mitted the greatest enormities were executed. So we collect that in the opinion of a Protestant historian it is a mere pretext for a Supreme Pontiff to deliver his own territories from the yoke of tyrants, who commit the greatest enormities. In a similar spirit Roscoe speaks of the alliance which Leo formed with the Emperor, who had hereditary claims on Italy, to expel the French, who were only unrighteous invaders. "The government of the French," we are informed, "had given great dissatisfaction, insomuch that many of the noble and principal inhabitants had quitted the city, and taken refuge in different parts of Italy." The Emperor was to restore Parma and Piacenza to the Holy See, the rightful owners of those territories, and whose sway its subjects were able to appreciate, for Roscoe says that the "inhabitants expressed the greatest satisfaction on being restored to the dominion of the Church." Yet he insinuates it was culpable on the part of the Pontiff to have entered into an alliance with the view of recovering his own territories from a tyranny so galling, that it drove the inhabitants from their homes, and made them hail their restoration to the Holy See with joy. And he is awfully scandalized at the cardinal legates of the Church marching in the midst of the papal army," preceded by their silver crosses," to the great degradation of their religion and office. Why so? Where could cardinal legates be better employed than in lending the high sanction of " their religion and office" to a "holy war, ," for the recovery of the patrimony of the Church from the oppression of a grinding tyranny? And where could the Cross be more fitly exhibited than as the symbol of the extension, or rather the restoration of its benign sway? That the sway of the Church was benign and mild, even Protestant historians, and the traditions and maxims of the middle ages amply attest. In that most valuable work of Gosselin, which the excellent translation of one of the Professors of Maynooth has recently placed before English readers, there are admirable observations as to the view which ought to be taken of the position of the Popes in the middle ages. And there is one passage in particular to which we crave attention: after alluding to the candid opinions of some able Protestant writers on the subject, the author observes, "The language of these Protestants is certainly a keen reproach to a great number of Catholic writers, who can never touch

on any of these delicate questions without introducing reflections most injurious to the Holy See and the Catholic Church." Referring especially to Leibnitz, he says: "The respect with which this great man, though a Protestant, has always spoken of the Popes, and his anxiety to exculpate them, are a lesson to some Catholics, who, pursuing a directly opposite course, labour to exaggerate all that is objectionable in the conduct or measures of the Popes; and who violate in this matter all the rules of decency and moderation." Most earnestly we commend these just, excellent, and stringent observations to "candid" Catholics, who in future may be tempted to circulate rash strictures upon so called" bad Popes."

66

But now we must beg the best attention of our readers to some remarkable observations of Roscoe, on the character of Leo X., which have an equal application to other pontiffs of whom we have spoken, and illustrate the views we have conveyed. Every word applies as well to Sixtus, Alexander, or Julius, as to Leo. From the time of his pontificate to the present day, numerous causes have concurred in giving rise to erroneous opinions and violent prejudices respecting him, into which it may be necessary to institute dispassionate inquiry. That distinguished excellence or even superior rank and elevation is certainly attended by envy and detraction has been the standing remark of all ages, but independently of this common ground of attack, Leo was from various circumstances the peculiar object of censure and abuse. This liability to misrepresentation commenced with his birth, which occurred in the bosom of a city at all times agitated with internal commotions, and where the preeminent station which his family had long occupied, rendered its members obnoxious to the attacks and reproaches of their political opponents. Hence almost all contemporary historians may be considered as partisans either warmly attached or decidedly adverse to him: a circumstance highly unfavourable to the impartiality of historical truth. Another source of the great diversity of opinion respecting this Pontiff is to be traced to the high office which he filled, and to the manner in which he conducted himself in the political concerns of his times." Let the reader remark what follows. "As many of the Italian potentates during the wars which desolated Italy attached themselves to the cause of foreign powers, in like manner several of the Italian historians

have espoused in their writings the interests of other nations, and have hence been led to regard the conduct of Leo with an unfavourable eye, as the result of a restless and ambitious disposition. This indifference to the independence and common cause of Italy is observable even in the greatest of Italian historians, and has led Guicciardini unjustly to deprecate, rather than duly to estimate the merits of the pontiff. The same dereliction of national and patriotic spirit is yet more apparent in Muratori; who has frequently written with too great a partiality to the cause of the French monarchy; a partiality which is perhaps to be ascribed to the close alliance which subsisted between them, and the ancestors of his great patrons, the family of Este. It may be further observed, that Leo frequently exerted his authority, and even employed his arms against the inferior potentates of Italy (the tyrants of whom he had been writing, as guilty of crimes too great to be expiated by a thousand deaths,) some of whom severely felt the weight of his resentment:" having been justly executed for the greatest enormities, and that these princes have had their annalists and panegyrists, who have not scrupled on many occasions to sacrifice the reputation of the pontiff to that of their patrons. To these may be added various other causes of offence, as well of a public as a private nature, unavoidably given by the pontiff in the course of his pontificate, and which afforded a plausible opportunity to those whom he had offended, of vilifying his private character, and loading his memory with calumny and abuse." There is not a word of which could not be equally as well applied to Alexander VI., to Sixtus, or to Julius, or to Leo, and much of it would be far more applicable to them than to him: for they were placed in circumstances far more trying, far more exposed to enmity and envy. It was Sixtus who commenced that movement on the part of the Holy See to recover its patrimony-which was continued by Alexander, carried on by Julius-and completed by Leo. He in a great degree realized the fruit of their labours. He found allies where they had only found foes; he came at a time when the contest was comparatively easy-when the rough work was donewhen the assailants of the Church had exhausted much of their hatred, and worked to the utmost the foul weapons of calumny. He encountered only the last efforts of the storm against which they had struggled, in its fullest and

fiercest violence. He consummated the great work, and that it was a good one is proved by the result, the purification of Italy. It is an undoubted fact, that in the Pontificate of Leo, Italy enjoyed a greater degree of prosperity than before the Papal territories had been restored.

66

The character ascribed to Leo may, in a great degree, be attributed to Alexander. For Paolo speaks of his fondness for literature, his patronage of art, his wonderful sagacity, and his humanity. If in this latter quality any should suppose it absurd to imagine that Alexander resembled him, let it be observed that other writers deny it to Leo; and as we have seen, the received motives for calumny which existed in one case, existed to a greater extent in the other. The historian of the Council of Trent says of Leo, " He would have been a perfect pontiff if to other accomplishments he had united some knowledge in matters of religion, and a greater inclination to piety to neither of which he appeared to pay any great attention." Even if this were so, it would be only proving that Leo was not a perfect pontiff, which we are far from affirming, either of him or of Alexander; but it is very far short of showing either of them to have been a bad Pope and Fra Paolo proceeds to say, "scandal always delights to affix her spots on the brightest characters, and that the attention which Leo paid to amusements was in part attributable to the manners of the age, his high rank, and his natural disposition, and describes it justly as an imperfection (although not a trifling one) in the pontiff's character. But other Italian historians give a far better character to Leo, and a contemporary states that he diligently sought out men who had signalized themselves, especially in theology, which refutes the slander of Fra Paolo Sarpi, that he paid no attention to religion. And this would of itself be sufficient to show how little we can rely on the statements disparaging or disgraceful to the characters of the Popes; how likely they are to be lying inventions, arising out of some of those numberless bad motives which lead men to calumny. Even Erasmus eulogizes Leo for three great blessings bestowed upon mankind-of which one was the restoration of Christian piety. And this was the Pontiff who utterly neglected religion! Verily it is enough to make one exclaim with the Psalmist, "I have said in my heart all men are liars!" Unquestionably all men are so who "speak

evil of dignities;" for the more the truth is enquired into, the more will it be found that if there is ever any truth in what they say, it is certain to be largely mixed with falsehood. Happily Leo had an Erasmus to vindicate his character by his unimpeachable testimony. Some pontiffs equally calumniated, have been less fortunate in their fame, and have had no contemporary champions, and have been thrown on the charity of posthumous vindicators.

This was the case with Alexander, with Julius, and with Sixtus. And of these not all have found defenders even among posterity. We believe that to no nobler task can the intellect of a Catholic be directed, than in the vindication of these victims of the malignity of calumny. It is not necessary to make them out perfect; enough, to prove them not to have been wicked. It is not necessary to show them saints; sufficient to remove scandal. Happy have we been to labour, however humbly, in so sacred a cause: in vindicating the character of the Vicars of Christ. If we shall have removed one stone of that mountain of scandal which slander has heaped upon their memories, we shall not deem our labour lost; partly because it may serve to stimulate others to bring finer faculties to the noble task. And although we should be well content to rescue the maligned Pontiffs from the imputation of vice, we do not desire to confine their champions to that limited issue, nor despair of their characters receiving a far more complete vindication. We know that it is not the bad, but the good who are the victims of calumny; and that as it is only the wicked who calumniate, it is only the virtuous who are calumniated; and that in the teaching of our Divine Lord it is not praise but slander which is the test of sanctity. Knowing this, we consider that to prove these Pontiffs calumniated, is a great step toward showing them to have been good: and therefore do not despair of the bad popes turning out after all the best. What has been done for Gregory VII., or Innocent VIII., may yet be done for a Sixtus IV., or a Julius II. aye even for an Alexander VI., and we have done something by general reasoning, or isolated illustrations, to establish if not the probability, at least the possibility, that to some future writer may be reserved the nobler triumph over calumny, the bringing out in light and truth the blackened characters of all the calumniated Pontiffs who are held up to execration as the bad popes.