"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]