Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

published as a separate pamphlet, and obtained, we believe, a large circulation among Protestants and Roman Catholics. The article charged Dr Achilli with the foulest immoralities. It appeared to us, at the time, that some parts of the evidence were inconsistent; and what was of more importance, if the alleged facts were correct, that an Italian priest might live in open wickedness and yet reach the highest honours of the church. Dr Newman was giving, last year, a course of lectures in defence of Romanism. In one of these he repeated the accusation against Dr Achilli, contained in the article of Cardinal Wiseman. This was published in October 1851, and hence Dr Newman was put upon his defence to prove the truth of the libel.

The thing is indubitable, that there must have been a good deal of perjury on one side or on the other. And though it may seem uncharitable, we are disposed to think that it was upon the side of the opponents of Achilli. The Italian witnesses did not produce a favourable impression upon the mind of the court; and notwithstanding all the efforts of the Romish clergy, including the Pope's secretary and Cardinal Wiseman-notwithstanding the vast amount of expense and labour in collecting evidence, and in preparing witnesses (Wiseman's expenses are stated to be L.12,000), and notwithstanding the oaths of various parties, as to distinct acts of criminality, the evidence broke down, and the decision of the jury was, that Newman had utterly failed to substantiate the charges which he had brought against Achilli. Newman succeeded in only proving one thing-that Achilli had been condemned by the Papal Inquisition at Rome. This was proven merely as a fact; but the jury could pronounce no opinion on the question, What were the offences on account of which he was brought before the Inquisition, and whether its sentence was well or illfounded? We repeat, then, that nothing was proven against Achilli of all the crimes with which he had been charged by Newman, except the simple fact, that the Inquisition had passed a sentence of condemnation upon him; and for that fact, we did not require to go into a court of justice. It was notorious to the world-Achilli had published a book upon the subject-British interference had been employed in his favour, and every one was aware how the French general at Rome procured his escape from its dungeons, by means of a stratagem.

The proceedings of the trial have very much confirmed the conclusion to which we came originally, when reading the article of Dr Wiseman. It appears that female seduction is a crime frequently

committed in the confessional; that licentiousness is openly practised by the priesthood; that a priest may bear a most scandalous reputation, and be publicly known as a hideous voluptuary, without being degraded from his spiritual office; that a priest may be raised to higher honours in the church, after these crimes have been substantiated against him,-the reason assigned for his promotion, being a desire for his moral improvement; and finally, that these horrid excesses do not belong to the Italian priesthood of the past centuries, but are in existence at the present day. All these things, we repeat, were fully proven against the Romish church, upon the evidence of its own Italian witnesses, and even appear upon the face of the justification presented by Dr Newman; and they were proven, independently of the question, whether Dr Achilli was guilty or innocent. If guilty, the crimes were committed by him when he was a Romish priest; if guilty, he was promoted to greater. honours in the church, after his crimes were known; if guilty, he might, to all appearance, have pursued unchecked his course of iniquity, and have climbed to a more exalted rank in the hierarchy, had he not left the papal church and exposed her enormities. It has been a most damaging trial to the Romish system; and even the Morning Chronicle, which is more than half popish in its tendencies, is compelled to admit the doleful fact. It is lamenting the imprudence of Dr Newman, in allowing such a case to come before an English court of justice, and a British public:"On the assumption that his (Dr Newman's) accusations were true, no one could, on behalf of the alleged criminal, reasonably object to their publication; but an experienced controversialist ought to have recollected the bearing of his allegations on the character of the Italian priesthood, and consequently on the popular estimate of the merits of the church to which they belong. The opposite party were, in any event, certain of a triumph. Either the Protestant convert was an injured martyr, or the late Roman Catholic priest had pursued his licentious career with the full knowledge and tacit consent of his colleagues and superiors. It is asserted on the face of the libel, that Achilli had been known as a scandalous friar, long before he was appointed to the high office in his order; and was furnished with new facilities for gratifying his profligate inclinations. One of the first witnesss in support of Dr N.'s charges, deponed that her confessor had forbidden her to reveal a sacrilegious outrage committed on her by a priest, within the precincts of his church. The whole of the evidence for the defendant implies the

[blocks in formation]

trial. We only say, that the jury could have come to no other conclusion than they did. We only say, that though Achilli had been found guilty, Protestantism could have suffered nothing, unless it were also proven that he had been received into its bosom with the knowledge of his immoralities. Perhaps the moral to be drawn from the trial is, that all religious bodies should exercise considerable caution in the reception of converts from another section of the church. When the change of principle is great, it may not be an useless exercise to make some inquiry into the antecedents of the professing convert. This is not always done.

THE ELECTIONS AND THE FREE CHURCH.

THE time is not long past when a Scottish Member of Parliament was a symbol of bribery and corruption, and his politics afforded no indication of the principles of those whom, by a legal fiction, he was supposed to represent. The Reform Bill has wiped away this national reproach, and has shown that civil and religious liberty has nowhere a home more congenial than the land of our fathers. The present elections in Scotland may be advantageously compared with those of England; and their superiority is manifest in three respects. In the first place, Scotland has pronounced a more general condemnation of the iniquitous bread-tax than England has done. In the second place, Scotland has given a far stronger verdict against Maynooth than England has done; and this verdict is the more intelligent, as in this northern part of the island we repudiate the Queen's supremacy. in the church, and care very little for the famous Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, as a defence against papal aggression. In the third place, Scotland has expressed a much more decided opinion than England has done on the injustice of national establishments of religion. In these three respects, we flatter ourselves, that we are considerably in front of our more numerous, more wealthy, and powerful brethren in the south. But, in addition to this, there has been a great advance since the last election among ourselves; and the improvement in public opinion is, in our judgment, as much marked in the addresses of the rejected candidates, as of those who have been chosen by the constituencies. We have been less annoyed than is usual, with vague generalities, with a circuitous phraseology, which may mean anything or nothing.

We cannot congratulate our readers on the result of the Edinburgh election. Macaulay has been chosen; and, in despite of a strong current of opinion setting in against us, we hesitate not to proclaim it a blunder, and to assert that this discovery will be made ere long. We were glad that Macaulay was defeated at the last election, because it gave a blow to the pet and childish scheme of the Whig Government, of converting Ireland into a paradise of delights, by pensioning the Popish priests. And our joy was all the greater, because the blow was the more severe, that a man of such acknowledged eminence as Macaulay was beaten by one who, to use very mild language, has never furnished the world with any proofs of intellectual superiority. Macaulay's election is in danger of destroying the very

valuable lesson, which was then given to our leading statesmen by the constituency of Edinburgh. It has been announced everywhere with flourish of trumpets and beating of drums; we have been entertained with all sorts of classical allusions to the Modern Athens, in tears and in sackcloth of penitence, sending for the modern Themistocles, whom it had formerly cast out from its bosom. It is clear as noon-day, that Macaulay has recanted none of the opinions for which he was formerly rejected; and the inference is drawn and extensively believed, that Edinburgh has changed its principles, and that within the last few years it has become more Whiggish, less Protestant, and less Voluntary. We have probably as much respect for Macaulay in his own sphere as any who voted for him, and can read his speeches in Parliament with as much pleasure; but most assuredly Edinburgh is not the city which should send him there. He does not represent the opinions of the electors. Edinburgh is in advance of him as respects general politics, as respects popish grants and endowments, as respects national establishments of religion. These facts will be denied by no one who has the slightest acquaintance with Edinburgh. In this election Edinburgh has stultified itself. Pluming itself upon being the head-quarters of >the protestant feeling of the country, what has it done? It has sent one man to Parliament to vote against grants to Maynooth, and the endowment of the Irish priests; and it has sent another man who is in favour of both. What an act of folly! Nay, what is still worse, the representative who is in favour of pensioning Romish students and priests, has a hundred times more talent and influence than the one who protests against them both. Who will -ever think of Cowan as the representative of Edinburgh, when he stands side by side with Macaulay? And hence, the gifted English historian, not the respectable paper manufacturer, will be looked upon as the exponent of the protestant feeling of our metropolis. It is a grievous blunder; and if the question be asked, How this has happened? we apprehend there is only one answer, The Free Church has done it all. Had it not been for the crooked policy of Free Churchmen, it admits not of a moment's dispute, that Cowan and M'Laren would have been returned most triumphantly. But the Free Church wished to have both members of their own denomination, and they would not be content with one; and it is a significant circumstance, that if the Conservatives had not rallied in favour of Cowan, during the last hours of the election, they would not have had even one. But they could not forget their ancient grudge against the Lord Provost, when he exposed their fallacies in the Voluntary and Annuity-tax controversies. They could not forgive the manner in which, with stubborn facts and figures of arithmetic, he demolished their empty theories and figures of speech. And hence they persecuted with a slimy and fetid virulence, the man who stood at the head of all liberal movements, when liberalism was not so cheap and fashionable as it is now-a-days,—the man who has done more for the public good of Edinburgh, and is better acquainted with its business, than any within its bounds,-the man who knows more about parliamentary affairs than any Scotchman who has not been in Parliament,—and a man, too, who for general energy, business habits, and speaking power, is far superior to Cowan. And yet, with all its talk about Protestantism and Maynooth, the Free Church preferred Macaulay to M'Laren.

We are afraid the Free Church party, as a whole, have been carrying out the same policy in other places. With some honourable exceptions, they have refused to vote for a Voluntary candidate. Very few Free Churchmen,

in comparison, registered their votes in favour of Sir James Anderson in the Stirling burghs. The leading Free Churchmen of Glasgow, many of whom are the old Tories who fought for West India slavery and the corn laws, and all kinds of legalised robbery, naturally enough, it will be supposed, polled for the Tory, Blackburn. And in the Ayr burghs, the Free Church influence was given in favour of the Conservative, Boyle, and in opposition to Crawford, the liberal Voluntary.

Two remarks suggest themselves to our minds.-First, This is a dangerous policy. If the principle of an established church be so important in the eyes of Free Churchmen, that they cannot vote for a parliamentary candidate who is opposed to it, it must teach us to look upon it also in this light, and to support no candidate who is a Free Churchman. Somehow or other, it almost uniformly happens, that a Free Churchman is more offensive and dogmatic in promulgating his views of the Church Establishment principle and of the Voluntary principle than a member of the Established Church. We state the fact simply, without comment. If the Voluntaries had pursued the same policy as the Free Church, Moncreiff would not have been returned for the Leith burghs, nor Dunlop for Greenock. We may learn a lesson of tactics from our opponents. Two can play at this game; and though the first who begins it may have the advantage for the time, it does not follow that the advantage can be maintained, after the sleight of hand has been discovered. And second, an opportunity may soon be given us of carrying our new lesson into practice. It appears to us, that Lord Derby cannot long keep his seat, even though his supporters should be more numerous than they seem to be in the coming Parliament. There is a public opinion out of doors which must operate fatally against him. His opponents may carry against him a vote of no confidence, and this compels his resignation. When a liberal ministry is in power, there may be a necessity for a new election, for the purpose of strengthening their hands, unless the Derbyites should, through fear of this, throw down their arms, and promise not to obstruct the government. A new election may thus not be far from us; and we hope, when this comes round, Voluntaries will be upon their guard, and not pledge themselves to Free Church candidates, until they see whether the old game is to be played over again. The Free Church policy has been hitherto too much of this character-take all and give nothing. This must be corrected, both for their sakes and our own. We shall know

our ground better next time, and fight our battle with more skill.

Printed by THOMAS MURRAY, of 2, Arniston Place, and WILLIAM GIBB, of 12, Queen Street, at the Printing Office of MURRAY and GIBB, North-East Thistle Street Lane, and Published by WILLIAM OLIPHANT, of 21, Buccleuch Place, at his Shop, 7, South Bridge, Edinburgh, on the 28th of July 1852.

THE

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE,

FOR SEPTEMBER, 1852.

Miscellaneous Communications.

NAAMAN: OR, HUMILIATION THE PATH TO DIVINE FAVOUR.

THE story of Naaman is familiar to most readers of the Divine word. It occupies the fifth chapter of the Second Book of Kings. An incident like this, occurring under the providence of God, has not been inserted in the sacred volume without a reason. We may be sure that in some way it is fitted to promote the great design of revelation. What is the instruction which God would have us gather from it-What special lesson is it designed to teach? It seems to us that the single point on which the whole light of the story converges is this, the necessity of humbling ourselves, that we may become subjects of the Divine mercy.

Naaman was a proud man-naturally perhaps; and the position to which he had attained, the glory he had acquired, and the favour in which he was held by his royal master, tended to nurse the feeling. God had set his heart on him to save him, but in order to this it was necessary that his lofty looks should be humbled, and his haughtiness bowed down; and it is interesting and edifying to mark how simply, and by what an insensible process, this result was brought about.

I. In the midst of all his greatness he is visited with an afflictive and loathsome disease—a disease so revolting in its character, and pestiferous in its influence, that among the Jews the Divine law made it a ground of exclusion from society. How mortifying to Naaman to have his glory dimmed by a sickening eclipse like this! To be changed by a foul and corroding distemper into an object of loathing and aversion even to his friends! And then how helpless he was under it! By him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria, but puissant as he had proved himself in battle, he could not deliver himself from this hated disease. The friendship of the monarch had raised him high in place, and loaded him with many honours, but for the cure of this malady the sceptre itself was impotent. The court physicians had brought to bear upon it all their skill, and tried the effect of every remedy, but without success. The powerful aid of the gods themselves had been solicited in vain. To all human appearance Naaman was an incur

VCL. VI. NO. IX.

R

« AnteriorContinuar »