and with those of their people; but this will not prove that the Sovereigns in question were worthy of imitation, or that the Instruments they employed were worthy of their confidence: the honours heaped upon the Jesuits by Catholic Monarchs, and the protection afforded to them by Philosophic Monarchs, will not invalidate the abundant testimony which we possess respecting their delinquencies; nor will their recep tion by governments, either avowedly Catholic, or half Catholic, afford any argument for our Protestant Government confiding to them the education of its youth, or the instruction of its adults. MR. DALLAS, indeed, records, apparently with high satisfaction, the "unsuspecting liberality" with which his friends the Jesuits have been long treated in Russia; makes honourable mention of the erection of their College of Polosk by the present Emperor, "into an University, by which they became exempted from the control of the "University of Petersburgh;" and speaks of a Jesuitical College of Nobles" in that Capital, where the Superior of Jesuits is pleased, very condescendingly, to permit a Priest of the Greek Church to explain on Sunday the National Cate chism to these noble students, " in a private room," beyond which, MR. DALLAS informs us," he has nothing to do in the "house."

66

It happens rather unfortunately for our author, that the Emperor of Russia should have altered his opinion about the Jesuits since MR. DALLAS'S Defence of the Order appeared; but, perhaps, the Emperor did not read MR. DALLAS's work. However this may be, that Monarch has already seen abundant 'occasion to regret the patronage he afforded, and the privileges he conceded, to these sworn foes of order and of peace; and has. found cause to repent of the education of the flower of his Nobility in the principles and mysteries of Jesuitism: he has ́accordingly driven the Jesuits in disgrace from both his Capitals; and although the Popish Journal, or Orthodox Magazine, has thought fit to deny this fact, it is not less true on that account. From the commencement of his reign, the

:

Jesuits have proved themselves in Russia, as elsewhere, the sworn foes of every valuable institution: they have strenuously opposed the Bible Society, although well known to have enjoyed the particular auspices of the Emperor; and they resisted the printing of the Persian Testament in that Empire, although undertaken with his sanction: they have been indefatigable in their efforts to make converts to Popery, and have succeeded to a large extent, even in the most elevated classes they carried on intrigues at Rome, which had for their object the dismemberment of the Greek Church, and the disgrace of its Clergy: they sought to excite the vengeance of the Pope against the chief supporters of the Bible Society in Russia; and but for the salutary overthrow they have experienced, would soon have succeeded in occasioning disturbances in that vast Empire, which it might have been found impossible to allay. Every person who maintains a correspondence with Russia may satisfy himself, without difficulty, of the correctness of this information.

It was not, indeed, to be expected, that these ministers of darkness would permit the diffusion of religious light without exerting all the opposition in their power, nor permit the continuance of concord, while they had the means of stirring up strife; but the example may not be without its use, if other Sovereigns besides the Emperor of Russia shall learn from it, that, unless ancient and modern History be the fiction which MR. DALLAS would represent, no Monarch who harbours the Jesuits must look for any special reservation in his own favor, or expect that the indulgences which he may concede to the Jesuits will be repaid by that Society in any other coin than that which has ever hitherto borne their "image and super"scription."

In p. 93 MR. DALLAS imputes to SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY the same motives with which he had charged the author of the Brief Account of the Jesuits, namely, an attack on the Catholics in general through the Jesuits; as if it were possible to separate the two cases, or at the same time to convict the

Jesuits, and to clear the Catholics: but this point has been so amply adverted to before, that it is the less necessary to consider it again.

MR. DALLAS (in p. 94) expresses his surprise at SIR JOHN's opinion, that modern Catholics (such as MR. PLOWDEN and others) must find some difficulty in condemning the wisdom of one Pope who suppressed the Order of Jesuits, while at the same time they applaud the wisdom of another Pope who has now restored it; but since it is impossible that these Pontiffs (however infallible some may consider them) can both be in the right, this really does appear to be a dilemma, upon one of whose horns, such inconsistent reasoners as these modern Catholics and their Defenders do voluntarily place themselves; and therefore there seems nothing unreasonable in the suggestion of SIR JOHN HIPPISLEY, that the Bull which abolished the Order, and the Bull which revived it, should always appear together, as the best exposure which plain Protestants can give of the contradictions of Catholic logicians, and the best refutation which they can afford to the claims of Papal Infallibility.

In the following page MR. DALLAS speaks in contemptuous terms of two French works which have lately appeared against the Jesuits; the one entitled, Du Pape et des Jesuites ; and the other, Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre politique, religieux, et morale; which works, however, he admits that he has not read: after which avowal he proceeds to state, that "their titles and authors are enough to convince "him that the new Conspiracy against the Jesuits extends to "France, and that he is answering those pamphlets WITHOUT "SEEING THEM."

There is something sufficiently ridiculous in this mode of judging of the merits of a work by its "Title" and its “ Au"thor:" but MR. DALLAS's alledged discovery of the art of answering a Book without seeing it, has been so long a desideratum in the learned world, and would be so important to the interests of the public at large, if it ever could be brought

into general use, that it is sincerely to be hoped this Gen tleman will not (like the followers of ROSICRUSIUS) suffer such a secret to die with him; but will immediately communicate it, for the benefit of all poor authors, with whom Time is such a precious commodity, and more particularly, for the advantage of Reviewers.-How far, indeed, the manner in which MR. DALLAS has answered the Brief Account of the Jesuits, which he has read, will tend to recommend his answer to those books which he has not read, must be left for the Public to decide.

MR. DALLAS, in p. 97, enters upon a course of argument, which he pursues through several pages, the main object of which is to prove, that although GANGANELLI (CLEMENT XIV.) suppressed the Order of Jesuits, yet he was only in duced to do so, partly from motives of policy, and partly of compulsion; and that such act was altogether opposed to his own private and personal convictions of the utility of the Order. "The Jesuits" (says MR. DALLAS)" were to be sacri"ficed in spite of their innocence, in spite of their religious “ and moral virtues (!!!), in spite of his own" (Clement's) "attachment and approbation, to the necessity of preserving "the power of the Monarchs of Europe;" and MR. Dallas then quotes abundantly from the work purporting to be the. Letters of Ganganelli, for the purpose of shewing that, in suppressing the Order of Jesuits, this Pope acted under moral restraint, was not master of his own conduct, and would have followed a very different course if he had been able to obey the suggestions of his conscience. MR. DALLAS even compares this Pope to PONTIUS PILATE, for pursuing the policy of expediency; and quotes the Scriptures twice in one page to prove the similarity of character between the Roman Governor, who consented to the crucifixion of our Lord, and the Roman Pontiff, who consented to the suppression of the Jesuits. How far MR. DALLAS's friends, the Roman Catholics, will thank him for his parallel, will remain for them to determine.

Unfortunately for MR. DALLAS, all the reasoning by which he arrives at the conclusion that Pope CLEMENT XIV. abolished the Order of Jesuits contrary to his own convictions, is founded upon a work which has been long and universally disavowed as authentic, both by the Religious and Literary world, namely, GANGANELLI'S LETTERS. It is only the part of charity to presume, that MR. DALLAS was ignorant of the general understanding and belief respecting these Letters, and to conclude that he never would have consented to reason upon such materials, if he had not supposed them to be genuine : in this case his defective information alone will become the subject of censure; and it is far better that a writer should be convicted of resorting to a modern forgery in ignorance of its nature, than that he should have called in its aid under a consciousness of its falsehood. MR. DALLAS, therefore, shall have all the benefit which he can derive from this concession: though, after all, it must be admitted, that an author who professes to inform the British Public upon a point so essential to their interests, cannot be too careful to be well-informed himself upon the character of his authorities. The question raised in France respecting these Letters is well known, and has never yet been answered-" WHERE ARE THE ORI"GINALS?" In urging that question, and in demonstrating the fraud which was attempted to be put upon the world by the publication of these Letters, VOLTAIRE, perhaps, was most successful; nor can the general Infidelity of that writer be mixed with this question, as any reason for rejecting his aid in detecting imposture, since the question is simply one of fact, namely, whether GANGANELLI did or did not write the Letters attributed to him after his death. If a man gives such information as may preserve our House from plunder, we do not object to him the unsoundness of his religious principles as a reason for discrediting his testimony. Dr. JOHNSON was so perfectly convinced that these Letters were a forgery, that he asserted his conviction in the most unequivocal terms (see Boswell's Life, Vol. iii. p. 308, Edit. 1799):