“I answeared him that an act is not to be condemd or justified upon the good or bad euent that follow^{th} it but upon the ende or object, and the meanes that is used for effecting the same and brought him an example out of the booke of Judges wher the 11 tribs of Israel weare comannded by god to make warrs upon the trib of Benjamin; and yett the tribe of Benjamin did both in the first and secound battaile overthrow the other 11 tribs. The like said I wee read of Lewis King of france who went to fight against the Turks and to recouer the hoolye Land, but ther he loost the most of his armie, and him self dyed ther of the plague the like wee may say when the xtianes defended Rhoodes against the turks wher the Turkes preuayled and the xtianes weare overthrowne, and yet noe doubt the xtians cause was good and the turks bad and thus I applied it to this fact of Mr. Catesbie’s it is not to be approved or condemned by the euent, but by the propper object or end, and meanes w^{ch} was to be vsed in it; and bycause I know nothinge of thes I will neither approve it or condeme it but leave it to god and ther owne consciences and in this warie sort I spake to him bycause I doubted he came to entrap me, and that he should take noe advantage of my words whither he reported them to Catholiks or Protestants. “(Signed) Edward Oldcorne. “Acknowledged before vs “J. Popham.[A] Edw. Coke.[B] W. Waad.[C] John Corbett.” (The A and B at the left side of the Declaration are Coke’s own marks.) [Footnote A: The Lord Chief Justice of England.] [Footnote B: Afterwards the celebrated Lord Chief Justice of England, and Editor of “_Littleton’s Tenures_.” This Humphrey Littleton, mentioned in the Text, was a descendant of Sir John Littleton, Author of the immortal legal work.] [Footnote C: Lieutenant of the Tower of London.] CHAPTER LVIII. We are now come to the crux of this Inquiry. To every philosophical thinker who takes the trouble to ponder the matter it must be evident that the ethical principles enunciated in the first part of the Declaration, given _in extenso_ in the preceding chapter, are intellectually irrefutable and morally irreproachable; although their obviousness, certainly, will not be palpable to “the man in the street.” The answer of this clear-sighted, strong-headed Yorkshireman, is indeed the answer that is the resultant of exact ethical knowledge, that is, of moral science. _For what is science, either in the realms of the intellectual, the moral, the political, or the physical, but “exact knowledge.”_ Moreover, these principles are the resultant of abstract moral science, or exact ethical knowledge pure and simple.