too much praised for having so courageously and perseveringly exerted himself to preserve and extend the States of the Church; although there be some who, believing him to have been more given to the profession of arms than was compatible with his state, are inclined to give him scant credit." "The character of Julius," says Kraus, "though vehement and sometimes carrying him beyond the limits of moderation, was one of incomparable grandeur. He well deserved the most magnificent sepulchral monument of the prince of artists."2

When we reflect on the political and warlike character of this Pope, it need scarcely excite surprise in us to be told that the Emperor Maximilian, who had now become a widower, entertained designs of securing the papacy for himself,3 with the intention probably of combining the papal and the imperial dignity in one person. In this he was unsuccessful. The fifty cardinals, who went into conclave, elected the young Cardinal-deacon, Giovanni dei Medici, now in the thirtyeighth year of his age, who, on ascending the papal throne, March 19, A. D. 1513, took the name of Leo X. He had been ordained priest on the 15th of the same month, and consecrated bishop on the 17th. Leo was a true representative of his age. An ardent admirer of classic and humane culture, he possessed a refined taste, had a love of elegant literature, and was sincerely devoted to the arts and sciences. But, for all this, he was entirely destitute of the motives and spirit which should form the guiding principles in the life of an ecclesiastic, and was, moreover, lavishly extravagant.

The first exercise of his authority was to found a college for the publication of the Greek authors, under the superintendence of the celebrated Lascaris. The Vatican became the resort of savans, literati, and artists. Bembo and Sadolet,

4

1 Panvinio, Historia delle Vite dei Sommi Pontefici, Giulio II., p. 260. (TR.) 2 Michael Angelo's statue of Moses in the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli, Kraus, Ch. Hist., Vol. III., p. 436. (TR.)

3 The correctness of the rumor is proven by Aschbach (Dieringer's Cath. Jour. 1845). It was probably the conduct of some of the popes that inspired Guignecourt to say that the Church would get on quite as well without them. See the letter of the University of Paris to the antipope Clement VII., 1394. Albert Jäger, Relation of Emperor Maximilian to the Papacy, Vienna, 1854.

4 Cf. Audin, Life of Pope Leo X. (transl. from the Fr. into. Germ. by Burg, Augsburg, 1845, 2 vols.; into English by Turnbull, and also by Bishop McGill.

t

distinguished for the purity and elegance of their Latinity, were at once created cardinals and appointed his secretaries ; Bramante and the great universal genius, Michael Angelo, were at work upon St. Peter's, and Raphael, surnamed "The Divine,” was engaged in decorating the loggie and the stanze. The work of the Lateran Council, which Louis of France now acknowledged, was again taken up where it had been left off in the fifth session, on the death of Julius II.

The old question of reform was again discussed and decrees proposed which provided for a purer morality and a stricter discipline; proscribed the excessive study of the Pagan classics and the absurd doctrine that the world possessed a soul; denied that there existed an antagonism between philosophical and theological truths, and abolished the practice of the same person holding several ecclesiastical benefices, the possession of which would require incompatible duties; condemned the concubinage of the clergy and the employment of interdicts for trivial causes, and recommended the erection of Montes Pietatis, or establishments where the poor might obtain small loans at a trifling percentage, this being limited, by act of government, to what was barely necessary to defray expenses.

These salutary measures were received with indifference. The evil had grown to such vast dimensions that the men of that age lacked the nerve, the vigor, and the determination to look it steadily in the face, to grapple with it, and to persevere in the struggle till it should have been crushed, or at least rendered harmless. And, of all the men of his time, Leo was perhaps least fitted, either by nature or education, to undertake and conduct to a successful issue so difficult a task.1 He was far more intent on having the Pragmatic Sanction abolished, and in this he succeeded in a private interview he had with Francis I. at Bologna, in 1515. A concordat regulating the affairs of the French Church was drawn up by the

1

1 Raynald. ad an. 1513, nro. 97, relates the following incident: "When Leo X. was informed that almost the half of the prelates were demanding a reform of the whole body ecclesiastic in its head members, papa quasi subridens dixit, velle aliquantulum cogitare, ut omnibus satisfiat, et sic in prima sessione futura deliberare, quod omnium reformatio fiat, tam sui quam reformatorum!”

2

two parties and confirmed by the Council of Lateran,' but rejected by the French Parliament, which charged the King with abusing his authority because he firmly insisted on its acceptance. With this, Leo fancied that the object of the Council had been completely attained, and seemed either totally oblivious of, or entirely disregarded the decay that had come upon every branch of ecclesiastical discipline, and which, while it was eating into and poisoning the very life of the Church, was no uncertain token of the sad days that were soon to follow. Leo, after having made provision that the tithes of all benefices should, during the succeeding three years, be paid into the papal treasury for the purpose of defraying the expenses of a war against the Turks, dismissed the prelates at the close of the twelfth session, March 16, a. d. 1517.3

Thomas de Vio da Gaëta (Cajetanus), the General of the Dominican Order, had besought the Pope, as he valued the welfare of the Church, not to close the Council; but his foresight was not appreciated, nor were his words of warning heeded. The deplorable state of the Church at this time caused Gailer of Kaisersberg to utter these prophetic words: "Since neither the Pope, the Emperor, the King, nor the Bishops will undertake the work of reform, God will presently send one who will."

§ 275. Review of the Situation of the Papacy.

The one great object that occupied the minds and engaged the energies of all during this controversy, was to define both in theory and practical working the exact limits of papal

1 Textus integer Concordator. inter Leon. X. et Franc. I. (Harduin, T. IX., p. 1867-1890.)

2 Relation de ce qui se passa sur la publication et l'enseignement du Concordat au Parlement de Paris. Münch's Collection of all Concordats, Pt. I., p. 225, and Richerii Histor. Conc., lib. IV., P. II., c. 4, nr. 13.

3 Roscoe, Life and Pontificate of Leo X., Liverpool, 1804, 4 vols. 4to; London, 1806, 6 vols.; transl. into Italian: Vita e Pontificato di Leone X., etc. (free compilation), Milano, 1816, 12 vols.; Germ. by Glaser, with annotations by Henke, Lps. 1806 sq., 3 vols.; Vienna, 1818. Fabroni, Vita Leon. X., Pisis, 1797, 4to. Ranke, The Popes of Rome, their Church and State during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Berlin, 1834 sq., Vol. I., p. 71 sq., p. 80-90 of ed. 2.

authority, to restore it to its primitive and normal condition. Two very different and diametrically opposite ways were pursued to reach this end-the one led straight to a centralization of all power in the hands of the episcopacy; the other, scarcely less direct, to an attempt to erect the papacy into an absolute monarchy. The advocates of the former theory were the Fathers of the Councils of Constance and Basle, and preëminently the celebrated' theologians, Henry of Langenstein (de Hassia), Gerson, Peter d'Ailly, Nicholas de Cusa, Nicholas de Clemange, and others. These maintained that the temporal power was wholly independent of the spiritual authority; that ecumenical councils were possessed of supreme legislative authority, including within its range even the Pope himself, who, they said, is indeed the administrative (caput ministeriale ecclesiae), but not the constituent Head of the Church; and, that, since his authority is dependent upon that of the episcopacy, it is lawful to appeal from his decision to the judgment of a council. "All bishops," said Nicholas de Cusa, "have their power immediately from God; and, hence, questions of rank and priority relate entirely to the exercise of this power, and must be settled by established rules, which are, on this very account, subsidiary to, and not of the essence of, the power itself. Christ, in addressing Peter, spoke to all the other apostles as well, and committed to him no special grant of power.1 The Pope is, therefore, only the first among equals (primus inter pares).”

These erroneous opinions were the underlying principles of a complete system whose aim and scope centered in the one purpose of degrading the authority of the Holy See, and of unduly restricting the rights and prerogatives which had been freely accorded to it during the lapse of a long course of ages. To make matters worse, secular princes strengthened the hands of these unworthy ecclesiastics, and busied themselves in throwing fresh difficulties in the way of a settle

ment.

To defend this theory of episcopal authority a pretense was made of an appeal to history, but only incidentally and with

1 Nic. Cusan., De concord. cath., lib. II., c. 4–13.

partisan dishonesty. Thus, Nicholas de Cusa1 proved the Decretals of Isidore Mercator to be spurious, and Laurentius Valla showed that the so-called Donation of Constantine was a forgery, as if either, or both, whether genuine or otherwise, would in the least affect papal authority.

On the other hand, the Popes showed no disposition either to contract the limits of their spiritual authority, or to relinquish any part of that supreme power which they had acquired. Their defenders, among whom were Turrecremata, Thomas of Sarzano, and others equally distinguished, also appealed to history, where they had certainly the advantage of their adversaries, and contended that the spiritual authority was necessarily above the secular; that the Pope was the source of all episcopal jurisdiction, and superior to an ecumenical council.

2

Toward the close of this period the Dominican, Thomas de Vio of Gaëta (Cajetanus), and James Almain, a doctor of the Sorbonne, were the two most prominent advocates of these two schools of opinion. It is unfortunate that the disputants, in the heat of controversy, should have lost sight of the only practicable way of adjusting the difficulty. Had they taken the pains to read history aright they would have learned, first, that without the centralized power of the papacy the Church could never have come safe through the disorders and anarchy of the Middle Ages, and next, that the schism could not have been closed except by the application of the principles advanced by the advocates of episcopal rights. The line of procedure had been clearly traced out by Nicholas V. in an address made by him to the embassadors of the electoral princes, sent to Rome to congratulate him on his election to the papacy. "It is indeed true," said he, "that the Popes have so far extended their authority beyond just limits, that they have finally absorbed that of the bishops;

1

1 Ibid., lib. II., c. 34; lib. III., c. 2 and 3. Concerning Laurentius Valla, see Vol. I., p. 42, note 2, and Fascicul. rer. expetendarum, etc., fol. 64–80, ed. Colon. 1535.

2

Cajetani Tractat. de comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Conc. (Rocaberti Bibl. max. Pontificia, T. XIX.) Jac. Almaini Tract. de auctor. eccl. et Concilior. gener. (Gersonii Opp., ed du Pin, T. II., p. 976.)