anterior fundamental truths, recognised as having existed from the introduction of Christianity. They declared that all the doctrines and practices which they, in that council, decided to be true and obligatory, were always the received doctrines and practices of the "Catholic church" in every age, without any variation from the time of Christ and his apostles, from whom each of such doctrines and practices originated; and that they were handed down by one unbroken tradition to the time of the assembly of this last (so-called) General Council of the Church. The assembled doctors professed to have simply declared what was of faith previous to that time. They do not pretend to have invented any new doctrine, but simply to have defined and declared what the doctrine of the Church was and always had been from the time of the apostles down to the meeting of the Council.1 1 The following are a few of the sentences continually recurring in the proceedings of the Council of Trent : Sess. xiii. c. 3. "Semper hæc fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit." "Ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nunc denuo sancta hæc Synodus declarat." Sess. xiii. c. 4. "Pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto." Sess. xiii. c. 5. "Universa Ecclesia semper intelexit." Sess. xiv. c. 5. "Persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit: et verissimum esse Synodus hæc confirmat." Sess. xv. c. 7. "Sacræ literæ ostendunt et Catholicæ Ecclesiæ traditio semper docuit." Sess. xxiii. c. 1. "Cum, Scripturæ testimonio, apostolica traditione, et patrum unanimi consensu, peropicuum sit :-dubitare nemo debet." Sess. xxiii. c. 3. "Cum, igitur,-sancti patres nostri, Concilia, et universalis Ecclesiæ traditio, semper docuerunt:-sancta et universalis Synodus, prædictorum schismaticorum hæreses et errores,-exterminandos duxit." Sess. xxiv. See also Sess. v. and Sess. xiii. In perfect accordance with these views, thus decidedly enunciated by the Papal Church, a Roman Catholic bishop, at a public meeting at Warrington, on the occasion of the consecration of a burial ground, recently stated "that he was the representative in this country of no new system of religion, and the teacher of no new doctrines." This public declaration suggested to the writer the compilation of the facts constituting the present volume, under the title of "NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM," as a reply to the broad and positive assertions thus confidently put forward by the Romish Church. These facts, he believes, are now for the first time brought together in such a manner as will enable the reader to trace the rise, progress, and final development of each successive novelty of that Church, in chronological order, divested of all controversial bias. Part I. must not be considered otherwise than as furnishing a few plain proofs of the novelties of the doctrines treated. It was not the intention of the writer to attempt a refutation of the doctrines in question. That necessarily follows if they are proved to be of modern invention. Part II., following the order of time, traces, through successive centuries, the chronological development of papal error, superstition, ecclesiastical arrogance, and priestly assumption. Part III. presents the contrast between the simple scriptural creed of the primitive Church and that of Romanism, as fully developed and consolidated by the Council of Trent. While the writer claims for his labour the merit of a compilation only, he may be permitted to hope that the reader will be thus furnished with a body of facts and trustworthy materials, which will be found useful in these times, should circumstances bring him into controversy with a Romanist. CONTENTS. The objection of a Priest of Rome to argue with a Layman, because he is a Priest, considered. Title to Priestly Orders questioned. The doctrine PAGE Bellarmine's proposition that the Pope's Supremacy is proved by his titles, considered, 2. Prince of Priests-High Priest, 2. Universal Bishop, 3. Pelagius II. and Gregory I. reject the title, 3. Simon Vigorius on title "Universal Bishop," 5. Applied to Athanasius by Gregory Nazianzen, 5. Vicar of Christ, 6. Synods of Compiegne and Melun, 6. Dens on this title, 7. The title of Pope, 7. The restricted authority of the Bishop of Rome, even in Italy, 8. The Bishops of Milan, Aquilia, and Ravenna, independent of the Bishop of Rome, 8. "Mother and Mistress of all Churches," 8. Claims refuted by Ecclesiastical History, 9. Councils: Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II. and III., Nice II., 9-11. The Greek Decree of Trent Council, 13. List of Apocryphal Books, 14. Trent declara- tion challenged, 14. List of Fathers and Doctors from the Apostles to the 16th century, in regular succession, who rejected the Apocrypha, 16-20. Authorities relied on by Romanists to prove the Apocrypha canonical, con- sidered, 20. Council of Sardis-Council of Carthage, 21. Augustine, 24. Cajetan on the Sacred Canon, 25. Innocent I., 27. Isidore, 27. Gelasius, 28. Council of Toledo, 28. Council of Florence, 29. The Council of Trent shown The Interpretation of the Church and of the Fathers, the Doctrine of Rome, 31. This Doctrine invented in 1564, 31. The difficulties of the doctrine, 31, 32. I. The Interpretation of the Church. The startling statements of Cardinals Hosius and Cusanus, 35. What is the Church? 33. Bellarmine's several defini- tions: "The Representative Church," or Councils-"The Essential Church," including Laymen and Priests, have published no interpretation, 33. "The Consistorial Church," or "Court of Rome "-examples of interpretation ex- amined and shown to be erroneous, 33. "The Virtual Church," i.e., the Pope-examples given and admitted to be erroneous, 35. The Parish Priest, 37. II. Interpretation of Fathers, their unanimous agreement required, 38. A "dead lock" as to the Scriptures, 38. Examples of leading texts on which Romanists rely, to prove peculiar doctrines on which Fathers either differed among themselves or modern Romanists differ from them, 39. And instances of interpretation given by Fathers expressly rejected by Romanists because they go against their modern doctrines, 40. Cornelius Mus on Relative value |