s industriously propagated, meeting every
where its merited contempt. It was victoriously refuted by Gretser, who
died in 1625, seventy-five years before the work was discovered, if the
admirable Laicus is to be believed. This refutation, which was not wanted,
may be read in Gretser's works, edit. of Ratisbon, 1634[98].

{279}

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 Ric