* There is, however, no part of the system of the Catholics in which they are more united with the Jesuits than in the importance which they both attach to AURICULAR CONFESSION; a duty of the Romish Church, which as it has tended, above every other, to extend and keep alive the influence of the Catholic Priesthood on the people, so has it been, in the hands of the Jesuits, the most powerful instrument they have ever possessed to forward their ambitious policy, by enabling them at once to influence the councils of Princes, and to direct the minds of more subordinate agents. "The abolition of Auricular Confession by "the Reformation" (says VILLERS on the Reformation), 66 was a stroke which cut at once the infinite ramifications with "which the hierarchical despotism had every where entwined "its roots, and deprived the Clergy of their enormous influence on princes and the great, on the women, and in the bosom "of every family:" and in a note on that passage of Villers, the Translator observes, "Of all the contrivances to enthral mankind, and to usurp the entire command of them, that " of Auricular Confession appears the most impudent, and the "most effectual. That one set of men could persuade all "other men that it was their duty to come and reveal to them every thing which they had done, and every thing which they meant to do, would not be credible if it were not "proved by the fact. This circumstance rendered the Clergy "masters of the secrets of every family: it rendered them too "the universal advisers: when any person's intentions were "laid before a Clergyman, it was his business to explain what "was lawful and what was not, and under this pretext to

66

66

66

give what counsel he pleased: in this manner, the Clergy "became masters of the whole system of human life; the two objects they chiefly pursued were, to increase the riches of "the Order, and to gratify their senses and pride: by using "all their arts to cajole the great and wealthy, and attacking

"who can with a word perform the most astonishing thing that ever "was?"-BURNET's Preface to his Abridgment of the History of the Reformation.

"them in moments of weakness, sickness, and at the hour of "death, they obtained great and numerous bequests to the "Church: by abusing the opportunities they enjoyed with "women, they indulged their lusts; and by the direction

66

they obtained in the management of every family, and every ❝event, they exercised their love of power, when they could "not draw an accession of wealth."-MILLS's Translation of VILLERS on the Reformation, p. 159.

Again; on the several questions of THE PAPAL INFALLI BILITY * AND SUPREMACY; THE LAWFULNESS OF REGICIDE; and THE DUTY OF PERSECUTING PROTESTANTS; we have constantly seen the Catholics lend themselves to the Jesuits, both in the doctrines which they taught on these heads, and in the practices which they pursued. They have, in fact, been, in every age, the willing instruments of the Jesuits; nor can this be any subject of surprise, when it is considered, that, in the estimation of a sincere Catholic, the interests of his own Church are of paramount obligation; and therefore that he has no occasion to be more nice about the means of extending its influence, than the particular Order in question. Hence it was, that although the Jesuits organized the attempt of Barriere upon the life of Henry IV. (as is shewn in the following History), it was A RECTOR OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, in Paris, WHO WAS NOT A JESUIT, that first encouraged the design of Barriere, concealed the treason from the Government, and sent the traitor to the tuition of the Jesuits, who trained him to their purpose. Hence also, when the Jesuits Garnett, Gerard, Tesmond, Baudouin, and Hall (as will be seen in the following History), had contrived the horrid tragedy of the 5th of November, they found instruments fitted to their hands, in Catesby, Winter, Sir Everard Digby, Rookwood, and Fawkes; NO ONE OF WHOM, HOWEVER, WAS

"The Jesuits of Clermont declared, before all Paris, that the "Pope was as infallible as Jesus Christ himself, and employed all their “knowledge and talents to inculcate that doctrine, and make it an "article of faith." VILLERS on the Reformation, p. 384.

A JESUIT, BUT MERELY OF THE SAME CHURCH. The influence of Catesby, who was a CATHOLIC PRIEST, upon the minds of the Conspirators was very remarkable; both Sir Everard Digby and Ambrose Rookwood having publicly declared, after their conviction, that it was from their strong attachment to him that they had at first been led to entertain the project. Rookwood, in particular, affirmed, that "he was persuaded "and drawn in by Catesby, whom he loved above any man, "and that he had concealed it, not for any malice to the person of the King or to the State, but only drawn with "the tender respect and faithful affection he bare to Mr. "Catesby, whom he esteemed dearer than any one else in the "world." [State Trials, vol. ii. p. 186.] Such, in these instances (among innumerable others), was the conduct of the Catholic Priesthood in reference to the Jesuits; and such was the influence of that Priesthood on the Laity. The system of each remaining the same; the inference is, that Catholic Priests must continue to be the agents of the Jesuits, and that the Catholic Laity will continue their devoted submission to the Priesthood.

MR. DALLAS has therefore no right to complain that the Catholics have been identified with the Jesuits, especially when he considers that they will not permit themselves to be separated; that Catholics espouse the cause of Jesuits whenever they are attacked; and appear to feel and act as if they considered themselves mutually interested in each other's existence and welfare. Thus, no sooner had the Letters against the Jesuits appeared in the Times newspaper, than a Catholic Priest (as has been seen) entered into a formal vindication of the Order, in another newspaper; which Defence was immediately republished by the Catholic Editors of a Catholic Journal, who have in all their subsequent Numbers industriously supplied every argument on behalf of the Jesuits, which had been omitted in the Letters; and given higher colouring and greater force to all which had been advanced in their favor It might indeed have been reasonably expected, and it

certainly was expected by some sincere friends of the Catholic cause and the Catholic claims, that the members of that Church (at least its English members) would have come forward and disowned the Jesuits, en corps, as too bad to be defended. Those Protestants, however, who expected this, knew but little of the spirit and genius of Catholicism: so far from their expectation having been realized, the Catholic body has been remarkably active in its efforts to exculpate the Jesuits. It is easy to understand upon what principle this has happened; the observation of the Lawyers to our Lord, supplies the reason; "Master, thus saying, thou reproachest us also." Whatever may be the reason, however, the fact of the Catholics having chosen to make common cause with the Jesuits is beyond dispute: they have volunteered their best services in behalf of the Jesuits, and so entirely identified their interests with those of the Jesuits, that MR. DALLAS has not the power to separate them, even if the Catholics would thank him for the attempt.' If it be true, therefore (as MR. DALLAS deplores), that the Catholics have been "attacked through "the sides of the Jesuits," it must be answered, that the Catholics have chosen to place themselves in the ranks of the Jesuits, and consequently have no right to complain if, in contending on the same side with them, they are taken for the same troops, and adjudged to be fighting for the same cause: "If," as JUNIUS "their bed be a bed of tortures, "they have made it for themselves!"

says,

MR. DALLAS proceeds to state that the Summary of the History of the Jesuits, published in the BRIEF ACCOUNT, is an unfair and dishonest statement, inasmuch as that portion of it which is in favor of the Jesuits is suppressed; and upon this remark he founds several reflections, which impute to the Author of the Brief Account a design of aggravating, by such omission, the description which has been given of this Order by PROFESSOR ROBERTSON, in his History of Charles the Fifth.

The short reply to this charge is, that the Summary in

question was not taken from ROBERTSON'S History, but from the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA; and if MR. DALLAS will turn to the article "Jesuits," in that work, he will find that the passage, with the suppression of which he has charged the author of the Brief Account, forms no part of the article from which his Summary was actually taken. So much for the imputation of improper motives!—an imputation which, in every case where it cannot be supported, only recoils upon a writer who resorts to such an argument. If it should be said that the Compiler of the Encyclopædia Britannica had a sinister motive in omitting this exculpatory passage, it may be observed that the testimony which it affords in favor of the Jesuits appears hardly strong enough to warrant the supposition that any person could have intentionally suppressed it; for, to what does it amount? Certainly not to a vindication of the Order, or even to an apology for it as an Order, but simply to an averment that among so large a body of men some individuals were always to be found who were too honest to lend themselves to all the abominations of their fellows; and who can doubt this fact? or who, that is in any degree acquainted with human nature or the world about him, does not know that corruption can never be so general and entire in any society of men (however depraved), as that some will not at all times be found who are an ornament to their own particular body, and afford exceptions to the general rule, which rule, however, they prove by becoming exceptions to it?-Such was undoubtedly the case even among the Jesuits themselves; and, therefore, in asserting that it was so, PROFESSOR ROBERTSON advances a truism, which the Editor of the Encyclopædia Britannica appears to have considered it unnecessary to repeat: it was with the Jesuits as an Order that the Editor of the Encyclopædia had to do: it is with the Jesuits as an Order that the British Public has to do; and the circumstance of many of their members having been honest men, no more proves that the Order itself was pure, than the fact of there being many excellent Catholics will