« PreviousContinue »
lecture-room was nearly filled at an early hour, and after the Rev. H. Wight, the Incumbent of St. John's, had taken the Chair, and commenced proceedings with prayer, and observations as to the spirit in which such efforts should be carried on, Mr. Lord proceeded to address the Meeting. He had not long spoken, when a number of persons, as if by concerted plan, commenced interruptions which seemed likely to break up the meeting. The violence of some of the opponents was excessive. At length, endea vours were made to arrange that some one should be selected on behalf of the Roman Catholics, to represent them; and it was put from the Chair, whether a person who had thrust himself more prominently forward, and created and persisted in the disturbance, should speak on their behalf. This they negatived almost unanimously, but the noise was kept up, and several friends left the room. At length it was arranged that the person who had interrupted should speak for ten minutes, and then the Lecturer for ten minutes. This plan was acted on, and the meeting at last closed quietly, the Chairman pronouncing the blessing. A collection was made in the room, and the Chairman announced that it was not expected that the Roman Catholics should put anything into the plate, to which several of them responded with hearty cries of “But we will-we will." We believe the result of even that stormy, and, in many respects, painful, Meeting, will be in various ways satisfactory. The way in which the Lecturer answered many of the assertions in behalf of Popery, and the objections against Protestantism, convinced many that neither Popery, nor its professors or advocates, were infallible, whilst the reiterated condemnation of the Bible Societies, by the Encyclical letter of the present Pope, proved the unmitigated hostility of Popery to the written word of God, and the quotations from the same Encyclical, of the language in which the Pope calls on all to supplicate the
Virgin Mary, Peter, and Paul, and all the saints in heaven! left not a doubt but Rome was politic in keeping the Scriptures in the back ground, and for omitting, or qualifying down the second command, which forbids idolatry, and the bowing down to images. We would strongly exhort our operative friends in Newcastle to form a Society amongst themselves, and we believe they will find amongst the clergy and the laity those who will gladly aid them in the work.
CARLISLE. — Arrangements are in preparation here for a Meeting or Lecture, we hope at no distant day.
LONDON.--PROTESTANT LECTURES. --Arrangements have been made for the delivery of two Lectures in the Music Hall, Store-street, Bedfordsquare, by James Lord, Esq. The first on the evening of Tuesday, April 20th, and a second on the evening of April 27th.
KENDAL. -- Mr. Lord lectured here on the evening of Wednesday, March the 10th; G. B. Crewdson, Esq., in the chair. The Meeting was numerously and respectably attended, the large room being filled in every part. Amongst those present were, Rev. Mr. Meredyth, Rev. Mr. Latrobe, G. B. Crewdson, Esq., R. Braithwaite, Esq., C. Braithwaite, Esq. We have given a fuller notice of this Lecture elsewhere. The following morning a Meeting was held at the house of Robert Braithwaite, Esq., and an Association was formed for the town of Kendal and its vicinity.
LANCASTER.-Mr. Lord lectured here on Friday evening, March 12th. The Rev. the Vicar presided. There were present, the Mayor of Lancaster, Sharp, Esq., E. D. Salisbury, Esq., Rev. J. Dodson, the Vicar of Cockerham, and a respectable audience. Admission was by tickets.
ERRATA. Protestant Magazine, Feb. 1847, page 42—3. For Bolders read Boldero. For Lock read Loch. Page 65. For Sir W. Lingston's petition, read In Islington, a petition.
THE ANNUAL MEETING of the PROTESTANT ASSOCIATION will be held
in the Large Hall, EXETER HALL, WEDNESDAY, 12th of MAY,
Macintosh, Printer, Great New Street, London.
DEFEAT OF THE PROTESTANTISM EXTINCTION BILL. This Bill is happily now defeated. We have given, at p. 157, the result of the division, together with the speeches of the Earl of Arundel and Mr. Plumptre.
We should like to see the same boldness and unweariedness displayed by Protestants, in bringing in Bills to protect and promote Protestantism, as we see evinced by Roman Catholics, and some Protestants, in favour of Popery.
To the Earl of Arundel we are indebted for the heading of the present Article. His avowal, that the struggle between the corrupt Church, of which he is an honourable member, was not likely to terminate with mere toleration-which Roman Catholics have enjoyed nor with the bestowal of civil privileges, which they have long had to a greater extent in this country, than Protestants have enjoyed in Continental nations—but must go on to supremacy-had a startling effect, and decided at least one waverer in the House to oppose the Bill, who had not before been adverse to it. Such, we doubt not, will be the effect very extensively out of doors. The words of the Noble Lord were, as reported in the “ Times,” Thursday, April 15 :
“His Hon. Friend who had just sat down (Sir R. H. INGLIS) had said that the Church of Rome was antagonistic to Protestantism. He perfectly agreed with his Honourable Friend: so it was. And so it would be, as long as the world should last, or till Protestantism itself should be extinguished.” (Ironical cheers from the Opposition.)
We have prepared, for the benefit of our readers, the following epitome of the very important debate of Wednesday, as reported in the “ Times” of Thursday, the 15th of April last :
Sir ROBERT INGLIS, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee that day six months, remarked, that this was one of the measures introduced of late years, having a direct tendency to unprotestantize England and to degrade her Church. The real question at issue, however, was not the Church of England, but the Protestantism. of England. England was, at this moment, a Protestant state, and the provisions of this Bill tended to destroy that character. He thanked God that England was still a Protestant state that was the great ornament and bulwark of our country; and God forbid that any who called themselves Protestants should be ashamed of that which was their distinction, their blessing, and their honour. He regarded the Church of Rome, for the last three centuries, as the inexorable and constant enemy of Protestantism, and, especially in this country, as the unchangeable foe of the Church of England, and he challenged any Member of that House to show that the Church had changed in one jot or tittle during the last three centuries. But in 1829, there were, unhappily, some men who held that any fear of Rome was now chimerical. But events subsequent to that period had Vol. IX.-May, 1847.
New Series, No. 17.
disabused the minds of many. They could not forget what the Jesuits had done and were doing, nor pass by what had taken place in France, in Switzerland, in Germany, and Belgium. He knew there were those who regarded the real danger to the Church of England,—he could not say the danger to Protestantism, -to arise not from the Church of Rome, but from those of an opposite extreme in religion. For his own part, he would not deny himself the gratification of repeating, that to Protestantism as such, not being a negative, but as being the testimony of able men to the great truths to be found in the Bible, he was so much attached, that though he believed the particular form of Protestantism existing in this country, was the shrine and the bulwark of England's glory, yet, on the whole, he would prefer the doctrines of any sect carrying the Bible in their hands—the authorized version, he meant, and not any improved version of those who denied the Divinity of our blessed Lord, he would deliberately prefer them to those who withheld the Bible itself. (Cheers.) He would not consent to any further concession. He looked to foreign countries, and he found that in none, ruled over even by Roman Catholic monarchs, would they admit the Jesuits, Belgium alone excepted, as this Bill proposed. He trusted the Noble Lord, the leader of this House, would not forget the dying words of his illustrious ancestor,words which seemed almost prophetic,“ Not to assist in the progress of Popery." He called on the Noble Lord, his Noble Friend the Prime Minister of England, to act in the spirit of his illustrious ancestor, to resist the degradation of the Church of England, the humiliation of Protestantism, and the final ascendancy of the Church of Rome.
The speeches of the Earl of Arundel and Mr. Plumptre, are given in extenso at page 157.
Lord H. VANE supported the Bill, and was followed by
Mr. SPOONER, who observed, that though he had not been opposed to the concession of 1829, yet if that discussion were to come over again, nothing would induce him to give his assent to such a measure. If the extinction of Protestantism had then been talked of, as now it has been, would Parliament ever have consented to pass that Bill ? Protestants had reason to be fatally convinced, that in passing that measure, they had committed a great mistake. Let it be known, however, that the extinction of Protestantism was the object Roman Catholics had in view,-its extinction whether by force, stratagem, or conviction,let but that be proclaimed throughout the British realm, and they would see what would be the echo of the Protestant people of England.
Mr. SHEIL next rose, denying the motives imputed to Romanists, and the insinuations against their Church. He attempted'a vindication of the Order of Jesuits, and on his assertion, would have the Protestants of this country disbelieve the accusations of history against them. He did not believe there was a strong feeling amongst Protestants against this measure. Where were their petitions ?* He saw no reason why a Roman Catholic should not be Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
* Two remarks may here be made ;-some say, why petition an expiring Parliament ? others, why petition at all, seeing how our anti-Maynooth petitions were disregarded ? We have strong feelings. The hustings will prove this. ED. P. M.
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 to 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.t.
* 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.
+ 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.
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 Papaey. 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 commemorate. 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, Romæ, 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 1.7
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.