صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Mr. FINCH contended there was a wide difference between the language held by the Roman Catholics of Ireland before and since the Emancipation Act, and he had been unable, though carefully perusing many Roman Catholic publications, and the Encyclical Letter of the present Pope, to discover any departure on the part of the Romish Church from the persecuting principles which it had ever maintained.

Lord J. MANNERS deemed it unwise to continue penalties upon those who were professors of another form of the same Christianity! He thought the conduct of England towards the Jesuits, was much wiser than that adopted in France:

Mr. NEWDIGATE respected religious tolerance, and because he wished this country to remain tolerant, he would not consent to the proposed concessions to an intolerant Church.

Sir J. EASTHOPE supported the Bill.

Mr. GOULBURN had been a party to the Act of 1829. If he adhered scrupulously to the provisions of that Act, his determination to do so was strengthened by what had fallen from the only member of Government who had addressed the House, and who had suggested that there were additional offices which ought to be thrown open tó Roman Catholics.

Mr. J. COLLETT supported the Bill, thinking it mattered little, if a man conducted himself well, whether he was a Roman Catholic, a Dissenter, a Mahomedan, or a Hindoo!

Sir G. GREY was prepared to give his cordial assent to the principles of this Bill. He protested against it being thought that the promoters of this Bill were adverse to the Protestant interests of the country, holding, as he did, that the Protestant Reformation of the fifteenth century was one of the most valuable boons which had been bestowed on any country. He did not see why provisions should be retained on the statute book, which declared that men were acting illegally when they were acting conscientiously!! *

Mr. Law opposed the Bill, referring to the statute of Richard II. passed in Roman Catholic times, against Papal encroachments, and observed, that so long as this country possessed a Constitution, founded in antiquity and supported by common sense, the people would never consent that the supremacy of the Crown should be abolished.

Lord SANDON spoke in favour of going into Committee on the Bill. Mr. ESTCOURT opposed.

Mr. WATSON rose in reply, and contended the principle of his Bill had been mistaken. He desired simply and plainly that no man should be punished on account of his religion, and that the penalties against Roman Catholics on account of their religion should be removed.†

* Sir G. Grey should bear in mind the Roman Catholic conscience is tutored by another guide than Scripture, and taught to prefer obedience to the spiritual requirements of the Church of Rome to obedience to the temporal Sovereign.— ED. P.M.

+ Mr. Watson omits reference to one historical fact, that the laws against the Roman Catholics were not against their religion, but the treasons and crimes which, under the sanction of their religion, they were taught to regard as virtues. Roman Catholic countries, on that very ground, have been obliged to frame laws against the foreign interference of Rome.-ED. P.M.

THE POPES-PAINTED BY THEMSELVES.

commemorate.

BY REV. NAPOLEON ROUSSELL.

WHEN you hear a man defamed—are told that a man is a thief, a scoundrel-you are right to suspend your judgment until you obtain more ample information, for he may have been calumniated; but if the man himself should in bland terms boast of the crimes laid to his charge, would you then doubt of his guilt? No, certainly not; and this for the very simple reason, that he bore witness against himself. The confession of the culprit, then, being the most conclusive proof of guilt, it is from the records left us by the Popes, that we intend to study the Papacy. We shall say nothing of these gentlemen-they shall tell their own tale. We are about to consult, not a Protestant historian, but a Jesuit author; our quotations will not be borrowed from a book printed at Geneva by Calvin, but from medals struck at Rome during the reigns of the Popes, whose high misdemeanours they These medals are in our possession; they come to us from a friend who purchased them from the friends of his Holiness. But as we do not claim to be believed on our bare assertion, we beg the reader to refer, at the Royal Library of Paris, to a work entitled, Numismata Pontificum, a P. Philippo Bonnani, Societatis Jesu. Roma, 1699, 2 vols. 4to. ; a work which had the sanction of the General-in-Chief of the order of Jesuits, and that of the Pope's Chancellor Apostolic. In that work will be found, faithfully reproduced by a Jesuit, and among a great number of other medals, those we have in our hand, and which we, in our turn, shall proceed to place before the eyes of our readers. The more incredulous will do well to go to Rome, where all these medals will be sold to them for money by the Pontifical money-changers, except the last; for we understand that the Pope, aware of the use made of it against him, has given orders for its destruction. To supply its place, however, they have but to go to the Vatican, where, in an immense painting, the horrible scene of St. Bartholomew's massacre proudly displays itself. Having given our authorities, let us proceed to an examination of the Papal medals, struck by the Popes, in honour of the Popes, and in the city of the Popes. We shall then have justified our title-"The. Popes, painted by themselves."

Before presenting the Sovereign, we shall first produce his throne, and then make him mount it. One of the two sides of this medal needs no explanation; it exhibits the features of Alexander VII., and serves as a signature to the picture we are now going to study on the other side. [Medal L]

By the exergue (the motto around the picture) we see that the principal object represented in this scene is the seat itself, designated as the "Rule of faith, and the foundation of the Church." It was not superfluous to engrave such pretensions at full length around the medal, for they would never have been guessed at by a mere inspection of the chair. The chair itself had been brought, in olden times, from Constantinople to Rome, and on the back of it the French, at the time of their expedition under Buonaparte, found this inscription * The impressions of the coins here referred to will be given in the Tract to be reprinted from this Number of the Magazine.-ED. Prot. Mag.

in Arabic, God alone is God, and Mahomet is his Prophet! However, let us not attach too much importance to this little anecdote, but, as says our Jesuit author, apply the titles of the container to its contents of the Papal seat, to the Pope himself. The rule of faith, then, according to the medal, will be, the word of the Pope. I confess, I thought that the rule of faith should rather be the Word of God. But there is no need to dwell upon this trifling usurpation; we shall find in what remains of the picture many other enormities. Neither shall I draw attention to those Bishops, Archbishops, or Cardinals placed at the feet of the Holy See; for nothing is more common than to see a man place others below him; but what appears to me monstrous is, that this seat should be placed exactly above the altar-directly above the cross! Is, then, the throne of the Pope superior to the throne of Jesus Christ? Is the Pope more than God? This medal would lead us so to believe; for observe, that the light of the Holy Ghost, while it rests abundantly on the seat of the servant, scarcely reaches the cross of the Master; observe, that the angels— one furnished with the keys of paradise, another with the fisherman's ring, and a third kneeling in sign of adoration-surround, not the altar of the Lord, but the tiara of the Pope; lastly, notice that the altar is on the earth, and the tiara in the heavens. It must be owned that here are extravagant pretensions; so extravagant, that it is diffi cult to give credence to them. We shall, therefore, do well to rest charitably in doubt on the subject, and wait for enlightenment from the medals that follow.

We have seen the throne vacant, here it is filled. [Medal II.]

And by whom? By Martin V., whose likeness is on the reverse of this second medal. On our right we see three dignitaries of the Church, standing as mere spectators; in the centre, two Cardinals, in the act of placing the tiara on the head of the Sovereign whom they have just nominated; and lastly, higher up, we read these words which explain the scene, "Whom they create, they adore." The man who is kneeling acts out this principle, and himself adores the monarch whom the cardinals enthrone. Now, I see but two possible explanations : either these Cardinals make of the man Martin, a Pope, and then to adore a Pope is idolatry; or of the man Martin they make a god, and then it is blasphemy. Idolaters or blasphemers, take your choice. In any case, the scene of the medal evidently occurs in a Church S for on the left we perceive an altar and a cross. Here, then, without any risk, it may be said, that this man sits in the house of God, to be therein adored. Now, this fact had been foretold in the Bible; for St. Paul speaks of one "who exalteth himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. ii. 4.) But how does the Apostle describe the man of whom he speaks, and whom the Pope realizes? He calls him "the man of sin, the son of perdition!"

Let us return to the medals. We have seen the throne, and the monarch, let us now turn our attention to the crown. [Medal III.] Observe the immense ocean, which three ships, freighted with human beings, are traversing-losing themselves in the horizon. It

is the grandest, the most beautiful scene in this vast universe; and yet this scene fades away from our view under the cross of Jesus Christ. Golgotha commands the world; the cross is there as a lighthouse, to warn the mariners of rocks and shoals, and direct them to the haven of safety. The three holes, which appear in the foot and the arms of the cross, eloquently preach Christ, who has died to efface our sins, Christ giving his life to save mankind. This, then, is the second thought suggested by this picture; thus it is with reason that the cross commands the ocean and the universe.

The

But what do I see above the cross-emblem of the Divinity? tiara-emblem of the Papacy! The pontifical crown rises to the heavens, which deluge it with glory. The order of the ideas according to the medal then is this: the ocean commands the earth, the rock commands the ocean, the cross commands the rock, and the tiara commands the cross! Above the land is the sea; above the sea is the rock; above the rock, the cross; above the cross, the tiara! The ocean surmounts the earth only; the rock surmounts both the earth and the ocean; the cross surmounts not only the earth and the ocean, but the rock; while the tiara alone surmounts the earth, the ocean, the rock, and the cross! The cross is by turns dominant and subjected; the superb tiara suffers no domination! The cross— emblem of Deity, subjects all to itself except the tiara-emblem of the Pope; but the tiara subjects all to itself, not excepting Jesus Christ! The ocean, to be sustained, has need of the terrestrial basin ; the rock is guarded by the waves; the cross itself is supported by the hill; but notice the tiara: it rests on no person or thing; it sustains itself! and if any thing touches it, it is the glory descending from the heavens.

Is there by this time enough to render evident the Papal pretensions? Not yet. Then attend no longer to the symbols, but to the words written at full length around the tiara :

"All kings shall obey him.”

Obey whom? the tiara dominant, or the cross subjected? To find the answer, imagine to yourself the little hat of Buonaparte placed on a terrestial globe, just over the spot representing France, and suppose you read these words above it, "All kings shall obey him.” To whom would you think obedience was promised, to France or to the Emperor? And when this inscription surrounds the tiara placed above the cross, for whom, in that case, is obedience claimed ? I admit that there is in the Papal phrase an ambiguity-prudent, hypocritical, perhaps ; let us then interrogate history for him who thinks that the answer of the medal is not sufficiently clear. When Calixtus III. claimed as his own certain regal rights over Naples,-endeavoured to place his nephew on a throne,-snatched the crown from a monarch, by releasing his subjects from their oaths of allegiance,did this Pope, by so doing, appropriate kings to his own service, or to the service of the cross? If any doubt still remains, it will be quickly dissipated by the Pope of Popes, Gregory VII., declaring "that Pope is the only name in the world; that the Pope may depose Emperors; that all princes kiss his feet, and that he can be judged

by no one." Lastly, Hildebrand, in his turn, illustrated his own words by his conduct, in leaving the Emperor, Henry IV., whom he had dethroned, exposed for three days and three nights in the courtyard of his palace, kneeling upon the hardened snow, with no other covering than his shirt! Was it Jesus, lowly in heart, or a proud Pope, whom the first monarch in the universe thus obeyed?

Yes, kings have obeyed the false god who reigned at Rome; and when these royal servants did not kiss his slipper with a sufficiently good grace, we shall see how their divine master made them feel his authority.

"The

This hunting scene is explained by the inscription it bears: meek pastor pursues none but wild beasts." [Medal IV.] Why is Paul III. called a meek pastor? "Because," answers Bonnani," his natural clemency had human blood in horror, in such deep horror, that he was content to punish with mere imprisonment the most detestable criminals."

Who, then, are the wild beasts that so meek a pastor pursues? Those men must be very guilty to deserve death at the hands of a Pope who inflicts no other punishment than imprisonment on the most detestable criminals! Had they, like the Emperor Nero, set fire to the city of Rome? or, like Pope Alexander VI., had they had the same woman for daughter, wife, and daughter-in-law? No, these ferocious beasts were poor heretics, who dared to aspire after the liberty of thinking differently from the meek pastor: First, there was Peodiebrad, king of Bohemia, a beast ferocious enough to afford shelter to the persecuted Hussites: then there were the historians Platina, Lotus, and other writers, guilty of having published scientific books at the epoch, when Paul III. bad declared it sufficient to know how to read and write. Further, the Jesuit commentator, in order to eulogize this illiterate Pope, says, on the occasion of this "That medal : he was not one of those negligent pastors; and that of this, the punishments inflicted upon the heretics of Pola, (they only put them to death,) the condemnation of the heresiarch Rockizanus, and that of George Peodiebrad are sufficient proofs !"

very

This, then, is the meekness of a Pope: the persecution of a king; a massacre of learned men; the butchery of a people,-all under pretext of heresy. If these were his tender mercies, what were his severities? But I had forgotten that Paul III. never acted with severity, and that his horror of blood was such, that he had not the heart to cause even robbers and assassins to be put to death!

O Papal benignity!

Lastly, it must be granted that all this may yet be surpassed; and we are going to see the proof of it in the last medal which we have to examine. [Medal V.]

The feast of Saint Bartholomew-that blood memorial which the successors of the Popes would themselves wish effaced from the memory of nations, is here found attributed to its real authors. If statesmen lent their aid to this deed of darkness, Churchmen had called them to it; if Charles IX. fired upon his people, priests had loaded his carbine. But a medal, engraved by the Popes themselves, is going to speak.

« السابقةمتابعة »