Fact V. Assertion.

FACT v . ASSERTION .

THE relations presently existing between our Order and the head of the Roman Catholic Church have been the subject of frequent comment in these columns . We have pointed out the folly of these attacks upon us by the Ultramontanes . To begin with the Bishop of Orlean ' s pamphlet , he denounced Freemasonry as a political body that was

" eminently dangerous , " " By its profound and unceasing political , social , and revolutionary action , it is a constant danger to society ; it is the laboratory where revolution is prepared in the dark . " And again , " It is the negation of all religion , and the enemy of all society . " As one fact is

worth a hundred assertions , we were content to point out that to the Order so terribly denounced belonged no less a personage that Marshal MacMahon , Due de Magenta and President of the French Republic . The Order which in . eluded in its ranks the chief of the State in France could

not accurately be described as tbe " enemy of all society " except on the assumption that such chief was one of a band of men who had sworn the destruction of society . Within a fortnight of our notice of this attack the Prince of Wales was formally installed R . W . Gr . M of the Order in

England , and then in due time comes the counter blow to this demonstration of English Masonry in the shape of a letter from the Pope to the Bishop of Orleans , thanking him for his pamphlet , and asserting that " the nefarious character of the sect being known , there is no honest man

who must not turn from it with horror . " Thus much is mere recapitulation of what has appeared previously in onr pages , and with every confidence we leave it to the judgment of our readers to decide whether these arrogant assertions of the Pope and his Bishop are or are not the "

baseless fabric of a vision . " We imagine the facts of the case are with us , the allegations on the side of our antagonists . But it is possible , we think , to go a step further , and to prove , not by assertions merely , but by facts , that the Papacy , from a political point of view , has invariably been

" the negation of all religion , " except that which itself professed , and the " enemy of all society" Avhenever it suited its own purposes . Of course , on this , as on all previous occasions , we shall scrupulously avoid saying a single word that could cause offence to those members of

our society who profess the Roman Catholic faith . What we advance will rest on a tolerably solid substratum of truth . For the few illustrations of our statements we shall give chapter and verse , so that our readers will be at no loss tj judge of our accuracy .

The political history of the Papacy is one uninterrupted series of meddling with the peace and quietness of society all over the world , sometimes nominally in the interests of religion , at other times to assert its supremacy as a sovereign power . Being more remote from Rome than most other

Christian countries , England has escaped the damaging influence of Papal interference to a greater extent than most European countries . Yet the meddlesome interference of the priesthood in our government has more than once been productive of serious harm to the reign of law and

order . A few of the most prominent cases with which our readers are familiar will suffice to prove this . Thus , in the reign of the first Plantaganet , a monarch of considerable leanring , and of transcendent abilities as a ruler ,

no sooner had he raised A'Becket , his Chancellor , to the Archdiocese of Canterbury , than the arrogant claims of the churchman induced in the country a number of civil broils . The moment he ascended the throne Henry resolved to curtail the pretensions of the priesthood to the exercise of

Fact V. Assertion.

1 I 7 U I !¦ ¥ ! ¦ ¦ Ill HUM temporal power within his realm . His selection of Becket as a fit instrument to carry out this project turned out to be a great blunder . But though the object of the king was a patriotic one , Becket preferred exciting discontent in his native country to exercising the more appropriate

functions of a minister . Instead of promoting enthusiasm for the cause of religion and order , he set himself to thwarting , as far as he could , the plans of his lawful sovereign . True , in the first instance , he accepted the Constitutions of Clarendon , which defined the limits of clerical

influence ; but when the Pope rejected these constitutions , Becket contrived to evade his oath , and the result was years of political trouble in a country that would otherwise , as regards this single question , have enjoyed years of uninterrupted peace . Again , John is a monarch whose

memory is not held in much esteem among Englishmen . We regard himmostlyasthetyrantfromwhomthe Associated Barons and Stephen Langton , Archbishop of Canterbury ,

extorted the earliest charter of our liberties . We despise him , too , for the weak surrender of his sovereign rights to Pope Innocent III . But here , again , is an instance in which the church first fanned the flames of discontent between

the king and his barons , to the end that its influence in the country might become more powerful . John ' s reign was tyrannical throughout . He acted chiefly on violent and brutal impulses , but while we read with shame of tho

bullying and cowardice of this Anglo-Norman king , we cannot shut our eyes to the active participation of the church in all the commotions of the time . And , tyrant or no tyrant , Rome cared but little about the rights of the barons when it had secured its own . The lines of

Shakspeare never fail to excite the patriotism of Englishmen . " That no Italian priest Shall tithe or toll in our dominions ; Bat , as we under heaven are supreme head ,

So , under Him , that great supremacy , Where we do reign , we will alone uphold , Without the assistance of a mortal hand : So tell the Pope ; all reverence set apart To him , and his usurp'd authority . "

It was this same Pope Innocent who preached a crusado against the Albigenses , a harmless , inoffensive people , whose only sin was that they rejected the claims of the Papal clergy over them . This people were extirpated . They were called heretics because they differed in some

particulars from the Church of Rome . Hence their destruction . In the weak reign of Henry VI ., Cardinal Beaufort scrupled not to exercise influence as a churchman in the cause of civil strife . We fully recognise that the struggle between the Cardinal and Humphrey of Gloucester

was a political one , yet the influence of the Church was used , not to allay strife , but to promote it . Again , an attempt of the Spainards under Philip II . to force the Inquisition on the Netherlander , the persecution of the Huguenots , the action of the Romish Church during the Thirty Years '

War . All these are so many more evidences that Rome stood at nothing when a question arose whether she or tho sovereign power in other countries should prevail . Even now , when the Pope has been despoiled of all his temporalities , his Vatican decrees , if , or whereever enforced , would

deprive every one of civil freedom . These things , as we have said already , are not assertions . Every student of history is aware of their occurrence . Different writers may have placed each a different complexion on the several

events we have alluded to , but from whatever standpoint we regard them , the fact of their occurrence remains . We may endorse the views of those who assert the power of Rome , or of those who deny it . It is indubitable that the