Fº.Fr. Vin. Salva, Inquisitor General.
The above Edict, published in the year 1843, and authorized by Rome, is a sufficient answer to those who pretend that the Inquisition is no longer what it was three centuries ago. We have here the decree of the very essence of the Roman Court, composing the Holy Office—fifteen Cardinals, thirty Councillors, &c. &c., with the Pope at their head.
We are returned to those delightful times in which the Neapolitan, Caraffa, better known as Paul IV., and Michael Ghisler, called Pius V., lighted their funeral piles, and inflicted their tortures; and when, not to be behindhand with his predecessors, the monk Felice Peretti, called Sixtus V., proclaimed a crusade against the poor Israelites. O glorious days, when the holy indignation of Rome was responded to by the ferocious bigotry of Spain, the religious fury of France, and the papal fanatics throughout Italy!
Who is there that would not delight to see those good old times restored, when Christian men enjoyed the pleasing spectacle of the publicburningof fifty thousand Moors, by Ferdinand and Isabella of pious memory, and as many Jews consigned to the flames alive, through the various countries of Europe? Who would not wish to act over again the famous day of St. Bartholomew, and a hundredother deeds more or less celebrated, but all testifying the zeal of the holy Roman Inquisition?
And what is the reason why these spectacles, socreditableto the human race, are no longer to be witnessed in these days? Is it that the people are no longer instigated by that species of devotion which rendered the burning of their fellow-creatures alive, on account of their difference in religious opinions, a matter of such consolation and enjoyment? The zeal of the Romish Church remains the same, and our popes have not lost their holy desire for the conversion of the whole world by fire and sword to their sacred doctrines. How is it then that these glorious days do not return?
Let us, however, confine our remarks to the present Edict, in which the Inquisitor equally shows his profound knowledge of jurisprudence and of morality. The Jews are spoken of as being under his jurisdiction; but I cannot understand whether this jurisdiction be political or religious. The first he has nothing to do with, as his authority is purely ecclesiastical; and as to the second, I would ask, what right has he to exercise it upon persons of a different religion? It is idle to say that the Pope has conferred it upon him, since he himself has no right over such as are not baptized. To usurp any authority whatsoever, is a crime, in the eye of the law of every nation. The Inquisitor is consequently either extremely ignorant, or most daringly presumptuous thus to defy a principle acknowledged and submitted to by all civilized people.
He says that he has hitherto in vain implored that the laws of discipline relative to the Jews should be maintained in full force, and therefore takes occasion to issue anew a mandatory Edict. Surely those who call themselves Masters in Theology, ought at least to understand common honesty. Could laws be considered as conscientiously binding which were the result of sheer hatred towards an unoffending community? And were not the subjects of it justified in evading them as much as possible?
As to the 1st article, that all Christians are to be dismissed from the service of Jews, what can be more arbitrary and unjust? The Inquisitor would have done better to have laid his interdict upon the Christians, in forbidding them to go to the Jews, rather than to compel the latter to shut their doors in their faces. And, concerning these very Jews in your own jurisdiction, Mr. Inquisitor General, you know how charitable they have always been; you know what service they rendered us in the time of the cholera; how, in thisvery city, they assisted the poor, and condoled with them under their sufferings; and how charitable they showed themselves on every occasion.
Before, then, you forbid the Jews to employ Christian servants, tell those who are in want of bread to seek it at your convents, at the doors of the Inquisition.
As to the 2d article, touching the disposal of the property of these people, what can be said in its justification? Whether they retain it or not, I suppose they are equally liable to be called upon for the government taxes. There is one of this race, however, who must be a sad trouble to you; one who has lately possessed himself of an enormous extent of property, and has claims upon the very estates of the Church, even to the palaces of the Pope, the prebendaries of the Cardinals, the revenue of the bishops, and the whole body of the clergy, friars, nuns and all, which are absolutely mortgaged to him, to the extent of many millions. Now, is it an agreeable thing, O Father Inquisitor, that this great Jew, this powerful Baron Rothschild, should be invested with such awful authority, as to be legally justified in driving the Pope from the Vatican, should Cardinals Tosti and Lambruschini be behindhand in their accounts? This wealthy baron is, in fact, master of half the Pontifical State; and if things go on at the same rate,super Cathedram Petri sedebunt Israelitæ. What remedy will you propose, my dear Inquisitor, if, on the Pope's neglecting to pay, this Jew, Rothschild, seizes on the church-property? You threaten the poor Jews of Ancona with forced sales, but the Baron may put the whole of you up to auction at once.
If this article was designed to evade such a catastrophe, I doubt if it would be of any avail. Rothschild is too well supported to have his rights invaded even by the Holy Roman Inquisition. This unjust attack is indeed altogether as unwarrantable as it is impolitic. What would you say if the Grand Sultan were to issue a decree that all the Catholics in his dominions should be constrained to sell, within three months, whatever property they might possess, merely because they were Catholics? Yet you set him and others an example of this crying injustice, for no more defensible reason.
The 3d article savours strongly of the monk. To oblige all the descendants of Israel to live cooped up in their Ghetto, as in a monastery. Perhaps you feared that the Christians might turn Jews, if free intercourse were permitted between them; or do yourather apprehend that the Jews might become Christians? Rarely does the former take place. It is the latter, then, that you dread, for you know very well that the Jews profit the Inquisition far more than the Christians. The real object of this law, therefore, must be to estrange the two parties, and to sow enmity and dislike between them, so as to cause them to live in perpetual vexation, and discord, and distrust.
The 4th is a singular article,—that no Jew shall be allowed to eat at the same table with a Christian, or in any public eating-house or tavern out of the Ghetto. It would be well if every one could make it convenient to take his meals at home; but when, from the nature of a person's occupation, or any other cause, this cannot be the case, what is he to do? To thetrattoria, or eating-house, every one is admitted; there is no distinction made there between the Jew or the Turk, the Christian or the Heathen. The noble sits by the side of the plebeian. He is the most respected who spends the most; he is the best served who pays the highest. Every one is admitted, even the thief and the assassin. The Jew alone is to be forbidden! But what a disgrace it is to prohibit the Jew from eating in company with the Christian, when Christ himself, the Divine Head of our Church, sat at meat with the children of Israel, even with the Samaritan and the Sadducee, and imparted to them the benefit of His instruction.
How shall we in future have the courage to persuade these people that we are partakers of that most holy religion which began with Adam, and had the Jews for its early fathers? How, in proof of our assertion, present to them the code which is contained in the books of Moses and the Prophets, by us, as well as by them, believed and reverenced? With what face can we boast to them of our Gospel as abounding in precepts full of peace and love? Will they not reply to us by pointing to the laws of the Roman Inquisition, the famous Edict of Ancona, where all is division and hatred? Are you a preacher, brother Salva, and is such your doctrine? To be consistent, you ought to begin your sermon with the duty of religious intolerance, evangelical persecution, and Christian cruelty. Speak the same language in your pulpit as you do in your Edict, and observe the good effect it will produce upon your audience.
Your 5th article prohibits the Jew from sleeping out of his quarters, and from any friendly intercourse with Christians. Welldone! So the Jew is for ever to remain a Jew, and avoid all opportunities of being converted; he is to forego any advantage he might derive from conversing with us. But perhaps you imagine the race to be so bad that good Christians might be injured in communicating with them; indeed your Edict treats them as such throughout. But whoever consults the calendars of our tribunals will find that in all our towns there are very few Jews who figure in the list of criminals; a sufficient proof of their regularity of conduct, their obedience to the laws, and their respect for the authorities.
In the 6th, it is stated that no Jew shall allow any Christian man, much less any Christian woman, to sleep in the Ghetto. The inuendo here conveyed might not inappropriately be retorted upon the friars, notwithstanding the closed gates of their monasteries. They may thank the Jews for not publishing the story of a certain Vicar of the Holy Office, who frequently, under cover of the darkness of night, was accustomed to find his way into the Ghetto, certainly not for the purpose of preaching morality to its inmates. I should advise you, then, Father Inquisitor, not to be over curious in your researches, when there is need of so much indulgence in your own proceedings.
The 7th is a very extraordinary prohibition, forbidding any Jew to employ a Christian as a day-labourer in his house in the Ghetto. So that they are not allowed to have the services of bricklayer, carpenter, or builder, all of whom work by the day, and it is well known that the Jews themselves do not exercise these employments. This law, in fact, was made to oblige the Jew every time his house required repairing, to go to the Inquisition, with all due reverence and respect, andnot empty handed, to get leave to have his work done, without which he is liable to a heavy fine.
In the 8th, the Jews are forbidden to contract any friendship with Christians. For charity's sake, poor children of Israel, pay no attention to such nonsense. Be as good friends with us as you can.
We esteem you as our fellow-citizens, notwithstanding our difference of religion; we regard you as brothers, since we both call God our Father, and both of us ascribe honour and glory to Him.
The 9th article relates to a licence with which every Jew must provide himself, before he can be allowed to travel about the State—a licence which the Inquisitor alone can grant—which must be referred to the decision of the bishops and vicars; and the infringement of any of the rules it contains, subjects the offender toarbitrary punishment, besides imprisonment and a fine of three hundred crowns. In this licence it is forbidden to dwell with, or to enter into familiar conversation with Christians. Now it is only in a very few of the towns in the Roman States, that a Ghetto is to be found. It follows then, that as their business leads the Jews to visit places where there is not any, they are obliged, in that case, according to the conditions of their licence, to live with their beasts, in their stables.
The 10th prohibits the Jews from dealing in church ornaments, and in books of every description. This is of no great consequence as respects the future; but in the meanwhile what is to be done with such of these forbidden articles as they may already have in their shops? they must make a present of them to the Inquisitor, for it appears that unless they do so, there is a fine of three hundred crowns to pay, and imprisonment to undergo.
As an appendix to this new decalogue which is directed against the living, the Inquisitor has thought proper to add an order or two respecting the dead; forbidding the Jews, in burying them, to make use of any ceremony or rite, or to carry any lights with their funeral processions, orto sing psalms. What, does your anger then extend even to the dead? are they too to be punished? Would your canon laws prohibit the decent performance of those last sad offices which are held sacred by all nations, respected by all classes of people? Every religion has its form of worship, every form of worship its peculiar rites, every rite a proper ceremonial form. These things, although extrinsic, and not strictly essential, are nevertheless established by custom, and observed with befitting reverence. Can you deny that the Jews have a right to practise their own religious observances? He that is born a Jew and remains one, must die and be buried as a Jew. How can you, then, prohibit the necessary ceremony at their funerals? You keep them among you, and allow them the exercise of their religion. Their dead have a claim to sepulchral rites, which can only be performed in the manner their own religion prescribes. The Catholics, the Protestants, the Greeks, and the Armenians, the Arabs, and the Chinese, have each of them, according to their peculiar views, established their funeral ceremonies, which, however imposing they may be to those of their own creed, may appear trivial and insignificant in the eyes of others. Nevertheless they are not to be despised, any more than their religion itself, although neither understood nor approved byothers. But to forbid these children of Israel to sing the Psalms of David! their own prophet-king! Good heavens! And you yourselves recite these very prayers in your own sepulchral ceremonies! What greater right have you to them, composed as they are by a Jewish monarch, than the Jews themselves have? They, moreover, recite them in the language of King David himself, in their original Hebrew, a language full of harmony and pathos and lofty meanings; whereas you declaim them in a barbarous dialect, which you call Latin, but which in reality has nothing of the graces of Latium: the version is badly translated, too, incorrect, and every way imperfect.
According to your ideas, then, not only the Jews are forbidden to honour their dead, but the Greeks also, although Christians; since, in this country, their rites and ceremonies are prohibited, and all, in short, who dissent from the canons of the Vatican, and attribute no authority to the Inquisition. You alone are at liberty in this respect, you alone are entitled to the benefit of prayers and spiritual song, since in you alone are to be found faith, holiness, and salvation!
In the meanwhile look at the tolerance that prevails throughout the rest of Europe. But could you with any justice complain if you were yourselves treated as you treat others? Is it fair, that in Greece, in Russia, in the Ionian Islands there should be Romish churches, Romish worship, Romish processions, and other public ceremonies, whilst, in the Roman States, the Greek Church, its rites and ceremonies, are not permitted? Equally might the Romish Church be banished from England, because in the Pontifical States the Anglican Church is prohibited.
But the forbearance of others increases your insolence; their kindness only augments your pride, and their religious feeling your impiety. O wicked race, how long will you deceive mankind!
Behold, O Italy, what manner of men are your priests, your ministers of religion! They who ought to alleviate your woes and render your chains less galling, whose duty it is to shed the balm of consolation on your wounds, they, on the contrary, engender strife and disgust among you; every hour theyrecallto your mind your past shame, your excessive credulity, your blind adherence, your too great submission. They pretend to lament over your illiberality, your religious incredulity, only that they may the better devour your substance. They, rapacious vultures, greedy wolves, they arethe bad shepherds of whom the Prophet speaks. God of Israel, God of our fathers, remember the promise thou hast made through the mouth of thy servant, Jeremiah: "Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord.... Behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings.... I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds: ... And I will set up shepherds over them who shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed.... Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets; ... because of swearing the land mourneth; ... their course is evil, and their force is not right. For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness.... I will bring evil upon them, the year of their visitation. I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; ... also in the prophets of Jerusalem: ... they are all unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah. Therefore thus saith the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them chink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.... In the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.... I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.... Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every one to their neighbour, ... The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.... Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words.... Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, ... and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: ... Therefore, behold I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out ofmy presence: and I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not he forgotten."[125]
Letter toCardinal Caracciolo,Archbishop of Naples.
(Vide p. 237.)
Capua, August 27, 1835.
Eminentissimo e Reverendissimo Padrone,
This, my most respectful letter, will be presented by Father Giacinto Achilli, a Doctor of the Dominican Order, who was lately proposed to me as a preacher in the Metropolitan Church of Capua, by Father Jabalot, the Master-General of the Order; to whom I applied for a serviceable and talented person to occupy the pulpit during the period of Lent.
It would be difficult for me to express to your Eminence the satisfaction that this same Dr. Achilli has given to the Clergy and to the people. He has now fixed his residence in Naples, in the Monastery of St. Peter the Martyr, which may be greatly benefited by his superior talents in Philosophy, Mathematics, and Theology; all which sciences he taught in Viterbo, his native place. He is desirous to place himself under the protection of your Eminence, to whose exceeding kindness I therefore venture to recommend him; more especially, as I know the favour with which your Eminence regarded Doctor Salsano, also a Dominican, on account of his singular talent and virtues; and it is to be hoped, that Dr. Achilli, who is certainly in no wise inferior to him, will prove himself equally agreeable to your Eminence. The Master of the Sacred Palace, Buttaoni, whose learning is well known in Rome, frequently consulted him in the revision of new publications, when he was residing at the Minerva; from which circumstance, it is evident in how high a degree of esteem he was held; and how worthy he is of the favour of your Eminence.
I avail myself of the present opportunity to offer my humble duty and respects, and most respectfully kissing your hands,
I remain,Most Reverend Eminence,Your most humble and devoted Servant,
F. Card. Serra, Archbishop of Capua.
The above letter, which is written with all the attention to etiquette and ceremony that the Cardinals observe towards each other, may serve as a model to those who wish to study the code of politeness received in the Court of Rome.
Letter.
(Vide p. 284.)
Fr.Antonio di Gesu,formerly Pietro Leonini Pignotti of Rome, to the General of the Order of Carmelite Friars at Rome, Health.
Sometime ago you summoned me to Rome to give an account of my belief. Nothing was ever more agreeable to me than your invitation, since I have always desired to bear testimony to the truth. I should not have hesitated in the least to obey you, if I had imagined that I could as freely have confessed my opinions at Rome as I do at Malta. But at Rome, as you well know, there are certain theologians, who for any dissent expressed against their views, immediately raise the cry ofheresy, and conclude with Thomas Aquinas, "that heretics should be burned." Willing, therefore, to spare myself any such proceedings as you would, doubtless, have thought it necessary to put in force against me, had I presented myself before you, I judge it best to give you no other trouble than will accrue to you in examining my present belief, such as I now hold it, and, with the help of God, hope to keep it to the hour of my death.
I believe then all that God has revealed to us in his holy word, in which he has clearly pointed out to us the way, the truth, and the life we ought to follow, in order, through the assistance of Christ, to enter into his kingdom. I consequently believe, with the true Catholic Church, all that is taught in the Apostolic and the Nicene creeds.
I do not believe in the traditions of the Church of Rome, which are altogether false, and fabricated for interested purposes, partly from errors in the writings of the early fathers, and false interpretations of Scripture, and partly from foolish superstitions, which are by the Church calledpious, although contrary to the spirit of the word of God.
I believe that Jesus Christ instituted two Sacraments—Baptism, and the Holy Supper: the first, when he said to the Apostles, "Goye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and the latter, when he said, "This do in remembrance of me."
I do not believe that Jesus Christ ever instituted the sacrament of confirmation, since he gave no commands respecting it. The imposition of hands is a simple rite in imitation of what was done by the apostles. Acts viii. 17. The anointing is entirely of Romish invention. Neither is there any mention of auricular confession in the New Testament. St. James exhorts the faithful to confess their sins to one another, that is, to ask forgiveness of each other for mutual wrongs. Of extreme unction not a word is said in the whole of the Bible. Ordination is nothing more than a simple rite, a ceremony consisting in the imposition of hands, praying God to give to his people good and faithful ministers. And matrimony is merely a contract between the parties, and the priest is enjoined to implore the Lord to bless the union. These five last have by no means the same claim to be regarded as sacraments as the two first. And even these two are altered and injured by the Romish Church, since in baptism water alone should be used, and not salt and oil; and in the Holy Supper common bread should be used, as it was originally, and as it has always been in the true Catholic Church.
I believe that original sin consists in the corruption of human nature descending from Adam. I believe that justification is solely the work of grace, without regard to works, as the Apostle teaches in his Epistle to the Romans.
I do not believe that original sin consists in following Adam, as the Pelagians say, and as the Church of Rome teaches; neither that it is washed away by the water of baptism. Born as we all are to natural life, we are re-born unto spiritual life "by water and the Holy Spirit." Neither do I believe that our own works in any way contribute to our justification, the works themselves being the effect of justifying grace. Jesus Christ has not said that those who work will be saved, but those who "believe and are baptized." And speaking of works, he has declared that when we have done all that is commanded us, we are to acknowledge that we are only "unprofitable servants."
I believe that Jesus Christ has once for all made propitiation for our sins, in that one sacrifice, which was ordained for our eternal redemption, he being a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
I believe that any other sacrifice is false and deceitful; any other propitiation is sacrilegious. Consequently, I deny the pretended propitiatory sacrifice of the Romish Church, as impious and heretical, contrary to the teaching of the Gospel, to the Epistles, and to the doctrine and practice of the ancient Catholic Church.
I believe that in the Sacrament of the Holy Supper, Jesus Christ communicates himself, through faith, to the believer, in the substance of the bread and wine, in a real and spiritual manner, so that eating that holy bread, and drinking of that sacred cup, with true faith, we receive through the word of Christ, the resurrection and the life.
I do not believe that in this sacrament the substance of the bread and wine disappears, and that of the actual body and blood of Christ is substituted in its stead, as the Church of Rome teaches, in which she follows the notion of the heretic Eutychus—"Thisismy body," is to be understood as "JohnisElias," and that passage in Exodus, "Itisthe Lord's passover."Estiin the Greek signifiesrepresents. St. Luke explains the meaning in the following words, "This cupisthe New Testament in my blood." And in this sense alone the ancient Church understood it.
I believe that the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ are received, when the bread and wine are eaten and drank according to the order and the warning of Christ, "Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
I do not believe that in receiving one half alone, the whole sacrament is received, it being indivisible according to the will of the Divine institution, and was so understood in the Church for twelve centuries, and continues still to be so in the most ancient Christian Church, that of the Greeks.
I believe that, according to the Holy Scriptures, the souls of the dead are forthwith consigned to their eternal destiny; the elect and the justified to the joys of heaven; the wicked and the reprobate to the abyss of perdition.
I do not believe in an intermediate or third place or state, between heaven and hell. If purgatory exists at all, there is no reason why it should not always have existed, and have been mentioned in the Scriptures as well as heaven and hell. I do not believe that the Almighty created it only in the fifth century of the Church, and revealed it to St. Augustin alone, to become after the lapse of ten centuries a dogma of faith.
I believe that the saints, who are known as such to God only,stand in his presence, and together with the angels adore Christ and the majesty of God.
I do not believe that the saints know anything about us, nor that they can in any manner interfere in our concerns: certainly, we owe them no worship, since like ourselves they are created beings; neither should we invoke their aid, which they are unable to bestow. Jesus Christ, says St. Paul, is our sole mediator; He continually intercedes on our behalf with his divine Father, and exhorts us to come unto Him. His mother, who in one solitary instance attempted to intercede at the marriage feast of Cana, had for her sole answer, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" I do not believe that the reliques of saints are to be worshipped, since God in his second commandment prohibits all worship but to himself alone. Why has Rome hidden this commandment?
I believe it is right to hold the memory of the saints in due estimation, and to place their portraits among those of our friends and relatives.
I do not believe that any images, whether of Christ, of the Virgin, or of any saint, ought ever to be worshipped, as an act especially forbidden by God.
I believe that Jesus Christ has left to the Church the power which the ministers exercise in public, to absolve,—that is, to declare that all those are pardoned who believe in the satisfaction He has made, and who humbly implore forgiveness.
I do not believe that Jesus Christ pardons in virtue of our works, neither on account of the merits of his mother, or of the saints, none of whom have a superabundance; and much less for the mere asking of the Romish Church, in its notable discovery of indulgences.
I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ is the congregation of all the faithful who are baptized, and who believe in neither more nor less than what is taught in the Holy Scriptures, which Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, having Christ for its head. And I believe that this Church exists separately, among the different languages and nations, as in the time of the Apostles.
I do not believe that there is a mother Church superior to the rest, having dominion and power over all others. And I am of opinion that Rome, who arrogates to herself such dominion, has in reality no Church at all; since God, who has destroyed the Latin language among the people, has also, at the same time, destroyed the Church which existed in that language, the people and thepriests having become totally separated through this difference of language; nor can the Church be restored until it is regenerated.
I believe that the faith and the confession of the Apostle Peter is the faith and confession of the true Church of Christ, the foundation and the pillar of truth. I believe that this faith should be preserved pure and intact among believers, who are bound to reject all innovations which, through error or ignorance, are introduced into Christianity; and that obedience is due to God and not to man.
I do not believe that the blessed Apostle Peter ever left any successor either at Jerusalem or at Rome,—which latter city he probably never visited. All true believers are his successors; and I believe it to be a blasphemy that a miserable sinner like myself should dare to call himself the Vicar of Jesus Christ,—his representative upon earth. I do not believe that He has any need to be represented, since He, much better than any man, or than the whole race of men, sees and provides for the necessities of his Church. No obedience whatever should therefore be paid to a man who impiously calls himself the successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
I believe that all the canon and other laws of Rome are contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that all the Councils and Synods, including that of Trent, held in support of Rome, and favouring her interests, are false and erroneous, and that their memory will always be a disgrace to Christianity. I believe that of all the errors that have infested the Church, the worst and the most detestable is that of Popery, as all the articles I have thus far enumerated sufficiently demonstrate, and against which, I, therefore, as a servant of God, and a minister of Jesus Christ, loudly protest, and condemn.
I do not believe that any Christian can ever live tranquilly under a system which is contrary to the Bible, whose doctrines are so many heresies, and whose practice is impiety throughout. I do not believe that any one who has heard and received the truth, can conscientiously remain conjoined to those who are opposed to it. The least pardonable sin is that of unfaithfulness.
I will conclude then in the same words by which you, professing the most unworthy belief of Pius IV., deceive yourselves; in opposition to which I have expressly modelled this my present profession of faith. This true Catholic faith, out of which no man can be saved, and which I now freely profess and truly hold, and which, bythe blessing of God, I hope to retain pure and undefiled to my last breath, I, Pietro Leonini Pignotti, minister of the Italian Catholic Church, promise, swear, and make oath, to uphold, declare, and preach, to the extent of my ability, that it may also be received by those who are committed to my charge. So help me God and his holy Evangelists. Amen.
Reply
To the Allocution of Pius IX.
At the Consistory of Gaeta, held on the 20th April, 1849.
(Vide p. 312.)
Sinceyou oblige us to reply to your address, we intend to make it clearly evident to whom are to be attributed "the disastrous storms,"which, you tell us, "overwhelm your State, and plunge the whole of Italy into confusion and disorder." Not to insist upon the fact, that the State properly belongs to us the people, and not to you, a repudiated monarch, we shall offer our remarks, not to your colleagues of the Consistory, whose opinions we value not, but to our own brethren, our fellow-countrymen, who share with us in the affection and interest for the public weal; so that no one may be ignorant how much and to what end we have laboured. "And may the Almighty," (we use your own words,) "grant that men, made wiser by these most unhappy events, understand that they cannot occasion a greater injury to themselves than by deviating from the paths of truth, of justice, of honour, and of religion." If you suffered yourself "to be led away by the wicked counsel of evil men; and to learn of them to deceive and to ensnare, we, on the contrary, shall make evident to the whole world with what care and solicitude and brotherly love we have endeavoured to promote the real good, the tranquillity, and the prosperity of the people," our brethren, no longer your subjects, in our Republic, which you obstinately persist in calling "your Pontifical State;"and whichis most truly "the fruit of our great care and affection. In these words we condemn not only yourself, but all those most deceitful workers of such great evils, attributing to every one his proper share."
And here, above all, it delights our minds that "many of our people, aware of having been miserably deceived by you, have now closed their ears to your words and to your counsels, and opened them," instead, to the righteous doctrines of the friends of the people, of the holy evangelists, who, pointing out "the right path of virtue, and treading in the ways of honour and justice, aim alone at encouraging the mind,and directing the understanding in the pursuit of truth."
All are at present aware of your utter deceitfulness, and constant disregard to truth; and they cite, as the first proof of it, your famous amnesty, on account of which, with unparalleled effrontery, you so often reproach us, and which you pretended was to restore peace to so many families, including, be it remembered, your own, and those of your relations. And we, at first, gave credit to your assertions, wondering that a pope could do so much. But to our extreme surprise we discovered that our names were secretly handed over to the Austrian police of Italy, that our persons might be under surveillance. And among the exiles who received the amnesty, there were many to whom your consuls refused passports to return to their homes; while others had to undergo such humiliating treatment, that many chose rather to remain in exile than purchase a degraded freedom at such a price.
It naturally followed that those who returned did not consider themselves under great obligation to you, individually, but felt themselves more and more confirmed in the necessity of getting rid of your race altogether, as a race that never forgives.
"It grieved you" to see the people meet in assemblies, from which issued the sparks of a fire you had attempted to cover over with ashes; but which the more you endeavoured to extinguish it, the more it fed itself and flamed forth; neither did the Edict of the Secretary of State, in April, 1847, produce any other effect than to make evident your own apprehension and that of your government, concerning matters which had no other aim than to protect a people against the artifices and the control of him, who, from the first, intended, after having granted them a moment's relief, to oppress them afresh. It was very natural that your endeavour should be resisted, and that the people who had roused themselves from their lethargy, should not suffer themselves to be cast into it again. A vigilant people will not remain inert. To you, who feign to be ignorant of its most heavy grievances, it has spoken and it has written. Why thendid you not listen to it? You complain of its language and its threats! It is the genius of a southern race to be resentful; towards those who turn a deaf ear to our complaints we feel anger, and to the restive beast we are accustomed to use the whip. You have a peculiar faculty in playing the deaf and the restive, and we very naturally apply to it the treatment it deserves.
According to your account the conspiracy of July, 1847, was not a real one, "but contrived for the express purpose, by public agitators." And pray did you make this notable discovery at Gaeta? Is it not true that when you showed some intention towards useful reform, the adherents of the government of your predecessor, those men of vengeance and of blood, who had filled the prisons and crowded the scaffold with their innocent victims,—those men with whom to love their country and to praise the sacred name of Italy, was a crime;—is it not true that they conspired to our injury and against yourself? And was it not the object of this conspiracy "to plunge the City of Rome into civil war, with slaughter and destruction; until the new institutes being entirely abolished and done away with, the ancient form of government should be restored?" Whence arises then your present madness, to deny a fact which you had full proof of, and which you yourself admitted at the time? Is it true then no longer? And have these conspirators, because they have paid court to you at Gaeta, suddenly become "patterns of goodness, eminent for their religion, and distinguished for ecclesiastical dignity?" Since you have remained out of Rome, how dear they have become to you. It was well for them that you quitted it, and it is through them that you will never more return.[126]
"It was," as you say, "in this time of agitationthat it was proposed to form a Civic Guard." We know full well with what jealous eyes you look upon this institution—what a dagger it is in your heart. "Hastily assembled by your own act," it was after your departure only that "it was completely organized and disciplined." If you could now behold this Guard which has received the title of National, you would be compelled to acknowledge it the finest spectacle that Rome affords. It is to this body we owe the tranquillity and good order which never existed before. It defends our country against the aggression of your satellites. It is composed of the flower of our citizens, and has exulted in the cry,Vivà la Repubblica, à basso il Papato."
Do you not blush at the remembrance of that solemn piece of deceit which you termed a Council of State? Was it not natural for us to imagine that in this Council the will of the majority should prevail over that of the minority? that the influence of the people was to be equal to that of the priests? that yourself, a single individual, and by no means infallible, might have the courtesy to submit your individual opinion to that of the many? Otherwise, for what purpose is the Council assembled?—to cause us to undergo the usual humiliation of finding laws imposed upon us in opposition to our own wishes?
As to your glorious Allocution in the Consistory of Oct. 1847, of which you still make boast, we shall leave those to judge who have read the production. For us it was as an apple of discord, thrown among the people of Italy, in order that they might mutually distrust each other, and that all might withdraw themselves from the holy cause of emancipating their common country. And that was no dream of an armed foreign intervention secretly invited and even implored for, by a conspiracy of cardinals and the monarch, to root out, as they said, every germ of what they were pleased to call sedition. And were not you, who, in February, 1843, spoke deceitful words of comfort in order to tranquillize men's minds,—were not you foremost in this demand?
Still we continued to deceive ourselves: many persevered in their opinion that you were good and liberal, and every day expected to see civil and progressive institutions emanating from your decrees; the Romans, still devoted to you, were willing to ascribe every delay, every retrograde movement, every deceitful promise, to the intrigues of evil-minded persons, and to believe that the Jesuits, who were most assiduous about your court, prevented the expansion of your bounty. It was through affection for yourself that we called out for their suppression. Already expelled from other Italian States, why should they continue to hold sway in Rome, where you yourself contributed to render them the more odious? It was not, therefore, so much personal hatred towards them, as love towards our country and yourself, that induced the Romans to rise against the abhorred sons of Loyola. A proof of this is, that not one of them was ill-treated, or even prevented from remaining in the city, provided he kept himself quiet and unobtrusive.
The removal of the Jesuits was so far beneficial, that on the 14th March, a Statute was issued which appeared to us to regardour necessities, and to give evidence of your surpassing liberality. It was read with avidity, and we asked ourselves if the government had really become constitutional. Many reports were spread. The more credulous were transported with extravagant enthusiastic delight; the more sagacious, before they gave way to hope, required time, to see the fulfilment of the promise; long, and sad experience had taught them to distrust the specious professions of a pope. With sincerity and right feeling you might have conducted us to a Republic, but such was not accordant to your character nor to the innate genius of your caste. A republic to be proclaimed by a pope in his own States, would be as impossible as for the devil to turn Christian. You were right, therefore, to exclaim against those who, to tell you what they had fondly dreamed, broke in upon your slumbers, with so little ceremony. You too have had your dream, conjured up through an association of ideas very different from theirs, which you have confided not to their ears alone, but to the hearing of the public at large, when you state that the Republic they wished for "had no otherobject in view than perpetual agitation, the removal of every principle of justice, virtue, honour, and religion; and to introduce and spread abroad on every side, with loss and ruin to all human society, the fatal and horrible system of Socialism, contrary to all natural right and reason."
This was an ugly dream, and, doubtless, arose from a diseased imagination. But that was no dream which you have since related to us with such satisfaction, how you had, to our injury, opposed the Italian cause, secretly at first, and afterwards more openly. Our youth who flew to arms in the righteous cause, assured you of their intention to seek the sanguinary Croat, where the battle raged the fiercest. And you feigned to approve of their holy design, blessing their banners, and auguring from heaven itself auspicious omens for their victory. Was it not you who expressed to Charles Albert your grief that you could not assist him as you wished? And when was it that Rome discovered your real intentions, and your secret orders not to pass the confines, if not when they heard from your own lips your celebrated Allocution of the 29th April, 1848? Bitter remembrance of an act that destroyed all the hopes of a people, at that time, devoted to you! It is evident, then, that your love for the Italian cause, and all your speeches and professions, were priestly and royal deception. And you dare bring to our recollection those times in the past and the present year; when,in the former, you abhorred to shed the blood of the Croat, and in the latter you thirsted for that of the Romans!
On the 29th of April last, the army of Louis Buonaparte displayed itself beneath the walls of Rome, with a direful train of artillery, of cannon and of bombs, to slaughter in your name all those Romans who should maintain that you, a Christian prelate, ought not to govern them as king. A fatal day was that for Rome; the most disastrous in our annals; the most disgraceful to the Papacy!
Since matters are in this state, strike out from your Allocution words that you have no right to utter: "that you, elevated, although most unworthily," (most true,) "through the inscrutable decree of Divine Providence, to the summit of apostolic dignity, to exercise upon earth the office of Vicar to Jesus Christ," (a false and blasphemous assertion,) "you receive from God, the fountain of Charity and Love, your mission to regard with paternal affection, all mankind, of whatever country or race, to watch over and to promote their safety, and not to impel them to slaughter and to death." That these words are false is evident from your own confession that you have yourself brought and impelled against us, in fratricidal war, Austria, France, Spain, and a portion of Italy.
To whom are to be attributed the slaughters at Bologna, at Ancona, and beneath the walls at Rome? You were averse to a just war, for the safety of Italy; not so to that most unjust one which had for its object the replacing of yourself, the most abhorred of sovereigns, upon a throne which you had yourself deserted, and from which, "through the inscrutable decree of Divine Providence," rather than through any effort of ours, you had been removed.
Who will pardon your mis-statement of facts, your outrage upon individuals? Language has no words more abusive or scornful than those you have employed against us, who, you assert, are guilty of the heavy offence of despoiling you of your territory, and that, too, after having constrained you in so many ways to grant a reform which was true, stable, and conformable to our wants. But it is not the empty name of a republic that satisfies us; it is a wise, a provident, and a just government, that we require. Call our present one what you will; it is that which we have always wished for, and to which we have a just right. It is one which we endeavoured to urge upon you, because the Papal Government removed you too far from us. Some who fancied you a wise and considerate prince, believed your influence might be beneficial, andwithout delay proposed that you should rule the destinies of Italy. You, however, it appears, considered this propositionas extremely insulting. In fact, it was not from a pope that Italy could hope for her redemption. The popes, at the head even of a republic, would have finished by subjecting the whole of the country, as they did at Rome, where the Church became the incubus of the State, although at one time denominated a republic,—Sancta Dei Ecclesia et Respublica Romanorum.
This attempt, then, having been made as a last proof of devotion towards your person, it was inevitably forced upon our conviction that no other hope remained for us than what might arise from the separation of the priestly and royal functions. The Church was to be the sole empire for the priests; Rome and Italy would together arrange a form of government for themselves. But this simple act, full of justice and moderation, you stigmatise as the fruit of "the most unbridled licentiousness, audacity, and depravity," and they who are actuated by love for their country and mankind are stigmatised by you as "enemies both of God and man." ...
How entirely has the spirit of falsehood possessed you! When have "the streets" as you say, "been sprinkled with human blood?" when have "the most deplorable sacrileges taken place, and the most outrageous violence been offered to your person in your own house?" What infamy for the Head of our Church to be guilty of such scandalous untruths! You declare also that "traitors, infuriated, and threatening, indulged in all sorts of deceit and violence to terrify the good, already sufficiently intimidated." We ask you, Who were these traitors, and when were these intimidations employed? All the world knows that you were not yourself more legally chosen pope, than the Constituent Government was authorized by the whole of the Roman people, in fair and unbiassed freedom of election....
The love of empire, that sways the base and ignoble mind, is more present with you than the love of the people or a regard for humanity. It is in vain you endeavour to hide it; nevertheless, it is ridiculous in our days to talk of a temporal throne in the apostolic seat, in the Holy Roman Church. The Apostles possessed none, and could consequently give no right to inherit any. The words of our Divine Master are moreover in direct opposition to such possession, enjoining them to arrogate to themselves no titles of authority. "After these things do the Gentiles seek;" "but beye not like them;" and many more passages might be adduced to the same effect....
If, however, it be alleged that our progenitors gave to the High-Priest of Rome the office of governor, we, by the same right, have power to take it away. In like manner, the sister Churches of France, Austria, and Spain, may, if they choose, make either a king, an emperor, or a president, of their chief-priest. We have no right to object to their doing so, and all we ask in return is that they should not trouble their heads about us.
Your dethronement was occasioned by your ill-government and oppression, in which you followed the example of other despots; and moreover, you did so in the name of St. Peter, and even of Christ. And all the temporal power and trust you placed in the hands of the clergy, a measure injurious alike to the interests of the Church and of the people. The most talented were employed in the service of the State, the most ignorant in that of the Church; the former were active and rapacious in acquiring wealth, and the latter supine and superstitious in the duties of their calling; the one party rolling in luxury, and the other poor and needy, so that by degrees they began mutually to hate each other.
This monstrous union of Church and State has thus gone on until the present period. Profane and sacred things have been so jumbled together that good sense and right feeling with respect to them have altogether been lost. The progress of civilization on every side except among ourselves, rendered our situation still less endurable, so that among all classes the two powers were held in slight and derision. In proportion as they ceased to love the prince they began to despise the priest. By the one the laws were transgressed, by the other the offices of religion neglected. The sovereign laid his snares, and the priest through his negligence brought the Church into discredit. Meanwhile, the obstinacy of the popes, to keep the two powers united in their own person, threatened them not only with the loss of the State, but of the Church also. It was, therefore, a kindliness towards yourself, and a love for religion, that induced us to decree, that in order to guarantee the Roman pontiff in the free exercise of his spiritual power he should no longer wield the temporal sceptre. It is necessary when the whole body is threatened with gangrene to cut off the morbid portion....
We ardently desire to see established the religion of Christ, as holy and saving, and this, we conceive, may exist without bishops orpriests;—the invisible and universal Church, which includes believers in all parts of the world; of which Christ alone is high-priest and Head. And this invisible Church does not do away with a visible and material one, which is divided among all people and nations, and of which every one has a right to choose that form which appears to him the best. Many of these Churches have no bishops, as the German, the Scotch, the Helvetic, and the evangelical Churches of France and Italy. Who is the bishop of the Church of the Waldenses? No one. And yet it is full of zeal, has existed from the eleventh century, and after so many fierce persecutions and massacres still presents a body of twenty-four thousand believers.
It is possible, then, to be good Christians, and to form a visible national Church on such a model without the aid of bishops. At any rate, you cannot deny that a Church can change its bishop for a sufficient cause. Do you think it then absurd or contrary to the precepts of the gospel that the people of Rome, who may be termed the whole Romish Church, should repudiate you as an apostate-bishop, a traitor, a bombarder, and that they should elect another, faithful, true, and beneficent?
Those who were asleep have now awakened, and they no longer trust your words. When you went out from Rome, the Bible entered in; the Bible, persecuted by the popes! and the gospel of Christ and the holy writings of the Apostles, faithfully translated into the Italian language, are now in the hands of the people, who read them, and find there neither popery nor the pope.
Take care that it does not happen to yourself in Italy, as it happened to your predecessors out of it, who, desirous to obtain more, lost all. They who last February took from you the temporal power, intended by so doing to guarantee and ameliorate your spiritual authority. From the 30th April to the present period, you have rejected every friendly advance, and violated every law in presenting yourself before the walls of Rome, surrounded by bayonets and cannon; and you announced to this city your return and your solemn entry with bomb-shells and incendiary acts among the wounded and the dying. Is this the entry of a bishop? Is it in such a manner that the pretended Vicar of Jesus Christ returns to his people?...
Let us suppose, by way of argument, that you, environed by thousands of bayonets, should effect your return to a city overpowered by foreign violence, what would you find at Rome?—a peoplecapable of loving you and serving you as formerly? No, indeed; you would find a desert. The city which has abhorred you as a prince, and through you has learned to despise the whole race from which the popes have descended, is no longer disposed to receive your laws, to pay you tribute. Over whom do you expect to reign? Over the few who followed you to Gaëta? or those who here and there have remained favourable to the old system? Even of these there are none that really love you; it is to the system, and not to yourself personally, that they are attached....
It is in vain you exaggerate the disorders of our government, and in disgraceful language descend to the lowest scurrilities, calling Rome "a den of furious beasts" and those who dwell there "apostates, heretics, communists, and socialists—bent on disseminating their pestiferous doctrines, and corrupting every heart, and possessed with a daring and sacrilegious desire of seizing upon the property and revenues of the Church." If this property and these revenues belong, as you say, to the Church, then we have done no other than restore them to their rightful owner, rescuing them from the hands of lawless spoilers. The people constitute the Church; the property of the Church then is the property of the people. And the priests and bishops, considered as servants to the Church, are to be maintained by the people. By divine command the tribe of Levi was supported by the other tribes. Christ also directs that the ministers of his Gospel are to be maintained by the faithful, when he says, "for the labourer is worthy of his hire." This was the practice in the early times of Christianity, and to them we must return. If our former ministers are content to return to the Church under this new arrangement, we are willing once more to receive them; otherwise, we must look out for servants who will be more zealous for heavenly riches, and less greedy after the wealth of this world.
Is it because these doctrines have been established for more than eighteen centuries, and are based on the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles, that you call those who profess themapostates and heretics?
We have "despoiled the temples of their ornaments!" That is, we have taken their superfluous silver to coin into money, to supply the place of that which you and yours have concealed or carried away. We have "turned religious houses to profane uses!" Yes; some of the haunts of the lazy and the worthless we have given as habitations for the industrious poor, who live as God has commanded them todo, by the sweat of their brow. In the eyes of those to whom idleness is sacred and labour profane, we have certainly committed a crime, but for usheretics and apostates, we imagine we have done a holy work.
We have ill treated "the sacred virgins!" The chronicle does not say so. They have never been more safe and more respected than by ourselves and our government. Who it was that ill treated the sacred virgins under your own government, is well known to you, without our taking the trouble to repeat it. Pay a little more regard to truth, and be silent on these matters, unless you wish us to reveal what for the sake of charity we do not mention.
We have "most cruelly persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death the most worthy and excellent ecclesiastics and holy monks; venerable and esteemed bishops, even such as were elevated to the degree of Cardinal, we have barbarously driven from their flocks, and thrust into prison!" You accuse us of what, for reasons of state, we ought to have done, but which, through too great consideration, we abstained from doing. All wicked and insidious traitors, spies and conspirators, whether priests, monks, bishops, or cardinals, who sought to bring ruin upon the people, we ought undoubtedly to have hanged, in reward for their infamy. That we did not do so was, perhaps, through an overweening regard for their persons. Pope Gregory, and his cardinal, Lambruschini, on the slightest suspicion of liberalism, tore from the bosom of their families citizens far more useful and respectable than these priests and monks, consigned them to horrible dungeons, or after a mock trial, handed them over to the public executioner. All the vengeance we took, was, on the commencement of our revolution, to pardon all those accursed wretches who did not die with Pope Gregory; and our government calmed the fury of the populace, who, on account of their crimes, were eager for their destruction. It was a grief to us when some of those who had received pardon at our hands again sought to irritate the people, who then knew themselves to be masters. Certain death would have been their fate had not our government shut them up in confinement.
Certainly, when any one was taken with arms in his hands, and firing upon our people, as the curate of Monte Mario, the priest Racchetti, and another or two were, the people conceived they had a perfect right to take the law into their own hands, and get rid of their enemies, without writing to you to ask leave to do so. You may thank Providence that our people are so mild and soobedient to their governors as they are, or you would have had some of your monasteries visited, and the ribald monks turned out to pay you a visit at Gäeta. In the provinces likewise, every here and there, a band of factious insurgents roamed about, headed by a priest or a monk, and protected by a bishop or a cardinal. Was it not an unheard-of act of mercy to spare the lives of such wretches? And is it on account of such acts that you complain of the Republican government?
We felt an extreme repugnance, which the government of the priests never felt, to shed the blood of the citizens, considering them not in the light of subjects, but as brethren. And we grieve that all do not share with us in these fraternal feelings.
As to theexhausted treasury, to whom was it owing, if not to yourselves? We, on the contrary, in a short space of time, restored the finances, and put the administration of them into the best possible order. Who paralysed the exertions of commerce, and with unjust laws and enormous duties forced all the capital of the provinces to the seat of government? Who, on the other hand, reformed the laws, reduced the duties, and gave encouragement to commerce, if not the Republic? Certainly, commerce greatly suffered, and still continues to do so, in consequence of the siege and bombardment, by your favourites, of Bologna, Ancona, and Rome.
What falsehoods you state with respect to "heavy contributions imposed upon the nobility, property plundered from individuals!" Many of the nobility never contributed a single farthing, whilst many, not noble, paid large sums into the treasury. Is it not yourselves who teach that the superfluity of the rich is the patrimony of the poor? But who was ever plundered by us? Can you bring a single example to justify your assertion? If not, we have a right to stigmatize you as a calumniator. Neither can you bring any proof of your other most injurious assertion, that we "interfered with the personal liberty of all good people, destroying their peace, and even threatening their very lives with the dagger of the assassin." The audacious nature of this falsehood is apparent. Have we not abundant testimony of the good character and conduct of our government, from persons of every nation, from the representatives of foreign powers, who are ready to certify that none of these excesses were ever perpetrated under the Roman Republic? How frequently they took place under the government of the popes, I need not relate; howmany innocent individuals were torn from the bosom of their families, how many lives sacrificed, it were painful to disclose. The reign of the late Gregory furnished numberless examples, and your own reign, too, is not without its share in these enormities.
Let us now advert to that glorious confession of yours, of having sought from foreign powers an armed intervention to replace you on that throne from which you were removed more through your own weakness and folly than through any act of ours: and which you have had the simplicity to publish, in order, as it seems, that history may hand down to posterity this last ignominy of the papacy. Four foreign armies were invited to Rome to place the last of the popes upon a throne which is renowned for having the early pages in its history marked by fraud and usurpation; the succeeding ones by extortions, deceits, civil wars, the barbarities of the Croats, and the horrors of the Inquisition; and the last with the destruction of liberty, with parricide, and the bombardment of Rome, the great act on which you pride yourself. Do you, then, imagine it possible that you can return to fill a throne, so abhorred by Rome, and by all Italy? It is only possible through the support of foreign armies, bayonets, cannon, and all warlike means! It is only to be effected by the shedding of blood, and slaughter of thousands sacrificed to sacerdotal fury and ambition! Can you return to Rome to hear the cries of mothers, deprived by you of their dearest hopes, of widows whose husbands have been slain through your agency? And in the midst of such universal grief will you return smiling and joyful? How long, John Mastai, will you continue to insult our country, and how long is she to endure your presence? The presence of one who has allied himself with kings to betray the people, who united in friendship with the Bourbon of Naples, in order to devise the best means of oppressing every generous mind, of eradicating from the sons of Italy every noble sentiment! O insensate men that we were, to believe you, to trust in your deceitful promises, to the disappointment of your hopes, to the ruin of our happiness! Do you not believe that the Almighty is the judge of our cause; that he is powerful to abase the rich and the proud, and to exalt the poor and the oppressed? If you make an appeal to the canonical laws, we refer to those of the Gospel.
Christ has taught us to bless those who curse us, to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who despitefully use us and persecute us. But you begin to curse those who have always blessedyou, to hate those who have done good to you, and to persecute those who have prayed for you. You who alone could have preserved the country, and have restored what was lost, joined yourself to our enemies to ruin and destroy us.
And you dare to call yourself the Vicar of Christ! Is Christ then divided? is there a Christ opposed to the gospel? If so, you doubtless are his Vicar, and we have nothing more in common with you; neither the country which you have betrayed, nor the faith which you have denied. Keep possession of your Church; it is no longer ours: and enjoy your kingdom, since we are no longer your subjects. Go where your wishes lead you; but dare not again to place foot in a city which accuses, judges, and condemns you. Who could endure to raise their eyes to encounter those of a traitor? Who could receive a benediction from a hand yet stained with blood? No one, indeed, could consent to enter the temple with a hypocrite, who at the very time he was planning by the basest means to wreak upon us his cruel vengeance with fire and slaughter, had the assurance to give breath to the following words, which, to undeceive the present and to warn the future generation, not without a sensation of extreme horror and disgust, we venture to repeat;—
"Lastly, venerable brethren, resigning ourselves entirely to the inscrutable decrees of the wisdom of God, with which he operates his glory, while in the humility of our heart we render Him infinite thanks for having made us worthy of so great suffering for the name of Jesus, and for having rendered us, in a degree, similar to Himself in His passion, we are ready in faith, hope, patience, and in gentleness, to suffer the most severe pains and trials, and, for the sake of the Church, to give even our very life, if by the shedding of our blood her calamities could be remedied."
Such impudence of declamation amid such atrocious deeds, for ever closes the page whereon, in characters of blood, is registered the perpetualdownfallof the Roman Pontificate.
FINIS.
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.