victims of his ambition never learned to unite against their great oppressor, Sixtus IV. polluted the throne of St. Peter, whose usurped power was beginning to be sapped by the increase of knowledge. He seemed anxious to bequeath the Papacy, as the kings of France, of the first race, did their dominions, in gavelkind; he gave the signal and the scandal of pontifical inheritance; his nephews (?) were invested with the patrimony of the church. Louis XI. was never baffled, except by the artifices of the Cardinal Balue, and the resentment that he consequently felt against the court of Rome was of long duration. Perhaps it was the only one of his sentiments that he ever allowed to be discovered. But his menaces were always as vain as his services were unseasonable. His great object was to establish the despotism of the Lower (Byzantine) empire. Cruel, supertitious, inflexible, he sported with promises, oaths, and the lives of men; and if he ever asked forgiveness, in moments of scruple and terror, it was doubtless for not having sufficiently dissembled."

The exiles from Constantinople arrived in Italy, when the minds of men were just beginning to emancipate themselves from the thraldom of scholastic theology, and when the crimes of the Papacy, fast approaching the summit of their greatness, had driven men to enquire on what foundations the claims of the pontiffs rested. They brought with them the knowledge of the Greek language, and its study rapidly became popular with their hosts. It required no very deep study of the New Testament to discover that the ecclesiastical establishments which then overshadowed Europe, and blighted every healthy plant that sprung beneath their shade, were directly inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Gospel. The fall of Constantinople filled Christendom, but more especially eastern Germany, with terror. Mohammed, indeed, had open for himself a passage into Italy, by the capture of Otranto; and, but for his sudden death, might have occupied the ruined halls of the Cæsars, as well as the palaces of the Constantines, and placed the crescent on St. Peter's as on St. Sophia. The Popes preached a new crusade; money was collected to subsidize troops; but the pontiffs used the treasures to enrich their families, to provide for their natural children, or to forward their schemes of ambition. Two years after Mohammed's death, the Turks might have been driven beyond the Hellespont-perhaps beyond the Euphrates, had Innocent VIII. been less avaricious, and the Venetians less influenced by commercial jealousy. Innocent did not even condescend to use the decent excuses of Sixtus; he publicly recognised his natural children, and filled Italy with cruel wars by his efforts to carve out principalities for them. The establishment of the Turks in Europe brought shame and sorrow to every Christian country, and the blame being justly cast upon the rulers of the Church, there was consequently a growing disposition to scrutinize severely the origin of privileges profligately abused, and the source of an authority exercised, not for conservation, but destruction. An atrocious violation of the laws of hospitality, combined with im

policy, injustice, and a wanton sacrifice of the interest of Christendom, greatly increased the alienation of many powerful minds from the Papacy. The crime was commenced by Innocent, and consummated by Alexander; it brought to them but slight and temporary advantage; it irretrievably ruined the character of pontifical power.

Jem Shah, or Zimzim, as he was called by the Italians, was the son of Mohammed II. by some Christian princess. Evliya is of course mistaken, when he says the mother of Jem was the daughter of the King of France; and the source of his error is clearly the common oriental blunder of calling all European sovereigns, whether emperors, kings, or dukes, monarchs of Frangistán. We are unable to discover who the princess really was. Constantinople, at the time of its fall, contained many ladies closely allied to the sovereigns of western Europe, more than one of whom became tenants of the imperial harem. Jem Shah rebelled against his brother, Bayazid II.; was defeated at the battle of Karamán, and fled to Egypt. After having made the pilgrimage to Mecca, he visited western Europe, hoping to obtain aid from the Christian princes against his brother. Bayazid, in alarm, sent emissaries to different courts, but in Rome alone did he find an effective ally. Jem had sought shelter with the knights of Rhodes, and was kept by them in the castle of Auvergne. Innocent was resolved to obtain possession of his 'person, and intrigued for the purpose with Charles VIII. and the Grand Master. His motives are very ably stated by Vidaillan, a Roman Catholic historian:

"The Pope (Innocent VIII.) deemed no political affair beyond his province. He long entreated Charles VIII. to consign the unfortunate Zimzim to his custody, who had sought refuge first in Rhodes, and afterwards in France. The possession of this prince was eagerly sought by all the enemies of the Turks and Bayazid. The Sultan of Egypt had often sought possession of his person, as a means of defending his states, and protecting the family of Lusignan, which still contested with the barbarians the possession of Cyprus. Innocent continually pretended that he was anxious for a new crusade, and demanded the tenths (of all ecclesiastical benefices) for the purpose; to such exactions the parliament of France was inflexibly opposed; but Charles VIII. permitted the knights of Rhodes to send Zim-zim to Rome; the consent of the Grand Master was purchased by a cardinal's hat. The Ottoman prince, more haughty in misfortune than Christian, monarchs on the throne, refused to kiss the feet of the Pope, and purchase hospitality by abasement. His brother pursued him every where, and the Italian land offered him the best chances for assassination."*

The Pope, however, protected his life, not from respect to the laws of hospitality, but, as Vidaillan proves, from mean and mercenary motives.

* Histoire Politique de l'Eglise. Vol. II.

"Innocent, for keeping the prince a close prisoner, received from Bayazid a pension of forty thousand crowns annually, and yet never ceased from his exhortations to take up arms against the Turk. But his sincerity was suspected, when it was known of what value to him was the presence of a guest so likely to be of service at the head of a Christian fleet or army. In vain did the Sultan of Egypt promise an enormous sum, and, what ought to have decided (one who claimed to be) the vicar of Jesus Christ, the possession of Jerusalem, which had cost Europe so many armies and so much treasures, and the sovereign pontiffs so many prayers; the pension paid by Bayazid was something substantial, which could not be overbalanced by the expectations and hopes offered by the Egyptian. It was in vain that Innocent had reason to fear the attempts of poisoners-that he once punished an assassin sent to rid the Turk of his fears; he kept fast hold of Zim-zim, received the tribute from Bayazid, levied the tenths to make war against him, and exhorted the Christian monarchs to commence it. But other events were preparing in Italy; and Bayazid, assured of the intentions of Innocent, was able at his pleasure to ravage Hungary and invade Germany. The Pope was his most powerful auxiliary.”

Can we be surprised that the next century witnessed the Reformation? and that Germany, thus at once plundered, insulted and betrayed, should produce the great reformer?

During the popedom of Alexander Borgia, the successor of Innocent, Charles VIII. invaded Italy, and forced the Pope to submit to his terms. Sismondi's account of the manner in which Borgia became the victim of his own artifices is very amusing.

"The Pope (Alexander VI.) was the dupe of his own policy. Devoid of principle, destitute of shame, incapable of scruple, he had acquired a character for cunning simply because he always attended to his own interests. But he had not formed a just idea of the power against which he measured himself; and for a moderate profit he hazarded a game that might have been very ruinous. He began to intrigue with France merely to terrify Ferdinand (King of Naples); he afterwards sold his friendship to the latter for favours granted to his natural children."*

Thus having brought Charles into Italy, with overwhelming forces, by one intrigue, he made that monarch his enemy by a second, and was fairly entangled in his own meshes. He was forced to give up Jem Shah, as one of the conditions of peace; but he caused poison to be administered to the prince, who died of its effects in the French camp at Capua. Evliya says, that Jem Shah was murdered by the Frankish monarch, at the instigation of Bayazíd.

"The ill-complexioned Frank caused a sallow-faced fellow to cut his throat while shaving him with a poisoned razor. . . . . There was a certain

* Histoire des Français. Vol. XV.

barber, named Yáu Oghli, who shaved him with a poisoned razor, which made his face and eyes swell, and he was suffocated."

This statement fully confirms the unanimous account given by the western historians, that Jem was the victim of treachery. We have already said that the Pope was called King of Frangistan by the Orientals, who know of no distinction between Christian sovereigns.

With the murder of Jem Shah, terminated the hopes of the re-establishment of the Greek empire. Charles VIII. had declared that he would invade Greece, accompanied by this prince; and associates were formed from the Balkan to Cape Matapan for a general insurrection; but Charles came not, and Bayazid wreaked his vengeance on the discontented. More than twenty thousand Christians perished on the scaffold (Mezeray says fifty thousand), victims of papal duplicity. But let not Borgia alone engross the infamy; the Republic of Venice shared deeply in the guilt; her nobles became spies for the Porte, and revealed to Bayazid the names of those who had planned a revolt. It is gratifying to find that such crimes passed not without retribution. The poisoner of Jem Shah died of poison, which he had prepared for another. Greece is now free, and Venice sunk into hopeless thraldom and degradation.

W. C. T.

THE CHURCH AND THE HOME MISSION.*

ATTACHED to the Established Church Home Mission, we were grieved to have put into our hands a pamphlet against it, addressed, by a clergyman of the diocese of Raphoe, to his clerical brethren of that diocese. We were sorry to find a clergyman of our church at once expressing himself, in a few words, fully acquainted with the important object which the Home Mission has in view, and deliberately sitting down to endeavour to impede its progress and defeat its purpose, without, at the same time, giving even a hint how, by other instrumentality, its important objects can be carried into execution.

Indeed, so far as appears in the reverend author's pamphlet, if he could uphold and maintain what he considers (we think very erroneously) the perfection of ecclesiastical discipline, he would not care if souls were left to perish. We premise, that we do not impute this disregard to souls to the author, but to his pamphlet, in which he states distinctly the object of the Home Missiongives it the full measure of his approbation, and then spends all his pages in arguing against the mission which aims at this excellent object, without one attempt to show that there is other machinery in operation to attain the object, or without proposing any other means for its attainment. And then what is the ground of his argument against the mission, whose object he admits to be so excellent? That it violates his views of church discipline -views which we feel a perfect confidence that we can prove to be most mistaken and erroneous.

We shall let our author speak for himself as to the excellence of the object of the Home Mission:

"The object of the Home Mission may be described in a few words; it is to spread the knowledge and the belief of the religion of Christ throughout the land. Such an object is worthy of the best exertions that man can employ for its attainment. Every Christian, every minister of Christ especially, must approve and applaud the design. On this part of the inquiry, therefore, I deem it to be quite unnecessary to dwell, as every one of you, my brethren, would undoubtedly regard it as the true and solid foundation of the happiness of our country, if that Gospel, which it is the business of us all to preach, were clearly, and plainly, and purely imprinted on the minds of all our countrymen, and placed in their hearts, to be as a fountain of living water, springing up into everlasting life.' I shall, therefore, proceed to the second point which I proposed for inquiry, the authority by which the Home Mission is founded."

* The Church and the Home Mission, addressed by the Author to his highly esteemed brethren, the Clergy of the Diocese of Raphoe. Londonderry. 1834.