The whole of the above proposition appears in the Edi tion of DOUAY, but only a part of it in the Antwerp Edition; since the Jesuits caused the latter Edition to be printed without the whole of the passage, in order that they might escape the Decree of the Council of Brabant, which had just at that time induced the Faculty of Louvain to censure this doctrine. Even in the Antwerp Edition, however, and in every other, the following part of the proposition is printed, viz. “Ne"gari non potest, quin saltem honorem famamque illam "quæ ex virtute et sapientia nascitur, quique verus honor "est, juste defendere Clerici ac Religiosi valeant, ac sæpe de"beant, cùm hic sit proprius professionis ipsorum, quem si "amittant, maximum bonum ac decus amittunt: nam per "hunc redduntur summopere æstimabiles et conspicui secula"ribus, quos suâ virtute dirigere ac juvare possunt, quo sub"lato nec illos dirigere nec juvare poterunt. Ergo saltem "hunc honorem poterunt Clerici ac Religiosi cum moderamine inculpatæ tutelæ ETIAM CUM MORTE INVASORIS defendere: "quin interdum lege saltem charitatis videntur ad illum de"fendendum teneri, si ex violatione propriæ famæ integra Religio infametur.”—AMICUS, Vol. v. Disp. 36.

66

That part of the proposition which the Jesuits retrenched in the Antwerp Edition (and which is no other than a conclusion from the above premises) is as follows:

"Unde licebit Clerico vel Religioso calumniatorem gravia "crimina de se vel sua Religione spargere minantem occidere, "quando alius defendendi modus non suppetat, uti suppetere "non videtur si calumniator sit paratus ea vel ipsi Religiosos, "vel ejus Religioni publicè ac coram gravissimis viris impin66 gere, nisi occidatur. Nam si in tali casu licitum est Religioso, ne ipse occidatur, invasorem prius occidere, si fugâ "non possit, quia nimirum hostem ante se habet, mortem "evadere; licitum quoque eidem erit ad vitandam gravissi"mam sui suæque Religionis infamiam, si alius modus non

suppetat, calumniatorem occidere. Nam quo jure licitum "est Sæculari in tali casu calumniatorem occidere, eodem jure

licitum videtur Clerico ac Religioso, cùm in hoc Religiosus ❝et Sæcularis sint omnino pares; cum non minus jus in talem “honorem habeat Clericus et Religiosus, quam Sæcularis in suum: imo majus, quanto major est professio sapientiæ et virtutis, ex quâ hic honor Clerico et Religioso progignitur, ❝ quàm sit valor et dexteritas armorum ex quâ honor Sæculari nascitur. Adde quod ut seq. sectionè probabitur, ❝licitum est Clericis ac Religiosis in tutelam suarum facul❝tatum furem occidere, si alius modus eas defendendi non "supersit: ergo multò magis id licitum videtur in tutelam "famæ et honoris ex virtute et sapientiâ consurgentis. Verùm 66 quoniam hæc apud alios scripta non legimus, nolumus ita "à nobis dicta sint ut communi sententiæ adversentur, sed "solum disputandi gratiâ proposita, maturo judicio relicto "penes prudentem lectorem."-AMICUS, Vol. v. Disp. 36.

It appears, therefore, that in every Edition of L'AMY's work, the great principle of the lawfulness of murdering a Religious Adversary is dictinctly and positively asserted: but inasmuch as all the Editions do not contain such full reasoning upon that doctrine as the Edition of Douay, nor pursue it to those consequences which necessarily flow from such a doctrine (because the doctrine itself had at that moment been publicly attacked, and was about to be publicly condemned), therefore MR. DALLAS avails himself of the alteration which had taken place, at the instance of the Jesuits themselves, and asserts that "the proposition was omitted altogether in the "second edition of the work;" the fact being, that every Edition contains enough of the proposition to entitle the Writer whọ could advance it, to the execration of his own age, and of all succeeding times*.

In answer to MR. DALLAS's assertion, that this doctrine was taught by NAVARRE before, and never adopted by L'AMY,

* See Dangereuses Propositions de la Morale tirées des Ouvrages des nouveaux Casuistes, frequently reprinted, and published (among other documents) in the work cited in note to p. 235.

but only proposed by him as a subject for discussion, it may be observed, that it was clearly the doctrine of L'AMY himself, as well as of his predecessors, and of the Jesuits in general, since CARAMUEL the Jesuit maintains it as the only certain and sound opinion held by that learned body on the subject, while the opposite opinion, he says, has only probability in its favor; and he refers expressly to L'AMY, as having maintained the opinion, as well as NAVARRE, SUAREZ, GORDON, and SANCHIUS, and challenges any one to produce an instance of a single Theologian who had contradicted L'AMY in terms; while at the same time, he dares the opponent of such opinion himself, to decree or enjoin a contrary opinion in the tribunal of Confession, declaring, that if any of the Jesuits had ever appeared to contradict it, they had merely varied cases or circumstances, but had never directly opposed that opinion*.

MR. DALLAS next proceeds to the defence of the Casuist MOYA (p. 64), whom he has the effrontery to designate in these terms: "MOYA seems to have been A VERY VIRTUOUS MAN, though perhaps rather indiscreet in his zeal for the "Society."

66

Let us now look a little into the character of this " very "virtuous man," as displayed in his writings.

He was the Confessor of the Queen Mother of Spain; and when the consciences of Princes are placed in such hands, it is easy to guess what results must follow. His work, published

* "Quæritur utrum Doctrina Petri Navarræ, Suari, et FRANCISCI "AMICI, quæ allegatur, sit aliquâ censurâ digna? Et ego addo eamdem "esse etiam Gordoni de Restit. Qu. 4. c. i. n. 7; Sanchii in Selectis "Disp. 146, et aliorum etiam apud ipsos. Et vicissim interrogo utrum "allegari unus possit Theologus qui in terminis AMICO contradicat? "Interrogo an Censor ipse qui Amici doctrinam condemnat, auderet in "tribunali Confessionis jubere (jubere dico, non consuiere) opinionem "contrariam? DOCTRINAM AMICI SOLAM ESSE VERAM, ET OPPOSI"TAM IMPROBABILEM CENSEMUS OMNES DOCTI: si qui enim videntur "contradicere, mutant casum, et circumstantias alterant, non autem "directè opponuntur." See CARAMUEL'S Theologia Fundamenta, Fund. 55. Sect. 6. p. 544.

under the name of AMADEUS GUIMENAEUS, appeared very soon after L'AMY's; it was printed with the express sanction of the Superiors of the Jesuits, and professes in the title-page. to have been published in answer to the complaints preferred by some persons against the moral opinions of the Jesuits.

The Faculty of Theology pronounced the public condemnation of this book, on the 3d of February, 1665; and a reference to that document will shew some of the errors and abominations of the work, which was justly entitled by a Parisian Divine," the common sewer of every kind of profligacy." The Faculty declared, that" their respect for decency must 66 prevent their censuring the abominations which it contained "on the subject of chastity, and the infamies of which that "author had become the apologist."

The King's Advocates stated, that it was "full of many "propositions which were contagious, and calculated to cor"rupt all Christian morality; that Manslaughter, Theft, Si

66

mony, Usury, and other crimes, which cannot be publicly "named, were justified by the license of these modern Ca"suists; and that it was impossible to believe that the Pope, "who was the protector of the Canons, and of discipline, could "authorize laxity and profligacy; that he could wish to "sanction infamous books, which were the horror of all the "virtuous, nor permit that maxims so favourable to vice, " and so contrary to the rules of piety, and to the letter and spirit of the Gospel, should be publicly inculcated *.”

1

The discourse of MARAIS pronounced before the University of Paris on the 8th of October, 1664, and printed by Desprez, will assist in giving a further view of this work; as will also the publications of the Faculty of Theology, in one of which it is declared to contain "whatever the most irregular "imagination had invented for a century, and whatever had "till that period escaped the wickedness of mankindt."

*See Récueil des Censures de la Faculté presenté au Roi 1720, p. 309. *† See Discours de l' Assemblée de la Faculté de Théologie, P. 386.

From these specimens we may be better enabled to give due weight to the observations of MR. DALLAS, when he calls MOYA " A VERY VIRTUOUS MAN." If such characters as these go to the formation of MR. DALLAS's Pantheon, we must pause before we become parties to their apotheosis. Even the Romish Church felt some hesitation in canonizing men who could thus call good evil, and evil good; but MR. DALLAS, it seems, has no such "compunctious visitings." It is enough for him, that these men were Jesuits, that they defended the Jesuits, and were defended by the Jesuits: let such titles to esteem be once established, and they shall not want the support of the modern Champion of the Jesuits.

The same remark is made by MR. DALLAS upon MOYA as upon PIROT, namely, that the opinions which they have advanced" did not originate with them, but had been taught by "the older Divines previous to the existence of the Order :" a fact which only serves more completely to establish the observation of CLAUDE in his masterly work on the Reformation (an observation which has been before noticed in this Reply); namely, that it is impossible to condemn the Jesuistical Casuists, without at the same time condemning the whole school of the Casuistical Theology, whether in the hands of Jesuits or simple Catholics. MR. DALLAS's observation on this head only demonstrates with greater force, that the errors of Jesuitism are radically the errors of a corrupted Religion; and that, although many good men of that communion have abhorred such principles, and many wise men have ridiculed them, yet that they have been in every age the great means and instruments by which bad men have advanced the interests of that Church,—since the majority in all Catholic countries receive without inquiry or examination, whatever their spiritual advisers may suggest.

The next Casuist over whom MR. DALLAS spreads his shield is BAUNI (p. 65).

It had been observed in the Brief Account of the Jesuits, that" BAUNI's Somme des Péchés was proscribed by the