« not the same intention in the juror and in the imposer of an oath, if this arise out of any guile (or deceit) in the juror, the oath is to be ob«served, according to the right understanding of him, who imposes the oath.» Whence Isidore « says, by whatever artful words you swear, yet << God, who witnesses the conscience so receives it, << as he does, to whom it is sworn. And, that this << is understood of a captious (or deceitful) oath, is << evident from what is subjoined. He becomes doubly guilty, because he invokes the name of « God in vain, and takes in his neighbour by de"ceit. But if the Juror be free of guile (or deceit) "the oath is to be taken according to the intention (or meaning) of the Juror. (Obligatur secundum «intentionem jurantis.) Whence Gregory says, (L. 27. Mor.) Human ears judge of our words, «as they sound (or are uttered); but the divine judgment takes them from the heart (that is, according to the intention of the juror).» To shew, that I put no forced construction upon St. Isidore, Ig ive you the title to the subject of the obligation of oaths, which is contained in the large folio volume of index of St. Thomas's works. « An oath obliges according to the intent of the juror, << without guile (or deceit), otherwise it obliges according to the sound understanding of the im"poser.» Q. E. D. I much fear, Sir John, that since you set up, Theologal to the House of Commons, and looked with a longing eye to the high office of Ministre de Culte to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, your instructors and purveyors of references and quotations have led you widely astray from Catholic orthodoxy: and for that reason did I in my first Historical Letter* recommend

"

* Page 114.

to you, to examine, whether in making yourself one of us, you, did not gain admission into the « school of Dupin (expelled from the Sorbonne for <«his Jansenism), but did not become a member of «the university of Pius VII.» How far Mr. Butler were warrantable in claiming you as one of us, in his letter to you of the 29th of December, 1812, and what he precisely meant by your having been pleased to make yourself one of us, I shall not attempt to determine. But it is my duty to remark, that it was not till about six months after he had written that letter to you, viz. on the 11th of May, 1813, that you publicly announced your assumption of Catholic fears, and a simultaneous renunciation of any Protestant fears up to that hour, of the order of Jesuits. Now, as this second letter to you, is properly speaking nothing more nor less, than an appeal to the public in self-defence against the false, unfounded, and unwarrantable charges uttered by you in the House of Commons, against my historical veracity, and the catholicity of my opinions, and you have stinted the first to my misrepresentation of the order of Jesuits, and the second to my doctrine upon the obligation of oaths, I must claim the natural right of being heard in self-defence: and trust, that you will indulge me in a little necessary detail.

Was I very wrong in telling you, even as far back as in the summer of 1813, for then it was I wrote the manuscript of my first Historical Letter to you*?« There lurks some deep mystery under

this sudden, uncalled-for, and inexplicable an<< nunciation of Catholic alarm at the revival of << Jesuitism.»> But is it fitting, that such practising upon public prejudice, ignorance, and passion,

* Historical Letter, p. 131.

should for ever remain veiled in mystery? We are arrived at the unravelling of the plot, the denouement de la piece develops all behind the curtain, however artfully concealed or disguised before. We are all now entitled to be treated, as you boast of having treated Bishop Milner, with your own steady and plain dealing. I said of you in the August of 1812*, that « you had been set and plied by the author of the blue books, and the author " of Columbanus' letters or addresses to the Irish. « Duo laborantes in unum. And that they had << obtained a short-lived triumph over you for their << own designs.» Of this you complained to Lord Fingal in January 1813 (1). I shall not attempt to repeat or copy the badges of your subserviency, of which the drawings in that portrait are perfectly correct, though the colouring be much too faint. Under this full conviction, I told you in the summer of 1813, « In referring to you three Gentle"men, as bearing upon one common point, « laborantes in unum, I am free to say, that I con-«sidered you myself, and wished to represent you to others, as formally enlisted in a cause, which originated in error, advanced under false colors, <maintained its retiring posts by equivocation, << and defended them by the dissembling and distortion of truth. I do not speak of these devi«ations from the way and the truth, as the « occasional failings of individuals, but as the sys<< tematic tactics of the party.» And this I in part illustrated by quoting the words of Mr. Scully at a -meeting of the Catholic Board in Dublin, on the 26th of May, 1813: In England there existed a << faction, whose great object it was to disparage

* Hist. Let. to Columbanus, p. 346. (1) Letter to Lord Fingal, p. 9.

D

Ireland, the Catholics, and the Board. All this supported what I mentioned in my Post Union History of Ireland* (which appeared in July 1811), of the evidence therein set forth, « of a precon«< certed, extensively, clandestinely, and artfullysupported plan, to subject in spirituals the pro"scribed Roman Catholic to George III. precisely << as his reformed ancestor was to Henry VIII. » And, << that the leading abettors of the Veto in England aimed at shaking off their dependence upon the See of Rome, and establishing National Bishops, not drawing their jurisdiction from the « Christian Primate, but in the manner of the Re«<formed English Bishops, under and from Henry « VIII. downward, and according to the Jansen«istical doctrines of Utrecht.» I then more particularly described, the Gentlemen, who wished to become Protesting Catholic Dissenters, whom Mr. Burke considered having gone more than half way over to Protestanism. I remarked, in 1812 (1),

"

that they had been constantly working under << cover for these last twenty years, to bring about <<those consequences, which were originally meant << to be concealed from its advocates and sup«porters viz. an Utrecht establishment of a Na«tional Church, independent of the See of Rome.» I explicitly told you last year (2), «< that the obvious « project was, that the actual surrender of the un«< controulable right and indispensable duty of appointing fit pastors to the dispersed churches, <«<should be made over by the Pope to the Civil « Magistrate in the first instance. Then the deceptive hope of a re-union of the two churches

«

*Vol. 3. p. 796.

(1) Hist. Let. to Col. P. 131.

(2) Historical Letter to Sir J. C. Hippisley, p. 107.

was holden forth, as the certain consequence of « such surrender; and the golden dream of seats " in Parliament was at once realized. >>

I will touch the noted fifth resolution of some English Catholics, that masterpiece of your friend and instructor, for preparing their unsuspicious and unguarded minds for letting in the Civil Magistrate into the Church Government, or laying themselves out for Veto, no farther, than to recall to your mind, that I last year mentioned Mr. Butler's words concerning the circumstances of its composition*, << as irrefragable and conclusive evidence, that an English influente was then in action, distinct from, in few things coinciding with, in many contravening Irish interests and Irish wishes.» I then asked, not without good ground and reason (1): Was I wrong, Sir John, in remarking, << that notwithstanding the dissolution of partnership, separate ventures were hazarded upon the principle of the original speculation?» In this there was a degree of refined policy. It was requisite to know what bait would take. At the head and bottom, and in the centre of the whole, was the indefatigable manager, who has been so well described, felt every where, seen no where. I have more than once reminded you of his wariness in committing himself upon these tender subjects. He casts the parts with great judgment. Many useful and able actors dislike to appear in the characters of Pierre and Shylock: and it often hap

"

* Hist. Let. to Sir J. C. Hippisley, p. 137.-I have spoken particularly of this 5th Resolution in my Post Union History of Ireland, vol. 3, p. 788; in my Historical Letter to Columbanus, p. 249, and in the Historical Letter to Sir J. C. Hippisley, p. 137.

(1) Hist. Let. to Sir J. C. Hippisley, p. 117.