Part 2 — THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL, BY JANUS. III.

Of all arguments brought forward by Janus to undermine what he would term the historical groundwork of papal supremacy, and the prerogatives exercised by the successors of St. Peter, none seem to have greater weight, or more forcibly convince his admirers, than the long narration on "Forgeries;" and hence throughout his work the "Isidorian fabrications" play a great rôle. Ostensibly these forgeries are developed at great length with a view of merely overthrowing and combating this "powerful coalition" of ultramontanism, but in reality the arguments deduced from these forgeries go far beyond this avowed intention of our authors.

Up to the ninth century no change had taken place in the constitution of the church, as they readily admit:

"But in the middle of that century, about 845, arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals, which had results far beyond what its author contemplated, and gradually but surely changed the whole constitution and government of the church." (P. 76.)

1st. In our first article (p. 330) we have already pointed out this illogical inconsistency of Janus, when assuming a lawful development of the constitution of the church in the first eight centuries; whereas he by no means defines what he understands by a lawful development of the divine constitution of the ancient church. How can he, therefore, decide that the Isidorian decretals wrought an entire and unlawful development of the rights and privileges of the primacy?

2d. If the picture of the organization of the ancient church is quietly, and as a matter of course, presented as one of divine origin,[209] we have no hesitation in declaring that picture a false one, and contrary to the most ancient history of the church. It cannot even claim apostolic origin in so comprehensive a meaning as Janus would have it. The different grades of the hierarchy, established between the primacy and episcopacy, is the result of a historical development, whereas divine institution can only be claimed for the primacy and episcopacy themselves.[210]

What difference is there between bishops as to power and jurisdiction over one another by divine right? If patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans have exercised certain prerogatives greater than those enjoyed by other bishops, will Janus tell us that this is owing to divine origin? How, then, will he account for the fact that no such distinction was universally acknowledged[211] until the third century in the east? nay more, that in the west there were no metropolitans before the latter half of the fourth century, if we except Africa, and even in this latter country many bishops were exempt, and directly subject to the see of Rome?[212]

It is a notorious fact, though Janus elsewhere so boldly denies it, that the bishops of Rome deputed other bishops as their representatives in many provinces, who by that very fact exercised authority over other bishops, because to them the popes delegated the exercise of primatial prerogatives. Thus, the Bishop of Thessalonica is constituted, by the pope, Primate of Illyricum, and the Bishop of Arles, Primate of Gaul.

There are still many letters of the popes addressed to the bishops of Thessalonica as early as the fourth century, by Innocent I., Boniface I., Celestine I., and Sixtus III., wherein instructions are given concerning the exercise of the special power conferred on them.[213] Hence it came to pass that certain episcopal sees retained that high rank granted to their first incumbents, either as primates or metropolitans, after having acted in the beginning in the quality of apostolic legates. St. Leo the Great, in his letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, says:

"We have intrusted our charge in such a way to you that you are called on to share our solicitude, not possessing the plenitude of power."[214]

To grant to the Bishop of Rome the honor of being the "first patriarch," is nothing less than ignoring or setting aside numerous and indubitable facts long before the existence of the Isidorian decretals.[215] We should like to be informed by Janus and his abettors where the documents exist proving the rights of patriarchs as of divine institution? All canonists of any repute maintain that the preëminence of rank and jurisdiction accorded to patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans is not due to the episcopate by divine institution; but, on the contrary, all agree that this is a concession, whether express or tacit, on the part of the popes of Rome as successors of Peter, being admitted by them to a participation of their primatial prerogatives. Hence all are the representatives of the primacy, whenever they are appealed to as a higher tribunal, and as such can only lawfully hold this preëminence among their brother bishops as long as they do not come in conflict with the divinely established order in the church, which consists in the principle that the pope possesses, by divine ordinance, jurisdiction over the entire episcopate. Pope St. Leo the Great gives a beautiful portrait of this organization in the church very dissimilar from that of Janus.[216]

"The connection of the whole body demands unanimity, and especially unity among the prelates. While the dignity is common to all, there is no general equality of order; because even among the blessed apostles, though sharing the same honor, there was a difference of power, (quædam discretio potestatis,) and while all were equally chosen, yet to one was given the prerogative of presiding over the others.[217] From which precedent also arose a distinction among bishops, and with perfect order was it enacted that all should not in like manner assume all powers, but that there be in every province some who exercise the right of first judges among their brethren; and again, that there should be some (bishops) in the larger cities possessing more ample powers, through whom the care of the universal church devolves upon the one chair of Peter, and that in this manner there may never be any separation from the head."

3d. According to Janus, Nicolas I., by means of the Isidorian forgery,

"opened to the whole clergy in east and west a right of appeal to Rome, and made the pope the supreme judge of all bishops and clergy of the whole world." (P. 79.)

That "bold but non-natural" torturing of the seventeenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon attributed to Nicolas I., is nothing else but a pure fiction on the part of Janus. The letter sent by the pope to the Emperor Michael III. is a document evincing the learning, sagacity, and prudence of Nicolas I., in that grave disturbance caused by Photius and corrupt courtiers against the lawful patriarch, Ignatius of Constantinople.

When the latter, for the conscientious discharge of his pastoral duty and vigilance toward a licentious court, had been violently deposed, and Photius, a relative of the emperor, put in his place, recourse was had to Rome to obtain sanction of these proceedings. The pope sent legates to Constantinople to investigate the matter laid before him; these in their turn, being partly misled, partly bribed, ratified all that had been done. Pope Nicolas, upon hearing this, excommunicated the legates and annulled the election of Photius. The latter, seconded by the intrigues of the court, protested against this act of the pope whose authority he had previously invoked. Hence, Nicolas I., in the above-mentioned letter, reasons by analogy that the seventeenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon, respecting appeals to primates or to the patriarch of Constantinople, was in a higher sense applicable to the Bishop of Rome.[218] It clearly follows from the canon in question[219] that it merely intended to regulate the several instances of appeal for clerics, and alluded to the special privilege of appealing to the Patriarch of Constantinople.[220]

In the present instance, however, is it not evident that the patriarch could not be his own judge, and, since a final decision was demanded, on whom did this right devolve, we may ask, if not on the Bishop of Rome? A similar and even more striking argument may be seen in the letter addressed by Nicolas I. to the Frankish king, Charles the Bald. Rothad, Bishop of Soissons, having been deposed by Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, appealed to Pope Nicolas, who, after examining, caused the bishop to be restored; and in his reasons for doing so sustains, first, the divine right of the chair of Peter to receive appeals and to act as supreme judge; and then goes on stating that, as the canon of Chalcedon granted the right of judging to the primates or to the see of Constantinople, in like manner also, and with much more reason, must the same rule be observed regarding the right of the see of Rome. If, therefore, adds the pope, Rothad of Soissons appealed to the chair of Peter conformably to the Synod of Sardica, this action was perfectly lawful, and there were many precedents for this in history; as, for example, the appeals made by St. Athanasius to Julius I. and St. John Chrysostom to Innocent I.[221] Here, then, the reader will judge of the historical fairness of our authors, when asserting that Pope Nicolas I., by torturing a single word against the sense of a whole code of law, "managed to give a turn to a canon of a general council."

Are we to believe, upon the sole word and authority of Janus, that the whole constitution of the church underwent a change by means of these Isidorian decretals, when so many men, distinguished for their learning and deep researches, have exploded this theory long ago advanced by the Magdeburg Centuriators? It is certainly nothing else than presumption and arrogance to disparage the knowledge and science of so many eminent men,[222] who unanimously agree on the following points: 1. That the pseudo-Isidorian decretals were not written with a view of exalting the papal power, but rather that of the bishops. 2. That the contents of this collection are, for the most part, taken from ancient and genuine documents. 3. That the fictitious decretals contained therein are quite generally known, and even these imply nothing novel or contradictory to the then established discipline of the church. 4. It is certain that this collection was not compiled at Rome, and much less known or used by Pope Nicolas as a genuine document of binding force.

It will be necessary to support these points by a few and, we hope, unexceptionable arguments. Janus might have indeed spared himself the pains of such a minute and tedious disquisition on these Isidorian forgeries, as many[223] of similar disposition with himself made extensive use of this unauthorized collection of pseudo-Isidore, in order to show upon what grounds were based the principles of the present constitution of the church, and particularly that the prerogatives exercised by the Roman see rested on these forged documents. If the power of the Bishop of Rome had no other foundation but the Isidorian forgery, then indeed might we be obliged to join in the triumphant chorus of Janus and his abettors; but the question, not to be misplaced or adroitly shifted, is simply this: Did the prerogatives exercised by the popes need these forgeries to establish the lawfulness of their claims? It is to no purpose to conceal and cover up, as it were, the principle in question by tedious and showy digressions—whether these decretals were fictitious and whether they were used; but the whole problem to be solved is, Has the pseudo-Isidorian collection introduced or enforced an innovation in the ancient constitution of the church, as it was in vigor at that period, or were the principles enunciated by pseudo-Isidore conformable to the doctrine of the church and in accordance with the canons of former councils, or not? What does it matter whether one or another theologian, and even a pope, made use of these decretals, not doubting of their genuineness, and consequently deceived, provided nothing new and unwarranted by previous tradition was thereby acknowledged or enacted? If such a theologian as St. Thomas Aquinas was deceived as to a spurious passage of St. Cyril, and followed herein by Bellarmine, is that enough to condemn their whole system or to impeach their honesty?

We might by such a method of arguing overthrow the entire historical edifice of the first thousand years of the church, and begin to build up a new system on this tabula rasa with the aid of this hypercritical process of Janus and his school, and we scarcely doubt but that he himself would be in the worst plight.

It is certainly true that the author of the Isidorian decretals, as he himself avows in the preface, wished to give a complete code of ecclesiastical laws to the clergy, though for the greater part he insists on such points of discipline as were at that time greatly endangered and often neglected.

"The immediate object," says Janus, "of the compiler of this forgery was to protect bishops against their metropolitans and other authorities, so as to secure absolute impunity." (P. 77.)

This should be effected, of course, by the right of appealing to Rome, and, consequently, making the pope the supreme judge of all the bishops and clergy, that is, of the entire church. These are the principles that worked their way and became dominant; and that they "revolutionized the whole constitution of the church, introducing a new system in place of the old on that point," our authors assert "there can be no controversy among candid historians." (P. 79.) With all deference to the historical erudition of our authors, we cannot refrain from interrogating history and assuring ourselves of the truth of these grave charges.

Having once granted that Christ intrusted Peter and his successors with the chief care of his flock—both pastors and people—it is impossible to suppose that in this supreme charge should not be included the right of hearing appeals and giving final decision; for where could this preëminence find any application, if the whole church be thus cut off from communicating with its head?

The Synod of Sardica had formally defined this right of hearing appeals in several of its canons, as our authors acknowledge, though their efforts to cancel this ancient testimony and to do away with the binding force of these canons are useless and unavailing; for the canons of the Council of Sardica[224] did nothing more than solemnly acknowledge what had been handed down from apostolic times, attesting the doctrine of the church as fully practised long before. We may be permitted to signalize two most remarkable and indubitable instances from history. Marcianus, Bishop of Arles, having espoused the heretical doctrine of Novatian, was denounced by Faustinus of Lyons, and other bishops, to the see of Rome; at the same time Faustinus also informed St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who, in his turn, begged Pope Stephen to terminate this affair by his power as supreme pastor of the church, requesting the deposition of Marcianus and the appointment of another in his place.[225] Another no less conspicuous proof we find in the fact of the two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial, in which case St. Cyprian[226] approved of the action of Pope Stephen, and saw no usurpation of power when the latter restored Basilides to his bishopric, and only regretted that by a false statement of facts the pope was misled and deceived.[227] Our argument becomes more conclusive from the following great event in the eastern church, where the jurisdiction in the greater causes (causæ majores) appears in most resplendent light. In the case of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, when the Eusebians,[228] supported by the weak and tyrannical Emperor Constantius, drove him from his episcopal see, we find, first, that a numerous assembly of Egyptian bishops who met at Alexandria appealed to Pope Julius I. After the Arian Synod of Antioch in 314, Gregory, a Cappadocian, was forced on the episcopal see of Athanasius, and the latter, with the Bishops Marcellus of Ancyra, Lucius of Adrianople, Asclepas of Gaza, Paul of Constantinople, and many others, fled to Rome, imploring the protection of Pope Julius, who caused a synod to be held in 343, at which a great number of eastern prelates from Thrace, Cœlésyria, Phœnicia, and Palestine attended. The case of St. Athanasius and his fellow-exiles was examined, and they were declared innocent of the charges brought against them, and reinstated in their sees, from which only violence and force kept them for some time. Here, then, we have another argument for these high prerogatives exercised by the Bishop of Rome four years before the Synod of Sardica. Confront this fact with the following passage from our authors:

"Only after the Sardican Council, and in reliance solely on it, or the Nicene, which was designedly confounded with it, was a right of hearing appeals laid claim to."[229]

We have to deal with men of far too evasive minds, in the authors of this "contribution to ecclesiastical history," to limit ourselves to any one point of their argumentation. If, on the one hand, we adduce from history long before the existence of the Isidorian forgeries, the testimony of such great and holy popes as Innocent I.,[230] Zozimus,[231] Boniface I.,[232] Celestine I., Leo the Great,[233] Gelasius I.,[234] and even before, Julius I.,[235] (337 to 352,) who all claim, assert, and exercise the right of final decision as supreme judges for both east and west, from whom there is no appeal, and this, too, in all great and weighty matters, (graviora negotia,) as Pope Gelasius says; then we are told that this right rests only on the canons of Sardica, and that the "fathers gave the see of Rome the privilege of final decision." If, on the other hand, we show ourselves satisfied with so ancient and indubitable an authority as the great Synod of Sardica, why, then, does Janus resort to the simple expedient of declaring that the "Sardican canons were never received at all in the east"? Nor can his bon-mot, in styling greater causes (in which final decision is reserved to the Roman see) an "elastic term," supply the want of logic and historical accuracy. A slight acquaintance with the historical incidents connected with the Council of Sardica[236] will at once convince every unbiased mind that the opposition came from a party of reckless Eusebians, who withdrew from the synod when they could not attain their nefarious object, and repaired to Philippolis in order to crown their treacherous proceeding by excommunicating such holy and illustrious prelates as Athanasius and the aged Hosius, legate of Pope Julius, and even the pontiff himself, who remained steadfast in their defence of the Nicene doctrines. And such are the reasons, let it be observed, which cause Janus to say that the canons of Sardica were not at all received in the east. What can be a more convincing proof than their insertion into collections or codes of law compiled by official authority,[237] having been inserted not only in the Latin collection of Dionysius,[238] under the pontificate of Anastasius II., about the year 498, and later in the Spanish code called Liber Canonum, commonly attributed to Isidore of Seville, but also in the Greek collection of canons by John Scholasticus, and in the Nomocanon compiled by the same author, who died Patriarch of Constantinople in 578.[239]

From these premises we arrive at the following conclusions: 1st, that the right of appeal to Rome and her jurisdiction, in all greater causes, was taught and practised in the church at least four centuries before the Isidorian decretals were known; 2d, that the jurisdiction of the pope as supreme judge of the whole church is triumphantly attested by historical documents of the same age; 3d, that the canons of Sardica acknowledged a divine right of the bishops of Rome—merely introducing a new form that affected the application and exercise of this right, from which, however, the popes could deviate for reasons of wise and prompt administration.[240]

In this connection we must briefly notice another charge made by Janus, namely, that on the fabrication of pseudo-Isidore,

"was based the maxim that the pope, as supreme judge of the church, could be judged by no man." (P. 78.)

In this maxim our authors discover the foundation of the edifice of papal infallibility already laid. If such be the case, let us inquire whether this maxim was not known before pseudo-Isidore. A synod of Rome held in 378, under Pope Damasus, declared in a letter to the Emperor Gratian[241] that it was sanctioned by ancient custom that the Bishop of Rome, since his case was not submitted to a general council, should answer for himself before the council of the emperor; but this was only to be understood in accusations of civil and political offences. The highest judicial authority in the church having been vested by Christ in Peter and his successors, their voice was the judgment from which there was no appeal; neither did any bishop or any assembly of bishops receive power over the head of the church. This principle, acknowledged by civil codes in temporal principalities, was likewise solemnly affirmed by the Roman synod in the year 501, which was called by King Theodoric to examine the complaints brought against Pope Symmachus, and to judge him accordingly. But behold the declaration of the assembled bishops, protesting that it belonged to the bishop of the apostolic chair of Peter to convene a synod; for it was a thing unheard of that the high-priest of the aforesaid see should be placed in judgment before his own subjects.[242] The bishops pronounced that he was innocent before men, and left all to the tribunal of God. An apology, written for this Roman synod by the Deacon Ennodius,[243] afterward Bishop of Pavia, declared that a council on the more important affairs could be assembled only by the pope, or at least must be confirmed by him. Another striking passage illustrating this principle is to be found in the letter of Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, addressed to the senators of the city of Rome in the name of the bishops of Gaul, as follows:

"That the pope, as superior, could be judged by no one according to reason or law; and that if this privilege of the pope be called in question, the whole episcopacy would be shaken."[244]

Janus likewise lets Pope Nicolas assert, on the strength of the Isidorian forgery, "that the Roman Church keeps the faith pure, and is free from every stain." (P. 80.) Now, who does not know that beautiful testimony of St. Irenæus, according to which "the whole church, that is, all the faithful, must be in union with this church, on account of its more powerful principality; in which communion the faithful of the whole world have preserved the tradition that was handed down by the apostles"?[245]

That the words in question employed by St. Irenæus, propter potentiorem principalitatem, are by no means capable of the construction as meaning greater antiquity, is clearly demonstrated by Dr. Döllinger.[246] St. Irenæus likewise concludes from the uninterrupted succession of bishops in the Church of Rome by saying, "When, therefore, you know the faith of this church, you have learned the faith of the others." St. Cyprian, too, uses the following expressive language, "He who does not preserve the unity of this church, how can he hold the faith?"[247]

Theodoret, about the year 440, calls the Roman see

"That most holy see which possesses the supremacy of the churches in the whole world, in virtue of many privileges, and above all others, of this one, that she has always remained free from the stain of heresy; nor has any one had possession of it holding any thing contrary to faith, but she has preserved entire this apostolic privilege!"[248] "Nec ullus fidei contraria sentiens in illa sedit, sed apostolicum gratiam integram servavit."

We might multiply our references[249] on this point to exhibit the historical fabrications of Janus and his school; but we trust that all judicious and discriminating minds will have come to the conclusion, from the testimonies already adduced, that the pseudo-Isidorian principles have neither changed nor revolutionized the ancient constitution of the church, and that the papal prerogatives, at which our authors seem so very much incensed, did not stand in need of forgeries—least of all, of those that came from the "Isidorian workshop;" and we, at the same time, apprehend that they will have to go further back—perhaps to the apostolic fathers—to trace another history of the constitution of the church and the prerogatives claimed by the successors of St. Peter.

As to the materials from which these Isidorian decretals were formed, we may briefly state that they were ancient documents to which the author had access. In many instances he attributes some genuine letters of popes to others than their real authors, and many other spurious documents had already been inserted in private collections, as the brothers Ballerini have demonstrated most clearly by their profound researches. Sixteen pieces of this kind are enumerated by them.[250] According to the most ancient code, this collection of pseudo-Isidore is divided into three parts, as we find in the Codex Vaticanus, n. 630, recorded by Ballerini; and in more recent times,[251] this codex being brought into the library of Paris, Camus compared it again with four other manuscript codices.[252] Part I. comprises the fifty apostolic canons which were compiled about the time of the Council of Chalcedon, as is generally supposed; fifty-nine spurious letters of the first thirty popes, from Clement to Melchiades;[253] the introduction to the whole is taken partly from the old Spanish collection, which circulated under the name of St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Part II. gives, after a brief preface, the false act of donation by the Emperor Constantine;[254] two introductory pieces, one taken from the Spanish code, the other from the Gallic code;[255] lastly, the acts of Greek, African, Gallic, and Spanish councils, as the Spanish code of the year 683 recorded them. In the third part we find another introduction copied from the Spanish collection, and then follow in order of time the decretals of the popes, from Sylvester (died 335) to Gregory II., (died 731.) Among these latter there are thirty-five forged letters and several false councils, though, let it be clearly understood, in many portions the contents of these forged decretals corresponded to genuine documents which the author extracted for this purpose.[256] Two councils are falsely attributed to Pope Symmachus. All these records of pseudo-Isidore cover the whole field of ecclesiastical discipline; they are partly dogmatical, directed against the errors of the Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites; partly they contain moral precepts and exhortations; partly they refer to liturgy, giving the accompanying ceremonies to the administration of the sacraments; another no less conspicuous part is the enactments of papal decrees and canons of councils, regarding the protection of the clergy against arbitrary oppression, accusations, and depositions, the security of ecclesiastical property, the dignity and rights of the Roman Church, the appeals to the apostolic see, and the prerogatives of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops. From all this we can infer, that the object of the author in compiling this code was a very comprehensive one, and he drew quite copiously from the Scriptures, from the Roman pontifical book,[257] the historical books of Rufinus[258] and Cassiodorus, the author of the Historia Tripartita;[259] also from the writings of the Latin fathers, and from many collections or commentaries of Roman law. By a subsequent multiplying of copies, several changes and additions were made during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.[260]

Having already produced testimonies to prove that the principles—which are said to have "surely but gradually changed the ancient constitution of the church" by means of these Isidorian fictions—were known and acknowledged long before pseudo-Isidore, we have thereby made good our third point, and we can fully concur in the following conclusion of a learned historian, who says of the pseudo-Isidorian code:

"Had his book been in open variance with the chief points of the prevailing discipline, it would at once have awakened suspicion; examinations would have been instituted, and in an age which possessed critical acumen sufficient to detect the falsity of the title of a book (the Hypognosticon) which was circulated under the name of St. Augustine, the imposition would have been detected—an imposition which, such as it really was, lay concealed, because the principles and laws of ecclesiastical discipline of the age corresponding with the contents of the work, they excited no surprise."

That the Isidorian collection was not compiled at Rome, is admitted by all historians[261] and canonists of any standing;[262] nor did Janus dare to revive an antiquated and unfounded opinion of this import. However, we have to deal with another no less hazardous, nay, we might state at once, false assertion in the following lines:

"About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest popes, together with certain spurious writings of other church dignitaries and acts of synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon by Pope Nicolas I. at Rome,[263] to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors." (P. 77.)

In order to judge fairly of this whole question raised by Janus, and by others before him, we may be pardoned for premising that the collection of pseudo-Isidore became first known in Gaul about the middle of the ninth century. The most recent document which has been traced is the Synod of Paris, of 829, from which extracts are made. Other researches have led Ballerini[264] and others to suppose that the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle, held in the year 836, was known to the author, since he dwells at great length on the rights of primates or apostolic vicars, which dignity was restored in France, or western Gaul, after a long interruption, in the year 844. Mention is first made of these decretals at the Synod of Chièssy,[265] in 857, so that the time of their compilation must certainly be assigned between these last-named dates of 845 and 847. We might arrive at a more precise time by the fact that a collection of Capitularies,[266] made by Benedict, levita or deacon of Mainz, between the years 840 and 847, contains entire passages identical with those in the pseudo-Isidorian code. The only explanation of this similarity is either to be sought in the fact that both collections come from the same author, or that the Capitularies of Benedict have copied from the Isidorian code; and in that issue, the latter must have been compiled before the year 847.[267] The correspondence between Pope Nicolas I. and Hincmar of Rheims attracted general attention to the pseudo-Isidorian collection, and in this way Pope Nicolas I. was first apprised of their existence, as is evident from his letter to the bishops of Gaul,[268] where he upholds the authority of the papal decretals in general, independently of their insertion in any collection. The pope mentions the sources from which the Roman Church took its ecclesiastical discipline, alluding to the codex of Dionysius. The objection usually brought forward, that the pope says that these decretals were preserved in the archives of the Roman Church, does not refer to the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, since there is only question of the authority to be attributed to those documents in general.[269] Hincmar, who had previously appealed to the pseudo-Isidorian collection, later rejected the authority of those decretals which seemed to condemn his own views and position in the affair with Hincmar, Bishop of Laon.[270] To leave no doubt on this head in the mind of the reader, we submit the very words of Nicolas I.:

"We do not unreasonably complain," (addressing the bishops of Gaul,) "that you have set aside the decrees of several bishops of the apostolic see in this matter. Far be it from us of not receiving with due honor either the decretals or other enactments concerning ecclesiastical discipline, all of which the holy Roman Church has preserved and given over to our care, retaining them previously in her archives and in ancient and genuine monuments."[271]

A few lines further the same pope exhibits the inconsistency of Hincmar and other bishops, when acknowledging only such decretals as favor their own position, and rejecting others merely because they were not found in the code known to themselves. The principle, as though the authority of a decree of the popes or a synod was not to be recognized unless it has been received into some code, is combated and the whole issue comes to this, whether such decrees are authentic and genuine. In fine, the pope in this epistle combines an extraordinary knowledge of the ancient canons with great force of logic and historical accuracy. Our conclusion is that Pope Nicolas I. has never appealed to the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, though he frequently had occasion to do so. This is admitted by the reformed preacher Blondel,[272] and by Blasco,[273] and, among other modern historians, by Dr. Döllinger, who remarks that Pope Nicolas I. "makes no use of the Isidorian collection, adduces none of its decretals, and it may be even doubted whether he had seen the work."[274] During the eleventh century only, the popes begin to quote from pseudo-Isidore. Here, then, we have given another specimen of the "historical fairness" and "canonical erudition" of Janus and associates; and if our authors imagined that it was enough to impose on their readers by the mass of "original authorities," they have indeed succeeded to some extent, and we have but one restriction to make, that is, that they cannot be saved from the charge of deliberate falsification. For, singularly enough, and much to the credit of the historical erudition of Janus, let it be remarked that there is always something in the authorities quoted bearing on the point under discussion. Who is there who does not see that Janus stamps himself as a falsifier of history, whenever he mutilates and distorts the contents of authorities quoted by him? In conclusion, we wish to allude to one more insidious passage of our authors, when they say,

"The spurious character of the Isidorian decretals had been exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators, and no one with any knowledge of Christian antiquity could retain a doubt of their being a later fabrication." (P. 319.)

Alas! Nothing easier than to claim this merit for such candid and impartial historians as the avowed champions of Lutheranism! Besides the doubts entertained by Hincmar and other bishops in the ninth century, a writer of the twelfth century, Peter Comestor,[275] called the genuineness of this collection in question. In the middle of the fifteenth century, the learned Cardinal Nicolas Cusanus[276] and such an eminent divine as John de Turrecremata[277] proved the fictitious character of the most ancient papal decretals contained in pseudo-Isidore; they were followed in these investigations by other eminent scholars, both in Germany and France, before the dawn of the sixteenth century, and hence no trophies on this field could have been won by the historians of Magdeburg!

If, notwithstanding all these elucidations, a certain Jesuit, Turrianus, wrote in defence of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, we do not see how from this fact Janus concludes that the "Jesuit order were resolved to defend them." (P. 319.) Did not the illustrious Jesuit Bellarmine acknowledge the fictitious character of pseudo-Isidore? And yet our authors thus boldly continue as follows:

"Bellarmine acknowledged that without the forgeries of the pseudo-Isidore, ... it would be impossible to make out even a semblance of traditional evidence." (P. 319.)

We are sorry to say that we have not been able to discover any such admission on the part of Cardinal Bellarmine; but on the contrary, when answering the objection of the Centuriators concerning the fictitious letters of the first thirty popes to Melchiades, we find the following clear view on this subject:

"Although I do not deny that some errors have slipped into these letters, nor do I dare to claim for them undoubted authority, yet I doubt not but that they are of very ancient origin."[278]

It was not precisely on the faith of the Isidorian collection or its compiler that Bellarmine used any of these documents; but he endeavored to demonstrate their authenticity according to the rules laid down by historical criticism. It is simply false that he made "copious use of the Isidorian fictions." None deserve greater credit for the clear and elaborate elucidation of this great question of pseudo-Isidore than the brothers Ballerini, who have supplied an immense material whence the eminent canonists and historians of our days have been enabled to weigh every thing carefully, and the result has been a glorious one to Catholic learning and science. The attempts which have been made for three hundred years, and more, to create a fictitious foundation for the present constitution of the Catholic Church, and to brand it with the specious appellation of forgery—these inglorious attempts, we say, have in our days been renewed by Janus and his deluded admirers. If Janus hoped to strengthen his position by a novel method, we dare assert his signal failure—indeed, our enemies have secured a poor and feeble leader. Should the present contribution produce further curiosity, and lead to more extended and serious researches on this subject, we are confident enough to express the hope that many unfounded prejudices will be thereby dispelled, and the triumph of ancient and present Catholic doctrine be hastened.[279]