known to his fellow-sinners the the remission of their sins. knowledge of salvation, through REDNAXELA. THE HISTORY OF THE PAPACY. In the ever increasing ambition of the Pope, he required such agents as these to carry out his designs. They served vicious purposes: they could either confound those who rose up in opposition to the church by their skill in debate, or perhaps consuming them in the flames. They stirred up the zeal of the clergy and people; acted as spies upon the bishops and temporal powers; and last, not least, they were the Pope's tax-gatherers. Pope Innocent III. had ventured to do what had never been done before,-tax the clergy for the support of the Papal See. His successors followed in the same track, but their efforts were not always equally successful. For instance an appeal was made to England in the year 1226, for a certain proportion of the proceeds of monasteries and churches to help up the Papal To this demand it was replied, that this is a matter which concerns all christendom. England will conform to the practice of other christian countries. The incessant demand for money brought on a reaction against the Papacy. Twenty years later, the Pope's legate was expelled from the country. In France a similar spirit was rising. The people had become fully acquainted with the devices of the clergy, that they had altogether lost their influence; and the king, St. Louis, although one of the most superstitious of men, would not lend himself to their purpose. On one occasion we find the clergy blaming the revenue. king for allowing the christian religion to fall into decay; for the people did not trouble themselves about excommunication, and the king would not punish those who were excommunicated, as the clergy desired. On another occasion the Pope thinking himself not safe in Italy, from the power of Frederick II., desired to take refuge in France, but Louis refused the request, dreading the rapacity of the Papal Court. In short, throughout Europe, a change took place with regard to the Papacy in this century, both externally and internally. Hitherto, for at least two centuries, power had been coveted by Rome, chiefly for its own sake,-now it was principally sought for the wealth it brought with it. The ruling passion of the Popes had been ambition,-now they were swayed by avarice. Formerly they were feared, and to some extent adored, but they now began to be detested and despised. Externally also a change took place. France and England towards the end of the century rose into notice. In England the Saxons and Normans had coalesced into one notion. The constitution and language was formed. The king, nobles, and people were brought into harmony during the reign of Edward, the English Justinian. This monarch, for state purposes, determined to tax the clergy. They resisted, protesting against the measure as profane. He resolved that if they would not help to support the state, neither should they share its pro tection. Accordingly he proclaimed that no redress was to be given to the clergy for any injury they might complain of; but that every one having grievances against them should be attended to. This state of outlawry in which they were placed, subjected them to so many insults and annoyances, that their spirits sunk, and they were fain to submit to the laws of the land. The Kings of France too were rising into power and importance. For several successive reigns they had been gradually consolidating their power, and bringing the several provinces of the Kingdom under their own rule. The wise regulations of Louis IX., generally known as St. Louis, had strengthened and united the nation. He had also been careful to set bounds to the power of the Clergy, and his successors walked in the same steps. Philip the Fair, who ascended the throne 1285, surpassed all his predecessors in the vigour of his rule, and was fully bent upon keeping down all power hostile to his own authority, whether at home or abroad. He too like the English Edward presumed to tax the Clergy, tidings of this came to the ears of the Pope, who was not slow to enter his protest against the impiety. The Papal Throne at this time was occupied by Boniface VIII., one of the most insolent men that ever pretended to be the successor of St. Peter. The idea that he formed of his official dignity may be gathered from a letter he wrote to his Legate in Hungary. The Roman Pontiff, established by God over Kings and their Kingdoms, Sovereign Chief of the Hierarchy in the Church militant, and holding the first rank above all mortals, sitteth in tranquility in the throne of judgment, and scattereth away all iniquity with his eye." This was no idle theory with him. It was a principle he was resolved upon carrying into effect. He either did not, or would not, see the signs of the times, how greatly they had altered since the time of Innocent III., a hundred years before. Bent only upon crushing every obstacle to Papal and Priestly power, he issued a Bull, denouncing all who should dare to tax the Clergy, and against all who should pay such taxes. Philip made answer by stopping the supplies. He forbade the export of money, jewels, and other articles specified, out of his dominions. This decree had the effect of bringing the Pope to his senses. Notwithstanding all his high notions of Papal supremacy, he condescended to explain his Bull to the King of France in such a way that he had no ground to complain. Philip then rescinded his decree, and wealth rolled again Rome-wards. Thus the Pope looked only to himself, and left his Clergy to their fate. The truce lasted only for a short time. It could not possibly last long, for Philip was determined to be King and Boniface was determined to be Pope, and these two cannot be fully developed side by side. In the year 1301, Philip arrested a Bishop, who was a creature of the Pope, on the charge of sedition, and imprisioned him until he should be brought to trial. In the meantime he wrote a respectful letter to the Pope, apprising him of the circumstance. Boniface immediately sent by his Legate a reply to the King, enjoining him to dismiss the prisoner freely to the Pontifical presence, reminding him at the same time that he had himself incurred canonical punishment, for having dared to lay hands on a Bishop. He shortly after published a Bull, setting forth his superiority to all Kings, and informing Philip that he had summoned all the superior Clergy of France to an assembly at Rome, in order to deliberate upon the remedies for such abuses. Philip burnt the Pope's Bull as publicly as possible, and caused that act to be publicly proclaimed throughout Paris. He convoked at full assembly of the Parliament, stated his determination to resist the claims of the Pope, and referred the question to their decision. The Barons and Lay Members spoke decidedly in favour of the King. The Clergy hesitated, endeavouring as well as they could to serve two masters. Eventually, however, the greater part of them refused to attend the Council at Rome. With the assistance of the few that went, the Pope published the famous Decretal, generally known by the name of unam sanctam. "There is only one Catholic Church. Of this Church only one head, Christ, and his Vicar the Pope. In his power are two swords, not equal, but the one subject to the other, otherwise we must suppose two opposite principles, which would be manichean and heretical. The one of these swords is to be used by the Church, the other for the Church ......... ..Wherefore we declare, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely essential to the salvation of every human being, that he be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Philip answered with moderation, expressing his strong desire to remain on friendly terms with the Papal See. The Pope remained inflexible. He prepared another Bull, in which he maintained, that as Vicar of Jesus Christ, he had the power to govern Kings with a rod of iron, and to dash them in pieces like a Potter's vessel. This Bull was to be published on the anniversary of the Virgin, the 8th September. But his lofty thoughts were never realized. On the day previous to its publication, William of Nyzaret, a French Civilian, with some Italian exiles who had fled from the face of the Pope, attended by some hundreds of armed attendants, dashed into the Tower of Anagui, where the Pope then resided, crying, "success to the King of France! Death to Pope Boniface!" They soon became masters of the Papal Palace, and held the Pope in captivity for several days. The citizens afterwards rallied and drove out the intruders. But the Pope was so inflamed with rage and mortification at the insult which had been offered him, that his strength gave way under the shock. He died on the 10th day of October, 1303. The Papacy then became a dependency of France for a great length of time, and two centuries and a half elapsed before it gained the ground it had lost at the death of Boniface VIII. RECORDER. THOUGHTS ON ROMANS, VI. 23. The wastings and decays which gradually undermine our bodily strength and vigour, serve to remind us continually, that we are not now in the state in which the human nature was at first created; for at the time of the first creation of man, his bodily constitution, in common with all the other works of the divine hand, was seen and pronounced to be "very good," (Gen. i. 31.;) while the infinite power and infinite benevolence of his maker furnished to him, so long as he remained innocent, the strongest assurances of his continuance in that happy condition. But these wastings and decays are the consequences of sin, and they finally issue in the death of the body, which again (considered merely by itself) carries with it * "a fearful presage of the future wrath of God towards our immortal part, in consequence of our transgressions of his righteous law:" and, however, this matter may be attempted to be softened by speaking of death as the debt of nature, or by the use of other expressions of a like kind with reference thereto, the Scripture emphatically declares that "death is the wages of sin." Rom. vi. 23. But "God has so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him might not perish but have everlast ing life," and "him hath God set forth, a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness in remitting sin," through him the just God is also the Saviour of the unjust and of the guilty for "the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin," and "without a thought, word, or deed of man concurring therewith, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God." By his one offering Jesus Christ has made complete and entire satisfaction for all the guilt of those whose cause he undertook, even for the sins "of a multitude which no man can number, whom he has redeemed out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue." He that believeth on the Son of God shall never perish nor fall into condemnation, but shall be raised up in a state of glory, honour, and immortality at the last day. Then shall be seen -"Truth, love, and mercy in triumph [descending, And nature all glowing in Eden's first bloom, On the pale cheek of death smiles and roses And beauty immortal awakes from the tomb." [are blending, Beattie. INVESTIGATOR. ON THE "LAST DAYS," IN REPLY TO MACROBIUS. To the Editor of the Christian truth is, and I say so in no critical Advocate. spirit, I confess myself unable to follow your correspondent's argument, and am pretty sure most of your readers will be in a similar difficulty. He appears to admit that on the day of Pentecost, prophecy still had a future; but, if I do not mistake him, he says that that future, in regard to such prophecies as Rev. xvi. 14, 15-Luke • Glas's works, vol. iv. p. 229. DEAR SIR: I shall trouble you with but very few remarks in answer to "Macrobius" in your last number; and were it not that he might attribute silence to a wrong motive, I should have preferred leaving the subject upon my two former communications. The xxi. 25, 28, has now become past, the events having been long ago fulfilled,-whether at the destruction of Jerusalem, or at what other period, he does not specify. I can see no authority in Scripture for such an opinion. When the Great Prophet foretold the signs of his second coming, it was in answer to the two-fold question, "Tell us, when shall these things be, (the throwing down the stones of the temple) and what shall be the signs of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Many attempts have been made to distinguish our Lord's answer as applicable to these two separate heads of enquiry, but without success. The truth seems to be that the former event was figurative of the latter, just as Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. In this point of view there is nothing foretold of the former of the two events in question which may not, in sobriety and fear, be applied to the latter, the great anti-type of all the judgments of God. Macrobius thinks this view excluded by the words, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." Those who are dissatisfied with the explanation of this saying as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem as an earnest of the great and final destruction, may further think of the meaning of the word "generation" in the New Testament church. That church is itself called the "generation to the Lord," even that "seed which shall serve him while sun and moon endure "-See Psalm xxii. 30; xxiv. 6; cii. 18; 1 Pet. ii. 9. The only other passage referred to by your correspondent, to which. if time permitted, I would feel inclined to refer, is 1 John, ii. 18; but I apprehend my last letter in a great measure anticipated my answer. The revelation of the man of sin is the great SIGN of the New Testament Scriptures; that sign was to appear in the latter times; so that when, in the apostles days, it appeared as it were casting its shadows before, these apostles thereby "knew it was the last time." But for what was the Book of Revelation "sent and signified" to the churches of the saints, if not to mark the rise, progress, height, consumption, and destruction of that mystery of iniquity? I shall address but one other remark to Macrobius on this subject. But When he speaks of my calling "the year 1851 the last and perilous days," he is treating the subject in a way in which I could not treat it, so long as I tremble at His word, who said, "of that day and hour knoweth no man." if the scope of his argument be intended to disprove that the Lord and his apostles have left on record signs by which his disciples may mark the near approach of his second and glorious appearing, I consider him to have been as unsuccessful in doing so as he has been in supporting that other position taken up by him, viz.-that of the days which many kings and righteous men desired to see, nothing whatever was chronologically known till the day of Pentecost." In making this assertion, surely he forgets that “seventy weeks were determined to finish transgression and anoint the Most Holy,"-and that when this "set time" (Ps. cii. 13,) was just about to expire, it was revealed to one of those who were waiting for the consolation of Israel," that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ." |