D. Gregor. Pap. IX. lib. 1. de translat. Episc. tit. 7. ¢. 3. Corp. Jur.

Canon. ed. Paris, 1612; tom. II. Deeretal. col. 205.)
For the title, ‘‘Lord God the Pope,’’ see a gloss on the Extravagantes of Pope John XXII., title 14, ch. 4, ‘‘Declaramus.’’ In an Antwerp edition of the Extravagantes, dated 1584, the words ‘‘ Dominum Deum nostrum Papam’’ (‘‘Our Lord God the Pope’’) oceur in column 153. In a Paris edition, dated 1612, they occur in column 140. Im several editions published since 1612, the word ‘‘Deum’’ (‘‘God’’) has been omitted.
Page 52. Image Worsuip.—‘The worship of images... was one of those corruptions of Christianity which crept into the church stealthily and almost without notice or observation. This corruption did not, like other heresies, develop itself at once, for in that case it would have met with decided censure and rebuke: but, making its com- mencement under a fair disguise, so gradually was one practice after another introduced in connection with it, that the church had become deeply steeped in practical idolatry, not only without any efficient opposition, but almost without any decided remonstrance; and when at length an endeavor was made to root it out, the evil was found too deeply fixed to admit of removal. . . . It must be traced to the idolatrous tendency of the human heart, and its propensity to serve the creature more than the Creator. .
‘“‘TImages and pictures were first introduced into churches, not to be worshiped, but either in the place of books to give instruction to those who could not read, or to excite devotion in the minds of others. How far they ever answered such a purpose is doubtful; but, even granting that this was the case for a time, it soon ceased to be so, and it was found that pictures and images brought into churches darkened rather than enlightened the minds of the ignorant — degraded
(679)
43a—G. C.
680 APPENDIX
rather than exalted the devotion of the worshiper. So that, however they might have been intended to direct men’s minds to God, they ended in turning them from Him to the worship of created things.’’ —J. Mendham, ‘‘The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicea,’’ Introduction, pp. W-vt. i
For a record of the proceedings and decisions of the Second Council of Nice, A. p. 787, called to establish the worship of images, see Baronius, “¢Beclesiastical Annals,’’ Vol. TX, pp. 391-407 (1612 Antwerp ed.) ; J. Mendham, ‘‘The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicwa;’’ Ed. Stillingfleet, ‘‘Defence of the Discourse Concerning the Idolatry Practiced in the Church of Rome’’ (London, 1686); ‘‘A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,’’ second series, Vol. XIV, pp. 521-587 (N. Y., 1900); C. J. Hefele, ‘‘ History of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents,’’ bk. 18, ch. 1, sec. 332, 333; ch. 2, see. 345-352 (T. & T. Clark ed., 1896, Vol. V, pp. 260-304, 342-372).
Page 53. Epict orf CONSTANTINE.— The law issued by Constantine on the seventh of March, A.D. 321, regarding a day of rest, reads thus:
“‘Let all judges, and all city people, and all tradesmen, rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields; since it frequently happens, that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain, or the planting of vines; hence the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost.’’— A. H. Lewis, ‘‘History of the Sabbath and the Sunday,’’ pp. 123, 124 (2d COM. TEVeg LOO a) me
The original (in the ‘‘Codex of Justinian,’’ lib. 3, tit. 12, leg. 3) is quoted by Dr. J. A. Hessey in his Bampton Lectures on ‘‘Sunday,’’ lecture 3, par. 1, and by Dr. Philip Schaff in his ‘‘History of the Christian Church,’’ Vol. ITI, sec. 75, par. 5, note 1. See also Mosheim, “*Keclesiastical History,’’ cent. 4, part 2, ch. 4, sec. 5; Chambers’ En- cyclopedia, art. Sabbath; Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth ed., art. Sun- day; Peter Heylyn, ‘‘History of the Sabbath,’’ part 2, ch. 3 (2d ed., rev., London, 1636, pp. 66, 67).
Page 54. PropHretic DaTEs.— See note for page 329.
Page 56. Forcep Writines.— Among the documents that at the present time are generally admitted to be forgeries, the Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are of primary im- portance.
In citing facts concerning the question, ‘‘When and by whom was Constantine’s Donation forged?’’ M. Gosselin, Director of the Seminary of St. Sulpice (Paris), says:
> GENERAL NOTES 681
““Though this document is unquestionably spurious, it would be difficult to determine with precision the date of its fabrication. M. de Marea, Muratori, and other learned critics, are of the opinion that it was composed in the eighth century, before the reign of Charlemagne. Muratori, moreover, thinks it probable that it may have induced that, monarch and Pepin to be so generous to the Holy See.’’— Gosselin, “ (translated by the Rev. Matthew Kelly, St. Patrick’s College, May- nooth; Baltimore, J. Murphy & Co., 1853).
On the date of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, see Mosheim, ‘‘ Ke- clesiastical History,’’ bk. 3, cent. 9, part 2, ch. 2, sec. 8.. As Dr. Murdock, the translator, points out in a foot-note, the learned Catholic historian, M. L’Abbé Fleury, in his ‘‘ Ecclesiastical History’’ (diss. 4, sec. 1), says of these decretals, that ‘‘they crept to light near the close of the eighth century.’’ Fleury, writing near the close of the seventeenth century, says further that these ‘‘false decretals were looked upon as authentic for the space of eight hundred years; and it was with much difficulty that they were given up in the last century. It is true that at present there are hardly any, though meanly instructed in these matters, who do not acknowledge that these decretals are false.’’— Fleury, ‘‘ Kcclesiastical History,’’ bk. 44, par. 54 (G. Adam’s translation, London, 1732, Vol. V, p. 196). See also Gibbon, ‘‘ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’’ ch. 49, par. 16.
Page 57. DictatTes or HILDEBRAND (GREGORY VII.).— See Baronius, ‘*Heclesiastical Annals,’’?’ An. 1076 (Antwerp ed., 1608, Vol. XI, page 479). A copy of the ‘‘Dictates,’’ in the original, may also be found in Gieseler, ‘‘ Ecclesiastical History,’’ period 3, sec. 47, note 4 (ed. 1836, tr. by F. Cunningham). An English translation is given in Mos- heim, ‘‘ Ecclesiastical History,’’ bk. 3, cent. 11, part 2, ch. 2, sec. 9, note 8 (Soames’ ed., tr. by Murdock).
Page 59. PurGatory.— Dr. Joseph Faa Di Bruno thus defines pur- gatory: ‘‘Purgatory is a state of suffering after this life, in which those souls are for a time detained, who depart this life after their deadly sins have been remitted as to the stain and guilt, and as to the everlasting pain that was due to them; but who have on account of those sins still some debt of temporal punishment to pay; as also those souls which leave this world guilty only of venial sins.’’—‘‘Cath- olic Belief,’’ page 196 (ed. 1884; imprimateur Archbishop of New York).
See also K. R. Hagenbach, ‘‘Compendium of the History of Doc- trines,’’ Vol. I, pp. 234-237, 405, 408; Vol. II, pp. 135-150, 308, 309 (T. & T. Clark ed.); Chas. Elliott, ‘‘Delineation of Roman Catholi- eism,’’ bk. 2, ch. 12; Catholic Encyclopedia, art. Purgatory.
682 APPENDIX
Page 59. INDULGENCES.— For a detailed history of the doctrine of indulgences, see the Catholic Encyclopedia, art. Indulgences (contrib- uted by W. H. Kent, O. S. C., of Bayswater, London); Carl Ullmann, ‘‘Reformers before the Reformation,’’ Vol. I, bk. 2, part 1, ch. 2;