in proceeding with the quotation, skips over the following passage as not very favorable to his friends the Jesuits: "The "zeal of the Society for a Religion which humbles those who "hear it, much more than those who preach it, has made it "undertake great things, and it has succeeded."

Now, taking the whole of the above extract together, it is evident that MONTESQUIEU meant to compare the exertions of the Jesuits, in the dregs of modern times, with those of the Heathen Legislators LYCURGUS and PLATO. It is true that he praises the Jesuits, and so he does their Pagan predecessors; but for what? for accomplishing their object of governing by measures of the most subtle and corrupt policy: he expressly instances the Jesuits as imitators and followers of the Grecian Legislators, who "displayed their wisdom "to the world by violating established usages, and con"founding every virtue." Well might an inspired Apostle declare, that "the world by wisdom knew not God!" MONTESQUIEU further remarks, that the Jesuits afford a proper example in modern times of those ancients who united theft with justice, slavery with licentiousness, and atrocious opinions with great moderation: all this ancient and modern contempt for reason and revelation may present a very fine picture to the eye of this philosophic Catholic, MONTESQUIEU, who, in observing the near approaches which the Jesuits have made to the perfection of Heathenism, discovers much to admire and commend. Perhaps the Public may see rather less, when they have thus before them the whole of his views upon the subject; and they may probably see farther occasion to distrust a writer who, when affecting to give the opinion of MONTESQUIEU upon the Jesuits, selects from that opinion just so much as suits him, and leaves the rest.

We next find BUFFON adduced as a witness in favor of the Jesuits (p. 138).

All who are in the slightest degree acquainted with the character of BUFFON, will be not a little surprised at finding his authority referred to, upon any question of morals; and will

wonder not without cause, what he could know of the religion or morality of the Jesuits. The merit of deep investigation into the philosophy of merely animal nature, cannot indeed be denied to BUFFON; but with respect to that moral monster the Jesuit, he was the last man whose opinion is worth possessing: at once the greatest sensualist, and the greatest student of his age; his whole time was divided between his vices and his writings. The grossness of his conversation obliged ladies of any character, even when they were his own guests, to withdraw from his table, that they might escape from his indelicate and licentious observations. During the life of his wife, he was charged with frequent infidelities, and he proceeded to the unwarrantable extreme of debauching young women, and then employing means to procure abortion.

His confidence in the latter period of his life, was almost wholly engrossed by a Mademoiselle Blesseau, who lived with him for many years. Of his infidelity, his works afford ample evidence; and it was this which suggested to him, that immortal renown was the most powerful of death-bed consolations. In his contempt for Religion, he added hypocricy to impiety, attending with regularity the external observances of religion, under pretence that as there must be a religion for the multitude, we should avoid giving offence. "I have always" (he said)" named the Creator, but it is only putting, mentally, in "its place, the energy of nature, which results from the two "great laws of attraction and impulse *. When the Sorbonne "molested me, I gave all the satisfaction which they solicited: "it was only a form that I despised, but men are weak enough ❝to be satisfied with forms. For the same reason, when I fall dangerously ill, I shall not hesitate to send for the Sacraments. "This is due to the public religion. They who act otherwise "are madmen."-Yet gross as this hypocrisy was, as to externals, BUFFON never permitted it to interfere with his per'sonal vices, which he practised to the last, with an obdurate

* "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!" Romans, ch..i. ver. 22.

and unfeeling profligacy, that has probably never been exceed ed; the debauching of female children forming his constant and his last delight!

He never fails to allude to sensual gratifications in his works, and never lost sight of them in his practice *. Yet this is the man to whom one of his countrymen (Herault de Sechelles) dared to apply the epithets of "great and good;" and this too is the man, whom MR. DALLAS selects as an evidence in favor of the Jesuits!

MR. DALLAS must not hope to shelter himself under the plea that BUFFON's impieties and immoralities have nothing to do with this question. They are essentially connected with it, because it is evidence to moral character, which BUFFON gives, and which MR. DALLAS quotes; and it then becomes of importance to ascertain whether the person who gave this evidence had any moral character of his own. It is one thing when a man writes respecting animals, minerals, or vegetables; and another when he ventures upon higher ground, treats of Morals, and eulogizes a Religious Order. The opinion of a Philosopher may be very correct upon the secondary causes of Thunder and Lightning; but if the same Philosopher were boldly to deny the God who was the great primary cause of these appearances, we should without hesitation reject his evidence, upon a question of religion and morality. Thus the Philosopher in question, who virtually rejected the Revelation which God had given to the world, could be expected to know but little of the way in which the Jesuits had adhered to, or departed from it, either in the doctrines they taught, or the practices they

observed.

The next authority is that of HALLER (p. 139), and has chiefly reference to the Missions of the Jesuits, which will be considered hereafter.

The authority of HALLER is succeeded by that of MURATORI, the Italian Scholar and Antiquary, who also speaks to

* See, in proof of the above facts, Rees's and Brewster's Cyclopedias, and Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, with their authorities.

the Missions of the Jesuits, in the Extract which is given; and he again is followed by GROTIUS, LEIBNITZ, and BACON, a Triumvirate, who are somewhat unceremoniously lumped together.

We then come to the Evidence supplied in favor of the Jesuits by the Infidel friend and ally of the Atheists, Deists, and Sceptics of the French Revolution, FREDERIC OF PRUSSIA; whom MR. DALLAS, notwithstanding, honours with the epithet of THE GREAT, a title which other splendid villains, and mighty conquerors, have shared in common with him, from the foundation of the world.

The opinion of DR. JOHNSON, which follows in p. 144, requires a little more examination.

MR. DALLAS is perfectly welcome to all the benefit of MRS. PIozzi's account of DR. JOHNSON's opinion of the Jesuits, if he ever expressed any such opinion. It is somewhat. strange, however, that in all BoswELL's conversations with DR. JOHNSON, he should never have reported him as advancing any opinion in favor of the Jesuits; and it is certain that MRS. Piozzi is not to be implicitly depended upon for correctness.. BOSWELL convicts that sprightly Lady, upon the clearest evidence, of various inaccuracies in her narrative, which convey the most erroneous impressions of DR. JOHNSON's character and opinions. In one place he observes: "As a sincere friend "of the great man whose life I am writing, I think it neces66 sary to guard my readers against the mistaken notion of "DR. JOHNSON's character, which this Lady's Anecdotes of "him convey."-See Boswell's Life, Vol. iv. p. 357, Edit. 1799.

Again he observes: "I have had occasion several times "in the course of this work, to point out the incorrectness of "MRS. PIOZZI, as to particulars which fell within my own know

46

ledge." Ib. p. 358.—And again : “I certainly do not claim "too much in behalf of my illustrious friend, in saying, that, "however smart and entertaining her Anecdotes are, they must "not be held as good evidence." Ib. 360. In the same page

BOSWELL, speaks of her "exaggeration and distortion:" and he adds, "It is with concern that I find myself obliged to "animadvert on the inaccuracies of MRS. PIozzi's Anecdotes, "and perhaps I may be thought to have dwelt too long upon "her little collection; but as, from JOHNSON's long intimacy "with her, the account which she has given of him, may have "made an unfavorable and unjust impression, my duty as a "faithful biographer has obliged me reluctantly to perform "this unpleasing task."

Let it however be admitted, for the sake of giving to the friends of the Jesuits all possible advantage from DR. JOHNson's opinion, that he really did, when in conversation with a French Abbé at Rouen, condemn the destruction of the Jesuits, as stated by MRS. Piozzi, and what does this amount to?, Simply, that a learned and excellent Protestant, who is known to have had a strong leaning towards some of the tenets of Popery, expressed an opinion, that this powerful Catholic Order was of advantage to the world, and that therefore it could not be advantageously suppressed. The History which follows may, perhaps, convince all who are open to conviction that DR. JOHNSON was completely mistaken, in the favorable opinion which he is supposed to have formed of this body of men; and that his notion of their being useful to the world, no more established that utility, than his opinion of the advantage of praying for the dead, established the fact that the dead better for our prayers. On one occasion DR. JOHNSON argued for THE INQUISITION; maintaining (says BOSWELL), that false doctrine should be checked on its first appear"ance, that the civil power should unite with the Church, in

are any

punishing those who dared to attack the established religion, ❝and that such only were punished by the Inquisition."-See Boswell's Life, Vol. i. p. 421, Edit. 1799-Now, although BOSWELL asserts, that this was not JOHNSON's real opinion (in which perhaps he is correct), yet it at least shews, that the colloquial remarks of that great man cannot be always admitted, for the purpose of settling a disputed proposition. He