the severity of the letter feems to import one, or the other, or both. Oaths and laws are liable to interpretations; and one general rule prevails all over the world, viz. "That a greater "stress is to be laid on the fenfe, than on the "words." "It is not to be doubted," fays the emperor Juftinian, "but that he acts contrary "to the law, who, confining himself to the let"ter, acts contrary to the spirit and intent of "it and whoever, to excufe himself, endeavours fradulently to elude the true fenfe of a law, by a rigorous attachment to the words "of it, fhall not escape its penalties by fuch prevarication." "Non dubium eft in lege "committere eum, qui verba legis amplexus, contra legis nititur voluntatem: nec pœnas "infertas legibus evitabit, qui fe contra juris "fententiam fæva prærogativa verborum frau"dulenter excufat,"

፡፡

"Whoever swears, muft do it according to "the intention of him to whom he swears, let "the mode and form of the expreffions be "what they will," fays St. Ifidorus. “ Quacumque arte verborum quifque juret, Deus tamen, qui confcientiæ teftis eft, ita hoc ac

66

cipit, ficut ille, cui juratur, intelligit." * Far from renouncing the infallibility of the church, which is neither the purport of the oath, nor

* Ifidorus apud Gratianum, 22. 9. 5. c. 9.

the

the defign of a Catholic who takes it, I am convinced that the unerring fpirit that guides her, will never permit her to define as an article of faith, any propofition rejected in the teft, or fanctify any doctrine against the inftitution of Chrift.

Faith is founded on revelation: and the church can never make a new article of faith, She can only declare what has been revealed, to prevent the chaff of human opinions from mixing with the pure grain of the evangelical doctrine.

Suppofing that faith is founded on revelation, and that, as the bishop of Meaux remarks, after Chrift there is no new revelation, for in him is the plentitude,-the Catholics reft fecure that it is out of the church's power, to declare that their oath is null and void: as it is out of her power to declare, that fraud, murder, and perjury are lawful. This fhall appear by analyz ing the oath,

.

Firft: "Has God revealed that I am not to "bear true allegiance to George III. or to re"nounce any allegiance to the pretender? If

he has revealed it, pope Clement XIII. died "an heretic: he banished an Irish fuperior for complimenting the pretender with the title of "King of Great-Britain."

66

Secondly:

Secondly: "Has God revealed, that I can "lawfully and piously murder my

fellow-crea

ture, and break a juft promise, or refuse pay

ing what I owe him, because he is of a different religion ?"

Thirdly: "Has God revealed that I am to be"lieve that popes and foreign princes ought to civil authority within this realm ?"

"have any

Fourthly: "Has God revealed, that kings can "be depofed and murdered by their fubjects, "because they are excommunicated by the pope and council ?"

There is the whole fubftance of the oath: and as God has not revealed any of those affertions, but commanded the reverse, the church can never declare them as articles of faith. Did St. Paul mean to renounce the authority of Heaven, when he faid, "Should an

angel from Heaven preach another doctrine, "do not believe him?" Does a Catholic renounce the authority of the church, in not thinking that he can allow perjury? But if fuch be the cafe, you will ask me, why fome "people have written against this oath ?" or, why the fmall number of Catholics have not "united with the great number who have "taken it ?"

I can affure you, fir, that the Catholics who have not taken the oath, look on the depofing power as a dream; the murder of heretics as an impious flander, calculated in times of turbulence, to murder the character of the innocent, and only adapted to thofe diftant æras, when "Papifts attempted to blow up a river, with gun-powder, in order to drown a city.' In fine, they are ready to fwear allegiance to George the third, and renounce any allegiance to the Stuarts.

But the chief exception to the oath is the manner in which it is worded. It must be taken in the plain and ordinary fenfe of the "words." This cannot be reconciled with "authority whatsoever." A Catholic abjures upon oath a doctrine he never believed. Abju ration implies the belief of a previous error. "Foreign princes ought not have," &c. How can fubjects know? or what is it to them? "Without any difpenfation already granted." You fuppofe then that we have a difpenfation to perjure ourselves; confequently it is nugatory to fwear, when you are enabled not believe us. It is too dangerous to fport with the awful name of the Divinity: and if a freethinker reverenced the Supreme Being, his confcience would be fcrewed in taking an oath which

Walker, p. 349. Hume, Hift. of England, Vol. I.

which minces a fyllable, and requires a long commentary. Further: Every invader, every ufurper, would avail himself of a fimilar oath. In Ireland, he would find it framed to his hand, and make us fwear "that George the "third ought to have no authority within "this realm," though the lawful king would be at the fame time afferting his right in England. The alternative would be-death or perjury.

Such are the exceptions of the few who have not taken the oath exceptions not to be difregarded by thofe, with whom they may have any weight. For an oath is dreadful in itfelf and we can never act against the dictates of an erroneous confcience, till our fcruples are removed, Quod non eft ex fide, pec* catum eft.

Here below" we fee in a glafs darkly," fays St. Paul. Providence has thrown a fable veil over the human intellect. The fcripture itself, this law of fpirit and life, propofed as a rule to the learned and ignorant, is become the fubject of difputes and controverfies. All legal acts are liable to inconveniencies. It is impoffible for the legiflators who devife them, to read in the minds of other men, the doubts which may arise concerning the fenfe and force of fome expref