theme. From the first he had obtained the sympathies of Protestants specially for this reason, because he had "escaped from the prisons of the Inquisition." No one seemed for a moment to imagine, none even thought it worth while to inquire, whether people were not sometimes incarcerated in those prisons for immorality; all "good haters of Popery" believed that the Church of Rome punished only heresy, and that every sin would be tolerated in a priest but that. Accordingly, he gained an easy credence for his stories, and helped to fan the flame of Protestant bigotry wherever he came.

At length, in 1850, Providence mercifully ordained that he should write a book; and this book-Dealings with the Inquisition-was his ruin. Of course he meant it to be a deadly blow to the Church; and in it he assailed the character of her pontiffs, prelates, and priests with the grossest ribaldry and calumny. "Who are generally the most wicked persons in Italy?" he asks. "Priests and monks. How great are the horrors of the cloisters, where ignorance and superstition, laziness and immorality of every description not only live but reign, and the most abominable vices have taken refuge!" Addressing the late pious and exemplary Pope Gregory (from whom he acknowledges to have received favours, and by whom he was released from prison), he says, "You deceive the people when you, so avaricicus, preach disinterestedness; you so impure, chastity; you so vindictive, forgiveness; you so turbulent, peace; you so self-indulgent, temperance; you so indolent, industry; you so immoral, holiness." We ask our readers' pardon for transcribing a specimen or two of this execrable calumny; but it is necessary in order to appreciate the approval it elicited, and the character of the religion which greedily accepted it without any inquiry either into the character of the calumniator or of those whom he thus indecently assailed. The vilest abuse was lavished upon ecclesiastics notoriously "venerable" (to use even Lord Campbell's acknowledgment) "for their piety and learning." Thus, for instance, "Ancorani died," we are told, "loaded with execrations;" and Lambruschini was represented as "still living for his greater punishment;" and so on of every dignitary who had felt it his duty to exercise authority against Achilli.

These atrocious statements so completely confirmed the previous prejudices of the class of people among whom the book circulated, that they did not examine its contents so carefully as to detect its serious inconsistencies, nor observe how contradictory it was to the picture he had professed to draw of his past character and career. He discloses in this book that at Viterbo, where he was friar, professor, and priest, so long

66

ago as 1830 there were "evil reports" against him, "raised by the bishop's vicar;" which evil reports he shews could not have been about heresy, because he says he was "then teaching with great zeal the Romish doctrine;" but which nevertheless resulted in his being "ordered by the general of the order to renounce his professorship and leave Viterbo," and being "forced to surrender his professorship and leave that city" at the close of 1833. He discloses also that at this time he was no true Catholic, for he states that he "disbelieved in the Mass and rejected its doctrine," "that he was perfectly persuaded of its imposture," but that after this he continued to celebrate it without devotion but with a show of earnestness;" and further he assures his readers that he never had up to this time, nor for years after, given publicly any idea that he was dissatisfied with the doctrine of the Church, or differed from the monks in opinion, or had forsaken the faith which he had advocated to the world. He went on in the same book to inform his friends that after his expulsion from Viterbo he went to another diocese of Capua, and there too he soon foresaw a persecution against him," which could not have been about heresy, because up to this time he publicly taught the faith with zeal, yet as to which he cautiously abstained from explaining why he was able to "foresee" it. Next he mentioned that "he had been induced to apply to the Pope for letters of secularisation, which were granted," but which he stated "he had not put in force until 1839;" whence it would appear that the Church was more anxious to relieve him of the responsibility of religious vows than he was to be relieved; notwithstanding that he has been careful to assure us that "he had never been really a monk." Next his readers find him at Naples, where he says (unfortunate man!) that he was "continually attacked by false reports ;" and about this time it was that he had the misfortune to be arrested by the Inquisition. That he had not the least idea of leaving the Church, may be gathered from his emphatically stating, "had this not befallen me, I should have returned to Naples, enjoying a little world of my own." He stated that while in the Inquisition, reports were circulated that he had been "guilty of other crimes than those for which he was placed there," and that there was a process against him respecting his conduct at Viterbo and Naples; whence it would necessarily appear-assuming the truth of his former statements about himself—that these charges did not relate, at least principally, to heresy, of which he had not in those places shewn himself to be guilty. In 1842 he represented himself to have been released "from the dungeons of the Inquisition," and to have been allowed to depart, though under

strict surveillance; and then in a curiously vague way stated his departure thus: "In September I was near Nazzano; I set off for Ancona; I left Ancona in October, and reached Corfu." This bore very much the appearance of a clandestine departure from surveillance; and the inference was strengthened by his adding, "I was fortunate enough to get included in the passport of a family without any separate mention of my name; a necessary precaution to insure me from molestation on the road." What peril he was in which should have either induced him to escape out of Italy in this way, or apprehend "molestation on the road," he did not explain.

The obscurities and incongruities of this narrative required explanation, and it was promptly supplied. In the same year appeared an article in the Dublin Review, making statements of a very circumstantial character, and corresponding most remarkably in point of time and place with some of the admissions in Achilli's own book. Thus, for instance, it alleged, that he had committed serious crimes at Viterbo prior to 1833, for which he had been deprived of his faculty to lecture; and in his book he stated, "I was forced to give up my faculty and to leave Viterbo at the close of 1833." So again it was alleged, that he had committed a similar offence at Naples at the end of 1840; and in his book he stated that he was arrested in the very next year. These were coincidences which raised a great probability of truth, to say the least. Nor were other confirmations wanting. In the same year appeared an article in the Record, the organ of the Evangelical party, containing this statement on the part of the Committee of the Malta College: "after Dr. Achilli's appointment, various unpleasant statements were made to the Committee as to his past history, which were submitted to him; but as they were denied by him, and not supported by sufficient evidence, they were rejected." This was not all. The article in the Review referred to official documents at Viterbo, Naples, and other places; and above all, to a judgment of the Court of Inquisition in the year 1841, the very year in which Achilli escaped from Italy, and the year after the alleged crime at Naples, which judgment professed to be founded on that and several similar offences against morality.

These statements created of course a considerable sensation among the patrons of Achilli, and the more honourableminded among them demanded of him a refutation. He declined, however, to do any thing more than offer a flat denial. This did not satisfy them; for they knew that nothing was easier than denial. The article in the Review was republished in a separate form; still he took no steps to vindi

cate his character; nor could all the entreaties of his wealthy friends, ready to back him with their purses, induce him to make the attempt. The effect upon those whose sense of truth and virtue was not quite blunted by the virulence of bigotry may be easily conceived. In the course of the twelve. months which elapsed from the publication of the Review in July until the middle of the next year 1850, Achilli was not heard of.

The next year, however, 1851, was marked by the memorable agitation against "Papal Aggression ;" and in that storm of public excitement Achilli again came forward as the champion of Protestantism. In a second edition of his book he thus alluded to the article in the Review-"There is the renowned Cardinal Wiseman; he has published an infamous article against me in the Dublin Review." So it is clear he was quite cognizant of these charges, which yet he ventured not to meet except in terms of gross and coarse abuse. But, besides this, he mentions also in this second edition of his book, that a member of the French Assembly, during a visit Achilli paid to France (while he was under an eclipse in this country), had published an exposure of his career; and he had no other answer to make than by calling him a liar. One would imagine that all this would have been enough for his Protestant patrons. But no; their anti-papal zeal was proof even against this. And as we are more anxious to expose them than him, and as they have lately become somewhat ashamed of their former champion and seem almost inclined to disavow him, we will present a few testimonials from his former admirers which appeared about this time, to prove the high estimation in which Protestants held him, and the extent to which they credited the monstrous and mendacious statements of his book. Mr. Justice Coleridge said that the Church of England had no concern with him. Indeed! we should have thought otherwise. It was the Church of England College he was presiding over at Malta; and it was in that most orthodox journal, the Church and State Gazette, that his work was spoken of in the following terms: "As a contribution to contemporary ecclesiastical history we are disposed to recommend it most heartily. Rome has endeavoured to dispose of the author by accusing him of every possible crime; and one individual among us (i. e. the Cardinal) is said to have earned his dignity by his unscrupulous dealing in baseless accusations against the reforming Dominican." The Atlas said: "As an able and lucid digest against Popery, as a graphic description of many of the practices of the Romish Church, and as the record of the experience of a vigorous and enlightened mind, the work

is one of the most valuable which the subject has called forth. There is in the generalities of our author's account a truthfulness, a knowledge and mastery of the subject, and opportunity of observation, which will go far to make his volume a standard work in defence of the principles of Protestantism." The discerning Spectator said: "The book contains internal evidence of truth." The Evangelical Magazine backed it as a "valuable and most seasonable volume." 'Seasonable' no doubt it was, a second edition especially, amidst the heat of the anti-papal agitation, and valuable' for the vile purposes of the agitators. The Wesleyan Watchman called it" worthy on many accounts, and especially at this time, of our attention; and we believe also worthy of our trust." The Independent Banner said with emphasis: "Dr. Achilli has done admirable service to the cause of ecclesiastical reformation, and the illumination of a darkened world on this terrible subject;" while the pious Patriot said: "He carries us behind the scenes of Italian ecclesiastical life and reveals its weaknesses." Here were all classes and sects of Protestants appealing to Achilli as their authority, and venerating him as their champion. And now what we wish our readers to remark is, that all these good people were well aware of the real character of the man whom they thus eulogised as an antagonist to Romanism. His own book disclosed that he had been, so long ago as 1833, forced to surrender his professorship and leave Viterbo; the article in the Review to which they refer alleged foul crimes against him committed before that time. He acknowledged having been arrested in 1841 at Naples; and the Review alleged another foul crime as having been committed in 1840 in that city.

As to his residence at Corfu and Capua, official documents were appealed to, and one of them published, as testifying to his immoral character. At Malta he himself had stated that the very mob insulted him; and the Committee of the Protestant College had dismissed him avowedly for stopping an inquiry into immoral practices, and in their less reserved communications spoke of him as having been more personally implicated in immoralities himself. All this was known to the "religious public." On his own shewing he had been a fugitive and wanderer ever since 1833, and accusations had been made against him wherever he came; and he acknowledged that when he was arrested by the Inquisition he had never meant to leave the Church, though for ten years he had ceased to believe in her doctrines, and was perfectly persuaded of their imposture. All this, we repeat, the "religious public" well knew; yet they patronised him and eulogised him as