in another he thinks they ought to have been spared? in order, however, to the complete exculpation of the Jesuits in Japan, MR. DALLAS should have shewn that they did not render Christianity odious there; for, until he can do that, the statement that they did, is not controverted by his proving that other Catholics did so too. It is under a conviction that, in order to clear the Jesuits at all, he must clear them altogether, that he therefore, in p. 19, would have us doubt whether either the Jesuits or the Priests were to blame; and thus, after hav ing admitted that the Jesuits really acted with the other Priests, he quotes MONTESQUIEU to shew that "the Magis "trates of Japan punished the people for not renouncing the "Christian Religion:" undoubtedly they did; but does this refute what has been first asserted, namely, that the Jesuits had rendered Christianity odious there? MONTESQUIEU's remark applies to the period of time when the Jesuits had rendered Christianity so odious, that the government of that country determined none of its subjects should belong to such a profession. When MONTESQUIEU, therefore, states that the Magistrates punished Christians in Japan; this does not prove that the Jesuits were innocent of the scandal thus brought upon Christianity, or that they had not been instrumental in bringing it into disrepute and contempt*. The proof that they actually did so, must be referred to the following History.

MR. DALLAS then (p. 20) asserts, that, as 66 to the enor"mities in China, the Jesuits were not more responsible for "these ;" and in order to prove this, he quotes what he calls

a geographical Account of China" (without informing us to what account he alludes), the Extract from which goes to shew, that two Jesuits having begun the mission in China, they had many followers, "until the Dominicans and Fran"ciscans took the field, and THEN contentions broke out.”

* See MONTESQUIEU's Esprit des Loix, Book xxv. Chap. 14 (quoted by mistake in MR. DALLAS as Book v. Chap. 14). 4

Now, supposing this geograghical account to be true in itself, and correctly quoted, it is clear that it would only prove that two other Catholic Orders were involved in contentions of some sort or other with the Order of Jesuits in China; but it was not with contentions of any kind that the Jesuits had been accused, when they were charged with " enormities in China." The enormities alluded to were their open and scandalous alliance of Idolatry with Christianity, and their inculcation, in that Empire, of an impure and debased form of worship, in which the rites and sacrifices of Heathens were mixed with the purer religion of Christ; and all this, in direct contravention of their professed object, which was to convert Pagan Idolaters, and to evangelize the world by means of those Missions of which MR. DALLAS speaks so highly-Let us hear what PALAFOX the Bishop of ANGELOPOLIS says of this matter in his Letter to POPE INNOCENT X. dated 8th January, 1649:

66

66

"The whole Church (says he) publicly laments that it has "been rather seduced than instructed in China by what the "Jesuits have taught respecting the faith: they have kept "the Cross of the Saviour out of sight, and authorized cus"toms absolutely pagan; instead of Christianizing Idolaters, they have heathenized Christians; they have united God "and Belial at the same Table, in the same Temple, at the 66 same Altar, and in the same Sacrifices; in fact, Idols are worshipped in that nation under the mask of Christianity, "or rather the purity of our holy faith is polluted under the "mask of Idolatry. They have not only permitted the new "Converts to frequent the Temples where Idols are adored, "but to take part in the abominable Sacrifices which are offer"ed to them; nay, they themselves offer sacrifices to the Idols, "prostrate themselves before them, present incense to them, “and erect the Cross in the same Temple with Dagon; the "Idolatry of such rites being evaded by a pretext of the Je"suits, directing the inward attention of the worshipper to a "Cross which is carried in secret at the same time that exte"rior worship is offered to the Idol."-"No other Ecclesiastical

"Order ever departed so widely from the true principles of "the Christian religion. It has been seen, that, instead of

teaching the new Converts as they ought, the new Converts "have inveigled their Teachers into Idolatry, and have in"duced them to embrace a worship and customs which are "detestable; so that the fish has not been taken by the "angler, but the angler has been caught by the fish *.-I "have a whole volume of apologies of the Jesuits, in which "they not only ingenuously admit their most pernicious mode "of instructing the Chinese Converts, but Didaque de Mo"ralez, the Rector of their College of St. Joseph in Manilla, " which is the metropolitan City of the Philippines, obstinately defends (in a work of three hundred pages) all those things which your Holiness has very justly condemned by ❝seventeen Decrees of the Congregation de propagandâ fide, " and endeavours by all the subtilty in his power to overturn "the reasoning contained in those decrees."

That it may not be imagined that this Bishop had not the best means of information on the subject, it is proper to add his own declaration in support of his statement

"As I am nearer to this people (the Chinese) than any "other Prelate; as I have not only received Letters from "their Instructors, but am acquainted with all the facts of the "case, and am in possession of all the documents that have "appeared upon it: and as, in the character of a Bishop, "God has called me to the government of his Church, I "should have cause to tremble at the awful day of Judgment,

* "A man (says BISHOP HORNE) should be very well established "in faith and virtue, who attempts to reclaim a profligate; otherwise " he may become a convert, instead of making one. Chapelle was met one day in the street by his friend Boileau, who took the opportunity "of mentioning to him his habit of drinking, and its consequences : "unfortunately, they were just by a Tavern; Chapelle only desired "they might step in there, and promised he would listen patiently and 66 attentively; Boileau consented, and the event was, that about one in "the morning, they were carried home dead drunk in separate "coaches."-Bishop Horne's Thoughts and Essays.

"if, having his spiritual Sheep committed to my charge, I had "not represented to your Holiness how many scandals are "occasioned by this doctrine of the Jesuits in those places "where the true faith alone should be propagated."

In p. 21 MR. DALLAS repeats his charge, that the object of the remarks on the Jesuits is "to excite a ferment against "the Catholic claims."

There is something in the mode of putting this observation which requires attention. The charge of a desire to excite a ferment against the claims of the Catholics is not justified by any thing which has been offered. An attempt has certainly been made to shew that such claims are, under any circumstances, fraught with danger to a Protestant State-and further, that with Jesuits both in England and Ireland to enforce those claims, and (in the event of their being conceded) to take advantage of that concession, in conjunction with other Catholics, such danger becomes formidable in no common degree.

It will not be denied, that a great measure of state policy, new in its nature, vast in its magnitude, and hazardous in its consequences, has been proposed by the Catholics and their advocates. It is the inalienable privilege of every Englishman to examine this question, involving, as it appears to do, his dearest interests, his civil and religious rights and liberties, and all that he has been accustomed to consider most sacred in this world. It is equally his privilege to convey his opinion to his Countrymen, with his reasons for the conclusion to which he may have come. If any other man should take a dif ferent view of the subject, he is also at liberty to express his opinion; but by what right does he venture to impute to his neighbour any desire to "excite a ferment" by his preceding statement? If the imputation of such unworthy motives were in any case decent or admissible, with how much greater appearance of justice might they be referred to those who, in advocating the Catholic claims, desire (to say no more) that a sensible and radical alteration should be made in the Constitution

of this country at this moment? Let such an imputation therefore be taken back, and let no man, while our Press is free, be deterred from avowing, on a question of this description, the plain and honest feelings of his heart.

MR. DALLAS (in p. 24) compliments PROFESSOR ROBERTSON for being an elegant and cautious Historian, for which, however, the author of the Letters in THE PILOT NEWSPAPER will not thank him; since the latter has classed that Historian among "the modern corrupters of History," and "the throng "of servile Imitators whose historical romances have so much "contributed to render religion odious, and to plunge man"kind into scepticism and Infidelity."

MR. DALLAS has not in this instance strictly adhered to his text: but he makes ample amends for his deviation, by endeavouring, as in every other instance, to invalidate RoBERTSON'S whole statement, and to discredit every authority he has cited; thus evincing himself worthy of treading in the steps which the writer of the Letters in the Pilot newspaper had trodden before him.

MR. DALLAS attempts in the first place (pages 24-2829) to overthrow the authority of the COMPTES RENDUS, or the Statements made to the Parliaments of Brittany and Pro vence by CHALOTAIS and MONCLAR, both which are quoted, and commented on, by ROBERTSON.

MR. DALLAS calls them "fabrications," and asserts that the memorial of the former was written by D'ALEMBERT, and not by CHALOTAIS; after which he strives to prove from the modern testimony of M. LALLY TOLENDAL, that CHALOTAIS was unworthy of credit, which is a work of supererogation, if CHALOTAIS was not its author. No tittle of evidence, however, beyond the assertion of Mr. DALLAS himself, is adduced to shew, that this statement was not written by Chalotais, or that it was written by D'ALEMBERT.-MR. DALLAS then asserts, that the Compte Rendu of MONCLAR" was sent to » him from Paris with a promise of being the next Chancellor of France if he would adopt it, and engage his Parliament