genuine Christian doctrine. But the author keeps to the three notes of universality, permanence, and consent, and to the Ecumenical Councils."[1]
7. What was the true relation of the Pope and the Council to each other? How was it understood in primitive times? Did the Collective Episcopate regard itself as subordinated, with no independent judgment of its own, to decisions of the Roman authority? Or was the Council conscious of possessing power to accept or refuse the papal utterances brought before it?[2] Bossuet maintained that the treatment of Papal Letters by the early General Councils afforded convincing proof against their belief in any theory of papal inerrancy. The famous letter of Leo to Flavian was laid before the Council of Chalcedon in the following terms:—"Let the Bishops say whether the teaching of the 318 Fathers [the Council of Nicea] or that of the 150 [Constantinople] agrees with the letter of Leo." Nor was Leo's letter accepted until its agreement with the standards of the former Ecumenical Councils had been ascertained.
The very signatures of the subscribing Bishops bear this out—"The letter of Leo agrees," says one, "with the Creed of the 318 Fathers and of the 150 Fathers, and with the decisions at Ephesus under St Cyril. Wherefore I assent and willingly subscribe."[3] Thus the act of the Episcopate at Chalcedon was one of critical investigation and authoritative judgment, not of blind submission to an infallible voice. The theologian, Bellarmine, and the historian, Baronius, both strong advocates of the papal authority, contradict one another on this point. Baronius asserts that the Bishops regarded the letter of Leo as the rule and guide in faith which
