only to aid him in the recovery of his dominions, it was not inconsistent with his engagements, to join the Venetians, after their submission, in order to force back the French to their own territories, since he never meant to sacrifice the independence of Italy. His princely qualities are witnessed by Ranke: "He endeavored everywhere to appear as a liberator: he treated his new subjects wisely and well, and secured their attachment and fidelity."

It may be difficult to satisfy all readers of the justice of the measures which the Pontiffs, in their capacity of sovereigns, have from time to time adopted; nor is it necessary that they should meet our approval. "We must distinguish," as Voltaire well observes, "the Pontiff from the sovereign." As Catholics, we are not concerned with the temporal administration of the Roman States, and need not inquire whether it has been just and paternal, or whether the sovereign has maintained the proper relations to foreign powers. Even the personal character of the Popes no further interests us than as we should naturally desire that the Chief Bishop of the Church should sustain the purity of the Christian law by the influence of his example. Thanks be to Heaven, the general conduct of the successors of Peter has been worthy of their station, and may well be referred to as serving to recommend that authority, which they have exercised for the interests of truth and piety.

Partiality for their relatives, whom they employed in offices of high importance with great revenues, has brought censure on several of the Popes, whose personal conduct was blameless. Nepotism, as this vice is technically styled, has caused, no doubt, great evils to the Church; but it is so natural to favor our own kindred, that it should not be condemned too severely, unless the individuals be unworthy. In fact, we owe to the fond affection of Pius IV. for his nephew, Charles Borromeo, the immense advantages which the Church at large derived from his labors and examples, in the high offices which his uncle lavished on him when but scarcely arrived at manhood. Had the holy Pontiff, Benedict XIII., called to his Council his relatives, who were persons of high probity and exemplary piety, the abuse which an upstart favorite made of his confidence, would have been avoided. Nevertheless, it is but rarely that relatives do not avail themselves of their position for self-aggrandizement; and several Pontiffs might say, at the close of a career otherwise illustrious, with Paul III.: "Had not my relatives ruled, I should have been without stain." The austere virtue of Paul IV. was not proof against the blinding influence of kindred ties; and too late he discovered the iniquities and oppression practised in his name by the Caraffas, whom he at once banished from his court, leaving to his successor, Pius IV., the sad office of condemning one of them to an ignominious death.

Many of the Popes evinced heroic detachment from flesh and blood, not

History of the Popes, l. ii. ch. ii. p. 52.

† Ubi supra.

being willing that the natural ties should contract their hearts, which were made to embrace the entire world. Clement IV. and Martin IV. were distinguished for this virtue. When the brother of Martin repaired to court, the Pope dismissed him, with a small gift to meet the expenses of his journey, observing that he could not employ the riches of the Church as if they were his paternal estate. Leo XI., during a short pontificate of seventeen days, gave evidence of an inflexible determination to indulge no human affection with danger to the interests of religion, since he resisted the pressing solicitations of the cardinals to raise his nephew to their rank. The eleventh Innocent, during thirteen years of pontifical administration, kept himself free from all imputation of inordinate attachment to his relatives. Innocent XII., who called the poor his nephews, made stringent decrees against nepotism. Clement XI., his successor, who during eleven years deferred the promotion of his relatives, although they were men of distinguished merit, on his deathbed could say with truth, that conscience alone had regulated his course in their regard. When the learned and facetious Lambertini was raised to the pontifical throne, under the name of Benedict XIV., he ordered his nephew, who was a senator of Bologna, not to come to Rome until invited, and he took care never to give the invitation. Clement XIV. could not be prevailed on to send special messengers to apprise his three sisters of his elevation, observing that they were not wont to receive ambassadors, and that the poor of Christ were his family. No one could prevail on him to admit any of his relatives to his presence, or to send them any gift. Pius VII. and Leo XII., among the Pontiffs of our own age, have merited the praise of similar detachment. When Pius VIII. was chosen to fill St. Peter's chair, he wrote affectionate letters to his nephews, warning them, however, not to indulge in any pomp or pride, but to pray to God in his behalf. "Let none of you," said he, "leave his dwelling or post. We love you in God."

I shall now relieve the reader from this prolonged investigation, with an appeal to his conscience, whether there ever has existed any series of rulers in the Church or in the State, so illustrious as the succession of Roman Bishops. They have been the defenders of the faith, the fathers of the poor, the friends of order and virtue, and the benefactors of society. While intent on executing the divine commission to teach all nations, they have not considered it inconsistent with their sublime office to cherish genius and reward industry, fostering art, literature, and science, with at partiality that might appear extreme. If a cloud has sometimes passed over that See, which shines in the Church like the sun in the firmament, it soon passed away, and left the world in admiration of its undiminished splendor. Sooner shall the orb of day be extinguished, than the prayer of Christ for Peter fail.

CATALOGUE OF THE POPES.

FIRST CENTURY.

1. ST. PETER from the East, where he founded the See of Antioch, passed to Rome; returned to the East when the Jews were expelled by Claudius; returned to Rome, and died a martyr with St. Paul, on 29th June, 66.*

2. St. LINUS M.† He died a martyr in 67. Berti says in 76.-Eccl. Hist. Brev.

3. ST. ANACLETUS M.‡

4. ST. CLEMENT M.§

SECOND CENTURY.

5. ST. EVARISTUS M. sat to 108.

6. ST. ALEXANDER M. sat from 2 March, 108, to 3 May, 116.

7. ST. SIXTUS I. M. sat from 116 to 3 July, 126.

8. ST. TELESPHORUS M. died in 137.

9. ST. HYGINUS M. died 10 January, 141.

10. ST. PIUS I. sat ten years, four months, and three days.

11. ST. ANICETUS M. During his pontificate Polycarp came to Rome, in 158. Anicetus died in 161.

According to Foggini and Tillemont. Pagi says, 65. The testimony of the ancient writers is unanimous as to the establishment of the Church of Rome by Peter and Paul, and as to their martyrdom at Rome. It is not easy, however, to determine the precise year of the first visit of Peter to Rome, or of the martyrdom of both apostles.

Tertullian (1. de præscript.) says that the Roman Church proves the succession of her bishops by pointing to Clement, ordained by Peter; but this does not necessarily imply that he was the immediate successor of the apostle. Irenæus, who was prior to Tertullian, states distinctly that Linus received from Peter the administration of the Church, and immediately succeeded him.

Cletus and Anacletus are found in ancient catalogues, and the learned are not agreed as to their identity. St. Irenæus makes no mention of Cletus, and styles Sixtus the sixth from the apostles, which excludes Cletus. Berti says that Cletus succeeded Linus, and died in 89.

Clement is put before Anacletus in the list of St. Augustin (Ep. 1. iii. alias clv.,) and in the chronicle of Damasus. Berti says that Anacletus sat during the two years of the exile of Clement. I have followed Irenæus. Pagi says that Clement governed from 67 to 77, and then abdicated. Berti says that he sat from 89 to 98, and after two years spent in banishment underwent martyrdom by drowning. His martyrdom is assigned to 23 November, 10

12. ST. SOTER M. sat until 170.

13. ST. ELEUTHERIUS M. sat from 170 until 185.*

14. ST. VICTOR I. M. sat from 12th June, 185, until 28th July, 197.

15. ST. ZEPHYRINUS M. sat from 7th August, 197, until 12th July, 217.

THIRD CENTURY.

16. ST. CALLISTUS I. M. sat from 217 until 28th September, 222.

17. ST. URBAN I. M. sat from 222 until 24th May, 230.

18. ST. PONTIAN M. sat from 230 until 14th March, 235.

19. ST. ANTEROS M. sat from 21st November, 235, until 3d January, 236.

20. ST. FABIAN M. elected 11th January, 236, sat until 20th January, 250.

21. ST. CORNELIUS M. died in banishment on 14th September, 252. St. Cyprian styles him martyr, he having been banished for the faith, although his death was not violent.

22. ST. LUCIUS M. died on 4th March, 253.

23. ST. STEPHEN M. elected on 13th May, 253, sat until 2d August, 257.

24. ST. XYSTUS II. M. died on 6th August, 258.

25. ST. DIONYSIUS sat from 22d July, 259, until 26th December, 269. 26. ST. FELIX I. elected on 28th December, 269, died on 22d December, 274.

27. ST. EUTYCHIAN elected on 5th January, 275, died on 7th December,

283.

28. ST. CAJUS elected on 15th December, 283, died on 21st April, 296. 29. ST. MARCELLINUS elected on 30th June, 296, died on 24th October, 304.

FOURTH CENTURY.

30. ST. MARCELLUS I., after an interregnum, sat one year and six months, and died 16th January, 310.

31. ST. EUSEBIUS elected 5th February, sat until 21st June.

32. ST. MILTIADES elected on 2d July, 310, died on 10th January, 314. 33. ST. SYLVESTER I. elected on 30th January, 314, died on 31st December, 335.

34. ST. MARK created Pope 18th January, 336, died 7th October, 336. 35. ST. JULIUS I. elected on 26th October, 336, (6th February, 337, according to Pagi,) sat until 12th April, 352.

The list of St. Irenæus closes with Eleutherius. Hegesippus, a convert from Judaism, composed a list at the same time.