Salisbury fool often enough, before he would have had me whipped."

3. Speak not ill of a great enemy; but rather give him good words, that he may use you the better, if you chance to fall into his hands. The Spaniard did this when he was dying; his confessor told him, to work him to repentance, how the devil tormented the wicked that went to hell: the Spaniard replying, called the devil my lord. " I hope my lord the devil is not so cruel :" his confessor reproved him. "Excuse me," said the Don, "for calling him so: I know not into what hands I may fall; and if I happen into his, I hope he will use me the better for giving him good words."

EXCOMMUNICATION.

1. That place they bring for excommunication, "Put away from among yourselves that wicked person," 1 Cor. v. 13, is corrupted in the Greek; for it

should be, To Tong", "put away that evil from among you;” not τον πονηρον, "that evil person;" besides,

πονηρος is the devil in Scripture, and it may be so taken there; and there is a new edition of Theodoret come out, that has it right, To ovnov. It is true, the Christians, before the civil state became Christian, did, by covenant and agreement set down how they should live; and he that did not observe what they agreed upon, should come no more amongst them; that is, be excommunicated. Such men are spoken of by the apostle, Rom. i. 31, whom he calls ασυνθετους και ασπονδούς, the Vulgate has it, incompositos, et sine fædere; the last word is pretty well, but the first not at all. Origen, in his book against Celsus, speaks of the Christians' σunan: the translation renders it conventus, as it signifies a meeting; when it is plain it signifies a covenant ; and the English Bible turned the other word wellcovenant-breakers. Pliny tells us, the Christians took an oath amongst themselves to live thus and thus.

2. The other place, dic ecclesiæ, "tell the church," is but a weak ground to raise excommunication upon, especially from the sacrament-the lesser excommunication; since, when that was spoken, the sacrament was instituted. The Jews' ecclesia was their sanhedrim, their court; so that the meaning is, if after once or twice admonition this brother will not be reclaimed, bring him thither.

3. The first excommunication was one hundred and eighty years after Christ, and that by Victor, bishop of Rome : but that was no more than thisthat they should communicate and receive the sacra. ment amongst themselves, not with those of the

other opinion; the controversy, as I take it, being about the feast of Easter. Men do not care for excommunication, because they are shut out of the church, or delivered up to Satan, but because the law of the kingdom takes hold of them: after so many days a man cannot sue, no, not for his wife, if you take her from him; and there may be as much reason to grant it for a small fault, if there be contumacy, as for a great one: in Westminsterhall you may outlaw a man for forty shillings, which is their excommunication, and you can do no more for forty thousand pounds.

4. When Constantine became Christian, he so fell in love with the clergy, that he let them be judges of all things; but that continued not above three or four years, by reason they were to be judges of matters they understood not, and then they were allowed to meddle with nothing but religion; all jurisdiction belonged to him, and he scanted them out as much as he pleased; and so things have since continued. They excommunicate for three or four things-matters concerning adultery, tithes, wills, &c. which is the civil punishment the state allows for such faults. If a bishop excommunicate a man for what he ought not, the judge has power to absolve, and punish the bishop. If they had that jurisdiction from God, why does not the church excommunicate for murder, for theft? If the civil power might take away all but three things, why may they not take them away too? If this excommunication were taken away, the presbyters would be quiet; it is that they have a mind to, it is that they would fain be at, like the wench that was to be married; she asked her mother, when it was