novels, and not a few were written to gratify his friends, and were first given to the public when his entire poetical works, as far as it was possible, were collected together in book-form, and now fill a large volume, not the least important of the present edition. We are not aware that he ever attempted an epic or any thing more extended than the beautiful ballad of Matt Hyland, of the merits of which we can only judge by the fragment which has been preserved, the original having been destroyed by the author immediately previous to his joining the order of Christian Brothers; nor do we think his ambition ever soared to higher flights than songs and short descriptive poems. The most meritorious of these, or, at least, the one which has obtained the greatest popularity, is the Sister of Charity, written on the occasion of a dear friend becoming a religious; and, though several gifted pens have been employed on the same subject, we know of none who has embodied so

true an appreciation of the self-denial

and entire devotion which mark that

order-the boast and glory of all

womanhood. Several of his best pieces, indeed, are written in the same devotional spirit, particularly the following verses, in illustration of a seal, representing a mariner on a tempestuous ocean who, reclining in his bark, fixes his eye on a distant star, with the motto

"SI JE TE PERDS, JE SUIS PERDU.
(IF I LOSE THEE, I'M LOST.)
"Shine on, thou bright beacon,
Unclouded and free,

From thy high place of calmness,
O'er life's troubled sea!

Its morning of promise,

Its smooth seas are gone,
And the billows rave wildly-
Then, bright one, shine on.

"The wings of the tempest

May rise o'er thy ray,
But tranquil thou smilest,
Undimmed by its sway;
High, high o'er the worlds

Where storms are unknown,
Thou dwellest, all beauteous,

All glorious, alone.

"From the deep womb of darkness
The lightning flash leaps,
O'er the bark of my fortune

Each mad billow sweeps ;
From the port of her safety

By warring winds driven,
Had no light o'er her course

But yon lone one of heaven.

"Yet fear not, thou frail one,

The hour may be near
When our own sunny headlands

Far off shall appear;
When the voice of the storm
Shall be silent and past,
In some island of heaven
We may anchor at last.

"But, bark of eternity,

Where art thou now?
The tempest wave shrieks

O'er each plunge of thy prow;
On the world's dreary ocean
Thus shattered and lost-
Then, lone one, shine on,

If I lose thee, I'm lost."

Of his dramas but one remains to us, Gisippus, and enough dramatic ability is displayed in that to make us regret that Griffin abandoned writing for the stage so early in life. We are inclined to imagine that a young man, scarcely twenty years of age, who was capable of managing ed the highest powers of Boccaccio, so successfully a subject that requircould in his maturer years have effected even greater things. However, we must console ourselves with the reflection that what has been lost to the drama, we have gained in the excellent works before us; and as the drama is necessarily limited to the few, the world is also the gainer by the change.

ISIDORIAN FORGERIES.

Of all arguments brought forward by Fanus to undermine what he would term the historical ground work of papal supremacy, and the prerogatives exercised by the successors of St. Peter, none seem to have greater weight, or more forcibly convince his admirers, than the long narration on "Forgeries;" and hence throughout his work the "Isidorian fabrications" play a great rôle. Ostensibly these forgeries are developed at great length with a view of merely overthrowing and combating this "powerful coalition" of ultramontanism, but in reality the arguments deduced from these forgeries go far beyond this avowed

intention of our authors.

Up to the ninth century no change had taken place in the constitution of the church, as they readily admit: "But in the middle of that century, about 845, arose the huge fabrication of the Isido rian decretals, which had results far beyond what its author contemplated, and gradually but surely changed the whole constitution and government of the church." (P. 76.)

1st. In our first article (p. 330) we have already pointed out this illogical inconsistency of Fanus, when assuming a lawful development of the constitution of the church in the first eight centuries; whereas he by no means defines what he understands

by a lawful development of the diby a lawful development of the di

vine constitution of the ancient church. How can he, therefore, decide that the Isidorian decretals wrought an entire and unlawful development of the rights and privileges of the primacy?

2d. If the picture of the organization of the ancient church is quietly, and as

a matter of course, presented as one of divine origin,* we have no hesitation in declaring that picture a false one, and contrary to the most ancient history of the church. It cannot even claim apostolic origin in so comprehensive a meaning as Janus would have it. The different grades of the hierarchy, established between the pri macy and episcopacy, is the result of a historical development, whereas divine institution can only be claimed for the primacy and episcopacy them selves.f

What difference is there between bishops as to power and jurisdiction over one another by divine right? If patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans have exercised certain preroga tives greater than those enjoyed by other bishops, will Fanus tell us that this is owing to divine origin? How, then, will he account for the fact that no such distinction was universally acknowledged ‡ until the third century in the east? nay more, that in the west there were no metropolitans before the latter half of the fourth century, if we except Africa, and even in this latter country many bishops were exempt, and directly subject to the see of Rome ? §

It is a notorious fact, though Fanus elsewhere so boldly denies it, that the bishops of Rome deputed other bishops as their representatives in many provinces, who by that very fact ex

• P. 69.

↑ Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. Disc. 1. i. capp. vii. xlv.

See Canon vi. Council of Nice in 325, which re cognizes the patriarchal rights of Antioch and Alexandria, in the east, introduced by ancient custom. (rà a exara kon.)

Schelestrate, Eccl. Afric. sub prim. Carthag. Thomass. 1. c. c. xx. n. 8.

ercised authority over other bishops, because to them the popes delegated the exercise of primatial prerogatives. Thus, the Bishop of Thessalonica is constituted, by the pope, Primate of Illyricum, and the Bishop of Arles, Primate of Gaul.

There are still many letters of the popes addressed to the bishops of Thessalonica as early as the fourth century, by Innocent I., Boniface I., Celestine I., and Sixtus III., wherein instructions are given concerning the exercise of the special power conferred on them. Hence it came to pass that certain episcopal sees retained that high rank granted to their first incumbents, either as primates or metropolitans, after having acted in the beginning in the quality of apostolic legates. St. Leo the Great, in his letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, says:

"We have intrusted our charge in such a way to you that you are called on to share our solicitude, not possessing the plenitude of power."t

To grant to the Bishop of Rome the honor of being the "first patriarch," is nothing less than ignoring or setting aside numerous and indubitable facts long before the existence of the Isidorian decretals. We should like to be informed by Fanus and his abettors where the documents exist proving the rights of patriarchs as of divine institution? All canonists of any repute maintain that the preeminence of rank and jurisdiction accorded to patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans is not due to the episcopate by divine institution; but, on

Constant. Ep. Rom. Pontif. Inn. I. ep. 13. Bonif. I. ep. 4. Coelest. I. ep. 3. Sixt. III. ep. 10. "Vices enim nostras ita tuæ credidimus caritati, ut in partem sis vocatus sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinem potestatis." Ep. 14. ad Anast. Thessal. edit. Ball. tom. i.

The name of patriarch is first mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon, Act 3, where Pope St. Leo is thus addressed: "Sanctissimo et universali Archiepiscopo et Patriarchæ magnæ Romæ." (Labbe, Col tom. iv.)

the contrary, all agree that this is a concession, whether express or tacit, on the part of the popes of Rome as successors of Peter, being admitted by them to a participation of their primatial prerogatives. Hence all are the representatives of the primacy, whenever they are appealed to as a higher tribunal, and as such can only lawfully hold this preeminence among their brother bishops as long as they do not come in conflict with the divinely established order in the church, which consists in the principle that the pope possesses, by divine ordinance, jurisdiction over the entire episcopate. Pope St. Leo the Great gives a beautiful portrait of this organization in the church very dissimilar from that of Fanus.*

"The connection of the whole body demands unanimity, and especially unity among the prelates. While the dignity is common to all, there is no general equality of order; because even among the blessed apostles, though sharing the same honor, there was a difference of power, (quædam discretio potestatis,) and while all were equally chosen, yet to one was given the prerogative of presiding over the others. From which precedent also arose a distinction among bishops, and with perfect order was it enacted that all should not in like manner assume all powers, but that there be in every province some who exercise the right of first judges among their brethren; and again, that there should be some (bishops) in the larger cities possessing more ample powers, through whom the care of the universal church devolves upon the one chair of Peter, and that in this manner there may never be any se paration from the head."

3d. According to Fanus, Nicolas I., by means of the Isidorian forgery,

"opened to the whole clergy in east and west a right of appeal to Rome, and made the pope the supreme judge of all bishops and clergy of the whole world." (P. 79.)

That "bold but non-natural" torturing of the seventeenth canon of

the Council of Chalcedon attributed to Nicolas I., is nothing else but a pure fiction on the part of Fanus. The letter sent by the pope to the Emperor Michael III. is a document evincing the learning, sagacity, and prudence of Nicolas I., in that grave disturbance caused by Photius and corrupt courtiers against the lawful patriarch, Ignatius of Constantinople. When the latter, for the conscientious discharge of his pastoral duty and vigilance toward a licentious court, had been violently deposed, and Photius, a relative of the emperor, put in his place, recourse was had to Rome to obtain sanction of these proceedings. The pope sent legates to Constantinople to investigate the matter laid before him; these in their turn, being partly misled, partly bribed, ratified all that had been done. Pope Nicolas, upon hearing this, excommunicated the legates and annulled the election of Photius. The latter, seconded by the intrigues of the court, protested against this act of the pope whose authority he had previously invoked. Hence, Nicolas I., in the above-mentioned letter, reasons by analogy that the seventeenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon, respecting appeals to primates or to the patriarch of Constantinople, was in a higher sense applicable to the Bishop of Rome.* It clearly follows from the canon in question † that it merely intended to regulate the several instances of appeal for clerics, and alluded to the special privilege of appealing to the Patriarch of Constantinople.‡

In the present instance, however, is it not evident that the patriarch could not be his own judge, and, since a final decision was demanded, on whom did this right devolve, we

* Mansi, xv. col. 202.

† Cf. canon ix. of the same council.

That is, in the East. Pithoeus, Codex Canon. Vetus, p. 102, (edit. Paris.)

may ask, if not on the Bishop of Rome? A similar and even more striking argument may be seen in the letter addressed by Nicolas I. to the Frankish king, Charles the Bald. Rothad, Bishop of Soissons, having been deposed by Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, appealed to Pope Nicolas, who, after examining, caused the bishop to be restored; and in his reasons for doing so sustains, first, the divine right of the chair of Peter to receive appeals and to act as supreme judge; and then goes on stating that, as the canon of Chalcedon granted the right of judging to the primates or to the see of Constantinople, in like manner also, and with much more reason, must the same rule be observ ed regarding the right of the see of Rome. If, therefore, adds the pope, Rothad of Soissons appealed to the chair of Peter conformably to the Synod of Sardica, this action was per fectly lawful, and there were many precedents for this in history; as, for example, the appeals made by St. Athanasius to Julius I. and St. John Chrysostom to Innocent I. Here, then, the reader will judge of the kis torical fairness of our authors, when asserting that Pope Nicolas I., by torturing a single word against the sense of a whole code of law, "managed to give a turn to a canon of a general council."

Are we to believe, upon the sole word and authority of Fanus, that the whole constitution of the church underwent a change by means of these Isidorian decretals, when so many men, distinguished for their learning and deep researches, have .exploded this theory long ago advanced by the Magdeburg Centuriators? It is certainly nothing else than presumption and arrogance to disparage the knowledge and science

of so many eminent men, who unanimously agree on the following points: 1. That the pseudo-Isidorian decretals were not written with a view of exalting the papal power, but rather that of the bishops. 2. That the contents of this collection are, for the most part, taken from ancient and genuine documents. 3. That the fictitious decretals contained therein are quite generally known, and even these imply nothing novel or contradictory to the then established discipline of the church. 4. It is certain that this collection was not compiled at Rome, and much less known or used by Pope Nicolas as a genuine document of binding force.

It will be necessary to support these points by a few and, we hope, unexceptionable arguments. Fanus might have indeed spared himself the pains of such a minute and tedious disquisition on these Isidorian forgeries, as many † of similar disposition with himself made extensive use of this unauthorized collection of pseudoIsidore, in order to show upon what grounds were based the principles of the present constitution of the church, and particularly that the prerogatives exercised by the Roman see rested on these forged documents. If the power of the Bishop of Rome had no other foundation but the Isidorian forgery, then indeed might we be obliged to join in the triumphant chorus of Fanus and his abettors; but the question, not to be misplaced or adroitly shifted, is simply this: Did the prerogatives exercised by the popes need these forgeries to establish the lawfulness of their claims? It is to no purpose to conceal and cover up, as it were, the principle in

Thomassin, Ballerini, Devoti, Walter, Philipps, Schulte, Döllinger, Blondel, Luden, Schönemann, the last three Protestants, all of whom, says Janus, betray a very imperfect "knowledge of the decretals." (P. 78.)

↑ Launoy, Arnould, Febronius, Baluze, De Marca.

question by tedious and showy digressions-whether these decretals were fictitious and whether they were used; but the whole problem to be solved is, Has the pseudo-Isidorian collection introduced or enforced an innovation in the ancient constitution of the church, as it was in vigor at that period, or were the principles enunciated by pseudo-Isidore conformable to the doctrine of the church and in accordance with the canons of former councils, or not? What does it matter whether one or another theologian, and even a pope, made use of these decretals, not doubting of their genuineness, and consequently deceived, provided nothing new and unwarranted by previous tradition was thereby acknowledged or enacted? or enacted? If such a theologian as St. Thomas Aquinas was deceived as to a spurious passage of St. Cyril, and followed herein by Bellarmine, is that enough to condemn their whole system or to impeach their honesty?

We might by such a method of arguing overthrow the entire historical edifice of the first thousand years of the church, and begin to build up a new system on this tabula rasa with the aid of this hypercritical process of Fanus and his school, and we scarcely doubt but that he himself would be in the worst plight.

It is certainly true that the author of the Isidorian decretals, as he himself avows in the preface, wished to give a complete code of ecclesiastical laws to the clergy, though for the greater part he insists on such points of discipline as were at that time greatly endangered and often neglected.

"The immediate object," says Janus, "of the compiler of this forgery was to protect bishops against their metropolitans and other authorities, so as to secure absolute impunity." (P. 77.)