1 indeed his sophistry (for he has not 正 once attempted to reason, either right or wrong,) but his ignorance and his falsehoods have been sufficiently branded; and yet, spider-like, Destroy his slander and his fibs, -in vain, The creature's at its dirty work again. Undoubtedly he never deserved, and never would have received even a first answer, if it had not been apparent, that his venal pen was guided and paid by mischief-makers of deeper views; and hence arises the necessity of noting this fourth effusion, to prevent the retailers of his lies from vainly boasting, that slander unanswered is acknowledged truth. I write not to Laicus, but to his prompters and to 15 his readers, if there are any left. T *སྒྱུ length of 150 years, until Jansenism and Deism renewed them, to accomplish the utter destruction of their known enemies, in 1760 and the en suing years. It is needless to disprove each imputed fact: I will only, for a sample, refute the first, which stands in Laicus's foul calendar. It is the assertion that the Jesuit Varade, was implicated in the guilt of the assassins Barriere and Chatel. Now Varade was defended and cleared by an Advocate, to whom no reply could be made. It was Henry IV. himself, who, in his famous answer to the Parliamentary President Harley, vindicated the honour and the innocence of that Jesuit, and of all his associates, in a strain of eloquence, which Harley and Co. felt to be irresistible. The Royal orator concluded his victorious defence of his friends, by advising all his hearers to forget the past excesses of civil discord, and not to exasperate smothered passions, by mutual reproaches, into new crimes. The employers of Laicus might follow this advice. They may observe, that the imputations in this fourth letter are two King-killing continually practiced, and 23 immoral doctrines continually taught by Jesuits; and to this is added, a short summary of authorities, by which all this trash is upheld. It would be an easy, but now uninteresting task, to disprove each imputation in particu- Though Henry IV. was not the lar: it has been victoriously done.- model of a perfect King, I have alIt may suffice to know that they were ways thought his conduct towards the all advanced by party-men, maddened Jesuits a strong proof that his converby civil and religious rage: they are sion was sincere. The Parliament, registered only in the murky pages of which had opposed him, while he antiquated libels, and they are here headed the Huguenot party, opposed re-produced for the dishonest purpose him now from the motives above alof blackening virtue, which triumph-leged, and determined to deprive him ed over them, when fresh pamphlets of Huguenots, libels of loose Catholics, declamations of rival teachers, who apprehended their own humiliation in the success of the Jesuits, plaidoyers, requisitoires, and harangues of Pasquiers and Harlays, sworn enemies of the society, Arrêts of their Courts of Parliament, ever intent to curtail the spiritual authority of the church, and to abridge the power of the reigning French Monarch, in order to advance their own; such are the men, such the passions, which invented accusations of regicide against the Jesuits in France, during the horrid confusion of the Huguenotic wars. They were all forgotten during the of the services of the Jesuits, on which they knew that he greatly depended, for the re-establishment of the Catholic religion. They drove the Jesuits from France with every mark of ignominy, before Henry was strong enough to support them. When his power was consolidated, he restored them to their country, and he chose one of them for his preacher, confessor, and bosom friend. This was the celebrated Pere Cotton, whom Laicus names in his list of Jesuit regicides. In such rage of faction, it is no wonder that the Parliament erected a pillar to the infamy of the persecuted Jesuits. It was not quite so tall as the British monument, which still attests to the heavens, in the words of the Lord | all times by the whole Society of JeMayor Patience Ward that the city sus, and to exhibit a fair picture of of London was burnt by the malice of the Catholics in 1666. The difference is, that in calmer times the Gallic column, with all the calumnies of Harley was erazed, but Patience Ward still lies uncontradicted. To the article of regicides I add, that the attempt on the life of Lewis XV. in 1757, was never imputed to Jesuits even by Parliaments or Jansenists.The calumny is the undisputed property of Laicus or his prompters. their morals. The Parliament sanc- On the second head of accusation, immoral doctrine, I wish to be short. The purity of the Jesui's' d ctrine and morals was solemnly attested by the most qualified judges, a special assembly of fifty Cardinals, Arch-vey the indecent impurities of the bishops, and Bishops, of the Gallic church, convened by Lewis XV; and their report was confirmed by many other Prelates, who were not deputed to that assembly.-A stronger proof of their innocence was the absolute inability of their enemies to convict a single Jesuit, of four thousand, who were spread through France, of any immoral principle, doctrine, or practice. The Parliaments still pursued their beaten track; il faut denigner les Jesuites as their maxim; envy, with her hundred jaundiced eyes, was every where on the watch to discover a flaw; malice with her hundred envenomed tongues, was ready to echo it through the globe; but the poor Parliament was reduced to spare the living Jesuits, not from any regard for truth, but because they knew that their calumnies would not be believed. They, therefore, attacked the doctrine and morals of all deceased Jesuits, who had existed during 200 years; and they entrusted the delicious task of blackening the dead to the impure pens of Jansenists, headed principally by Dom Clemencet. From this man's foul laboratory proceeded the Extrait des Assertions. a monstrous compilation of forged and falsified texts, purporting to contain the uniform doctrine, taught invariably at book Des Assertions, to every corner ous, transformed to Jesuits, two churchmen of first rate merit, Cardinal Farberini and Cardinal Allen, be cause these two prelates were, at different periods, concerned in the religious affairs of England, and were thereby obnoxious to the then prevailing sects, though neither of them had any other intercourse with Jesuits, than that of friendship and esteem. But Coudrette a Jesuit! New per sonages are introduced to excite new interest; and was Coudrette ever before named in this island? The fellow from his youth had b en a violent partizan of Jansenism, he had been repeatedly confined in prison at Vincennes and at Paris, for his intrigues, cabals, and libels against the church; e and when the Parliament declared open war against the Jesuits, he came forward a volunteer in the cause, and printed his Histoire Generale des Jesuites, in the course of the year 1761. Coudrette and his history were perfectly forgotten in France before 1762. How could a copy of it have escaped to England? It has found its proper repository in the shelves of Laicus, ornately your intelligent correspondent, That the "Monita Secreta," mentioned in your Journal for May, is a forgery, no Catholic can doubt, who has perused its contents. But what in such a case is internal evidence to a Catholic, is not to a Protestant; and it is most desirable that the public should be in possession of external proofs to the same purport. Fortu his employer. I have done with Laicus and his authorities, He promises a commentary upon his own performance. It has not, I believe, yet appeared, even in The Times. Mine shall be very short. Clericus, appear to possess such proofs. He refers us to Cordara and Gretser; but these are authors to whom neither I, nor ninety-nine in a hundred of your readers, have any access. May I then suggest to Clericus the propriety of publishing the Though I have proved Laicus and necessary extracts from them in your Co to be unprincipled impostors, I Journal; or should they be too long have said nothing of them and their for insertion, may I request him to anassertions, but what every man of vir-swer the following questions:-1st. tue and information knows to be true. What was the name of the expelled Every Prince, every observer, knows Jesuit, who forged this libel to revenge that the overthrow of the society of himself? -2d, Where did he first pubJesus was the first link in the con- lish it?-3d, What mea. res did the catenation of causes, which produced society take on the occasion? 4th, the late horrible successes of rebellion What are the arguments used by Gretand infidelity. They all know that ser? the Jesuits, when their body was en- Answers to these questions, suptire, were among the most active supported by references to pages in the porters of religion, learning, good or- originals, will, in my opinion, prove der, and subordination to established highly serviceable to the great cause Powers, though, perhaps, professing of Catholicity. I am, Sir, your very religious creeds different from their obedient servant, INVESTIGATOR. Own; above all, they know that Jesuits were every where staunch friends of monarchy. Who, then, will wonder, that the renowned Catherine of Russia protected them in their greatest distress; that the heroic Alexander distinguishes them by fresh faYours? Who will cavil at Pius VII. in this new dawn of public tranquillity, for his endeavours to recover their Services? Who will blame other Princes for imitating his example? But this opens matter too ample to be treated by CLERICUS. To the Editor of the Orthodox Journal. SIR,-I beg, through the medium of your Journal, to seek for informa tion on a very interesting subject. ON INFANT BAPTISM. For the Orthodox Journal. Dr. MR. EDITOR, In your Journal for May, an article appeared under the title of Infant Baptism, signed by an N. G.; the author of which finds fault with an assertion made by the Rev. J. Marsh. The assertion to which I alLingard, in his strictures on lude is the following: "The validity of infant baptism is not taught in Scripture." Your Correspondent thinks it is, and submits to the publ.c what he thinks, and has thought for twelve years, a convincing demonstra tion of it. I cannot blame the learned N. G. for his zeal in attempting to be nefit your numerous readers by his theological disquisitions. Indeed, the article to which I refer proves him to be an elegant writer, a man of letters, and, in fine, a person capable of acting no inconsiderable part in the field of religious controversy; and, if I should venture to make a few remarks on the article in question, my intention is not to disparage his merits in any of these capacities. But may I be permitted to ask, with the old Roman judge, cui bono? For what purpose has Mr. N. G. attacked the position of Mr. Lingard? If he has succeeded in demonstrating its falsity, what advantage can ensue? None, I am sure, to the Catholic cause. If his proof be accurate, he will only have the melancholy satisfaction of wresting from the hands of Catholic theologians a keen weapon in favour of tradition. Men of letters, I own it, will not conceive a less favourable idea of Mr. Lingard's eminent productions, because one inaccuracy has slipt his pen; but can Mr. N. G. answer for the class of more unlettered Catholics? The learned gentleman, on whose writings Mr. N. G. has animadverted, is well de serving of the Catholic cause; his inimitable tracts have taught the dignitaries of the established church to tremble and shrink from the unequal contest, and like his predecessor, St. Athanasius, he may glory in the thought, that he never had an enemy who was not, at the same time, a foe to the church of God." Every orthodox Catholic respects their hero, and it would look like injustice in Mr. N. G. to diminish his well-earned reputation. If his pen had erred, he should have been spared; the fault should not have been promulgated, or, if it were published, Dr. Shute, or Elijah Index, or Le Mesurier, or G. S. Faber, or the Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge, should have had the satisfaction of proving to the world, that their invincible adversary was not quite invulnerable. When Catholic divines, in a country of heresy, are accustomed to wrangle and wage civil war, their enemies are wont to cry victory; they are wont to say, that the boasted unity of Catholicity is an ideal being. But if Mr. N. G.'s demonstration were false or dubious, I should conceive that his conduct was more imprudent than I have hitherto considered it. I am willing to own that your Correspondent's argumentation is correct, if the texts of Scripture from which he infers his conclusion ought to be understood in the manner in which he understands them; but until this be evident, the consequences which he draws from them can never be said to be taught in Scripture. I might say, for instance, that the inequality ofthe Word with the first person of the Tri nity, is clearly taught in Scripture; and, like Mr. N. G., I might reason thus: Jesus Christ says, the Father is greater than I, (John xiv. 28.)Therefore Jesus is not equal to the Father; Jesus is the second person of the Trinity; therefore the Redeemer or the Word is not equal to the Father. in This reasoning would be accurate, if other parts of Scripture did not evi dently prove, that in this text the Redeemer spoke of his human nature; and, consequently, I have misunder stood the text. If it be possible, then, to form an argument from Scripture, equally strong as Mr. N. G.'s, which shall assert the very contrary to his, I think it will not follow, that infant baptism is taught in Scripture, but that the point would remain undecided if tradition did not step in to solve the question. The Redeemer (Mark xvi. 16) says, He, who shall believe and shall be baptized, shall be saved; but he, who does not believe shall be condemned Therefore no one can be saved unless he believe and be baptized. The infant cannot believe, because faith requires the use of reason; faith is a me ritorious act, and therefore must be elicited by the understanding, manded by the will. These opera tions certainly require the use of rea com son. It follows, then, that an infant cannot have faith, and consequently cannot be validly baptised; since, if it were baptized validly, it could be saved, and consequently could have faith. This argument would be perfectly correct, unless tradition stept forth to teach me, that the actual faith of the child is supplied by the faith of the church, in which faith it is bap-rious change of his name, Christ went tized. It is tradition, I repeat it, to the banks of the lake of Genesareth. which teaches this; from no passage "He saw two ships, and he entered of Scripture can it be even remotely into one of the ships, which was Siinferred. It follows, then, I think, mon's; and prayed him that he would that if tradition be set aside, (and in thrust out a little from the land. And this case it must be,) my argument is he sat down, and taught the people out as strong as that of Mr. N. G.; and, of the ship."-Luke, v. 2, 3. To a Consequently, the point would be per- Catholic these circumstances are not fectly undetermined, unless tradition obscure; he knows what they mean, came to his assistance. I think, then, though to others they may be dark pahat Mr. Lingard was perfectly accu- rables. St. Peter not only is always ate when he said that Infant Baptism mentioned first, when any of the aposas not taught in Scripture. I re- tles, or all of them, are named main, &c. your's, with him, but the title of THE FIRST is expressly given him, Matt. x. 2. with the Jewish rulers, and in the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira ; but till our Saviour's ascension we can only look in Scripture for promises of supremacy, distinctions bestowed upon St. Peter by Christ, figurative of his future elevation, not for proper acts of supreme jurisdiction. A short time after Peter's first call, and the myste J. C. ON THE POPE's SUPREMACY. When Christ had once delivered an ob⚫ LETTER SEVENTH. scure parable to the multitudes, and (Concluded from p. 184.) the apostles found themselves alone Now, Sir, I shall refer you promis- with him, they asked for an explanacuously to the principal occurrences in tion. In mentioning this circumstance, the New Testament, which I have not St. Mark says, that “ his disciples inyet mentioned, in which the primacy terrogated him concerning the paraof St. Peter is either manifestly ex-ble.”—c. vii. 14. But St. Matthew pressed, or clearly hinted at. By primacy understand a precedence or superiority enjoyed by this apostle among his brethren, which authorised him to speak in their name, and was also the cause why our Saviour, when he spoke for the instruction of all, addressed his speech to him personally. Catholies very well understand, that as long as Christ continued visibly present upon earth, he was himself the visible head of his church. It was only when he thought of returning to his Father that he actually entrusted his church to St. Peter, by commanding him to feed his lambs and sheep. Accordingly we see St. Peter immediately after having received this commission, act as president and head of the church, at the election of Matthias, on the day of Pentecost, in all his subsequent debates ORTHOR. JOUR. VOL. III. says, it was Peter personally who pre- 2 H |