Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

for various murders, which he said he was instigated by Popish priests to commit, confessed, that "every man that was a Protestant was called an Orangeman, and every one was to be killed, from the poorest man in the country. They thought it no more sin to kill a Protestant than a dog."

"As soon as the massacres perpetrated at Vinegar Hill and Scul'abogue, were known in the north, numbers of Presbyterians, of whom some had been disaffected and others lukewarm, in the counties of Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh, and Donegal, trembling for their safety, became Orangemen. And General Knox, depending on their zeal and sincerity, embodied them, and procured arms for them from Government. "In the year 1792, when the dissemination of treason and the formation of, seditious clubs in London threatened the immediate destruction of the constitution, Mr. Reeves, by seasonably encouraging loyal societies, checked the progress and the baneful effects of their doctrines. The institution of Orangemen did not differ from them in the smallest degree."

We shall shortly print from Mr. Butt's little pamphlet the extracts relative to the massacres on Vinegar Hill, at Scullabogue, and on Wexford Bridge.

A Letter to His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, on the Dinner of the self-mis-named Friends of Civil and Religious Liberty. By az Orange-man.-Pp. 27. Stockdale.

The Duke of Sussex laid himself open to reprehension by the speech which he made at this notorious dinner, at which Papists and Protestants, and men of no religion assisted. The dinner was held at Free Mason's Hall, on the 10th of June, long a red-letter day with the Papists. The Duke of Bedford was in the chair. He is not calculated to fill any chair with ability. He was far from equal to the performance of those duties which belong to the vice-regal throne of Ireland, and he has lately abdicated the chair from which he "talked about bullocks" at Wooburn Abbey. Abbey! Let the Duke of Bedford surrender the Abbey to reli gious uses, if he be a sincere liberalist-or let him restore it to the crown, it not for you, I never would have been guilty of murder." Having so said, he turned from them, and requested that they might be put out. He then sent for Captain Boyd, and concluded his confession with these striking words-" Now, gentlemen, remem ber what I tell you: if you and the Protestants are ever in the power of the Catholics again, as they are now in yours, they will not leave one of you alive; you will all go smack smooth; even those who campaigned with them, if things had gone well with them, would in the end have been killed. I have heard them say so many times."Mem, of Rel. in Ireland, Vol. II. p. 354, 5.

which gave to his ancestors the domains attached to Wooburn Abbey. The wearer of the crown will not concede our Protestant constitution to the Papists. The possessor of the abbey promotes the views of the concessionists, and places Protestantism in jeopardy! However, the Duke of Sussex shews full as much incongruity as the Duke of Bedford. The House of Brunswick was seated on the throne of Great Britain because it professed the Protestant religion. Relapsing to Popery, it must lose its right to the sovereignty of these realms. The King always paid a most scrupulous regard to his coronation-oath. A son of the reigning monarch, professedly and confessedly obliged to his father for the income which he enjoys, a liberal gift of a Protestant people,-avows that he stands "pledged to the Papists in his opinion of the merits of their cause, upon conscientious motives, from which he can never wish to swerve in the smallest degree." (Speech, Appendix, p. 24.)

On the subject of Orange Lodges this enlightened orator, to whom we long ago paid our respects, (see p. 183) said, that "no one felt more than be did the importance and advantage of public meetings, but he would not hesitate to say, that numerous assemblies of men, bound by oaths of secresy as to certain political points, as also enjoined to a conditional allegiance towards their sovereign, were highly unconstitutional, and decidedly TREASONABLE. "He hoped, therefore, that this rumour would prove incorrect; for if he were certain of the existence of such an evil, he should feel it his duty to notice the event, more seriously, in another place, and to hold up the projectors and abettors of such a tragedy to the EXECRATION of the public;

nay more, AS OBJECTS FIT TO BE EXPOSED FOR PUBLIC EXAMPLE.

[ocr errors]

The letter-writer observes on this-speaking of the Regent-" the peculiar circumstances under which the Regent wields the sceptre, might reasonably have been supposed to have protected his regency from such violence! His royal father's sentiments, on this important question, are well known: that he considered the desired boon, now become a DEMAND, an infringement of his coronation oath, was a matter of public notoriety; but particularly within the knowledge of many of the stewards, to some of whom the King personally addressed those memorable words, which British Protestants ought ever to treasure up in their grateful hearts-"I COULD SACRIFICE MY LIFE, IF MY DUTY AND MY COUNTRY REQUIRED IT; BUT I CANNOT CONSENT TO BREAK MY OATH." These are sentiments worthy a British King, and which contain a never-to-be forgotten lesson, for sovereign and subject, to latest posterity. Yet, knowing the conscientious inflexibility of the sovereign, whom Providence has been pleased to withdraw, possibly only for a short time, from his rule, a political faction, outraging the very appearance of decorum,

would compel his royal representative to annu! his own-his father's-his sovereign's oath, THE GREAT CONDITION OF HIS PEOPLE'S ALLEGIANCE. Here we see CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY! To oppose this is STUPID INTOLERANCE AND BIGOTRY-and to associate to stem this aristocratic whig combination, is TREASONABLE!—and why? because it is founded on a conditional oath of allegiance!!"

The Duke of Kent was present on this occasion: the letter-writer says -"the silence of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent makes him a party to the sentiments which were avowed. Sentiments which would have been better suited to assemblies of French revolutionists, than to those of royal and noble senators. The Duke of Kent may have forgotten that his duty is imperative to a very different line of thought and action. He is superior-warden of the blue and ORANGE order in the Fourth or King's Own Regiment, which did not obtain its royal distinction for table-carousals. No! it fought for its laurels, and nobly earned them, at the Boyne, Culloden, &c."

Mr. Grattan, the author tells us, "cannot be received as an Orangeman! NO PERSON WHO IS, OR EVER HAS BEEN, AN UNITED IRISHMAN IS ELIGIBLE."

The Duke of Sussex has received merited chastisement.

MELANCTHON'S SEVENTH LETTER.

Effects of the Papal Supremacy on the State of Society.
(See page 536.)

It is surprising how soon after Gregory VII. usurped a supremacy, that many great men, ecclesiastical and secular, of the Popish communion, began to complain of the galling ycke,-the exactions and oppressions of the court of Rome. In the twelfth century the Emperor Frederic I. (Naucleri Chronograph. vol. ii. generat. xxxix. p. 843; Sigonius de regno Italiæ, lib. xiv:)-Henry II. of England, (Matth. Paris in Hen. II. an. 1164, 1167, 1168 :)-Lewis VII. of France, (Matth. Paris ad an. 1146:) -St. Bernard, (Serm. 6, in psal. go. Serm. 33. in Cantic.)-who said of the holy see, "where concubinage, simony, and incest, are sure to find favour, if their solicitations be accompanied with presents;" (Epist. St. Bernard, ad Eng.:)-Honorius of Autun, (De prædest. et lib. arbit, dialog. inter opera Cassand. et in biblioth. patr. tom. 15:)-Johannes Sarisburiensis, Bishop of Chartres, (Policrat. 1. vi. cap. 24. lib. viii. cap. 17, et in aliis locis)-Petrus Blesus (de Blois), Archdeacon of Bath, (Epist. v. viii. et alibi:)-Arnulphus, a famous preacher at Rome, (Platina in vita Honorii II.:)-made grievous complaint of the tyrannies, usurpa

tions, and abuses of the Pope and clergy: and Dante, an eminent Italian poet, inveighed with great bitterness against the depravity and the corruptions of the Holy See, and applied to Rome the name of Babylon, the great harlot of the apocalypse. (Infern. can. xix.)

In the 13th century, the same complaints were made by the Emperor Frederic II. (Aventin. Annal. Boj. lib. vii. p. 531, 532, 542. Basil. 1580)-Mænardus, Count of Tyrol, (Ibid. lib. vii. p. 577 :)-Probus, Bishop of Toul, (Idem. lib. vii. p. 572, 573 :)-Everard, Archbishop of Saltzburgh, (Idem. lib. vii. p. 546, 547 :)-and Robert Grosted, Bishop of Lincoln, (Matth. Paris in Hen. III. ad an. 1253, 1254.) In Henry III.'s reign, the people of England were so gailed by the exactions and oppressions of the court of Rome, that they entertained serious thoughts of shaking off the Popish superstition altogether, (Hume's Hist. c. iv. ad an. 1272.) Peter Cassiodore also complained much of them, (Epist. de tyrannide Pontif. Rom. apud Goldast. vol. i.)

In the 14th century, Lewis of Bavaria, the Emperor, with the consent of the states of the empire, proclaimed the Pope to be the Arch-heretic, and the Antichrist, that sat in the temple of God, (Aventin. Annal. Boj. lib. vii. p. 610, 611, 612) Edward I. Edward III. and Richard II. not only complained of, but made severe laws against his encroachments, (35th Edward I. 25th Edward III. and 16th Richard II. cap. v. and 13th Richard II. c. iii. See Coke's 2d Institutes on these Statutes.) Many of prime note among the clergy, made similar complaints, such as William Occam, the invincible doctor, (Disputat. Goldast. vol. i :)-Leopold, Bishop of Bamberg, (Avent. lib. vii. p. 629 :) --Durand, Bishop of Meuda, (Tractat. de modo concil. celebrand. Pars iii. tit. 1. 27, 28, 29, et passim in aliis titulis :)-Marsilius of Padua, (Defensio pacis, p. 2. cap. 23, 24, 25, 27, et sequent.)—and the celebrated Francis Petrarca, (Epist. de jure Imper. Rom. et injur. pap. Rom. ejusque assecl. tom. ii. p. 1345.) The divines of Paris and Bologna made many outcries against the rapines and oppressions, the pride and covetousness, the luxury and sensuality of the bishop and court-of Rome. Louis IX. and Philip IV. of France, successfully resisted the tyranny and rapacity of the Pope.

In the 15th century, the Emperor Sigismund, (Goldast. constit. Imper. p. i. p. 146 :)-Petrus de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cambray, (De emendat. eccles. Patrib. olim. Oblat. in concil. Constant.:)-John Gerson, chancellor of Paris, (Sermo de tribulat. ex defect. eccles. Regim. et sermo coram P. P. Benedict. et Alexand.)-Nicholas de Clemangis, Archdeacon of Bayeux, (Tract. de corrupt. Stat. eccles. etc.) Jacobus de Paradisoand many other persons of piety and learning, too many to enumerate in these pages, made dismal complaints of the abuses and corruptions of the court of Rome, and vehemently called for a reformation of them.

Francis Guicciardini, eminent as a scholar, statesman, and historian, was born at Florenee, in the year 1482, of an ancient and noble family. He had the rank of Lieutenant-General in the Pope's army, enjoyed the Government of different provinces in the Roman territories, during the pontificates of Leo X. and Clement VII, and acquitted himself as their ambassador to various courts, with distinguished reputation. He therefore had ample opportunity of knowing the religious, moral, and political principles of the Roman court; how the Papal power was acquired and maintained, and its extreme abuse; all which he has described, in a long and interesting passage, in the 4th book of his history, omitted in the common editious, but preserved in one printed at Venice, from which the following passage is extracted: "By these foundations, and by these means, being raised to earthly dominion, forgetting by degrees the salvation of souls, and the commandments of God, and bending all thoughts to worldly greatness, no longer using the spiritual power, but as an instrument of the temporal, resembling rather secular princes than Popes or Bishops, their cares and endeavours were no longer sanctity of life, the propagation of religion, zeal and charity towards their neighbours; but to raise armies, and make war against Christians. Proceeding with bloody hands and thoughts, they began to collect treasure, to make new laws, to invent new arts and devices to get money on all sides; and to use, without respect, the spiritual weapons for this end only, and to profane sacred things without shame. The great wealth lavished upon them, and their whole court, produced, and was accompanied with, pride, luxury, dishonesty, lust, and abominable pleasures. They had no care of the perpetual dignity of the Popedom, instead of which, they had an ambitious and pestilent desire to exalt their children, their nephews and their kindred, not only to excessive riches, but to principalities and kingdoms; no longer conferring dignities and preferment upon men of merit and virtue, but almost always selling them to the best bidder; or distributing them among persons fit for promoting their ambition, their avarice, and their shameful pleasures. By which acts of theirs, though all reverence for the Papacy is decayed in the hearts of men, their power is in some measure maintained by their name, and the powerful majesty of religion, and by means which they have of gratifying great princes, and those great personages who are about them, with ecclesiastical livings and dignities."

Nicholas Machiavel, an elegant writer, and well skilled in the science of politics, was born about the same time at Florence, and became secretary and historiographer to the republic, in consequence of his abilities and high mental accomplishments. He speaks thus of the holy see and the Popish religion:* If all Christian princes had taken care to maintain

[ocr errors]

* Political Discourses on Livy, book i. c. 12.

« ForrigeFortsæt »