תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

if it was known. There was a stated price for murder, infanticide, adultery, perjury, &c. In the year 1300, Boniface VIII. published a bull in which he declared that every hundred years all who made a pilgrimage to Rome should receive a plenary indulgence. From all parts people flocked in crowds. They brought with them rich offerings; and the Pope had his coffers replenished. Could an institution which propagated such base delusions on solemn matters, and which so evidently propagated them for worldly gain, be beneficial to the world? And was it not the tendency of what was thus propagated, not only to deceive men's souls and ruin them eternally, but also to encourage the practice among men prone enough to sin already, of all crimes and wickednesses, and thus make the Papacy to be in every sense a deadly evil?

4. The persecutions of the excellent of the earth by the Popes of Rome, whenever they have been able to persecute, show that the Papacy has ever been injurious the world.

For centuries the Popes practised persecution by fire and fagot, rack and torture, imprisonment and death. Others have persecuted from passion, but the Popes have persecuted from principle. The extermination of heretics has been their avowed object. And they have not only killed the bodies of such, but have claimed the power to damn their souls-to pursue them not only to the limits of time, but to curse them to all eternity. Nor have the murders they committed or encouraged been common murders. They have ofttimes been wholesale butcheries, e. g., the massacre of St. Bartholomew, &c. And has the Papacy, which has authorized, directed, countenanced, and defended such measures, been beneficial to the world? 5. Ignatius Loyola and his companions were, by a bull of Paul III., incorporated as "The Society of Jesus." The actions and influence of the Jesuits will show us whether, in incorporating this society, the Pope acted for the world's benefit. To show what the influence of the Jesuits has been we give an extract from Macaulay's Essay on "Ranke's History of the Popes":-" Jesuits were to be found under every disguise, and in every country; scholars, physicians, merchants, serving men; in the hostile court of Sweden, in the old manor-houses of Cheshire, among the hovels of Connaught; arguing, instructing, consoling, stealing away the hearts of the young, animating the courage of the timid, holding up the crucifix before the eyes of the dying. Nor was it less their office to plot against the thrones and lives of apostate kings, to spread evil rumours, to raise tumults, to inflame civil wars, to arm the hand of the assassin. Inflexible in nothing but in their fidelity to the Church, they were equally ready to appeal in her cause to the spirit of loyalty and to the spirit of freedom. Extreme doctrines of obedience and extreme doctrines of liberty, the right of rulers to misgovern the people, the right of every one of the people to plunge his knife in the heart of a bad ruler, were inculcated by the same man, according as he addressed himself to the subject of Philip, or to the subject of Elizabeth. Some described these divines as the

most rigid, others as the most indulgent of spiritual directors; and both descriptions were correct. The truly devout listened with awe to the high and saintly morality of the Jesuit. The gay cavalier who had run his rival through the body, the frail beauty who had forgotten her marriage vow, found in the Jesuit an easy, wellbred man of the world, who knew how to make allowance for the little irregularities of people of fashion. The confessor was strict or lax, according to the temper of the penitent. The first object was to drive no person out of the pale of the Church. Since there were bad people, it was better that they should be bad Catholics than bad Protestants. If a person was so unfortunate as to be a bravo, a libertine, or a gambler, that was no reason for making him a heretic too." Such a society of men could not be other than a curse to the world, and it was under the patronage of the Papacy that they were sheltered and that they flourished.

6. The personal character of the Popes, and the encouragement given to wickedness through the practice of it by persons in their exalted and supposed spiritual station, proves that the Papacy bas been adverse to the interests of the world. We know that example, whether it be good or evil, travels downwards. The example of sovereigns influences their courts, and thence descends to the next in rank, influencing all grades of society. We need not go out of our own country for proof of this fact in human nature. The example of profanity and licentiousness given by Charles II. infected and influenced the whole nation; and the pattern of virtue given by our present beloved Sovereign has had a mighty effect for good on all classes of her subjects. If such, then, be the effect of example as set by common human beings, what must be its effect when given by a personage unique in his character and position, and exalted above all other earthly personages? What inference 80 natural to be drawn by those who viewed the Pope as infallible, as that deeds done by the vicegerent of the Most High must at least be void of any gross sin? and if not grossly sinful in him, why so in them ?

But what was the personal character of the Popes? Let us hear witnesses. Erasmus, in his "Praise of Folly," writes, "Are there more formidable enemies of the Church than those impious Pontiffs who, by their silence, allow Jesus Christ to be disannulled; who bind Him by their mercenary laws, falsify Him by their erroneous interpretations, and strangle Him by their pestilential life?" Of Alexander VI., Guicciardini writes, "In his manners he was most shameless; wholly divested of sincerity, of decency, and of truth; without fidelity, without religion; in his avarice, immoderate; in his ambition, insatiable; in his cruelty, more than barbarous; with a most ardent desire of exalting his numerous children by whatever means it might be accomplished." Of Julius II., Roscoe writes, "Bold, enterprising, ambitious, and indefatigable, he neither sought repose himself, nor allowed it to be enjoyed by others. In searching for a vicar of Christ upon earth it would indeed have been

difficult to have found a person whose conduct and temper were more directly opposed to the mild spirit of Christianity and the example of its Founder."

Of Leo X. the same historian says, "In one respect, however, it is impossible that the conduct of Leo X., as a temporal prince can either be justified or extenuated. If a sovereign expects to meet with fidelity in his allies or obedience in his subjects, he ought to consider his own engagements as sacred, and his promises as inviolable. In condescending to make use of treachery against his adversaries he sets an example which shakes the foundations of his own authority, and endangers his own safety; and it is by no means improbable, that the untimely death of the Pontiff was the consequence of an act of revenge. The same misconduct which probably shortened his days has also been injurious to his fame; and the certainty, that he on many occasions resorted to indirect and treacherous means to circumvent or destroy his adversaries, has caused him to be accused of crimes which are not only unsupported by any positive evidence, but are in the highest degree improbable. He has, however, sufficient to answer for in this respect, without being charged with conjectured offences. Under the plea of freeing the territory of the church from the dominion of its usurpers, he became a usurper himself; and on the pretext of punishing the guilt of others, was himself guilty of great atrocities."

7. The religion of the Popes, of which the Papacy is the head, and which has been patronized, encouraged, and defended by Popes, shows that the Papacy has been of indescribable injury to the world.

Wherever the Popery reigns, wickedness prevails. The murders of Ireland, the universal perjury of her witness-box, the rioting, violence, drunkenness, filth, and profligacy of the lower Irish congregated together in the large towns of England, show such to be the case. An eminent barrister has declared that in Ireland, no one in a court of justice attaches the least credit to the testimony given upon oath by the lower Irish. The truth is only to be elicited by cross-examination. And for this Popery is responsible, it being a Popish dogma that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and thus perjury is sanctified. Popery encourages numerous delusions of an awful character-as that the Pope is infallible; that he has power to pardon sin; that the Virgin Mary is a lawful object of worship; that the consecrated wafer is the actual body of Christ; and many other similar errors or deceptions. Popery is a hindrance to all desirable progress, and a barrier against true religion. It enslaves all whom it influences. The palpable backwardness in knowledge and in all works of utility in all countries where Popery prevails sufficiently shows this; and the very claim of the Popes to infallibility-an impossibility of erring-is necessarily a barrier to progress, as Galileo and others have had to prove. For these reasons we believe that the Papacy has not been beneficial to the world.

S. S.

Politics.

IS A CONSERVATIVE SUPERIOR TO A WHIG

MINISTRY?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.—III.

THIS question should be reasoned out historically, and the conclusion sought should be based on some principle or principles from which an answer should be seen to result as essential and necessary. Conservatism is altogether misrepresented in the present generation. The voice of the enemy has been heard, listened to, regarded, and believed against the Conservative party, and that same party's vaunts have been accepted as an historical gospel. Reform, and the extension of the franchise are excellent words to juggle with. Whiggery claims to be the opener of the doors of the British Parliament to the working classes. But it is well known that it admits of no influences there except money influences. Whiggism means mammonism. The Whigs are the sticklers for a money qualification, and the opponents of the ballot, because they want only those to possess power who are interested in the maintenance of the present state of things or least possible alteration of them. They fatten on panics and batten on war; they stoop and snivel when they are asked to state their principles; the modern Whig Moloch is expediency.

Conservatism is government by principles, by English wisdom and justice. The opposition the Conservatives offered to so-called Reform bills were really offered to the trickeries of the Whigs who wished to make their bill a bill for the further protection of moneyed men, manufacturers, and speculators. The Conservatives have all along scouted the idea of making anything paramount in legislation but the honour and the interests of England.

The Whigs agitated reform, not for the benefit of the nation, but to break the power of the old Tories. They framed their bill expressly to attain that end, and not to advantage the country. They were the suggesters of the "Irish coercion," they were the peddling politicians of the poor law amendment, they were the real supporters of the Corn Laws, and they steadfastly combined to keep their repealer out of office during the remainder of his lifetime. They were the mutilators of and intriguers with royal despatches, they were the consecrators of the French coup d'état, the proposers of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill for the safety of Napoleon III., and they were the dastardly time-servers, who played fast and loose with the last European war, as well as the patchers of that vile peaee at any price treaty, which left

England as much humiliated despite the heroism of its armies at the Crimea, as Russia had been.

The Conservatives struggled against the terrible catastrophes which followed in succession upon the closing of the anti-Bonaparte wars 1815-1829, and did much for the commutation of the distress; they gave Catholic emancipation and they resisted the early aggressions of Russia in the Levant; and, still more to their credit, they broke no pledges regarding parliamentary reform. They have thought more of getting up right administration than of passing laws for the promotion, as the Whigs did, of cheap labour and heaving taxation. They effectively helped Ireland at the time of the potato failure, and they instituted direct as opposed to indirect taxation. They have, besides, accomplished a Reform Bill, and have brought the nation once again into the position that the possibility of governing by principles is possible. As the true national party the Conservatives are superior to the Whigs, and the common feeling of the common people is just in its verdict that a Conservative is superior to a Whig government.

D. B. E.

DEBATING SOCIETIES.-The discussions of debating societies are only the more formal occasions on which the conscious life of the intellect disentangles for itself its own perplexities, tentatively asserts its own tendencies, emerges into provisional independence, and marks out its own scheme of future alliances. This is not talk, it is preparation for action, it is the stringing up and organization of intellectual energy, it is intellectual volition. No doubt, to those who have entered on those sorts of responsibilities, which, like the responsibilities of statesmen, involve in a high degree the happiness of others, there seems something childish about discussions whether Strafford deserved death, or Pope was a true poet. But that is only because they have got to a different stage of life, and nothing material in their future destiny could possibly be determined by their giving their minds gravely to either discussion. With young men at college it is quite different. It is not too much to say that those acts of deliberate intellectual and moral choice which give rise to, and are encouraged by, debating societies, are in fact the crystallizing points of character, the facts on which the future current of character, its narrowness and intensity, or width and catholicity, its sincerity or spirit of compromise, its sobriety or fanaticism, its intellectual cynicism or moral earnestness, chiefly depend. A debate whether Pope or Wordsworth was the greater poet-whether Greece or Rome had exercised the most beneficial influence on the world-whether Carlyle or Mill were the truer teacher-has often, we feel no doubt, done more to determine the future lives of great men, and through them the future of England, than hundreds of so-called "practical" debates in the House of Commons-debates, say, on limited liability, or the taxes on malt and insurance.-Spectator.

« הקודםהמשך »