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]