when such is thought desirable—" the superiors of the Church in the place of God as Dens says. Bailly, in

with heretics.'* They further declare, on oath, their belief, that no act in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused by or under pretence or colour that it was done either for the good of the Church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever;'+ 'that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they thereby required to believe,

their Oaths and Crimes compared, pp. 99 to 147, and Letter to Dr. Murray, pp. 239 to 246. But by whatever system of fraud they sanction the commission of the crime, the proved facts, for which their own documents are now lodged in the Universities, demonstrate their horrid hypocrisy. And when we couple with this the scriptural sanctity with which they seem to address here the men whom they were secretly drilling in the very crimes which they were thus pretending openly to renounce on oath, in the presence of the nation, to impose on Protestants, it really leaves all the history of papal treachery and perjury far at a distance.'

Now this part of their oath is also true distinguendo. Is it their principle that no faith is to be kept with heretics? Certainly not; for whenever any covenant is made with heretics which it is the interest of the church to keep with them, then faith is to be strictly maintained. But whenever a covenant is made which it is the interest of the church to break with them, then no faith is to be kept, however sworn, for this would be unfavourable, vergeret in deteriorem exitum. Hence pietv and the utility of the church demand a dispensation, and those are quite sufficient causes for annulling their promise or oath on any subject.'-See Bailly and Dens, &c. &c.

+ Now this they make out true distinguendo. No act in itself unjust, immoral or wicked, can be justified on the pretence that it was done for the good of the church. True But then no act which not by pretence, but really and in fact is for the good of the church can be in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked. The good of the church is a good end; acts done with a good end are good acts -therefore acts done for the good of the church are good acts, and good acts cannot be unjust, immoral, or wicked,-therefore good acts may be done with a good conscience, and, therefore, whatever is for the good of the church may be done with a good conscience. As long as Dens and the devil can reason, such oaths as this are easily concocted. But this volume amply illustrates the principle. For example:-It was really for the good of the church that the Bulla Cœnæ Domini should be taught through Ireland, but secretly; for see the imperative reasons, pp. 47, 48, 49, and Cardinal Erskine's note, p. 304; and accordingly it was taught, see pp. 230-239. But it was really for the interest of the church that Dr. M'Halc and Dr. Doyle should deny on oath that it ever had been received, or would be received in Ireland, while they and their brethren were privately teaching it.-See pp. 42 to 48, and see the rule laid down, p. 49, that it was right for them to dissemble.

'Now to take a deliberately false oath, on the pretence that it was for the good of the church, would be a great practical evil-it would be a perjury; but to take such an oath, when it was really for the good of the church, was a dutiful adherence to the 16th Can. of the 3d Lateran Council, which they are sworn to obey, so this was keeping their oath; for as by that canon oaths contrary to ecclesiastical utility, are not to be accounted oaths, but perjuries; so, perjuries to promote ecclesiastical utility, are not perjuries, but good and lawful oaths. The facts are indisputable, and it requires but little skill in Dens's moral theology to understand and apply the principle.

answer to the question, what are the just causes for granting dispensations from oaths, says:

that the Pope is infallible;+ and that they do not hold themselves bound to obey any order, in its own nature immoral, though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto.'*

"The Catholics of Ireland swear, that they will be faithful, and bear TRUE ALLEGIANCE, to our most gracious sovereign lord, KING GEORGE THE FOURTH; that they will maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of their power, the succession of the crown in his Majesty's family, against any

""How could you go and break your oath the way you did?" said a man to a witness whom he knew to have sworn to a whole tissue of lies in a court of justice.

"No. but keep my oath you mean," replies the witness.

""Keep your oath!" rejoins his friend; "how can that be, when you know as well as I do that all you swore was false."

""Ay, but," returns the other, "I swore this morning before I went out that I would not tell a word of truth to-day."'

*This is also perfectly true distinguendo. They swear it is not an article of the Catholic faith, and that they are not bound to believe that the Pope is infallible. True. But they do not swear that they themselves do not believe that he is infallible. It is not an article of the Catholic faith, because if it was, all would be bound to believe it. But the Gallican church does not believe it, while the Ultramontane doctors do. They are all Ultramontanists, and they swear nothing about themselves, they only swear about the Catholic faith, and what here they swear is true; and as they swear nothing about their own faith, they swear nothing that is false. But they were all teaching in Dens that the Pope is infallible, so we know what they believed and taught on the point.

But again, even if they swore as to their own faith, still there is another reserve distinguendo.

The Pope is infallible as to matters of fact? No. They do not really believe that

'Ergo, they swear with a safe conscience they do not believe him infallible. 'Again distinguendo.

'The Pope is infallible as a private doctor? No. They only believe he is infallible ex cathedra

'Ergo, they can swear they do not believe the Pope is infallible. So they swear with a safe conscience; but the Protestants know little about such oaths till they are trained in the study of Dens's Theology.'

+'Here is the same principle as the last. The Pope never issues an order as Pope, except ex cathedra. But the Pope by the preceding speaking ex cathedra is infallible. Ergo, the Pope issuing such an order is infallible.

'Again, any order that is infallible cannot be immoral. But the Pope's order ex cathedra is infallible. Ergo, the Pope's order cannot be immoral.

Therefore, when they swear not to obey any order that is in its own nature immoral, though issued by the Pope, they swear not to obey a thing that can have no existence, therefore a thing that cannot be a lie, because in fact it is nothing at all. Therefore they may obey whatever order the Pope chooses to issue, and still their oath is true.-Dominum Dens auctorem sequentes.

"We answer the following are enumerated; namely, the honour of God; the utility of the Church; the general good of the commonwealth, or of society; as when contentions which

person or persons whatsoever; utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance to any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of these realms;' * that they renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated by the pope and council, or by any authority of the See of Rome, or by any authority whatsoever, may be deposed and murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever;' and that they do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, HATH, or OUGHT TO HAVE, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly within this realm.' They further solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that they make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of their oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, or any person whatever, and without thinking that they are or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any

*The loop-hole for conscience in this part of the oath is not so immediately apparent. These Papal bishops, while they seem to us to be swearing, may say that they are merely here historically reciting the oath of allegiance taken by Roman Catholics; they might just as well have said, the Catholics of Ireland take the oath of allegiance, and this is the oath they swear; but they do not tell us that this oath is always taken like every promissory oath, saving the authority of the Pope; nor do they tell us that they have the power of dispensing with this oath for their subjects and themselves, whenever piety and the utility of the church, or any thing they judge a sufficient cause demands, as they teach in Bailly and Dens. So that they can swear an oath of allegiance to-day-and to-morrow, if the utility of the church requires it, can absolve themselves and their subjects from it at once.'

This is to be considered distinguendo. If it is meant that they do not believe that the Pope hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, according to the laws of England, this is true. They are swearing before the people of England, and they swear according to what this people understands concerning their own laws and constitution; for there is no use in swearing to men on a subject about which they know nothing. Now Protestants know nothing about the laws of Rome; therefore, their Bishops swear according to the laws of England, which the people know, and not according to the laws of Rome, which they do not know; and this is the proper, judicious, Papal swearing-such as men ought to swear, when it answers their purpose to swear, and to induce men to believe what they swear. But as to swearing that the Pope hath not and ought not to have temporal power, indirectly, over these realms, according to the laws of Rome, that would be quite absurd-See Dens 22., p. 147 to 164. Thomas Aquinas, 2nda. 2ndæ. sec. 12, art. 2; the Bull Super Solidate. See pages 291, 282, published by these men to enforce them.> ·

divide families are to be allayed by marriage, or an illustrious family, and one profitable to the kingdom, is to be preserved; the spiritual profit of the person who makes the vow (or oath), a moral danger of often violating the vow (or oath) from frailty, levity of mind, perturbation of mind; fear, from which the vow (or oath) was made; a notable difficulty supervening in the execution of the vow (or oath), and other matters of that sort, which may generally be reduced to the heads of piety, spiritual utility, and necessity."

We now come to the statement of Mr. Waterworth already alluded to:

"Liguori teaches, (and he has just been canonized) that under no circumstances, even if the Pope or the Council were to attempt it, can they exonerate an individual from an oath made to a third person;—that even if the promise is opposed to the Evangelical counsels; that even if it is opposed to the greatest act of piety, an individual cannot break a promise which he has made to a third person. That is at page 454, volume 1st of Liguori's Theology.

The Italics are Mr. W's. This is certainly a bold statement, but let us test its truth, and see what is the real statement of Liguori "just canonized." Mr. W. refers us to page 454 of the 1st. vol; now I turn to the 1st vol. of the edition which I possess, and in vain do I look for that page, for it only contains 441 pages, but perhaps Mr. W. quotes from a different edition, or, it is possible the reference may be mis-printed. In the Second book, Number 192, I find, however, something like the words

persons or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.'*

"After this full, explicit, and sworn declaration, we are utterly at a loss to conceive on what possible ground we could be justly charged with bearing towards our MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN ONLY A DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE"

*This part of their oath is like all the rest-in strict accordance with Popery. For while they take every oath that could be invented as to any contract or promise, Salvo jure Superioris; each part of the oath is taken with this reservation; and the same power that can dispense with one part of the oath, in which the promise or contract is included, can dispense with the other part of the oath, which either denies or promises not to seek a dispensation.'

which Mr. W. quoted, but yet accompanied by such limitations and restrictions as maintain the very opposite doctrine to that asserted by Mr. W.

So far one would think that Mr. W. was borne out by Liguori in the sweeping assertion which he made, that under no circumstance can the Pope exonerate an individual from an oath accepted by a third person; but did Mr. W. read the passages which follow containing the limitations. Is it possible that they could have escaped his notice?