Now, since Littleton propounded his question _after_ the 5th of November, Oldcorne had an _ordinary_ ground for allowing himself to speak of the defunct Plot purely in the abstract. But this was an obviously very dangerous thing to do, both for Littleton’s sake, the general public’s sake (Catholic or Protestant), and for the speaker’s own sake. Therefore the fact that Oldcorne did so speak postulates something _more than ordinary_. Hence, as Oldcorne was a man of virtue both intellectually and morally, the reasonable inference is that Oldcorne _had an extraordinary ground_ for his answer which endued him with a special liberty of abstract speech in regard to the matter. _That extraordinary ground, I maintain, was based deep down within the depths of his own interior knowledge._] CHAPTER LX. But it may be objected that instead of assuming that Father Oldcorne was a man not only of mental keenness but also of moral uprightness, and proceeding forthwith to build an argument on such an assumption, the writer ought in truth and justice to have proved, by evidence or reason, the latter part of the proposition. And this the rather, seeing that so many of the co-religionists both in our own day as well as in the days of Father Oldcorne have regarded that society, whereof Oldcorne was a distinguished English member, with not merely unfeigned suspicion but with sincere dislike, and even with genuine loathing.[A] [Footnote A: The most formidable adversaries of the Jesuits far and away have been Roman Catholics of a particular type of mind. Blaise Pascal, that colossal genius, has been probably their most successful enemy.] Now, the unbiased historical philosopher is content not only to let the dead bury their dead but also to let theologian deal with theologian. To the historical philosopher, a Jesuit is a man and nothing more: nothing more, that is, so far as his being entitled to receive at the former’s hands the benefit of all those natural rights which belong to all members of the human species. For all men (including Jesuits) are, in the mind of the philosopher, “born free and equal.” Hence it follows that when, amid the chances and changes of this mortal life, the historical philosopher is thrown across the path of a Jesuit, he looks at him, as a matter of duty, straight in the face, just as he looks at any other rational creature; and then seeks to ascertain, by dint of normal touchstones and tests, what manner of man the person is whom that philosopher, by the ordinances of fate, has then and there confronted. Now, in the case of Edward Oldcorne, the Text of this Inquiry, and also the Notes thereunto, supply abundant proof that Oldcorne came of a good, wholesome, Yorkshire stock——hard-working, honest, and honourable; that his own mental nature was broad, rich and full, high-minded, just, and generous.[A]