was a calumny drawn from the denunciations of the enemies of Photius, and since repeated by all the Romish writers who have spoken of the discussion between this Patriarch and Nicholas.[1] It is apparent, moreover, from all the Pope did, that he had predetermined to hear nothing in favour of Photius, in the way of proof or argument. To him a few monks, partisans of Ignatius, who had come to Rome, were better authority than a council of three hundred and eighteen bishops, beside a large number of ecclesiastics and monks, which held its sessions in presence of an immense concourse of people. It must indeed be admitted that the conduct of Nicholas must have had an altogether different motive than the defence of Ignatius or the justice of his cause. He believed himself the depositary of divine authority, and the organ of the Holy Spirit.
It was in this character that he claimed all his rights. But the general councils to which he appealed to support his condemnation had ordained that a bishop should only be tried and condemned by his brethren of the
- ↑ We have not noticed all that is related by the enemies of Photius, in respect to the sufferings of Ignatius. First. Because these details have nothing to do with the principal question. Secondly. Because these recitals are evidently exaggerated. Thirdly. Because history does not hold Photius responsible for them. Did not Ignatius draw upon himself the hatred of the Emperor and Bardas by his imprudent zeal by his proceedings respecting Gregory of Syracuse, and by his sentiments hostile to the government? These are questions upon which even the recitals of his partisans could not establish his innocence. We may even say that these intemperate recitals injure him by their very exaggeration. His refusal to resign provoked the violence of the court. We do not deny it, although the details of this violence are very difficult to be admitted completely. But was Photius an accomplice In this violence? We reply no, first, because impartial historians in no manner attribute it to him, and because he himself protested, in his letters to Bardas, against the violence with which his adversaries were treated. These letters, well worthy of a great and holy bishop, may be found among his correspondence. Shall it be only in the case of Photius that familiar letters are incompetent evidence? Romish historians pretend that his letters to Bardas were written hypocritically. But the impartial and independent writers who confirm the evidence of those letters, were they too hypocrites? Is it credible that only the enemies of Photius had the privilege of telling the truth when speaking of him? If men were to be judged by the evidence of their enemies only, who then would ever be innocent? By this system one might easily prove that Christ himself was worthy of death.
