for a rule of faith is not liable to error. According then to the persuasion of the Fathers of Ephesus, not only was the Pope's decision infallible, but it was also the infallible guide of their judgments, which were certain to be true and just if in perfect conformity with the Papal declaration. But besides this, it had also been declared by the Bishop of Cæsarea, in the name of the whole Synod, that the Letters of the Pope exhibited the rule of faith which they were bound to follow, and which they really followed. And further, the very formula in which Nestorius was condemned is a new instance in favour of this view.

Let us conclude. The Synod of Ephesus, far from bearing unfavourably on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, is in truth a splendid monument in its support. The heresy of Nestorius was condemned by the infallible sentence of the Pope; and the Fathers of Ephesus, though acting as judges of faith, were really the faithful executors of his definition.

SECTION X.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FOURTH AND

FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

IN the history of heresy we frequently meet with cases where one error springs out from another directly opposite error. Eutychianism, and all the series of heresies which arose from it, was certainly the offspring of Nestorianism. As Nestorius denied the unity of Person in Christ, so Eutyches and his followers rejected the doctrine that Christ in His Humanity had the same essence as cther men, and consequently they maintained that the nature of the flesh of Christ no longer existed after its union with the Godhead. In this manner the whole economy of the Incarnation was destroyed by the heresy of Eutyches no less than by that of his predecessor. Nestorius reduced the mystery of the Incarnation to a moral association of the Word of God with an adoptive man. Eutyches turned it into an absorption, a change, or a mingling of the human nature, by or with the Deity. But as Pope Celestine condemned and defeated the heresy of Nestorius, so Leo the Great checked that of Eutyches, and gave to the whole Church the most luminous exposition of the dogma of Incarnation, which Bossuet himself qualified as "divine, qui a fait l'admiration de toute la terre."

"504

As early as 448, when the new error of Eutyches began to spread in the Eastern provinces, and to

504 Hist. des Variations, 1. xiii. (Op., t. iv., p. 679. Edit. of 1863).

a

threaten the Church with new scandals and schisms, Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, assembled Synod in that metropolis, that the new heresy might be examined and condemned. Eutyches obstinately refused to retract his doctrine, which was found contrary to the revealed dogma; he was therefore anathematised, deprived of his office, and rejected from the Church. Then the holy Patriarch addressed himself to the Roman Pontiff, requesting him to pronounce at once his sentence against the new heresiarch, as Pope Celestine had before condemned Nestorius. "The cause," he said to the Pope, "needs only your consent and support. If you consent you will restore everything to tranquillity and peace. Thus the heresy which arose, and the factions which originated from it, will, with God's help, be easily exploded by your Letters. Neither will there be any need of a General Council, which is spoken of, and the Churches will be able to remain in peace." 505 These words exhibit Patriarch Flavian as believing in Papal Infallibility. For, had he held the opinion that the Pope's decision did not carry with it an infallible authority, he would not have said that the Papal Letters would be sufficient to stop the rising heresy and to bring the Church to a state of peace. Pope Leo, who had repeatedly proclaimed the infallibility of the Papal teaching, wrote on that occasion his admirable Letter to the Patriarch, in which in the most wonderful manner he set forth the whole doctrine and economy of the Incarnation, and definitively condemned the errors of Eutyches.50G But the Emperor Theodosius, yielding to the suggestions of the eunuch Chrysantius, and of Dioscorus, the unworthy successor of St. Cyril,

505 Epist. Flaviani ad Leonem Papam. In Actis Conc. Chalced., pt. i. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 778).

506 Epist. xxviii. Leonis Papæ ad Flavianum (Op., t. i., p. 801, seq.); in Act. ii. Conc. Chalced. (Labbe, p. 1214, seq.).

had already called a General Synod in Ephesus, and intrusted to it the whole controversy.507 Pope Leo did not object to the convocation of the Council, although he declared to the Emperor that he judged it quite unnecessary.508 He appointed Legates of his own to preside at the Synod, and presented to the Fathers his dogmatical Letter to Flavian, as the safe rule of their determinations,500

It cannot be doubted that St. Leo regarded his dogmatical Letter as an infallible utterance of his Pontifical magisterium.510 In fact, in it he imposed on Eutyches, as an absolute condition to avoid final condemnation, that he himself should condemn his errors without reserve, and declare that in every particular he adopted the decision which Leo had pronounced.511 And Eutyches had already submitted himself to the condition imposed on him, and had forwarded to the Pope a Libellus to that effect, even before the Synod met at Ephesus.512 Moreover, in Leo's Letter to the Fathers of Ephesus, quoted above, he expressly intimates that his decisions must be executed; that the Fathers were not to examine the doctrines of Eutyches,

507 Epist. Imp. Theodosii ad Proclum Proc. Asia. In Actis Syn. Chalced., Act. i. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 879, seq.).

508 Epist. ad Imp. Theodosium. In pt. i. Act. Conc. Chalced., n. xvii. (Labbe, p. 802).

509 Epist. xxviii. ad Flavianum, n. vi. (Op., t. i., p. 836, seq. Edit. Ball.), et Epist. xxix. ad Theod. Imp. (l. c., p. 840, seq.).

510 On this point we disagree with Bellarmine, who regards Pope Leo's dogmatical Letter as merely an instruction sent to the Council (De Concilii Auct., 1. ii., cap. xix.).

511 Epist. xxviii. S. Leonis Papam ad Flavianum, cap. vi. (l. c., p. 836. In Labbe, 1. c., pt. i. Act., p. 790).

66

512 Epist. xxxiii. S. Leonis Papa ad Synodum Ephesinam, cap. ii. (Op., t. i., p. 867, et Labbe, t. iv., p. 798). Quod etiam in libello quem ad nos miserat est professus spondens per omnia nostram se secuturum esse sententiam." See also Epist. xxix. ad Theodosium Imp., 1. cit., p. 841.

513

but to condemn them only, as pestiferous and heretical ; that they were not to grant pardon to the heretic unless he should make full and solemn recantation of his heresy by word of mouth, and in writing; in accordance with what he had already promised.5 Pope Leo, then, did not consider his Letter as reformable by the Synod of Ephesus, or as of doubtful authority, so as to stand in need of support and strength to be received from a General Synod; but, on the contrary, he regarded the Synod as bound to execute his orders and to enforce his Decrees.

At this point of the argument, certain words of Leo's Letter to the Council are brought up by Bossuet 511 as an objection; and Mgr. Maret,515 as usual, follows in the steps of his predecessor. The words are "Ut pleniore judicio omnis possit error aboleri."516 Mgr. Maret remarks "Ces paroles ne semblent à elles seules pas prouver qui Saint Léon plaçait l'autorité dernière et absolue dans le concert du Pape et des Evêques?" In his work Mgr. Maret is content to repeat literally what is found in the Defensio Declarationis, and he takes no notice whatever of the counter observations of Cardinal Orsi, Muzzarelli, and others. And yet this writer makes profession that he intends in particular to refute the two volumes of Muzzarelli, which, it would appear, he has scarcely seen. The method adopted by our opponents, of ignoring what has been said on our side of the controversy, forces us, at the risk of being

66

513 Epist. xxxiii. S. Leonis Papæ ad Conc. Ephes., cap. ii., l. c.

Hoc est ut primitus pestifero errore damnato, etiam de ipsius, qui imprudenter erravit, restitutione tractetur; si tamen doctrinam veritatis amplectens, sensus hæreticos quibus imperitia ejus fuerit irretita, plene aperteque propria voce et subscriptione damnaverit.” 514 Defensio Decl. Cleri Gall., pt. ii., 1. xii., cap. xv., p. 172. 515 Du Concile Général, 1. ii., ch. v., n. ii., t. i., p. 204. 516 Epist. xxxiii., cap. ii., 1. c.