"Popes appealed to them in their official capacity, as well as private doctors; (1) Leo IX., for instance, to the pseudo-donation in the prolix epistle written by him, or in his name, to Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, on the eve of the schism. (2) Eugenius IV. to the pseudo-decretals of St. Alexander and Julius, during the negotiations for healing it, in his instructions to the Armenians. (3) But why, my lord, need I travel any further for proofs, when in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that has been for three centuries the accredited instructor of the clergy themselves, recommended authoritatively by so many Popes, notwithstanding the real value of these miserable impostures had been for three centuries before the world, I find these words: [2687] On the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, see the third epistle (that is, pseudo-decretal) of Anacletus'! Such is, actually, the authority to which the clergy of our own days are referred, in the first instance, for sound and true views on the primacy. (4) Afterwards, when they have mastered what is said there, they may turn to three more authorities, all culled likewise from Gratian, which they will not fail to interpret in accordance with the ideas they have already imbibed. Nor can I refrain from calling attention to a much more flagrant case. On the sacrament of confirmation there had been many questions raised by the Reformers, calculated to set people thinking, and anxious to know the strict truth respecting it. On this the Catechism proceeds as follows: [2688] --
"Since it has been already shown how necessary it would be to teach generally respecting all the sacraments, by whom they were instituted, so there is need of similar instruction respecting confirmation, that the faithful may be the more attracted by the holiness of this sacrament. Pastors must therefore explain that not only was Christ our Lord the author of it, but that, on the authority of the Roman pontiff St. Fabian (i.e., the pseudo-decretal attributed to him), He instituted the rite of the chrism, and the words used by the Catholic Church in its administration.'
"Strange phenomenon, indeed, that the asseverations of such authorities should be still ordered to be taught as Gospel from our pulpits in these days, when everybody that is acquainted with the merest rudiments of ecclesiastical history knows how absolutely unauthenticated they are in point of fact, and how unquestionably the authorities cited to prove them are forgeries.
"Absolutely, my lord, with such evidence before me, I am unable to resist the inference that truthfulness is not one of the strongest characteristics of the teaching of even the modern Church of Rome; for is not this a case palpably where its highest living authorities are both indifferent to having possible untruths preached from the pulpit, and something more than indifferent to having forgeries, after their detection as such, adduced from the pulpit to authenticate facts?
"This, again, strongly reminds me of a conversation I had with the excellent French priest who received me into the Roman-Catholic Church, some time subsequently to that event. I had, as an Anglican, inquired very laboriously into the genuineness of the Santa Casa: and having visited Nazareth and Loretto since, and plunged into the question anew at each place, came back more thoroughly convinced than ever of its utterly fictitious character, notwithstanding the privileges bestowed upon it by so many Popes. On stating my convictions to him, his only reply was: There are many things in the Breviary which I do not believe, myself.' Oh the stumbling-blocks of a system in the construction of which forgeries have been so largely used, in which it is still thought possible for the clergy to derive edification from legends which they cannot believe, and the people instruction from works of acknowledged imposture!
Further, Dupin remarks: [2689] --
"The first man that published them, if we may believe Hincmar, was one Riculphus, bishop of Mentz, who died about the ninth century. It is commonly believed, seeing the collection bears the name of Isidore, that he brought them from Spain. But it never could have been composed by the great Archbishop of Seville; and there is great reason to believe that no Spaniard, but rather some German or Frenchman, began this imposture,
"It likewise seems probable that some of these Decretals have been foisted in since the time of Riculphus. Benedict, a deacon of the church of Mentz, who made a collection of canons for the successors of Riculphus, may have put the last hand to this collection of false Decretals attributed to one Isidore, a different person from the famous Bishop of Seville, and surnamed Peccator, or Mercator. About his time a certain Isidore did come from Spain, along with some merchants, and then withdrew to Mentz. Not improbably, therefore, this man's name was given to the collection, and it was naturally believed that it was brought from Spain.
"And since these letters first appeared in an unlearned, dark age, what wonder is it that they were received with very little opposition? And yet Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, with other French bishops, made great difficulty in accepting them, even in that time. Soon after, however, they acquired some authority, owing to the support of the court of Rome, the pretensions of which they mightily favoured.
On the twin imposture of the "Donation of Constantine," it may be well to cite the same learned authority. But this shall be found elsewhere.
Let me now recur to the same candid Gallican doctor, Dupin, who remarks as follows:--
"2. The imposture of these letters is invincibly proved from hence: because they are made up of a contexture of passages out of Fathers, councils, papal epistles, and imperial ordinances, which have appeared after the third century, down to the middle of the ninth.
"3. The citations of Scripture in all these letters follow the Vulgate of St. Jerome, which demonstrates that they are since his time (a.d. 420), and consequently do not proceed from Popes who lived long before St. Jerome.
"4. The matter of these letters is not at all in keeping with the ages when those to whom they are attributed were living.
"5. These Decretals are full of anachronisms. The consulships and names of consuls mentioned in them are confused and out of order; and, moreover, the true dates of the writers themselves, as Bishops of Rome, do not agree with those assumed in these letters.
"6. Their style is extremely barbarous, full of solecisms; and in them we often meet with certain words never used till the later ages. Also, they are all of one style! How does it happen that so many different Popes, living in divers centuries, should all write in the same manner?"
Dupin then goes on to examine the whole series with learning and candour, showing that every single one of them "carries with it unequivocal signs of lying and imposture." To his pages let the student recur, therefore. I follow him in the following enumeration of the frauds he calmly exposes with searching logic and demonstration:--
1. St. Clement to St. James the Lord's Brother.--Plainly spurious.
2. The Second Epistle of Clement to the Same.--Equally so.
3. St. Clement to all Suffragan Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Others of the Clergy: to all Princes Great and Small, and to all the Faithful.
Dupin remarks: "This very title suffices to prove the forgery, as, in the days of St. Clement, there were no "princes great or small" in the Church." He adds that it speaks of "subdeacons," an order not then existing, and that it is patched up from scraps of the apocryphal Recognitions.
4. A Fourth Letter of the Same. It is self-refuted by "the same reasons."
5. The Fifth Letter to St. James of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome and Successor of St. Peter.
"But," says Dupin, "as St. James died before St. Peter, it necessarily follows, that this epistle cannot have been written by St. Clement." Further, "We have one genuine epistle of St. Clement, the style of which is wholly different from that of these Decretals."
6. The Epistle of Anacletus.--Barbarous, full of solecisms and falsehoods.
7. A Second Epistle of Anacletus.--Filled with passages out of authors who lived long after the times of Anacletus.
8. A Third Letter, etc..--Spurious for the same reasons.
9. An Epistle of Evaristus.--Patched up out of writings of Innocent in the fifth century, dated under consuls not contemporaries of the alleged writer.
10. A Second Epistle of the Same.--Stuffed with patchwork of later centuries.
11. An Epistle of Alexander.--Contains passages from at least one author of the eighth century.
12. A Second Epistle of the Same.--Refers to the Council of Laodicea, which was held (a.d. 365) after Alexander was dead.
13. A Third Epistle, etc.--Quotes an author of the fifth century.
14. An Epistle of Xystus.--Dated under a consul that lived in another age, and quotes authors of centuries later than his own day.
15. A Second Epistle of the Same.--Subject to the same objections, anachronisms, etc.
16. An Epistle of Telesphorus.--False dates, patched from subsequent authors, etc.
17. An Epistle of Hyginus.--Anachronisms, etc.
18. A Second of the Same.--Stuffed with anachronisms, and falsely dated by consuls not of his age.
19. An Epistle of Pius I.--Full of absurdities, and quotes "the Theodosian Code"!
20. A Second.--It is addressed to Justus, etc. Bad Latin, and wholly unknown to antiquity, though Baronius has tried to sustain it.
21. A Third Letter, etc.--Addressed to Justus, bishop of Vienna. False for the same reasons.
22. An Epistle of Anicetus.--Full of blunders as to dates, etc. Mentions names, titles, and the like, unheard of till later ages.
23. An Epistle of Soter.--Dated under consuls who lived before Soter was bishop of Rome.
24. A Second Letter, etc.--Speaks of "monks," "palls," and other things of later times; is patched out of writings of subsequent ages, and dated under consuls not his contemporaries.
25. An Epistle of Eleutherus.--Subject to like objections.
26. A Second Letter, etc.--Anachronisms.
27. A Third Letter, etc.--Addressed to "Desiderius, bishop of Vienna." There was no such bishop till the sixth century.
28. A Fourth Letter, etc.--Quotes later authors, and is disproved by its style.
29. An Epistle of Zephyrinus.--Little importance to be attached to anything from such a source; but Dupin (who lived before his bad character came to light in the writings of Hippolytus) convicts it of ignorance, and shows that it is a patchwork of later ideas and writers.
30. A Second Letter.--"Yet more plainly an imposture," says Dupin.
31. An Epistle of St. Callistus.--What sort of a "saint" he was, our readers are already informed. This epistle is like the preceding ones of Zephyrinus.
32. A Second Epistle, etc.--Quotes from writings of the eighth century.
33. An Epistle of Urban.--Quotes the Vulgate, the Theodosian Code, and Gregory the Fourth.
34. An Epistle of Pontianus.--Anachronisms.
35. A Second Epistle, etc.--Barbarous and impossible.
36. An Epistle of Anterus.--Equally impossible; stuffed with anachronisms.
37. An Epistle of Fabianus.--Contradicts the facts of history touching Cyprian, Cornelius, and Novatus.
38. A Second Epistle, etc.--Self-refuted by its monstrous details of mistake and the like.
39. A Third Epistle, etc.--Quotes authors of the sixth century.
40. An Epistle of Cornelius.--Contradicts historical facts, etc.
41. A Second Epistle, etc.--Equally full of blunders. "But nothing," says Dupin, "shows the imposture of these two letters more palpably than the difference of style from those truly ascribed to Cornelius in Cyprian's works."
42. A Third Letter, etc.--Equally false on its face. Dupin, with his usual candour, remarks: "We find in it the word Mass,' which was unknown to the contemporaries of Cornelius."
43. An Epistle of Lucius.--It is dated six months before he became Bishop of Rome, and quotes authors who lived ages after he was dead.
44. An Epistle of Stephen.--"Filled with citations out of subsequent authors."
45. A Second Epistle, etc.--Open to the like objection; it does not harmonize with the times to which it is referred.
Here Dupin grows weary, and winds up his review as follows:--
For like reasons, we must pass judgment, in like manner, on the two Epistles of Sixtus II.; the two of Dionysius; the three of St. Felix I; the two of Eutychianus; one of Caius; two of Marcellinus and those of Marcellus; the three of Eusebius; those of Miltiades, and the rest of Isidore's collection: they are full of passages out of Fathers, Popes, and councils, more modern than the very Popes by whom they are pretended to be written. In them are many things that clash with the known history of those times, and were purposely framed to favour the court of Rome and to sustain her pretensions against the rights of bishops and the liberties of churches. But it would take up too much time to show the gross falsehood of these monuments. They are now rejected by common consent, and even by those authors who are most favourable to the court of Rome, who are obliged to abandon the patronage of these epistles, though they have done a great deal of service in developing the greatness of the court of Rome, and ruining the ancient discipline of the Church, especially with reference to the rights of bishops and ecclesiastical decisions.