« ÖncekiDevam »
secundum intentionem imponentis. The old Jesuitical maxim!!! I have no right to complain, that any man notices, combats, or censures any thing I publish: but my words must be correctly quoted, and my opinions fairly stated : nothing material to my reasoning must be suppressed: nothing, which † hold not, must be palmed upon me.
these terms, I am ready to justify whatever I have published.
In following, as the historian of Ireland, Tully's direction to the writers of history, that not only the exploits of the actors themselves be set forth : but the general conduct and character of such of them as have any pretensions to a name or reputation in life, I found it necessary to speak historically of Sir John Cox Hippisley's general conduct throughout the progress of the Catholic cause. This displeased him; and in January 1813, in a printed Ietter to Lord Fingal, he sorely complains of my representation of his conduct, and industriously labours to work up the feelings of his noble correspondent against my publications. In the way of an answer to that letter to Lord Fingal, I wrote an Historical Letter to Sir J. C. Hippisley, Bart. and M.P. being an historical portrait taken of him from the life, whilst acting in the Catholic cause, in which I have minutely investigated and exposed to view his whole conduct, in order to make good the title of the work. On coming abroad, I left the manuscript with a friend to send to press, if deemed conducive to the progress of the cause of Catholic Emancipation. It has been some months before the public; and I grieve to say, with much typographical inaccuracy.
To this book he refers without specifying the nature or tendency of it, when he said, that I had written largely in praise of the society, as one re
port has it, or their eulogium, as another gives it. That is not the precise fact: nor is it true, that I have ever said in print (otherwise than in reporting Sir John's own words), that young men were sent from Ireland to Naples, there to receive orders,
It is a palpable untruth, that in treating of the tenets of the Jesuits, I differed from Paley,
Wherever I mention Paley, I refer not even by insinuation to the Jesuits : neither is there any part of my publications, in which I treat of their tenets. The occasion of my mentioning the Fathers of the Society in my Historical Letter to the Honorable Baronet, which he calls the recent publication, arose out of his sounding the tocsin last session, to provoke Government into an alarm against that order, to prevent its resuscitation, to check its growth, or to extinguish its existence : declaring at the same time, that his fears upon that head were not Protestant fears, but Catholic fears : and he stated that fact in conformity with the wishes of the Catholics themselves (Pilot newspaper for 25th March, 1813). In the recently published letter to the Honorable Baronet (p. 123), I tell him, what I wish all your readers to notice. « Take not, Sir John, an alarm, that I shall make « this letter to you the vehicle of a history or apo
logy, or vindication of the order of Jesuits :
though I certainly shall say as much to you « about the Catholic fears, as will, I hope, suffice « to prevent or dissipate the Protestant fears on « that head.» This I endeavoured to effect by a succinct statement of their temporary subsistance in Prussia, and their permanent and encouraged establishment in Russia, after the bull for suppressing (not condemning) their order in all the Catholic States by Pope Ganganelli. In a note (p. 157) of the Hisiorical Letter I quoted from my Church
and State, what I beg leave to confirm from the experience and reflection of the last twenty years of
I mean neither injury nor offence to « others, when I pay the just tribute of praise to « that society, from which I received my educa« tion. I scarcely deem it possible for the powers « of man to devise a system more calculated to in« fuse solid learning and virtue into youth, than « the plan, which they pursued with unremitted « ardor and perseverance.
. The many faults and. frailties, which with confusion I take to myself, « are so many direct deviations from the precepts « and examples I had the advantage of receiving o from them.
I rejoice, that this obtrusive reference to my opinions upon the obligation of oaths, though so irrelevant to the object of the motion, has afforded me an opportunity of opening the my countrymen to the honorable and conscientious grounds, upon which the dissenters from the Establishment refuse to subscribe to the 39 articles, and the Roman Catholics decline taking the oath of supremacy,
which would let them into those civil benefits, from which their recusancy precludes them. All I have said upon this subject, immediately refers to the subscription to the 39 articles, and the taking of the oath of supremacy. Sir John Cox Hippisley has not quoted my words, he has referred to no particular book or publication of mine, he probably either has not read, or not fully understood what I have published, and he certainly appears to have endeavoured to press upon his auditors, and of course upon the readers of the reports of his original and amended speeches, a very different idea of my opinions, from that, which, I hope, will result from the lecture of this letter to you.
In my Church and State I referred to the case of Smith (4 Inst. 324), where Wray, Chief Justice, with all the Judges of England, resolved, that a subscription to the 39 articles with this addition, (So far forth as the same were agreeable to the word of God) was not according to the 13th of Elizabeth, which requires an absolute subscription: and that made it conditional: « that this act » was made for avoiding of diversity of opinions, « etc. And by this addition, the party might by « his own private opinion take some of them to be
against the word of God; and by this means di« versity of opinion should not be avoided, which « was the scope of the statute and the very act it« self, made touching subscription hereby of none « effect.»
inferred, that the law was not complied with by any subscription, which did not carry with it a sincere, full, and unequivocal belief of the articles subscribed to, in the whole and every part (p. 376). I supported my doctrine by the authority of Bishop Burnet, who says (Hist. of Reform, 169.), that « the 39 articles were something « more than articles of peace; and the men, who « subscribed them, either did believe them to be « true, or did grossly prevaricate.» But what says Dr. Paley ?
Subscription to articles of religion, though no « more than a declaration of the subscriber's as« sent, may properly enough be considered in « connection with the subject of oaths : because « it is governed by the same rule of interpretation: « which rule is, the animus imponentis. The en
quiry therefore concerning subscription, will be
Quis imposuit, et quo animo ? And they, who « contend, that nothing less can justify the sub
scription to the 39 articles, than the actual belief a of each and every separate proposition contained
« in them, must suppose, that the Legislature ex
pected the consent of ten thousand men, and that « in perpetual succession, not to one controverted « proposition, but to many hundreds, etc.» Surely Dr. Paley was inattentive to the title of the articles : for avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for establishing of consent touching true religion. Having enumerated certain descriptions of persons, as those, who may not lawfully subscribe, viz. ist. or All abettors of Popery. 2d. Anabaptists, who « were at that time a powerful party on the Conti« nent: 5d. The Puritans, who were hostile to an
Episcopal Constitution: and in general the mem « bers of such leading sects or foreign establish« ments, as threatened to overthrow our own :% « he concludes, « whoever finds himself within « these descriptions, ought not to subscribe.»
I laboured earnestly in my Church and State to make head against this system of loose evasion, or according to Bishop Burnet of gross prevarication. And what fair man is not with me? I there said, (p. 379).« The only ground, upon which, in my « opinion, a juror can lawfully and conscientiously « take any oath whatever, is the sincere conviction « of the juror of the truth of the oath according to « the usual, common, and accepted import of the « words and terms, in which the oath is expressed, « Provided therefore, that the animus imponentis « be not clearly and unequivocally expressed in « the terms of the oath, the juror will not be justi« fied in taking it, whilst he understands it diffe« rently from those, who impose it. It is their
duty to adapt their words to their meaning. There can be no fair meaning, which may not « be unequivocally expressed in the English language, and no captious meaning can be the subject or ground of a lawful oath.x What wonder