Apostles-that is to say, by the Roman Church, through Peter himself as well as through his Successors? Have not the hearts of the brethren been confirmed in the faith of St. Peter, which till now has not failed, and never shall fail till the end?" 189 The words of this great Pontiff need no comment whatever. But they remind us that the Popes were in the habit of applying to their See and to themselves the above words and promise of our Lord, as Gelasius,190 Pelagius, 191 Vitalian,192 Hadrian I.,193 and others; and also of drawing from the text their own infallibility, as was done by Agatho,194 and Leo IX. himself,195 as well as by their successors, Pascal II.,196 Innocent III.,197 and others. Likewise they grounded the prerogatives of indefectibility and infallibility of the Apostolic See on the words recorded by St. Matthew xvi. 18, as Leo I.,198 Simplicius,199 Gelasius,200 &c. These practices prove evidently that long before the time of Gregory VII., and much more before the Council of Constance, St. Thomas, or the theologians of the sixteenth century, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility had been authentically

189 Epist. i. Leonis IX. ad Michaelem Const. Patr., n. vii. (Labbe, t. ix., p. 1323).

190 Epist. xiv. Gelasii Papæ (Labbe, t. v., p. 341).

191 Epist. v. Pelagii II. ad Eliam (Labbe, t. vi., p. 426).

192 Epist. i. ad Paulum Episc. Cret. (Labbe, t. vii., p. 460).

193 Epist. ad Carolum Regem pro Synodo Nicæna (Labbe, t. viii., p. 1553).

194 Epist. Agathonis Papæ ad Const. Imperat., in Conc. Ec. vi., Act. iv. (Labbe, t. vii., p. 662).

195 L. C.

196 In Conc. Lateranensi iv. sub Paschali II. (Labbe, t. xii., p. 1227).

197 Epist. ccix. Innocentii III, ad Patriarcham Const. Reg., 1. ii., p. 759. Edit. Migne.

198 S. Leo Papa, Serm. iii., capp. ii., iii. (Op., t. i., p. 12. Edit. Ball.).

199 Epist. iv. Simplicii Papæ (Labbe, t. v., p. 98).

proclaimed by the Supreme Pastors of the Church. So that the Pontiffs who in more recent times have solemnly condemned propositions contrary to that doctrine, have done no more than echo the teaching of a long line among their predecessors.

SECTION V.

THE APOSTOLIC SEE A SUPREME AND INFALLIBLE TRIBUNAL OF FAITH.

IT has seemed to members of the School of theological opinion which goes by the name of Anglican, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is opposed to the principles according to which the Church declares any matter to be of faith. The High Church party agree in this view, and it is sufficient to mention the Rev. W. Palmer, author of the Treatise on the Church of Christ,201 and Dr. Pusey, who is fairly considered as the leader and principal organ of that party,202 The last-named speaks expressly upon the matter: 203 "The personal Infallibility of the Pope, by himself, is a great change both in the constitution of the Church and the principles upon which it declares any matter to be de fide." According to this School, “no fixed rule exists in the Church as to settling disputes of faith." 204 Heresies, they think, may be condemned by the whole Church without a general Council, there being other ways of ascertaining the mind of the Church.205 They deny the infallibility even 200 Epist. xiv., sive Tract. de Resp. ad Græcos (Labbe, t. v., P. 341).

201 Vol. ii., pt. iv., ch.

vii., sects. i., ii., p. 114, seq. Edit. of 1842.

202 Eirenicon, p. 124. Edit. 1865.

203 Ibid.

204 Ibid., p. 90.

205 Ibid., pp. 88-90.

of General Councils confirmed by the Pope,206 which doctrine was admitted even by the Gallicans as de fide; and was rejected only by the followers of Richer and Febronius, and by a part of the sect of Jansenists. The High Church party seem to have no clear views upon the subject, and they venture to assert that it is a matter of opinion among Roman Catholics. 207 They seem to believe that the principles according to which the Church declares any matter to be of faith, are that the doctrine should be proposed as such by the full consent of the whole Church; again, that this consent be made manifest either by a General Council or by other ways to which their writers allude, but which they do not explain. Let us examine whether these were the principles according to which, in the early ages, doctrines were declared de fide, and errors were condemned as heresies. We have already shown, especially in our third section, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, far from being a change in the constitution of the Church, is identified with it. In the present section this truth will appear yet more clearly when the real principles are stated according to which in antiquity doctrines were proposed as matters of faith.

We have already mentioned in the preceding section that the Causa Majorcs, concerning faith and the state of the Church, were considered as belonging exclusively to the Apostolical See. In developing the truth of this, we said enough to show that the Papal right in judging definitively in matters of faith was of divine origin. A passage taken from a Letter of Pope Julius I., quoted by St. Athanasius in his Apologia,208 not only

208 Epist. Julii Papæ ad Eusebianos, n. 22 (Coustant, p. 386, seq.); in S. Athanasii Apologia contra Arianos, n. 35 (Op., t. i., Edit. Patavii, 1775).

p. 121.

H

will confirm this doctrine, but will also show clearly what was the constant practice in the Church with regard to the condemnation of new heresies. "Are you ignorant," says the Pontiff, addressing the Eusebian Bishops of the Eastern Church, "that this has been the custom of the Church-that, first of all, letters should be sent to us, that thus what is just may be decreed from this place? If therefore any suspicion fall upon a Bishop, it would be right to apply to this Church. But now, they who informed us not, but left us ignorant of the course of events, make themselves supporters of the suspicious views. Such were not the ordinances of St. Paul, nor was it so handed us down by the Fathers; this is a form altogether strange, and a new institution." This passage from the Letter of Pope Julius is sufficient to prove that, according to the guiding principles of the Church, no decree whatever of faith can be enacted without the final and definitive sentence of the Pope. Socrates, the Greek historian, speaking of this Letter, remarks that "by the law of the Church it is forbidden to decree anything over and above the judgment of the Roman Pontiff." 209 Sozomen, another Greek historian, uses similar language concerning this same Letter of Pope Julius.210 "It is a law of the Church," he says, "by which anything whatever declared over and above the judgment of the Roman Pontiff should be held as altogether null and void." To these authorities we could also add that of the Tripartite History, in which the same remark is insisted upon.2 Innocent I., in his Letter to the Fathers

211

209 Socrates, Hist. Eccl., 1. ii., cap. xvii., p. 94, seq. Edit. Valesii. τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ κανόνος κελεύοντος, μὴ δεῖν παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου Ρώμης κανονίζειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας.

210 Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., 1. iii., cap. x., p. 510. Edit. Valesii.

211 Cassiodorus, Hist. Tripart., 1. iv., cap. ix. (Migne, PP. LL., t. lxix., p. 960).

assembled at Milevis, which we quoted above, points out in the most absolute manner the universal law of the Church with regard to controversies of faith: they must all be referred to the Chair of St. Peter. 212 Gelasius enforced the same law of the Universal Church in his Letter to the Bishops of Dardania and Illyricum; 213 and in another of his Letters he complains in strong terms that there were some who thought to set up certain Canons as opposed to the Pontifical right of receiving appeals from the whole Church, while in truth these very Canons prescribed that appeals from the whole Church should be brought before the Pontifical See; that this See had jurisdiction over the whole Church, while its judgments were subject to no appeal, nor was the See itself subject to any jurisdiction whatever. 214

The claim put forward by Pope Gelasius reflects the practice of the Universal Church and the divine prerogative, which in the persuasion of all had always

212 Epist. xxx. Innoc. I. ad Patres Milev., cap. ii. (Coustant, p. 896). "Quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres et coëpiscopos nostros nonnisi ad Petrum, idest sui nominis et honoris auctorem referre debere."

213 Epist. xviii., n. 4 (Thiel, Epist. RR. PP., t. i., p. 385. Brunsbergæ, 1868). “Si quos vero novos didiceritis motus exurgere, nobis fraterna debetis consuetudine reserare, quo subinde quæ Patrum regulis congruant, præstante Domino remedia pro

curemus.

214 Epist. x., seu Commonitorium ad Faustum, n. 5 (Thiel, Epist. RR. PP., t. i., p. 343, seq.). "Nobis opponunt canones, dum nesciunt quid loquantur. Contra quos hoc ipso venire sc produnt, quod Primæ Sedi, sana rectaque suadenti, parere fugiunt. Ipsi sunt canones, qui Appellationes totius Ecclesiæ ad hujus Sedis examen voluere deferri. Ab ipsa vero nusquam prorsus appellari debere sanxerunt. Ac pro hoc illam de tota Ecclesia judicare, ipsam ad nullius commeare judicium, nec de ejus unquam præceperunt judicio judicari. Sententiamque illius constituerunt non oportere dissolvi, cujus potius decreta sequenda mandarunt."