"in the cause;" that "the President of that Parliament "refusing to concur in the measure, was, through MONCLAR'S

means, banished, and his adherents with him, by a Lettre de "cachet;" that "MONCLAR died repentant, and retracted all "that he had said, in presence of the Bishop of Apt, who "made a minute of the fact."

This is so much pure gratuitous assertion, for which no particle of evidence is attempted to be produced by MR. DALLAS. On the contrary, all evidence is completely against it. MR. DALLAS's story of the recantation of MONCLAR at the time of his death was stated in a work published by a Jesuit about two years since in Paris, entitled Dissertation Historique et Politique sur la Nécessité de retablir en France In-struction publique et l'Education de la Jeunesse; a work which, under that specious title, is neither more nor less than an earnest recommendation to recal the Jesuits, and to which work MR. DALLAS appears to have been indebted on more than one occasion.

So far from MONCLAR having retracted a single fact which he had advanced against the Jesuits, or recanted any opinion he had formed, it is altogether untrue that he did so; either by his will, or any other document, deposited with the Bishop of Apt, or any other person. MONCLAR died on the 12th February, 1773: the Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques of the 9th May, 1773 (three months after his death), will prove that a procès verbal signed by eleven witnesses was drawn up at the desire of his family, which testifies that no retractation whatever was made by him relative to the Jesuits: this procès verbal was deposited with a notary, and Madame de Monclar presented a copy of it to Louis XV. for the purpose of proving the falsity of the charge which had been preferred by the Jesuits against the memory of her husband, and which is thus repeated by MR. DALLAS. In the same Paper of the 9th May, 1773, will be found a report of the whole conduct of the Bishop of Apt on that occasion.-See Les Josuites tels qu'ils ont été, &c. note 28, p. 305.

Now, against this attempted falsification by MR. Dallas of original documents, we have (in addition to the above proof of MONCLAR'S having died in the same opinions)-first, the universal understanding and belief of France (with the exception of certain Jesuits, who will deny this, or any other hostile evidence), that these Comptes Rendus were the genuine productions of the writers from whom they purport to come: 2dly, the intrinsic evidence of these documents to their originality and truth: 3dly, the collateral evidence furnished by the documents themselves, from the works of the Jesuits, in support of the facts they detail; and lastly, the express assurance of PROFESSOR ROBERTSON, that the two Individuals whose characters are thus aspersed, and whose writings are thus disputed by MR. DALLAS, were 66 RESPECTABLE MAGISTRATES AND ELEGANT "WRITERS: :" but further we have this striking observation of PROFESSOR ROBERTSON on the Comptes Rendus (which it did not answer MR. DALLAS's purpose to produce); " I rest not my "narrative" (says he) "upon their authority, but upon in"numerable passages which they have extracted from the "Constitutions of the Order deposited in their hands."

If, therefore, MR. DALLAS had succeeded in proving the Comptes Rendus to be written by other persons than they purport to be (which, however, he has entirely failed to do), he must, in addition, annihilate the Constitutions of the Jesuits, before he can extinguish the important light which the Comptes Rendus afford.

In p. 25, MR. Dallas says, "the Parliament hated the "Jesuits as friends of the Pope; and the University, as rival "teachers; and those two bodies combined to exterminate ❝ them."

It is thus that he proposes to extinguish the blaze of evidence furnished by the continued opposition of the several Universities and Parliaments of France, during a period of two hundred years!!!

Lest MR. DALLAS's mode of stating the question should induce a belief that it was merely the Parliament and Univer

sity of PARIS which declared against the Jesuits, it may be right to observe that they were opposed at different periods, and with various success (to say nothing of the Parliament of England), by the Parliaments of Languedoc, Guienne, Burgundy, Normandy, Provence, Brittany, and of the Low Countries; and by the Universities of Thoulouse, Montpellier, Orleans, Cahors, Angers, Aix, Poictiers, Caen, Valence, Bourges, Bourdeaux, Rheims, Douay, Louvain, and Avignon; and by those of Padua in Italy, Coimbra in Portugal, Prague in Bohemia, Dillingen in Suabia, Vienna in Germany, and Cracow in Poland.

The real nature and causes of such a formidable and continued opposition on the part of those Bodies will appear in so detailed a form in the following History, that it is unnecessary to notice them here; but it may be well to observe, that MR. DALLAS's assertion (p. 26), that the University and Parliament of Paris took a principal share in THE LEAgue, will not prove that THE JESUITS were innocent of contributing to the horrors of that unhappy period. There can be little doubt that those of the Catholic Clergy of Paris who were NOT Je suits, abhorred and opposed HENRY IV. before he became a Catholic, quite as much as the Jesuits did. So long as the thunders and anathemas of POPE GREGORY XIII. were out against that Monarch, it was, in the estimation of all good Catholics, a point of duty and conscience to obey the injunc tions of the Head of their Church, and to oppose, to the utmost of their power, an excommunicated Heretic. But what does MR. DALLAS gain by establishing this fact? That therefore the Jesuits were guiltless of the miseries of that distressing period? By no means-They were doubtless united in one cause; equally resisted their lawful Sovereign; and alike resorted to arms for the purpose of preventing his occupation of a throne which the Pope had declared him unworthy to fill; since the Pope, in the opinion of the whole Catholic Church, whether Jesuits or not, could not be mistaken.

There is a singular hardihood in MR. DALLAS's assertion

NOT

(p. 26), that "the Parliaments and the Doctors, in fomenting "the League, were seconded by all the Religious orders, THE “JESUITS EXCEPTED;" and further (in p. 27), that › “ "JESUIT WAS EVER PROVED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE "LEAGUE, AND, THAT NO WRITER ACCUSES THEM OF IT, “THE ADVOCATES ARNAULD, PASQUIER, AND DOLLÉ ONLY "EXCEPTED.”—The following History will prove how com pletely unfounded this assertion is-At present, it can only be briefly stated, that (independently of the printed proofs supplied by PASQUIER in his " Catéchisme des Jesuites," and the solemn and official acts of the University, to neither of which authorities MR. DALLAS has any right to object), MEZERAI, in his Abrégé Chronologique, proves that the Jesuits had a principal share in various Leagues throughout France, the grand centre of which was the League at Paris; and, that the members were bound by oath; that MATTHIEU the Jesuit was expressly named "the Courier of the League," on account of his frequent journeys between Rome and Paris; and MEZERAI further shews, that it was the intrigues of the Jesuits which led to the treaty between the King of Spain and the Dukes of Guise, dated 31st December, 1584, which provided, that, in the event of the death of Henry III. the Cardinal de Bourbon (a creature of the Jesuits) should be proclaimed King.

L'Histoire des derniers Troubles de France shews, that two Jesuits endeavoured to obtain the King's sanction to the League that POPE SIXTUS V. in 1589, sent CARDINAL CAJETAN into France, as his Legate, assigning him the two Jesuits BELLARMINE and TYRRIUS for advisers, with Instructions to use all the efforts in their power to get a King elected who should be of the Catholic Religion-that the Jesuits in Paris, who were at the head of that and the other Leagues, in order to amuse the people during the severe siege of the capital, and to divert them from a sense of the misery to which they were reduced, prescribed public processions, double fasts, and religious vows; and, together with other monks, kept

the watch in turn that at the head of the Council of Sixteen, the Jesuits gave an impulse to sedition, which was felt both in the capital and throughout the Kingdom; that they preached revolt in their Sermons, circulated it by their writings, and inculcated it in their congregations.

L'Histoire de la Ville de Thoulouse, by RAYNAL, shews that AUGIER the Jesuit administered the oath to the Leaguers of Thoulouse, and that its leaders pledged themselves never to acknowledge Henry IV. as their King.

DE THOU states, that on MATTHIEU's death, which happened in 1588, the General of the Jesuits appointed ODON PIGENAT his successor, whom he calls a violent and fanatical Leaguer of the Jesuits. The work, entitled, "Les Jesuites “criminels de Léze Majesté," and CALLIER'S "History of 86 Marshal de Matignon" (who was sent to quell the League, by Henry IV.), both prove the League of Bourdeaux to have been instigated by the Jesuits.

The testimony of DU BOULAY and of SULLY might be cited to the same purpose, as well as that of other Historians equally unexceptionable, all tending to establish the fact that the Jesuits were particularly active and formidable during the period of the League; a confederacy which had for its general object to extend the Catholic, and to depress the Protestant Religion throughout France; and for its particular object, to keep the Throne Catholic, and prevent the accession of Henry the IVth.

Before, therefore, MR. DALLAS had ventured upon an assertion for which he can derive no support from History, he should have considered the importance of Truth to the Public at large, and consequently to all those who undertake to inform the Public.

In p. 27, MR. DALLAS endeavours to invalidate the testimony of SULLY against the Jesuits (which is of the utmost importance), by calling him "THE LEADER OF THE HUGO"NOTS." This accurate and luminous Historian is as much above such imputations as PASCAL; but they serve to shew