The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-02-02

of public knowledge or accusation, nor
related thereto" And, if he will allow
me to say it without meaning offence,
that is not a definition at all, but piece
of special pleading. There is no reason
why an occultuna should not be as closely
"reIated' to matter of public accusation
as a Secretun, or an apertum or any
thing else. Nine-tenths of the circum-
stantial evidence brought out in our
courts IN the cross questioning of wit
nesses is neither matter of public knowl-
eige or accusation" but it belongs to this
very class of occatlta, which here Liguori
says man is not bound to tell, thoug Oh he
has sworn to tell all he knows.
6: DR.. Witherspoon next claims to quote from
st. Liguori as follows:
man may swear to false statement, pro-
vlded he add in an undertone so as not to be
heard, such qualifying circumstances as would
make his statement true" (Ib. N. 1857
This is case in which a mere memo
randum of the substance of passage was
taken down from another writer, to serve
as guide in finding the passage wished
to quote, will now quote it entire:
1T is asked whether one may swear to some
thing false, adding however in an undertone the
true circumstances of the case. Answer affirm
atlvely, number of authors who say that in
order that the utterance be true it is sufficient
that it agree outwardly with the mental concept,
whether 1T be made explicit by signs or by the
voice In an undertone, and that it be by &C
cldent that the other party does not hear it,
Better however is the opinion of others who
admit the above, provided the addition in an
undertone can be perceived in some way by the
other party, though its meaning be not per
ceived. The contrary however, if it altogether
escape the others notice
The Bishop complains that misrepre
sent Liguori, let us see now what he SAYS
is the teaching of his favorite author.
1t Is that one may swear to something
false, adding IN an undertone the true
circumstances of the case, provided that
what is added in an undertone be heard
by the other party, although its meaning
be not perceived but the decision is to
the contrary, if it altogether escape the
other party" Can you conceive of
greater trihing with the sanctity of our
oath than that Does the fact that
the failure to hear was accidental change
the moral aspect of the case, and why
was the addition made in an undertone
at all If it were not that by one OF those
happy accidents, its meaning should
not be perceived?
T. Dr. Witherspoon's next quotation is as fol-
lows:
"Liguori asks the question whether one who
swears without the intention of binding himself
is under an obligation to keep his oath and
answers In the negative, giving the following
as his reasons: Such an oath is not a true oath
both because it wants the necessary condition
to the nature of promissory oath such az is
intention Of II
an oath follows the nature of the promise which
1t confirms, as is certain from Rosenbaum But
promise without such an intention is not in
deed promise, but a mere purpose: therefore
the promise being evanescent, the oath is also
such, and is considered as made without the
intention of swearing, which certainly as we
have seen is null and void. But if no oath ex-
lists, there is no obligation of fulfilling that oath
Ib N 1922
Here Bishop Keane brings very
serious charge against me which is al
together without foundation, that of
emitting half the question as asked by
Liguori. He says
DR.. Witherspoon. in stating the question,
omits one half of it. 1t is thus put by st. l..
But if he swear without the intention of bind
ing himself but NTH the intention of fulfAinq,
(Sed cum intentione impLend0" Now DR.. With.
erspoon not only leaves out this last most impor
tant clause, but suppoSeS the contrary of what is
declared IN it, throughout all his disquisition on
the case"
I quote the question in full as given
by Liguori, (vol. II, p. 45) an autena
SIC 1o1ro'aS cum amino jurond5, sed sine
amino Obhga1adS, teaeatur od Servond,1na
joramentun1? The words which he saws
| omitted are not in the text. He will !
say they are implied; yes, so they are.
but that is different thing altogether.
His second charge is that l supposed the |
contrary. Indeed l do not, although the
omission of two words in my comment
either by the compositor q did not see
the proof or in transcription made it SO
appear; for where said secretly pur-
poses not to do" the whole point of my
article required me to say secretly pur-
poses not to bind himself to do Ny
aim was not to marrow down" as the
Bishop says, but to carry up the whole
question to the obligation of religion
which essentially inheres in an oath. "
The purpose" with which 1 had to do
is not the purpose of fulfilling, but the
purpose of binding oneself. The ques-
ton is not of the morality of the act but
of its binding force. All therefore which
he charges me in his third specification
with emitting is utterly irrelevant. He
says it is positively stated that it is a |
question only Of one who swears to a |