change will take place among the different members of the body politic, which will sooner or later lead to intestine "war."-See Sully's Memoirs, Vol. v. p. 109, Edit. 1768.

MR. DALLAS then proceeds to reason upon SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY'S objection as to foreign allegiance, and contends (p. 85) that "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;" after which, he observes, that the "native country of the Pope was never alledged as a motive for rejecting his authority."

Most certainly it never was, among his devotees or their defenders: but among all those Protestants who have understood the nature of Popery, and have been aequainted with their own interests, the allegiance due to the Pope by all Catholics; to the Superiors of Religious Orders, by the members of those Orders; and to the General of the Jesuits, by all the members of that Order-have been invariably protested against ever since the Pope, Religious Superiors, and the General of Jesuits, had an existence.

SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY, therefore, in objecting to the operation of foreign influence, and the admission of foreign supremacy in Protestant Empires, does no more than every Statesman may be expected to do, who knows what dangerous consequences have invariably flowed from the profession of such doctrines; and with regard to MR. DALLAS's assertion, that the obedience which all other Catholics, as well as Jesuits, paid to a foreign Superior, was well understood to relate merely to their "professional duties," MR. Dallas must fail in establishing this point; unless he can persuade us to forget the Bulls and Decrees of various Popes, commanding the Catholic subjects of other Sovereigns, in all times, to depose and murder their lawful monarchs, and to stir up insurrection in their kingdoms; or unless he intends to designate those Papal mandates as so many calls to "professional

"duty," and the obedience that was paid to those commands so many acts of "professional duty."

66

MR. DALLAS'S taunting question, in p. 86, "Can SIR “JOHN adduce a single instance of a Jesuit's betraying the country or the government which protected him?" may be answered by informing him that the whole of this History (among many other works on the same subject) is a collection of such instances.

With regard to the question between SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY and MR. DALLA3 as to the conduct of the EMPRESS OF RUSSIA, and her motives in protecting the Jesuits (see p. 87 et seq.), it may be observed, that her patronage of the Order no more proves it worthy of royal favor, than her invitation to D'ALEMBERT to come to Russia and educate the Grand Duke (which she accompanied with very flattering offers), proves that D'ALEMBERT deserved the confidence with which her Imperial Majesty's misplaced taste for French genius and French profligacy would have led her to repose in him; neither does the good opinion which the KING OF PRUSSIA entertained of the Jesuits (see p. 88) any more prove that Order worthy of his good opinion, than the intimacy in which he lived with the worst Infidels of France proves Infidelity to be a good thing.

If Royal patronage would establish the advantages of the Order of Jesuits, MR. DALLAS might have found examples much better suited to his purpose, in the Popes who have employed Jesuits as their agents in every species of public crime, and in the Kings who have made them their Confessors and Confidants, in accomplishing the great work of enslaving their Catholic subjects, and destroying their Protestant subjects.

The utmost which the argument of authority can do for MR. DALLAS is, to prove what no man who knows any thing of the history of the world will dispute, namely, that some Sovereign, Princes have in all times fostered and employed designing men, under whose advice they have pursued measures entirely at variance with their own interests,

4

"

and with those of their people; but this will not prove that the Sovereigns in question were worthy of imitation, or that the Instruments they employed were worthy of their confidence: the honours heaped upon the Jesuits by Catholic Mo narchs, and the protection afforded to them by Philosophic Monarchs, will not invalidate the abundant testimony which we possess respecting their delinquencies; nor will their recep tion by governments, either avowedly Catholic, or half Catholic, afford any argument for our Protestant Government confiding to them the education of its youth, or the instruc tion of its adults. MR. DALLAS, indeed, records, apparently with high satisfaction, the "unsuspecting liberality" with which his friends the Jesuits have been long treated in Rus sia; makes honourable mention of the erection of their College of Polosk by the present Emperor," into an University, "by which they became exempted from the control of the "University of Petersburgh;" and speaks of a Jesuitical College of Nobles" in that Capital, where the Superior of Jesuits is pleased, very condescendingly, to permit a Priest of the Greek Church to explain on Sunday the National Catechism to these noble students," in a private room," beyond which, MR. DALLAS informs us," he has nothing to do in the "house."

66

1

It happens rather unfortunately for our author, that the Emperor of Russia should have altered his opinion about the Jesuits since MR. DALLAS'S Defence of the Order appeared; but, perhaps, the Emperor did not read MR. DALLAS's work.. However this may be, that Monarch has already seen abundant occasion to regret the patronage he afforded, and the privileges he conceded, to these sworn foes of order and of peace; and has found cause to repent of the education of the flower of his Nobility in the principles and mysteries of Jesuitism: he has accordingly driven the Jesuits in disgrace from both his Capitals; and although the Popish Journal, or Orthodox Magazine, has thought fit to deny this fact, it is not less true on

Jesuits have proved themselves in Russia, as elsewhere, the sworn foes of every valuable institution: they have strenu ously opposed the Bible Society, although well known to have enjoyed the particular auspices of the Emperor; and they resisted the printing of the Persian Testament in that Empire, although undertaken with his sanction: they have been indefatigable in their efforts to make converts to Popery, and have succeeded to a large extent, even in the most elevated classes : they carried on intrigues at Rome, which had for their object the dismemberment of the Greek Church, and the disgrace of its Clergy: they sought to excite the vengeance of the Pope against the chief supporters of the Bible Society in Russia ; and but for the salutary overthrow they have experienced, would soon have succeeded in occasioning disturbances in that vast Empire, which it might have been found impossible to allay. Every person who maintains a correspondence with Russia may satisfy himself, without difficulty, of the correctness of this information.

2

It was not, indeed, to be expected, that these ministers of darkness would permit the diffusion of religious light without exerting all the opposition in their power, nor permit the continuance of concord, while they had the means of stirring up strife; but the example may not be without its use, if other Sovereigns besides the Emperor of Russia shall learn from it, that, unless ancient and modern History be the fiction which MR. DALLAS would represent, no Monarch who harbours the Jesuits must look for any special reservation in his own favor, or expect that the indulgences which he may concede to the Jesuits will be repaid by that Society in any other coin than that which has ever hitherto borne their "image and super"scription."

In p. 93 MR. DALLAS imputes to SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY the same motives with which he had charged the author of the Brief Account of the Jesuits, namely, an attack on the Catholics in general through the Jesuits; as if it were possible to separate the two cases, or at the same time to convict the

Jesuits, and to clear the Catholics: but this point has been so amply adverted to before, that it is the less necessary to consider it again.

MR. DALLAS (in p. 94) expresses his surprise at SIR JOHN's opinion, that modern Catholics (such as MR. PLOWDEN and others) must find some difficulty in condemning the wisdom of one Pope who suppressed the Order of Jesuits, while at the same time they applaud the wisdom of another Pope who has now restored it; but since it is impossible that these Pontiffs (however infallible some may consider them) can both be in the right, this really does appear to be a dilemma, upon one of whose horns, such inconsistent reasoners as these modern Catholics and their Defenders do voluntarily place themselves; and therefore there seems nothing unreasonable in the suggestion of SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY, that the Bull which abolished the Order, and the Bull which revivedit, should always appear together, as the best exposure which plain Protestants can give of the contradictions of Catholic logicians, and the best refutation which they can afford to the claims of Papal Infallibility.

In the following page MR. DALLAS speaks in contemptuous terms of two French works which have lately appeared against the Jesuits; the one entitled, Du Pape et des Jesuites; and the other, Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre politique, religieux, et morale; which works, however, he admits that he has not read: after which avowal he proceeds to state, that "their titles and authors are enough to convince "him that the new Conspiracy against the Jesuits extends to "France, and that he is answering those pamphlets WITHOUT SEEING THEM.'

There is something sufficiently ridiculous in this mode of judging of the merits of a work by its "Title" and its " Au "thor:" but MR. DALLAS's alledged discovery of the art of answering a Book without seeing it, has been so long a desi deratum in the learned world, and would be, so important to the interests of the public at large, if it ever could be brought