time of Innocent XI., Rome in the 19th century, aye, and Innocent XI. too, maintain the lawfulness of equivocation and mental reservation! If such appears then as a matter of fact, Mr. Waterworth denounces the principles of his own Church as sinful and scandalous; if he be honest, let him abandon it. The proof of my position, that Rome in the 19th century holds the lawfulness of equivocation and mental reservation, is so evident and obvious, that the reader of the preceding pages must at once perceive it; but before I proceed to this point, I would first notice Mr. Waterworth's great argument, so great that he boldly says " I could not be a Catholic if I held them"- the principles of equivocation and mental reservation. His argument is, that Innocent XI. condemned these principles, and in proof of the assertion he quotes Bailly, Dens, &c. We then will take Dens as an example.

"Ex uno disce omnes."

I have already said that the views of Dens', though bad enough, (so bad, that Romanists are ashamed of them) are yet not equal, in point of wickedness, to those of Liguori, who is the APPROVED, THE CANONIZED, and THE INVOCATED! Now, Mr. Waterworth's great argument is this—that, since the propositions of Innocent XI. no Roman Catholic could hold the principles of equivocation and mental reservation. He quotes Dens, but he absolutely omits an important link in the sentence; and why? because Dens, in that omitted portion, says that, since the propositions, these principles have been held, though Mr. Waterworth asserts that no Romanist could hold them. Let us look at Mr. Waterworth's garbled passage, in juxta-position with the whole sentence, and judge of the assertion and the fair play of the learned disputant-his assertion that no Catholic could hold these

obnoxious sentiments, and his fair play in leaving out the latter part of the sentence :

Dens

"Observe here, that Lessius, Suaresius, and others, who wrote before the condemnation of the above mentioned propositions, are to be read cautiously. Nay, SOME MORE RECENT are to be avoided, who secede from the condemned doctrine, as far as they are obliged by the letter or the express case, retaining INDEED THE SAME PRINCIPLES, but they who are better taught by the highest Pontiffs ought to know and understand that in the condemned propositions the principles themselves are reprobated."

Dens, as quoted by Mr.W.

"Observe here, that such writers" (that is, Lessius, Suares, and others, who wrote before the condemned propositions of Innocent XI.) "are to be read with caution."

Now Dens is an infamous writer-the world has heard of his obnoxious principles-yet Dens, as I have said, is not so bad as Liguori in some points. Dens, however, is an insignificant authority, when compared with that saint, as will be seen by and bye. Now, recollect, that Mr. Waterworth's point is this-that, since the condemnation by Innocent XI., no Roman Catholic could hold equivocation and mental reservation. He quotes Dens, but he leaves out the passage in which it is said, that since the condemnation by Innocent XI., these principles have been held in Rome, for the simple reason, that if he had read the passage to the end, it would have completely annihilated his whole argument. He quotes Liguori on the subject of oaths, as a great authority. He says " Liguori teaches (and he has just been canonized) that, under no circumstance, even if the Pope or the Council were to attempt it, can they exonerate an individual from an oath made to a third person."

tr

This assertion of Mr. W.'s, as to Liguori, I will show, by and bye, to be utterly false; but I now quote the passage to prove that Mr. W. knows something of Liguori, "just canonized," which are his own words. Now, then, Liguori, "just canonized," teaches equivocation and mental reservation. Mr. W. says, "I could not be a Catholic if I held them." Yet LIGUORI, JUST CANONIZED," HOLDS THEM!

65

But Mr. W. says these principles are condemned by the propositions of Innocent XI. I say that equivocation and mental reservation are not condemned by that Pope. Mr. W. availed himself of the subtle distinction which Rome makes in reservations, and to which I have already alluded, even that of restriction pure mentalis and restriction non pure mentalis. This distinction I have already noticed.

In the 58th page of this work, I say

"Liguori now defines the meaning of mental restriction. He says that there is restriction purely mental, (pure mentalis) and restriction not purely mental-the former can not be used, the latter can. Having said that restriction purely mental can not be used, and proved his statement by reference to propositions condemned by Innocent XI. he considers restriction, not purely mental. He says:

E contrario licitum est, justa causa uti restrictione non pure mentali, etiam cum juramento, si illa ex circumstantiis percipi potest.'

'On the contrary is lawful for a just cause to use restriction not purely mental, even with an oath if it can be understood from the circumstances.'

"He endeavours to prove this by passages of Scripture, which he perverts, and cites a long list of authors in support of his view. He says that even the most strict

moralists have accorded with the principle. Thomas adopts it, saying:

'Non est licitum mendacium dicere ad hoc, quod aliquis alium a quocumque periculo libcret; licet tamen veritatem occultare prudenter sub aliqua dissimulatione, st Augustinus dicit in lib. contra Mendac.'

66

Even

It is not lawful to tell a lie for this account, that any one should deliver another from any danger-however it is lawful prudently to conceal the truth under SOME DISSIMULATION, as Augustin says in his book against Lying.'

Restriction, purely mental, or that which is incapable of being understood, is not lawful; but restriction, not purely mental, or that of which it is possible, even in the smallest degree, that it can be understood, is

LAWFUL.

"Having proved the lawfulness of mental restriction, he considers a number of cases which fully exemplify the wickedness of these principles."

that

Here, then, I noticed the Papal distinction of reservamentalis. Liguori says tion nou pure mentalis and pure that restriction purely mental is not lawful, and he quotes the propositions of Innocent XI.; but he says that restriction, not purely mental, are lawful-are not condemned by the proposition of Innocent XI.; for that proposition only speaks of reservation purely mental. How utterly false, then, is the assertion of Mr. W., all equivocations are condemned by Innocent XI.; for, as a matter of fact, Liguori shows that the equivocations and mental reservations, of which he approves, are not condemned by Innocent XI. How utterly groundless is "the most his assertion that Sanches, called by Liguori learned and pious," Lessius, &c., &c., are condemned; for Liguori, the approved, the canonized, and the invocated, quotes their opinions, approves, in most instances, of their views, and sometimes even goes further than these authors in maintaining obnoxious principles.

No. 8

Mr. Waterworth, speaking of equivocation and mental reservation says, "I could not be a Catholic if I held them; and yet that very gentleman bends his knee in suppliant prayer, and entreats that, " taught by the admonitions of Liguori," he may reach the shores of heaven. Reader, turn back a few pages-for a moment consider the sentiments which Liguori teaches on equivocation, and then judge of the veracity of this assertion. Mr. W. says, "I could not be a Catholic if I held them;" and yet Liguori, of whose works the Church of Rome has pronounced that they contain "not one word worthy of censure," holds these sentiments. Is Liguori a Catholic P But I would, for the sake of clearness, sum up what I have proved.

I. Mr. W. says that the propositions of Innocent XI. condemn all equivocation. I have shown, from Liguori himself, that these propositions only apply to reservation, "pure mentalis." The equivocations which Liguori gives are not condemned. They are lawful.

II. Mr. W. affirmed that Sanches, Lessius, &c., were condemned. I have shown that Liguori, the approved moralist of Rome-approved IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY-maintains their views, and sometimes even goes beyond them.

III.-Mr. W. affirmed that no Catholic, since the propositions of Innocent XI., could hold such principles; and, when he quotes a passage from Dens, he leaves out the latter part of the sentence, for therein Dens says that more recent authors have held the same opinions."

66

IV. Mr. W. says, "I could not be a Catholic if I held them"-a palpable untruth, for Liguori holds them! and Rome has pronounced of his sentiments, that they are not worthy of censure.

V.-Mr. W. himself prays to God that he

H

may hold