This profession of faith was accepted by all the Patriarchs of the Oriental Church, and afterwards, in the Eighth General Synod, by all the Fathers there assembled, Latin and Greek.137 Moreover, in the same Synod, when the two Photian Bishops, Theophilus and Zacharias, applied to the Council for reconciliation with the Church, the Legates of Rome said that they should sign the two Libelli which it was usual for all to sign who wished to be admitted to communion with Rome. The first document bound them to hold the Catholic truth according to the rule of the Church; the second, to follow in all things the judgment of the Roman Church. And since the Photians refused to accept the Letter, they were rejected by the Council and deprived of Catholic communion.138 In the profession of faith of which we spoke above, the Oriental Church declared their belief that all controversies of faith should be defined by the Pope,139 and that all the Church was bound to follow his decision. Many other professions of faith to the same effect could be adduced, but to do so would lead to needless repetition. What we have given is amply sufficient to prove our point beyond question.

communione vobiscum, quam Sedes Apostolica prædicat, esse merear, in qua est integra et verax Christianæ religionis soliditas. Promittens etiam sequestratos a communione Ecclesiæ Catholicæ idest non consentientes Sedi Apostolicæ, eorum nomina inter sacra non esse recitanda mysteria." See this formula in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symb. et Defin., n. xx., p. 50. Edit. iv. Wirceburgi, 1865. In the following sections we must subject this passage to further examination.

137 Conc. Constantinop. iv., Œccum. viii., Act. iv. (Labbe, t. x., p. 811); Ex versione Anastasii Bibli., p. 516.

138 L. C.

139 "Sicut præ cæteris tenetur (Romanus Pontifex) fidei veritatem defendere; sic et si quæ de fide subortæ fuerint quæstiones, suo debent judicio definiri," &c. (Profes. fidei Michaelis Palæologi, in Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. lix.. p. 170).

Our argument in this section authorises us to conclude against Protestants and Gallicans that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was the persuasion of all Christian antiquity. For all antiquity agreed in holding the four points-(1.) That communion with the Pope was essential to the character of Catholic; (2.) that communion with the Pope implied communion with his belief and teaching; (3.) that the faith of the Apostolic See was the pattern of the faith of all the world, and its teaching the source of all the pure Apostolic doctrine; hence (4.) all who communicated with that See and held its doctrine were evidently orthodox in their faith, and in unity with the whole Church. And it is evidently impossible to admit these four points and yet join with Protestants and Gallicans in rejecting Papal Infallibility. As to the distinction imagined between the Roman See and the Roman Pontiff, we shall find hereafter a more fitting bccasion to show its baselessness. For the moment this section is an ample refutation of what Mgr. Maret endeavours to prove. (See the fourth chapter of book iv. of his work mentioned above.)

SECTION IV.

INFALLIBILITY CLAIMED BY THE POPES FROM THE

BEGINNING.

IN this section we will set forth the claims to infallibility made by the Popes from the earliest ages down to the schism of the Eastern Church. But we must observe at the outset that their right that these claims should be admitted, does not arise from the personal honesty and holiness of all, nor from the learning which was possessed by many. It is true that these considerations. are in themselves a sufficient refutation of the rash and calumnious assertion of Febronius and his party, that we cannot rely upon human and suspicious testimonies of the Popes when speaking in favour of their own power and exaggerating their prerogatives. But our argument has another basis. We regard the Popes, when claiming infallibility, as the authentic representatives of the Church, as its Supreme Teachers and Doctors: titles which are attributed to them by Fathers and Councils. We regard them as expressing that Apostolical tradition of which the Church has always been the witness. In a word, the Popes claimed what the Church believed, and their claims were the expression of the judgment and sentiment of the Church itself. This is the reason for which their claims met with no complaints, but with adherence and submission on the part of the Clergy and of the people alike. And people and Clergy of every rank, and even General Councils, referred all controversies of faith to them, and submitted to their decisions as to divine oracles. Now let us examine the claims.

made by the Popes in different ages, stating their prerogative of infallibility.

We reserve to a following section the Letter of Pope St. Damasus to Paulinus of Antioch, in which the doctrinal wisdom, characteristic of the Popes, so plainly appears, and which afforded a bulwark against the heresies by which the East was at that time ravaged.140 We will begin with Innocent I. (402-417). The two Councils of Carthage and of Milevis had pronounced their sentence of condemnation against the Pelagian doctrine, but they sent their Decree to Innocent I. for confirmation, that it might carry with it an infallibleand irresistible authority. Pope Innocent, in his Letter to the Synod of Carthage, commends their conduct, "because," he says, "the Fathers of the Church, acting upon divine, not human, principles, have ordained that no matter of importance which has arisen even in the most distant provinces of the Church, should be finally disposed of until it has been referred to the Apostolic See, that the just sentence might be confirmed by the weight of its authority. For from the Roman Church all Churches must learn the doctrine to which they must cleave, and what they must abhor, as streams are derived from the fountain-head and carry the pure water to all the regions of the world."141 Similar language is used by the same Pope in a Letter addressed to the Council of Milevis, where he solemnly asserts that the final and definitive sentence on Causa Majores, and especially on controversies of faith,142 is to be pronounced by

140 Epist. v. Damasi Pap. ad Paul. Patr. Ant. (Coustant, p. 507). 141 Epist. xxix., n. 1 (Coustant, pp. 888, 889).

142 The Causæ Majores which were to be referred to the Roman Pontiff, comprehended, first of all, controversies of faith; secondly, all other ecclesiastical causes which were of difficult solution. Innocent mentions the former when he says-"Præsertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur." But he mentions the latter when he remarks -"Super anxiis rebus quæ sit tenenda sententia."

the Apostolic See.143 Now in these two Letters Pope Innocent clearly expresses his view that the Roman See is that head of incorrupt waters, that pure and most limpid fountain, from which the Universal Church must draw the Apostolic doctrine; and therefore he orders that all affairs of importance, and principally all controversies of faith, should be referred to his See. What is the meaning of this, if it be not a solemn proclamation of his infallibility? His words remind us of the ob potiorem principalitatem of St. Irenæus, on account of which all the Churches are bound to adhere in faith to the Roman See, and to derive from it the Apostolic doctrine. Innocent I. solemnly declares that the streams of divine doctrine which flow to the different countries of the world are pure, that they spring out from the Roman See as from their original source, and that this See is the immaculate fountain. The Roman See, then, cannot be liable to error, otherwise the waters of doctrine which flow from it into all the Church would be infected with error, and would defile the whole Church. The centre must be immaculate, that the whole Church may share in its prerogative. In such words did that great Pope assert the infallibility of his See in its doctrinal utterances; nor had he any thought of exaggerating his authority beyond its natural limits, or beyond the bounds allowed by the persuasion of the Universal Church. With such veneration, in fact, were his principles received by the Bishops of Africa, and so vividly did tradition keep up the memory of them, that 200 years later they copied these very words of Innocent I. in a synodical letter addressed to Pope Theodore, in which they bore witness to his infallible authority.144

143 Epist. xxx., n. 2 (Coustant, p. 896).

144 That synodical letter is to be found in the Council of Lateran, held under Martin I. in 649, Secret. ii. (Labbe, Conc., t. vii., p. 131. Edit. Venet.).