character of the Jesuits, and must have confounded the eye of their assailant, since it failed to wring a tribute of praise from his heart?--"But as I have pointed out the dangerous tendency of the constitution and spirit of the order with the freedom becoming an historian, the candour and impartiality _no less requisite in that character_ call on me to add one observation: That no class of regular clergy in the Romish church has been more eminent for decency, and even purity of manners, than the major part of the order of Jesuits. The maxims of an intriguing, ambitious, interested policy, _might_ influence those, who governed the society, and might even corrupt the heart, and pervert the conduct of _some individuals_, while the greater number, engaged in literary pursuits, or employed in the functions of religion, was left to the guidance of those common principles, which restrain men from {9} vice, and excite them to what is becoming and laudable[2]." {10} The author, in a note, acknowledges, that his Summary does not _wholly_ lay claim to {11} originality. It is, in fact, _all_ copied: why then did he not cite his authority? and, when he was copying, why did he omit to copy the passages that stared him in the face? Clearly from an attorney-like motive, because it would have injured his cause, and would have prepossessed his reader with an idea, that, whether the charges against some of the rulers of the order were well-founded or not, the generality of the Jesuits were estimable men, devoting themselves to the good of mankind, and who had spread over the earth a very considerable share of human happiness: clearly because he foresaw, that his reader would argue with himself, that if, in despotic times, only a few busied themselves with political affairs, while the body at large were good men, engaged in zealously promoting the welfare, both temporal and eternal, of their fellow-creatures, it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in the present enlightened times, the many would become corrupt, or even the few engage again in intrigues dangerous to society; and that he {12} would conclude, that the labour of the author resolved itself into a new attempt against tolerating the catholic religion; while in favour of toleration he would find, in addition to the suggestions of his reason, his memory supplied with innumerable, irrefragable arguments, which for years past have resounded throughout the empire, in the houses of parliament as well as in the remotest villages, enforced by princes of the realm with all the energy of learning and of eloquence, as well as by individuals of every class of men, in speeches, and in writings, in books, pamphlets, and the columns of such newspapers as are open to liberal discussion[3]. {13}