THE PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS AND THE PAPAL CONSTITUTION
OUTLINE: I.--What were the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals?
II.--Condition of Europe when the Decretals appeared.
III.--Purpose of the forgery. IV.--Character and composition.
V.--Time, place, and personality, of authorship.
VI.--Significance and results. VII.--Nicholas I. and papal
supremacy. VIII.--Decline of spirituality in the Church.
IX.--Sources.
The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals[326:1] were a curious collection of
documents, both genuine and forged, which appeared in western Europe
about the middle of the ninth century under the name of Isidore
Mercator, to give the Church a definite, written constitution. They were
a stupendous forgery--the most audacious and pious fraud ever
perpetrated in the history of the Church--worked out with admirable
skill and consummate ingeniousness. Forgery was a common thing in those
days, and it was generally believed that all things which upheld the
doctrines and prerogatives of the Church of God were allowable.[326:2]
When these false letters appeared, the Empire of Charles was falling to
pieces under his wrangling grandsons. Anarchy and confusion were
rampant; might was the only recognised law. Feudalism with its
decentralising influences was rapidly prevailing throughout Europe. The
Church also reflected this sad state of affairs. The Pope was reduced to
a vassal of the Emperor. Metropolitans were in league with the political
rulers and even helped to plunder the bishoprics and oppress the
priests. The bishops were masterly secular princes and landed nobles;
hence their persons had lost their sanctity, and they were persecuted by
their archbishops and robbed by their sovereigns. The Bishop of Lyons
wrote: "No condition of man whether free or unfree is so insecure in the
possession of his property as the priest. . . . Not only the estates of
the Church, but even the churches themselves are sold." The lower clergy
suffered from the tyranny and lawlessness of the day; the laity were
similarly demoralised. The synod of Aachen in 836 protested against the
contempt into which the clergy had fallen with the ungodly laity. The
age, too, was not critical. In fact, it was an impious thing to
disbelieve anything connected with the Bible, the Church, or with sacred
tradition. It was an era of superstitions and legends. No period,
therefore could have been better adapted than that for the promulgation
of such a magnificent system of fabrications.
There are divergent theories as to the purpose of these falsified
epistles: (1) Some maintain that the sole object was to give the Church
a constitution of a definite form and character. (2) Others hold that
the intention was to present unquestionable proof of the papal theory of
supremacy by filling in the fatal gap between the time of Jesus and
Constantine. It was dangerous to make the origin of the Church
dependent upon an Emperor's fiat; hence, it was necessary to elevate
the See of Rome by clothing the Pope with antiquity, spiritual majesty,
and supreme authority.[328:1] Venerable Rome was made to furnish the
necessary documents from St. Peter onward to supplement the Bible and
the Church Fathers with manufactured tradition. (3) Still others assert
that the object was to give the Church a general code of discipline in
the anarchy and confusion of the time.[328:2] (4) Most scholars believe,
however, that the real motive was to free the bishops from their
dependence upon the state, upon the metropolitans, and upon the
provincial synods which were under the control of the rulers.[328:3]
The motive for the publication of this code of decretals is thus stated
by the authors themselves:
Many good Christians are reduced to silence, and compelled to
bear the sins of others against their own better knowledge,
because they are unprovided with documents by which they might
convince ecclesiastical judges of the truth of what they know
to be the law; seeing that though what they allege may be
altogether right, yet it is not heeded by the judges unless it
be confirmed by written documents, or by recorded decisions,
or made to appear in the course of some known judicial
proceeding.
The object of the compilation may be found also in these words:
We have likewise inserted the decretal epistles of certain
apostolic men--that is, of Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, and
others who are their successors, indeed as many as we have
been able to find, down to Pope Sylvester; after these we
have annexed the rest of the decretals of the Roman prelates
down to Gregory the Great, together with certain epistles of
that pontiff; in all which, by virtue of the dignity of the
Apostolic See, resides an authority equal to that of the
councils; so that, the discipline of the ecclesiastical order
being thus by our labours reduced and digested into one body
of law, the holy bishops may be instructed in the entire "rule
of the fathers"; and thus obedient ministers and people may be
imbued with spiritual precedents, and be no longer deceived by
the practices of the wicked. For there are many who by reason
of their wickedness and cupidity bring accusations against the
priests of the Lord, to their great oppression and ruin.
Therefore the Holy Fathers did institute laws, which they
called holy canons, which, however, the evil-minded have often
made the instruments of unjust charges, or even possessed
themselves of the goods of the innocent.
The canons were insufficient to meet the evils of the day. Some remedy
must be found of equal if not greater authority. The decretals of the
Roman Pontiffs were seized for this holy purpose. Many such decretals
were known to the Church. But there was a fatal hiatus of two centuries
and a half after the founding of the See of Peter. That chasm must be
bridged over by documents which would prove that the divine headship of
Peter was consciously exercised by all his successors. With such
indisputable evidence the supremacy of Rome would be established beyond
question, and the entire hierarchy would be benefited. The ascendancy of
the Church over the state would be established. Papal sovereignty would
be acknowledged. Episcopal independence of secular control would be
secured.
The sources of the Isidorian Decretals, now satisfactorily determined,
were: the writings of the Church Fathers, particularly Rufinus (d. 410);
the works of Cassiodorus (b. 470); Jerome's Vulgate; the _Liber
Pontificales_; the general theological literature down to the ninth
century; various collections of laws like _Breviarium Alaricianum_, the
_Lex Visigothorum_, and the Frankish capitularies; the genuine archives
of the Church like papal letters and decretals, Church canons, and
minutes of Church councils; the correspondence of Archbishop Boniface
(d. 754); and the forgeries.
Before this collection appeared there had been several others formed in
the Western Church:[330:1]
1. Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian, who lived at Rome as a monk in the
sixth century, made a collection of the fifty Apostolic Canons; decrees
of the Eastern and African Church councils from 375 to 451; and letters
of Popes from 314 to 498. This collection was used by Charles the Great
as a basis in part for the Frankish laws.
2. Isidore of Seville, early in the seventh century, made a second
collection, very much like the first one just described.
3. Then Isidore Mercator, about the middle of the ninth century put out
a third collection which embraced those by Exiguus and Isidore of
Seville and included all the forgeries. This last collection opens with
a preface, then has a spurious letter from Aurelius to Damasus, and a
forged answer; a selection from the fourth council of Toledo; a list of
councils; and two spurious letters from Jerome to Damasus, with replies.
After these documents the collection proper begins. It consists of three
parts. The first includes the fifty Apostolic Canons; fifty-nine
spurious decretals from Clement to Melchiades (90-314); a treatise _On
the Primitive Church and the Council of Nicæa_; and the spurious
"Donation of Constantine."[331:1] The second part opens with a genuine
quotation from the Spanish collection of the decretals of the Greek,
African, Gallic, and Spanish councils down to 683. The third part also
begins with a quotation from the _Hispania_ and then gives the decretals
of the Popes from Sylvester (d. 335) to Gregory II. (d. 731), of which
thirty-five are forged and others contain many interpolations; and,
finally, the _Capitula Angilramni_.
Evidences of fraud are to be found in the uniformity of language, the
impurity of style, the use of words of a late origin for an earlier
period, many clumsy anachronisms, the total absence of all proof of the
authenticity of the early decretals, the evident effort to meet
contemporary prejudice, and the fact that there is no knowledge of the
existence of the forged letters until incorporated in this collection.
Many absurdities also appear: for instance, Roman bishops of the second
and third centuries write in Frankish Latin of the ninth century in the
spirit of post-Nicene orthodoxy and about the mediæval relationship of
the Church and state. These early bishops quote the Vulgate of Jerome as
amended under Charles the Great. Pope Victor (202) writes a letter to
Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (383) about a second-century
controversy. Pope Anacletus speaks of patriarchs, metropolitans, and
primates long before they arose. Pope Melchiades, who died in 314,
mentions the Nicene Council which was held in 325. Pope Zephyrinus (218)
appeals to the laws of Christian Emperors before Constantine was born.
Just how soon they were discovered to be forgeries, is a question that
has aroused considerable discussion. Pope Nicholas I. must have known
that they were false, but they suited his purpose so well that he
sanctioned them. Some of the Latin bishops saw through the forgery, but,
for various reasons, kept silent. A few of the Frankish bishops
denounced them and objected to their reception as law. Even Hincmar,
although he did so much to establish them, declared them to be spurious
and called them a "mouse-trap" and a "cup of poison with the brim
besmeared with honey." The synod of Rheims in 991 opposed the Isidorian
principles. Stephen of Tournai (d. 1203) called them into question.
Peter Comester in his _Historia Scholastica_ (twelfth century) granted
the ingeniousness of the author. Dante alluded to the fiction and
grumbled about the "Donation of Constantine" in these words:
Ah, Constantine! of how much ill the cause--
Not thy conversion, but those rich domains
That the first wealthy Pope received of thee.[332:1]
Nicholas of Cusa questioned their authenticity.[332:2] Chancellor Gerson
of the University of Paris, boldly asserted that the Papacy was founded
on fraud.[332:3] Marsiglio of Padua[332:4] and Wiclif took the same
view. Johannus Turrecrenta was skeptical about them.[332:5] Erasmus
pronounced against them. The authors of the _Magdeburg Centuries_
conclusively proved in detail their fraudulent character. Calvin took
the same view,[333:1] and De Moulin and Le Conte helped to establish the
fact of forgery. David Blondel, a Reformed divine, made the exposure
unquestionable against the attempted vindication of the Jesuit, Torres.
Still since it is so difficult to separate the true from the false,
their influence was perpetuated beyond this period. It was not an easy
thing for an infallible Church to abandon ground once assumed. The
fruits of the forgery could not be surrendered. Catholic and Protestant
historians alike now agree, however, that they were for the most part
fictitious.
There has been a wide divergency of view as to the place, time, and
authorship. A few earlier scholars[333:2] held that they originated in
Rome. This is now rejected by all modern scholars, because their arrival
in Rome is almost exactly known. One year Pope Nicholas I. is ignorant
of them, the next he asserts their authenticity.[333:3] They were
probably carried to Rome by Rathod in 864.[333:4] Many contemporaries
believed that they came from Spain as the work of Isidore of Seville,
but it is generally acknowledged now that they were created in the
Frankish Empire because the language swarms with Gallicisms, the style,
phrases, and words are of the Frankish period, and the frequent use of
the correspondence of Boniface shows that the archives of Mayence were
consulted. It is probable that the first collection was made at Mayence,
and the later and larger collection may have been made at Rheims.
In matter of time, they seem to have been an evolution beginning with
the collection of Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century, increased by
Isidore of Seville in the seventh century, amplified by Isidore Mercator
(Pseudo Isidore) with forgeries in the ninth century, and appeared in
their final form in the eleventh century.[334:1] Their frequent
contradiction and disregard of well-known history suggests a composition
covering years. Some of the forgeries were undoubtedly used by Charles
the Great, and the Donation of Constantine is perhaps still
older.[334:2] Passages from the Council of Paris held in 829 are
literally quoted, hence the collection by Isidore Mercator must have
been made after that date. On the other hand, the collection was used in
857 by the French synod of Chiersy,[334:3] in 859 by Hincmar of Rheims,
and in 865 by Pope Nicholas I.[334:4] The conclusion can be drawn, then,
that the collection of Isidore Mercator must have appeared sometime
between 829 and 857. Furthermore, the frequent complaint about
ecclesiastical disorders, the deposition of bishops without trial,
frivolous divorces, and frequent sacrilege, best fit the period of civil
war and confusion among the grandsons of Charles the Great.
There is likewise divergence of opinion as to the authorship. The name
of the compiler, Isidore Mercator, led to the early erroneous belief
that Isidore of Seville, the eminent canonist, was the author; and,
consequently, when the mistake was established, the author was dubbed
"Pseudo Isidore," a name used to the present day. Scholars differ widely
in their efforts to identify this "Pseudo Isidore" and suggest
Benedictus Levita, a deacon of Mayence, whose _capitularium_ of 847
agrees in certain passages with the decretals[335:1]; Rathod of
Soissons[335:2]; Otgar, Archbishop of Mayence (d. 847), who led the
clerical rebellion against Louis the Pious[335:3]; Ebo, Archbishop of
Rheims, also a clerical rebel against the Emperor[335:4];
Riculfus,[335:5] Archbishop of Mayence (784-814); and Aldrich.[335:6]
The authorship, it is apparent, is not established beyond question.
Indeed there are many reasons for believing that these documents were
the product not of a single individual, but of a joint effort. The
constant repetitions, the frequent contradictions, the lack of unity,
the differences in style and phrases suggest this conclusion. It is
quite probable that the leading churchmen in Germany and France in the
middle of the ninth century shared the authorship.[335:7] Gieseler holds
that Riculfus (784-814) brought the genuine Isidorian collections from
Spain, that Otgar enlarged and corrupted them at Mayence (826-847), that
Benedictus Levita copied them; and this may have been the case.
They were eagerly received by the Church, and for various reasons Pope
Nicholas I. (853-867) gave them papal sanction and used them to extend
his power. He led the Church to believe that they were among the most
venerable and carefully preserved documents of the papal archives.
Backed up by them, he asserted his jurisdiction over both East and West;
in fact, the whole world. To the eastern Emperor he wrote, "We by the
power committed to us by our Lord through St. Peter, restore our brother
Ignatius to his former station, to his see [at Constantinople], to his
dignity as patriarch and to all the honours of his office."[336:1] At
the same time he exalted the power of excommunication and used it to
humble both princes and prelates; he forced Lothair II. to restore his
divorced wife; he humbled the great Hincmar by reinstating the deposed
Bishop Rathod of Soissons; he subjected both metropolitans and bishops
to his rule; he deposed the archbishops of Cologne and Trier and made
the Pope ubiquitous through the system of legates. Well could the old
chronicler say: "Since the days of Gregory I. to our own time, sat no
high priest on the throne of St. Peter to be compared to Nicholas. He
tamed kings and tyrants, and ruled the world like a sovereign. To holy
bishops and the clergy he was mild and gentle; to the wicked and
unconverted a terror, so that we might truly say a new Elias arose in
him."
It is evident [wrote the great forerunner of Hildebrand] that
Popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power,
nor even by that of the Apostle if he were to return upon
earth; since Constantine the Great has recognised that the
pontiffs held the place of God on earth, the Divinity not
being able to be judged by any man living. We are then
infallable and whatever may be our acts, we are not
accountable for them but to ourselves.[336:2]
This is generally held to be spurious now, but the spirit of it may be
said to be true. The archbishops eagerly accepted the decretals because
they hoped to profit by their doctrines. Instead, however, through them
they were subjected to the Pope and largely lost their independence.
They were gladly received by the bishops, since by them they hoped to
gain independence both of the tyrannical metropolitans and of the state.
They were welcomed by the lower clergy and laity in general without a
question because they came from a source so high in authority as the
Pope and the bishops.
These forged decretals gave the Papacy a definite constitution; the
Petrine theory was now proved by indisputable historical evidence--the
ideal Papacy was made a fact from the very first. In fact the charge
given by Peter to Clement, when the primate Apostle transmitted his
power to a successor, is found in very characteristic language. The
powers and relations of the whole dogmatic hierarchy from top to bottom
were defined. The Popes from St. Peter on were made the parents and
guardians of the faith of the world, and the legislators for it, and
also the supreme judges in all cases of justice. In short this
constitution logically completed the Petrine theory. The metropolitans
were curtailed in their prerogatives and subjected to the Pope.
Metropolitan courts were reduced to committees of inquiry. All original
jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes was transferred to Rome. No
metropolitan could call a synod now without the Pope's consent. The
metropolitans' power over the bishops was greatly decreased and they
were separated from the Pope by newly created primates. The bishops, in
their turn, as ambassadors of God were made independent of both the
state and the metropolitans, but subjected to the Pope. Peter and the
other Apostles furnished the example for this arrangement. All episcopal
cases were taken out of secular courts[337:1]; all secular cases could
be carried to episcopal courts[338:1]; all laymen as well as lower
clergy were excluded from episcopal synods. Bishops were made
practically immune by the great difficulty of bringing accusations. In
the trial of a bishop, the accuser had to have seventy-two duly
qualified witnesses and if he failed to prove his case he and not the
bishop was liable to punishment. At any time the bishop could break off
proceedings by appealing the case directly to the Pope. The priesthood
was definitely separated from the laity as the _familiares Dei_. They
were the _spiritales_; the laity the _carnales_.[338:2] Priests were
also freed from secular control and placed above it. They, in like
manner, enjoyed certain immunities which made it no easy matter to
proceed against them.
At the same time, the relations of Church and state were defined more
clearly. Ecclesiastical power was now held to be supreme over secular
power and that change was a pronounced revolution. "All the rulers of
earth," it was dogmatically affirmed, "are bound to obey the bishop and
to bow the neck before him."[338:3] Imperial control of the Church,
exercised for eight centuries, was declared to be a usurpation which
entailed disputes and wars. The state was represented as unholy, the
Church as holy. That proposition struck the sword of justice out of the
hand of the temporal prince and removed the clergy from the reach of the
secular law. Clergy were freed from political courts and the laymen were
excluded, in theory at least, from participation in Church legislation.
In short these decretals carried the papal theocracy far beyond any
claims made up to that time by the Popes themselves. It was left to
Gregory VII. and Innocent III. to make the claim a living reality.
These decretals formed a part of the _Corpus Juris Canonici_ for six
hundred years and supplied a complete set of laws concerning Church
lands, usurpation and spoliation, ordinations, sacraments, fasts,
festivals, relics of the cross and of the Apostles, schism and heresy,
the use of holy water and the chrism, the consecration of churches, the
blessing of the fruits of the field, sacred vessels, garments, etc. In
this way society was influenced and modified in all its ramifications.
Both the civil and ecclesiastical polity of Europe was affected for
centuries to follow. Over and over again they were quoted to prove papal
omnipotence against temporal authority. For the purpose of illustration,
the decretals were replete with personal incidents and had in them many
beautiful axioms of sincere and vital religious truth. The whole tone of
the composition was pious and reverential. Pope, bishop, and lower
clergy all gained by this shrewd and specious defence of the Papacy. The
priesthood actually constituted the Church.
In this period of ignorance and lawlessness, while the Empire
established by Charles the Great was disintegrating, the Papacy rapidly
forged to the front as the champion of united Christendom; and to this
end the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals contributed powerfully. How much was
contributed that was actually new may be a question. Whether the history
of the Church would have been the same had they not appeared is a
disputed point. Whether the Pope without them could have become the
greatest ruler of western Europe by the middle of the ninth century is
not clear. Whether the Papacy would have had a world-wide political
interest from this time on without them is a question still unsettled.
Nothing better illustrates the immediate fruits of the Pseudo-Isidorian
Decretals than the pontificate of Nicholas I. In the year 858 he was
unanimously chosen Pope by the Emperor, and the clergy and people of
Rome. He had been the friend and minister of Sergius II. and Leo IV.
amid all their dangers and difficulties. His trying experiences
qualified him for the responsible office. His personal qualities had won
him many friends. Consequently there was general rejoicing when, in the
presence of the Emperor and the Romans, he was inaugurated. Three days
after the solemnity, the Emperor Louis II. entertained Pope Nicholas I.
at a state-banquet and then withdrew a short distance from the city
walls to receive the return-visit on the following day. As the Pope,
escorted by the clergy and nobility, approached the imperial camp, Louis
met him, dismounted from his horse, and conducted the Pope's palfrey the
length of a bow-shot, after the ordinary custom of a bridle-groom. A
sumptuous feast was then served in the imperial tents, and the Emperor
again escorted Nicholas a like distance on his return. The Pontiff, on
parting, descended from his horse, embraced Louis, and kissed him. "And
thus," says the chronicler, "they lovingly took leave of each other."
This imperial self-humiliation had beneath it a purpose. Louis II. hoped
to extend his dominion beyond the borders of Italy, to which his
brothers had reduced him, and desired the assistance of Rome. Nicholas
I. was not averse to meddling in worldly affairs. Backed up by the false
decretals, with precedents created by his sainted predecessors, with
political confusion and secular wrangling as his ally, with his own
boldness and clear intellect as his guides, he plunged into mundane
affairs without hesitation. Ability and opportunity won for him one
success after another. The first conquest he made was in humiliating the
Italian primates of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna, and in making the
Italian clergy directly dependent upon Rome. Emperor Louis II. was
forced to bow to papal authority in this matter, although hitherto the
creation of new bishoprics had rested with the temporal lord.
Again when the bishopric of Hamburg was destroyed by the Normans, King
Louis of Germany translated the dispossessed Bishop Anschar to Bremen.
Now the Archbishop of Cologne claimed jurisdiction over Bremen and
declared that the temporal power could not dismember an ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. Both parties agreed to refer the case to Rome. Nicholas I.
confirmed the separation and ratified the transference of Anschar.
Charles the Great would have settled the case himself. Another victory
was thus won in the name of Pseudo-Isidore. The policy of breaking down
all interposition between the successor of Peter and the episcopacy had
been clearly set forth.
A test of this principle came in the case of Hincmar, the able and
powerful Archbishop of Rheims. In 861 he summarily suspended Rathod,
Bishop of Soissons, for disobeying the sentence of a provincial synod in
reinstating a priest whom he had unjustly expelled. Rathod at once
appealed to the Pope and asked permission of Hincmar to go to Rome to
present his suit. Hincmar refused the request and called Rathod before a
second synod for contempt, when he was degraded from his office and
imprisoned in a monastery. Once more Rathod made a touching appeal to
Nicholas I.[342:1] who forthwith rebuked Hincmar and ordered him to
restore Rathod to his see, and to send him to Rome. King Charles the
Bald was ordered, "by his love to God and his duty to the Holy See," to
see that the order was enforced. Both Hincmar and Charles refused and
Rathod remained a prisoner for two years. Papal power was on trial, but
Nicholas I. was equal to the situation. At last Charles was persuaded to
intervene. Rathod was released and sent to Rome, but was not reinstated
in his bishopric. The Pope reinstated him to office. To prove his
authority he quoted the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, which the Frankish
clergy had framed to insure their own independence.[342:2] Hincmar
remonstrated, but in the end was forced to apologise and obey. "Thus,"
complained Hincmar, "was a criminal, solemnly deposed by the unanimous
judgment of five ecclesiastical provinces of this realm, reinstated by
the Pope, not by ordinary canonical rule, but by an arbitrary act of
power, in a summary way, without inquiry, and against the consent of his
natural judges." Metropolitan independence was crushed, the royal power
was forced to obey by the awful threat of excommunication, and papal
supremacy was triumphant. Truly a new epoch had appeared in the rise of
the mediæval Church, when the Pope could proudly declare that "the
privileges of the Holy See are the panoply of the Church and title-deeds
of him who is the supreme lord of the priesthood for the government of
all in authority under him and for the comfort of every one that shall
suffer wrong or injury from subordinate powers"[343:1]; that "the
action of synods, general or provincial, might be peremptorily arrested
by a simple appeal to Rome . . . at any stage of the proceeding"; that
every bishop must give lawful obedience to the "King of Bishops"; and
that "any one, without exception of person, who shall disobey the
doctrine, mandates, interdicts, or decretals, published by the Apostolic
Bishop on behalf of the Catholic faith, the discipline of the Church,
the correction of the faithful, the reformation of evil-doers, and the
discouragement of vice, let him be accursed."[343:2]
In dealing with the schismatic, heretical Eastern Church, however, all
careful reserve vanished and without fear or caution the Roman Pontiffs
assert their prerogatives in a clear, decisive, and peremptory tone. In
the Photian schism at Constantinople, Nicholas I. assumed the right to
decide which of the two claimants to the patriarchate was legitimate. To
Photius, who had secured the office by imperial aid, the Roman pontiff
wrote a letter which up to that time was unsurpassed for supreme papal
arrogance:
Our Lord and Saviour . . . established the foundations of his
church upon the Rock Peter. . . . Now upon this foundation the
appointed builders have from time to time heaped many precious
stones, till by this unwearied diligence the whole building
has been perfected into indissoluble solidity. . . . Since
this church of Peter is the head of all churches, it is
imperative upon all to adopt her as their model in every
matter of ecclesiastical expediency and institution. . . .
From her all synods and all councils derive their power to
bind and to loose.[343:3]
The pontificate of Nicholas I., who died in 867, marks the acme of
papal power during this period. The history of the Western Church,
controlled by Rome, during the latter part of the ninth and the tenth
century, covers a period of unparalleled corruption and debility--"a
death-sleep of moral and spiritual exhaustion." The Papacy as a
constructive spiritual force almost disappears from view. The lofty
ideas of Leo I., Gregory I., and Nicholas I.--their magnificent
ambitions for the Church, their imperial rule, and their commanding,
aggressive spirit--all disappeared. The causes may be found in weak,
wicked, worldly Popes, in anarchy and political confusion in Italy, and
in feudalism. The Church was reaping the reward of a close alliance with
the state. All the gains made by the Church during this epoch were of a
secular character. The moral and spiritual powers of Latin Christianity
lay dormant beneath a mass of corruption, self-seeking, and worldly
passions which covered them and nearly extinguished them. The marvellous
vitality of the organisation of the Church alone saved her from
disintegration in that period of decentralisation. The spirit of the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, from this standpoint, had become the saviour
of the Church. The next force that appeared in western Europe to rescue
the Church from the low state of spiritual degeneration to which she had
fallen was, strange to say, the Holy Roman Empire under the guidance of
another mighty German ruler.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
1.--Roberts and Donaldson, _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, ix.,
pt. 2, p. 144 _ff._ Has letters of six Popes.
2.--Schaff, _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, viii., 601.
3.--Henderson, _Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages_,
319. Contains the Donation of Constantine.
Bibliographical Note:--There is no complete collection of these
False Letters in English. Migne, _Patrologiæ_, cxxx.,
contains the first complete collection. The famous
letters of Pope Nicholas I. are in vol. cxix. The latest
and best collection is by Hinschius, Leip., 1863.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Döllinger, J. J. I., _Fables Respecting the Popes in the
Middle Ages_. N. Y., 1872.
2.--Greenwood, T., _Cathedra Petri_. Lond., 1859. Bk. vii.,
viii.
3.--Janus (Döllinger), _The Pope and the Council_. 1869.
4.--Lea, H. C., _Studies in Church History_. Phil., 1883. Pp.
43-102.
5.--Lee, G. C., _Hincmar_. Balt., 1897. _Am. Soc. of Ch.
Hist._, viii.
6.--Newman, J. H., _Essays, Critical and Historical_. Lond.,
1888. II., 271-5; 320-35.
7.--Oman, C., _The Dark Ages_. Lond., 1893.
8.--Prichard, J. C., _Life and Times of Hincmar_. Lond., 1849.
Bibliographical Note:--The best special discussions are not in
English. Among them are, Blondel, _Pseudo-Isidorus et
Turrianus Vapulantes_. Geneva, 1628; Theiner, _De
Pseudoisidor. canonum collectione_. Bres., 1826; Kunst,
_De Fontibus et Consilio Pseud. collect._ Gött., 1832;
Wasserschleben, _Beiträge zur Geschichte der falschen
Dekretalen_. Bres., 1844; Weizsäcker, _Hinkmar und
Pseudoisidor_, 1858; Schrörs, _Hincmar Erzbischof von
Rheims, sein Leben und sein Schriften_. Freib., 1884;
Phillips, _Kirchenrecht_. Reg., 1845.
II.--GENERAL:
Adams, 234. Allen, 50. Alzog, ii., 194-211. Butler, ch. 61-62.
Coxe, lect. 5, sec. 4-6. Creighton, i., 12. Crooks, 331.
Darras, iii., 18. Döllinger, iii., ch. 4, sec. 7. Emerton, 76.
Fisher, 24, 169. Fitzgerald, ii., 28-54. Foulkes, ch. 7.
Gieseler, ii., 324. Gilmartin, i., ch. 37. Greenwood, iii.,
ch. 6, 7. Hase, 184. Hurst, i., 494. Jennings, i., ch. 8.
Kurtz, i., 511. Milman, iii., 58, 190. Milner, ii., 190.
Moeller, ii., 160-164. Mosheim, i., 187, 414, 420. Neander,
vi., 101, 110, 117, 122, 128. Robertson, bk. 4, ch. 1. Schaff,
iv., 266-273. Sheldon, ii., 122.
FOOTNOTES:
[326:1] A decretal, in the strict canonical sense, is an authoritative
rescript of a Pope given in reply to some question propounded to him,
just as a decree is an ordinance enacted by him, with the advice of his
clergy, but not drawn from him by previous inquiry. See Gieseler, pd. 2,
ch 3; _Cath. Encyc._
[326:2] Janus, _The Pope and the Council_; Lea, _Stud. in Ch. Hist._,
46.
[328:1] Theiner.
[328:2] Moehler.
[328:3] Kunst, Wasserschleben, Döllinger, Moeller, Hatch.
[330:1] Other collections had been made in the East. See Smith and
Cheetham, art. on "Canon Law."
[331:1] Henderson, 319.
[332:1] _Inferno_, bk. xix., 112-118.
[332:2] _De Concordia Catholica_, bk. iii., 2.
[332:3] _De Reform. Eccl._, c. 5.
[332:4] _Defensor Pacis_, ii., c. 28.
[332:5] _Sum. Eccl._, vol. ii., 101.
[333:1] _Institutes_, iv., 7, 11, 20.
[333:2] Febronius, Eichorn, Theiner, Röstell, Luden.
[333:3] Mansi, xv., 694.
[333:4] Kurtz, i., 82.
[334:1] Niedner, p. 397.
[334:2] Hardwick, _Church History_, 148, note.
[334:3] _Mon. Ger._, i., 452.
[334:4] Mansi, xv., 694.
[335:1] Blondel, Kunst, Walter, Densiger.
[335:2] Phillips, Gfrörer.
[335:3] Ballareni, Gieseler, Wasserschleben.
[335:4] Weizsäcker, Von Noorden, Hinschius, Richter, Boxman.
[335:5] Lea, _Stud. in Ch. Hist._, 48.
[335:6] Döllinger.
[335:7] Lea, _Stud. in Ch. Hist._, 49.
[336:1] Schaff, iv., 275.
[336:2] De Cormenin, _Hist. of the Popes_, 248.
[337:1] Alex., _Ep._, i., ch. 5; Felix, _Ep._, ii., ch. 12.
[338:1] Anacletus, _Ep._, i., ch. 4; Marcellinus, _Ep._ ii., ch. 3.
[338:2] Kurtz § 86, ii., No. 2.
[338:3] Clement, _Ep._, 1.
[342:1] Baronius, _Ann._, 863.
[342:2] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, bk. vii., ch. 2.
[343:1] Bouquet, vii., 391.
[343:2] Pertz, i., 462.
[343:3] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, bk. vii., ch. 6.