<< their manœuvres in Holland to procure home«< made Bishops, and to throw off the yoke of << Rome (about the middle age of Jansenism), I justly remarked, that they had too strong analo«<gies to the late insidious and covert efforts to « nationalize the English and Irish Catholic Churches, to be passed over unnoticed.» And in affirmance of those analogies I said: « The nar«rative closes with this assertion of the cotempo«rary Historian, under whose eyes, those tran«<sactions were passing (the work was translated «from the French, and published by Lewis in << Covent-Garden, 1714). The only pastors, that might have maintained the faithful in union « with the vicar of Jesus Christ, are banished << Holland: and an infinity of zealous Catholics « are going to be the prey of wolves in sheep's cloathing.» " I am credibly informed, Sir John, that although you have published nothing since you have read my Historical Letter, which has so maddened you against the Jesuits, you have not been idle: that you have printed, and most cautiously handed about amongst your staunch and devoted friends your thoughts and views upon these subjects, and particularly with reference to the fathers of the society, whom, as I am informed, you hold out as persons unfit to be tolerated by Government, since they are notoriously objects of distrust and jealousy to their own Bishops, the Vicars Apostolic. When your sentiments transpire (you may depend upon it, they soon will), they will be noticed. After you had long imbibed your Catholic fears of the fathers, and some considerable time after had been pleased to make yourself one of us, and even some while after you had contemplated your own portrait, which appeared in February 1814, you upon throwing back your thoughts to your old friend and correspondent Pope Pius VII. and turning in your mind his relentless firmness in all, that's right, and foreseeing the probable result, you opened yourself upon the subject in the very debate, in which you first fell upon me for having written the eulogy of that order*. << The present Pope was a man of excellent moral character: yet he must be devoted to his church: and it was possible, that under particular advice, and looking to the Jesuits as the most potent instru<<ments of Catholic influence, who had formerly « wormed themselves into the confessionals of al"most all courts, he might be persuaded to grant his fiat for the restoration of the order.» I am not surprised, Sir John, that you are sorely humbled, as well as your employers, to find the opinions and sentiments of that great and heroic Pontiff so pointedly recognise and sanction those of the humblest of your correspondents: not merely upon the order of Jesuits, but upon the appointment of national Bishops in Holland; as appears by a breve (1) of his Holiness, dated precisely one month after that, by which his Holiness *Courier newspaper for 18th May, 1814. (1) The lecture of this breve, or bull, or constitution, is recommended as a full comment upon what I said p. 104, in my first Historical Letter to Sir John, and which is quoted from my Historical Letter to Columbanus, about the restless spirit of the managers of the queint conceit for metamorphosing Papists, or Roman Catholics (for call them which you will, they are the same) into Protesting Catholic Dissenters: a description of persons wholly unknown to our laws, etc. having been constantly working under cover for these last twenty years, to bring about an Utrecht Establishment of a National Church independent of the See of Rome. This latter breve is also for the benefit of my English Readers translated into that language, and contained in the Appendix No. III. blasted your Catholic fears, by the revival of that order for the benefit of Christianity. ་ « Permit me, Sir, to repeat to you, that* « I dis«< claim not the honorable pretension of having given to the public a faithful History of Ireland. « When therefore, I repel the unfounded or mali«cious charge of infidelity, in exhibiting the ac<«<tions or conduct of any one, that has taken so prominent a share, as you have, in the concerns << of that valuable and great people, self-defence << becomes an act of justice to them. Even I was << one of the objects to be fired upon from the for<< midable batteries, that were in some forwardness << in the year 1813.» Those having been dismounted, you erected new works with masked batteries upon the impregnable fortress of St. Stephen's, and thence you play in fancied security not only upon me, and my publications and opinions, but upon all those, of whom I was called upon, or forced to speak the honorable truth. My consequent duty imperiously commands me to place in broad day-light the matchless effrontery, and consummate ignorance, with which in your original speech of the 17th, and your amended and explanatory speech of the 24th of last May, you are reported to have said, that my doctrine upon the construction and obligation of an oath the old Jesuitical maxim), was opposed to the recorded opinions of the soundest Roman Catholic Theologians, and their most accredited Jurists, particularly naming St. Isidore and Justinian. I have repeatedly said, that general inculpation is fairly met, with the general negative. Here, Sir John, you go further; you particularize my opinion, and you specify St. Isidore, as a sound Roman Catholic Hist. Let. to Sir J. C. Hippisley, p. 55. Theologian, who contradicts it: this is bringing the matter to a tangible form. From what has been before said, my doctrine or opinion upon the obligation of an oath (particularly with reference to the oath of supremacy,) needs no repetition: and although you have not, I will minutely and faithfully refer you, and the readers of this letter to the passage, which either your own ignorance, or the malice of your instructors and purveyors of theological quotations, have misrepresented to you; and it will appear as clearly, as the meridian sun, that St. Isidore, and St. Thomas of Aquin, who cites him, both (I hope you will allow,) sound Roman Catholic Theologians, are emphatically with me. As you have taken issue upon this point, blame not me, if the evidence run into more profuse detail, than suits your taste, or that of some of your readers. I said before, I wish to be concise I wish more to be explicit. St. Isidore in a very short chapter upon oaths, and from the following words, it is evident, that he treats of false and insidious oaths on the part of the juror, says*, «< Many forswear themselves, that they may deceive others: that upon the credit of their oath, they may establish the credit of their << word: and thus by perjury and lies, they de « * Sancti Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, opera omnia quæ extant. Paris: 1601. Sententiarum, Lib II. De juramento. Cap xxxi. p.651.»- Multi, ut fallant, perjurant: ut per fidem Sacramenti, fidem faciant verbi: sicque fallendo, dum perjurant et mentiuntur, hominem incautum decipiunt. Interdum et falsis lacrymis seducti decipimur: et creditur, dum plorant, quibus credendum non erat. Quâcunqne arte verborum quisque juret. Deus tamen, qui conscientiæ testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille, cui juratur, intelligit. Dupliciter autem reus fit, qui et Dei nomen in vanum assumit, et proximum dolo capit. «<ceive incautious man. Sometimes we are de«ceived, being seduced by counterfeit tears and « we give credit, whilst the tears flow, to those, << who ought not to be credited at all.>> Then, says he, to prove his thesis: « By whatever artful words « you swear, yet God, who witnesses the con<< science, so receives it, as he does, to whom it is «< sworn. And the juror becomes doubly guilty, << who invokes the name of God in vain, and takes «< in his neighbour by deceit.» Now, Sir John, I defy the art and hardihood of all your instructors and instigators, and all the pliancy and self-sufficiency of their disciple and tool, to pretend that I speak of, or refer to a captious or deceitful oath; in fact, I have specified no other than the statute oath of supremacy, which is taken by every Member of Parliament, and numerous other classes of his Majesty's subjects, on various occasions, and for various beneficial purposes. Now, what says St. Thomas of Aquin, both from himself, and upon the authority of St. Isidore? « When there is * St. Thomas, 2. 2. Quæst. LXXXIX art. vii. p. 226. Romæ MDLXX. Quando non est eadem jurantis intentio, et ejus cui jurat, si hoc proveniat ex dolo jurantis, debet juramentum servari, secundùm sanum intellectum ejus, cui juramentum præstatur. Undè Isidorus dicit: Quâcunque arte verborum quis juret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiæ testis est, ita hoc accipit, sicut ille, cui juratur, intelligit. Et quod hoc intelligatur de doloso juramento, patet per id, quod subditur; dupliciter reus fit, quod et nomen Dei in vanum assumit, et proximum dolo capit. Si autem jurans dolum non adhibeat, obligatur secundùm intentionem jurantis: Undè Gregorius dicit, (Lib. 27. Mor.) Humanæ aures talia verba nostra judicant, qualia foris sonant: divina verò judicia talia foris audiunt, qualia ex intimis proferuntur. JURAMENTUM. Obligatio 18.-Juramentum obligat secundùm intentionem jurantis sinè dolo: alias obligat secundùm sanum intellectum ejus cui juratur. |