Barrow - BX1805 .B3 1852

CONTENTS. IX FAGS GROUNDS OF T$IE PRECEDENCE GIVEN TO ROME. Metropolitan power of human origin Origin of metropolitan dignity Exarchs introduced under Constantine The change gradually crept inThe patriarchmade way for the "universal bishop"Some churches exempted from the patriarchate Advantages gained by theRoman bishopEncroachments of the popeThe oriental churches op- posedhis encroachments Corollaries from the preceding account, 203 THIRTY-SIX CAUSESACCOUNTING FOR THE GROWTH OF THE PAPACY, . 224 SIXTH PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That infact the Roman bishops, continuallyfrom St Peter's time, have enjoyed and exercised this sovereignpower. First Assumption of the popeCONVOCATION OF COUNCILS. The emperor, and not the pope, convened councilsPrincesalone should convene councils, . 239 SecondAssumption PRESIDENCY IN COUNCILS.The pope did not preside in early councils The term "presidency" ambiguousPresidency not fixed to the RomanchairThe imperial commissioners claimed the presidencyThe pope's presidency not held essential It would be unreasonable, . . . 250 ThirdAssumptionLEGISLATIVE POWER TO CONFIRM DECREES. Canons Of Councils passedwithout his consentThe controversy of the " Three Chapters "The pope's consent sometimes asked Reasons why it was askedThe emperor gave the effectual confirmation Objections answered, 259 FourthAssumptionLEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS.The consent of the majority required to pass laws Metropolitan bishops had not a negative Thepope subject to the laws ofthe churchPapal jurisdiction not recognised The emperor alone could enact laws, . . . . . . 271 FifthAssumptionSovEREIGNAUTHORITY. No traces of such a power in the pri- mitive churchNo arbitrary power granted to the pope, . . . 278 Sixth AssumptionORDINATION. No foundation for this assumptionPrimitive mode of ordination Objections answeredPopes intermeddling with ordina- tionsChecked for so intermeddlingEmperors interfered in ordinationsmore than popesThe emperors constituted popes Synods and bishops confirmed ordinationsConfirmation of bishops unknown, . . . . 282 Seventh Assumption CENSURE. Power of censure belonged to synods Bishops have censured bishopsThe power of censure belonged to all bishopsBishops have deposed popesThe people and emperor have deposed popes Various popes discarded by the emperor, . . . . . . 298 Cases of papal depositions vainly alleged The case of MarcianThe case of FlavianusThe case of NestoriusThecases of Dioscorus and othersThe case of Anthimus, . . . . . . 305 Eighth AssumptionARSOLuTION.Synods alone had the power of absolution Restitution not always an act of jurisdictionSome things premisedCases of papal absolution vainly alleged, . . . . . 311 Ninth AssumptionAPPEALS.The mischief of appeals to the pope No such ap- peals in the primitive churchBellarmine's alleged cases of appeal to the pope confuted Observationson the case of TheodoretGeneral observations on ap- peals, . . . . . . . . . 313 TenthAssumption JURISDICTION. This pretence contrary to Scripture Opinions of the fathersas to jurisdictionVicegerents of the pope a modern dream Papal legates checked in England, . . . . 333 Eleventh AssumptionIRRESPoNsIRILITY.Popes have been condemned and excom- municated, . . . . . . . . 339