The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed / with a short account of their institute; and observations on the danger of systems of education independent of religion

THE

N e w C o n s p i r a c y

AGAINST THE JESUITS

DETECTED AND BRIEFLY EXPOSED;

WITH A

SHORT ACCOUNT OF THEIR INSTITUTE;

AND

OBSERVATIONS ON THE DANGER OF SYSTEMS OF

EDUCATION INDEPENDENT OF RELIGION.

B Y R. C. D A L L A S , E S Q.

Omnes qui se Societati addixerunt, in virtutum solidarum ac perfectarum, et spiritualium rerum studium incumbant.

Institutum Soc. Jesu, ed. Pragæ, 1757, vol. ii, p. 72.

The causes which occasioned the ruin of this mighty body, as well as the circumstances and effects with which it has been attended in the different countries of Europe, are objects extremely worthy of the attention of every intelligent observer of human affairs.

Robertson's Charles V, vol. iii, p. 225.

L O N D O N :

P R I N T E D F O R J A M E S R I D G W A Y , P I C C A D I L L Y.

1815.

C. WOOD, Printer,

Poppin's Court, Fleet Street.

TO

T H E R I G H T H O N O U R A B L E

G E O R G E C A N N I N G , M. P.

HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY TO

THE COURT OF PORTUGAL, &c. &c.

SIR;

Your absence from this country, and the observation of the historian, which I have adopted as a motto, will plead my excuse for dedicating this volume to you, without a previous intimation of my wish for that honour to my work and to myself. "The causes

of the ruin of the society of Jesuits, with its circumstances and effects, are worthy of your attention." I have bestowed a considerable degree of labour in making myself acquainted with them, and, having been induced to throw the result of my inquiries into the form of a book, I know not to whom I can better present it than to a man, who, among the services which he has been active in rendering to his country, in her legislation and letters, has been the liberal advocate of the catholic body in general, and who, I am confident, will be pleased to see any society, or any individual, rescued from opprobrium, which time and colouring may have fixed on character. You are on the spot, Sir, where the Jesuits were persecuted with the greatest virulence; a circumstance, to

my apprehension, not the most favourable to the investigation of truth, as it may well be imagined, that the prejudices, which were raised by the unprincipled and unrelenting minister of Joseph I, of Portugal, have too strongly enveloped it to be easily removed: but there are minds gifted with a discernment approaching to intuition, and, if any man can unweave the web, which has been spun around this unfortunate society, to your penetration may it be trusted. I have examined the subject with sincerity and disinterestedness, and, from conviction, I feel such interest in the establishment of the facts which I have stated, and the conclusions which I have drawn, that I dare hope that what I here offer to your consideration will one day be corroborated by testimony and

talents, that shall remove all the doubt which the feebleness of my pen may leave upon it.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient and

humble Servant,

R. C. DALLAS.

September 4, 1815.

PREFACE.

Having formerly occupied my thoughts on the subject of promoting the knowledge and practice of religion among the Negroes in the West Indies, I was naturally led to inquire into the means, which had been successfully adopted in the catholic islands. I traced them to the enthusiastic labours of the clergy in general, particularly the Jesuits. The conduct of the fathers of that society in South America, not only excited in me admiration, but the highest esteem, veneration, and affection, for that enlightened and persevering body in the Christian cause, who had spread over the immense regions of that

continent more virtue and real temporal happiness than were enjoyed by any other quarter of the globe, as well as a well founded hope of eternal felicity, by the redemption of mankind through Christ. This undeniable merit made such an impression on my mind, that I never gave credit to the horrors, which have been attributed to the society.

Among the objects of my attention, during a late residence in France, the restoration of the order became an interesting one, affording me some pleasing conversations, and inducing me to search into authorities respecting the actions and character of men, whom I had learned to venerate and to love, the result of which was a confirmation of my early predilection. On my return from the continent a short time since, I met with a pamphlet

lately published, entitled "A Brief Account of the Jesuits," the ostensible object of which is to render the order odious, but the real one is seen to be an attempt to attach odium upon catholics in general, in the present crisis of the catholic question. I learned, from a literary friend, that this pamphlet had originally appeared as Letters in a newspaper, and that they had been answered in the same way, but that the answers had not been republished. These I obtained and perused. I received much satisfaction from them, and thought them worthy of being preserved. They did not, however, appear to me sufficiently full upon the subject, and I therefore resolved to publish them in the form of a pamphlet, with a preliminary statement. I consequently renewed my inquiries, and the more I inquire the more am I satisfied, that my veneration for this body of Christian instructors is not misplaced.

It is perfectly evident to me, that there was an unjust conspiracy, which originated in France, to destroy the Jesuits; and that it terminated successfully about the middle of the last century. It is not an easy task to unfold to its full extent the injustice and various iniquities of it, since even respectable historians have been led away by the imposing appearance, which the then undetected and half-unconscious ingenious agents of jacobinism had, by every expedient of invention, of colouring, and of wit, given to the hue and cry raised by those bitter enemies of the order, the university and parliaments of France, and by some ministers of other governments, particularly by the marquis de Pombal, the minister of the king of Portugal. It is not my intention to undertake so laborious a task, but I trust, that the following exposition will unfold sufficient

of the injustice, which has been so unfeelingly and indefatigably heaped upon the Jesuits, to convince every unprejudiced man, that the suppression of the order has been injurious to society, and that the revival of it, far from being dangerous, must be beneficial. I am not afraid, that this expression of my sentiment will draw upon me any suspicion of disaffection to the state, or the established church; my sentiments are well known to my friends, and have been more than once publicly professed. The benefit, which I think will arise from the restoration of the society, will consist more particularly in the active and zealous cultivation of Christian virtues, and a spirit of LOYALTY among the catholics of all countries, whether protestant or catholic; and, unless we mean to say, with some of the furious reformers, that the religion of the catholics is to be

extirpated altogether, it is absurd to say, that they shall not have their best and most active instructors.

When this volume had nearly gone through the press, in the course of reading I met with the following curious passage, extracted from a Letter to a Noble Lord by a Country Gentleman, entitled "Considerations on the Penal Laws," &c. published by the Dodsleys, of Pall-Mall, so long ago as 1764, about two years after the suppression of the Jesuits in France, and eleven previous to their total suppression by Clement XIV; I insert it, as I think it will not be unacceptable to the reader:—"The rising generation are now forming their principles on the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau, D'Argens, and the philosopher of Sans-Souci; to whom may be added a long catalogue of authors of our own

country. In France grave magistrates already celebrate and THE FIRST COURTS OF JUDICATURE echo with the praises of Julian and Diocletian; calculations are made, and the period is pretended to be fixed, when Christianity is to be no more. The powerful weapon of ridicule is employed not against popery alone, but to render contemptible the whole Jewish and Christian revelation." The grave magistrates, and first courts of judicature, are no other than the French parliaments, who, we are informed by a member of the lower house, were "ever ready to support the national independence[^[1]]:" we see by what steps, and we have felt with what success.

In the following pages, I have shown,

that those courts of judicature (which, far from being the immediate organs of the monarchs of France, as the same member asserts, were, for the greater part of the last century, in constant opposition to them, and the organs of rebellion) had conspired to effect the destruction of the Jesuits; and, I suspect, that "the mass of information," which supplies the proofs of the nascent revolutionary spirit, and which is to be met with in the histories of all Europe, are documents resulting from the piques and resentments of Pombal and other arbitrary ministers, who chose to take the consciences of their princes under their own care. These documents, afforded indeed by a most respected character, are nevertheless open to all the objections that arise from the principles and history of the intrigues of the ordinances alluded to. There is however some decency in recurring to

ordinances to found charges upon; the enemies of the Jesuits were not always so nice, as the following extract from one of their calumniators will show:—"When the Jesuits revolutionized Portugal, in 1667, and placed on the throne the infant don Pedro, sir Robert Southwell was there, as our ambassador from Charles II. His very curious correspondence with the duke of Ormond and lord Arlington is extant, and is a precious fragment of a great political event. The silent intrigues of the Jesuits do not seem to have been known to sir Robert; but, according to the Recueil Chronologique, published by the court of Portugal, it is evident they were the principal actors, who, having overturned the monarchy, afterwards suppressed the democracy, and then, substituting an apparent aristocracy, reigned for some time over Portugal, concealed under that

cloak." This is a fine specimen of the warfare carried on against the society. The ambassador's ignorance of the intrigues of the Jesuits is not brought forward as a proof of their innocence, but as a reason why we should believe Pombal. As to the revolutionizing Portugal, and placing don Pedro on the throne, the ambassador could have been no stranger to the real causes of don Pedro's being proclaimed regent during the life of his brother Alonzo, from the incapacity of the latter, and the intrigues, first of his mother, and afterwards of his wife, the princess of Nemours.

I would here leave the reader, with this fact fresh on his mind, to enter upon the book before him, but that I wish to detain him a moment longer to request him to carry also along with him the asseveration

of the author, that he is entirely unconnected with the individuals of the body, whose character it is the object of this volume to place in a just point of view. Though familiar with accounts of the society, I am unacquainted with a single individual of it. The interest I feel is that which has been inspired by their virtues, and by the injustice and cruelty of their enemies, which I have ascertained to my complete conviction.

C O N T E N T S.

ERRATUM, or Omission, Page [81].

At the end of Henry IV's speech, add a reference to Dupleix, the same historian referred to in page [72]. The speech is also to be found in the Memoirs of the Minister Villeroi, the confidant of Henry IV, in the Pleadings of Montholon, in the French Mercury of 1604, and in Matthieu, Henry IV's historiographer, whom that prince himself furnished with memoirs for his history. De Thou himself reports it, but in a mangled way, and professedly as an extract, yet clearly enough to corroborate the substance of it.

THE

NEW CONSPIRACY

A G A I N S T T H E J E S U I T S ,

&c. &c.

INTRODUCTION.

If there were a question whether there should be a change in the religion of the state, or whether the sceptre of Great Britain were better placed in the hand of a protestant or a catholic prince, my voice, slender as it is, should eagerly profess my attachment to the monarchy, and to the church of England. But no such question exists, or is likely to exist, in the contemplation of British subjects, of any persuasion or denomination whatever. It is with this conviction

on my mind, that I have resolved to publish the result of my inquiries respecting the Jesuits, and to show, that they do not merit the virulent slanders with which they have been attacked, or the treatment, horrid and inhuman, which they were made to suffer. A violent pamphlet, entitled "A brief Account of the Jesuits," lately republished from a newspaper, shall serve to direct me over the mass of abuse, which I purpose to clear away in such a manner as to enable the reader to proceed, without prejudice, to the perusal of the following Letters, to which partiality might otherwise be attributed. They are replies to some of the charges of the writer of the pamphlet, and they also appeared in a newspaper, with the signature of Clericus, the assailant having assumed that of Laicus, which I mention, as it may be convenient for me to use these names occasionally.

I purpose, 1st, to make some remarks on the objects of the author of the pamphlet, in his attack upon the Jesuits, and on his mode

of conducting his argument: 2dly, to examine the character of the authorities against the Jesuits, called by the writer historical evidences; and of those in favour of them; and to notice some of the charges against the society: 3dly, to give a brief account of the order, and of the fundamental character of it, with the prominent features of the Institute of Loyola, contrasted with the libellous Monita Secreta: and, 4thly, to conclude with observations arising out of the preceding subjects, and on the necessity of making religion the basis of education.

CHAPTER I.

Remarks on the Objects of the Author of "A brief Account of the Jesuits," and on his mode of conducting his Argument.

The professed objects of the author of a pamphlet, entitled "A brief Account of the Jesuits," as stated in a preface, are "to examine the propriety of extending papal patronage and protestant protection to the Jesuits, and, as stated in page 2 of the pamphlet, to show, that the revival of the order is so pregnant with danger as to call for the interference of parliament." The plan he pursues to effect these objects is, to give a summary of the history of the order, to furnish some historical evidences in support of its correctness, and to argue from these for the affirmative of his proposition. The plan is well enough laid; but the author

has executed it in such a manner as to make it evident, that he was not in search of truth, that he deceives himself if he thinks he was, that he is only a violent and abusive disputant, that he is an enemy to the catholics in general, and that, the question on their claims being exhausted, he renovates the combat by attacking them through the sides of the Jesuits. When an advocate handles a cause, which it is his duty to gain for his client, we know, that he brings forward every fact, and urges every argument, that tends to support the positions on which his cause hinges, sedulously masking every circumstance that contravenes his statement, and avoiding every suggestion that weakens his reasoning upon it. But the man, who is in pursuit of truth, of whatever nature it be, looks at his object on all sides; he handles it, not to make of it what he wishes, but to determine what it is; he analyses, he re-composes; he takes the good and the bad as he finds them, and truth results from his investigation. Let us see which of these two characters belongs to the writer of the pamphlet. Every word of his

"Historical Summary" is intended to place the Jesuits in an odious point of view; nor is a single sentence admitted into it by which one could be led to imagine, that any thing good had ever originated from them, or that they were not universally demons in the shape of men. The writer goes in search of matter to compile his Summary, and he finds an account of the Jesuits composed on the authority of various publications, which have appeared at different times. In a part of this narrative, he finds all that has been said to blacken the order, and, also, a genuine passage of their history, which no man of any feeling can read without enthusiastic admiration; now, would the writer, who was in search of truth, have selected only that which was calculated to produce condemnation, without giving his reader an opportunity of comparing facts and drawing his own inferences? Yet this is really the case with this enemy of the catholic cause, whose Summary is verbatim extracted from Robertson's Charles V, as far as it answered the purpose of

his attack. Who, after reading the part selected, would suspect, if he did not know it before, that the following paragraph, from the same elegant pen, closed the character of the Jesuits, and must have confounded the eye of their assailant, since it failed to wring a tribute of praise from his heart?—"But as I have pointed out the dangerous tendency of the constitution and spirit of the order with the freedom becoming an historian, the candour and impartiality no less requisite in that character call on me to add one observation: That no class of regular clergy in the Romish church has been more eminent for decency, and even purity of manners, than the major part of the order of Jesuits. The maxims of an intriguing, ambitious, interested policy, might influence those, who governed the society, and might even corrupt the heart, and pervert the conduct of some individuals, while the greater number, engaged in literary pursuits, or employed in the functions of religion, was left to the guidance of those common principles, which restrain men from

vice, and excite them to what is becoming and laudable[^[2]]."

The author, in a note, acknowledges, that his Summary does not wholly lay claim to

originality. It is, in fact, all copied: why then did he not cite his authority? and, when he was copying, why did he omit to copy the passages that stared him in the face? Clearly from an attorney-like motive, because it would have injured his cause, and would have prepossessed his reader with an idea, that, whether the charges against some of the rulers of the order were well-founded or not, the generality of the Jesuits were estimable men, devoting themselves to the good of mankind, and who had spread over the earth a very considerable share of human happiness: clearly because he foresaw, that his reader would argue with himself, that if, in despotic times, only a few busied themselves with political affairs, while the body at large were good men, engaged in zealously promoting the welfare, both temporal and eternal, of their fellow-creatures, it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in the present enlightened times, the many would become corrupt, or even the few engage again in intrigues dangerous to society; and that he

would conclude, that the labour of the author resolved itself into a new attempt against tolerating the catholic religion; while in favour of toleration he would find, in addition to the suggestions of his reason, his memory supplied with innumerable, irrefragable arguments, which for years past have resounded throughout the empire, in the houses of parliament as well as in the remotest villages, enforced by princes of the realm with all the energy of learning and of eloquence, as well as by individuals of every class of men, in speeches, and in writings, in books, pamphlets, and the columns of such newspapers as are open to liberal discussion[^[3]].

The writer of the pamphlet, not satisfied with omitting whatever might tend to defeat his object, industriously rakes out the most atrocious imputations from the avowed enemies of the Jesuits, and classes their authorities with genuine history, taking them for granted, never examining the hands through which they passed, happy in having one and only one great name on his side, that of the celebrated and very extraordinary genius, Pascal. When the Provincial Letters were alluded to, as attacking a supposed lax system of morals, did not truth require that they should be stated to have been the satirical effusions of a writer, who had espoused the cause of the Jansenists, the violent opposers of the Jesuits; and that the ridicule which they contained had been declared by another great wit, who was no enemy to ridicule, nor friend to religion (Voltaire), to be completely misapplied. A lover of truth, when

balancing opinions as proofs, would not have failed to quote from him the following passage: "It is true, indeed, that the whole book (the Provincial Letters) was built upon a false foundation; for the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society. Many absurdities might likewise have been discovered among the Dominican and Franciscan casuists, but this would not have answered the purpose, for the whole raillery was to be levelled only at the Jesuits. These letters were intended to prove, that the Jesuits had formed a design to corrupt mankind; a design which no sect of society ever had, or can have."

With such enemies as the Jansenists, will it be thought extraordinary, that a thousand fabrications of those days blackening the Jesuits may be referred to? With such enemies as in later times appeared against them, in the host of new philosophers and jacobins, is it wonderful that there should be modern forgeries?

One such suffrage, as that which I have quoted from Robertson, is of itself sufficient to outweigh folios of charges originating in the jealous passions of a rival sect, in the effusions of a mad mistaken philosophy, or in magisterial persecution, which, to use the vigorous language of a living genius, in "the destruction of the Jesuits, that memorable instance of puerile oppression, of jealousy, ambition, injustice, and barbarity, for these all concurred in the act, gave to public education a wound, which a whole century perhaps will not be able to heal. It freed the phalanx of materialists from a body of opponents, which still made them tremble. It remotely encouraged the formation of sanguinary clubs, by causing the withdrawing of all religious and prudent congregations, in which the savage populace of the Faubourg St. Antoine were tamed by the disciples of an Ignatius and a Xavier. Such men as Porée and La Rue, Vaniere and Jouvenci, in the academic chairs; Bourdaloue, Cheminais, Neuville, L'Enfant, in the pulpit;

Segaud, Duplessis, and Beauregard[^[4]], in the processions of the cross, in the public streets and ways, were, perhaps, alike necessary to secure tranquillity in this world and happiness in the next[^[5]]."

In assisting my memory, I have been led to compare the writer's extracts from Robertson with the pages of the historian himself, and I have found him, not only occasionally disfiguring the style on points of little moment, by turning the words, but giving to the author's words a sense which they were not intended to bear, by means of Italic types and additions. For instance: the historian says, "As it was the professed intention of the order of Jesuits to labour with

unwearied zeal in promoting the salvation of men, this engaged them, of course, in many active functions." On reading Robertson's work, would any one imagine, that the author meant to insinuate, that the intention was insincere, and a mere cloak to political vices? Is it not clear from all he writes, as well as from this passage taken singly, that he gave the Jesuits credit for their sincerity in devoting themselves to the salvation of men? Yet has the writer of the pamphlet, by causing the word professed to be printed in Italics, called upon his reader to take his sense of Robertson's words, and to believe, that the word professed implies deceit, instead of the open and declared intention of the Jesuits. Not content with this low falsifying of Robertson's ideas by Italic implication, he practises the same trick by an Italic addition of some lines of his own to the text of the historian, as follows: "their great and leading maxim having uniformly been, to do evil that good might come." Can any thing be more reprehensible?

I will adduce one instance more of the disingenuousness of this writer. Speaking, exclusively, of the Jesuits, he charges them with "rendering Christianity utterly odious in the vast empire of Japan[^[6]]," and with "enormities in China Proper." To have implicated other priests would not, as Voltaire observed, answer the purpose: the Jesuits, as before, must be isolated to be recrushed. Now, in this, as in the other accusations, we shall find the anti-catholic writers including other orders. Let us see what one of these writers says upon this occasion: after speaking of the pride, avarice, and folly of the clergy, he tells us of an

execution of twenty-six persons, "in the number whereof were two foreign Jesuits, and several other fathers of the Franciscan order." And a little after, the same writer says, "some Franciscan friars were guilty at this time of a most imprudent step: they, during the whole of their abode in the country, preached openly in the streets of Macao, where they resided; and of their own accord built a church, contrary to the imperial commands, and contrary to the advice and earnest solicitations of the Jesuits[^[7]]." The authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica will not be objected to by the enemies of the catholics; nor, I presume, will that of Montesquieu, who gives a very different reason for the Christian religion being so odious in Japan: "We have already," says he, "mentioned the perverse temper of the people of Japan. The magistrates considered the firmness which Christianity inspires, when they attempted to make the people renounce their faith, as in

itself most dangerous: they fancied that it increased their obstinacy. The law of Japan punishes severely the least disobedience. They ordered them to renounce the Christian religion: they did not renounce it; this was disobedience: they punished this crime; and the continuance in disobedience seemed to deserve another punishment[^[8]]." As to the enormities in China, we shall find, upon inquiry, that the Jesuits were not more responsible for those. The following is an extract from a geographical account of China: "P. Michael Rogu, a Neapolitan Jesuit, first opened the mission in China, and led the way in which those of his order that followed him have acquired so much reputation. He was succeeded by P. Ricci, of the same society, who continued the work with such success, that he is considered by the Jesuits as the principal founder of this mission. He was a man of very extraordinary talents. He had the art of rendering himself agreeable

to every body, and by that means acquired the public esteem. He had many followers. At length, in 1630, the Dominicans and Franciscans took the field, though but as gleaners of the harvest after the Jesuits; and now it was that contentions broke out." This is not the place to enter particularly into the charges brought against the order; all I here mean to show is, with what want of candour the Jesuits are reviled; and I think, after what has been stated, it cannot be doubted, that the chief object of the writer of the pamphlet is to excite a ferment against the catholic claims, nor that his mode of conducting his proposed inquiry is that of a violent partizan, and not that of a genuine philosopher in search of truth. Indeed, he almost assures us of it himself at the conclusion of his preface, where he says: "It may, perhaps, appear from the inquiry (that is, the attack), that the crimes of the order are fundamental, and not accidental." In omitting, therefore, to cite documents, which show that they are not fundamental, does he not admit,

does he not plainly say, I have a point to gain, in which candour has no part; and, quocumque modo, it must be gained? Such is the case, and I must allow him great perseverance in collecting titles of volumes long since forgotten; but to the lovers of truth, to the nation at large, and to the parliament in particular, or at least as far as my unpractised voice can be heard, I exclaim, hunc cavete, et similes ei.

CHAPTER II.

Inquiry into the Character of the Authorities against the Jesuits, and of those in favour of them; with a notice of some of the Crimes imputed to them.

Having seen how little credit is due to the spirit of the pamphlet before us, let us inquire what credit is due to the authorities produced against the Jesuits, and take a view of those in favour of them; and afterwards briefly notice some of the crimes imputed to them.

In stating the results of my inquiry respecting the authorities, it may save some trouble to begin with those on which Robertson founded his account of the order. I am persuaded that, had he written at the present era, his

authorities would have been sought in very different sources, and his whole account of the order of Jesus would have been very different to what it is. Far from impeaching that elegant writer with wilful misrepresentations, or want of caution in selecting those authorities, I readily give him credit for seeking the best he could obtain when he wrote; and the more, from his taking some pains, in a note[^[9]], to inform his readers, that he believes his two principal authorities, Monclar and Chalotais, to be respectable magistrates and elegant writers. But I maintain, that, if he had seen them in the point of view in which they have since appeared, as leaders on of the jacobinical philosophy, and of the French revolution, it is not likely that he would have honoured their fabrications with the weight of historical testimony: that their Comptes Rendus were fabrications we shall presently see. Let us first view the list; viz. Monclar, Chalotais, D'Alembert, Histoire des Jesuites, the French Encyclopedie, Charlevoix, Juan, and

Ulloa. As the three last names are authorities in favour of the Jesuits, I shall not notice them at present. D'Alembert and the Encyclopedie may go together, for he and Diderot, who wrote the article Jesuite in that work, were the chief directors of it. To men, who have recovered from the stun of jacobinism, it is hardly necessary to say, that the destruction of the Jesuits was of the first importance to the success of D'Alembert and Diderot's philosophical reform of human nature. The article written by the latter was completely refuted by a French Jesuit named Courtois, but only the writers against the order were read or cited. When the Jesuits first appeared in France, the parliament hated them as friends of the pope; the university as rival teachers. These two bodies combined to exterminate them. The university was perpetually bringing actions against them before the parliaments, but they found protection from the throne and the ministry. The university was exasperated at the desertion of their scholars, who flocked to the Jesuit schools, and at

the loss of their emoluments called landi, paid by students to the professors: the Jesuits taught gratuitously, and the high reputation of the celebrated Maldonado enraged the doctors beyond measure. The parliaments and the doctors were the chief fomenters of the league; and they were seconded by all the religious orders, the Jesuits excepted. The parliament, headed by Harlay, made flaming harangues and arrets: the doctors of the university and friars exhibited fanatical processions and sermons; they pronounced Henry III and Henry IV excommunicated tyrants; they canonized Jacques Clement; they rewarded his mother and family; they openly preached regicide. Their rage equalled that of the modern jacobins. They all, of course, detested the Jesuits, who, we may believe, were also obnoxious to the Hugonot party. When the league was expiring, by the conversion of Henry IV, the parliaments and university, constrained to abjure it, were nevertheless determined upon effecting the banishment of the Jesuits before

the king could enter on his government. The doctors renewed their suits, and employed as advocates Arnaud, Pasquier, and Dollé, who went into the courts with certainty of success. Completely successful they would have been, but for the wisdom of the minister, the duke de Sully, who, though a leader of the Hugonots, and consequently not biassed in favour of the Jesuits, indeed evidently their enemy, was too nobly minded to give an advantage to their assailants, which his master would not have done. He stopped the proceedings, by interposing the authority of the absent king, "which," said he, "is not to be compromised pour une pique de pretres et de theologiens[^[10]]." The prosecutors and the judges, disconcerted for the time, resolved to lose no opportunity to effect their object, and they soon found one in the crime of Chatel, in which they triumphed without a shadow of proof. Not a Jesuit was ever proved to have entered into the league: no writer accuses them of it, the advocates

just mentioned excepted; and their invectives, amassed in Les Extraits des Assertions, are the sole foundation of all that is said by Monclar, Chalotais, and the other authors of the Comptes Rendus.

It was necessary to enter into this detail to enable the reader to trace the foul sources of the chief authorities on which Robertson relied: but what shall we think of them, in spite of that historian's compliment to the elegance of their pens, when we hear, that these procureurs were but the nominal authors of their respective Comptes Rendus, the mean instruments of the ingenious atheists, who were preparing France for the age of reason, the liberty of jacobinism, and the murders of philosophy? That presented by Chalotais was written by D'Alembert himself; that of Riquet, procureur general of the parliament of Thoulouse, was composed by Comtezat, a notoriously debauched priest; that of Monclar, of Aix, was sent to him from Paris, with a promise of being the next chancellor of France, if he would adopt it, and

engage his parliament in the cause. The venerable president of that parliament, D'Eguilles, refusing to concur in the measure, was, through his means, banished, and his adherents with him, by a lettre de cachet. Monclar died repentant, and retracted all that he had said in presence of the bishop of Apt, who made a minute of the fact. As for Chalotais; would the historian have cited him had he seen the following character of that lawyer, drawn by a pen not inferior to his own, distinguished by various works of genius, and which was employed on one of the most interesting portions of English history, when his sovereign, having occasion for his talents in a trying crisis of his affairs, called him to his councils?[^[11]] "The procureur general of Bretagne, La Chalotais, eager to possess popularity, in order that he might arrive at power,

enthusiastic in his friendships, violent in his hatred, both of which were to him concerns of interest rather than of sentiment; blending with these private principles the formidable powers of his public ministry, being the oracle of a parliament, which, consisting of the first nobility of the country, always acted in concert with, and never in opposition to the States; this man had it in his power to arm his ambition or his vengeance with the sword of justice; he could give a legal sanction to tumult, and make trifles appear of serious importance; he could convert the most vapid declamation into the gravest denunciation, and, in a word, could assist the party, that he chose to espouse, with the whole artillery of decrees and arrets, which may be regarded as the ultima ratio of the parliament, on the same principle, that cannon are the ultima ratio of kings. The instant that such a man took part in the dispute, it might well be expected, that the whole province would be immediately thrown into universal confusion. In the year 1764, the duke D'Aiguillon,

commandant of Bretagne, a peer of France, grand nephew of cardinal Richelieu, nephew of the then minister, lastly a friend of the Jesuits, and in great favour with the dauphin, was denounced in the parliament of Bretagne, by the procureur general on his arrival in Paris. This man, who was the violent enemy of that society, was also the devoted agent of the king's mistress, and of the prime minister, who were leagued together to bring about the destruction of the Order."

So much for the reliance to be placed on La Chalotais. There remains another authority of Robertson's to be noticed, viz. "The History of the Jesuits." He does not mention the name of the author of it, but no doubt it was Coudrette's, as he would otherwise have felt it incumbent upon him to make some distinction. This man was a decided partizan of the French parliaments, and well known to be an inveterate enemy of the Jesuits. As his character is well drawn in the following

Letters[^[12]], I shall say nothing more of him here, than that his work evidently appears unworthy of being referred to as an authority.

From what has been already said, and from the neglect shown by Robertson to the multitude of other writers adopted as authorities in the pamphlet before me, it is but too evident that there long existed a conspiracy against a society, whose principles and energy awed infidelity and rebellion, and whose superior talents excited jealousy and hatred. Let us, however, see what kind of men they are to whom the new accuser of the society refers us for proofs of their being such demons as he has represented them. We will afterwards take a view of those, who think and write differently, and we shall be able to determine on which side authority lies.

I will not pretend to go numerically through the catalogue presented in the pamphlet.

Publications infinitely multiplied deluged Europe for the purpose of overwhelming the Jesuits; an infinity of references, therefore, if not of authorities, remains at the service of their enemies, and it would be useless and tiresome, if not impossible, to wade through them. I shall principally notice those on which the conspirator before me places his bitterest reliance, such as are most inveterate, most profuse and blackening in their accusations; touching slightly, however, or not at all, on those sufficiently refuted in the succeeding Letters. To refute all that was printed against the devoted society of Jesus would require a complete history of the destruction of the Order[^[13]], but within the limits of this brief exposition it is not possible to go very deep into the scrutiny of the malice, and of the means resorted to for the purpose of effecting it. To remove some of the thick, poisonous weeds, which mantle the surface of the subject, so as to show the body clear

beneath, is the extent of my present undertaking; and, if I appear concise, one consideration is in my favour, namely, that imputations advanced by a thousand different writers are not multiplied but repeated, and that reverberations of falsehood are still falsehood. We have already seen, that even the powers and ingenuousness of a Robertson have been unable to extract from them the voice of truth.

France has produced the greatest number of writers against the society. The speeches and publications of those in the times of the league, as I have said, furnished the original matter to the authors of the Comptes Rendus; the theme of regicide, the tales of the Jesuits Varade, Gueret, Guignard, the whole guilt of the league, &c., to which more recent matter, particularly lax doctrines of morality, has been added. This is all collected in the Extraits des Assertions, a work evidently replete with studied fabrications, as is shown by Beaumont, archbishop of Paris, Montesquiou, bishop of Sarlat, and in the

Reponse aux Assertions. I believe, that this Reponse and the Apologie de l'Institut are the only works written in defence of the society, which the Jesuits publicly avowed. These are unanswerable, and should be referred to by historians.

The characters of Prynne and De Thou are drawn in the following Letters[^[14]]. De Thou was a parliamentarian. Of Prynne I shall farther observe, that, besides his notoriety as a factious agent, lord Clarendon informs us, that he had been looked upon as a man of reproachful character previous to the infamous severities of the star chamber, which was the means of his obtaining consideration, for those of his profession, and others, thought, that persons, in his situation of life, should not be treated so ignominiously[^[15]]. His character may be viewed in Hume's History[^[16]]; and here let me observe, that

it was not only the catholics he attacked, but the manners of the times and the church; for which he was punished. Prynne was a thorough-paced puritan: through him and others of the same stamp the existing house of commons were glad to debase the government, and they absolutely reversed the sentence, which had been passed on him and other libellers. "The more ignoble these men were," says Hume, "the more sensible was the insult upon royal authority[^[17]]." What writer, valuing his own respectability, would cite such a creature as this? One of a sect, who, the writer of the pamphlet himself tells us, were united with the Jesuits, to whom their pulpits were open, for the purpose of overawing the parliament, and compelling it to destroy the king. This too is cited from Prynne, to whom he refers for much valuable evidence.

The pamphlet says, "see Rapin." The name has something less barbarous in the sound than

most of the others cited by the writer. Let us see Rapin. We find, in the pages of this historian, the names of Jesuit and catholic indiscriminately used, as accused of plots, suffering the rack, and confuting the accusations brought against them by the most persuasive simplicity of their protestations of innocence, and the intrepidity of their deaths. The pretended plots, in the days of Elizabeth and of the Stuarts, cited by a writer in 1815, against the toleration of the catholics[^[18]]! Well, but see the state trials, the actio in proditores, drawn up by our own judges, &c.[^[19]] "Nothing," says

Hume, "can be a stronger proof of the fury of the times, than that lord Russel, notwithstanding

the virtue and humanity of his character, seconded the house of commons in the barbarous scruple of the sheriffs" on the power of the king to remit the hanging and quartering of

lord Stafford, that innocent victim to his pure attachment to God. Afterwards, when lord Russel was himself condemned, the king, in remitting the same part of the sentence for treason, said, "he shall find, that I am possessed of that prerogative, which, in the case of lord Stafford, he thought proper to deny me."

I cannot here refrain from contrasting the intelligence, the spirit, and the wisdom of that great and distinguished statesman, Charles James Fox, with the tame and adoptive, though virulent, disposition of a writer, who, in another part of his pamphlet, has dared to warn every man from speaking in favour of the catholic priests of Ireland, lest he should be provoked to overwhelm the whole body with damning proofs—proofs charitably kept in petto, by this insinuator of more than he chooses to say. Speaking of one of the imaginary popish plots, Mr. Fox expresses himself thus: "Wherefore, if this question were to be decided upon the ground of authority, the reality of the plot

would be admitted; but there are cases, where reason speaks so plainly, as to make all argument drawn from authority of no avail, and this is surely one of them." And, a few pages after, we have the following striking passage: "Even after the dissolution of his last parliament, when he had so far subdued his enemies as to be no longer under any apprehensions from them, the king did not think it worth while to save the life of Plunket, the popish archbishop of Armagh, of whose innocence no doubt could be entertained. But this is not to be wondered at, since, in all transactions relative to the popish plot, minds, of a very different cast from Charles's, became, as by some fatality, divested of all their wonted sentiments of justice and humanity. Who can read, without horror, the account of that savage murmur of applause, which broke out upon one of the villains at the bar swearing positively to Stafford's having proposed the murder of the king? And how is this horror deepened when we reflect, that in that odious cry were, probably,

mingled the voices of men to whose memory every lover of the English constitution is bound to pay the tribute of gratitude and respect! Even after condemnation, lord Russel himself, whose character is wholly (this instance excepted) free from the stain of rancour or cruelty, stickled for the severer mode of executing the sentence, in a manner which his fear for the king's establishing a precedent of pardoning in cases of impeachment (for this, no doubt, was his motive) cannot satisfactorily excuse[^[20]]." Now what does the writer of the pamphlet before me say? "It is fashionable, with many reasoners, to treat all history as a fable, and to set up for themselves in matters of policy, in defiance of the testimony of antiquity. These persons would assign the same office to the records of past ages, as they would to the stern lights of a vessel, which serve only to throw a light over the path which has been passed, and not over that which lies before us. I trust, however, that there are yet many among us who

have not been so taught." It is, indeed, but too fashionable to put up fantastic reasoning against authority, and particularly against sacred authority; but reason, which knows to distinguish the nature of authority; reason, which is bold in the affairs of men, and humble in its permitted intercourse with God; reason, as Fox and Hume, and all historians worthy the title, convince us, steps not out of its province when it interposes to rectify misleading records or historical assertions; and in no case is it more eminently required than in the history of the order of Jesus, which passion, interest, and ability have united to disfigure. What is meant by the allusion to stern lights I am at a loss to conjecture. I am not much disposed, in a work of this kind, to go into verbal or rhetorical criticism; but when a man writes with such pompous and despotic decision as this author does, one has a right to expect of him, when he amuses himself with figurative language, a clear notion of what he aims at. When, therefore, he insinuates that such reasoners as Hume

and Fox are reprehensible for serving records of past ages like stern lights of a vessel, instead of like modern moons to carriages (for moons evidently ran in the writer's head), we are puzzled between what he says and what he means. From his own words we are bound to take it for granted that he means to condemn reasoning, and to approve of a pertinacious adherence to records, however inconsistent and contradictory; whereas, by his intended simile, he blames the reasoners for making use of records; for, if stern lights must serve as a simile, records are certainly more analogous to them than to carriage moons, which are concurrent aids, that show the driver nothing but the way before him, and are not of the least use to those travellers who are coming after on the same road; stern lights, on the contrary, are intimations at sea, from those who go before to those who follow, of the track to be pursued. The truth, I believe, is, that the author does not know the use of stern lights, and imagines that mariners illuminate aft to amuse fishes in

the wakes of their ships. Records, no doubt, are moral, as ship lanthorns are physical lights to guide; but treachery or ignorance, in either, may mislead, in which case the seaman will consult his compass and the inquirer his reason[^[21]].

But to return from this digression to Rapin. We learn from him, that Elizabeth herself,

whom no one will charge with over-tenderness, reprobated the cruelties practised upon the catholics. "Meanwhile," says he, "the queen sent for the judges of the realm, and sharply reproved them for having been too severe in the tortures they had made these men suffer[^[22]]." We have only to reflect on this passage of

Rapin, to appreciate the evidence furnished by the state trials of those days, the actio in proditores, and the reporters of "Criminels de Lege Majesté," so often cited by the enemies of the Jesuits. It was not only in catholic countries, we see, that the rack and other modes of torture were made the tests of truth; but they have been so long abhorred by Englishmen, that I fondly believed that there was not one among us who would allow himself to cite the efficacy of them as a proof in any argument. Their inefficacy, indeed, may justly be cited in testimony; for what they extort is in all probability false, what they fail to extort is in all probability true. If this reasoning be sound, how many blameless, how many virtuous men has the hand of party in this country consigned to cruel deaths[^[23]]! In addition to what Rapin

states of Elizabeth, it is not irrelevant to add here what Camden reports of her on the same subject: he tells us expressly, that she thought most of the priests were innocent, or, which is the same thing, that she did not believe them guilty. His words are, Plerosque tamen ex misellis his sacerdotibus exitii in patriam conflandi conscios fuisse non credidit[^[24]].

Of the fairness of their trials in still later times, those of Charles II, we have specimens in Hume's History. Why was not Hume quoted by the writer of the pamphlet? We find more of Jesuits in his pages than in Rapin's, and something against them too; but Hume, like Robertson, was guided by principle

on this subject; that is, he stated the character of the order from the pictures which he had received of it; but, at the same time, he exposed the injustice of the trials in which the Jesuits were involved, and the invalidity of the evidence produced against them. The whole of his sixty-seventh chapter is, in fact, however unintended, a memorial in favour of the Jesuits, and a philippic on their enemies. As these pages may fall into the hands of some persons who may not have the opportunity or the leisure to read this portion of his history, I shall make the following extract, as a testimony of the horrid injustice practised in former times; and I am very much mistaken if any man of feeling and sound intellect will read it without indignation against the Oateses and Bedloes of the present day.—"But even during the recess of parliament there was no interruption to the prosecution of the catholics accused: the king found himself obliged to give way to this popular fury. Whitebread, provincial of the Jesuits, Fenwic,

Gavan, Turner, and Harcourt, all of them of the same order, were first brought to their trial. Besides Oates and Bedloe, Dugdale, a new witness, appeared against the prisoners. This man had been steward to lord Aston, and, though poor, possessed a character somewhat more reputable than the other two; but his account of the intended massacres and assassinations was equally monstrous and incredible. He even asserted, that two hundred thousand papists in England were ready to take up arms. The prisoners proved, by sixteen witnesses from St. Omers, students, and most of them young men of family, that Oates was in that seminary at the time when he swore that he was in London: but, as they were catholics, and disciples of the Jesuits, their testimony, both with the judges and jury, was totally disregarded. Even the reception, which they met with in court, was full of outrage and mockery. One of them saying, that Oates always continued at St. Omers, if he could believe his senses; 'you

papists,' said the chief justice, 'are taught not to believe your senses.' It must be confessed, that Oates, in opposition to the students of St. Omers, found means to bring evidence of his having been at that time in London: but this evidence, though it had, at that time, the appearance of some solidity, was afterwards discovered, when Oates himself was tried for perjury, to be altogether deceitful. In order farther to discredit that witness, the Jesuits proved, by undoubted testimony, that he had perjured himself in father Ireland's trial, whom they showed to have been in Staffordshire at the very time when Oates swore that he was committing treason in London. But all these pleas availed them nothing against the general prejudices. They received sentence of death; and were executed, persisting to their last breath, in the most solemn, earnest, and deliberate, though disregarded, protestations of their innocence[^[25]]."

I must not forget, that I am still producing the authorities quoted against the Jesuits. Having been led by these into adducing the favourable testimony of Hume, I mean not to dissemble his objections to the order: these are, their zeal for proselytism, and their cultivation of learning for the nourishment of superstition. The zeal for proselytism, in itself, can be no crime; and, if unconnected with the treasons, persecutions, and vices, so abundantly charged upon the catholics, it is a natural sentiment of the mind. It is indeed that propensity, which, so violently condemned in catholics, has been the chief propagator of every sect since the reformation to the present moment, and not without symptoms of rebellion, and even of king-killing. Some instances, to show this, will not be uninteresting here. The heads of the reformers, in Scotland, as we are informed by Hume, being desirous to propagate their principles, entered privately into a bond, or association, and called themselves the congregation of

the Lord, in contradistinction to the established church, which they denominated the congregation of Satan. The tenour of the bond was as follows:—"We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the antichrist of our time, does cruelly rage, seeking to overthrow and to destroy the gospel of Christ and his congregation, ought, according to our bounden duty, to strive, in our master's cause, even unto the death, being certain of the victory in him. We do therefore promise, before the majesty of God and his congregation, that we, by his grace, shall, with all diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish, the most blessed word of God and his congregation; and shall labour, by all possible means, to have faithful ministers, truly and purely to minister Christ's gospel and sacraments to the people: we shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, by our whole power, and at the hazard of our

lives, against Satan, and all wicked power, who may intend tyranny and trouble against the said congregation: unto which holy word and congregation we do join ourselves; and we forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the superstitions, abomination, and idolatry thereof; and moreover shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this faithful promise before God, testified to this congregation by our subscriptions.—At Edinburgh, the third of December, 1557."—Hume adds; "Had the subscribers of this zealous league been content only to demand a toleration of the new opinions, however incompatible their pretensions might have been with the policy of the church of Rome, they would have had the praise of opposing tyrannical laws enacted to support an establishment prejudicial to civil society: but, it is plain, that they carried their views much farther; and their practice immediately discovered the spirit by which they were actuated. Supported by the authority,

which they thought belonged to them as the congregation of the Lord, they ordained, that prayers in the vulgar tongue should be used in all the parish churches of the kingdom; and, that preaching and the interpretation of the scriptures should be practised in private houses, till God should move the prince to grant public preaching by faithful and true ministers. Such bonds of association are always the forerunners of rebellion; and this violent invasion of the established religion was the actual commencement of it[^[26]]."

Whatever the catholic zeal may have produced, nothing can exceed the insolence and seditious spirit of the reformers. Knox's usual appellation of the queen of Scotland, the unfortunate Mary, was Jezebel. "The political principles of that man, which he communicated

to his brethren, were as full of sedition as his theological were of rage and bigotry[^[27]]." Was there no treason, was there no regicide doctrine in the following brutal speech, which he addressed to her? "Samuel feared not to slay Agag, the fat and delicate king of Amalek, whom king Saul had saved: neither spared Elias Jezebel's false prophets, and Baal's priests. Phineas was no magistrate, yet feared he not to strike Cozbi and Zimri. And so, madam, your grace may see, that others than chief magistrates may lawfully inflict punishment on such crimes as are condemned by the law of God[^[27]]."

Is it not the zeal for proselytism, that daily thins the established church of England, and increases the congregations of the innumerable denominations of sectaries, which are tolerated in this country, and of which each, if it could, would make its own universal? Even in private and temperate characters, a conformity of

soul is one of the bases of friendship. The desire of impressing our sentiments and opinions upon the minds of those we love is the source of intercourse; we should be dumb without it. It is not wonderful, that this spring of the social system should extend to the principles of religion; and to say, that a Christian is zealous to make a Pagan a Christian is to bestow the highest praise upon him. If the reformed missionaries deserve this praise, it cannot be refused to the Jesuits. Nothing, in fact, can be more laudable than such a zeal, and all that can be objected to it is foreign to its real nature. The treasons and crimes, which have been imputed to the Jesuits, Hume himself has shown were falsely charged to them. Vice is not inherent in any profession of faith; it is inherent in the corrupted nature of man. Compare a Knox with a Bordaloue, a Prynne with a Beauregard or a Bossuet, and we shall be blind if we do not perceive the difference between the zeal which actuates the Christian, and that which leads to treason and to crime.

Hume's other objection to the Jesuits was, "their cultivation of learning for the nourishment of superstition." Now we very well know how far his idea of superstition extended, and that it did not fall short of the whole system of revealed religion. It is not necessary to dwell long upon this objection. The superstition which is injurious to mankind, must be the offspring of ignorance; and, no one denies, that ignorance and superstition were very prevalent in the dark ages of the world, and even long after the revival of letters; no one denies, that weak and illiterate minds, of whatever persuasion, are yet prone to it. What is meant by the superstition nourished by learning can only be the impression of mysteries, which the understanding, however puzzled, finds sufficient grounds to entertain, and on which to build hopes of an immaterial and immortal connexion with the Supreme Being. This kind of superstition, or rather this religious impression, has ever been cherished by the noblest minds, and forms a prominent part of the character of learned

men of all persuasions. Attached, myself, to the church of England, it is, nevertheless, clear to me, that the Reformation has generated the most absurd superstitions; and I cannot conceive that there is a man, of unbiassed mind and good sense, who would not rather embrace all that has been retrenched from the catholic creed, than adopt the spurious abominations and blasphemies which, every where, under the screen of toleration, disgrace the world. But I am not here entering into a defence of the Roman church, or into a derision of the vagaries which have sprung from imaginary rationality, or misapplied enthusiasm; my only purpose was to speak of Hume's authority; and I shall quit the subject of superstition to turn to that of casuistry, to which he also alludes.

And here it is that the deadliest blow is aimed against the Jesuits. If their system of morality makes virtues of "prevarication, perjury, and every crime, when it serves ghostly purposes," the reproach is fatal. On this head, the writer

of the pamphlet gives us a string of casuists, to confound the order at once. Desirous either of clearing away or substantiating this charge, and recollecting the remark of Voltaire, which I have already cited, that "the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society," I inquired more particularly into the character and objects of the casuists of the order; and, the more I reflected, the more I was convinced of the malignity of the adversaries of the society, on whom the charge might well be turned, changing Hume's derisive epithet of ghostly into two other qualifying words, viz. rebellious and revolutionary; for who will deny that prevarication, perjury, and every crime, have been resorted to, and justified for rebellious and revolutionary purposes?

In such a number of casuistical writers, it may be imagined, that some have erred. The Jesuits never wished to defend them. It may be presumed, that the number of errors was not great,

since their enemies found it necessary to commit so many falsifications to make up the volume of Assertions. In many instances, the author of that book attributes to the casuist, opinions which he only cites to refute. In moral theology the Jesuits had two rules, from which few of them ever deviated; one was, to follow the opinions which were most common; the other, never to defend an opinion when prohibited or condemned by the holy see. Some of their casuists taught doctrines, which, in their time, were the most usual in schools, but which were afterwards condemned or prohibited at Rome. Their enemies imputed these doctrines to them as crimes. The Dominican and Franciscan casuists might have been equally charged; but, as Voltaire observed, it would not have answered the purpose.

The chief casuists, collected to answer the purpose in the new conspiracy against the Jesuits, are the following: Lamy, Moya, Bauny, Berruyer, Casnedi, and Benzi. Since, next to the Monita Secreta, that infamous forgery so

completely exposed in the subsequent Letters, the writer of the pamphlet relies on the immoral doctrines to be found in the writings of these priests, let us see on what foundation they stand. I shall first observe, that the Apology for the Casuists, said to be published by the Jesuits, so far from being avowed as a work of their own, was disavowed by the superiors of the order, and condemned by the pope and many prelates. It was written by Pere Pirot, who seemed, in a manner, determined to justify Pascal's Satires, by defending certain opinions, in spite of their having been condemned, as D'Avrigny informs us, in his Memoires Chronologiques et Dogmatiques pour servir à l'Histoire Ecclesiastique depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c.[^[28]] The author laments the hard fate of religious societies, of which he observes, que toute faute personelle dans le jugement du public devient une faute generale, et les enfans portent l'iniquité de leurs peres jusqu'à la troisieme et la quatrieme generation.

The Course of Theology, by Lamy, is classed with the Apology, as justifying murder, &c. This author was a Neapolitan, whose name was Amici, and the work, from which the charge in question is extracted, consists of nine volumes folio! The proposition attributed to him, to blacken him as a Jesuit, was not his, nor ever adopted by him. It had been taught, long before, by the celebrated casuist Navarre, and others totally unconnected with the Jesuits. Amici mentions it, and alleges the reasons which had been given in support of it, but adds, nolumus a nobis (hæc) ita sint dicta ut communi sententiæ adversentur, sed tantum disputandi gratia proposita. The proposition was omitted altogether in the second edition of his work, and, being formally condemned by Alexander VII, in 1665, was never after defended by any catholic divine.

Moya seems to have been a very virtuous man, though, perhaps, rather indiscreet in his zeal for the credit of his society. The facts are

these: a book had been published by one Gregory Esclapey, reproaching the Jesuits with teaching many erroneous doctrines. To this work Moya published an answer, under the name of Guimenius, in which he professedly abstains from all inquiry into the merits of the doctrines; but, being imputed to the Jesuits by their adversary, he undertakes to show, that they were not responsible for them, as they did not originate with them, having been taught by the older divines, previous to the existence of the order. The doctrines were condemned at Rome in 1666, and Moya, in the third edition of his work, proves the justice of the condemnation, by entering into a refutation of them.

Bauny lived at the same time. He was the intimate friend and confidant of the famous cardinal de la Rochefoucault, archbishop of Sens, and reformer of the Benedictines. He was afterwards a zealous missionary in Bretagne, under the bishop of St. Pol de Leon. He died of his missionary labours. If he treated other

with lenity, it is certain he did not spare himself. His "Somme des Pechés" was written, as he informs us, by the positive order of a bishop, probably the bishop of St. Pol, and it was published by order of the bishop, unaccompanied by the sanction or approbation of any Jesuit; nor was it used in their schools, consequently, its doctrines are nowise attributable to the society. It contains several relaxed propositions, deservedly censured by the French clergy in 1642.

Berruyer is stated by the pamphlet-writer to have been convicted of blasphemy, and condemned by Benedict XIII and Clement XIII. This is not true; he never was convicted of blasphemy. He was not a casuist. His "Histoire da Peuple de Dieu" was censured and condemned by Benedict XIV and Clement XIII. He was a man of much erudition, and master of an agreeable and graceful style, but fond of extraordinary opinions. The chief faults imputed to him are, that he

disparages the simplicity and majesty of the inspired books, by rhetorical tropes and figures, and modern phraseology; and that he discourses on the humanity of the Redeemer in a manner that seems to favour the ancient heresy of the Nestorians. The French Jesuits disavowed the work, and submitted unanimously to the condemnation of it. It is rather surprising, that this author should have been cited among the casuists by the writer of the pamphlet, who, if he had read the imputed blasphemy, would have found in it something of protestant principles, pushed even beyond the reform adopted by our church, refusing the Virgin Mary the title to her being mother of our Saviour in his divine nature. But what does this signify? It is enough to have heard that the book was condemned by a pope, no matter which; it could not have been condemned without being blasphemous; and who could suspect, that a Jesuit had any correspondent sentiment with protestants?

Casnedi was of a noble and ancient Milanese family; a man of great learning, zeal, and piety. He maintained, that the moral merit or demerit of an action depended upon the belief and intention of the agent. A very simple and incontrovertible proposition; but, being expressed in ardent terms, not unlike those used by the fanatical orators of the present day, it makes a flaming show among the articles of impeachment now instituted against the whole society of Jesus.

Benzi is represented in several French and Italian libels in the foul colours copied by the writer of the pamphlet. He was a respectable and much injured man. He was universally revered in Venice, where he was a distinguished director and preacher. Far from teaching the horrors imputed to him, he merely gave an opinion, in writing, on being consulted, whether certain trespasses were to be considered as cases reserved or not reserved. It was merely a questio juris, a technical opinion, and not a

decision on the subject matter. Malice and calumny did the rest.

This, I believe, is the triumphant list of casuists drawn up, rank and file, to confront and confound the whole society to which they are said to have belonged. The philosopher Bayle tells us, that the writers in those days "had only to publish boldly whatever they chose against the Jesuits, they might be certain of convincing an infinite number of people. The prejudice against them had become so general, that, let them bring forward what proofs they might, it was not possible for them to undeceive the world." And he adds; "But I cannot imagine how the rules of morality suffer such an abuse of public prejudice[^[29]]." Had he lived till now, he would have seen, that there are heads of the nineteenth century which can imagine it very virtuous to excite, foment, and augment prejudice on the same subject, in order

to gratify the vanity of writing, or the unfounded spleen of a less relenting philosophy than his own.

The great sources of such historical proofs as have been amassed by the new conspiracy against the Jesuits being proved to be impure and unworthy of credit, it becomes as unnecessary as it is disgusting to wade through the mud and filth of the mass of obscure pamphlets referred to by the writer of the pamphlet, such as "Prynne's hidden Works of Darkness," and "Rome's Masterpiece," "Remarks of a Portugueze," "A true and certain Relation of sundry Machinations and Plots of the Jesuits," "The Anatomy of Popish Tyranny," "Recit des desseins les plus Secrets des Jesuites," "Jesuites Marchands," "Recueil des Procès contre les Jesuites," "Idée generale des Vices," &c. &c. There is, however, one more of the catalogue, which I will notice, to prove still farther the dishonesty of the means taken by the new conspirators to blacken the Jesuits; it is

"Le Franc Discours, or the Memorial presented to Henry IV against them." Did it not become an inquirer into the truth of the accusations, to state the answer of Henry IV to the accusers of the Jesuits? An answer which, in itself alone, is enough to vindicate the society, and unveil the immense and complicated engine so long since put in motion for its destruction; and so irresistibly and successfully employed, in the course of time, by the framers of it. Pius VII is not the first, who has recalled the Jesuits; the great and good Henry IV recalled them, after they had been banished from his kingdom by the machinations of their enemies. Then it was, that he was memorialed; that remonstrance upon remonstrance was laid before him: but Henry was not easily imposed upon by passionate asseverations, nor made the dupe of envious persecutions. On the parliament delaying to give effect to his edict for the re-establishment of the Jesuits, he informed them, that he was determined to be obeyed; but he admitted a deputation of some of their members, with

their first president, Harlay, at their head, who went to the palace to state anew their remonstrances. Dupleix, a French historian, says, that Harlay made a long harangue to the king, which "was rather an invective, filled with all the abuse and outrage in the pleadings of Pasquier and Arnaud; in the Catechism of Pasquier, and in the work entitled Franc Avis, against the society, than the speech of a statesman[^[30]]." Henry's reply lies at this moment before me on the table, and, I think, I should be wanting to the cause of truth and justice, if I neglected to insert it here. It is rather long for a quotation, but it cannot be tedious, and I am certain, that every unprejudiced reader will be gratified with the perusal of it.

"It is very kind, it is very kind of you to be so careful of my person and my kingdom. I know your meaning perfectly; but you do not know mine. You have started difficulties, to your thinking, very great and considerable, and little know, that I have thought on and considered them all these eight or nine years past; and that the best resolutions for the time to come are taken from reflections on things past, which I am acquainted with better than any person whatever. You set up for mighty statesmen, and understand state affairs no more than I do the drawing the report of a cause. As to the affair of Poissy[^[31]] things would have gone much better for the catholics, if all of you had acted your part as well as a Jesuit or two, who, very luckily, happened to be there. There clearly appeared, not the ambition, but the abilities of the Jesuits; and I do not understand how you can make those ambitious, who refuse dignities and prelacies, and make a vow to God never to aspire to any preferment; and, who seek nothing in this world besides serving all that are willing to employ them, without any view of interest or recompence. If the name of Jesuit displease you, why not find fault with those, who stile themselves religious of the Trinity; why not say, that your daughters are as much religious as the nuns, called here daughters of God[^[32]]; and that you are as much of my order of the Holy Ghost as my knights and myself? For my part, I would as soon, or rather, be called Jesuit, than Augustinian or Dominican. As to the churchmen, who except against them, ignorance has always borne a grudge to learning; and I observed, when I began to speak of re-establishing the Jesuits, that two sorts of persons opposed this design; those of the pretended reformed religion, and churchmen of irregular conduct, which has gained them still greater credit and reputation. If the Sorbonne you talk of has condemned them, it was, quite like you, without knowing them; and, if the old Sorbonne would not own them out of jealousy, the new Sorbonne is very proud of, and esteems them; if they were not fixed in France before, God has reserved for me the honour, which indeed I esteem a favour, of settling them; and, if they were only provisionally admitted heretofore, they shall henceforward have a permanent settlement, both by edict and arret. The will of my predecessors kept them here, mine shall establish them. The university opposed them, either because they excelled others (witness the vast concourse of scholars to their colleges), or because they were not incorporated in the university, which will not be refused when I order it; and when I shall see that they stand in need of being better regulated. You say, that the greatest men of your parliament have learned nothing from them: if the oldest are the most learned, you are certainly right; they had ended their studies before the Jesuits had opened their schools. Other parliaments, I am credibly informed, do not say so; nor, indeed, does all yours. They teach better than others; that is the true reason why, since their absence, your University is quite abandoned, and students flock after these masters to Douay, and other places, within and without my kingdom. You say, they engage the brightest geniuses, they examine and pick out the best for their society: I commend them for it. When I raise troops, I chuse those who are likely to turn out the best soldiers. Were there no room for favour amongst you, would you admit any, but what were worthy of being members, and of having a seat in your parliament? I heartily wish you received such only as are quite deserving, and that virtue were always the badge and distinctive mark in posts of honour. If the Jesuits served the public with ignorant masters and preachers, you would despise them; and now, that they employ in your service men of wit and capacity, you are not pleased. As to the great estates, you say, they possessed, it is all calumny and imposture; and I very well know, by the account of the estates re-annexed to the crown, that seven or eight masters could not be maintained at Bourges and Lyons; whereas, when the Jesuits were there, they were thirty or forty in number. But should there be any difficulty in this respect, I have provided against it in my edict. To call them a factious society, for being concerned in the league, is a reproach that falls only on the times. They thought they did well: many others were concerned, with whom they were mistaken and deluded; and they own now, that they have found my intentions quite contrary to what they had preconceived. But, I am inclined to believe, they acted with less malice than others, and that the same disposition, with the favours they receive from me, will make them as affectionate to me, even more so, than they ever were to the league. It is objected, they get footing in cities and towns by all means they can: so do others: I myself got into my kingdom as well as I could. It must be owned, that, with their wonderful patience and regular way of life, they may compass what they will; and their great care not to change or alter any thing in their institute will be the cause of their stability and long continuance. The vow of obedience they make to the pope will not subject them more to his will, than the oath of allegiance they have taken to me will bind them not to undertake any thing against their natural sovereign. But their vow does not extend to every thing, as is vainly pretended; they only make a vow of obeying the pope, when he is pleased to send them to labour for the encouragement of infidels; and, in fact, the Indies are converted by them. As to the opinion of the pope, I know he esteems them greatly; so do I. But you do not tell me, that the pope was upon the point of seizing cardinal Bellarmine's Works, at Rome, for not allowing him as great an extent of jurisdiction as other divines do: and you studiously conceal what the Jesuits have lately maintained, that, though the pope could not err, Clement might be mistaken. Upon the whole, I am persuaded, that they say no more than others of the papal authority; and that, if opinions are to be tried, you must quarrel with those of the catholic church. It is said, that the king of Spain employs Jesuits; I tell you, that I am determined to do the same; why should France fare worse than Spain? Since all the world judges them useful to the public, let me tell you, I think them necessary to my kingdom. As to the doctrine, imputed to them, of withdrawing churchmen from obedience to sovereigns, or teaching subjects to attempt on their lives, it is proper to see, on one side, what they say, and, on the other, what they teach their scholars. What convinces me there is no such thing is, that, for these thirty years past, that they have taught in France, above fifty thousand scholars have been brought up in their colleges, have conversed and lived with them, and not one has yet been found, in that vast number, who pretends to have heard any such discourse among them, or any thing coming up to the doctrine with which they are reproached. What is more, ask protestant ministers, that have lived and studied under them, how the Jesuits live: to be sure, they will not spare them, were it only to justify their leaving the society. I know the question has been put to many, and nothing could ever be got from them, but that their conduct and morals were without exception. Barriere was not encouraged, as you pretend, by any Jesuit. The first notice of that attempt I had from a Jesuit: another told him, he would be damned if he dared to go upon any such design. Châtel never accused them, nor could any torments extort any charge against Varade, or any other Jesuit. If any one had been accused, how came you to spare him? The other Jesuit, that was seized, was taken up on account of some printed papers found in his chamber. After all, though a Jesuit had done that foul deed, which I am resolved to forget, must all the Jesuits suffer, must all the apostles be banished for one Judas? At that time God was pleased to humble and to save me, for which I give him thanks: he teaches me to forgive all offences; and I have done it, freely and willingly, for his sake. I pray daily for my enemies; so far am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very like good Christians, for which I do not thank you. The Jesuits are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do."

With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done, then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an unbiassed

assailant, since (besides being a gentleman and a member of the legislature) he does, in the very act of aiming the blow which he gives, profess the highest admiration, respect, and regard for them. "I am ready to admit," says sir John Hippisley, "the merit of that body of catholics, as far as they are exercised in the secular walk of philosophical and classical instruction; their schools and seminaries have been the most celebrated," &c. Again; "It pains me to speak, in these terms, of a community, comprehending many highly respected ecclesiastics, and, in the bosom of which, many of my valuable friends have received their education," &c. But sir John's "sense of duty overcomes his individual partialities[^[33]]."

In consistency with these professions, sir John seems desirous of confining his objections to some particulars; but he was unable to conceal how willing he is to lay his axe to the tree, root

and branch; for he inserts a note to his speech, in which, not satisfied with protestant objections, he luxuriates in the citation of the "burning of more than fifty publications of Jesuit authors by the common hangman;" in the naming of the authors, whose books were burned; and in recording the very terms of the sentence: seront lacerés et brulés, dans la cour du palais, par l'executeur de la haute justice (the high office translated by sir John common hangman) comme seditieux, destructifs de toute principe de la morale Chretienne, enseignant une doctrine meurtrière et abominable, non-seulement contre la sureté de la vie des citoyens, mais même contre celle des personnes sacrées des souverains. To which is added, a reference to a Portuguese work, for a complete list of the books burned. So much for sir John's sorrow in speaking, in the milder terms of his harangue, on his particular objections, and for the preference he would have given to having his statement reserved for the consideration of a select committee. The reader, long before he arrives at this

preference of secret publicity, will have learned, from good authority, how to appreciate both the sentence and the judges that pronounced it; which sir John, by his recording it, appears not to have been able to do, in spite of the number of his friends, to whom he might have applied for information of the spirit that inflamed the parliament of Paris. But let us see the particular objections made by Sir John Hippisley. Sir John states, that the general of the order being a Russian, the acknowledgment of him by Jesuits in other states is an instance of dependence upon foreign jurisdiction. From this objection, it is to be presumed, that sir John credits the complete despotism, and other horrors, which have been attributed to the character of the general, as well as the prostitution of reason and virtue in all the members of the order, in consequence of the vow of obedience. And he evidently apprehends, that, if we go to war with Russia, the constitution of Great Britain will be endangered by the plots of Jesuits in this country! "We are," says he, "at this hour,

on terms of amity with Russia; within how short a period was it otherwise?" In neither country is catholicism the established religion, yet sir John sees, that Jesuits may busy themselves so foully with Greeks and Lutherans, that the pope will be brought in. The objection is really absurd; but, on the despotism of the general, and the blind obedience of the companions of the order, I shall make some remarks, when I consider the institute itself; at present, I shall only repeat, that these are calumnies to which no man would be a dupe, who had ever cast his eye over the pages of that almost inspired body of religious and moral statutes. The general, as well as the members of the community, is bound by those laws. A general congregation may be assembled, without his consent, and in defiance of him, to make laws against him: and "blind obedience is a sacrifice of passion, not of reason; Jesuits are to obey blindly, only when they see clearly, that they may do so without a crime, nay, without the slightest fault." The obedience which all religious, as well as Jesuits, paid to their chief

superior, who generally resided at Rome, was well understood to relate merely to their professional duties. It was first made an object of jealousy, exclusively with regard to the Jesuits, at the time that the parliaments were studying every mode of making them odious; and, before that time, the native country of their general was a matter of indifference. The native country of the pope was never alleged as a motive for rejecting his authority. The obedience of the Jesuits was voluntary; and they knew, from their institute, that it never could supersede the duty which they owed to the government under which they lived. Can sir John adduce a single instance of a Jesuit's betraying the country, or the government, which protected him? The first superiors of the French Jesuits were Spaniards and Italians. The superior of the Venetian Jesuits, during the famous contest between that state and Paul V, was a Frenchman.

In friendly consideration for the instructors of his numerous valuable friends, sir John informs

the House of Commons, that, though the empress of Russia countenanced the re-organization of the society within her dominions, "it was in a degraded state, to suit the views of her policy;" and, in a note, he informs the world at large, that "a correspondent of great consideration observed, that the empress was well pleased with the opportunity of snapping her fingers (narguer) at the courts of Versailles and Madrid, and showing them and the world at large, that she could render the institution tractable by her superior authority and management; that is, that she could tame wild beasts, which they were forced to destroy[^[34]]." It is not for me to

divine by what means sir John, or his correspondent, obtained such possession of the secrets of Catherine's mind, as to be able to decide, in the face of the world, that her conduct, in saving the Jesuits, was guided by petty motives of private interest, and especially the secret desire de narguer, in plain English to jeer and jibe, to fleer and flout, the French and Spanish courts; but, if so, it evidently supposes some previous cause of dissatisfaction with those courts. What that cause was it is for sir John or his correspondent to state: to the generality of men, I believe, it remains a mystery. I am ignorant of any such cause, and, being in the class of ordinary observers, I ascribe the conduct of the empress to the more generous motives, which she and her two successors have avowed to the world. These are, the duty of providing for their catholic subjects suitable ministers and teachers; their knowledge

that the Jesuits of White Russia are such; their abhorrence of the injustice, which would strip them of their property, of their civil state and profession, and abolish their canonical existence, without any proof of crime or misdemeanour; and, finally, their royal word and faith pledged to maintain inviolably the status quo of the catholic religion and its ministers, as settled in the pacta conventa of the cession of White Russia to their dominion[^[35]]. These motives

have something in them honourable, generous, and dignified. I revere the empress, who, acting upon them, could at once read a lesson of justice to other monarchs, and rescue from destruction a remnant of the persecuted society. Instead of attributing to her the paltry spirit de narguer, I will, with sir John's permission, apply to her the praise which Cicero addressed to Cæsar, in his oration for Marcellus: "Nobilissimam familiam, jam ad paucos redactam, pene ab interitu vindicasti!" Sir John will not refuse her this compliment, when he discovers the extraordinary inaccuracy into which he has been betrayed by his informer. He asserts[^[36]], that Catherine "secured the tractability of these

restless men by the sine qua non of the residence of their general, a subject, within the state." It is true, that their general could not conveniently reside in any other state; but my information emboldens me to affirm, that no restraint whatever was laid upon the Jesuits, in the election of their generals; that they have already elected five in Russia, all of whom have been foreigners. The three first were Poles, of whom one, named by sir John, F. Carew, was of British extraction. Their late general, Gruber, was an Austrian; the present superior is a Prussian, and is actually expected at Rome.

In a detail of restrictions he mentions the superintendence of the seminaries being consigned to the ministry of public inspection, and asserts, that priests of the Greek national church are directed to attend the Jesuit colleges, to instruct the pupils of the Greek communion in religion. I am unacquainted with the weight of authority to be allowed to sir John's correspondent; but, certainly, the result of my inquiries differs

widely from the information communicated by him. The Jesuits have, ever since their establishment in Russia, been treated with unsuspecting liberality. The integrity of their institute has been scrupulously maintained, and the authority given to the catholic archbishop of Mohilow has ever been exactly confined within the limits prescribed by the council of Trent. By a law of the present emperor, all colleges were subjected to the control of the university of Petersburgh. The Jesuits, feeling the inconvenience of this, soon had their own chief college of Polosk erected into a university, by which they became exempted from the temporary control. They have an establishment at Petersburgh, called the "College of Nobles," into which young noblemen only are admitted as pensioners, and these are educated in the regular collegiate discipline, whatever be their religion. They attend at divine service, and at public catechisms and instructions. The majority of them are of the national religion, and, if their parents or they themselves desire it, the

superior of the Jesuits permits a priest of the Greek church to come to the college on Sunday, where he explains the national catechism to them in a private room. Beyond this he has nothing to do in the house. This practice may be known at court, but it was neither enjoined nor recommended by the court. This is the account I have collected of the Jesuits in Russia, and, I am persuaded, that they are not more restricted than the catholics in general, whom sir John appears to attack through the Jesuits, for in this long note (page 36), which seemed exclusively designed for the exposure of their Russian degradation, he slides unexpectedly into an exposure of "the restrictions, which attach generally upon the exercise of the Roman catholic discipline." In this I have here no part to take, the general question has passed through abler hands than mine; my subject confines me to the society of the Jesuits, and in so doing calls upon me to notice the advertisement prefixed to sir John Hippisley's Speech. In that advertisement we find it to be sir John's opinion,

that the bull of Pius VII, by which the order of Jesuits is restored, should not be published without the rescript of Clement XIV, by which it was suppressed, as a pendant; and, in a style of triumphant irony, he leaves it to the consideration of an author favourable to the society[^[37]], on comparing the pontifical acts, "whether he can advantageously take the field against the memorable rescript of Ganganelli, and enter the lists with the living writers of his own communion, who espouse that deliberate pontifical act; for," says he, "it does not appear, that the denunciation pronounced by the bull of Pius VII has extinguished the ardour of the opponents of the constitution, which he has so solemnly re-embodied. Two publications on the subject have issued from the French press, since the date of this bull, namely, Du Pape et des Jesuites, and, Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre Politique, Religieux, et Moral.

The first is ascribed to the pen of a Pere de l'Oratoire, the other announced as the work of M. S***, Ancien Magistrat. A perusal of these tracts," continues sir John, "and especially the brief of Pius VII, will lead to the discovery, whether the society have been most successfully attacked or defended by the French writers or by Mr. Plowden."

The Jesuits are more obliged to sir John for this position of the subject than, I believe, he meant they should be. I cannot judge of Mr. Plowden's success, not having seen his publication, but I think and hope to find it complete, from sir John's own statement in this advertisement. I am also unacquainted with the two overpowering French pamphlets alluded to; but their titles and authors are enough to convince me, that the new conspiracy against the Jesuits extends to France, that I am answering the pamphlets without seeing them, and that they are nothing more than the crambe repetita, the dying echoes, of the Jansenists,

parliamentarians, and jacobins. Can sir John have read the accounts, to be found in various authors, of the persecution of the Jesuits, and not suspect the very appellations of Father of the Oratory, and Ancient Magistrate? If he does me the honour to read this sketch, he will, I hope, know what value to set upon them. But what surprises me most is, that he does not seem to be aware, that the Jesuits had always enemies in their own communion, for, by underlining these words, he shows, that he thinks it a strong proof of guilt when Roman catholics espouse the suppression of the order. A moment's reflection will bring to his mind, that the most powerful of the ancient conspiracy against the Jesuits were, at least, professed catholics; the Arnauds, the Pasquiers, the Monclars, the Chalotais; not to mention the D'Alemberts, Diderots, Condorcets, who, indeed, though educated catholics, were professed atheists or deists. The same may be said of Vatel, and some others cited by sir John. Vatel was a fanatical deist; Dupin a notorious Jansenist; Pereira a devoted creature

of Pombal. Envious men, and philosophers, do not spare others because they are of the same religious communion. If this motive prevailed, much sparring and abuse would be saved among protestants as well as among catholics. But, to come to the principal point of view, in which sir John's advertisement has happily placed the cause of the Jesuits.

History shows us, that, however extensive and complete the power of the popes may have been in former remote periods, they had a very difficult part to sustain in later times, and that they were often obliged to court the catholic monarchs, and to yield, that they might not be forced[^[38]]. This was peculiarly the case with Clement XIV, whose philosophical name, Ganganelli, sir John significantly shoots at us through the rifle of Italics, and it was his

avowed policy, even before his elevation to the pontificate, that the Jesuits were to be sacrificed, in spite of their innocence, in spite of their religious and moral virtues, in spite of his own attachment and approbation, to the necessity of preserving the favour of the monarchs of Europe. "Portugal," says he, "will never give up her opinion, in which I see other kingdoms that will confirm and support her. Kings no longer live unconnected with one another, as formerly; they form friendships, and act in concert; so that, if we are unfortunate enough to offend one, we may offend all; and, instead of having one enemy to deal with, we have all Europe upon us[^[39]]."—"Little minds imagine, that one must be displeased with a certain religious society, if one does not support them in defiance of kings. But, besides that resisting the potentates would only multiply storms for them, one would not, through partiality to them, embroil oneself with all the catholic princes[^[40]]." This is pretty plain

language, but what follows is in more direct terms, and, I think, is a decisive proof of the motives, which influenced the writer in the suppression of the Jesuits, when the tiara was placed upon his head: "Now it is, that we must make use of that wisdom of the serpent which Jesus Christ recommends to his apostles. It is no doubt grievous, that a religious brotherhood intended for colleges, seminaries, and missions, and who have written much on the truths of religion, should be deserted at a time when incredulity has broken loose with fury against the religious orders; but the question to be decided before God is, whether it is better to contend with the sovereigns than to give up a religious society. For my part, I think, on seeing the storm that gathers howling from all quarters, and which we perceive already over our heads, that it is right for us to act ourselves without waiting, and to sacrifice what is most agreeable rather than incur the anger of the sovereigns, which we cannot too much dread. Let our holy father,

and his secretary of state, love the Jesuits sincerely, I subscribe with all my heart to the attachment they have for the society; but I shall always say, notwithstanding my veneration for St. Ignatius, and the esteem in which his disciples are held, that it is very dangerous, nay, very rash, to, support the Jesuits in the present circumstances[^[41]]." These sentiments of cardinal Ganganelli would not serve well for a pendant to the brief of Clement XIV, yet, for the sake of truth and justice, they should be always printed together, and go down side by side to posterity. Where now is "the formidable array of pontiffs," which show that Ganganelli "is not the solitary impugner," among popes, of the order of Jesuits? Ganganelli tells you, that they were tossed on a stormy sea, where they were obliged to manage their sails dexterously, that they might not sink themselves; and, in the very rescript which sir John has hung by the side of Pius VII's bull

in his appendix, he declares, that it blew so hard from the four quarters, France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily (see page 24), that he was under the necessity of throwing the Jesuits overboard: "Our dear sons in Jesus Christ," says he, "having made known their demands and wills in this matter."

Clement XIV vainly flattered himself, that, by making ample concessions to the importunity of the combined ministers, by persecuting the Jesuits in detail, contrary to his own conviction, he should, in the end, escape the necessity of crushing them altogether. It was the policy of Pontius Pilate. His whole reign was one series of vexatious treatment; even outrages against them. From the first day of his pontificate they were the only Christians excluded from access to the common father. His condescension only betrayed his weakness, and enhardened the ministerial conspirators. When, at length, he found it impossible to resist them, without incurring the loss of his states, "he gave sentence,

that it should be as they required[^[42]]." He resorted to the principle of the high priest, in St. John, chap. ii, verse 50, the expediency of which is so clearly announced in his Letters[^[43]]. But here three things sorely distressed him: the incongruity and injustice of condemning the Jesuits without a trial, which he knew the ministers would not permit; the approbation of their institute by the council of Trent; and the concurring approbation of the order by nearly twenty popes, especially the very recent constitution, or bull, of his immediate predecessor, Clement XIII, solemnly published, and received by the whole church. The applicants for the destruction of the order undertook to remove his scruples.

I am obliged to sir John for drawing my attention to Ganganelli's brief, which I might otherwise have passed over without much

scrutiny. He is of opinion, that it should accompany the bull of the reigning pontiff; but some connoisseurs may think, that it will show to more advantage exhibited between the just mentioned bull apostolicum of Clement XIII and that of Pius VII: it would thus have a pendant on each side, eliciting, by a double contrast, all the effects of art. The bull apostolicum formed a principal objection to the grand plan of destruction, not easy to be evaded. It was so recent, so public, so solemn, so decisive. It was a distinct and specific approbation and confirmation of the society of Jesus; it repeated the sentiments of all popes from Paul III; it was solicited by hundreds of bishops; it was formally communicated to the college of cardinals, and was applauded by them all; it was accepted by every catholic bishop; it had every character of a formal judgment of the whole catholic church. Clement XIV and his advisers dared not to contradict it by another bull; it would have been a great scandal. The cardinals could not have concurred in it. The inferior,

and less authoritative, mode of brief, or private letter, or rescript, in which it was not usual to consult the cardinals, was adopted. In this, the difficulty presented by the apostolicum of Clement XIII is overleaped in a short and peremptory way, by an absurd declaration of its having been extorted rather than granted, without any proof, and in defiance of the number of circumstances which demonstrate the contrary. As sir John appears to be unacquainted with this famous constitution of Clement XIII, published in the beginning of 1765, and as it is perhaps the best written official document which Rome has, for many years, sent forth, it shall be inserted in the Appendix in its original language[^[44]].

The more I consider Ganganelli's rescript, the more am I surprised at the pitiful attempts made to lay down something like an apology for injustice, and the more am I disgusted with its want of principle. It opens with a long narration

of the suppression of various small religious associations by ancient popes, but it leaves us quite in the dark as to the justice or injustice of those several suppressions. It informs us, that several complaints had been made, at several times, to several popes, of the Jesuits; but it omits to tell us, that those complaints had always been either rejected, or refuted, or disregarded, by those several popes, whose public acts attest that they were, one and all, friends and supporters of the society[^[45]]. The brief then recites the jus, or leading maxim, on which the whole procedure hinges, and which, in spite of

the Roman canon, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, solves the pope's first difficulty, or scruple, of punishing without trial: it is this; that the slow and fallible method of proceeding before courts of justice must be avoided; that reliance must be placed WHOLLY on that plenitude of power, which popes possess in so eminent a degree, as vicars of Christ upon earth, and as sovereign moderators of the Christian republic; and that regular orders, which they propose to suppress, ought not to be allowed the faculty of producing any arguments in their defence, or of clearing themselves from the heavy accusations brought against them. These are the words of the brief, as given by sir John in the translation of it in the Appendix to his Speech; in other words, the accused may be punished without being heard. This requires no comment; every British heart will suggest a just one.

Let us now see how Ganganelli gets over the difficulty arising from the approbation of the council of Trent. To the eternal disgrace of

this brief, then, we find the operative or suppressing clause made to depend upon a paltry sophism. Stating the demands and wishes of his dear sons, the kings and ministers, with the addition of pressing solicitations from some bishops and other persons, Clement, for a salvo to his conscience, declares (page 25), "that to choose the wisest course, in an affair of so much importance, he determined not to be precipitate, but to take due time to examine attentively, weigh carefully, and wisely debate upon it." What was done? "First of all," continues the brief, "we proposed to examine upon what grounds rested the common opinion, that the institute of the clerks of the company of Jesus had been approved and confirmed in a special manner by the council of Trent! And we found, that, in the said council, nothing more was done, with regard to the said society, than to except it from the general decree respecting other orders. The same council declared, that it meant not to make any change or innovation in the government of the clerks of the company of Jesus, that

they might not be hindered from being useful to God and his church, according to the intent of the pious institute approved by the holy see." If the lines in italics are not an especial approval and confirmation of the institute, then must I confess, that I know not the meaning of the words approval and confirmation. To my understanding they convey a most decided approbation and confirmation of the institute. Well, what succeeds the imprimis? What does the pontiff next examine, weigh, and debate attentively, carefully, and wisely? The reader will look in vain for the second head of wise deliberation; the actuating assertion immediately follows: "actuated by so many and important considerations," &c. &c., and impelled by fear, for that is the import of the following sentences, "WE DO SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY." The only possible apology, that can be made for Clement, in this rescript, is, that he acted, as lawyers term it, under duress. After his own avowal, while a cardinal, can any man doubt, that he

imagined that the intrigues going on in France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily, against the Jesuits, would prove fatal to the power of Rome, if the society were protected? The whole of the preamble of his rescript consists of the approbation of his predecessors, and the appeals of the intriguers of the nations around him against the Jesuits. At last, the Inquisition[^[46]] of Spain (see page 20), press so strongly, that Sixtus V determines to examine the matter; but he is saved the misfortune by death, and his successor, Gregory XIV, approves of the institution of the society in its utmost extent, confirms their privileges, and ordains that, under pain of excommunication, all proceedings against the society should be quashed (page 21). In short, neither in the multifarious preamble, nor in the short actuating clause, does Clement XIV once advance an opinion of his

own adverse to the society; but throughout lends himself to the representations of foreign cabals, to which he at last confessedly sacrifices them.

All, then, that this rescript proves is, that powerful parties prevailed, in certain states, against the Jesuits, and that Clement XIV, notwithstanding the approval and confirmation of the council of Trent, evinced by their declaration, as above cited; notwithstanding the approval and confirmation of successive popes; notwithstanding his own approval and regret (all clearly inserted in this rescript); found himself compelled, by the pressure of unjust and arbitrary power, to withhold his confirmation, to suppress and abolish a society, to whom he knew it was doubtful, whether religion and piety or science and letters were more indebted.

Such is the analysis of the luminous brief of destruction, so triumphantly referred to by sir John Hippisley; such the sanction of peace

and amity with the philosophical ministers, Pombal, Choiseul, Aranda, &c. The pontifical domain was to be saved; the portions of it already seized, Avignon, Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, &c., to be restored; the turbulent Jesuits extinct, harmony and concord were to bless the earth! How were these glorious prospects realized? Every succeeding year involved the Roman see in fresh troubles: new invasions of its spiritual and temporal rights continued to distress the succeeding pontiff, Pius VI, and, at last, conducted him to death in a dungeon, although, to save his domain from the grasp of violence, he had consented, that Ganganelli's brief should subsist unaltered.

It is now evident, that the suppression of the Jesuits was the result of the conspiracy formed against them; in Spain and Sicily by the Inquisition, in Portugal by Pombal, and in France by the Jansenists, the parliaments, and philosophers: how just and wise we have seen; let us now inquire whence results their restoration

by Pius VII. "The catholic world demands, with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the society of Jesus. We daily receive, to this effect, the most pressing petitions, from our venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops[^[47]], and the most distinguished persons, especially since the abundant fruits, which this society has produced in the above countries (Russia and Sicily), have been generally known." There is a striking contrast between the simplicity and direct language of this bull, and the artful and complicated expositions with which Ganganelli labours in his brief to lull his own conscience, and to justify, in the sight of others, the act he thought to be necessary. And why is the re-establishment of the society demanded? From a hope, that they may counteract the evils, which the neglect of religious education has suffered to spread over the world, and from a

conviction that they were put down by the disciples of a false philosophy combining with the vilest of passions. In regard to protestant countries, their principles of loyalty are conclusive in their favour; and, in spite of the popish plots, it has been proved, that their religious doctrines never led them, as a body, to interfere in political affairs. These motives for their re-establishment, and my last observation, naturally remind me, that it is time to state the authorities, so highly honourable to the society, which I have been induced to examine and collect; there are, however, two other circumstances mentioned by sir John Hippisley, which I cannot pass over without notice. He objects to students for the priesthood among the Jesuits being sent abroad, to Sicily, to obtain ordination, instead of receiving it at the hands of their own national prelates. It appears, by this, that sir John is not aware that, in an order, it is requisite to obtain ordination through a superior of the order.

In all religious orders, candidates for priesthood must be presented by their proper religious superior to some bishop. The prelate may examine the candidate; and, if he has no canonical objection, he promotes him to orders on the title of religious poverty; the superior, or the order, remaining answerable for his maintenance. But no priest of the regulars can assume any exercise of ministerial functions, in preaching, or administering sacraments, without licence of the diocesan prelate, who may examine, suspend, and correct him, incurring thus a certain responsibility. Of this subjection of regulars to the established prelates, surely, sir John must have been aware; why, then, endeavour to alarm us with the prospect of Jesuits colonizing in the south of Italy, for the purpose of overspreading these islands? I have reason, upon recent inquiry, to suspect, that sir John has been misled by his Sicilian informer, as to the voyagers for the priesthood; and the supposed system of seeking

furtive ordinations beyond the seas will vanish before a plain relation of a few trifling facts. In 1806 an ecclesiastical student, on account of his health, embarked for Naples in a neutral ship, which touched at Palermo, where he remained, having learned that Buonaparte had seized on Naples: he was joined, the next year, by another student, who went abroad from the same motive, that of health. To be of use to their catholic countrymen, whose number was daily increasing, by the arrival of new regiments, they entered into holy orders, though, it appears, they were not allowed to officiate as priests among them. These recovered their health, and returned home. In the course of the three ensuing years, one priest, and ten students, who were impressed with a strong desire to study in a catholic university, went also, at different times, to Palermo, where they experienced a similar disappointment in their zeal. Two of the students left Sicily before they were ordained, and one died before ordination, leaving nine, the whole number

ordained. The priest also died abroad. So that, instead of nineteen, there were altogether only nine, who obtained orders: one of these is the distinguished president of the new seminary of education in Ireland. For the last six years, not one catholic student has had a thought of following their example. Such trifling occasional emigrations of a few students will neither alarm nor surprise those who know, that, for more than two centuries, the penal laws have driven all English and Irish catholics, who were not content to live in ignorance at home, to seek education abroad; that this had become an invariable custom; and that every year scores of British subjects went abroad.

Sir John also objects to the Jesuits' appropriating any pecuniary resource, arising from the wreck of their society, to the uses of a seminary of education; he thinks it opposite to the principle, which gave birth to the institution of Maynooth; and is for seizing, and

bestowing on Maynooth, thirty thousand pounds of their money, which they are said to have generously transmitted to Ireland, for the establishment of a place of education (page 39 of the printed Speech). How would this agree with that spirit of humanity, benevolence, and hospitality, to say nothing at present of justice, which prompted the genius of Britain to give an asylum to these persecuted servants of God, against the relentless fury of jacobins and philosophers? Besides, the institution of Maynooth, and the establishment intended differ widely: the college of Maynooth is particularly designed for clerical education; that to which the thirty thousand pounds is to be devoted is to be a seminary for general learning; an establishment, which must be attended with most salutary consequences to Ireland, where it will prevent emigration of the catholic youth, and where, with religion and knowledge, it will undoubtedly confirm and spread the spirit of loyalty. It would be, I was going to say, madness; it would surely be unwise, to check,

on old worn-out prejudices, the happy growth of a spirit, which has, in that country, met much to struggle with, and only wants to be enlightened to show itself as firm and ardent as in any part of the empire.

After all, I have good grounds to know, that sir John is misinformed respecting the source of the gift of thirty thousand pounds to the new seminary: no money has been recently transmitted from the society here to Ireland. The sum, on which the new house of education is rising, was not secured by the Jesuits from the wreck of the society: it is, strictly, the private property of a free Briton. This, I am informed, on good authority, is the fact; but, supposing it had been saved by the Jesuits from the ruin of their continental establishments, from which they were so cruelly turned adrift, and plundered by despots, because they were Englishmen; nay, supposing every guinea of it had been coined at the mint of king Nicolas of Paraguay, could this authorize sir John to assume the despotic

principle of a foreign minister, a Pombal, a Choiseul, and to decide at once, de son chef, in the land of liberty, that his unoffending fellow subjects, who, under the safeguard of the laws, are prosecuting an honourable profession, shall again be stripped and subjected to arbitrary confiscation? If the Ganganellian maxim, that "the accused may be plundered without being heard," be tolerated at Rome, in the "plenitude of power, which the pope possesses, as moderator of the Christian republic," it is far otherwise in this happy land, where men, no longer persecuted for their religious opinions, maintaining their sworn allegiance to their king, are sure for their persons and property to find safety in the laws, and protection from the sovereign.

I have spoken of sir John Hippisley's opinions freely; I trust I have not done it coarsely. I was greatly surprised to find him taking the part he does. Of Clement XIV I feel inclined to speak more harshly than I have. I remember being pleased with his Letters when I was a

boy, upon the same principle that I was pleased with the meeting of the Etats Generaux, in 1789, at Versailles, where I was a spectator: a philosophical pope, and a philosophical senate, were mental bon bons, adapted to the puerile taste of my understanding; but, grown old, I have no relish for either. Ganganelli degraded the tiara, and helped to prepare the French revolution.

I now return to our authorities. I have anticipated several great names incidentally, while engaged in canvassing those cited against the Jesuits; to these I have now to add the empress Catherine of Russia; of many popes, Clement XIII in particular, and the very destroyer of the society, Clement XIV; M. D'Eguilles, president of the parliament of Thoulouse; the abbé Proyart, author of a work entitled, Louis XVI dethroné avant d'etre Roi; Montesquieu, Haller, Muratori, Buffon, Grotius, Leibnitz, Bacon, Frederick the Great, Johnson, Bausset, Richelieu, Raynal, Juan, and Ulloa; with a multitude

of historians and biographers, to say nothing of the Jesuit writers themselves. But the most striking testimony in favour of the society, is a formal judgment given by the bishops of France on certain articles proposed for their examination, by Louis XV, relative to the doctrine, the government, the conduct, and usefulness of the French Jesuits. How any man can withstand such an array of testimony, I am at a loss to conceive; and still more how he can venture, at this time of day, to arm himself with the calumnies and horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to attack a body of men, and a code of regulations, nowise accountable for the errors and crimes of individuals, at periods when men, in general, were as inveterate on the score of religious doctrines, as they have lately been on that of liberty and equality; when the Catholic and the Hugonot were alike ferocious and cruel, in the maintenance of their respective systems, though they scarcely equalled the fury and the horrors demonstrated by the deists, atheists, and democratical despots, who

preceded the settled tyranny, which has been just overthrown by the united force of Europe. The Jesuits were, indeed, the great preachers of the Christian religion, such as it had been received for ages; but they are no more answerable for the opinions on regicide, murder, and other horrid doctrines of former distracted times, than are the Washingtons and Franklins for the atrocities of the Robespierres and Marats in our own days of political insanity.

It will perhaps be thought necessary, that I should give something more than the illustrious names I have cited; I shall therefore proceed to prove, that I have not pressed them into the cause of the Jesuits, but enrolled them on their voluntary appearance. I shall omit those, whom I have already incidentally quoted, and arrange the others in the order in which I have mentioned them.

CATHERINE II, OF RUSSIA.

Catherine, when at Mohiloff, found, that the people of that part of her dominions professed the catholic religion, and that they were very much attached to the order of Jesuits. She appointed a catholic archbishop of Mohiloff, and gave him a Jesuit as a coadjutor. She permitted, at the same time, the establishment of a seminary of Jesuits, the direction of which was confided to father Gabriel Denkiewitz, appointed vicar-general of his order. In the year 1783, she sent the archbishop of Mohiloff's coadjutor, whose name was Benelawski, to Rome, as minister from the court of Russia, who carried a letter from her to Pius VI, demanding the re-establishment of the society of Jesuits, which, though at the time disavowed at Petersburgh, through deference to the Greek Christians, was actually written with her own hand. The following passages are extracted from the letter: "I know, that your holiness is under considerable

embarrassments. Your dignity cannot harmonize with politics, so long as politics are at variance with religion. The motives, which have induced me to grant protection to the Jesuits, are founded in reason and justice, as well as on the hope of their becoming useful to my states. This assemblage of peaceable and inoffensive men shall live in my empire, because, of all catholic societies, they are the best qualified to instruct my subjects, and to inspire them with sentiments of humanity and the genuine principles of the Christian religion. I am resolved to support these priests against every power whatever; and, in so doing, I only perform my duty, as I am their sovereign, and look upon them as faithful, useful, and innocent subjects. I am so much the more desirous of seeing four of them invested with the power of confirming at Moscow and Petersburgh, as the two catholic churches of those cities are confided to their care[^[48]]." The pope made the circumstance

known to the French and Spanish ambassadors, who consulted their respective courts, neither of which, however, chose openly to interfere. It was an embarrassing situation for Pius VI; the suppression of the order was too recent; he wished neither to treat the memory of Clement XIV with disrespect, nor to embroil himself with France or Spain; and, in complying with the request of Catherine, he acted with circumspection and without parade. In considering this event, an obvious remark presents itself: for upwards of thirty years past, the society of the Jesuits have been established in Russia, yet we hear nothing of that empire being disturbed either with religious or civil broils, fomented by them; though I should not be surprised, if, on reflection, the death of Paul were to be imputed, by the modern conspirators, to their machinations. On the contrary, the internal tranquillity of that country was never more apparent, and the improvement of the mind has made rapid strides. The placing of the Jesuits in her dominions is a proof of the

sagacity of Catherine, and I doubt whether Russia was ever more indebted to any sovereign than for this step, which was at once magnanimous, wise, and popular.

CLEMENT XIII.

I should not have thought of enrolling a pope among the authorities in favour of the Jesuits, it being natural to suppose, that every pope was a friend to the society, had I not found a list of them arrayed against them by sir John Hippisley, on the authority of Ganganelli's rescript. Now, that the sovereign pontiffs interfered in the proceedings and writings of the members of the society; that they blamed them for the dissentions in which their zeal involved them with their enemies in all parts of the world; and that they have condemned some of the fanatical (for this is a term as appropriate to catholic as puritan zealots), I say some of the fanatical maxims formerly preached by individuals is not denied, and has

been already noticed in these pages; and this is all that can be gathered from the rescript; but that this renders the popes impugners of the order is far from being the fact, and for this reason it is I have been induced to cite this pontiff, as well as his successor, in the catalogue of authorities. By the word impugner, I presume, that sir John means assailant; now, that the disapproval of some casuists, and the blaming of untimely or misplaced zeal of some of the society was no assailing of the order, the following words of Clement XIII, addressed to the archbishops and bishops of France, will, I think, sufficiently prove: "But the thing, which gives the deepest wound to the public weal, and to the faithful, which is the greatest insult to the apostolic see and to you, is the persecution they have raised against the society of Jesus, which has ever supplied the church with many able champions, and now, by the credit of a prevailing faction, is oppressed and dissipated. Its institute, that institute, which the Roman catholic church,

assembled in the council of Trent, approved of; that institute upon which our predecessors have bestowed so many solemn encomiums; which has hitherto found protection and received the most signal marks of favour from the kings of France; that institute, which you yourselves, not so much out of gratitude as from a principle of equity, have celebrated and publicly declared, that it was of very singular service to you in your respective dioceses, is now loaded with antiquated and groundless calumnies, is treated as a pest, which had crept into the church, and is publicly burned with all the marks of infamy[^[49]]."

GANGANELLI.

Enough has been said of Clement XIV, in the foregoing pages, to entitle me to place him among the authorities in favour of the Jesuits,

though the solemn act, by which he extirpated the order, may be said to involve him among their assailants. The motives and grounds of that act are clear, and his private opinion of the order is no less manifest. Men, who approve of this act of Clement, are not aware that they are approving of a corrupt maxim, with which the enemies of the Jesuits calumniate the society. Besides, the destruction of the order was a certain evil, and the good to arise from it, the security and inviolability of the holy see, was far from being a certain consequence; the contrary has been proved by subsequent events. The growth of one generation sufficed to strip the tiara of the veneration due to it, and to threaten every crown in Europe with ruin. Philosophical universities and academies were every where, on the continent, substituted for the colleges of the Jesuits; religion and reason no longer went hand in hand in education; the latter, with all her spurious offspring, was held up as the grand object and distinguishing character of man; the former was neglected,

or ridiculed, and soon lost even its name in that of superstition. In 1773, Clement XIV abolished the order: in 1793, a king of France was beheaded; Reason was deified, and altars erected to her in various countries; anarchy followed impiety; demons were chosen to rule, or rather to confound all order. A successor of Ganganelli was torn from Rome, to die in captivity; and others have, since, been degraded into tools of the most absolute and heathenish tyranny that ever existed on the earth. It is very evident, therefore, that the preservation of the power of Rome did not depend upon the destruction of the order of the Jesuits, but, rather, that the rescript of 1773 was a warrant for the imprisonment, if not the death, of Pius VI, and the subsequent overthrow of the holy see. That rescript was, therefore, the result of a short-sighted policy. It is impossible to read Ganganelli's Letters, and deny that he was highly intellectual, virtuous, religious, and amiable; nor would I confound the philosophy which he cultivated, with that which is

destructive of religious hope and political order; but his whole conduct, in the affair of the Jesuits, proves, that his soul was not formed to the honours of martyrdom, as he was ready to act against his own conviction, and to sacrifice principle to convenience; a maxim peculiarly impugned by Jesuits, and by catholics in general.

In addition to the proofs of his good opinion of the society already given, I will here insert a passage to be found in the twelfth volume of the Annual Register. In addressing the courts of Paris, Madrid, and Naples, after his elevation to the pontificate, he states, that, "in regard to the Jesuits, he could neither blame nor annihilate an institute, which had been applauded and confirmed by nineteen of his predecessors; that he could the less do it, because it had been authentically confirmed by the council of Trent; and that, by the French maxims, the general council was above the

pope: that, if it was desired, he would call a council, in which every thing should be discussed with justice and equity, and the Jesuits heard in their own defence; that he owed to the Jesuits, as to all the religious orders, justice and protection; that, besides, the states of Germany, the king of Sardinia, and the king of Prussia, had written to him in their behalf; and that he could not, by their destruction, content some princes, without displeasing others." Nevertheless, without calling a council, without hearing their defence, he destroyed them; and, certainly, it will ever be a matter of astonishment, that, in a cause of such magnitude, a Roman pontiff, whatever motives may have impelled him to pronounce the suppression, could so far assimilate himself with the ministers of Portugal, Spain, Naples, and France, as to overlook that primary maxim, which Rome, whether Pagan or Christian, had in all ages respected: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that

he, which is accused, have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him[^[50]]."

The writer of some anecdotes annexed to his Letters, relates one, which shows the notoriety of the fact, that his suppression of the Jesuits was not the effect of a bad opinion of the order: as it is applicable to the subject I will insert it here. "While the bells were ringing, and cannon firing, to celebrate his exaltation, the general of the Jesuits observed, with a sigh, there tolls our passing-bell. Not," says the writer, "that Ganganelli was hostile to the Jesuits, but because he thought it was necessary to attend to the representations of the sovereigns."

THE PRESIDENT D'EGUILLES.

This gentleman was the Aristides of the French magistracy. I have already mentioned

him, when speaking of Monclar's Compte Rendu[^[51]]. His opinion of the persecution of the society will be seen in the following passage, which was addressed by him to Louis XV. "If the church be incessantly outraged, by the judgments passed against the institute of the Jesuits, the throne is still more pointedly attacked, upon the two principal motives, which instigate the enemies of the Jesuits to work their destruction. The first of these motives is, plainly, to deprive a society, which is entirely devoted to the interests of its king, of the education of youth; but more especially of the youth of the nobility. The second, which is equally as dangerous, is, to astound all the other bodies of the kingdom by the terrible fall of that, which seemed the most unlikely to be shaken; and thus to make them sensible, that the hatred of the parliaments is more to be dreaded than the protection of the king to be coveted."

ABBE PROYART.

In his work entitled "Louis XVI dethroned before he was King," speaks of the Jesuits in these words: "The Jesuits, considered only in the light of public teachers, were, during their existence, the first supports of the throne."—"The destruction of the Jesuits was the ruin of the precious edifice of national education, and gave a general shock to public morality." The abbé, from his many testimonies in favour of the Jesuits, being suspected to be one of their order, openly declares, "that he never belonged to the society, and that he owed them only truth and justice, for that he was not even indebted to them for his education."

VOLTAIRE.

I have already cited Voltaire, but I place him in the list here, for the purpose of inserting some farther extracts from his Letters. When

he was solicited by the Jansenistical magistrates to join with them in accusing the Jesuits of the crime of regicide, he gave this remarkable answer, in his Letter to the Atheist Damilaville: "I should rouse posterity in their behalf, if I accused them of a crime, of which Europe, and Damiens himself, have acknowledged them innocent." Writing, in 1765, three years after the suppression of the Jesuits, to the same Damilaville, he thus exults in the realized expectations of D'Alembert: "Victory declares for us on every side. I can assure you, that, in a short time, the rabble alone will remain under the standard of our enemies." In subsequent letters he declares, that "a general revolution was making its appearance in every quarter; that philosophy was gaining strength in the north of Germany; that similar revolutions were taking place in Poland, Italy, and Spain." Such was the rapid effect of the substitution of philosophical to religious education! However borne away by the charms of

philosophy, Voltaire was greatly attached to the Jesuits, and had the highest opinion of them: this he fully expresses in a letter to father de la Tour, principal of the college of Louis le Grand, where he was himself educated, which has been already cited.

MONTESQUIEU.

Montesquieu, mentioning the government of Paraguay, then under the guidance of the Jesuits, as an instance, among other extraordinary institutions formed to exalt nations to virtue, alludes to the imputed ambition of the society to govern; to which he replies, "but it will ever be a glorious ambition to govern men by rendering them happy. It is glorious to the society to have been the first to give, in those regions, the idea of religion united with humanity. By repairing the devastations of the Spaniards, they have begun to heal one of the

most dangerous wounds the human race ever received. They have drawn wild people from woods, secured them regular maintenance, and clothed their nakedness; but even, had they done no more than add to the stock of industry among men, that would have been doing a great deal[^[52]]."

BUFFON.

"The missions," says this celebrated natural philosopher, "have formed more men, in the barbarous nations, than the victorious armies of the princes, who subjugated them. It is only in this way, that Paraguay has been conquered: the gentleness, the good example, the charity, and the exercise of virtue constantly maintained by the missionaries, made their way to the hearts of the savages, and conquered their distrust and their ferocity. They

would frequently come, of their own accord, and beg to be made acquainted with the law, which rendered men so perfect; to that law they submitted and entered into society. Nothing can do more honour to religion than to have civilized those nations and laid the foundations of an empire, with no other arms than those of virtue[^[53]]."

HALLER.

"The enemies of the society," says Haller, "disparage their best institutions: they accuse them of inordinate ambition, on seeing a kind of empire formed by them in distant regions; but what plan can be more delightful, or more advantageous to humanity, than to assemble human beings scattered widely among the gloomy forests of America, to win them from the savage state, a state of wretchedness, to put an end to their cruel and destructive wars, to

enlighten their minds with the truths of religion, and to form them into a society like the state of mankind in the golden age? Is this not taking up the character of legislator for the happiness of men? The ambition, that produces so much good, cannot but be a laudable passion. No virtue ever attains that purity, which men are apt to exact; but neither is any virtue disfigured by the passions, while these serve to promote the general happiness[^[54]]."

MURATORI.

It is hardly necessary to observe, that Muratori's character for talents, piety, and virtue, stands very high in the estimation of the learned. He was a celebrated Italian writer, a fellow of the chief academies of Italy, of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of Olmutz, and he was consulted as the oracle of

the age by the literati of Europe. He was born in 1672 and died in 1750. He was unconnected with the society of the Jesuits, and the high praises he bestows upon them could, therefore, only have been dictated by a just esteem and admiration. The following extracts are from his work entitled, Il Cristianessimo felice nella missioni dé Padri dellà Compagnia di Gesu nel Paraguai; a work which may serve as a commentary on the edicts, declarations, and manifestoes, of the court of Portugal under the dictatorship of Pombal. "I could wish, that some one among the enemies of the church of Rome, who carry their aversion to the Jesuits so far as to asperse the zeal of those admirable missionaries, and their purity of intention, in the laborious functions, which they discharge among the infidels, would only accompany them awhile in their apostolic excursions, to see and examine what they do, and what they suffer for the salvation of souls. He would undoubtedly, and that very soon, lay aside former prejudices, and, perhaps, what he had seen would suffice

to make him renounce his error." After enumerating, briefly, the charges against the Jesuits of America, such as their making themselves petty princes; engrossing the commerce of Paraguay; becoming dangerously wealthy and powerful; bribing governors; robbing the Indians, under cover of pleasing God, &c. &c., he says, "This is an abstract of the defamatory reports spread about the world, either by word of mouth, or printed libels, against the missionaries of Paraguay. I will advance nothing without clear proofs. I am not afraid of affirming, that all these imputations are calumnies and detestable forgeries, suggested by envy and malice." He then proceeds to prove them to be such[^[55]].

GROTIUS, LEIBNITZ, BACON.

This triumvirate of religion and genuine philosophy were friends and admirers of the Jesuits; they are cited or referred to in the following Letters, I shall therefore be satisfied with naming them here.

FREDERIC THE GREAT.

"Frederic," says the elegant scholar already twice quoted[^[56]], "in spite of his sceptical vanity, appeared sometimes to be convinced of the dangerous principles of all those false philosophers, whose adulatory attentions he was weak enough to be pleased with. In one of these moments, in which his good sense retained the ascendency over his self-love, when the news reached him of the proscription of the Jesuits in France, by the confidential agents of supreme authority: 'Poor souls,' said he, 'they have destroyed the foxes, which defended them from the jaws of the

wolves, and they do not perceive that they are about to be devoured.'" Whomever the king of Prussia meant by the wolves, it is well known, that the same parliament that devoured the Jesuits in 1764, were equally disposed to devour the episcopal body in 1765.

DR. JOHNSON. DEAN KIRWAN.

It is very common to speak of superstition as a shade in the character of Johnson; and, no doubt, a modern philosopher will object to the authority of one so bigoted as to declare, "that monasteries have something congenial to the mind of man." Such objections, however, shall not divert me from enrolling him here; for, the opinion he expressed relative to the destruction of the Jesuits was the result, not of any superstitious motive, but of that penetration, which was not to be blunted by the opposition of prejudices. Mrs. Piozzi tells us, that, when he was at Rouen, "he conversed with the abbé Rofette about the destruction of the Jesuits, and condemned

it loudly, as a blow to the general power of the church, and likely to be followed with many and dangerous innovations, which might, at length, become fatal to religion itself, and shake even the foundations of Christianity." With Dr. Johnson let me place Dean Kirwan, who often declared, that he imbibed the noble ambition of benefiting mankind in the college of the English Jesuits, at St. Omer's[^[57]].

BAUSSET.

Bausset, bishop of Meth, in a Life of Fenelon, published so lately as the year 1809, passes a comprehensive and eloquent eulogium on the society, of which the following sentences form but a part: "Wherever the Jesuits were heard of they preserved all classes of society in a spirit of order, wisdom, and consistency. Called, at the commencement of the society, to the education of the principal families of the state, they

extended their cares to the inferior classes, and kept them in the happy habits of religious and moral virtue."—"They had the merit of attracting honour to their religious character, by a severity of manners, a temperance, a nobility, and a personal disinterestedness, which even their enemies could not deny them. This is the fairest answer they can make to satires, which accuse them of relaxed morality."—"These men, who were described as so dangerous, so powerful, so vindictive, bowed, without a murmur, under the terrible hand that crushed them[^[58]]."

JUAN AND ULLOA.

The very names of these travellers suggest the virtues and the praises of the Jesuits. It was from their volumes that Robertson took his account of the settlement of Paraguay, and I do not think it necessary here to extend their testimony.