Chapter LXXI: Conclusion (2)

As a poet, Griffin is remarkable for the beauty of his delineations of natural scenery, his elevation of sentiment and purity of conception. His lyrics remind us of Moore, and are scarcely inferior to some of the best of that immortal bard's in feeling and choiceness of metaphor; but being somewhat deficient in rhythm, they have never found much favor in the drawing or concert-room, "A Place in thy Memory, Dearest," "My Mary of the Curling Hair," and one or two others excepted. Many of his poems were from time to time contributed to the London journals, while he was yet a literary drudge in that city; others are to be found interspersed in his novels, and not a few were written to gratify his friends, and were first given to the public when his entire poetical works, as far as it was possible, were collected together in book-form, and now fill a large volume, not the least important of the present edition. We are not aware that he ever attempted an epic or any thing more extended than the beautiful ballad of _Matt Hyland_, of the merits of which we can only judge by the fragment which has been preserved, the original having been destroyed by the author immediately previous to his joining the order of Christian Brothers; nor do we think his ambition ever soared to higher flights than songs and short descriptive poems. The most meritorious of these, or, at least, the one which has obtained the greatest popularity, is the _Sister of Charity_, written on the occasion of a dear friend becoming a religious; and, though several gifted pens have been employed on the same subject, we know of none who has embodied so true an appreciation of the self-denial and entire devotion which mark that order--the boast and glory of all womanhood. Several of his best pieces, indeed, are written in the same devotional spirit, particularly the following verses, in illustration of a seal, representing a mariner on a tempestuous ocean who, reclining in his bark, fixes his eye on a distant star, with the motto--

"SI JE TE PERDS, JE SUIS PERDU.

(IF I LOSE THEE, I'M LOST.)

"Shine on, thou bright beacon,
Unclouded and free,
From thy high place of calmness,
O'er life's troubled sea!
Its morning of promise,
Its smooth seas are gone,
And the billows rave wildly--
Then, bright one, shine on.

"The wings of the tempest
May rise o'er thy ray,
But tranquil thou smilest,
Undimmed by its sway;
High, high o'er the worlds
Where storms are unknown,
Thou dwellest, all beauteous,
All glorious, alone.

"From the deep womb of darkness
The lightning flash leaps,
O'er the bark of my fortune
Each mad billow sweeps;
From the port of her safety
By warring winds driven,
Had no light o'er her course
But you lone one of heaven.

"Yet fear not, thou frail one,
The hour may be near
When our own sunny headlands
Far off shall appear;
When the voice of the storm
Shall be silent and past,
In some island of heaven
We may anchor at last.

"But, bark of eternity,
Where art thou now?
The tempest wave shrieks
O'er each plunge of thy prow;
On the world's dreary ocean
Thus shattered and lost--
Then, lone one, shine on,
If I lose thee, I'm lost."

Of his dramas but one remains to us, _Gisippus_, and enough dramatic ability is displayed in that to make us regret that Griffin abandoned writing for the stage so early in life. We are inclined to imagine that a young man, scarcely twenty years of age, who was capable of managing so successfully a subject that required the highest powers of Boccaccio, could in his maturer years have effected even greater things. However, we must console ourselves with the reflection that what has been lost to the drama, we have gained in the excellent works before us; and as the drama is necessarily limited to the few, the world is also the gainer by the change.

FOOTNOTE:

[208] _The Life and Works of Gerald Griffin._ 10 vols. 12mo. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co.

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]

FOOTNOTES:

[209] P. 69.

[210] Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Disc. l. i. capp. vii. xlv.

[211] See Canon vi. Council of Nice in 325, which recognizes the patriarchal rights of Antioch and Alexandria, in the east, introduced by ancient custom. (τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη.)

[212] Schelestrate, Eccl. Afric. sub prim. Carthag. Thomass. l. c. c. xx. n. 8.

[213] Constant. Ep. Rom. Pontif. Inn. I. ep. 13. Bonif. I. ep. 4. Coelest. I. ep. 3. Sixt. III. ep. 10.

[214] "Vices enim nostras ita tuæ credidimus caritati, ut in partem sis vocatus sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis." Ep. 14. ad Anast. Thessal. edit. Ball. tom. i.

[215] The name of _patriarch_ is first mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon, Act 3, where Pope St. Leo is thus addressed: "Sanctissimo et universali Archiepiscopo et _Patriarchæ_ magnæ Romæ." (Labbe, Col. tom. iv.)

[216] Leo M. ep. 14, cap. 11.

[217] "Quum omnium par esset electio, uni tamen datum est, ut cæteris præemineret."

[218] Mansi, xv. col. 202.

[219] Cf. canon ix. of the same council.

[220] That is, in the East. Pithœus, Codex Canon. Vetus, p. 102, (edit. Paris.)

[221] Mansi. l. c. p. 688.

[222] Thomassin, Ballerini, Devoti, Walter, Philipps, Schulte, Döllinger, Blondel, Luden, Schönemann, the last three Protestants, all of whom, says _Janus_, betray a very imperfect "knowledge of the decretals." (P. 78.)

[223] Launoy, Arnould, Febronius, Baluze, De Marca.

[224] Held A.D. 447.

[225] Epist. 47.

[226] See Epist. 45, ad Antonian.

[227] Döllinger, Church Histor. vol. i. pp. 260, 261, 262.

[228] Named after the ambitious Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, an ardent follower of _Arius_.

[229] P. 66.

[230] Apud Constant. Epist. Rom. Pontif. Epist. 37, ad Felic. col. 910.

[231] Epist. I. ad Episc. Gall. col. 938.

[232] Epist. ad Episc. Illyr. col. 1038.

[233] Epist. ad Episc. Vienn. Prov. (Baller Opp. tom. i. col. 634.)

[234] Epist. ad Episc. Dardan. (Hardouin Concil. tom. ii. col. 909.)

[235] Epist. ad Euseb. col. 385, ap. Const.

[236] Döllinger, _Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. pp. 103, 109.

[237] The code of Dionysius presented by R. Hadrian to Charlemagne, known hence in Gaul as the Codex Hadrianeus.

[238] Biblioth. Jur. Canon. tom. i. p. 97-180. Fr. Pithœus, Codex Canon. Eccl. Rom. Vet. pp. 119, 120, can. iii. vii. (edit. Paris.)

[239] Biblioth. Jur. Canon. tom. ii. pp. 499, 603.

[240] Döllinger, _Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 229, gives several remarkable instances of such exceptions.

[241] Concil. Rom. ad Gratian. Imperat. cap. 11.

[242] Mansi, tom. viii. p. 247.

[243] Libell, Apologet. Ennod. apud Mansi, tom. vii. p. 271.

[244] Epist. ad Senator. Urbis Rom. ann. 502. Mansi, viii. col. 293.

[245] "In qua (Eccl. Rom.) ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea, quæ est ab apostolis traditio." Adv. Hær. l. iii. c. 3.

[246] Hist. vol. i. p. 257. If "potentior principalitas" signified only _greater antiquity_, how could the church of Rome claim preëminence above the churches of Antioch and Ephesus?

[247] "Hanc Ecclesiæ unitatem qui non tenet, _tenere se fidem credit_?" De Unit. Eccl. p. 349. (Edit. Wir.)

St. August, in his 43d epist., says of the church of Rome, "Semper viguit apostolicæ cathedræ principatus."

[248] Epist. cxvii. ad Renat. Presbyt. Rom.

[249] The very words of pseudo-Isidore on the purity of the "faith of Rome" are literally transcribed from the epistle of Pope Agatho to the Emperor Constantine in the year 680. (Mansi, tom. xi. col. 239.)

[250] De Antiquis Collect, pars iii. capp. iv. Gallandi, Sylloge. tom. i. p. 528 sqq.

[251] About 1809, under Napoleon.

[252] _Notices et Extraits des Manuscr. de la Biblioth. Nation._ tom. vi. p. 265 sqq.

[253] Died 313.

[254] Which was already known from its being inserted in former collections.

[255] Known in the fifth century. (Quesnel's edit.)

[256] Blondel. Prolegom. cap. 12. Blascus, De Collect. Canon. Isid. Mercat. cap. ii. Gallandi, tom. ii. p. 100.

[257] Muratori's edit. tom. iii. pars i. Rer. _Italic._ Script.

[258] Rufinus translated nine books of Eusebius, to which he added two more.

[259] Edit. Ven. 2 vol.

[260] Blondel, Proleg. cap. 18.

[261] See Alzog's Hist. vol. i. § 186.

[262] Philipps, Compend. of Canon Law, vol. i. p. 52.

[263] The italics are our own.

[264] Ball. Part. iii. cap. 6. n. 13. Galland, t. i. p. 540.

[265] Mansi. tom. xv. col. 127.

[266] Laws of the empire of Charlemagne, divided into _Capitula_ or chapters.

[267] Baller. de Canon. Collect. p. iii. cap. cit.

[268] Epist. 42. ad Univ. Episc. Gall. in the year 865. (Mansi, xv. col. 695.)

[269] Mansi, xv. col. 693, et sqq.

[270] Epist. ad Hinc. Laudun. tom. ii. (edit. Sirmondi,) Paris.

[271] "Sancta Romana Ecclesia conservans, nobis quoque custodienda mandavit, et penesse in suis archivis, et vetustis rite monumentis recondita veneratur." (l. c. col. 694.)

[272] Prolegom. cap. 19.

[273] De Collect. Isid. cap. 4.

[274] Ch. Hist. vol. iii. p. 202.

[275] Blasc. De Collect. Canon. Isidor. (Galland Syllog. tom. ii. c. v. p. 30.)

[276] De Concordia Cath. lib. iii. cap. 2.

[277] Summa Eccl. lib. ii. cap. 101.

[278] De Rom. Pontif. lib. ii. cap. xiv.

[279] The English translation of Dr. Hergenröther's complete and masterly refutation of _Janus_, which we reviewed some time since in the original German, is announced in the English papers as nearly ready, and will be for sale at the office of this magazine as soon as it is issued.--ED. CATHOLIC WORLD.

THE SUPERSTITION OF UNBELIEF.

When an age has abandoned God, sensuality delivers it over, like Faust, to the devil, and he becomes its deity. Unbelief is everywhere followed by superstition. Where the gods are not, the demons reign, says a modern German poet. "We are ready to believe every thing when we believe nothing," remarks Chateaubriand. "We have augurs when we have no longer prophets; witchcraft when we have no longer religious ceremonies. When the temples of God are closed, the caves of the sorcerers are opened."

It is certainly a monstrous pairing when, with boasted enlightenment, fortune-telling, card-divining, and the other superstitions of darkness go hand in hand. But it is nevertheless an old and well-known fact-one constantly demonstrated by human experience--that unbelief is invariably associated with the grossest superstition. A rapid glance at the history of peoples in all other essentials most widely differing from each other will readily prove this.

Beginning with the Hindoos, the oldest people on the earth, we find that A. W. Schlegel has already effectually refuted the theories of modern writers on religion by demonstrating to us a steady retrogression from the spiritual to the sensual, from belief to unbelief and superstition. Dubois, who had spent thirty years among the Brahmins, and studied their philosophy, traces the degrading superstition into which the Hindoos have lapsed to their having lost faith in the religion of their ancestors. Once their schools taught the maxim, Before earth, water, air, wind, fire, Brahma, Vishnu, Chieva, sun, and stars, there was the only and eternal God, who had sprung out of himself. These pure ideas of religion have long been abandoned for an atheistic materialism. A superstitious demonology, spirit-raising, sorcery, and magic have grown out of this unbelief, and the same people now adore Kapel, the serpent, and Gamda, the bird. They observe annually a feast in honor of Darhba, an ordinary weed, and offer up sacrifices to spade and pick. To kill a cow is by them considered a crime more heinous than matricide, and their philosophers esteem it a great piece of good luck, a sure passport to paradise, if they can catch hold of a cow by the tail instead of the head, when dying. "Modern materialism," observes Dr. Hæffner, comparing the unbelief of the Hindoos with our own, "has closely approached the abyss of Buddhism." Manifestations like Mormonism, or the spiritualism of New York, Paris, and Berlin, already suggest to us the religious and moral practices of the Hindoos, and we bid fair soon to reach their lowest and vilest forms--the Lamaism of Thibet and Ceylon. As in the opening of the present century, admiration of genius led men to adore the poetical genius of Schiller and Goethe, so, changing their idols, they will eventually worship those who have deified matter. The Buddhas of modern atheism can only be the materialistic notabilities of the day; and for this reason a humorous writer recommends Carl Vogt for Delai-Lama, he being not only a high scientific but a great political authority.

Passing from the east to the west, we find, and especially in Roman history, that the increase of superstition has steadily kept pace with the diminution of faith. The religious decadence of ancient Rome dates from the close of the Punic wars and the domestic commotions of the republic, at which period we first notice that strange hankering after what is obscure and mysterious in paganism, and which attained its zenith under the Cæsars. This remark applies, however, more to the cities than the country; for, from the days of Augustus down to those of the Antonines, the latter had not yet been so generally corrupted as the former. Sulla, the dictator--to cite a few examples--put the utmost confidence in a small image of Apollo, brought from Delphi, which he carried about on his person, and which he embraced publicly before his troops with a prayer for victory. Augustus, who allowed himself to be worshipped as a god in the provinces, regarded it as an evil omen to be handed the left shoe instead of the right when he rose in the morning. He neither set out on a journey after the Nundines nor undertook any thing of importance during the Nones. When one of his fleets had been lost at sea, he punished Neptune by excluding his image from being carried in procession at the Circensian games.

After the doctrine of Polybius, that religion is nothing more than a tissue of lies and traditions, began to prevail at Rome, the phenomena which usually attend the decadence of a people became plainly apparent. Those who are familiar with the epidemic capers of the fanatics of that age, who jerked their heads and distorted their limbs while pretending to utter the will of the gods, will be reminded of that moral and religious degradation which has produced the same effects in all countries and times--effects distinctly visible among all Christian peoples into whose life the ancient heathenism still enters, or where false civilization once more tends to barbarism. The story of Alexander of Obonoteichos shows the extremes to which superstition may lead men. This audacious impostor buried in the temple of Apollo, at Chalcedon, but so that they could be easily found, a set of bronze tablets, promising that Esculapius and his father Apollo would shortly come to Obonoteichos. He also secreted an egg containing a small snake, and mounted the next day the altar in the market-place to proclaim as one inspired that Esculapius was about to appear. He produced the egg, broke its shell, and the people rejoiced over the god who had assumed the form of a serpent. The news of this miracle attracted immense crowds. A few days later, Alexander announced that the serpent-god had already reached maturity, and he exhibited himself to the public in a partially darkened room, dressed as a prophet, with a large tame serpent--secretly imported from Macedonia--so twisted around his waist that its head was out of sight, and its place supplied by a human head of paper, whence protruded a black tongue. This new serpent-god, Glykon, the youngest Epiphany of Esculapius, received the honors of temple and oracle service. Alexander became a highly respected prophet; Rutelia, a noble Roman, married his daughter, and the prefect Severian asked him for an oracle on taking the field against the king of the Parthians.