prove that the Catholic Church has not fallen into many awful corruptions of doctrine and practice. f It would have been well if MR. DALLAS, while attempting to convict others of intentionally suppressing a passage which he conceives calculated to assist the Jesuits, had not himself suppressed a passage in PROFESSOR ROBERTSON, which it is impossible that he could have overlooked, as it is the continuation of an Extract which he has given: this Extract, so far as MR. DALLAS has chosen to give it, is in favor of the conduct of the Jesuits in Paraguay; but when ROBERTSON arrives at a counterstatement, the pen of MR. DALLAS suddenly stops short, as if refusing the unwelcome office of criminating his friends. The passage from ROBERTSON in favor of the Jesuits in Paraguay will be found in p. 9 of MR. DALLAS. The following passage immediately follows it in ROBERTSON, and in fact forms an essential part of it; although MR. DALLAS shrinks from the offensive truth which it conveys; involving, as it does, a charge upon the Jesuits of having been influenced by motives of ambition and worldly policy, and of having supported their empire by means altogether opposed to the character of preachers of the Gospel of peace. 66 66 66 66 "But even in this meritorious effort of the Jesuits for the good of mankind, the genius and spirit of their Order have mingled, and are discernible. They plainly aimed at establishing in Paraguay an independent empire, subject to the Society alone, and which by the superior excellence of its "constitution and police, could scarcely have failed to extend its dominion over all the southern continent of America. "With this view, in order to prevent the Spaniards or Por"tuguese in the adjacent settlements, from acquiring any dangerous influence over the people within the limits of the ¥¢ -We of th' offending side "Must keep aloof from strict arbitriment; "And stop all sight-holes, every loop from whence SHAKESPEARE. "province subject to the Society, the Jesuits endeavoured to "inspire the Indians with hatred and contempt of these na "tions; they cut off all intercourse between their subjects " and the Spanish òr Portuguese Settlements; they prohibited any private trader of either nation from entering their terri"tories. When they were obliged to admit any person in a public character from the neighbouring governments, they "did not permit him to have any conversation with their sub"jects, and no Indian was allowed even to enter the house "where these strangers resided, unless in the presence of a "Jesuit. In order to render any communication between "them as difficult as possible, they industriously avoided giv❝ing the Indians any knowledge of the Spanish, or of any other "European language; but encouraged the different tribes, "which they had civilized, to acquire a certain dialect of the "Indian tongue, and laboured to make that the universal "language throughout their dominions. As all these precau❝tions, without military force, would have been insufficient to "have rendered their empire secure and permanent, they "instructed their subjects in the European arts of war. "They formed them into bodies of cavalry and infantry, completely armed and regularly disciplined, They provided a great train of artillery, as well as magazines stored with "all the implements of war *. Thus they established an ❝ army so numerous and well appointed, as to be formidable ❝ in a country, where a few sickly and ill-disciplined battalions "composed all the military force kept on foot by the Spa"niards or Portuguese."-Robertson's Charles V. Book vi. p. 205, edit. 1802. It is worthy of remark, that ROBERTSON states himself to have been indebted for the above information to Charlevoix, -Who hath not heard it spoken "How deep you were within the books of God? Juan, and Ulloa, who are all reported by MR. DALLAS (p. 25) as "authorities in favor of the Jesuits." This passage is quoted above merely for the purpose of shewing with what facility MR. DALLAS can suppress facts which are opposed to his own views; while, at the same moment, he is charging upon others a similar practice. MR. DALLAS intimates (in p. 12), "that the labour of the "author" of the Brief Account of the Jesuits is "a new at $6 tempt against tolerating the Catholic Religion;" and he then more plainly argues for the toleration of that Religion, as if any one had ever disputed the propriety and policy of tolerating it, abstractedly considered. He raises, in this instance, a phantom, which he then fights with, and subdues. It has been no where asserted that the Catholic Religion, per se, should not be tolerated: but it has been asserted by many of the best and wisest men, both in and out of Parliament, that, if ever that period shall arrive when the members of a Church, which is dependent upon foreign controul, and intolerant towards Protestants, shall acquire the right of exercis ing legislative or executive functions in this Protestant Realm, the worst consequences alone can be expected to ensue; a proposition which, if it be true at all, assumes tenfold import ance from the circumstance of the revival of the Order of Jesuits, a measure of Papal policy, which shews the necessity of increased caution and vigilance, with reference to the Catholic claims, on the part of all who can estimate their own privileges. Does MR. DALLAS discern no difference between holding fast our own liberties and rights, and invading those of others? Are we therefore intolerant towards Catholics, or recommending intolerance, because we do not choose to give them the right of exercising intolerance towards ourselves? The fallacy of this mode of arguing for the Catholic claims deserves to be exposed, because it is much too common: it is calculated to involve a plain question in obscurity, by an assumption of false principles and a perversion of terms. It is not indeed peculiar to MR. DALLAS to impute to the opponents of the Catholic claims a refusal to tolerate the Catholics; but the simple fact is, that Protestants, with power in their hands, have not ceased to tolerate Catholics, while it is not to be doubted that, with the same power, Catholics would refuse to tolerate them the sophism adopted in this reasoning is the same in principle, as that which is conveyed in the terms “CATHOLIC "EMANCIPATION," a phrase which supposes Catholics to be in a state of slavery. Each mode of stating the question is grounded on a petitio principii, by which it is found convenient to assume that to be a fact, which it is well known an opponent will not grant. Since Protestants (argues MR. DALLAS) do. not tolerate Catholics, ergo they should alter their conduct: since Catholics (say their other advocates) are in a state of slavery, ergo they ought to be emancipated: neither one nor the other of these syllogisms can be admitted, since the Catholics are free to enjoy their own rights, both civil and religious, and only are not free to exercise such as (if all History be true) would be incompatible with Protestants enjoying theirs; but perhaps MR. DALLAS and his friends would no more admit the validity of an appeal to History in this matter, than on the question of the Jesuits *. MR. DALLAS next attacks (p. 13) THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS, which he characterizes as "the satirical effusions of a writer who had espoused the cause of the Jansenists+." To * "And therefore will he wipe his tables clean; "And keep no tell-tale to his memory, "That may repeat and history his loss "To new remembrance."-SHAKESPEARE. † Of the Jansenists something will be said in the following History, where it will appear that Jansenism was merely the watch-word of the Jesuitical party, and that all their opponents were indiscriminately branded with it. At present it shall suffice to notice what Villers has said on the subject in his admirable Essay on the Reformation. "The most formidable enemies to themselves, whom the Jesuits "raised, and the most capable of opposing them, were the Jansenists. "The Jesuits fancied they saw, in the pains taken by the Jansenists to this it may be answered, that PASCAL is too much above any attack upon his well-earned fame to be injured by this re ·66 propagate and recommend the doctrines of St. Augustin concerning 66 grace, a plan to bring down the Society, whose principles were not "consistent with those of that Father of the Church: but, whatever 66 may have been the secret design of the partisans of Jansenius with "regard to the Jesuits, it is not the less true that all this controversy "concerning grace was immediately produced by the religious quarrels "which flowed from the Reformation. That terrible shock, which ❝ had separated from the Romish Church a great part of the Christians, "of the West, had shaken that Church herself to the very foundation, " and had left within her a leaven and principles of fermentation not "soon to be purged off: the spirit of inquiry, of chicane, and con“troversy, was also awakened within her. The greater part of Catho-' ❝lics would have been happy to see certain reforms in the Church ❝ herself, certain amendments and regulations with regard to doctrine "and discipline, which were not produced, or not in the manner " which they desired. There were many discontented Catholics. Many "abuses attacked by the Protestants appeared to those Catholics ex"tremely reprehensible; and several points of doctrine, controverted' "by the former, had induced the latter to think. The council of "Trent had satisfied scarcely any body but the people beyond the "Alps: what concerned the rights of the Pope and the hierarchy was "there carefully settled; but some essential points of doctrine were "still left in a painful state of uncertainty; as that of grace, for ex"ample, which held so important a place in the systems of the Lu"therans and Calvinists. Baius, a theologian and professor of Lou"vain, who had been a member of the council, brought the subject "under discussion, and occasioned considerable noise in his time. Af"ter him, Jansenius, a professor in the same University of Louvain, "followed the same errors, wrote his book, entitled Augustinus, was "the friend of the Abbé de St. Cyran, and some other leaders of the 66 party which was called the Jansenist party from his name. It is well "known how many illustrious defenders this party produced, of "whom Port Royal became the principal seat. The war of opinions "which was lighted up between the Jansenists and the Jesuits was "the most violent which ever raged within the Church. The Jan"senists, who in reality had so many opinions in common with Luther "and the other reformers, and were most heartily adverse to the pre"tensions of Rome, and of the Jesuits, the satellites of Rome"dreaded, above all things, the reproach of heresy, which was libe |