they were every where the friends of Religion*, the advocates of Loyalty, and the promoters of Education: assertions of this description (for they are nothing else) have been already so fully considered, that it is the less necessary to dwell upon them here. The fact is, that the modern Philosophy was no more at war with the Jesuits than as Jesuitism presented more tangible and palpable matter for ridicule and argument than the milder and less offensive form of Popery, which was exhibited by the Catholic Church at large. In proportion as Jesuitism was the most corrupt modification of a corrupt system, it was only to be expected that Infidelity should have fastened on some of the ranker abuses to which the Order of Jesuits gave a greater prominence than any other Order; but, so far from the virtues of the Jesuits having been the occasion of attracting the notice of the Philosophers (as MR. DALLAS would have us believe), it was their vices alone which obtained them this distinction, and helped to furnish the enemies of Religion with the strongest weapons against Religion itself.

So far from the suppression of the Jesuits having given rise to the Infidelity of the Continent, it is a notorious fact, that Infidelity had abounded long before the Suppression of the Jesuits became a question; and it is remarkable that one of the first acts of CLEMENT XIV. on his elevation to the Popedom, was, to dispatch a Brief to Louis XV, the sole object of which was to claim his support in opposing the efforts of Infidelity and Irreligion. He observed, that a ge neral conspiracy against Christianity was actually then in motion-had advanced a considerable way, and threatened far

The obligations which Religion was under to the Jesuits may be estimated from the following remark of MONCLAR: "Religion" (says he)" has been demoralized by their pushing it to the contradiction of "its own principles: an alliance of secular policy with certain expres❝sions of devotion has thus, by an alloy of good with eyil, formed ❝pious fanatics, and subtle politicians, who are all strongly united to"gether by a devoted attachment to their Order, and equally inflamed "by a spirit of party, in which some are Agents and others are Instru "ments."-Compte Rendu,

more serious consequences to the world than MR. DALLAS'S supposed Conspiracy against the Jesuits under the strong conviction of impending danger, he called upon the French King to assist him in stemming a torrent which menaced the destruction of whatever had till then been Held sacred among men. This Brief was preceded by a Circular Letter to the Clergy of France, having the same object: is it probable-is it possible, that with such views, that very Pope should in a few years after he had dispatched such a Brief and Letter," have issued the Edict for the suppression of the Jesuits, if the ruin of the Church, which he so anxiously desired to save, was likely to have been either occasioned or accelerated by that measure? A more unfortunate anachronism was, perhaps, never committed, than when MR. DALLAS imagined that the Suppression of the Order of Jesuits preceded the appearance of Infidelity; and ergo, that the suppression in question produced such Infidelity. MR. DALLAS should at least have endeavoured to be correct in his dates, if not in his facts.!

In the same spirit, and with a similar object, we find Mr. DALLAS conducting his argument upon THE NECESSITY OF RELIGION IN EDUCATION, from p. 244 to p. 257.

J.

The fallacy apparent throughout this statement is, that MR. DALLAS assumes from the outset, first, that Religion formed the great character of Education among the Jesuits; and, secondly, that all Religious Education ceased with the suppression of the Order.

The answer to these allegations has been already given; but it may be observed further in this place, that the religion of which MR. DALLAS draws so alluring a portrait is not likely to captivate any persons who will only be at the trouble of examining the difference between the Religion of the Reformation, which they themselves profess, and the Religion of Popery, which MR. DALLAS virtually advocates throughout his work much dess will the portrait exhibited by MR. DALhas be likely to win the affections of such Protestants as consider that the Religion of the Jesuits was decidedly of a lower

standard than that of Popery itself; insomuch that they who were best acquainted with the Romish faith, and most attached to it, not only asserted, for two Centuries, that Jesuitism was something else than Christianity, but abundantly established their position by the best reasoning, and the keenest ridicule. It follows, therefore, that the Religious Education of the Jesuits was not quite so estimable a thing in itself as MR. DALLAS would represent it; and with regard to his declaration, that the destruction of the Jesuits was the destruction of Education in Catholic Countries, it may be observed, that the failure of Education in those Countries can no more be attributed to the suppression of the Order of Jesuits than the failure of Religion can be referred to the same cause. It was, indeed, among the awful consequences of the French Revolu tion (as MR. BURKE predicted would be the case), that "learning" was soon trodden under the feet of a swinish. "multitude:" but to contend, on that account, that the sup pression of the Jesuits occasioned the suppression of learning, is no nearer to the truth than to contend that their suppression led to the suppression of Religion itself, of Monarchy, and of established order; all which bowed under the action of a far superior force, and owed their misfortunes to a very different cause. It is, however, the less necessary to enter farther into this question, since it has already been so largely considered.

66

Some remarks of MR. DALLAS in treating it require, however, a brief attention; namely, those in which he supposes (p. 248), that even in England (although the Jesuits have not been suppressed here) we are also educating our population without Religion, as they did in Catholic Countries, in consequence of the suppression of the Jesuits! He affirms on this head, that "there is in this country a system in full operation, and patronized by some of the first characters of "the State, by which a very large portion of the people will, "in a few years, consist of persons able to read, write, and keep accounts, who will have no knowledge, or an erroneous

66

"one, of the Duties and Sanctions of Religion, and whose 66 morality will consequently be dependent upon their reason

ing faculties:" and he adds, " I am very much mistaken "if those faculties will not lead to similar conceptions and si"milar effects as those produced by the reasoning faculties of "1788 and 1789."

In this prognostication we have MR. DALLAS's fears upon the absence of Religion in the Education of the English poor, and we find, that although he can view unmoved the certain, and, perhaps, not very distant, consequences of the Establishment of Jesuits in England, he is tremblingly alive to the consequences of our not possessing such a perfect system of religious Education as the Jesuits could furnish us with! This sentiment, although not avowed in express terms, is evidently the scope of Mr. DALLAS's observations respecting the want of Religion in our Education.

With regard to the correctness of his assumption, that RELIGION" is thus neglected in the education of our poor, it has no more foundation in fact than the many other erroneous assertions which have been already disposed of. In such of our Schools as are connected with the Establishment. (and these are now spread over the whole kingdom), an avowed and marked attention is paid to the inculcation of religious and moral principles: in by far the greater number of those Schools which are conducted by Dissenters from the Establishment, no less attention is paid to the formation of religious and moral sentiments; and even in those Schools (comparatively few, indeed), which are conducted by particular classes of Dissenters, who are, perhaps, less attentive to any precise formulary in their mode of worship, still Religion is by no means forgotten; nor, perhaps, is there a single School (except those of the Catholics), whether under the government of Churchmen or Dissenters, in which the SCRIPTURES are omitted to be used by every class *.

It is a fact which cannot be controverted, that both in Ireland and England the Holy Scriptures are wholly excluded by the Catholic

Hine neng read in the pope, and the consequent duty of watanotting from then, by any means attered. Good Catooir: Frest: now-a-days have the same dread of the Bible as the Jessate and ther Leienter entertain, and for the same

•The reicoraret Bul * Zugentius,” I no other Papal document existed, wouk prove the superane enmity of the Roman Pontiffs and Frelates to the peteral use of the Sacred Tolume-The pious Father CUESNEL DAT CHHOTACtal sorts of persons to study the Holy Scrip4ture.” and execally on the Lord's Day"—he taught that “to wrest the New Testament out of the hands of Christians, or to keep it closed * up, was tr shit the mouth of Chest in respect of them;" and again, saic m, a farvid Christians to read the Holy Scriptures, especially ← the Gapel, is to forbid the use of light to the children of light, and ← y mae then slfer a sort of excommunication. Yet, in 1713, not ar da Pope CLEMENT XL but very mary Bishops of France, coner sich just sentiments; and they were solemnly denounced, “ as arine, captions, shocking, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, per➡vacious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice," &c.

Even the modern editions of the English New Testament, printed or the use of Roman Catholics themselves, and translated by one of their wn Prelates too (in England as well as Ireland), have an “ ADMO• NITION" prefixed to them; the design of which is, to prevent the free and unbiassed perusal of their econ authorized version:—for, say they, a their Admonition, “It was judged necessary to forbid the reading • of the Scriptures in the vulgar languages, without the advice and →→ permission fof the Pastors and spiritual Guides, whom God has ap• pointed to govern his Church.”—“ Nor is this due submission to the Catholic Church to be understood of the ignorant and unlearned only, but also of men accomplished in all kind of learning." Such cautious policy agrees with the express injunctions of the Rules of the published by order of the Council of Trent: but it does not quite come up to the standard of a former synod (held at Toulouse in -229), which absolutely forbade all the Laity to possess any books either f the Old or the New Testament, in their own tongue,—“ Ne præ⚫ missos libros habeant in vulgari translatos, arctissime inhibemus.”. See p. 82 of the Correspondence on the Roman Catholic Bible Society.

Let it never be forgotten, that a great object of the Reformation as to secure to the world the free possession and circulation of the sacreed sume; while it has been the invariable object of the Church of Rome