very weak. When an alteration in a text might most easily have arisen from bad handwriting or from an error, it has been at once set down to intentional deceit, while no pains have been taken to prove that any falsification was intended." When the possibility of such an intention was the utmost that could be conceded, its existence in fact has been without further inquiry admitted and presumed. This has indeed been carried so far, that, contrary to all rules of justice, ancient authors, who have quoted from still earlier writers texts not perfectly correct, have been for this reason accused of general falsification, without its being thought necessary to bring forward any convincing proof; and while the proof of mere possibility is sufficient for the accusers, they will not admit that of an exactly contrary possibility in favour of the accused.7 1 J. Shepherd (The History of the Church of Rome to the End of the Episc. of Damasus, London, 1851) maintained that even before 500 a large number of documental proofs, e.g. Cyprian's letters, were forged as a foundation of the Roman supremacy; this is declared even by Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, i. p. 259, n. 1, 9th ed., to be a monstrous assumption. 2 Eng. trans. ch. viii. Cf. also the Laacher Stimmen on the Ecumenical Council, i. Part vii. ; Das Concil and der Neu-Jansenismus, p. 27 seq. All the writings on canon law, from Ballerini down to Möhler, Walter, Schulte, Richter, Phillips, and Hinschius, supply proof of this. On this assertion, cf. Anti-Janus, p. 116; my criticism of Dr. Döllinger's declaration, pp. 31, 32; and Dr. Raich, Die Auflehnung Döllinger's Gegen die Kirche, Mainz, 1871, p. 61 seq. The Dominicans, R. Bianchi and Alex. Reali, as also Dr. Uccelli, have written in Italian against it. Dr. Uccelli found in the Vatican library the codex used by St. Thomas. Its publication will be thorough proof of the absurdity of the supposition of intentional falsification. Gratian's c. vi. d. 19 is termed a gross falsification by Janus, p. 120, the Correctores Romani having before Janus' time added the true text of St. Augustine, concerning whom he says nothing. Melchior Canus, de loc. Theol. 1. v. c. v. § Dicamus igitur, seq. 168, says on this point: Ubi Gratianus [or still more his predecessors Anselm and Gregory] Augustini sententiam non est assecutus. Cui errori causam fortasse praebuit codex quispiam depravatus. . . . Id quod ante nos.... alii viri diligentissimi deprehenderunt.' An intentional falsification is still less admissible in the case of Gratian, because early and later authorities stand equally high with him; the text of Pope Nicholas I., cited can. 1, is quite sufficient for him, and other passages prove the same; e.g. Jaffé, n. 3479, pp. 398, 398, ex Ivonis Decret. v. c. xxxi. Mansi, xix. 979: Alex. II. Philippo regi Francorum scribit, Sedis Apostolicae decreta eodem loco cum canoni bus habenda esse.' Cardinal Deusdedit is accused by Janus, p. 119, of falsifying the words of Pope Agatho, which falsification according to others was adopted also by Gratian, c. ii. d. 19; but no proof is offered that these are not a distinct utterance independent from the text of the Roman Synod, and they were in truth so understood by Jaffé, p. 167, n. 1629. A single quotation of a spurious passage is made ground for vehement accusations; but such accusations pass unnoticed in persons who agree with the accusers; e.g. Professor Schulte, who cites the false letter of the Council of Nicea to Pope Sylvester (iii. p. 28), and even gives it a first place among his proofs. On the letter, vide Hefele, Conc. i. p. 421 seq. PART II. THE DONATION OF CONSTANTINE. § 1. In what it consisted. § 2, 3. The question as to the time and place of its origin. § 4. Its extension in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. § 5. Seldom used by the Popes. § 6. Its genuineness disputed since the fifteenth century. § 7. Its insufficiency as an explanation of the Papal power. § 1. Many searching inquiries have been made into this document in latter times, and it has been much used against the Church;1 but the Roman See has never thought its rights were menaced by the result of these inquiries, nor looked on this apocryphal document as its 'strongest bulwark,' and the foundation of the system of universal sovereignty exercised by the Popes for a thousand years.' 12 The document, which exists in various Latin and Greek versions, grants to the Pope and the Roman clergy: (1) certain marks and insignia of honour; to the Pope, the tiara, the lorum, and imperial robes; to the clergy, the dress of the highest imperial officials, the right of riding on horses with white trappings, together with the privileges of the imperial senate, -on these points the author enters more into detail, having apparently such things most at heart; (2) the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Pope above other patriarchs, and above all other Churches, and his office of judge in questions of faith and worship; (3) temporal sovereignty over Rome and the provinces, towns, and castles of all Italy, or the western regions. In this last part the different versions vary much. 1 Döllinger, Die Papstfabeln des Mittelalters, München, 1863, p. 61 seq. 2 Schulte, p. 68. Biener. de Collect. Canonum. Eccl. gr. 1827, pp. 72, 79. Döllinger, 1.c. p. 65. Döllinger, p. 72. § 2. Respecting the time and place in which this document had its origin, and respecting its author, as many hypotheses have been made, as in the case of the Pseudo-Isidore Decretals, with which it also has found a place. The fact, so important in its bearing on later times, that the first Christian emperor, instead of choosing Rome as his seat, made a new dwelling for himself on the Bosphorous, so that in the old capital of the world the splendour of the Pontificate might be developed more fully, unhindered by the majesty of the emperor, gave rise to the renowned tales and legends of Constantine, which took fantastic shapes, and later gave rise to the documents in their present shape. Hadrian's The first trace of the gift has been thought to have been found in a letter of Pope Hadrian I. in 777. But the likeness between an expression in this letter and the spurious document is far from justifying the conclusion that Hadrian made use of the document; its composer may quite as well have adopted phrases out of the letter of Hadrian. Hadrian merely says that Constantine exalted the Roman Church, and invested her with rights in Italy; it cannot in fact well be doubted that from times as early as these she was in possession of considerable revenues drawn from landed possessions, and even of temporal power. words prove that he knew nothing of the document. not most surely have made appeal, both before the Frankish and Greek courts, to isolated and comparatively insignificant donations, had he had by him so extensive a deed of gift from the most renowned of emperors, devised expressly in order to claim from these courts for the Roman Church larger possessions in land. He would have contradicted himself had he, in one and the same Brief, attributed to himself on the one hand unlimited power over all Italy by reason of the supposed donation of Constantine, and had then spoken only of patrimonies in cer tain regions as gifts from various emperors and other Christians. 3 Neither did Hadrian's immediate successors know of this document. The hypotheses by which it is said to have been devised in 767 under Paul I., or perhaps even in 752,5 have no real foundation. The prudent Popes of that time, so weak in political and military matters as to be forced almost continually to claim the aid of the Frankish kings, could never have entertained the adventurous project of obtaining for their See a dominion over all Italy; mention is everywhere made of certain specified territories, never of North Italy or Lombardy. After 774 there was no longer any cause for the deception, and before 752 it could have had no success,7 and the same may be said also of the intermediate space of time.s 1 Cod. Carolin. Ep. 59 (al. 49), Cenni, Mon. Dom. Pont. i. 305: 'Sicut temporibus B. Sylvestri Rom. Pontificis a.s. rec. piissimo Constantino magno imp. per ejus largitatem S. Dei Cath. et Apost. Romana Ecclesia elevata atque exaltata est, et potestatem in his Hesperiae partibus largiri dignatus est, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris S. Dei Ecclesia, i.e. B. Petri Apostoli germinet atque exultet et amplius atque amplius exaltata permaneat.' The expression hae partes Hesperiae is not identical with the occidentalium regionum provinciae, and potestatem is not necessarily to be translated by the power;' moreover, Hadrian does not say, urbem Romam et omnes totius Italiae et occidentalium regionum provincias, loca, et civitates,' which are the words of the document according to Mansi, ii. 603 seq. Floss (Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen, Urk. pp. 9-23) gives the facsimile of the text of the Donatio. 2 Zaccaria, Dissert. de Rebus ad Hist. et Antiqu. Eccl. pertinentibus, Fulgin. 1781, t. ii. p. 75 seq. dissert. 10. Gosselin, vol. i. pp. 230 seq. 242 seq.; ii. p. 421. 3 Cf. Gosselin, ii. pp. 420, 421; Civiltà Cattolica, May 7, 1864, ser. v. vol. x. p. 305 seq.; Chilianeum, vol. v. p. 63 seq. Hadrian's words 1.c. are: 'Sed et cuncta alia, quae per diversos imperatores, patricios etiam et alios Deum timentes pro eorum animae mercede et venia delictorum in partibus Tusciae, Spoleto, seu Benevento atque Corsica, simul et Sabinensi patrimonio B. Petro Apostolo sanctaeque Dei et Apostolicae Rom. Ecclesiae concessa sunt et per nefariam gentem Longobardorum per annorum spatia abstracta atque ablata sunt, vestris temporibus restituantur; unde et plures donationes in sacro nostro scrinio Lateranensi recordatas ha bemus.' ▲ Petrus de Marca, de Conc. Sac. et Imp. 1. iii. c. xii. n. 3. Cf. Pag. ad Baron. a. 324, n. 16. 5 Döllinger, 1.c. p. 67. Ib. p. 69. Ib. p. 67. • Civiltà Cattolica, 1.c. p. 315 seq.. $ 3. The questionable document first confronts us in the so-called Colbertine collection, which is somewhat older than PseudoIsidore,1 and certainly of Frankish origin. The three authors by whom this document was first cited in the ninth century belong also to the Frankish kingdom-Æneas, Bishop of Paris (about 868),2 Ado of Vienne (died 875),3 and Hincmar of Rheims (died 882).4 There are many grounds for believing that Charles' coronation as emperor, which was ill received in the East, and also the loss of the Greek dominion in Italy, had to do with the origin of the false document. That its author intended it for the Greeks is plain from the passages against the Greeks, quoted also by Æneas, on the transference of the imperial throne to Byzantium, and the relínquishing of Rome to the Pope, the expressions as to the reverence due to the Papal chair, and the mention of the four Eastern Patriarchs, as to whom the West was almost indifferent.5 The author for the most part placed the ancient legend of Sylvester in the mouth of the Emperor Constantine, and at the same time gave expression in a rude form, and with glaring exaggerations, to the ideas of his own time." There is nothing to prove the author to have been a Roman ecclesiastic; he is quite as likely to have lived in France, to which conclusion all early traces of the work would lead us. Up to 1053 the document is never found to have been made use of in Rome; and up to that date it is most certain that Rome made no endeavour to circulate it.8 Ballerini, de Antiquis Collectionibus et Collectoribus Canonum, P. ii. cap. viii. n. 4; P. iii. c. vi. § 5, n. 19 (Migue, PP. Lat. t. lvi. pp. 143, 255). 2 Tractatus adv. Graecos, c. ccix. (D'Archery, Spicil. vii. p. 111; Migne, t. exxi. p. 758). He adds: 'Cujus (donationis) exemplaribus Ecclesiarum in Gallia consistentium armaria ex integro potiuntur.' 3 Adonis Chronicon. Aetas vi. Hincmar, Ep. 3, c. xiii. : Constantius M. imp., Christianus effectus, propter amorem et honorem SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli sedem suam, |