The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-01-26

| both because 1T wants the necessary condition
to the nature of q promissory oath, such as is
the intention of binding ones self, and because
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 made without the
intention of swearing, which certainly as we
have seen is null and void. But if no oath
\ exists, there is no obligation of fulfilling that
OATH" Qb. N. 1922
Now In this paragraph there are three
serious errors, which vititate the entire
statement of The case. First, DR.. With
erspoon, in stating the question, omits
one half of it. 1t is thus put by st L.:
But If he swear without the intention
OF binding himself, bat a0ith theintentso1, OF
Fulfilling, (sed cum antentio,ae inaplendi). .
Now DR.. Witherspoon not only leaves out
this last most important clause, but sup
poses the contrary of what is declared in
1T, throughout all his disquisition on the
case. Second, he overlooks the fact that,
this intention of fulfilling beng presup-
posed, the question is narrowed down, in
Its explanation, to "the obligation of rela-
gion which essentially inheres in an
oath, and it is asked whether this pre-
else obligation binds in the present case,
which is equivalent to asking whether
such an act is an oath or not. Third, he
omitted or overlooked. the fact that, in
two distinct places of this same N. l72.
st. Liguori teaches that he who would
swear thus without the intention of full
filling, would be guilty of mortal sin
He also omitted or overlooked the posi-
tive statement that it is question only
OF one who swears TO person who has
no ght in justice to the thing promised; =
and that, even if he intends to fulfil, it
would be a mortal sin to swear in such
manner IN contracts, or before a judge,
because then, though it be not perjury
yet 1T is grievous deception against JUS
tice''
1t is the omission of these plainly stated
portions OF the context that gave occasion
to DIR. Witherspoon for the violent and
intiammatory. paragraph into which he
immediately bursts, as to the effect upon,
our courts of justice, faith between man
and man, afidavits, and testimony before
courts, &C." The insertion of the context
which he omitted shows that the evils he
pictures, and which we would reprobate
as heartily as he, have no existence, save
IN his own fertile imagination and chart
table heart.
8. Next, as to stealing, DR.. Wither-
spoon quotes as follows:
1t is certain that one in extreme want NAV
steal the property of another to satisfy his ne
cessties. Qb. N. 5l9) And in this case the
author tells us the obligation to make restitu.
ton is not only suspended, but is also extin-
gulshed by the consumption of what has thus
been taken" Not only so but "nobleman
VINO is ashamed to beg or work, may steal to
supply his wants If he is poor" Qb. N. 529.)
Now in neither of these cases does ST.
Liquor say may steal" On the con-
trary, he says " non furata1r, he does not
SteaI. And the reason is that all legists
acknowledge that starving man NAV
take what will save his life, if it be not
given to him, and this without theft,
which is the unjust taking of what be-
longs to another" DR.. Witherspoon NAV
examine and see that I have rightly
translated " ertremaa neceSsitas." Then.
as to what is said of restitution, DR..
Wltherspoon conveniently omits the linn
ltation Immediately added by st. Liguori
That he should not only have nothing at
fO, ou" III hoP0 VI any Gulu8 IN Une
| future, (poa1l0er, non tantalne re, sed ethan
spe,) as we will say in the following cues
ton; and that he be in absolute need of
that particular thing, and cannot other
wise help himself" Turning then to
that following question" we read, in its
concluding words, that eff he otherwise
(at'1nde) has any possession, or has hope
OF any, he is bound to restore what was
taken and consumed when in extreme
want He therefore is alone exempted
who is in absolute restitution, present
and prospective, and in want of this very
thing to save his life, and unable to get
it otherwise; in which case any one would
be bound IN conscience to give him as an
aims what he had to take. 1t is to a
similar case that N. 158 refers.
AS to the poor nohleman above, N. 529.
DR.. Witherspoon omitted these words OF
st. Liguori, If his shame to beg be so
great that he t0ouId rather die than beq,
words which would seem to me to have
such bearing on the case, that justice
would require me to quote them.
9. DR.. Witherspoon goes on with the
teaching Of this Roman casuist" as fol-
lows:
Domestic servant men and women NAV steal
(occuHe surripere) from their own masters for
the purpose of compensating themselves for their
own labor which they Judge to be greater than
the salary thew receive" (Ib N 621O uar.