argument in his defence The passages adduced from St. Atha-
nasius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, &c., are no difficulty in the way
-Their explanation-The Libellus Precum, and blunder of Mr
Renouf.

SECTION IX.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE AND THE SECOND AND
THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

(pp. 188—210.)

Liberius' sentence against the Macedonians one of the
strongest proofs of Papal Infallibility-Refutation of Bossuet's
remarks on this subject-Condemnation of Macedonius and Apol-
linaris pronounced by Pope Damasus: it is accepted everywhere
as a dogmatic definition-The Council of Constantinople was not
called on account of the heresies of Macedonius and Apollinaris,
as Mgr. Maret asserts-The French Clergy acknowledged that
the sentence of Damasus was irreversible before the Synod-
Between the Second and Third Councils the Popes continued to
exercise their infallible magisterium: their decisions against
Jovinian, and the Pelagians: their sentence definitive in both the
controversies-Nestorius and his heresy-St. Cyril, Patriarch of
Alexandria, refers it to Pope Celestine, who condemns Nestorius
definitively, should he not submit in a few days and make recanta-
tion of his errors-The Imperial Sacra for a General Synod did
not supersede Celestine's decision-The Pope accepts the Council
and delays the execution of his sentence-Old errors renewed by
Mgr. Maret-Explanation of the purport of the examination of
Celestine's Letter by the Council of Ephesus-The Synod declared
itself necessitated by the Pope's Letter to condemn Nestorius-
The Acts of the Council afford new arguments in favour of Papal
Infallibility-Conclusion.

SECTION X.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE FOURTH AND FIFTH
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

(pp. 211-246.)

Eutychianism, its origin and nature-Pope Leo's sentence is
regarded as definitive by the Patriarch St. Flavian-The Pope
accepts the Council called by Theodosius II. at Ephesus-His
Dogmatic Letter, and his orders to his Legates show that the

Council was to adhere to his infallible sentence-Groundless
objection of Mgr. Maret, already refuted by Orsi and Muzzarelli-
Explanation of St. Leo's words bearing on the advantages of a
General Council-Miserable result of the Synod of Ephesus-The
Pope calls a new Council at Chalcedon—The Dogmatical Letter of
Pope Leo was signed by the large majority of the Bishops before
the meeting of the Council, and that in order to comply with the
orders of the Pope-Mgr. Maret's contrary assertions are baseless
-Leo's Letter a rule of faith before the Decree of the Synod of
Chalcedon-Proofs derived from the Acts of the Council against
the views of Mgr. Maret and his School-The examination of
St. Leo's Letter in the Council does not prove that it was held to be
reformable Refutation of the remarks made by Mgr. Maret on the
formula used by the Council when signing St. Leo's Letter-A
passing remark on Pope Hormisdas' formulary-Controversy of
the Three Chapters-Prudent conduct of Pope Vigilius acknow-
ledged by De Marca himself—The character of the controversy:
it by no means concerned the faith-The Judicatum of Pope
Vigilius-Economical reasons for which he recalled the Judicatum
and referred the whole matter to a Council-Despotical inter-
ference of the Emperor Justinian-Illegality of the Synod—
Constitutum of the Pope-It contains no error in faith-The
many blunders of Mgr. Maret in this matter-Nor did the Pope
speak ex cathedrâ in the Constitutum-The Constitutum was not
communicated to the Council, as Mgr. Maret asserts: therefore the
Fifth Synod did not pass over it—Even in that Synod the Fathers
intended to adhere to the Pope's views-Final Acts of Pope
Vigilius in confirmation of the Decrees of the Fifth Synod-Faith
was not concerned in any part of those proceedings.

SECTION XI.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE SIXTH COUNCIL. CONDEMNATION
OF POPE HONORIUS.

(pp. 247-284.)

Monothelism: its nature The successors of Honorius I.
condemn it definitively: their Decrees were received as dogmatic—
Refutation of the reasons alleged by Mgr. Maret and his School
against this assertion-Pope Agatho's view regarding the new
Council proposed by the Emperor: instructions received by his
Legates-Dogmatic Letters of Pope Agatho read in the Sixth
Council: he maintains in them the Infallibility of the Apostolic

See-Defence of the passages bearing on Papal Infallibility,
against Mr. Renouf's remarks (in the note)--The Synod received
them as a whole and in all their points-That they were examined
is no objection against our position-Condemnation of Pope
Honorius-Different lines of argument taken by the Catholics in
the matter-Threefold question on the subject-Pope Honorius'
Letters were not utterances ex cathedra-Their doctrine is
orthodox-Twofold explanation of the principal passage objected
to by the Monothelites-The Synod cannot have condemned him
for error ex cathedra-The sense in which the Council did condemn
him is to be taken from the Letters of Pope Leo II.-The fault of
Honorius, as stated in St. Leo's Letters, is neglect in the discharge
of his Pontifical duties-Full explanation of Pope Leo's Letter to
Constantine-His Letters to the Bishops of Spain and to King
Ervigius - The Liber Diurnus -- Condemnation of Honorius
renewed by the Seventh and Eighth Councils-Passage of the old
Breviary mentioning his condemnation --Conclusion.

SECTION XII.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GENERAL

COUNCILS.

(pp. 285-310.)

Heresy and persecution of the Iconoclasts-The error defini-

tively condemned by six Popes-General Synod of Nicæa II.,

assembled only to conquer the obstinacy of the heretics-The

Synod acknowledged the doctrine of the worship of the images

of Saints to be of faith before their meeting - Testimony of

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople-The difficulty which the

Seventh Council met with in France is no argument against

Papal Infallibility Patriarch Nicephorus and Theodore the

Studite in favour of Papal Infallibility-Photius' usurpation and

deposition-Council of Constantinople-Formula of faith imposed

by Pope Hadrian I. on the Eighth Council, and accepted without

examination it is an argument for Papal superiority to Councils

and infallibility-Letters of Pope Nicholas and Hadrian II. read

in the Synod and adhered to by the Fathers: they contained

doctrines bearing on Papal superiority to Councils and irrefor-

mability of judgment-The Council exercised no jurisdiction over

the judicial sentence passed by the Pope against Photius-The

Council, by condemning Photius, literally executed the sentence

of the Pope--Conclusion.

SECTION XIII.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE SIXTEENTH
COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE.

(pp. 311-341.)

The first three Lateran Councils concerned matters of discipline
-Still, during that time heresies are definitively condemned by the
Popes alone-Heresy of Berengarius condemned by several Popes-
Doctrine of St. Gregory VII. on Papal superiority and Infallibility:
it is the doctrine of antiquity and of his own age-Heresy of
Abelard condemned by Innocent II. without any General Council
---His condemnation an evident utterance ex cathedrâ-Heresy of
Gilbert de la Porrée condemned by Eugenius III. without any Ecu-
menical Council-Historical blunders of Mr. Renouf in the matter
(in the note)-The doctrine of Papal Infallibility known in the
East in the twelfth century-Fourth Lateran Council-The second
Council of Lyons-Formula of faith sent by Clement IV. and
Gregory X. to the Eastern Church to be signed previously to the
meeting of the Synod, and without reserve-It is an evident proof
of Papal Infallibility-The Decrees sanctioned in the Council-
Council of Vienne-Its Bull of Convocation expresses the doctrine
of Papal Infallibility-The Constitution De Summa Trinitate et de
Fide Catholica-Useless evasions of Mgr. Maret and his School-
Gross blunder of Mgr. Maret-Development of the doctrine on
Papal Infallibility: its different stages-Conjectures of "Janus" on
the subject-External causes of the scientific development of the
doctrine-True view and origin of Scholastic Theology-St. Anselm,
the first of the Schoolmen, believed in the Papal Infallibility—
Doctrine of Albert the Great on Papal Infallibility, of St. Thomas,
of St. Bonaventure-Evident testimonies of the French Church
and the fourteenth century in favour of Papal Infallibility—It was
the doctrine of the Universal Church.

SECTION XIV.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AT THE TIME OF THE COUNCILS OF
CONSTANCE AND FLORENCE. GALLICANISM.

(pp. 342-379.)

Origin and beginning of the error on Papal Infallibility and the
superiority of the General Council-The Synods of Pisa and
Constance, before the election of Martin V., were not Ecumenical

-

Councils Refutation of Mgr. Maret's assertion concerning the

ecumenical character of the first Sessions of Constance-The Acts

of the Council and of Martin V. show in which sense the Consti-

tutions of the Fifth Session should be taken-The Decrees of the

Fourth and Fifth Sessions of Basle did not receive any additional

authority by being confirmed by that Synod-That Synod was

not canonical even after the Bull Dudum-Eugenius IV. never

gave the least approval to the Decrees sanctioned at Basle on

Papal authority-The Pope not only did not sin in faith by con-

demning the Synod of Basle and afterwards declaring it legitimate,

but he was not guilty of any self-contradiction-Wrong conception

of the Infallibility of a General Council held by Mgr. Maret-

Council of Florence: its Decree on Papal authority False

interpretation of that Decree given by Mgr. Maret and the

Gallican School: its illegality-The clause of the Decree-Dr.

Döllinger's blunder--Its true meaning countenanced by the Acts

of the Council-After the Council of Florence the doctrine on

Papal Infallibility again became universal-Bull of Pius II.-

Condemnation of Peter of Osma by Sixtus IV.-Council of

Lateran-Acts and Decrees of Leo X. in favour of Papal Infalli-

bility and superiority to General Councils Constitution of

Paul IV. against the Socinians-Errors of Baius condemned by

Pius V. and Gregory XIII.-All submit to that condemnation-

Jansenism-Its condemnation rests on the Infallibility of the

Pope-Sentiments expressed by the French Clergy in a letter

to Innocent X.-Other letters to the same and to Alexander VIII.

in favour of Papal Infallibility-Universality of this doctrine in the
Church down to 1663--True origin of Gallicanism-Assembly of
1682 in France: its real nature-Its Decree condemned on all
hands, even by the University of Paris-Violence employed to
secure the adoption of the proposition denying Papal Infallibility
-Sentence of the Apostolic See against the Declaration of 1682—
Submission of the French Clergy and of the King.

SECTION XV.

-

DOGMATIC CHARACTER OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. ITS OBJECT

AND ITS CONDITIONS.

(pp. 380–394.)

No particular censure inflicted by the Holy See on the French
Declaration of 1682; nevertheless, it was fully condemned by the
Pope-The doctrine of Papal Infallibility, even before its definition,