TABLE OF CONTENTS.

SECTION I.

INFALLI-

UNITY OF THE CHURCH AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.
BILITY OF THE JEWISH HIGH PRIEST: ITS CHARACTER.

(pp. 1-22.)

Intimate connection of the doctrine of the supremacy of the
Pope with that of his Infallibility-Inconsistency of Bossuet and
the Gallican School in this matter-The Pope, being the centre of
unity in the Church, cannot be fallible in faith: true explanation of
this principle afforded by the Fathers-Unity and Infallibility—
Analogy of the Old with the New Covenant-Authority of the
Jewish High Priest; his prophetical knowledge; his Infallibility in
dogmatical decisions-Limitation of his Infallibility.

SECTION II.

INFALLIBILITY AND SUPREMACY. THE SAME PASSAGES OF
SCRIPTURE PROVE THE ONE AND THE OTHER.

(pp. 23-49.)

The Ministry of St. Peter continuing in his Successors-The
words of St. Matthew xvi. 18 prove the Infallibility of the Pope
no less than his supremacy-Remarks of the Fathers on this
passage-The words of St. Matthew xvi. 19 prove the same-
Patristic commentary on the testimony-Explanation of St. Luke
xxii. 31-This text proves Papal Infallibility--Patristic comment-
aries--St. John xxi. 15, seq.: it bears on Papal Infallibility-Words
of Bossuet on the subject-Mistaken view of Dr. Pusey on Papal
Infallibility-Mgr. Maret takes the same position.

SECTION III.

PRACTICE OF ANTIQUITY CONSIDERED AS EVINCING PAPAL
INFALLIBILITY.

(pp. 50-71.)

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility contained in, and handed
down by, the constant practice of antiquity--This follows from
the necessity of communion with the Roman See--View of St.
Cyprian on the subject; of Optatus of Milevis; of St. Jerome ;
of St. Ambrose; of St. Augustine-Pelagian controversy-Classical
passage of St. Irenæus concerning the subject-Other proofs in
support of our proposition-Conclusion.

SECTION IV.

INFALLIBILITY CLAIMED BY THE POPES FROM THE BEGINNING..

(pp. 72—96.)

Authority of the Popes, who have made solemn declarations on
the subject-View of Innocent I. on the matter; of Pope Zosimus;
of Sixtus III.; of Pope Leo I.; of Pope Simplicius; of Pope
Gelasius; of Pope Hormisdas; of Pope Vigilius; of St. Gregory I.;
of Pope Agatho; of Pope Leo II.-Witnesses of the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility in the seventh century--View of Pope Nicholas
on the subject-Other Popes claiming their Infallibility-This
doctrine no speculation of modern times.

SECTION V.

THE APOSTOLIC SEE A SUPREME AND INFALLIBLE TRIBUNAL OF

FAITH.

(pp. 96-114.)

False views often held by Anglicans as to the manner in which
a doctrine is declared of faith-Controversies of faith have in all
ages been referred to the Pope-Universal persuasion in the
Church from the early times that the Apostolic See is the supreme
tribunal in matters of faith-Records of embassy sent by the
Martyrs of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius-Dionysius of Alexandria
and Pope Sixtus II. on Rebaptism-St. Cyril and Pope Celestine
on the Nestorian controversy-Theodoret and Pope Leo I. Recep-

tion of the Papal decision by the Council of Chalcedon-The

Lateran Council and Martin I., and the testimony given to the

prerogative of the Roman See-Theodorus the Studite-Papal

decisions regarded in antiquity as exempt from further examination

or doubt-The Apostolic See regarded as a supreme tribunal

without appeal or control-Unfounded remarks of Mgr. Maret

on the subject.

SECTION VI.

THE ROMAN PONTIFF REGARDED AS SUPREME JUDGE OF HERESY

DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. ST. CYPRIAN AND

POPE STEPHEN.

(pp. 115-139.)

All final condemnations of heresies have always been
pronounced by the Apostolic See--Gnosticism: its leaders con-
demned by the Roman Pontiffs-Montanism peremptorily declared
heretical by the Papal judgment—Antitrinitarian heresies checked
by the voice of the Apostolic Chair-Dionysius, Patriarch of
Alexandria, and Pope Dionysius-Controversy concerning Re-
baptism-St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Asia Minor in favour of
that error-It is not necessary to deny the authenticity of the
documents bearing on this subject-The controversy in no way
affects the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but even lends it counte-
nance--St. Cyprian and those who agreed with him did not believe
that the Pope was fallible-They regarded the whole question as
one of discipline-Proofs-Had St. Cyprian and the others
regarded the controversy as dogmatic, they would have implicitly
denied the unity and the perpetuity of the revealed doctrine-The
Decree of Pope Stephen was not a dogmatic definition-St.
Cyprian and the rest resisted, because they looked on this Decree
as an attempt to abolish provincial privileges-They were certainly
guilty of disobedience-Explanation how St. Cyprian was able to
separate the dogmatic doctrine from the disciplinary practice--
Mistake of Mgr. Maret on the subject-Imprudent assertions of
"Janus" on the subject.

SECTION VII.

GENERAL COUNCILS AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

(pp. 139-155.)

Mgr. Maret gives a false view of the doctrine of the Consti-
tution of the Church and of Papal Infallibility-Papal Infallibility

is not founded on a system of isolation of the Pope from the
Episcopal body-Position held by the Episcopal element in the
monarchy of the Church-The Pope always acts in accordance
with the Episcopal body when pronouncing his definitions—
Groundless remarks of Mgr. Maret on the first Council of
Jerusalem-The normal government of the Church does not rest
on Ecumenical Councils-The Bishops in Council are true judges
of the faith, even when the Pope has pronounced his infallible
definition-There is no contradiction between Papal Infallibility
and Episcopal rights in Council-The submission of the Bishops is
of an entirely different nature from that of the Faithful at large.

SECTION VIII.

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA AND PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. THE
CASE OF POPE LIBERIUS.

(pp. 156-186.)

Ecumenical Councils a clear proof of the unity of the Church
-Nature of the Arian doctrine-Convocation of the Council of
Nicæa-False conception of the Gallican School as to the
authority of its Decrees-The Fathers of Nicæa did no more than
make a solemn act of adhesion to the teaching of the Apostolic
See-Definitive sentence of Pope Dionysius on the consubstanti-
ality of the Divine Word with the Father, long before the Council
of Nicæa: it was considered as dogmatic-Arianism regarded as a
heresy before the Synod on the strength of the Papal definition-
The Synod followed the rule of the Apostolic See both in the
controversy of Arianism and of that of Rebaptism-True object of
Ecumenical Councils-The case of Liberius-In the opinion of
the old Gallican School it did not affect the question of Papal
Infallibility-De la Luzerne and Mr. Renouf take the contrary
view-Private heresy attributed to Pope Liberius-His older and
recent Apologists-Events which preceded his supposed fall—
Reason for which Pope Liberius was recalled from his exile
-Narrative of Sozomen concerning the document signed by
Liberius at Sirmium-Even if true, it would by no means imply
that the Pope fell into any heresy whatever-Sozomen's narrative
in no way countenances Liberius having signed the second Arian
formula of Sirmium-Philostorgius of no authority in the matter—
Liberius did not sign any of the three formulas of Sirmium-The
proceedings of the Council of Rimini afford a very strong