Chapter VIII (6)

Interchanges of civilities, however, continued to take place. Lady Holland transmitted to the Emperor, when at Elba, "one or two packets of English newspapers," and these little acts of attention were acknowledged by "some small but curious specimens of the iron ore of that island." Her Ladyship's subsequent solicitude for the comforts of Napoleon, when exiled at St Helena, and her generous attention to his wants, are well known, and exhibit, in a most pleasing manner, the kindliness of the female heart. The mention of these things leads to an account of the Longwood squabbles, the interest of which has now entirely passed away. Sir Hudson Lowe may not have been the most courteous or _debonnaire_ of wardens, but, on the other hand, it is clear that Napoleon would have made a point of quarreling with an angel of light if appointed as his _custos_; and that the last passages of his life by no means exhibit him in a dignified or magnanimous point of view. As, however, the narrative to which we refer is one of the few in this volume which are based upon Lord Holland's own experience, we may as well insert it here as a specimen of the author's style.

"When the ungenerous decision by which this great prisoner was
to be conveyed to St Helena was known, Lady Holland hastened to
apply to Government for permission to send such articles as in her
judgment were likely to contribute to his comfort or amusement
in that distant exile. She improved her slight acquaintance with
Sir Hudson Lowe, and, by every civility in her power, endeavoured
to obtain from him all the facilities consistent with his duty,
and instructions for carrying her intentions into execution. She
failed in both these attempts. Lord Bathurst informed her that no
present could be sent to General Buonaparte, but that Government
would willingly purchase and convey to him any article that could
be suggested as conducive to his comfort. Lady Holland happened
to know that the Emperor liked, even in less sultry climates, to
drink both water and wine extremely cold. She had been on the point
of buying, at a considerable price, a newly-invented machine for
making ice; and, in answer to Lord Bathurst's message, she gave
him the direction of the maker, and suggested the purchase. The
machine, however, was neither purchased nor sent. Lady Holland
nevertheless persisted, and contrived to send, together with new
publications and trifling presents to Sir Hudson, similar marks of
remembrance to Napoleon. They were often delayed, from excessive
scruple or from less pardonable motives, at the Government House;
yet the innocent nature of the memorials themselves secured their
ultimately reaching their destination. Various obstacles, however,
presented themselves to this insignificant intercourse. A natural
and pardonable pride deterred Napoleon from applying for anything;
a more mistaken, and in my judgment contemptible, punctilio led him
to reject any communication in which his title of Emperor was not
preserved. Advantage was taken of such circumstances--"

No; in mercy to the compositors, we shall not go on with this! The pen drops from the fingers, and a drowsy sense of numbness steals upon the brain in the mere act of transcribing these ponderous and most prosy sentences. Skip we a couple of pages still occupied by the recital of such unutterable woes, and let us arrive at the period of better treatment--"the effect, I flatter myself, of my motion in the House of Lords."

"Letters from the Emperor's family, intrusted to the Secretary of
State, were henceforward more regularly transmitted. Provisions,
clothing, and books, purchased by them, and sent to the same
office, were also forwarded; and Lord Bathurst, some time
afterwards, not only consented to convey articles from Lady Holland
to Napoleon and Sir Hudson Lowe, but apprised her regularly of
ships that sailed for St Helena, and, after due experience of her
scrupulous adherence to the rules which he imposed, allowed all
parcels, books, and cases indorsed with her handwriting and name,
to proceed, without further inspection, to their destination.
Lady Holland had the satisfaction of knowing that many of those
articles were received and approved of. Napoleon never wrote,
but he mentioned her name and her attentions more than once to
persons who repeated his acknowledgments to her. The legacy was,
however, a gratifying, and, by her, an unexpected proof that such
endeavours to express her admiration of his great qualities,
and even to soothe his afflictions, had not been altogether
unsuccessful. The testimony of his own handwriting, the words
so judiciously chosen--even the pains taken to fit the card to
the box--enhanced the value of the bequest; for they proved that
Napoleon understood her motives, and that they had occupied, for
some little space of time, the thoughts, as well as excited the
good-will, of that extraordinary man. The whole was in good taste.
Had the gift been greater, she could not have accepted it; had the
expressions been stronger, they would not have appeared sincere.
Surely to have afforded satisfaction to a man so calumniated, so
persecuted, and so ill treated, and to have excited the esteem of
a mind so capacious and so penetrating, is no slight distinction.
Lady Holland found, in the knowledge of it, an ample reward for
her constant, unremitting, and unostentatious compassion and
generosity."

Our readers will probably agree with us in thinking that there is "something too much of this." It is rather a novelty to us to be informed that Napoleon was a persecuted man. Most people throughout Europe have maintained the opinion that the persecution lay the other way. But perhaps Lord Holland meant to insinuate that the persecution lay in his banishment of St Helena. He calls it an "ungenerous decision;" and elsewhere says:--

"It is remarkable that, in one of those papers so sent (to Elba)
by Lady Holland, was a paragraph hinting a project among the
confederates of transporting him to St Helena. True it is that
such an idea, however inconsistent with honour or good faith, was
started and discussed, though probably never committed to paper,
at the Congress of Vienna, before Napoleon left Elba. It is just
to add that it was discountenanced and rejected by Austria. In
confirmation of so base a design having been entertained, it
is observable that a negotiation with the East India Company
to place St Helena under the control of the Government, with
no other probable or ostensible object for such a measure, was
actually commenced in March 1815, and discontinued on the landing
of Napoleon in that month. Any well-grounded suspicion of such a
proceeding was sufficient to release the exiled Emperor from the
obligations of his treaty and abdication of Fontainebleau, and to
justify his attempt to recover the empire he had so recently lost."

We observe that the writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ denies the statement of Lord Holland, that the removal of Napoleon from Elba was mooted at the Congress of Vienna. We, on the contrary, have always understood that the proposition was seriously considered, though not, as Lord Holland would insinuate, without sufficient cause and provocation. The intrigues, of which Elba was the centre, to pave the way for another attempt at the dethronement of the Bourbons, had for some time been in active progress, and were well known to Fouché and others, and by them communicated to the Congress. Also, the attitude of Murat in Italy was such as to excite very serious apprehensions. Mr Alison, in his _History of Europe_,[20] thus notices the intrigues of Elba:--

"Its close proximity to the Italian shore led naturally to a secret
correspondence between the Island of Elba and the Court of Naples.
Murat, ever governed by ambition, and yet destitute of the firmness
of purpose requisite to render it successful, now found that his
vacillation of conduct had ruined him with the aristocratic, as
it had formerly done with the revolutionary party, and that the
Allies were little disposed to reward his deviation from his
engagements by the lasting possession of the throne of Naples. He
threw himself, therefore, once more into the arms of France; and it
was arranged that the descent of Napoleon on the coast of Provence
should be contemporaneous with the advance of his troops to the Po,
and the proclamation of the great principle of Italian liberty and
independence."

Accordingly, we find that Murat, only ten days before Napoleon quitted Elba, made a formal demand for the passage of eighty thousand men through the Austrian territories in Italy--an act, doubtless, of insane folly, but one which can be attributed to no other motive than his perfect knowledge that the designs of Napoleon were nearly ripe for execution. This demand, of course, could not fail to alarm the Congress, to whom, almost immediately afterwards, information as to the character of the projected enterprise was conveyed. Mr Alison says:--

"This military position and demand excited the jealousy of the
Allied Powers; the more especially as, towards the end of February,
rumours reached Vienna of constant correspondence between the Isle
of Elba and the adjoining shores of Italy, and of an intended
descent by Napoleon on the shores of France. These rumours soon
acquired such consistency, that the propriety of removing him
from the neighbourhood of Italy had already been more than once
agitated in the Congress; and various places of residence for him,
in exchange for Elba, had been proposed;--among others, one of the
Canary Islands, which was suggested by the Portuguese Minister, and
St Helena or St Lucia, which were proposed by Lord Castlereagh.
Alexander, however, still firmly held out for adhering to the
treaty of Fontainebleau, and maintaining the fallen Emperor in
possession of the Island of Elba: alleging, as a reason, that his
personal honour had been pledged to his great antagonist for that
asylum, and that he would not be the first to break it."[21]

On the 7th of March, intelligence reached Vienna that Napoleon had secretly left Elba. Such we believe to be the true statement of the case. That the Allies should have wished, without any adequate cause, to disturb the recent settlement of Napoleon in the Island of Elba, appears to us a proposition too preposterous to be maintained. But that such a measure should have been discussed, _after_ they became aware of the nature of his designs and preparations, and had thus received warning that the peace of Europe was again in imminent danger from his uncontrollable ambition, need not excite any wonder, and cannot surely be wrested into a charge of persecution against Napoleon. Lord Holland entirely fails to make out--nay, he does not even assert--that any such proposal was made in Congress _before_ the intrigues of Elba were divulged, or the negotiation with Murat completed. It does not even appear that Napoleon, previous to his landing in France, was aware that the Allies had received any intimation of his design; and when we consider the shortness of time which elapsed between the receipt of Murat's formal demand and the departure from Porto Ferrajo, it is next to impossible that any tidings of a discussion following thereon could have reached him while in Elba. In short, this attempt to justify the evasion of Napoleon, and his deliberate breach of treaty, is a signal failure, and will certainly add nothing to Lord Holland's posthumous renown for historical accuracy or acumen.

But Lord Holland also considers Napoleon as entitled to deep sympathy on the ground of his being ill-treated. That is a matter entirely of private opinion. That Lord Bathurst should not have purchased Lady Holland's machine for making ice may appear, in the eyes of the frequenters of Holland House, a most barbarous act of cruelty. That a special vessel should not have been despatched for St Helena, so often as a letter was addressed to the illustrious captive, may shock the sensitive mind. The liberal soul may be thrilled with anguish and pity at the perusal of the following miseries inflicted on the devastator of Europe towards the close of his career:--

"It was indispensable to the peace of the world to prevent his
escape; and the expedition from Elba had shown that no reliance
could be placed either on his professions or his treaties.
Detention and sure custody, therefore, were unavoidable; and every
comfort consistent with these objects was afforded him by the
British Government. He was allowed the society of the friends who
had accompanied him in his exile; he had books in abundance to
amuse his leisure hours; saddle-horses in profusion were at his
command; he was permitted to ride several miles in one direction;
Champagne and Burgundy were his daily beverage; and the bill of
fare of his table, which is shown by Las Cases as a proof of the
severity of the British Government, would be thought the height
of luxury by most persons in a state of liberty. If the English
Government had acted towards Napoleon as he did to others who
opposed him, they would have shot him in the first ditch, as he did
the Duc d'Enghien or Hofer; or shut him up in an Alpine fortress,
as he did the Cardinal Pacca."[22]

But we have really dwelt too long upon this tedious exhibition of spurious sympathy, which, after all, is but a flimsy veil intended to cover the self-glorification of the peer. The remaining passages regarding Napoleon contain nothing of the slightest interest, and are, moreover, especially heavy. A few commentaries upon various remarkable incidents in the life of the Emperor are interspersed, from which we learn that Lord Holland condemned the murder of the Duc d'Enghien, but did not consider the abandonment of Josephine as any heinous act of moral dereliction. We doubt whether the majority of mankind will concur in the latter opinion. To us it appears that Napoleon's treatment of his first wife shows him to have been as destitute of heart as insensible to the obligations of honour.

It is not a little amusing to observe the estimate formed by Lord Holland of some of his remarkable contemporaries. Occasionally he assumes a tranquil air of superiority, which, when we remember the even obscurity of his own life, in respect to the discharge of public duties, is comical in the extreme. Mark how he disposes of Prince Metternich:--

"That minister, originally a partisan of the French faction, and
then a tool of Napoleon, has, no doubt, since the fall of that
great prince, supported the system which succeeded him. He seems
hardly qualified by any superior genius to assume the ascendency,
in the councils of his own and neighbouring nations, which common
rumour has for some years attributed to him. He appeared to me,
in the very short intercourse I had with him, little superior
to the common run of Continental politicians and courtiers, and
clearly inferior to the Emperor of Russia in those qualities
which secure an influence in great affairs. Some who admit the
degrading but too prevalent opinion, that a disregard of truth
is useful and necessary in the government of mankind, have, on
that score, maintained the contrary proposition. His manners
are reckoned insinuating. In my slight acquaintance with him in
London, I was not struck with them; they seemed such as might have
been expected from a German who had studied French vivacity in
the fashionable novel of the day. I saw little of a sagacious and
observant statesman, or of a courtier accustomed to very refined
and enlightened society."

What will the _crême de la crême_ of Vienna say to this? Here is a decided thrust at the midriff of the enemy! Not only is Prince Metternich set down as an exceedingly overrated person in point of ability, but his very manners and demeanour have been criticised in the polite circles of Holland House, and found wanting. We cannot sufficiently applaud the sagacity with which the true source of the Metternichian polish is detected. Truth will out at last! During the later years of his life, the Prince has been studying French vivacity in the classical academies of Pigault le Brun and Paul de Kock! And yet, perhaps, we may be wrong. Louvet was the earlier master, and may have had a hand in forming the vivacity of this distinguished pupil. But the Prince has this consolation, at least, that he suffers in good company. Tried by the unerring standard of Lord Holland, "the address of Alexander himself, the Emperor of Russia, was, perhaps, liable to similar criticism." The inference is, that the Czar also had been studying vivacity in French novels, and was obviously not a person accustomed to very refined and enlightened society! As for the Emperor Francis II., he is dismissed in a still more summary manner:--

"I have heard it observed, and I believe justly, that the Emperor
passed, during his long reign, for a weak, foolish, but good sort
of man; but that he deserved none of those epithets. He was a man
of some understanding, little feeling, and no justice."

Perhaps the reader would take a glimpse at the royal family of Portugal, as seen through the critical glasses of Lord Holland:--

"The king and queen, very opposite in principle, character, and
conduct, have a natural abhorrence to one another. They, in truth,
have nothing in common but a revolting ugliness of person, and
a great awkwardness of manner. He is well-meaning, but weak and
cowardly, and so apprehensive of being governed by his ostensible
ministers, that he becomes the victim of low and obscure cabals,
and renders his councils at all times unsteady, irresolute, and
uncertain. The queen's outrageous zeal in the cause of despotism,
miscalled legitimacy, is supposed to have softened his aversion to
a representative assembly and a constitutional form of government.
The queen is vindictive, ambitious, and selfish, and has strong
propensities to every kind of intrigue, political or amorous."

What a sensation of awe steals across the mind as we peruse these wholesale sentences of condemnation! What a sublime idea we imbibe of the dignity and intellect of the judge! We need not add further to this portrait gallery, although ample materials are afforded us. The above specimens, we think, will be sufficient to satiate the curiosity of the reader.

Lord Holland, however, had his favourites. Napoleon, as we have seen, was one; and Talleyrand was another. It is rather odd that Lord Holland should have discerned in the latter one pre-eminent and distinguishing quality, for which no one else ever gave him the slightest credit--we mean a high regard for truth.

"Talleyrand," says he, "was initiated into public affairs under
M. de Calonne, and learned from that lively minister the happy
facility of transacting business without effort and without
ceremony in the corner of a drawing-room, or in the recess of a
window. In the exercise of that talent, he equalled the readiness
and surpassed the wit of his model; but he brought to his work
some commodities which the latter could never supply--viz. _great
veracity_, discretion, and foresight."

And again, in a note:--

"My general and long observation of Talleyrand's VERACITY, in great
and small matters, makes me confident his relation is correct. He
may as much, _or more_ than other diplomatists, suppress what is
true; _I am quite satisfied he never actually says what is false,
though he may occasionally imply it_."

It is a pity that an ordinary acquaintance with the significance of terms was not among the accomplishments of Lord Holland. Here we have the two leading elements of falsehood--the _suppressio veri_, and the _suggestio falsi_--plainly admitted; and yet we are told in the same breath, that the man who recoiled from neither practice was a person of great veracity! One or two hackneyed and rather poor _bon-mots_ of Talleyrand are quoted in the text, as instances of his remarkable wit;--had he never enunciated anything better, he certainly would not have achieved his great renown as a conversationalist. He appears, however, to have enchanted Lord Holland, who cites his authority on all occasions with an implicit trustfulness which we cannot sufficiently admire.

We must be allowed to remark that, in this instance also, Lord Holland has chosen an odd method of testifying his respect for the memory of a friend. In whatever liberties of speech a famous wit may choose to indulge with reference to his own domestic relations, we are yet sure that he by no means intends these to form part of the common currency of conversation, and that he will not feel peculiarly obliged to any one who gratuitously undertakes to circulate them. The sarcasm of Talleyrand with regard to the intellectual deficiencies of the lady who afterwards became his wife, was not, we presume, intended for repetition, though Lord Holland carefully preserves it. Good taste, we think, would have suggested its omission; but if our scruples upon that point should be thought to savour too much of Puritanism, of this at least we are certain, that no living relative of M. de Talleyrand will feel indebted to Lord Holland for the manner in which the secret history of his marriage is related:--

"It is generally thought that he (Talleyrand) negotiated his
return to France through Madame de Stael. He was on intimate terms
with her, but had abandoned her society for that of Madame Grand
before the peace of 1802, when I saw him again at Paris. It became
necessary, on the conclusion of the _Concordat_, that he should
either revert to the habits and character of a prelate, or receive
a dispensation from all the duties and obligations of the order.
He chose the latter. But Buonaparte, who affected at that time to
restore great decorum in his Consular court, somewhat maliciously
insisted either on the dismissal of Madame Grand, or his public
nuptials with that lady. The questionable nature of her divorce
from Mr Grand created some obstacle to such a union. It was curious
to see Sir Elijah Impey, the judge who had granted her husband
damages in India for her infidelity, caressed at her little court
at Neuilly. His testimony was deemed essential, and he was not
disposed to withhold it, because, notwithstanding his denial of
riches in the House of Commons, he was at that very time urging
a claim on the French Government to indemnify him for his losses
in their funds. Mr (Sir Philip) Francis, her paramour, then at
Paris also, did not fail to draw the attention of Englishmen to
the circumstance, though he was not himself admitted at Neuilly
to complete the curious group with his judicial enemy and quondam
mistress."

Pleasant reading this! It may be said that the facts were long ago notorious, and that they are to be found in more than one scandalous chronicle. That may possibly be the case; but surely it can afford no apology for this elaborate repetition on the part of a friend. Is history served by such contributions? Does society benefit by their preservation?

The passion of the past generation for collecting and retailing _bon-mots_ was carried to an extravagant length. Such a man as Talleyrand was a perfect treasure to any coterie, for his established reputation gave to every sentence which he uttered more than its intrinsic value. But we often find that sayings which appear most brilliant in conversation, lose their lustre when committed to writing, after the occasion which called them forth has passed away. Therefore we do not attach any very exorbitant value to their collection, especially when they are flavoured, as it is too often the case, with coarseness and personality. The writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ expresses a wish "that Lord Holland, who possessed more opportunities than any other man for collecting and stringing these conversational pearls, had been more diligent in so agreeable a vocation." Judging from the specimens which are given, we do not think that the world has sustained any great loss from the negligence of the noble peer; for some of those which have escaped oblivion, bear unmistakable symptoms of the decomposition of the heap from which they were originally culled.

In short, we feel ourselves compelled to say that we cannot consider this volume as an important or even creditable contribution to the historical literature of the country. Those portions of it which do not directly offend, are so uninteresting and destitute of the charms of style, that they act as a positive soporific; and, but for the indignation excited by the more objectionable passages, we doubt very much whether we could have had patience enough to peruse it from the title-page to the close. We are not sure whether we even understand the meaning of several sentences, or whether they really were intended to convey any meaning at all. Possibly the fault lies with us. We may be either too dull, or too unversed in the occult innuendos of diplomatic society, to perceive what is clear and perspicuous to those who have enjoyed superior advantages. Nevertheless, we would give a trifle to any one who should enlighten us upon the point of relationship suggested by the following paragraph. Lord Holland is recounting a conversation held in 1838 with his friend Godoy, the Prince of the Peace, in the course of which they appear to have discussed family matters with that charming ease which excludes considerations of propriety.

"I asked him if he saw Don Francisco; and his manner of saying 'no'
convinced me that that Prince, who is notoriously his son, had
made no advances to him; for he somewhat earnestly explained that
it did not become him to seek his protection, and enlarged on the
opportunities he had of knowing the Infanta before her marriage at
Rome, and talking of the beauty of her mother, Isabella, Queen of
Naples, _who was in all senses, I believe, the own brother of her
son-in-law Francisco_."

We have certainly no overstrained impression of the moral purity of the European courts as they existed fifty years ago. We have no doubt of the existence of intrigues of a very shameful nature, and even less of a widespread system of venality and corruption; but we totally demur to the opinion which Lord Holland seems to have entertained, that such topics constitute the most interesting and most important points of history. A man who is collecting notes relative to the leading features of the age in which he has lived, with the deliberate intention that these shall, at some future period, be given to the public, might surely be better occupied--more creditably to himself, and more usefully to his species--in directing his attention to the great subjects of social progress, intellectual development, and high unselfish patriotism, than in gleaning at second-hand the malicious reports of the antechamber, or in chronicling the whispers of the waiting-room. Lord Holland either would not, or could not, avail himself of the opportunities which were evidently within his reach. He has preferred giving us some sketches, not conceived in the best or most delicate taste, to the composition of a manly picture; and therefore we cannot be expected to feel any exuberant degree of gratitude on the receipt of the legacy, or to entertain any very exalted notion of the artistical acquirements of the painter.

Perhaps it may be thought that we have attached more importance to this work than it deserves; and certainly, seeing that we have been compelled to pronounce so unfavourable a judgment on its merits, there may appear room for the allegation. But it must be remembered that a book always acquires a certain degree of factitious importance from the position of its writer. Humble and nameless men may scribble their Reminiscences by the ream, rush boldly into print, and yet find scarce a single reader. If their works are indeed destitute of merit, they can hardly be said to fall into oblivion, for they never take hold of the memory. They have neither the advantage of a name to introduce, nor the greater advantage of genius to recommend them. But the case is different when men of station and title come forward in the character of authors. They are sure to find an audience, even though that audience should be deeply disappointed; and if, besides these other advantages, they are fortunate enough to have any sort of literary connection, they never want heralds who are ready and able to proclaim their advent to the world. We regret exceedingly that we have been compelled to use the language of condemnation rather than of praise--for the literature of the present century has been greatly enriched in almost every department by the contributions of the nobility of England, and we never feel greater pleasure than when able to bear testimony to such instances of talent and industry. It becomes, therefore, of more importance that the critical function should be duly and justly performed; and that no work, which does not possess a certain degree of intrinsic merit, should be allowed to pass under shelter of the author's name. Had the merit been there, we should most gladly have followed the example of our critical brother in the _Edinburgh Review_; and, adopting his magnificent, sonorous, but not very intelligible phraseology, have taken care that "the last chords of our opera should be accompanied by double drums, and the burst of a brass band, and that our curtain should drop before the gold and tissue, the waving wings, and the flowing garlands of a modern opera!"

FOOTNOTES:

[19] _Foreign Reminiscences._ By HENRY RICHARD LORD HOLLAND. Edited by his Son, Henry Edward Lord Holland. Longmans: 1850.

[20] Chapter XCII. Sect. 72.

[21] ALISON, Chapter XCII. Sect. 66.

[22] ALISON, Chapter XCV. Sect. 101.

POPERY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

The constant custom of the advocates of Popery is to represent their religion as a work of the primitive age. With them it is a Patriarchal figure, beginning its pilgrimage by a Divine summons, and protected by Divine influence; perhaps occasionally touched by the stains, or sinking under the struggles belonging to all human history, but still suddenly purifying its robes into more than their original brightness, and turning its difficulties into the weapons of that warfare which is to end in the sovereignty of the world.

The learned investigation of Protestantism, however, wholly strips this Patriarchal figure of its antique habiliments, declares that every fragment of its ceremonial has been the work of ages when Christianity had fallen into oblivion; that its belief is credulity, its system an accumulation of error, and its spirit an antagonism to the gospel.

On the other hand, the Popish stigma on Protestantism is, that it is a _new_ name, unknown before the sixteenth century. But to this charge the natural answer has been, that a name is nothing; that Christianity was once a new name, and that Heathenism was older than Popery.

The true question is of principle, and then the decision is clear. Popery appeals for its authority to councils and fathers; Protestantism, to apostles and prophets. The doctrines of Rome are to be looked for only in the annals of the Popedom; the doctrines of Protestantism appeal only to the New Testament. "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants," was the maxim of the celebrated Chillingworth. Nothing commanded by the New Testament can be rejected by Protestantism, nothing contradictory of the New Testament can be received by Protestantism. The appeal of Rome is to tradition; the appeal of Protestantism is to inspiration.

We shall now give the dates, at which the peculiar errors of Popery were engrafted on the worship of the Roman world.

The claim of the Headship of Christianity was the first of the Romish errors, and the fount from which they all flowed. But this claim was first formally made in the sixth century, (A.D., 533,) and was established by the Emperor Justinian. But no mortal power had the right to give, or to assume, this title. The headship of the universal church belongs to Christ alone, who has been made "Head over all things to His church." No human being could be competent to the high duty of governing a church spreading, and to be ultimately spread, through all nations. The government is also _spiritual_, of which no human being of this earth can have a _comprehension_. Its seizure by the Bishop of Rome was an enormous usurpation. In about sixty years after, the title was disclaimed by the Bishop of Rome, in indignation at its seizure by the Bishop of Constantinople; but it was solicited again, in the reign of the Emperor Phocas, (A.D., 606,) and has been ever since retained.

It is not to be presumed, that this usurpation was universally allowed. God has not left Himself without witnesses in any age. Successive opponents of Rome, preachers of the gospel, the true Protestants, arose during the dark ages; and a continued resistance to superstition was sustained for the thousand years of the Popish assumption; until, in the sixteenth century, the recovery of learning, the renewed intelligence of the human mind, the translation of the Bible, and, above all, and acting through all, the mercy of God, restored Christianity to the world in the glorious German Reformation, (A.D. 1517.)

The most visible practice of Popery is Mass-worship. This practice commenced early; but we have no direct record of its reception until the _Second_ Council of NICE, (A.D. 787.)

Infallibility was too monstrous a conception to be adopted, but in the utter prostration of the general mind. It was, accordingly, first made an article of faith in the very centre of the Dark Ages, (A.D. 1076.)

But this claim is so repugnant to reason, so contradictory to the common sense of man, and so palpably overthrown by the vicious conduct of Popes, and the contemptible quarrels of Councils, that, even among the Papists, it has been the most dubious of all doctrines--some of the Popish parties placing infallibility in a General Council, some in a General Council united with the Pope, some in the Universal Church. But those disputes, which no human understanding could ever decide, show only the repugnancy of the doctrine itself to the human intellect. Infallibility was, at length, by the mere ignorance of knowing where to place it, quietly delivered into the possession of the Pope. He now presumed to be the _acting_ infallibility of the Romish world.

Yet, immeasurably absurd as this doctrine is, it is the especial and favourite one on which the Tractarians insist, and by which the apostates attempt to justify their guilty desertion to Rome. Infatuated as they are, they have fixed on the very point where infatuation is most infatuated, where perversion most degrades the character of the understanding.

The Celibacy of the Clergy.--After several attempts by ambitious Popes, this doctrine, or ordinance, was established by the tyrannical Hildebrand, Gregory the Seventh, in the eleventh century. The parochial clergy had generally married, and they protested long and strongly against abandoning their wives. But the advantage of having the ecclesiastics, in all countries, wholly separated from all connexion with their native soil and native interests, and the fixture of large bodies of men in every kingdom, wholly devoted to the objects of the Popedom, overpowered the voice alike of nature, justice, and scripture. "Those whom God had joined together" _were_ put asunder by man.

No act, even of the Papacy, ever produced more suffering or more crime. No act could be politically more injurious, for it withdrew from the increase of the population--in times when population was the great want of Europe, and when half the land was desert--300,000 parochial priests, 300,000 monks and friars, and probably upwards of 300,000 nuns; thus giving to a life of idleness, and almost total uselessness in a national view, an enormous multitude of human beings annually, down to this hour, through nearly nine centuries!

But, to give the true character of this presumptuous contempt of the Divine will, and of the primal blessing of "Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth," and of the universal custom of the Jewish covenant, in which the priesthood descended by families; we should know the solitary miseries entailed by monastic and conventual life, the thousands of hearts broken by remorse for those rash bonds, the thousands sunk into idiotism and frenzy by the monotony, the toilsome trifling, the useless severities, and the habitual tyrannies of the cloister. Even to those we must add the still darker page of that grossness of vice which, in the ages previous to the Reformation, produced frequent remonstrances even from the Popes, and perpetual disgust among the people.

The Invocation of Saints.--This doctrine first assumed an acknowledged form in the seventh century. It had been gradually making its way, since the dangerous homage paid to the tombs of the martyrs in the third and fourth centuries. But this invocation made them, in the estimate of their worshippers, gods. For the supposition that they heard and answered prayer in every part of the world at once, necessarily implied Omnipresence--an attribute exclusively belonging to Deity.

Transubstantiation.--This doctrine declares that, when the words of consecration have been pronounced over the Eucharist, the bread and wine are _actually_ transformed into the _body and blood_, the _soul and divinity_ of Christ. This monstrous notion was wholly unknown to the Christians of the first four centuries. In the eleventh century, it was held that the body of Christ was actually present, without directly affirming in what manner. It was not until the thirteenth century (A.D. 1215) that the change of the bread and wine became an acknowledged doctrine, by the Fourth Lateran Council.

This doctrine contradicts the conception of a miracle, which consists in a _visible_ supernatural change. It contradicts the physical conception of body, which is, that body is local, and of course cannot be in two places at once; but the body of Christ is in Heaven. It also contradicts Scripture, which pronounces that the taking of the bread and wine would be wholly profitless, but by the accompanying operation of the Holy Spirit acting on the faithful partaker of the Sacrament; the language of Christ being--"The _flesh_ profiteth nothing. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit." The whole efficacy is spiritual.

The Mass.--Popery declares that in the Mass is offered continually the _actual sacrifice_ of Christ. This conception arises from Transubstantiation, by which the Host is Christ; and the priest thus continually offering the Host is presumed to sacrifice our Lord, in every instance of the offering!

This doctrine is threefold--that the priest can make God, that flour and water can be God, and that the wafer, which is still but flour and water to the senses, is the Christ of whom it is declared in Scripture that, "having suffered _once for all_ for the sins of men, he sat down for ever at the right hand of God." This monstrous doctrine was long disputed, and, though practically adopted, was not confirmed before the Council of Trent, (A.D. 1563.)

The Half-communion.--This doctrine originated also in Transubstantiation. From pronouncing the Eucharist to be actually Christ, scruples arose as to its chances of pollution; and as the wine might be spilt, it became the custom to give only the bread to the laity, in whose mouths it is placed by the priest. But a mutilated sacrament is none. The consequence of this doctrine is, that no Popish _layman_ ever receives the Eucharist, or has received it during the last four hundred years!--most awful and terrible result of human presumption!

Auricular Confession.--By this doctrine, the forgiveness of sin must be preceded by confession to a priest. In contradiction to the whole tenor of Scripture, which declares the forgiveness of sin to depend on sincere prayer for forgiveness, through the atonement of Christ, and on the determination to sin no more: "Come to _me_ all ye that are heavy laden, and I will refresh you."--"Repent ye, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

But Auricular Confession, with its subsequent Absolution, actually increases crime, by disburthening the mind of remorse, and by substituting absolution for repentance. This practice was established, as a portion of the acknowledged system of Rome, scarcely before the thirteenth century.

Purgatory.--This doctrine was unheard of in the first four centuries. It crept in about the seventh century, the period of the chief corruptions of worship. It was not sanctioned by any council until the fifteenth century, (A.D. 1438.) Its first establishment was by the Council of Trent.

This doctrine, which is wholly contradictory to the redemption declared in the Gospel, as resulting from the sufferings of Christ alone; declares that every sinner must be qualified for redemption in part, by undergoing sufferings of his own; that he must be personally punished in Purgatory for his temporal sins, to be purified for Heaven. The doctrine is evidently borrowed from the Heathen ideas of Tartarus. It has not the slightest ground in Scripture, and is totally opposed to the whole spirit and bearing of Christianity.

Indulgences.--This doctrine originated in the combination of Purgatory and Saintship. It held, that the merits of the dead might be applied to the wants of the living; and that these merits, not being required for the redemption of the saints, were preserved in the hands of the Church, to be distributed as remissions from Penance, in the first instance, and in the next, from the terms of suffering in Purgatory. These remissions were sold by Rome under the name of Indulgences, and were given for any and every period. These Indulgences extended from a year to ten thousand years. Instances are recorded of their being extended to thirty thousand years! This was the most lucrative portion of the traffic of Rome. It brought in prodigious sums to the Roman Treasury.

Masses for the Dead.--This doctrine was connected with those of Purgatory and Indulgences. By it a succession of solitary masses might be continually carried on, either to relieve the Purgatorial torments, or shorten their duration. But these masses must be paid for either in money or land. They formed the vast funds which endowed the great Romish establishments--the monasteries, &c. Operating on the fears of the dying, the Popish priesthood rapidly possessed themselves of enormous wealth, and, in England, they were calculated to be masters of one-third of the land! The statute of mortmain alone preserved the rest. This prodigious grasp was loosened at the Reformation, and the monkish institutions were deprived of the wealth gained only by superstition.

It is obvious how fatally a doctrine of this order must operate on society. If man could clear himself from the punishment of a life of profligacy by a bequest on his deathbed, his whole responsibility would be removed at once. The fear of judgment would be extinguished throughout his life; he could have no restraint but the arm of society. Masses would be his substitute for morals; and his conscience would be cleared by the acts of others, for years after he was laid in the grave. If Masses could avail, there would be no use in living virtue, to any man who was able to _pay for them_.

This doctrine, intolerable in the view of common sense, unjust in placing an insurmountable distinction between the rich and the poor, and wholly contradictory to the spirit of the gospel--which commands that "every man shall work out his _own salvation_ with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in him, _both to will and to do_"--was created and continued for its vast profits to the priesthood of Rome.

The celebrated Council of Trent, which, under various forms, sat from 1542 till 1563, collected all these doctrines into a _system_, and the subsequent act of Pius IV. gave them in the shape of a creed to the Popish world.

We are glad to find that the "Papal Aggression" has awakened the intelligent and important authority of the English bar. On all great questions of the liberties and rights of the empire, that authority is of the most decisive order; and in this spirit we welcome with peculiar gratification a pamphlet from the well-known and eloquent pen of Mr Warren.[23] He commences by this bold and manly denunciation of the Papal interference with the rights of the Church and the privileges of the crown:--

"The ascendency of the Protestant faith in this country is in
danger, notwithstanding the noble movement which has been made
in its defence. The position so suddenly taken by the mortal
enemy of that faith, is meant to be permanent; and he is silently
intrenching himself in it: regarding all that has been said by
this great nation as "sound and fury, signifying--NOTHING." He
is infinitely more to be feared than he wishes at present to be
believed; and though the precipitancy of priestly ambition may have
deranged, for a moment, the working of his policy, it is really
profound and comprehensive, as its results will in due time show;
and has been accommodated to the political and ecclesiastical
circumstances of the country with malignant exactitude and
skilfulness.

"The political power of the Papacy lies hid under its spiritual
pretensions, like a venomous serpent lurking under lovely foliage
and flowers. A leading object of this Letter, is to explain and
illustrate that truth, in its practical application to the great
question now before the country, challenging its best energies of
thought and will. It would be fatally fallacious to regard the
late act of the Pope as exhibiting only the spasms of weakness.
The more it is considered, the greater cause will be developed
for anxious but resolute action. As a pretender to the exercise
of direct temporal power, the Pope seems quite impotent; but he
is the visible exponent of a spiritual despotism, founded (so we
Protestants believe, or have no right to be such) as clearly on
falsehood and impiety, as its pretensions and purpose are at once
sublime and execrable; that purpose being to extinguish, and in
the name of Heaven, the liberties of mankind.

"The question then--'_The Queen or the Pope?_'--is a momentous
one, which we have been very insolently challenged to answer. The
whole matter, social, political, and religious, is gathered up into
those few words; and posterity will sit in judgment on our mode of
answering that question."

Mr Warren, in taking a lawyer's general view of the subject, strikingly adverts to the _impudence_ of the Papist assertions. It is true that these assertions have now shrunk into a very small compass; that the bravado of "my Lord Cardinal" has dwindled down into a sort of supplication to be suffered to remain here on any terms; and that the "prince" has stooped into the pilgrim, gliding through the filth, vice, and poverty of the Irish colony in Westminster, or, as he terms it, the _slums_--an expression of extreme vulgarity, which, Mr Warren justly observes, does not belong to the English language, and which, we may as justly observe, belongs only to the meanest of the rabble.

But the organs of Popery abroad have not submitted to circumstances so demurely, and they let out the Popish objects with all the easy insolence of the foreigner. Thus Count le Maistre, in a work translated and published in London, says, "What shall we say of Protestantism, and of those who defend it, _when it will no longer exist_? Let them rather aid us in making it disappear. In order to re-establish a religion and a morality in Europe, in order to give to truth the strength which it requires for the _conquest it meditates_, it is an indispensable preliminary to _efface_ from the European dictionary that fatal word, _Protestantism_." _L'Univers_, the journal of Popery in France, has no hesitation in pronouncing the Protestant faith in England to be totally undone, and that Popery is only taking its time to make the operation complete.

The Popish organ here has been equally plain-spoken, and pronounced, in the most dashing style, the triumph of Rome, and the return of _all Protestants_ under its yoke, _on pain of damnation_! Who but must be indignant at this language! But who can henceforth be deceived?

Mr Warren, in reverting to the character and pretensions of the Papacy, lays it down as a fundamental proposition, that "the Pope's avowed spiritual power is pregnant with disavowed political power." He, tells us further, "that we have to tolerate a rival, who condescends to equality only as an advance to ascendency." He then gives the memorable Florentine canon of 1439, which the Romish lawyers regard as containing "the true doctrine of their church," and for the consequences deducible from which all Papists are answerable. These are its words:--

"Moreover, we define that the Holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, have a primacy _over the whole world_!--and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of St Peter, the chief of the apostles, and true Vicar of Christ!--and that he is 'head of the whole church,' and the father and teacher of all Christians!--and to him, in St Peter, was delegated by our Lord Jesus Christ full power to _feed, rule, and govern_ the universal church, as also is contained in the Acts of General Councils, and in the holy canons!" In this daring proclamation of power, we have the assumption of an authority obviously incompatible with the peace of any nation under heaven, and equally incompatible with the common liberties of mankind--for there can be no liberty where the arbitrary will of a stranger is the fountain of the law, and most especially contradictory to that Scripture which declares that Christ's kingdom is _not_ a kingdom after the fashion of this world. When the question was contemptuously put by Pilate to our Lord himself, "Art _thou_ a king?" the answer was, that he was not a king in the sense of the Roman; that, if he were such, "his servants would fight"--in other words, that he would have the troops and attendance of an earthly king, that he would have resisted and made war. "But now is my kingdom _not_ of this world."

But what is the Papacy, with its princes and pageantries, its armies and intrigues, its cabinets and alliances? In what does all this complicated and systematic mixture in the affairs of the world differ from the kingdoms of this world? except perhaps in its deeper intrigue, in its more perpetual artifice, in its more insatiable craving for power, and in its more habitual gratification of every daring and dangerous passion of man.

And it has felt the consequences. Of all the kingdoms of this world, since the fall of Rome, the Popedom has been the _most_ marked by calamity. There has been no nation whose sovereign has been so _often_ flung from his throne; whose throne has been so often contested with bloody dissension, whose sovereign has been so often a prisoner in foreign lands, whose capital has been so often sacked, whose provinces have been so often in foreign possession, whose population is so miserable, and whose _vassalage_ has been so palpable, so humiliating, and so wretched.

But need we look to the past, when we see the Papacy at this hour? Need we dig up ancient fields of battle, to see how often its armies have been buried; or dive into its dungeons, to see how many centuries of fetters are recorded there against its presumption? Need we break up its tombs to see its shattered crosiers and tarnished tiaras, when we see the living figure that sits in mock majesty in the Vatican, with a _French_ garrison in the Castle of St Angelo?

But the Papist demands religious liberty. The words, in Papist lips, are jargon. He has never had it in any country on earth. Has he it in Rome? Can the man have the absurdity to call himself a freeman, when the priest may tear the Bible out of his hand; when, without a license, he cannot look into the Book of Life?--when, with or without a license, he cannot exercise his own understanding upon its sacred truths, but must refuse even to think, except as the priest commands?--when, for daring to have an opinion on the most essential of all things--his own salvation--he is branded as a heretic; and when, for uttering that opinion, he is cast into the dungeon?--when the priest, with the _Index Expurgatorius_ in his hand, may walk into his house, and strip it of every book displeasing to the caprices, insolence, and ignorance of a _coterie_ of monks in the Vatican?

If the legitimate and noble boast of the Englishman is, that his house is his castle, what is the house of the Italian Papist, but his dungeon? If the Irish or the English Papist demands "Religious Liberty," let him demand it of his master the Pope. If the Papist _desires_ it, let him break the Popish fetter, and emancipate himself. Till then, we must look upon his claim as lawlessness instead of liberty, and hypocrisy instead of religion.

But, before the Papist requires more than toleration, must he not show that at least he _tolerates_? If, in the Popish kingdoms of the Continent, fear or policy has produced some degree of Protestant toleration, what is the condition of Protestantism in the capital of Popery; and, in its most important point, freedom of worship? To this day, no English Protestant is suffered to worship within the walls of Rome.