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.

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.

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.

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]."