was best known; its date may be fixed from circumstances between the years 633 and 636. This collection in its original form, like that of Dionysius, was divided into two parts; the first containing the decisions of forty-five synods and Councils, Greek, African, Gallic, and Spanish; the second, one hundred and two decretal epistles of bishops of Rome, from the pontificates of Damasus and Siricius. The documents selected prove beyond doubt that this collection of Isidore was originally intended for the churches of Spain, for such of the decretal epistles contained in the second part*, as were not extracted from the earlier work of Dionysius, are almost exclusively addressed to churches and bishops of that country. Additional confirmation may be drawn from the number of Spanish and Gallic Councils contained in the first part, which amount to twenty-six. A portion of Gaul, it should be recollected, was for a long period united with Spain under the sway of the Visigoths+.

In the ninth century there appeared, purporting to be the work of the same Isidore, the collection of decretals emphatically called the false. The ignorance of the times secured currency and credence to a forgery, the exceeding falsehood of which is only equalled by the clumsiness of its execution. The collections subsequent to that of Dionysius had contained no decretal epistles anterior to those already known, but this ascended to a higher date. In the collection thus for the first time made known, bishops of Rome were introduced as writing in the Frank Latin of the eighth and ninth centuries, and quoting from a Latin version of the scriptures constructed in part from that of St. Jerome. Zephyrinus, who lived at the close of the second century, is represented as alluding to the imperial precepts forbidding the expulsion of bishops. In a pretended epistle of Victor relating to the celebration of Easter, Theophilus, an early bishop of Alexandria, is confounded with another bishop of Cæsarea about A. D. 400; and the proofs and illustrations adduced from scripture are in many places marked by the grossest ignorance and perversion. Passages occur

*Neander, iv. 105.

+ Neand. iv. 106. Spittler, Hist. of Canon Law. Werke, (1827) 1. § 52, 56. Walter, K. § 84.

in the course of the work obviously extracted from the Breviarium Aniani, (a work unknown until the sixth century,) as well as others from works of that and the two following centuries.

According to the earliest manuscripts, the false decretals. consist of three parts; the first comprising (with a preface partly taken from the Spanish collection attributed to Isidore of Seville, and some introductory fragments,) the apostolic canons, followed by thirty forged epistles of the earliest popes, from Clement to Melchiades, who died in 313. The second part commences with a kind of preface, followed by Constantine's pretended act of donation, two other introductory extracts, (from the Spanish and the ancient Gallic collection of the fifth century,) the chief portion being composed of the Greek, African, Gallic, and Spanish Councils, according to the enlarged Spanish collection as it stood in 683. The third part contains, with a preface from the source before mentioned, decretals of the popes in chronological order from Sylvester to Gregory II., thirty-five of which are forgeries, and various pretended Councils. The collection originally terminated with a decree of Gregory II., but was subsequently enlarged by the addition of fragments from one author, among which are two Romish Councils attributed to Symmachus. The ground-work of the whole is the Spanish collection called that of Isidore.

The subjects treated in the false decretals are multifarious -the dignity and privileges of the see of Rome, the higher branches of the hierarchy, accusations and persecutions of the bishops and clergy, appeals to the holy see, usurpations of church property, ordination, suffragan bishops, parish priests and deacons, baptism, confirmation and marriage, the festival of Easter, the finding of the cross, the removal of the bodies of the apostles, the chrism, holy water, consecration of churches, blessing of fields and gardens, and of consecrated vessels and garments. Many passages relate to personal matters only, and a greater number are no more than religious or moral exhortations expressed in general terms*.

From being appealed to as authorities by bishops and Councils in the Frank dominions in support of church discipline,

* Walter, Kirchenrecht, p. 159–161, from which this passage is taken almost verbally.

and copies and extracts from them having been made, the false decretals, in the twelfth century, had obtained a gradual circulation in Europe: they were moreover enlarged by new additions, both genuine and false, the order being changed in several places. The authorship is generally attributed to Benedictus Levita, a deacon of Mentz, who has exposed himself to this charge from the large quotations from this work introduced into the collection of capitularies drawn up by himself about the year 845, in a tone implying a large participation on his part in the composition of the former. The Frank origin of the forgery, however, may be clearly demonstrated from a survey of the materials used in the compilation, the country of the earliest manuscripts of the collection, and the history of their growth into authority. Various reasons have been assigned for the compilation of these decretals. The truth appears to be divided between the theory that they were composed for the purpose of lowering the authority of provincial Councils and metropolitans, and a later one that the immediate aim of the author was the exaltation of his own particular church (of Mentz) and its clergy. Both agree that this attempt to repel one formidable power ended in the establishment of another and more dangerous one*.

Such is a brief sketch of the origin and contents of the famous false decretals. Their character, borrowed, garbled, and inaccurate, sufficiently establishes the fact, that their compiler did but express the religious and ecclesiastical sentiments of his age. Destitute of inventive powers, and incapable of conceiving as of depicting a new form of ecclesiastical polity, he did no more than set in order what was already regarded with submissive reverence by the ignorance of the time; for the tale of the false decretals is only a chapter in the long history of the way to the triumph of priestcraft being paved by the anterior corruptions, the selfishness and cowardice of the human heart.

As the course of the narrative has been in some measure anticipated, it is necessary to return to the pontificates be

*Walter Kirchenrecht, § 89-92. Knust. de Fontibus et Consilio, Ps-Isid. Collect. 4. Götting. 1832., p. 7, 13, 86, 89, 101. Spittler, i. § 62-69. Gieseler, ii. 145. Guizot, iii. 83. The accounts in Matter and Mosheim are meagre, and in the latter incorrect.

tween the troubled days of Louis the Debonnair, and the accession of Nicholas I. The imperial rights were recognised more or less in the election of the three first pontiffs after the decease of Charlemagne. That of Stephen IV., in 816, took place in the presence of commissaries of Louis the Debonnair, to whom the result was sent for confirmation. In 817 his successor, Pascal I., craved pardon of the emperor for having omitted this step, who despatched his eldest son, Lothaire, to be present at the election of the next, Eugenius II., in 825, in order to take measures against future infringement of the imperial rights. Eugenius was succeeded in 827 by Valentine, an archdeacon, who died in a few weeks after his elevation. The death of Charlemagne was the signal for the Saracens to descend upon the coasts of Italy. Under the feeble and despised rule of his degenerate descendants, it became the task of the bishops to find means for repelling the infidels promptly and vigorously, to raise money, and to equip and lead fleets and armies. Their Frank superiors (for Gregory IV.* petitioned the emperor to confirm his election)† proved as unable to protect that pontiff and his two successors as the Byzantine emperors had been found before. In 847, after wasting the coast, and compelling the inhabitants of Civita Vecchia to flee to the forests, the Saracens laid siege to Rome, plundered two churches, and menaced the inhabitants with the extremities of conquest. At this juncture, Leo IV., a Roman, was hastily, and without awaiting imperial confirmation, called to the papal chair, then vacant by the decease of Sergius II. Leo amply vindicated the wisdom of the choice made by his countrymen in their hour of distress. His saintly honours and reputed miracles (recorded by the pencil of Raphael) bear testimony to the holiness of his character: a surer proof of his merits is found in the works by which he studied to strengthen and adorn the city which he had delivered from a merciless enemy, the improvements of his dominions, and the policy and courage which marked his pursuit

* Hamburg was erected into an archbishopric in 831, by this pope, for Ansgar, the missionary of Sweden. A graphic account of the visit of the heathen king to Ingelheim, the early history of Ansgar, and his missionary travels, is given in Strinnholm Sevenska Folkets Historie, ii. 617. It is told more succinctly in Geijer, S. F. H. i. 127.

+ Matter, ii. 92, who quotes De Marca. De Conc. Sac. et Imp. 1. 8. c. 14.

of the Saracens. The Leonine city and the victory of Ostia are more real monuments of the greatness and patriotism of Leo IV*. Between his decease, in 855, and the accession of Nicholas I., three years subsequently, (passing over the fabulous pontificate of Johannat,) there intervenes the brief and insignificant one of Benedict III.: that of Nicholas was the scene of events, important both at the time, and not less so as the parents of others.

Charlemagne died in 814, leaving to his eldest son, Louis, an empire extending from the Ebro to the Eyder, from Rome to the mountains of Bohemia, and from the banks of the Theiss to the shores of the Atlantic. His successor was a gentle devotee, incapable of holding together masses endowed with such principles of mutual repulsion as those of which his subjects consisted, and which the iron sway of his father had alone prevented from flying asunder. Neither the intellectual inferiority of Louis the Debonnair, nor the ambition and rivalry of his sons, can be justly regarded as the causes of the dismemberment of the mighty empire of Charlemagne. The jealousies of the different races would have rent the dominion of wiser and better monarchs than those who first rebelled against their father, and subsequently contended among themselves ‡.

In the wars between Louis and his sons, the confidence of the unhappy father reposed entirely upon his subjects to the east of the Rhine. The Teutonic tribes united with the descendants of their Frank enemies to maintain, in the person of

* Matter, ii. 18. Sismondi, Rep. Ital. i. 93. Gibbon, c. 52.

The principal authorities on both sides are enumerated in a note to Mosheim. Neander discredits the story, iv. 135, note 1. Guerike, an author neither Romanizing nor sceptical, has expressed himself as follows, K.G. 430, 431. The papal chair is said to have been occupied between the pontificate of Leo IV. and Benedict III. by a female pope. According to an old tradition, this woman was a native of Mentz, who assumed male disguise, and studied with great success at Athens. She is subsequently reported to have obtained so high a degree of reputation at Rome, as to have been elevated to the papacy under the name of John. The story is repeated by various writers from the middle of the eleventh to the thirteenth century, with the addition of many particulars.—Guerike rejects the story on the following grounds. 1. From the fact of 200 years elapsing between the asserted event and the first historical notice of it. 2. From the silence on this head of the most violent polemical writers of the eastern church, during the ninth and following century. 3. From the probable origin of the story as a satire on the debaucheries of popes John X., XI., and XII., during the first half of the tenth century, etc.-See also Gibbon, c. 49, notes, for a denial of the story.

Thierry, Lettres sur l'Histoire de France, ed. 5ème, 186-190.