« PreviousContinue »
doing another thing; and, to cut the matter short, Luther impeached the Pope. There is nothing more wonderful in the history of the world than this transaction; and I think you may, without injustice and without irreverence, after meditating on Paul in his lodging, contemplate Luther in his convent. Compare the combatants; the Pope, -remember that, in addition, the Powers of Europe, wealth, armies, prejudice which is often more overwhelming,—were arrayed at one side, and against one man.
What had the Monk to sus. tain him ? Nothing but the power of truth. Inspired by what he read, that extraordinary man, with an energy more than human—with an eloquence that never has been excelled and rarely rivalled, proceeded in his career from one dispute to another, never yielding; convincing his countrymen-converting them by thousands-until at last the haughty Pope, in his magnificent castle at Rome, was compelled to inquire who was the despicable monk that dared to dispute his infallible authority. He despatched a cardinal to frown down Luther, or divert him from the course he was pursuing. Martin Luther met the cardinal in argument; neither party convinced the other—but why; because, when the cardinal quoted the decrees of the Church, Luther quoted the Bible, and asked was the decree in conformity with the command of God; so the disputants made no progress.
The cardinal commanded obedience; the monk said, “I thought your Eminence wanted to convince me, and I see you want to command me.” The result
know. Charles V. lamented on his death-bed—and it is an awful passage in the history of that prince—that he had not consigned Luther to the fate of Huss; but it was designed by Providence that Lnther should be saved, for he was carried away by friends, and protected in a strong castle, where he remained for two years. How did he employ himself during that time? Luther had
a profound knowledge of the German tongue, so he sat down to translate the New Testament about the year 1523, aided by Melancthon, a scholar and a Christian; they produced the greater part of the Testament translated into the vulgar tongue; and a historian, who writes coldly on the history of our glorious Reformation, says—“ The New Testament made more progress, and produced a greater effect, than all the speeches, exhortations, declamations, arguments, and writings of Luther. It converted a greater number in a shorter space of time.” Such was the success of Luther; and are we conscious of what we owe to that wonderful man? It is not for the purpose of triumphing over those who differ from us that we refer to those matters; but we cannot touch on the subject of the Reformation without considering the prodigious influence it had in awakening the human mind from the slumber of ages. It quickened the faculties of men; stimulated inquiry ; gave an impetus to science; called forth the exertions of genius; stirred
of the human intellect. It has been the cause of our freedom; to it we must ascribe much of our happiness in this life; to it we must ascribe the knowledge of the Book which is the foundation of our hopes in the life to come. In reading history, we ought never to forget what we owe to the intrepid Reformer who confronted kings, dungeons, and death, in the sacred cause of truth.
We have now the Scriptures freely circulated throughout a great part of the civilised world, with freedom and toleration of opinion enjoyed. No true Protestant ever persecuted his fellow-man for his opinions; no man was ever yet convinced by cruelty or oppression; he must be convinced in the way in which Paul convinced the Romans, or in which Luther taught the truth. But follow the exciting history. Leo X. died suddenly—at a period of great glory for Rome. His subjects said of him—" He glided in like a fox, ruled
like a lion, and died like a dog”—a severe criticism on so great a pontiff. Clement VII. now became Pope, and shared the vicissitudes of modern Roman history in some of its most remarkable passages.
He was an intriguing prince, and embraced the theory now proclaimed—Italy for the Italians. Clement VII. put himself at the head of an organised confederacy for the purpose of driving out the Germans, the barbarians, as they were called, and for establishing Italian unity. Well, as long as the Pope contented himself with excommunicating kings, they took it quietly; but when he took to fighting, he came off, as Popes generally do, second best. Charles V., a devout Catholic, being provoked, went to war with the Pope, so that we are not to judge men by what they profess, but by what they do; for although he was a pious son of the Church, and though his last words inculcated upon his son Philip to persecute the Protestants, for his own purposes he attacked the Pope ; and it is recorded by the historian, that, in order to insure the work being done well, he employed a considerable number of the German Lutherans in his army of invasion.
The Lutheran general was grim old fellow, and he said, “If I get to Rome I will hang the Pope.” Thus acted Charles V., the greatest Catholic sovereign of Europe, and his conduct shows you how to unlock the policy of Kings and Emperors who, when policy or ambition require, will, without scruple, assail, imprison, or despoil the infallible high priest of their Church.
When the army of Charles V., after Rome had risen to prosperity and grandeur, stormed and took it, they say that all the Vandals and Goths had done in sacking Rome, was as nothing compared with the destruction inflicted on the city, on the inhabitants, and on the monuments of antiquity ; because the Goths only stayed a few days, but the Christian army of Charles V. remained in Rome for months, and I can
not describe to you the mischief they did and the cruelties they practised. The unfortunate Clement VII. was shut up in the Castle of St. Angelo, with a half-dozen cardinals, vainly imploring aid; he finally escaped; then became the prisoner of Charles, who, being a profound hypocrite, declared that he never intended the Pope should be a prisoner, and that he was particularly pleased to set him at liberty. Now, from that time, up to the period of the great Revolution in France, the Popes were allowed to dwell in Rome in peace; but Napoleon I. like Charles V. marched straight into Italy, took possession of Rome, placed a governor there who professed a taste for antiquities, and repaired the old monuments, down to the very pavement of the Appian Way! All this in excuse for taking property that did not belong to him. There is nothing remarkable in finding the French in Rome, in Syria, or in Egypt. Alexander the Great founded Alexandria, just as Constantine founded Constantinople. Each meant to possess the commerce of the East, and conduct it into the West. When therefore, Napoleon I. invaded Egypt, it was not to gratify a wild ambition, but to colonize the country, to mould it to his purposes, and carry out a great policy. If you observe closely the present, and reflect on the history of the past, you will find Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome, centres round which the political world revolves.
Let me in conclusion, ask, What do we see as we approach the modern city of Rome? When I stood on the Campagna, I thought I was transported to a desert. You may imagine a city in the centre of a vast plain, not a house, or tree, or fence, or anything visible on that plain save a solitary peasant mounted on a shaggy pony, with a long wooden spear in his hand, driving a buffalo before him. All the grandeur and splendour of the Campagna of ancient Rome are gone. In the days of Augustus, the aqueducts watered it-fertilized it—but they are broken and prostrate ; their ruins attract your observation and wonder; all the glory and richness of imperial power have vanished, and the Campagna is a waste. Have you any conception of the horrors of a summer on that plain? At the season we are most joyous, the Romans are most depressed. At the time of the cutting of the harvest in the environs of Rome, a scene of suffering is witnessed. The malaria encompasses the unfortunate mountaineers, who descend to save the harvest and earn a pittance for their children. The
is infected with the disease, and probably dies; and there is a greater number of patients in the hospitals in Rome during the summer than at any other season of the year, as there are more deaths than births annually in the city itself. It is easily seen why Hannibal did not march against the city during the time the malaria prevails. He knew he would lose more men by disease than he would lose in battle.
If such was the condition of the Campagna, what was Rome itself in the last year of the late Pope's reign. Why, it was after a fashion a delightful place; no railways, no gas-lights, no water-spouts, no newspapers, no politics, no parliamentwhile the officials and the nobles vied with each other in gratifying the traveller with every object of curiosity and the wonders of art. Well, the government of that Pope was unpopular; he was a very quiet-looking, amiable man, but not a capable ruler; he had been a monk. But what was the state of Rome during the first year of the present Pope? I had heard in Genoa the very idea that had been propounded in the time of Clement VII. propounded over again in a literary association, in which they talked politics under the mask of promoting science; there it was proposed that the Pope and Charles Albert should be at the head of the movement which was to make Italy one great Commonwealth