CONTENTS.

LECTURE XX.

THE INFANCY OF ROMAN SUPREMACY.

The historical test of interpretations of Scripture, p. 366. The

oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops, p. 367. Newman

abandons tradition as a basis for the doctrine of Papal

Supremacy, p. 367. The basis of Development is insufficient,

p. 368. Natural causes of Roman primacy, p. 370. Connexion

between the ecclesiastical and the civil precedence of cities,

p. 371. The claims of Jerusalem, p. 372. The munificence

of the Roman Church, p. 374. The weakness of Constanti-

nople in historical associations, p. 375. The Epistle of Clement

of Rome, p. 377; this letter contains no attempt to domineer

over provincial Churches, p. 379. The primacy resided, not

in the bishop, but in the Church of Rome, p. 379. The

Ignatian Epistles, p. 380. The testimony of Irenæus, p. 381.

Victor and the Quartodecimans, p. 383. The Quartodeciman

usage, why disliked in the West, p. 383. What was meant by

excommunication in the second century, p. 385. Victor's

failure a disproof of Roman supremacy, p. 386. The Montanist

controversy, p. 387. Tertullian's resistance to the absolutions

given by the Roman bishop, p. 388. Hippolytus and Callistus,

pp. 389-394.

LECTURE XXI.

THE PROGREss of Roman SUPREMACY

xxix

Page

366

The difficulty at times of ascertaining who the Bishop of Rome

was, p. 395. The great Western schism, pp. 395-400. The

appointment of the Roman bishop regarded as a matter of mere

local concern, p. 401. The necessity of discriminating authorities

geographically, p. 402. The notion of Roman supremacy took

its origin from Rome, and is found nowhere except as pro-

pagated from Rome, p. 403. The cause of Rome helped by

Eastern divisions, p. 404. What bishop of Rome first claimed

privileges as Peter's successor, p. 405. Firmilian and Stephen,

p. 406. Cyprian's earlier refusal to accept Stephen's authority,

p. 407. The Donatist Controversy, p. 409. The Council of

Sardica, p. 411. The Semi-Arian Council of Antioch, p. 413.

The case of Apiarius, p. 414. Apology for the Roman mis-

quotation, p. 415. The Pope's liability to error with regard to

matters of fact, p. 415. The Jansenist controversy, p. 416.

Western interference resisted at the time of the second General

Council, p. 418. St. Jerome and the claims of Rome, p. 419.

The Nicene sixth Canon, p. 420. The Roman patriarchate,

p. 421. The Council of Constantinople, p. 421. The Council

of Chalcedon, p. 422. The title of Universal Bishop, p. 423.

The claim to infallibility, how suggested, p. 424. The fall of

Liberius, 425-429. Felix II., 429. Zosimus and the Pelagian

controversy, p. 430. Leo and the Eutychian controversy, p. 431.

Vigilius and the fifth Council, p. 432. The case of Honorius,

pp. 433-442. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, pp. 434-438.

'Obiter dicta': Pope Nicolas I. and the Bulgarians, p. 436.

The condition approved by the Vatican Council, p. 437;

Eugenius IV. and his instruction to the Armenians, p. 438.

The Monothelite heresy, p. 440. If the Pope be infallible, he

is still not an infallible guide, p. 442.

LECTURE XXIII.

THE POPE'S TEMPORAL POWER

The maximizers and the minimizers, p. 443. How to sum up

the Roman Catholic doctrine about Papal Infallibility, p. 444.

The Encyclical Quanta cura' and the Syllabus, pp. 444-447.

The Roman claims have taken their growth out of two forgeries,

P. 448.

The Decretal Epistles, pp. 448-454. It was natural that

Western bishops should seek advice from Rome, p. 448. The

earliest genuine Decretal Epistle, p. 449. The use made of

the forged decretals by Pope Nicolas I., p. 449; and by

Gregory VII., p. 450. The evidence of the spuriousness of

the forged decretals, p. 452. The time and probable place of

the forgery, p. 452. The excuse that this forgery did not

originate at Rome, p. 454. Other Roman forgeries, p. 455.

Modern defence of the exercise of the deposing power by the

mediæval Popes, pp. 456-460; this defence puts the papal

claim on different grounds from that on which the Pope him-

self rested it, p. 460. The deposition of the Emperor Henry

by Gregory VII., p. 460. Innocent III. on the papal power,

p. 461. Boniface VIII. and the Bull · Unam sanctam,' p. 462.

The claim to the deposing power a stumbling-block in the way

of any theory of Infallibility, p. 463. The Pope's temporal

power shown by Bellarmine to result necessarily when his in-

fallibility is admitted, p. 464; the doctrine of Infallibility thus

brought to an experimental test, p. 465. Manning's apology

for the case of King John, p. 467. The Popes as temporal

princes, p. 468; how they acquired their Italian States, p. 469;

how they governed them, p. 471. Conclusion of the argument,

pp. 471-473.

Page

424

443

DECREES OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL

Constitutio Dogmatica de Fide Catholica, cc. I.-IV., 474.

Canones, 1.-IV., 484. Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia

Christi, cc. I.-VI., 483. Suspensio Concilii, 488.

INDEX.

Page

474

INTRODUCTORY.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME.

WHEN I attended the Lectures of the Regius Professor

of Divinity, now more than forty years ago, the prescribed division of his year's work was, that in one Term he gave a course of lectures on the Bible; in another, on the Articles; in the third, on the Liturgy. When I succeeded to the Chair myself, I found that, for several years previously, the subject of this Term's lectures, as set down in the University Calendar, had been, not the Articles, but the Roman Catholic Controversy. It is easy to understand how the change took place. It was, of course, impossible in the lectures of one Term to treat of all the Articles; and, some selection being necessary, it was natural that the Professor, on whom the duty is imposed by statute of giving instruction on the controversies which our Church has to carry on with her adversaries, whether within or without the pale of Christianity, should select for consideration the Articles bearing on the controversy which in this country is most pressing, and in which the members of our Church took the deepest interest-the controversy with Rome. This limitation of my subject being only suggested by precedent, not imposed on me by authority, I was free to disregard it. As I have not done so, I think I ought to begin by telling you my reasons for agreeing with my predecessors in regarding the study of this controversy as profitable employment for the lectures of this Term.

B