drawn from their reception by her, being invalid as affecting ourselves.

It has, indeed, been asserted, that the vices of the late Empress supply no reason for rejecting the evidence in favor of the Jesuits which her patronage afforded: and that argument is quite consistent, when used by such Defenders of the Order as MR. DALLAS, who either do not see, or will not admit, that the vices of the Jesuits themselves afford any good evidence against them; but in a country where moral probity holds so high a rank as in our own, this consideration will have its weight, nor can all the sophistry of those who defend or deny the recorded iniquities of this Order, or of its royal and literary Patrons, weaken its force.

But further: MR. DALLAS gives a Letter of the Empress of Russia to the Pope in favor of the Jesuits, from CASTERA'S History of Catherine II.; although it appears from that very History that the Empress herself positively disavowed this Letter in the Gazette of St. Petersburgh of the 20th April, 1783 (see CASTera, Vol. ii. p. 323). If, indeed, the Letter had been authentic, MR. DALLAS was bound to have presented it as it appears in CASTERA; but he omits the last paragraph for obvious reasons. That paragraph runs thus: "Who "knows whether Providence may not design these pious men "as the instruments of uniting the Greek Church with the "Catholic? an union which has been so long desired. Let "Your Holiness dismiss all apprehension, for I will maintain "with all my power the rights which you have received from "Jesus Christ." Now, as Mr. DALLAS knew that the Protestants of England did not desire that the Jesuits should be a medium of reconciliation between the Reformed Church and the Church of Rome, and as he knew, also, that the King of England did not mean to maintain, with all his power, the rights of the Pope; he perceived, at once, that the want of analogy between the cases of Russia, under Catherine II. and of England, under George III. would be too striking: he there. fore does not permit this concluding paragraph of the Empress's

and no

supposed Letter to the Pope to appear; but gives, as in other cases, just so much of the Letter as suits his purpose, more. Again: MR. DALLAS, even with CASTERA's book before him, ventures to assert, that "the placing of the Jesuits "in her dominions was a proof of the sagacity of Catherine;" and adds, "I doubt whether Russia was ever more indebted "to any Sovereign than for this step, which was at once mag❝nanimous, wise, and popular;" while, in the very same page of CASTERA, from which MR. DALLAS had been quoting the Empress's pretended Letter, the following passage appears: "Perhaps the Empress only attached so much importance to "the negotiation, because she flattered herself that all the Je"suits of Europe and America would bring their treasures "and their industry into White Russia: but whatever her "hopes might be, the plunder of PARAGUAY never found its "way to MOHILOFF. The Jesuits were too cunning to place "themselves and their wealth in the hands of a Princess with "whose despotism and insatiable ambition they were well acquainted." We have here, therefore, first, the worldly policy of CATHERINE in desiring the return of the Jesuits pretty distinctly announced; and we have, secondly, an allegation that they were too wise to accept her offer: consequently, the vast advantages accruing to the Empire of Russia from such "a magnanimous, wise, and popular" step, never had any other place than in the fertile imagination of MR. DALLAS, who takes care to quote no more of CASTERA'S History than would have established his own object, provided no one had looked at the History besides himself.

POPE CLEMENT XIII. is the next authority cited by Mr. DALLAS in favor of the Jesuits, and he gives, at the end of his work, a translation of his principal Bull in their favor: a Bull which his Successor CLEMENT XIV. affirms (in the Bull which suppresses the Order) was extorted from CLEMENT XIII. by the Jesuits, rather than obtained ("literæ extorta potius quam "obtenta"). Whether this was the fact or not, we are little conserned to know; MR. D. is at full liberty to take all the benefit

which he can derive from this Bull, or any other. There is a great store of this pontifical machinery for his selection: the collection of Bulls obtained by the Jesuits in their favor, all breathe the same language, and are equally suited to MR. DALLAS's purpose, with the Bull of CLEMENT XIII.; but, however he may have studied and admired these ecclesiastical compositions, does he believe that those of the people of England who have ever considered the question of their own religion and their own history, are likely to be duped and deluded by Bulls granted by the Popes in favor of the Jesuits? The utmost to which the citation of this authority goes, is to shew that CLEMENT XIII. committed as great an error as many of his infallible Predecessors; but so far from this being any reason why those persons who deny their authority, and dispute their wisdom, should go wrong also, it is the very reason, of all others, for their taking a contrary course.

Of GANGANELLI, the successor of CLEMENT XIII. (who is MR. DALLAS's next authority), perhaps enough has been said, as well as of those fabricated Letters which it has answered the purpose of the Booksellers to publish, and of MR. DALLAS to quote, under his name.

If MR. DALLAS had succeeded in setting up these Letters, of which GANGANELLI was not the author, against the Bull suppressing the Jesuits, of which he was the author, the only advantage he would have derived from this success would have been, to shew that a Pope, as well as meaner men, may entertain two different opinions, at different times. As all authentic evidence, however, is against his having thought in any way favorably of the Jesuits, either before he became a Pope, or afterwards, MR. DALLAS's placing him " among the autho"rities in favor of the Jesuits," upon the mere gratuitous assumption of his having written the Letters ascribed to him, only affords another example of the untenable ground which he is compelled to occupy in the support of a sinking cause.

The next authority for the Jesuits is the President D'EGUILLES (p. 133), to whom an opinion is ascribed in favor

of the Society, without our being informed from what book that opinion was extracted, or in what part of the book it appears. Admitting it to be true, that this personage said just what "is set down for him," the opinion can only take rank with the favorable sentiments of other good Catholics in support of their brethren the Jesuits.

The same may be also said of the opinion of the Abbé PROYART, cited in p. 135; unless, indeed, it should appear, as has been strongly suspected by many, and loudly asserted by others, that the worthy Abbé himself was not a simple Catholic, but a Jesuit.

In the same page we find VOLTAIRE (mirabile dictu!) classed among the friends of the Jesuits, after he had been charged by MR. DALLAS with anxiously seeking their destruction, because they were the chief supports of religion and monarchy, both which, he himself opposed. When the Defender of a Religious Order is compelled to resort to such an authority as that of VOLTAIRE in its support, it seems high time to abandon its defence altogether! A blasphemer upon so large a scale as VOLTAIRE-a creature of such unparalleled profligacy in his conduct, can only disgrace that Order which takes shelter under the sanction of his name, unless its own vices should already have reduced it so low as to place it out of danger of falling lower. Surely it would have been prudent în MR. DALLAS to have suppressed the fact which he records, of VOLTAIRE having received his education in a College of Jesuits!

We have next the authority of MONTESQUIEU for the Jesuits (p. 137): and, as usual, MR. DALLAS gives us just as much of what MONTESQUIEU has said as serves his purpose, but no more. The Chapter from which Mr. Dallas quotes a few sentences which favor the Jesuits, if taken altogether, will be found to convey the most severe reflection on their corrupt and worldly policy.

The Chapter in question (book iv. chap. 6) is intended to describe certain extraordinary Institutions in the govern

ment of nations; and MONTESQUIEU, who, so long as an ef fect appeared to be produced, was (like the Jesuits) not very scrupulous about the means which were employed, thus describes those Institutions: "I request attention" (says he) "to the extent of genius which these Legislators (LYCURGUS "and PLATO) must have possessed, to discover, that, in vio"lating all established usages, and in confounding all the virtues, they would display their wisdom to the world. Ly"CURGUS gave stability to his City by uniting theft with the

66

spirit of justice, the most rigorous slavery, with the great"est liberty, and the most atrocious opinions, with the 66 greatest moderation: he seemed to deprive his City of all "the resources of the arts of commerce, wealth, and fortifi"cations; there was ambition without the hope of advance66 ment, and the sentiments of nature without the characters "of child, husband, or father; even shame itself was taken away from Chastity: it was by these means that SPARTA was conducted to greatness and glory."

66

66

After stating in what parts of Greece these laws prevailed, and with what difficulty the nations who were governed by them were conquered, he proceeds to remark: "This extraordinary character, observable in the Institutions of "Greece, has been displayed in the dregs and corruption of "modern times. An honest Legislator has formed a people "among whom probity appears as natural, as bravery among "the Spartans. PENN is a true LYCURGUS; and although peace "was the object of the former, and war of the latter, they re"semble each other in the singular method of treating their people, in the ascendancy they have possessed over free men, in the prejudices they have surmounted, and the passions they have subdued. PARAGUAY furnishes us with "another example. It has been imputed to the Society" (of Jesuits)" as a crime, that they considered the pleasure "of governing as the chief good of life; but" (here Mr. DalLAS's quotation begins)" it will ever be a glorious ambition to "it govern men by rendering them happy," &c. MR. Dallas,

66

66