with the respect due to the sacred books? It is the interest of mankind that crime should in no case be sanctified. What signifies what he is called, who massacres the wives and children of his allies; who hangs the grandchildren of his king; who saws his unhappy captives in two; tears them to pieces with arrows, or burns them in brick-kilns? These actions we judge, and not the letters which compose the name of the criminal. His name neither augments nor diminishes the criminality.

The more David is revered after his reconciliation with God, the more are his previous cruelties condemnable.

If a young peasant, in searching after she asses, finds a kingdom, it is no common affair. If another peasant cures his king of insanity by a tune on the harp, that is still more extraordinary. But when this petty player on the harp becomes king, because he meets a village priest in secret, who pours a bottle of olive oil on his head, the affair is more marvellous still.

I know nothing either of the writers of these marvels, or of the time in which they were written; but I am certain that it was neither Polybius nor Tacitus.

I shall not speak here of the murder of Uriah, and the adultery with Bathsheba; these facts being suffi ciently well known. The ways of God are not the ways of man, since he permitted the descent of Jesus Christ from this very Bathsheba, everything being rendered pure by so holy a mystery.

I ask not now how Jurieu had the audacity to persecute the wise Bayle for not approving all the actions of the good king David. I only inquire, why a man like Jurieu is suffered to molest a man like Bayle.

DECRETALS,

LETTERS of the popes, which regulate points of doctrine and discipline, and which have the force of law in the Latin church.

Besides the genuine ones collected by Denis le Petit,

there is a collection of false ones, the author of which, as well as the date, is unknown. It was an archbishop of Mayence, called Riculphus, who circulated it in France, about the end of the eighth century; he had also brought to Worms an epistle of pope Gregory, which had never before been heard of; but no vestige of the latter is at present remaining, while the false decretals, as we shall see, have met with the greatest success for eight centuries.

This collection bears the name of Isidore Mercator, and comprehends an infinite number of decrees falsely ascribed to the popes, from Clement I. down to Siricus. The false donation of Constantine; the council of Rome under Sylvester; the letter of Athanasius to Mark; that of Anastasius to the bishops of Germany and Burgundy; that of Sixtus III. to the Orientals; that of Leo I. relating to the privileges of the rural bishops; that of John I. to the archbishop Zachariah; one of Boniface II. to Eulalia of Alexandria; one of John III. to the bishops of France and Burgundy; one of Gregory, containing a privilege of the monastery of St. Medard; one from the same to Felix, bishop of Messina; and many others.

The object of the author was to extend the authority of the pope and the bishops. With this view he lays it down as a principle, that they can be definitely judged only by the pope; and he often repeats this maxim, that not only every bishop, but every priest, and, generally, every oppressed individual may, in any stage of a cause, appeal directly to the pope. He likewise considers it as an incontestible principle, that no council, not even a provincial one, may be held without the permission of the pope.

These decretals, favouring the impunity of bishops, and still more the ambitious pretensions of the popes, were eagerly adopted by them both. In 861, Rotade, bishop of Soissons, being deprived of episcopal communion in a provincial council, on account of disobedience, appeals to the pope. Hincmar of Rheims, his metropolitan, notwithstanding this appeal, deposes him

in another council, under the pretext that he had afterwards renounced it, and submitted himself to the judgment of the bishops.

"You

Pope Nicholas I. being informed of this affair, wrote to Hincmar, and blamed his proceedings. ought," says he, " to honour the memory of St. Peter, and await our judgment, even although Rotade had not appealed. And in another letter on the same matter, he threatens Hincmar with excommunication, if he does not restore Rotade. That pope did more. Rotade having arrived at Rome, he declared him acquitted in a council held on Christmas eve, 864; and dismissed him to his see with letters. That which he addressed to all the bishops is worthy of notice, and is as follows:

Even

"What you say is absurd, that Rotade, after having appealed to the holy see, changed his language and submitted himself anew to your judgment. although he had done so, it would have been your duty to set him right, and teach him that an appeal never lies from a superior judge to an inferior one. But even although he had not appealed to the holy see, you ought by no means to depose a bishop without our participation, in prejudice of so many decretals of our predecessors; for, if it be by their judgment, that the writings of other doctors are approved or rejected, how much more should that be respected which they have themselves written, to decide on points of doc trine and discipline? Some tell you that these decretals are not in the book of canons; yet those same persons, when they find them favourable to their designs, use both without distinction, and reject them only to lessen the power of the holy see. If the decretals of the an cient popes are to be rejected because they are not contained in the book of canons, the writings of St. Gregory, and the rest of the fathers, must, on the same principle, be rejected also, and even the holy scriptures themselves.

"You say," the pope continues, “that judgments upon bishops are not among the higher causes; we

maintain that they are high in proportion as bishops hold a high rank in the church. Will you assert that it is only metropolitan affairs which constitute the higher causes? But metropolitans are not of a different order from bishops, and we do not demand different witnesses or judges in the one case, from what are usual in the other; we therefore require, that causes which involve either should be reserved for us. And, finally, can any one be found so utterly unreasonable as to say that all other churches ought to preserve their privileges, and that the Roman church alone should lose her's?" He concludes with ordering them to receive and replace Rotade.

The

Pope Adrian, the successor of Nicholas I. seems to have been no less zealous in a similar case relating to Hincmar of Laon. That prelate had rendered himself hateful both to the clergy and people of his diocese, by various acts of injustice and violence. Having been accused before the council of Verberie, at which Hincmar of Rheims, his uncle and metropolitan, presided, he appealed to the pope, and demanded permission to go to Rome. This was refused him. process against him was merely suspended, and the affair went no farther. But upon new matters of complaint brought against him by Charles the bald and Hincmar of Rheims, he was cited at first before the council of Attigni, where he appeared, and soon afterwards fled; and then before the council of Douzi, where he renewed his appeal, and was deposed. The council wrote to the pope a synodal letter, on the sixth of September, 871, to request of him a confirmation of the acts which they sent him; but Adrian, far from acquiescing in the judgment of the council, expressed in the strongest terms his disapprobation of the condemnation of Hincmar; maintaining that, since Hincmar declared before the council that he appealed to the holy see, they ought not to have pronounced any sentence of condemnation upon him. Such were the terms used by that pope, in his letter to the bishops of the council, as also in that which he wrote to the king.

The following is the vigorous answer sent by Charles to Adrian: “ Your letters say—

"We will and ordain, by apostolical authority, that Hincmar of Laon shall come to Rome and present himself before us, resting upon your supremacy.

“We wonder where the writer of this letter discovered that a king, whose duty it is to chastise the guilty and be the avenger of crimes, ought to send to Rome a criminal convicted according to legal forms, and moré especially one who, before his deposition, was found guilty, in three councils, of enterprises against the public peace; and who, after his deposition, persisted in his disobedience.

"We are compelled further to tell you, that we, kings of France, born of a royal race, have never yet passed for the deputies of bishops, but for sovereigns of the earth. And, as St. Leon and the Roman council have said, kings and emperors, whom God has appointed to govern the world, have permitted bishops to regulate their affairs according to their ordinances, but they have never been the stewards of bishops; and if you search the records of your predecessors, you will not find that they have ever written to persons in our exalted situation as you have done in the present instance."

He then adduces two letters of St. Gregory, to show with what modesty he wrote, not only to the kings of France, but to the Exarchs of Italy. "Finally," he concludes, "I beg that you will never more send to me, or to the bishops of my kingdom, similar letters, if you wish that we should give to what you write that honour and respect which we would willingly grant it." The bishops of the council of Douzi answered the pope nearly in the same strain; and, although we have not the entire letter, it appears that their object in it was to prove that Hincmar's appeal ought not to be decided at Rome, but in France, by judges delegated conformably to the canons of the council of Sardis.

These examples are sufficient to show how the popes extended their jurisdiction by the instrumentality of these false decretals; and although Hincmar of Rheims objected to Adrian, that, not being included in the book