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: