until a year after the interview between HENRY and his Parliament. "The King is made in it" (says DE THOU)" to "cast many injurious reflections on the Parliament, no one "of which he ever uttered, and to employ many puerile ex“ pressions in answer to things of which HARLAY had never thought.”—See De Thou's History, book cxxxii. n. 4.

The Jesuits republished this supposed reply in the Mercure François, Vol. ii. p. 170, and elsewhere: after which, the Jesuit MATTHIEU printed it in his History; the Jesuit DANIEL inserted it in his History of France; and POSSEVIN the Jesuit gave it a place in his Bibliothèque. The Jesuits also translated it into Latin and German.

A reference to that part of DE THOU's History which has been already referred to, will shew with how much indignation, as well as with what complete success, that honest Historian refutes this fictitious answer. He assures us, that he was himself present when the King replied to HARLAY, and that he will pledge himself to the fidelity and accuracy of the statement he records, which is as follows: "The King replied" (says he)" to this Remonstrance with much mildness, and

thanked his Parliament in terms full of affection for the "zeal they had displayed for the safety of his person and the "interests of his Kingdom. With regard to the danger of "re-establishing the Jesuits, he appeared to feel little concern

66

upon that head, and answered dispassionately what had been "advanced on the subject. He said, that he had maturely "considered the matter, and had at length determined to "recal the Society which had been banished from the king"dom; that he hoped, in proportion as they had been consi"dered criminal before, in the same degree they would strive "to evince their allegiance on their return; that, as to the 66 danger which was apprehended, he would be responsible for "it; that he had already surmounted greater by the grace of "God, and that he was desirous that every one should be at

ease on this head; that he watched over the safety of all his "subjects, and consulted their common interests; that a life of

"such trials as his own, had given him experience enough to "communicate instruction to the most skilful in his kingdom; "so that they might rely on him, with respect to his person "and his empire; and that it was only for the welfare of "others that he desired to preserve himself. He ended as he "had begun, by once more thanking his Parliament for their "zeal and their affection." Such is the account which is given by DE THOU of the reply of HENRY IV. which he himself heard delivered by that Monarch. How different to the verbose and declamatory collection of vulgarisms invented by Italian Jesuits, republished by French Jesuits, and finally recopied by MR. DALLAS, after it had been repeatedly exposed as a clumsy and contemptible forgery! and how much more worthy of HENRY IV. is the Speech which is transmitted to us by that faithful Historian DE THOU; in addition to whose testimony as to the gross and palpable forgery of the Speech attributed by the Jesuits to HENRY IV. the following works establish the same fact, viz. Recueil des Pièces sur l'Histoire du Père Jouvency, p. 112; and La Morale pratique des Jesuites, Vol. iii. ch. 12.

It is the less necessary here to consider the motives which influenced HENRY to pursue so disastrous a policy as the recal of these enemies of his crown, his nation, and his life, since they are adverted to in the subsequent History: but, so far as the originality and authenticity of this particular document were concerned, it appeared essential to the interests of truth that ME. DALLAS should not be left in undisputed possession of such a weapon; since many persons might be disposed to attach importance to the Speech in connexion with the name of HENRY IV. to which it can lay no claim from any intrinsic merit which it possesses, there being no one solid argument in it in favor of the Jesuits, nor any effectual refutation of the arguments against them.

MR. DALLAS next attacks SIR JOHN COX HIPPISLEY, (p. 81); and, after some observations which are evidently intended to be humorous, complains of SIR JOHN, for having

4

maintained that the acknowledgment by Jesuits of a foreign General, is an instance of dependence upon foreign jurisdiction; a position, as it should seem, sufficiently incontrovertible, and such an one as perhaps might puzzle persons of greater ingenuity than even MR. DALLAS to disprove. That gentleman, however, in terms not the most civil or respectful towards a Member of the British Parliament, thinks proper to push this position to a consequence which he is pleased to term "absurd ;" and having thus summarily disposed of it, he observes, that "the despotism of the General, and the blind ❝ obedience of the companions of the Order, are calumnies to "which no man would be a dupe, who had ever cast his eye̱ "over the pages of the religious and moral Statutes of "the Institute;" leaving it thus to be inferred (without stating it in so many words), that SIR JOHN knows nothing of those Statutes, and therefore is duped to believe the General despotic, and the Knights' Companions only so many

slaves.

Perhaps MR. DALLAS may be disposed to consider SULLY as great a dupe as SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY. It is thus that SULLY had read the Statutes: "The first of their Statutes" (says he)" subjects them so blindly to their General, or "rather to the Pope, that although they might personally en"tertain, on this point, the most correct and peaceful inten"tions, they can take no step without the concurrence of those "two Superiors; of whom one, namely the Pope, can do us “much injury, and the other, their General, is always a Spa“niard by birth, or a creature of Spain: it is therefore impos"sible to suppose that the Pope and this General of the Je"suits can ever see the Protestant Religion flourish in "France, under its own banners, with a favourable eye. The consequence must be, that the Jesuits, imbued with foreign "maxims, adroit and intelligent as they are, and struggling ❝for victory for their own party, will occasion a perpetual "schism among the people by their confessions, their sermons, “their books, and their conferences; from whence an injurious

66

<change will take place among the different members of the body politic, which will sooner or later lead to intestine "war."-See Sully's Memoirs, Vol. v. p. 109, Edit. 1768.

MR. DALLAS then proceeds to reason upon SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY'S objection as to foreign allegiance, and contends (p. 85) that "the obedience which all Religious as well as "Jesuits paid to their chief Superior, who generally resided. "at Rome, was well understood to relate merely to their pro❝fessional duties;" after which, he observes, that the " ❝tive country of the Pope was never alledged as a motive for ❝rejecting his authority."

na

Most certainly it never was, among his devotees or their defenders but among all those Protestants who have understood the nature of Popery, and have been aequainted with their own interests, the allegiance due to the Pope by all Catholics; to the Superiors of Religious Orders, by the members of those Orders; and to the General of the Jesuits, by all the members of that Order-have been invariably protested against ever since the Pope, Religious Superiors, and the General of Jesuits, had an existence.

SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY, therefore, in objecting to the operation of foreign influence, and the admission of foreign supremacy in Protestant Empires, does no more than every Statesman may be expected to do, who knows what dangerous consequences have invariably flowed from the profession of such doctrines; and with regard to MR. DALLAS's assertion, that the obedience which all other Catholics, as well as Jesuits, paid to a foreign Superior, was well understood to relate merely to their "professional duties," Mr. Dallas must fail in establishing this point; unless he can persuade us to forget the Bulls and Decrees of various Popes, commanding the Catholic subjects of other Sovereigns, in all times, to depose and murder their lawful monarchs, and to stir up insurrection in their kingdoms; or unless he intends to designate those Papal mandates as so many calls to "professional

'duty," and the obedience that was paid to those commands so many acts of "professional duty."

MR. DALLAS'S taunting question, in p. 86, "Can SIE "JOHN adduce a single instance of a Jesuit's betraying the country or the government which protected him ?" may be answered by informing him that the whole of this History (among many other works on the same subject) is a collection of such instances.

With regard to the question between SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY and MR. DALLAS as to the conduct of the EMPRESS OF RUSSIA, and her motives in protecting the Jesuits (see p. 87 et seq.), it may be observed, that her patronage of the Order no more proves it worthy of royal favor, than her invitation to D'ALEMBERT to come to Russia and educate the Grand Duke (which she accompanied with very flattering offers), proves that D'ALEMBERT deserved the confidence with which her Imperial Majesty's misplaced taste for French genius and French profligacy would have led her to repose in him: neither does the good opinion which the KING OF PRUSSIA entertained of the Jesuits (see p. 88) any more prove that Order worthy of his good opinion, than the intimacy in which he lived with the worst Infidels of France proves Infidelity to be a good thing.

If Royal patronage would establish the advantages of the Order of Jesuits, MR. DALLAS might have found examples much better suited to his purpose, in the Popes who have employed Jesuits as their agents in every species of public crime, and in the Kings who have made them their Confessors and Confidants, in accomplishing the great work of enslaving their Catholic subjects, and destroying their Protestant subjects.

The utmost which the argument of authority can do for MR. DALLAS is, to prove what no man who knows any thing of the history of the world will dispute,—namely, that some Sovereign Princes have in all times fostered and employed designing men, under whose advice they have pursued measures entirely at variance with their own interests,