England and Rome : a discussion of the principal doctrines and passages of history in common debate between the members of the two communions

Front matter

I

ENGLAND AND ROME.

LONDON :

Section I. The Infallibility of the Church. In what sense the Church is Infallible

Mischievous consequences resulting from the Roman view. Sect. II. The early Church our witness to the Canon of Holy Scripture.

The witness of the modern Church of Rome to Scripture unnecessary. Sect. III. The early Church a sure and sufficient interpreter OF Holy Scripture.

This method of ascertaining the general teaching of Scripture morally infallible.

It was adopted by the English Reformers.

Note p. 9. The Fathers unanimously taught — what the Divines of Rome deny, — that all necessary truth is contained in Sacred Writ.

Sect. IV. The English Reformation a return to the doctrines of Antiquity.

Testimonies. 1. Preface to the Book of Common Prayer, 1549. — 2. Tlie Preface to the Ordinal, 1552.— 3. The Statute 1 Eliz. c. 1 — 4. The Convocation of 1571. — 5. The Convocation of 1604. — 6. Cranmer. — 7. Ridley. — 8. Jewel's Apology. Sect. V. The modern Roman test of doctrine not applicable, IF ignorance and immorality can become general in the Church.

The difficulty arising from the actual corruption of the Church. The moral qualities of men shape their belief. Note ^, p. 21. An illustration from Dr. Newman.

X

CONTENTS.

Sect. VI. Testimonies to the corrupt state of Western Christendom from the twelfth to the sixteenth century. 1. S. Bernard. — 2. Bellarmine. — 3. Joh. Chemensis. — 4. Adrian VI. — 5. Cardinal Canipeggio. — 6. Cardinal Charles de Guise. — 7- Nicholas Manieranus. — 8. The Council of Lowicz, 1556. Note^, p. 31. Statements of Di'. Newman in singular opposition to tliese testimonies.

LETTER II. Pp. 33—73. THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

Section I. The English and the Roman Canons of Old Testament Scripture.

Rome declares the Apocrypha of equal authority with the other Scriptures, while the Church of England adheres to the Primitive view of their character.

Sect. II. The Scriptures received by the Church before Christ.

The testimony of Josephus.

The Apocrypha not quoted in the New Testament. Sect. III. The Hebrew Canon, though rejected by Rome, avowedly followed by all the Fathers.

Confession of Bellarmine with respect to Melito, Epiphanius, Hilary,

Jerome, and Ruffinus.

Testimonies of Origcn, Athanasius, Cyril the elder, John Chrysostom,

Augustine, Junilius.

The argument from the Prophecies weakened by rejecting the testimony of the Jews to the Old Testament.

Sect. IV. The Fathers denied the complete authority of Books not included in the Hebrew Canon.

Testimonies. 1. Melito. — 2. Origen. — 3. The Council of Laodicea. — 4. Athanasius. — 5. Cyril of Jerusalem. — 6. Hilary. — 7- Epiphanius. — 8. Gregory Nazianzen. — 9. Ruffinus. — 10. Jerome. — 11. Augustine.—12. The Council of C. P., a.d. 691.

Note 2, p. 47. Early opinion about the Book of Esther. Note p. 51. On the Vulgate versions of Tobit and Judith. Sect. V. The same distinction made by the best writers of THE West down to the Council of Trent.

Testimonies. 1. Gregory I. — 2. Bede. — 3. Anastasius Bibliothecarius. — 4. Peter of Clugny.— 5. Hugh de S. Charo. — 6. De Lyra. —

CONTENTS, xi

7. Antoninus of Florence. — H. Preface to the Glossa Ordinaria, 1501. — 9. Cardinal Xinienes. — 10. Cardinal Caietan. — 11. Editions and Versions since the fifteenth century.

Nutes, pp. 59 — CI. Names of several editions and versions in which the Prefaces of S. Jerome have been printed, both before and since the adoption of the new Canon at Trent.

Sect. VI. The Greek Church, modern and ancient, agrees WITH THE English herein.

Catechism of the Russian Church.

Sect. VII. The Study or Holy Scrtfture discouraged by THE Church of Rome.

The bull Unigenitas.

Fourtii Rule of tlie Index of Prohibited Books. The reason why greater liberty is allowed in England. Sixtus V. projected an Italian version, but failed. Sect. VIII, Notice of certain Roman Catholic Versions. The Bordeaux New Testament, 1C86.

Calmet's Bible.

Note p. C9, Veron's Version of the N. T.

Note p. 70. Errors in the Rheims' Version.

LETTER III, Pp. 74—100, THE ROYAL SUPREMACY

Section I. Meaning and extent of the Royal Supremacy in THINGS Spiritual.

The Thirty-seventh Article. — Stat. 5 Eliz. c. 1,§ 14. — An Admonition

to Simple Men.

The Oath of Supremacy abolished.

Sect. II. A similar Supremacy exercised over Roman Catholics IN Austria, Russia, and other countries. Principles of Austrian Ecclesiastical law.

The Emperor of Russia the head of the Roman Catholic Church in his dominions.

Note p. 82. Barnes on the Royal Supremacy. His history. Sect. III. History and meaning of the title of Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Grounds on which it was granted to Henry stated by Gardiner. Used by Queen Mary till her marriage.

How understood by Cranmer and Rogers.

Repudiated by Elizabeth.

Note ^, p. 85. The title Head of the Church used in France.

xii

CONTENTS.

Sect. IV. Its iresent vulgar use comparfd with certain

STATEMENTS OF THE PaPAL SUPREMACY.

Nole p. 91. Account of the gloss on Extrav. John XXII. : — " Our Lord God the Pope."

Sect. V. Roman Catholics and other Dissenters in England SUBJECT TO THE QuEEN's AUTHORITY IN ECCLESIASTICAL causes, as WELL AS THE ChURCH.

The Gorham case. — The Hewley Trust. — O'Donnel r. the Sisters of Mercy, Galway.

Sect. VI. Modern views of the Pope's Supremacy and Infallibility.

The Pope's Infallibility supposed by many to be secured by inspiration. His Supremacy, according to common opinion, absolute and arbitrary. Note p. 97- Extraordinary authority of Liguori's works.

Letter IV. The Spiritual Supremacy Of The Pope

PART L Pp. 101—1.35.

Section I. Patristic interpretation of our Lord's charge to Peter, 'Feed my sheep,' John xxi. 15 — 17.

1. These words considered by many to be a declaration of forgiveness and restoration to office after his fall. Gregory Nazianzen. — Ambrose.— Augustine. — Chrysostom. — Cyril of Alexandria. — Basil of Seleucia. — Eusebius Gallicauus. — Bede.

2. No duties, not common to all the Apostles, imposed by this charge. Testimonies. The Roman Clergy, a.d. 250. — Basil. — Augustine. —

Chrysostom. — Mappinius. — Bede. — Sylvester 11. Sect. II. Patristic interpretation of our Lord's prayer that the faith of S. Peter might not fail, Luke xxii. 31, 32.

i. Cyprian. — ii. Hilary. — iii. Basil. — iv. Ambrose. — v. Chrysostom. — vi. Cyril of Alexandria. — vii. Jerome. — viii. Augustine. — ix. Prosper.— X. The author De Vocatione Gentium. — xi. The Councils of Milevis and Carthage, a.d. 416.

Note ^, p. 1 15. Bellarmine's dishonest account of the interpretations of this text.

Sect. III. Patristic interpretation of Matt, xvi. 18, 19. 1. The promise, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,' &c. i. Origen. — ii. Cyprian. — iii. Hilary. — iv. Epiphanius. — v. Basil. — vi. Ambrose. — vii. Pseudo- Augustine. — viii. Jerome. — ix. Augustine. —

CONTENTS.

xiii

X. Chrysostom. — xi. Pseudo-Chrysostom. — xii. Cyril Junior. — xiii. Tlieodoret. — xiv. Eusebius Gallicanus. — xv. Gregory I. — xvi. Bede. — xvii. Berengaudus. — xviii. Theopliylact.

Those Fathers who referred the promise to S. Peter personally supposed it to be fulfilled in him completely.

2. The grant, ' I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'

i. Origen. — ii. Cyprian. — iii. Cyril of Jerusalem. — iv. Hilary. — v. Optatus. — vi. Pacian. — vii. Ambrose. — viii. Gaudentius. — ix. Jerome. — x. Augustine. — xi. Leo I. — xii. Eusebius Gallicanus. — xiii. Fulgentius of Ruspa. — xiv. Bede. — xv. Sylvester II. — xvi. Theophylact.

The Creed of Pius IV., requiring the unanimous consent of the Fathers to an interpretation of holy Scripture, forbids the Roman Catholic to plead any of the above texts in support of the Pope's supremacy or infallibility.

Note *, p. 125. Gross falseliood of Bellarmine respecting the ancient interpretation of S. Matt. xvi. 18. His use of spurious and corrupted authorities.

Note p. 129. Bishop Horsley on S. Peter ' the rock.'

Section I. Early language respecting S. Peter's place AMONG the Apostles.

The nature of his Primacy. Ambrose — Cyprian — Chrysostom.

Titles of honour assigned to him.

Sect. II. The Apostles believed to be equal as Apostles,

AND TO HAVE BEQUEATHED THE SAME EQUALITY TO THEIR SUC- CESSORS.

Doctrine of Cyprian. — S. James, Bishop of Jerusalem. — Synod of Antioch, a.d. 341. — Testimony of Jerome. — Pseudo-Chrysostoni. — Rhabaims \Iaui"us. — Isidore of Seville.

Sect. III. Instances in which other Apostles are by name

DECLARED equal TO S. PeTER, OB TITLES GIVEN TO THEM IN COMMON WITH HIM.

SS. Peter and John compared by Cyril of Alexandria. SS. Peter and Paul by — i. Hilary, — ii. Ambrose, — iii. Pseudo-Maximus, — iv. Ambi'osiaster, — v. Chrysostom, — vi. Pseudo- Augustine, — vii. Gaudentius,— viii. Eusebius Gallicanus, — ix. Elias Cretensis.

Titles of honour given to S. Peter in common with others.

The very highest titles of honour given to others of the Apostles severally, especially to S. Paul.

Sect. IV. Titles now claimed r,v the Pope exclusively,

ONCE GIVEN equally TO ALL BlSHOFS.

xiv

CONTENTS.

Examples of the general use of the titles, Supreme Pontiff, Pope, Vicar

of Christ, Successor or Vicar of S. Peter. All Bishops addressed, and were addressed by, the Bishop of Rome,

in terms expressive of equality.

Sect. V. The analogy of the Jewish Priesthood leaves no

ROOM for an authority ABOVE THAT OF THE BiSHOP.

This analogy suggested by S. Clement of Rome ; asserted by Jerome. Note ^, p. 161. Similar examples from others. Sect. VI. The Bishop of Antioch a successor of S. Peter,

EQUALLY with the BiSHOP OF RoME.

S. Peter never Bislmp of Rome in the sense implied by the argument

for the Papal supremacy.

The equal honour of the Bishop of Antioch, derived fx'om the similar

connexion of his Church with the Apostle.

Note ^, p. 164. The Church of Rome was founded equally by SS. Peter

and Paul, and the Popes have claimed authority as successors to

both.

Section I. On the respect paid in early times to Churches which had been founded by Apostles.

The ground of this respect. Illustrations from Irenjeus, Tertullian,

Augustine, and Optatus.

The secular advantages and position of Rome gave its Church the

most prominent place among Apostolic Churches. Religious considerations would have assigned the Primacy rather to

Jerusalem or Antioch.

Note p. 178. Modern Greek view of the grounds of the Primacy. Note^, p. 179. Difficulty in the Roman argument from the rank of

Alexandria.

Sect. II. Those distinctions of rank and name which obtained AMONG Bishops depended wholly on the civil importance of the cities over which they presided. Rise and development of Metropolitan authority. Mutual relations of Bishops at the date of the Nicene Council. The Church of Constantinople made second to that of Rome, a.d. 381. The Church of Constantinople set above that of Rome, a.d. 451. Erection of tlie Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a.d. 451. The Church of Constantinople declared by the State, in the sixth

century, to be the head of all other Churches. Title of Universal Patriarch given to the Bishops of the four chief sees.

CONTENTS.

XV

Note p. 181. Origin of the names, Primate, Metropolitan, Archbishop,

Exarch, and Patriarch.

Note p. 183. Tlie order of the Patriarchates followed the rank of

the cities.

Sect. III. Proofs and illustrations of the political basis OF all metropolitan jurisdiction.

The Synod of Aries, 314.— The Council of Nic£ea, 325.— The Council of Antioch, 311. — The Council of Ephesus, 431, — The Council of Chalcedon, 451.— Theodoret, 449.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops in his Patriarchate supported by the State so early as a.d. 445, partly on the alleged ground of the merit of S. Peter. Note 5, p. 191. Instances of honorary Metropolitans.

Sect. IV. Origin of the privilege claimed by the Bishop of Rome of entertaining appeals from Bishops condemned in their own Province.

History of the Council of Sardica, a.d. 34?. — The affair of Apiarius. — The Canons of Sardica fraudulently ascribed to the Council of Nice. — African Canons against Roman aggression. — Interference of Hadrian II. in the affair of Hincmar of Laon. — Resistance of the King and Bishops of France. — The Pope withdraws his pretensions.

Note p. 197. De Marca's account of the error prevailing among

Roman Catholic divines with respect to the Canons of Sardica. Sect. V. Sketch of Church Government during the first three ages.

The representation of a Roman Catholic historian. The Church of England rejected the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome,

without denying his claim to precedence.

Note p. 207. Many Roman Catholic divines have held that the suc-

cessorship of S. Peter is not tied to Rome, but elective. Note p. 210. Modern Roman theory that Bishops derive all their

authority from the Pope.

Note p. 211. The later Greeks ready to yield to Rome her ancient

precedence.

Section I. The duration of the See of Rome does not accredit its pretensions.

Other Sees of equal antiquity have endured through greater trials and dangers.

xvi

CONTENTS.

Sect. II. The holiness of some Popes no evidence of xHiiiu Supremacy ; while the unholiness of others is incompatible WITH Infallibility.

Note % p. 215. M. Rohrbacher on the bad Popes. Note p. 216. Mi\ Ward's mode of dealing with the same difficulty. Sect. III. The case of Judas not analogous to that of a wicked Pope. The general character of the Popes easily surpassed.

Note ^, p. 218. Shocking slanders against Cranmer in Roman Catholic publications.

Sect. IV. Fictitious Martyrdoms of many early Popes recorded in the Breviary.

The accounts of Linus, Anacletus, Cletus, Clement, &c., given in the

Breviary, compared with those of Tillemout, &c. Note p. 225. Similar fables in the Breviary concerning other Saints. Sect. V. Injurious moral effect of these and similar falsehoods ON the learned Roman Catholic.

Note p. 227. Instances of Lessons in the Breviary from writings falsely attributed to the Fathers.

THE TEMPORAL SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.

Section I. Temporal Supremacy has been claimed by Popes EX cathedra.

The Bulls of Boniface VI II., AtiscuUa Fill, and Unam Sanctam. Note p. 230. Meaning of the phrase ex cathedra. Note *, p. 2.32. Attempt to explain away the Bull Unam Sanctam. Sect. II. The doctrine of the Popes exhibited in their practice.

Instances in which Popes have professed to depose kings, or to confer kingdoms.

The deposition of kings said by some authors to be an exercise of indirect power over temporals.

Sect. III. It was the Pope's claim to temporal supremacy which occasioned the sufferings of the Roman Catholics during the reigns of Elizabeth and James, as acknowledged

BY some of their OWN WRITERS.

(.'oufession of Joseph Berington. — Important considerations by sundry secular Priests. — Dr. Charles ( •'Conor. — Answers on examination of twenty-one Ron)aD Catholics imprisoned for suspicion of treason, 1014-15.

CONTENTS.

xvii

Noti: *, p. 238. The sufferings of Roman Catholics from the penal laws may be compai-ed with those of disloyal favourers of the Reformation under Mary, but not with those inflicted for religion in her reign.

Note p. 242. Opinion of the Sorbonne on the oatli of allegiance proposed by James.

Sect. IV. Roman Catholic errors were not regarded by THE Reformers as deserving of the extreme penalty of

HERESY.

Unfounded assertion of Dr. Lingard.

Provision against heresy in the Rt:furinatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, interpreted by the practice of the Reformers when in power, their principle of deference to antiquity, and Stat. 1 Eliz. c. i. § 3C.

Note p. 244. I>i". Newman's account of the English Reformation.

LETTER VI. Pp. 252— 289

THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. PERSECUTION.

Section I. The Religion of England to the Death of Henry VIII.

Opinions of Henry. — The Act of Six Articles.

Note p. 255. Resistance of Cranmer to that Act. Injustice done to him by Lingard and others.

Sect. II. The Reformation not to be charged with the death of More and Fisher.

Honest declaration of a Roman Catholic.

Sect. III. Roman Catholics not persecuted for religion during the reign of Edward VI.

Instances of severity against Roman Catholics, and the grounds of it. Treatment of Anabaptists and others.

Edward compared with coteniporary Roman Catholic Princes.

Note p. 2C0. Wicked slander of Cranmer in religious tracts now

spread among the people.

Note p. 26L Cranmer not guilty of urging the death of Joan

Bocher.

Notes, pp. 263, 2fi4. Religious persecution in the Netherlands and France.

Sect. IV. Sufferings of the Reformers under Mary.

Extraordinary statements of Dodd, Milner, and others. — Pledge given by Mary that she would make no changes in religion. — Her intentions gradually discovered. — The sufferers in prison. — Expulsion of

a xviii

CONTENTS.

foreignei-s. — Nmtiber of those who suffered by fire. — Martial law for heresy.

Note p. 274. Treasonable publications of Knox and other Puritans. Sect. V. Maky's personal feeling towards the Reformers. Testimony of the Bishops at the trial of lldgers, and of the French Ambassador.

Sect. VI. An inquiry whether Pole was opposed to the persecution.

Evidence from his Epistles. — The Legatine Synod, 1556. — Many put

to death in his diocese. — Convocation, 1558. Note ^, p. 278. Imaginary debate in Hume and others between Pole

and Gardiner.

Note p. 279. Mistake of Burnet, &c., with respect to the Legatine

Synod. — Silence of Dr. Lingard.

Note p. 281. Extraordinary misstatement of Phillips, Lingard, and

others.

Sect. VII. An account of the writings and opinions of Alphonsus a Castro.

His work De Justa Ha^reticorum Punitione. — A revised edition published after his Sermon at Court. — Effect of his Sermon. Sect. VIII. An account of the persecution by a Roman Catholic historian.

Honourable candour of Mr. Tierney.

LETTER VII. Pp. 290—320. THE DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

Section I. The duty of enforcing submission to the doctrinal decrees of the Church by temporal penalties taught by Roman Catholic divines.

The several grounds on which this principle is applied in the case of the heathen, Jews, and heretics, as taught by Dens, &c. Sect. II. Persecution practised, and declared necessary, by various Popes.

Pius v.— Gregory XIII.— Sixtus V.— Paul IV.

Notes, p. 291. Encouragement given by Pius V. to the persecutions

in France and the Netherlands.

Note p. 295. Rejoicings of Gregory XIII. at the massacre of S. Bartholomew attested by Bonanni and Muretus. Sect. III. The whole body of the Church equally implicated.

CONTENTS.

xix

The Crusades. — The Inquisition. — Otlier proofs of the general feeling. Note p. 297- The Indulgence given to those who took arras against infidels or heretics.

Sect. IV. The principle assumed in the devotional Offices

AND other formularies OF THE ChURCH OF RoME.

Canonization of Inquisitors and othernotorious persecutors. — Lessons and Collects for their Days. — The Bishop's oath of Allegiance to the Pope.

Sect. V. The DocrRiNE of persecution proclaimed ex

CATHEDR.i BY SEVERAL PoPES.

Leo X. — Paul IV. — Sixtus V. — The Canon Law of Rome. Sect. VI. The same affirmed by Councils which the Church OF Rome receives as (ecumenical.

The Council of Constance, I4I5, — The Fourth Lateran, 1215. Sect. VII. The practice of interceding for the condemned heretic.

Note p. 31 1. Bulls of Pius V. and Boniface VIII. against those wlio refuse or neglect to execute the mandates of the Inquisition. — The Canon Law.

Sect.'^VIII. Sentiments of the Roman Catholics of England with respect to persecution.

Notes in the Douay Bible. — Testimony of Llorente. — Letters of Mr.

Chisholm Anstey testifying to the present intolerance of the body. Note p. 314. Many heretics have been put to death at Rome itself, — contrary to the assertions of Balmcz and Wiseman, repeated by Dr. Newman.

Letter VIII

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. THEORY.— EXAMPLES.

Section I. On the rise and progress of false doctrine within the Latin Church.

Present state of Roman theology, and position of the learned Roman Catholic.

Sect. II. Many things now held necessary which are not

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED IN IIoLY ScRIPTURE.

Mclcliior C'aiius, Banhes, &c. See Note p. 32(j.

XX

CONTENTS.

Sect. Ill, The theory of Developments as held and explained by various writers from the fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century inclusive.

Augustiuus de Ancona. — Cai-dinal Joli. de Turrecremata. — Cardinal Cusanus. — Eggeliug and Biel. — Cardinal Fisher. — A party at Trent. — Paul IV. — Alphonsus a Castro. — Salmeron. — Baronius. — Estius. — Gretser. — Petau. — Bossuet.

Note p. 328. The title " Mistress of the Faith " claimed by the Church of Rome.

Sect. IV. Examples from the modern English school of Developmentists.

The theory stated by Mr. Ward and Dr. Newman.

PART II. Pp. 341—389

Article I. Transubstantiation.

Section I. Inquiry into the meaning of the doctrine.

The teaching of the Council of Trent.

The doctrine strangely misrepresented by Mr. Robert Wiiberforce.

Meaning of the word substance in the Twenty-eighth Article shown from Jewel and Ridley.

The Reformers and tlieir opponents understood the same thing by traiisubstantiation.

The Divines at Trent believed unanimously in a change of matter in the Eucharist.

This was taught expressly by the Council of Constance.

The Lateran Council, 1215, interpreted by Innocent III.

The Council of Rome, 1059. — The recantation of Berengarius.

Note p. 347- The word ' matter ' sometimes synonymous with ' substance,' sometimes signifying a part of substance. ' Substance ' perhaps used improperly at times to denote something abstracted from matter.

Note ^, p. 351. Theory of substituted matter.

Note *, p. 354. According to the Schoolmen, the substance of material things includes the matter.

Note 5, p. 355. All the accidents of Christ's Body, and therefore their subject, the matter, held to be in the Sacrament.

Note p. 356. Berengarius held the Real Presence.

Note p. 358. Dispute respecting Transubstantiation in the Anglo- Roman Communion.

Sect. II. Testimonies against the doctrine of Transubstantiation dovfn to the Eleventh Century.

i. Clemens Alex. — ii. Tertuliian. — iii. The Dialogue against Marcion.

CONTENTS.

xxi

— iv. Origen. — v. The Fathers at Nicsea. — vi. Eusebius. — vii. Cyril of Jerusalem. — viii. Gregory of Nyssa. — ix. Macariiis the Homilist. — X. The Treatise on Sacraments. — xi. Jerome. — xii. Clirysostom. — xiii. Augustine. — xiv. Theodoret.— xv. Gelasius 1. — xvi. Proeopius Gazensis. — xvii. Facundus Hermianensis. — xviii. Rhabanus Maurus. — xix. The Homilies of .lElfric.— xx. Gregory VII.

Note *, p. 360. On the controversial treatment of tliose passages iu the Fathers which speak of the consecrated elements as the ti/pe,reiemblance, &.C., of Christ's Body and Blood.

Note ^, p. 364. Answer to the argument from the similar use of the word antityjie.

Note ibid. Language of Cyril Hier., Greg. Nyss., and Chrysostom explained fi'om their own writings, and that of Ambrose De Myst. from the treatise De Sacramentis.

Note p. 371. Incorruptibility of the consecrated elements maintained by Anastasius Siuaita and Guitmond.

Sect, III. Confessions of Schoolmen and others, that Transubstantiation is not taught in Scripture or the Fathers.

DunsScotus. — William of Occham. — Eggelingof Brunswick. — Caietan. — A Castro. — The English Jesuits, 1600. — Salmeron. — Barnes. Sect. IV. Gradual formation of the Doctrine.

Statements of the Eucharistic Presence by Innocent III., — Durandus,

— William of Occham, — Peter D'Ailly,— Johannes Ferus. Effect of the adoption of the word transHbstantiation. Note p. 383. Productire and adductive conversion. Note ibid. Writers later than the Council of Trent, who have not accepted its definitions.

Article II. Communion in one kind.

Section I. Late introduction of the custom acknowledged. Confession of the Council of Constance. — Statements of Thomas Aquinas and Salmeron. — English Canons, 1281 and 1287. The practice condemned by the early Church of Rome. Sect. II. Many Roman Catholic Divines have held that the laity are by it deprived of a gift of grace. Hugo de S. Victore. — Albertus M. — The Divines at Trent. — A strange argument for the practice. — Vasquez. — Cassander.

Article I. Purgatory.

Roman Catholic Divines confess that it was unknown to the Primitive Christians.

Cardinal Fisher. — A Castro.— Barnes. — Dr. Newman.

xxii

CONTENTS.

Article II. The modern Indulgences.

Section I. Theik late introduction acknowledged.

Duraudus. — Autouiuus. — Eggeliiig. — Fisher. — A Castro. — Suarez. — Barnes.

Note 2, p. 3f)4. The nature of Indulgences grossly misi'epresented by many writers.

Sect. II. The origin and history of Indulgences.

First known examples of Indulgences for the dead. Bull of Sixtus IV., 1477. — Plenary Indulgences of Innocent VIII., 1490. — Jubilee Bull of Alexander VI., 1500.

Note p. 398. Mischievous effects of the system of Indulgences described by a Roman Catholic divine.

Article III. Justieication. A new doctrine declared at Trent.

Confession of Dr. Newman.

Article IV. Image Worship.

Section I. Its early history.

Letter of Epiphanius to the Bi.shop of Jerasalem.

Letter of Gregory I. to the Bishop of Marseilles.

Their language contrasted with that of the Council of Trent.

Sect. II. Image Worship confessed not to be primitive by Roman Catholic Divines.

Polydore Vergii. — Banhes. — Cassander. — Petau. — Dr. Newman. Article V. Worship of Saints and Angels.

Section I. Testimony of the early Church against it.

Indirect testimony. — Direct of Epiphanius, — Augustine, — Athanasins. Sect. II. Confession of Roman Catholics that Saint Worship IS not taught in Scripture, and was not practised BY the early Church.

Banbes. — Cardinal Perron. — Salmeron. — Dr. Newman.

Article I. The Infallibility of the Pope.

Instances iu which Popes have confessed ei'ror, or declared themselves not to be infallible.

i. The case of Vigilius. — ii. Acknowledgment of Pelagius II. — iii. Honoiius condemned by succeeding Popes. — iv. Urban II. — v. Innocent III. — vi. Clement IV. — vii. Gregory XI. — viii. The Form of Protestation used at the Canonization of Saints. — ix. Adrian VI. — X. Paul IV. — xi. Gratian. — Statement of Fleury.

CONTENTS.

xxiii

AiiTiCLE II. The Doctrine of thi: Immacui, \te Conception OF THE Virgin Mary.

Tlie doctrine altogether opposed to the teaching of the Primitiv Church.

Origin of the Festival of the Virgin's Conception. Its celebration encouraged by Anselm, opposed by Bernard. Gradual development and present state of the question.

Note p. 420. Many Fathers speak of the actual sins of the Virgin.

Note p. 422. Contentions to which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has given rise.

Note p. 424. Attempts of those who do not receive the doctrine to explain the observance of the Festival.

Conclusion

The Theory of Developments acknowledged by Dr. Newman to be an hypothesis to account for the late rise of Roman Catholic doctrines.

LETTER IX. Pp. 429—483. SUPPLEMENTARY

Section I. Further remarks on the Bull Unigenitus.

Sense in which the reading of holy Scripture was condemned. Sect. II. Sense in which the Creed declares the Church to be holy.

The Reformers did not deny the holiness of the Church, as that article is explained in the Catechism of Trent.

Sect. III. Examination of M. Rohrbacher's defence of certain Popes of the tenth century.

1. Works of Liudprand. He gives a bad character to some Popes. — 2. But speaks well of others. — 3. Meaning of Antajmdosis, the name of his chief work. — 4. Flodoard and Liudprand coteniporaries. — 5. Intectiva pro Fonnoso. The account which it gives of the outrage on Formosus.— 6. Auxilius. — 7- The Council at Rome under John IX.— 8. Two misstatements of M. Rohrbaclier. — 9. No argument for Sergius in the silence of Flodoard. — 10. Witness of Sergius against himself in his epitaph on Stephen. — 11. In his epistles. — 12. Error of M. Rohrbacher. — 13. Age and testimony of the Anonymous Salei'nite both misrepresented by M. Rohrbacher. — 14. Age of Leo Ostiensis misstated by hira. The passage alleged from Leo an interpolation. His genuine testimony unfavourable to Sergius. — 15. Flodoard's account of Sergius. — 16. The epitaph on him. — 17. John the Deacon. — 18. Sigebert of Gemblours. — 19. The Acts of the Council under John IX. misinterpreted by M.

I xxiv

CONTENTS.

Rolirbacher.— 20. Liudpraiid's account of the elevation of John X.

— 21. Confirmed by the Invectiva pro Formosa. — 22. And the

Chronicle of S. Benedict.— 23. Flodoard on John X.— 24. Tlie

Panegyric on Berengarius.

Note p. 436. M. Rohrbacher not justified in representing Liud-

prand as the only original witness against Sergius, &c. Note p. 440. M. Rohrbacher gives a false impression of Liud-

prand's account of Hugh of Provence.

Note *, p. 442. False insinuation of M. Rohrbacher, with respect to

the history of John XII.

Note p. 447. The outrage against Formosus, attributed to Sergius,

differs from that attributed to Stephen, in all the historians. Note p. 460. M, Rohrbacher misdates an author two centuries and

a half.

Note *, p. 4C6. Mistaken inference of Muratori and M. Rohrbacher

from a false reading.

Note 5, p. 468. M. Rohrbacher misintei'prets Liudprand, and gives a

wrong impression of Fleury.

Note p. 472. Specimen of M. Rohrbacher's conjectural style of

historical writing.

Note ^, p. 475. Indecency of Liudprand a proof of the general corruption of the period.

Sect. IV. Further evidence of the corrupt state of the Church in the Tenth Century.

Testimonies of Atto of Vercelli and Rathierus of Verona. Conclusion.

Letter I

I. ON THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. II. THE EARLY CHURCH OUR WITNESS TO THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. III. THE EARLY CHURCH A SURE AND SUFFICIENT INTERPRETER OF THE BIBLE. IV. THE ENGLISH REFORMATION A RETURN TO THE DOCTRINES OF ANTIQUITY. V. THE MODERN ROMAN TEST OF DOCTRINE NOT AP- PLICABLE, IF IGNORANCE AND IMMORALITY CAN BECOME GENERAL IN THE CHURCH. VI. TESTIMONIES TO THE CORRUPT STATE OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM FROM THE TWELFTH TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

You will recognise in the following pages lettp:r

an enlarged edition of the reply which I thought ?J .

it my duty to offer to your Letters on Roman Catholic Principles. It is presented to the public a second time, at the request of some valued members of the Church of England, to whose opinion in this matter I owe especial deference. You will observe that it has undergone some alteration, as well as enlargement, in the course of revision ; but there is only one change in which you are more interested than the rest of my readers. In this reprint I have departed from the formality prescribed by custom to those who make a public journal the medium of their controversy, and venture to address myself to you directly, as to one