preserved her independent life.1 Roman influences were seldom felt, and only at long intervals. Archbishop Diego Gelmirez, a zealous advocate of the Gregorian system, testifies, at the beginning of the twelfth century, that no Spanish bishop then (in the previous century) paid to the Roman Church tribute or obedience, and that the Spanish Church followed the laws of Toledo, not of Rome.2

A change in the interests of Rome was effected through the influence of the monks of Clugny, who received abbeys and bishoprics, through the action of French queens, and the policy of some kings who were seeking support at Rome. Even Gregory VII. asserted that all Spain had from ancient times been the property of the Popes, as he expected also to be able to demand Hungary, Russia, Provence, and Saxony. And this claim had one result, in the suppression of the Mozarabic and substitution of the Roman rite in 1085. A French Cluniac monk became Archbishop of Toledo, and for 150 years, up to the middle of the thirteenth century, a con

1 Masdeu, Hist. Critic. de España, xiii. 258 sqq. Here it is observed that, according to a letter issued by Adrian I. about 790, denouncing certain abuses, there had for two centuries been no correspondence of the Popes with Spain. Nor was there any even in the eleventh century, before Gregory VII.'s time, except on a few unimportant points.

2 Hist. Compost. 253, in vol. xx. of Florez' España Sagrada.

stant struggle went on for the subjugation of the Spanish Church. This was the aim of the historical fictions first perpetrated by Bishop Pelayo of Oviedo, and then by Bishop Lucas of Tuy. The former adulterated Sampiro's Chronicle by inventing an embassy of the Spanish Church to John VIII., some decrees of that Pope, and a Synod held by his order at Oviedo, besides other things.1 More comprehensive and still more influential were the inventions of Lucas, who thoroughly corrupted the ancient history of Spain. In order to give an appearance of early and complete dependence on Rome to the Spanish Church, he represented Archbishop Leander as a legate of the Pope, and falsified the whole history of Isidore, whom he converts into a vicar of Pope Gregory. The misfortunes of Spain and the overthrow of the Gothic kingdom are explained by a purely fabulous history he invented of King Witiza, who is said to have forbidden the Spaniards, on pain of death, to obey the Pope.3

1 Florez' España Sagrada, xiv. 440.

2 Ib. ix. 203-204.

"Istud quidem

3 "Chronicon Mundi" in Schotti Hisp. Illustrat. iv. 69. causa pereundi Hispaniæ fuit," says Lucas. The moral to be drawn was that the prosperity of Spain depended on obedience to the Pope. The whole Chronicle, written about 1236, is a tissue of lies, exceeding anything previously known, or at least published, in Spain.

In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interest of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV. evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada's argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conclusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of the other bishops is borrowed or derived from his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by the spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies.1 In the times of 1 De Pontif. M. et Gen. Concil. Auctorit. (Venet. 1583), p. 17; Summa de

Leo X. and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quétif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master, St. Thomas, had been deceived by an impostor, and had in his turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the other hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbé, while giving up the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve still to cling to Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor

2

Eccl. (Venet. 1561), p. 171; Apparat. super Decr. Union. Græc. (Venet. 1561), p. 366, and in many other places.

1 Opera (ed. Serry), Patav. 734, p. 194, "Cyrillus . . . multo evidentius quam cæteri auctores huic veritati testimonium perhibet," viz., that the Pope is the infallible judge of doctrine. Those who wish to get a bird'seye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine's work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.

2 Le Quien speaks out with peculiar distinctness on the point in the Preface to his Panoplia contra Schisma Græcorum, published at Paris in 1718 under the name of Steph. de Altimura, pp. xv.-xvii.

3 Cf. Labbé, De Script. Eccles. (Paris, 1660), i. 244. He and Bellarmine sheltered themselves under the pretext that the Thesaurus of Cyril has come to us in a mutilated condition; Dupin, Ceillier, Oudin, and others have long since shown the falsehood of this assertion.

Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations in St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus.1

§ XXI.-Interdicts.

To all these means for supporting the universal supremacy of the Popes, and bringing the belief of their infallibility into more general acceptance, were added the Interdicts to which whole countries were frequently subjected. God's Vicar upon earth, it was said, acts like God, who often includes many innocent persons in the punishment of the guilty few; who shall dare to contradict him? He acts under Divine guidance, and his acts cannot be measured by the rules of human justice. And thus from the Divine inspiration which guided their action was inferred the doctrinal infallibility of the Popes, and vice versa, just as is the case now with the people, and even the clergy, especially in countries of the Latin race. The Popes had indeed themselves declared, in their new code, in the sixth book of the Decretals, that interdicts produced the most injurious effects on the religion of the people, strength

1 Vetus Græcia de Rom. Sede præclare sentiens, Venet. 713, p. 219. Į

T