CONTENTS.

LECTURE I.

INTRODUCTORY.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME

Reasons for the recent decline of interest in the controversy,

pp. 2-5. (a) Disestablishment, p. 2; (b) reaction against

anti-Romanist over-statements, pp. 2, 3; (c) increased circu-

lation of Roman Catholic books of devotion, p. 4; (d) the

struggle with unbelief, p. 4; (e) the growth of scepticism, p. 5.

The study, nevertheless, profitable, p. 6. Controversy, though

not always expedient, p. 6; sometimes necessary in self-defence,

p. 7. The examination of the Roman claims, a duty, p. 8.

The use of the word Protestant, p. 9. What must be proved

to clear us from the guilt of schism, p. 10. Apparent antago-

nism to Scripture of Roman Catholic doctrines, p. 11; yet

discussion, on Scripture grounds, often, in practice, ineffective,

p. 12. The danger of using weak arguments, p. 13. The

untrustworthiness of controversial quotations, p. 15. The

spirit in which controversy ought to be engaged in, p. 16.

Page

I

LECTURE II.

THE CARDINAL IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION OF

INFALLIBILITY

Evident from a priori considerations, p. 17; from the history

of the controversy in recent times, p. 18. Disproof of Romish

doctrines in the Tracts for the Times, p. 19; by men who

afterwards became Romanists themselves, p. 19. What is really

meant by acceptance of the Roman claim to Infallibility, p. 19.

Modern changes in Romish teaching, p. 20.
Definition of the

b

17

The Pope's

Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, p. 20.

personal infallibility, p. 20. The Vatican Council, p. 21.

Newman's letter to Ullathorne, p. 21; Janus, p. 22. Origin

of the Old Catholics, p. 22; their inconsistency, p. 24.

Changes in Roman Catholic text-books made necessary by

Vatican Council, p. 25. Bailly's Theology, p. 25. Keenan's

Catechism, p. 26. Roman Catholics acknowledge that the

Bible alone furnishes no sufficient basis for their system, p. 28;

in this they differ from early Fathers, p. 29. Bellarmine's rule

respecting tradition, p. 29. Jewel's challenge, p. 29.

Newman's Essay on Development, pp. 31-44; anticipations

of the theory, p. 31; applications of it, p. 32; it completely

abandons the old defence made by R. C. advocates, p. 33.

The Council of Trent, Milner, Wiseman, p. 33. Veneration

for the Fathers traditional in Roman Church, p. 34; this

veneration not consistent with theory of Development, p. 35.

The controversy between Bossuet and Jurieu, p. 35. The

theory of Development then maintained by the Calvinist, p. 35;

and also by Petau, p. 36. Bossuet's opposition to the theory,

p. 36. Bishop Bull's great work, p. 36. Newman's Essay

doubtfully received at first, p. 37. A Romanist advocate

strongly tempted to accept it, p. 38. Newman on Invocation

of the Virgin, p. 38. The doctrine of Development concedes

what the opponents of Romanism assert, p. 39; useless to

Romanists if not supplemented by doctrine of Infallibility,

p. 39. The doctrine of Development would equally serve to

justify Protestantism, p. 40. Great historical difficulty in the

way of the doctrine, p. 40. Local limitation of alleged de-

velopments, p. 41. Superiority of Protestant developments,

p. 41. Manning and Spurgeon, p. 43.

Roman Catholic line of argument, p. 44.

Infidel tendency of

Particular topics of controversy cannot be safely neglected,

P. 45. Ordinary history of conversions from Romanism,

P. 46.

PRIVATE JUDGMENT, pp. 47-53. Source of the craving for

an infallible guide, p. 47. Private judgment and infallibility

not opposed, p. 47. Necessity of private judgment, p. 48.

Proof that submission to Rome rests on an act of private judg-

ment, p. 48. How to use private judgment, p. 49. On what

Page

47

grounds deference is claimed for the authority of the Pope,

p. 51. The deference which a learned divine may claim is not

rightly compared to that which a physician may demand from

his patients, p. 52. Basis of a Roman Catholic's faith, p. 53.

No proof of infallibility possible without arguing in a circle,

p. 53. Bishop Clifford's attempt to escape this difficulty,

p. 55. Its insufficiency, p. 57. Newman's method, p. 58.

In Church of Rome, no subsequent verification of her teaching

possible, p. 60. Mallock's revival of Newman's argument,

p. 60. Infidel tendency of his position, p. 60.

Page

LECTURE IV.

THE GRAMMAR OF ASSENT

Mr. Capes' reasons for returning to the Church of England,

p. 62. To what kind of certainty Roman Catholics lay claim,

p. 62. The theory of the Vatican Council, p. 62. How to

escape detection in arguing from a false principle, p. 63.

Newman's Grammar of Assent, pp. 64-77. How we get

beliefs, p. 65. Locke's dictum as to the assent with which we

ought to entertain beliefs, p. 66. Clifford's Ethics of Belief,

p. 66. On what depends our confidence in traditional belief,

p. 67; on what our confidence in the Church's teaching, p. 68.

Newman's theory of an illative sense,' p. 69. Can a man be

certain of anything without being infallible? p. 72. About

what things may we be thus certain? p. 72. The authority of

the Pope not one of them, p. 73. No sharp line to be drawn

between certainty and high probability, p. 74. Indefectibility,

whether an attribute of certainty, p. 75. The more we talk of

certainty the less we have, p. 76.

LECTURE V.

MILNER'S AXIOMS.-PART I.

Milner's three axioms, p. 79. The two rules of faith which he

pronounces fallacious, p. 80. The insecurity of reliance on a

supposed immediate personal revelation, p. 80. The doctrine

about Faith laid down by the Vatican Council, p. 81. The

foundation of a Roman Catholic's confidence proved by Milner

to be fallacious, p. 82. Milner's second fallacious rule, p. 82.

Roman Catholic controversialists inconsistent in refusing to

62

79

admit the inerrancy of Scripture, p. 83. The argument, 'If

our Lord had intended His people to learn His religion from a

book, He would have written it Himself,' p. 83. The Bible

as a guide does not satisfy the conditions imposed by Milner's

axioms, p. 84. Milner's alleged true rule, p. 85. This rule

not secure or never-failing, p. 85. Bossuet's Variations, p. 86.

A Protestant not much affected by the argument from varia-

tions, p. 86. What is really proved by the existence of

variations, p. 87. Bossuet has been treated by the predominant

Roman Catholic school of the present day as no better than a

Protestant, p. 88. Examination of Milner's axioms, p. 89.

Monstrous character of the claim made in them, p. 89. His

maxim, when amended, may be used against the Church of

Rome, p. 90. Patristic authority for asserting that the

obscurities of Scripture do not affect essential matters, p. 90.

The decrees of Councils not even intelligible to the unlearned,

p. 91. Explicit and implicit belief, p. 92. Fides Carbonarii,

p. 93. Material and formal heresy, p. 93. This theory repre-

sents the Church as making the way of salvation more difficult,

p. 94. Of what things Roman Catholics are now required to

have explicit knowledge, p. 95. The teaching on this subject

of Innocent IV., p. 96. Later editions of Furniss's What

every Christian must know, p. 96. Necessity for an infallible

guide only arises where explicit knowledge is required, p. 97.

An act of faith, p. 97. A Protestant safe, even if Roman In-

fallibility be a revealed doctrine, p. 98.

LECTURE VI.

Page

Falsity of Milner's axiom if asserted of truths important, but

not necessary to salvation, pp. 99-108. No infallible means

provided for finding the true Church, p. 100; none for obtaining

secular knowledge, p. 100. The analogy of disease and its

remedies, p. 101. The analogy of the case of sin and holiness,

p. 101. The Church not secured against the temporary preva-

lence of great moral corruption, p. 102. Testimony of Baronius,

p. 102.
Like safeguards vouchsafed by God against sin and

against error, p. 103. Same considerations available for miti-

gating the difficulty of the existence of evil and of error, p. 104.

Physical evil, p. 104. Defects of knowledge, p. 105. The

prevalence of sin, p. 106. Benumbing effect of the doctrine of

infallibility, p. 106. Testimony of Mr. Maskell, p. 107. The

unreality of unintelligent faith, p. 108.

99

teachers, p. 109; but our

What is really meant by

In no subject can we dispense with

teachers are not infallible, p. 110.

an infallible Church, p. 111. The analogy of University

teaching, p. 1II. The conditions of progress for the human

race, p. 112. Mutual concessions on this subject have now left

little room for controversy, p. 113. How Christ intended us

to learn His religion, p. 113. The service actually rendered

by the Church, p. 114; may be fully admitted without owning

her infallibility, p. 115. True analogy to the relation between

a Christian teacher and his pupils, p. 116. If the Church be

infallible, the Bible is useless and mischievous, p. 117. The

early Church encouraged Bible-reading, p. 117. St. Chrysos-

tom on the study of Scripture, pp. 118-122. What Roman

Catholics say in reply, p. 122. Discouragement of Bible-

reading by modern Church of Rome, p. 123.

LECTURE VIII.

THE CHURCH'S SOURCES OF PROOF

Dr. Hawkins' formula, p. 125. The method of the Church of

England, p. 125. The method of the Council of Trent, p. 126.

The rule of faith, as laid down by Bellarmine, p. 126. Fallacy

in the argument that the Word of God has equal claims to

acceptance whether it comes to you by writing or orally, p. 126.

The question about the rule of faith a subordinate one in this

controversy, p. 127. The meaning of the Roman appeal to

tradition, p. 128. Canon of the Council of Trent concerning

the interpretation of Scripture, p. 128; embodied with a vari-

ation in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., p. 129. Romish rule of

faith complicated, p. 129; and modern, p. 130. Tradition, as

a rule of faith, needs the supplement of the doctrine of Infalli-

bility, p. 130. Uncertainty of tradition, p. 131. A priori

arguments for sufficiency of Scripture dismissed, p. 132. Suf-

ficiency of Scripture cannot be proved by Scripture itself,

p. 132. What is meant by Roman Catholic appeal to tradi-

tion, p. 133. Whether there can be new traditions, p. 134.

The objection that the N.T. itself rests on the authority of

tradition, p. 134. Absence of trustworthy traditions con-

cerning the Apostolic age, p. 135; examples, p. 135. Why we

do not use traditions independent of Scripture as proof of

Christian Doctrine, p. 137.

125