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 preeminence 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 ef forts 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* 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;

Held A.D. 447.

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. Another no less conspicuous proof we find in the fact of the two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial, in which case St. Cypriant 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. 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,§ 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, Colésyria, Phoenicia, 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."*

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.,t Zozimus, Boniface I.,§ Celestine I., Leo the Great,|| Gelasius I.,¶[and even before, Julius I.,** (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 Fanus 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 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 Fanus to say that the canons of Sardica were not at all received in the east. What can be a more con

vincing proof than their insertion into collections or codes of law compiled by official authority, having been inserted not only in the Latin collection of Dionysius, 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.§

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 a:

109.

* Döllinger, Hist. of the Church, vol. ii. pp. 103, †The code of Dionysius presented by R. Hadrian to Charlemagne, known hence in Gaul as the Codex Hadrianeus.

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

§ Biblioth. Jur. Canon. tom. ii. pp. 499, 603.

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 Romemerely 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.*

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 pseudoIsidore. A synod of Rome held in 378, under Pope Damasus, declared in a letter to the Emperor Gratian t 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

Döllinger, Hist. of the Church, vol. il. p. 229, gives several remarkable instances of such excep

tions.

↑ Concil. Rom. ad Gratian. Imperat. cap. 11.

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. 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,† 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.” ‡

Fanus 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 " ? §

Mansi, tom. viii. p. 247.

† Libell, Apologet. Ennod. apud Mansi, tom. vii.

p. 271.

Epist. ad Senator. Urbis Rom. ann. 5oz. Mansi, viii. col. 293.

"In qua (Eccl. Rom.) ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea, quæ est ab apostolis traditio." Adv. Hær. 1. iii. c. 3.

two introductory pieces, one taken from the Spanish code, the other from the Gallic code; 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 thirtyfive 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.t 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 compre hensive one, and he drew quite copiously from the Scriptures, from the Roman pontifical book, the histori

• Known in the fifth century. (Quesnel's edit.) ↑ Blondel. Prolegom. cap. 12. Blascus, De Collect. Canon. Isid. Mercat. cap. ii. Gallandi, tom. ii. p. 100.

↑ Muratori's edit. tom. iii. pars i. Rer. Italic. Script.

cal books of Rufinus and Cassiodorus, the author of the Historia Tripartita; 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.‡

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 pseudoIsidore, 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 § and canonists of any standing; || nor did Fanus 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 rious writings of other church dignitaries the earliest popes, together with certain spu

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

↑ Edit. Ven. 2 vol.

Blondel, Proleg. cap. 18.

§ See Alzog's Hist. vol. i. § 196.

Philipps, Compend. of Canon Law, vol. i. p. 52.