soldiers have had the signal honour of replacing Pope Pius IX. on the throne of Saint Peter. The spirit of party will fail in obscuring this memorable deed, which will form a glorious page for France . . It is needless to say that our army, yet necessary for the maintenance of order at Rome, is equally so for our political influence." It is for the Pope to reconcile his pretensions to the keys of the city of Rome and to the keys of heaven, to the fact of foreign soldiers having seized them for him, and to the sterner fact. that the military occupation of that city is necessary to the political influence of France.*

* President Bonaparte's message to the Chamber, delivered at Paris, 11th November, 1850:—

"Since my last message our foreign policy has obtained in Italy a great success. Our arms have overthrown at Rome that turbulent demagogy which throughout the Italian peninsula had compromised the cause of true liberty, and our brave soldiers have had the signal honour of replacing Pope Pius IX. on the throne of Saint Peter. The spirit of party will fail in obscuring this memorable deed, which will form a glorious page for France. The constant aim of our efforts has been to encourage the liberal and philanthropical intentions of the Holy Father; the pontifical power pursues the realisation of the promises contained in the Motu proprio of the month of September, 1849. Some of the organic laws have already been published, and those which are to complete the ensemble of the administrative and military organisation in the States of the church will not be long delayed. It is needless to say that our army, yet necessary for the maintenance of order at Rome, is equally so for our political influence, and which, having rendered itself illustrious by its courage, is no less admired for its discipline and moderation."-President's Message, Paris, 11th Nov., 1850.

On the addition of Cephas, or Peter, to the name of Simon, the son of Jona, and on the use which the papistical bishops make of it.

VARIOUS reasons may be assigned for the change of, or the addition to, a man's name.

Some names are given as distinctive of rank and honour, and others are added to mark an era in the life and history of the individual who is thus distinguished. For example, the name of Abram was changed into Abraham, and his wife's name was changed from Sarai into Sarah. Paul had his name changed from Saul: "and Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." Peter is simply the Latin word for "a stone." The papistical bishops lay much stress on the addition of Peter to the name of Simon, as, according to their interpretation, expressive of the meaning of " rock," with reference to the words of the Saviour, "and upon this rock I will build my church." In the English version of the Gospels the indefinite article "a" is applied to stone, and not the definite, "the stone," so that the appellation Cephas or Peter is neither more nor less than the common but expressive appellation given to every individual member of the Christian Church described under the similitude of a building of which the foundation stone and chief corner-stone is Christ, and the members are the "lively stones' "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." It thus appears that Simon, in receiving his

66

new name" Peter, was distinguished both as an in

dividual member of the church and as one of "the apostles and prophets" who were to uphold jointly and severally the ecclesiastical edifice with Christ as its head corner-stone.

Such appears to be the meaning of the appellation Peter, or "a stone," given to Simon the fisherman, and from the history there is no indication whatever that it was given to him as a title of pre-eminence, or as one marking him the greatest over his brethren the rest of the apostles.

But the conceit of the Italian papistical priests and monks has carried them great lengths in this matter; and they cause their chief bishop, on being elected, to fill what they call the chair of St. Peter, changing his name, in imitation of the command of the Saviour to Simon to add Peter to his name.

The conclave of Italian priests and monks would appear to reason in this way:-The individual man merges in the priest with his tonsure and sacerdotal habiliments once a priest always a priest-and the acts of the priest are holy, as his person is sacred and inviolable.

66

The sins and vices of the man are lost in the holiness of the priest. The chief bishop is the concentration of priestly holiness, and he becomes infallible. new name" must be given to him. The vulgar common-place name of an obscure monk, who in the gloom of the cloister has improved his talents for intrigue, and acquired knowledge and address to rule the church, must not be proclaimed to the world, and sounded in the courts of kings; but a new name must be emblazoned on the portals of the Vatican, and John Mastai Ferretti is suppressed for "Pope Pius the Ninth, the Inheritor of the Keys of Saint Peter, and the Vicar of Christ on earth."

CHAPTER III.

The Symbolism of the Cross Keys further examined.-Applies to the Keys of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.-The Keys of the Sepulchre were sent, in the Ninth century, to Charlemagne of France, and NOT to the Bishop of Rome.-Never were in the possession of the Bishops of Rome.-The King of Sardinia pretends to be the King of Jerusalem.

IN considering the papal standard as one of pretension to various objects on the earth, the most interesting of those objects is the holy sepulchre in the city of Jerusalem. The possession of the keys of that city, and of the sacred places which it contains, has been an object of ambition with the Popes. And without entering into the details of this subject, it will be sufficient to invite the reader to investigate this part of the papal history. Ever since the alleged discovery of the holy sepulchre and the three Calvarian crosses by the mother of Constantine in the fourth century, the bishops of Rome have had their eye directed to Jerusalem, and the earthly key on their banner is manifestly the symbol of Christ's sepulchre on earth. The church of the holy sepulchre built by Constantine existed before the bishops of Rome acquired the power symbolised by the cross-keyed banner, and, bèsides, the patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Eastern Church enjoyed the honour and derived the profits from the sacred spot, until Jerusalem was in the middle of the fifth century declared a patriarchate. But the holy city had to pass through severe trials, and

first by the Persians, and afterwards by the Saracens and Turks, it fell under the infidel yoke. Jerusalem and the sacred places had been in the hands of the Mahometans for four hundred and sixty years, before it was first taken by the crusaders, but during that long period Christian pilgrims never ceased to visit from all countries the holy sepulchre. While Jerusalem was under the dominion of the Arabs, towards the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century, the keys of the holy sepulchre were actually sent to Europe by the Caliph Harun al Rashid. The incident is an interesting one in the events of that age. The keys were NOT sent to the bishop of Rome as the head of Christendom, but to Charlemagne, the king of France, as the greatest Christian monarch, and the supporter of the civilisation of the West. The solemn embassage conveying the keys of the holy sepulchre was an act of chivalrous politeness of Harun al Rashid to Charlemagne, and evinced the sympathetic feelings between those two extraordinary men who possessed almost unbounded influence over the world. Charlemagne was the sovereign of Rome, and the bishop was his vassal. The history of this period ought to be attentively considered, as showing the false pretensions emblazoned on the papal standard. Charlemagne inherited the extraordinary powers and honours of a patrician of Rome, to whom "Roman ambassadors presented the keys of the shrine of St. Peter as a pledge and symbol of sovereignty, with a holy banner, which it was their right and duty to unfurl in the defence of the church and city."† But in return for the sovereignty of the shrine of Saint Peter, Charle

* Sismondi and Gibbon.

+ Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," ch. xlix.