Laicus affirms, that an edition of the _Monita_ was dedicated to sir Robert Walpole in 1722. Though every assertion of such a writer may be doubted, yet, admitting the truth of this, which I cannot disprove, a probable reason for it may, I think, be assigned. From the period of the accession of the {280} House of Hanover, in 1714, a negotiation had been on foot for the repeal of the penal laws. It miscarried, principally from the still subsisting attachment to the House of Stuart, and partly from the enmity openly professed against the Jesuit missionaries by a small number of catholics, priests and laymen, who insisted, that they should be excepted from the expected act of grace. During the first years of George I, several angry libels and invectives were industriously circulated, purposely to indispose the public against them; and it is observable, that the same jealousy and party rancour had influenced the negotiations instituted in favour of catholics in the reign of Charles II, and even during the usurpation of Cromwell. The edition of Laicus's cherished libel, in 1722, if it be a reality, was probably published on the same principles; and this reflection will soon lead me to detect the ultimate view of Laicus and his associates in the present effusions of slander, which they are scattering abroad. This point may be reserved for future examination. {281} It is not possible to dwell upon all the wilful falsehoods of the second Letter, with the same extent which I have given to the fable of the _Monita_. The power of the general of the Jesuits is nicely ascertained in the volumes of the Institute; and, indeed, a true account of it cannot be drawn from any other source. Now I assert, that every word written upon it in the Institute, stands directly in contradiction to your description of it in your second Letter. It was said of an ancient painter, _Nulla dies sine linea_: I say of your wild rant, _Nulla linea sine mendacio_. In the books of the Institute, the general's power is balanced and checked in a stile, that has been admired by the deepest men in the science of legislation, cardinal Richelieu and others; and all this has been repeatedly sanctioned, confirmed, and extolled by popes, who, according to you, were at once governed and opposed, ruled and thwarted, overswayed and disobeyed, and sometimes murdered by Jesuits. What idiots these popes must have been! In what chapter of the Institute did {282} Laicus discover the power or the practice of admitting men of all religions into the society? Could men, of various religious persuasions have ever coalesced into one regular system of propagating exclusively the Roman catholic religion, which, as well as persecution of protestants and their own aggrandisement, you allow to have been at all times the main object of Jesuits? Who can believe, that _protestant Jesuits_ would ever have submitted to persecute protestants? Who can imagine unanimity of mind, heart, and action among