ment of the Church? Mr. Greenwood seems to feel the force of this; for he says that there was an irksome and a perplexing want of correspondence between the faith itself and the means by which it was to be maintained. For ourselves we are disposed, with many of the greatest theologians, to incline to the opinion that, as during His public ministrations our Blessed LORD gave a code of doctrine to His Church, so during the mysterious forty days He laid down the primary Canons of ecclesiastical discipline; and that the compilation which bears the Apostolic name was a production, if not of their own day, at least of the sub-Apostolic age. Mr. Greenwood seems to state, indeed, with some show of candour, that "it is not indeed improbable that some among that singular series of precepts known to us by the name of Apostolical Constitutions and Canons may have been in circulation before the accession of Constantine the Great." Whatever date we may assign to these writings, the great Conciliary age of the Church evidently set in, at the beginning of the fourth century. The movement was all but simultaneous; the Mozarabic, the Gallican, the Eastern and the Western Churches, each had their councils; and some of these were œcumenical. The list opens with the Council of Eliberis (305), and closes with a Roman Council of 398. Intermediate between these, occur the Councils of Arles, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Nice, Antioch, Sardica, Carthage, Laodicæa, Gangra, Valence, Saragossa, Constantinople, Rome, Carthage II., Hippo, Carthage III. and IV. The Canons of these nineteen Councils of the fourth century have come down to us entire: indeed of the first-mentioned Councils there are no less than eighty-one Canons extant. Abbé Justel's MS., entitled, "Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Universalis," is the oldest code or digest of ecclesiastical law which we possess: it contains the Canons of the two Ecumenical Councils of the fourth century. The Code of Theodoret, the next in importance, contains in addition the eighty-five "Canons Apostolical, and the twentyone Canons of the Council of Sardica (A.D. 347)." The Latin Codex discovered by Quesnel in the library of Oriel College is divided into sixty chapters; and contains, besides the canons of councils properly so called, four decretal epistles of Pope Innocent I., other decretals of Pope Siricius; an appendix narrating the Monophysite heresy, and giving certain decretals of Popes Simplicius, Felix II., and Gelasius. This code was thoroughly rearranged by Dionysius Exiguus, the Greek canons translated into Latin ; and a careful distinction was made by him between the canon and decretal law. This was the cause of the disuse of the Dionysian code in its divided state; it was not until the ecclesiastical and pontifical law became blended that it received its authoritative stamp, and remained in use until the time of Isidore Mer

cator.

1 P. 137.

Mr. Greenwood next proceeds to comment upon the interpolations of the Canons. First and foremost is mentioned the sixth Nicene Canon, an interpolation asserted in the Council of Chalcedon. The spurious preface as given by Mr. Greenwood is contained in these words: "Ista Romana Ecclesia semper habuit primatum." Bruns' "Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum veterum selecti" lies open before us at the first Nicene Council; and to the "TOUTO σúvnes" of the Bishop of Rome this note is appended: "In versione prisca (Just. Biblioth. t. i. p. 284) initium hujus canonis ita redditur: Antiqui moris est ut urbis Romæ episcopus habeat principatum."" The Council of Sardica is an old story: suffice to say about it, that Dionysius gives the canons as not existing in the original Greek. The Greek text before us is from Jonaras and Balsamon.

Ascending from particulars, we find a series of new elements in the Canon Law obtaining a gradual place in the archives of Rome, elements of an ecclesiastical jurisprudence, the application and convenience of which was acknowledged by all Churches in communion with the Roman See-the "Decreta Patrum;" the "Patrum Constitutiones;" "Synodalia Constituta Patrum," found their completion in the "Aperta Synodalia Constituta;" a code which became the Canon Law of the Western Churches. Now it seems to be but reasonable, that SS. Wilfrid and Boniface should seek to introduce into the Churches under their control the laws which they found at work in the parent Church of all. On the large scale, the Canon Law of the many important Churches was for many centuries distinct from that of Rome. The Spanish code of Martin of Braga, with the acts of General Councils, of Provincial Synods, and of some few foreign councils, and the decretal Epistles of Popes addressed to themselves, remained in force in the Church of Spain for several centuries. In the Gallican Church its nonagreement in a standard of law rendered it easy for S. Boniface to impose on that Church the "Book of the Canons of the Roman Church," which finally usurped the place which had been occupied with the national codes of law. For a long time after this, the Canon Law passed through a varying struggle for progress, till in 833 Ricculph, Archbishop of Maintz, brought from Spain a copy of a codex of ecclesiastical law, bearing the name of Isidorus Mercator, or Peccator, a code containing decretal epistles from S. Clement of Rome, and the succeeding pontiffs, till the period when the other decretals begin. Despite of the belief of Archbishop Honorius, who reckoned these decretals to have formed a portion of the genuine code of S. Isidore of Seville, there is no doubt that they originated in the school of S. Boniface and equally certain is it, that the Popes had no hand in their fabrication. Mr. Greenwood is honest enough to confess this. But how does he get over the difficulty caused by his theory of what may be termed the

superabounding" sins of the Bishops of Rome? By such a statement as this: "Our belief, therefore, is, that the Popes of Rome were the willing dupes of the imposture!!" As scholarship improved, on the revival of letters, these decretals were subjected to a searching investigation, and the forgery detected. How does Mr. Greenwood treat their rejection by the court of Rome? " Then, indeed, though slowly and reluctantly, the Papacy renounced them in their objectionable form, while reserving to itself all the benefits to be derived from them." And we are furthermore informed, that this ingenious rejection was brought about, by framing a theory, that in the false decretals a vein of primitive ecclesiastical tradition really existed, although overloaded with the garb of a semi-barbarous age. The analysis of these decretals, which forms the subject of Mr. Greenwood's seventh chapter, is alone interesting as exhibiting the Church views of the period. Written documents seemed to be wanting-so says Isidore Mercator. Written documents are produced. Then follows the mixing up of decretal and canon law; the emancipation of the clergy from secular responsibility; an exposition of the origin and dignity of the Pontificate; then the reduction of the metropolitan courts to mere commissions of inquiry, because the original jurisdiction belongs to Rome, to which pertains also the right to annul ecclesiastical decrees. All these points, together with a provision against the interference of secular princes, forms (to continue our use of our author's summary of this document,) a "perfected theory of the Cathedra Petri." But the great gravamen of these decretals seems to be the investiture of the Christian Priesthood with a sacerdotal character. The elementive parallel is carried out in detail: "The decretalists presented the Christian ministry as a properly mediatorial and sacrificing priesthood after the strict model of the Aaronic order."3 "And as CHRIST had offered Himself up upon the altar of the Cross, so now His priests were commissioned and enjoined in. His place to offer up perpetual sacrifice upon the altar of the Church for the sins of the whole world."4 How far this doctrine differs from that of S. Chrysostom, we leave the attentive reader of the saintly Archbishop of Constantinople to determine. This notion of a sacrifice is most unbearable to Mr. Greenwood. He says, "This conception leaps forth full-fledged from the mind of these false men."5 With especial disgust he records the assumed decree of Telesphorus, "Let the presbyter or the bishop, who by the word of his mouth hath power to make the Body of the LORD, be heard, &c.," as well as the reputed decree of Pontianus, with regard to the priests, which runs thus, that " to them alone is granted by the word of their mouth to reproduce the Body of the LORD." Now we meet with an astounding specimen of logic. In these decretals the word 'conficere' is used; and as it signifies to make

1 P. 179.

2 P. 183.

3 P. 192.

4 P. 193.

5 P. 193.

perfect,' or to produce,' it "must be, therefore, taken in its fullest acceptation, namely, to make or produce the material Body of the LORD!" Of a piece with this most extraordinary assertion, founded upon an utter non-comprehension of the fact, that a body may be real and yet spiritual, is Mr. Greenwood's account of Paschasius Radbertus. He was a monk of Corbie, the devoted friend of Abbot Wala. The Abbot Wala was very instrumental in the circulation of the Isidorian decretals. He presented them to Pope Gregory IV. at his great Frankish arbitration. What was more natural, therefore, than that the same doctrine should be found both in Radbert's book "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini," and in the decretals promulgated by his friend Wala? So says Mr. Greenwood. "We take the doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the world at the same birth with a series of forgeries by which the Christian Priesthood was finally elevated to the rank and dignity of a sacrificing and mediatorial order "-" that dogma is first promulgated on the same occasion by the same persons.' Now turning to Canon Harold Browne's "Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles," a book used at Cambridge as an examination manual, which has passed through several editions, we find it there stated concerning Radbert: "Whether even he taught the fullgrown doctrine of Transubstantiation, or only Consubstantiation, our divines have questioned."2 His Epistle to Findegard puts the matter beyond all question, speaking of the conscience awakened by his treatise on the sacrament, he says, "that they learnt and understood to think worthily of CHRIST, Whose Body is not corrupted because it is spiritual, and the whole which is celebrated in this sacrament is spiritual." The tables are thus completely turned against Mr. Greenwood, for if the doctrine of Radbert's book agrees with that of the Isidorian decretals, then, as he held that the "sacrament is spiritual," so do the latter speak of a making or producing of a spiritual and sacramental Body of our Blessed LORD. Thus what seemed at first sight to be a very pretty historical coincidence, proves upon examination to have no actual foundation in fact.

The Decretals next discuss the relative position of the Clergy and the Laity in the formation of the Church. Our author of course differs almost as widely from them on this ground as on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. We cannot see much exaggeration in the saying attributed to Pope Alexander I.: "CHRIST is the Bridegroom, the Church is the Bride, therefore in heaven we have one FATHER; but on earth the priesthood by His delegation do exercise His functions in the Church." We strongly recommend to Mr. Greenwood a diligent reading of Solomon's Song and of S. Paul's doctrinal Epistles: he might remember with advantage too, the saying of a Bishop, martyr, and saint, who speaking of 3 Bib. Pat. t. xiv. p. 755.

1 P. 193.

2 P. 696, 2nd ed.

all"

the three orders of the Clergy says: “ χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία οὐ xaλsitaι." The other counts of this document, such as the exemption of the Clergy from the operation of secular law, the Episcopal status, the metropolitan government, the jurisdiction of Rome in all "causæ majores," together with the digests of Ecclesiastical law by Rhegino, by Burchard, by Anselm of Lucca, by Ivo of Chartres, with the Decretum of Gratian, and the effects of its working, must be dismissed with this bare enumeration of their contents.

The Pontificates of Sergius II. and Leo IV., are both distinguished by their decided opposition to the civil power, an opposition that was increased considerably by Pope Nicholas I., and his prerogative was overdrawn to its utmost limits in the cases of John of Ravenna and of Anschar of Bremen. The noble-hearted Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, next appears upon the page of our history, and on the whole justice is done to his character. The following portrait is that given by Mr. Greenwood.

"Amid political and social prostration Hincmar stood erect; not indeed as a warrior or a statesman, but as a beacon to mark the only path to safety, an inspiriting example of firmness of purpose, self-reliance, and courage. In him a naturally imperious and irascible temper was controlled by learning above the standard of the age in which he lived, and a judgment not easily diverted from its purpose by the passion of the moment. The political importance of the see of Rheims placed him at once in the highest ranks of the councillors of the crown, and its remoteness from the coasts secured him from the inroads which swept and desolated the maritime provinces. In this position he continued for a period of nearly forty years to oppose a manful and upon the whole a not unsuccessful resistance to the manifold evils which afflicted both the Church and State of Neustrian France."2

Mr. Greenwood details all the circumstances of the prosecution of Rothald, Bishop of Soisson, and his appeal to the Pope. The affair of Wulfoald forms another example of the successful exercise of the Papal prerogative by Pope Nicholas I.: the strong dispute which Hincmar of Laon had with his successor Pope Hadrian II., in the matter of an alienated fief, is all of a piece with the rest of the ecclesiastical history of this period. The negotiations which intervened between Charles the Bald and Pope Hadrian II., and which continued with his successor Pope John VIII., who signally failed in his Frankish objects; with the diet of Pavia, and the election of Charles the Fat to the kingdom of Italy, form the leading events of the period which elapsed between the years A.D. 845 and A.D. 880 in the empire of the West.

From the west however the history of this period demands our attention in the East-on the most important historical subject 1 S. Ig. ad Tral., § 8.

? P. 252.