0 THE PRI VI LE GE OE PE TE R AND THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH CON RONTED ITH THE S RI TURES THE COUNCILS AND F W C P , , T E V HE TESTIMONY O F THE POPES THEMS L ES. éxfgcéa I M . ROBERT C NK NS A. E , , Rect r H n Eamon of Canterbur Auth r f h o of L min e and o . o o t e y g , y, n m f ardi l ulian Life a d Ti es o C na J . I er o tu et tibi usur are aude aut dominans A stolat m ant g , p po u , mina tu m Pl n b lterut r hib a ost olicus d . a a o r er S m , p o e a p o is. i u tru que ”— simul habere voles erde utrum ue. S BERNARD! d onsid a , p s q . ( c C er t i on e A D E U E NIUM PA AM 1 ii . c. 6 ) , G P , . Stupor circumda t me super obstinatione Scholasticorum et adula t orum Curiae Romanae contradicentium omnib a i e . us nt quis historia ' ' E cclesiasticae Scri t ribus — EM N I RI p o . U D CHERI I , Wndzczce Doct r i ne M a or u m S ckolce P a r is 1 iv 2 j , . p . 3 5. HENRY S KING . Co . , 6 CORNHILL 1 2 ATE RNOSTER Row L N 5, ; , P , O DON. TO THE VENERABLE M A. O HN S I NC L A I R . J , , R F KEN A RCHDEACON O F MIDDLESEX, VICA O SINGTON. I N GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE F I I R T TH RTY Y ARS OF A R ENDSH P OF MO E HAN I E . N T E N T C O S . PART I . THE CLAIM TESTED BY THE LAW OF PRIVILEGE PART II . THE PRIVILEGIUM PETRI IN THE LIGHT OF THE F I RST SIx GENERAL COUNCILS AND O F THE — W ESTERN COUNCILS ( 1 409 1 562) PART II I . THE RIVI LEGIUM ETRI AND IT RE LT R P P S SU S, AS E GARDED BY THE POPES THEMSELVES CONCLUSION APPENDIX PREFACE. T HE obj ect of t he following pa ges is t o present t o t he ea e in a s r ef a fo m as oss e a sum r d r, b i r p ibl , o f t he a r um en s e a a nd oc na on w c g t , l g l d tri l, hi h n an from t he ver firs da o f her ex s ence E g l d, y t y i t a s a na on h as res e her o o s on t o t he c a ms ti , t d pp iti l i o f t he Pa ac a r s n out o f t he so- ca e Pr v p y, i i g ll d i i ” e e o f Pe e ese m e in e r e r e l g t r. Th , li it d th i a li r a sser on have now own s o ex o an a nd ti , gr rbit t, even sca n a ous in e c a ra c er as t o c a n e d l , th ir h t , h g t he com ex on o f the o er con rovers a nd t o pl i ld t y, need a treatm ent different in it s na tu re from those which were so successfully a pplied t o it in a nother a e The oc n f nf w en indi g . d tri e o I allibility as th g — n antly disavowed t he subordination of t he Pope t o a Council was (at lea st out of Italy) a dmitted a m s un r B ut n he fin f t he l o t ive sally. ow t de ition o ‘ a ca n Council a nd t he ex ra or na r ommen V ti , t di y c ar es o n of c s o a nn n an o ers t i it Ar hbi h p M i g d th , p resent so wild a developm ent of t he so - ca lled Pr v e e a ‘ t he a um en fro m a n u i il g , th t rg t tiq ity assumes a new m o a n e a nd t he o n ons o f t he i p rt c , pi i Popes themselves on t he cla ims which have been a vance for em eco m e for t he fi rs im e n er d d th b , t t , i t es n a nd even m or an e emen s of t he con ro ti g, i p t t, l t t r h res n e s is e acco n ve sy. T e p e t tr ati e divid d rdi gly n o ree o ons of w c t he firs con a ns a n i t th p rti , hi h t t i ex a mination of t he natu re o f privilege in it s lega l and oc r na as ec s a nd emons ra es t he f u d t i l p t , d t t tility of the scriptura l a rgu ments upon which the claim is foun e The secon a has a s it s o ec t o d d . d p rt bj t prove that t he cla im itself w as never a dmitted by t he Church d uring t he o nly period in which it wa s e t s ea w erfec free om a nd w u m abl o p k ith p t d , ith divided a utho rity ; a nd tha t t he irreform a bility asse e for t he See of om e wa s neve so m uc rt d R , r h as ma ne in a e da The c os n or i gi d th t b tter y . l i g p tion of t he trea tise relates rather t o t he new I nfa lli bilit c a m a n t o ose out o f w ha s ro wn y l i , th th hich it g u a nd is es ne t o S ow how a so u e t he p, d ig d h b l t ly Popes of almost every ag e have repudiated t he fa tal f P I as s ex o e f om t he g i t which ius X. h o rashly t rt d r e u of his fo o e s in t he n ne een en u r cr d lity ll wr i t th c t y. on t he Pe ne c a m even in it s ea er and ess Up tri l i , rli l a van e s a es t he n s C u c and eo e d c d t g , E gli h h r h p pl , from t he times of Edward t he Confesso r until those of rc s o a r am ave e a nd u but A hbi h p W h , h h ld ta ght one c ea em a c and cons s en oc ne ere l r, ph ti , i t t d tri . H , at eas the efo ma on was n su en e e on l t, R r ti o dd r b lli — no brea king away from the ancient faith and ac ce u s f n an e una n pr ti . The J dge o E gl d rul d i m ously (in the ca se of Cawdry) tha t t he rest ora tion o f the suprema cy t o t he Crown (in t he fi rst ear of z a e as not a new law but s m y Eli b th) w , i ply t he e a a on of he an en l w of n an d cl r ti t ci t a E gl d . c f ou not the firs was t he m es t o Wi li , th gh t, ighti t ex press t he great truth which the m as ses of the people of England have held alm ost from t he e nn n a as was ex n a t he er b gi i g, th t it pedie t th t p sona l presence of Christ should be removed f rom us canno be ne essa he e sona re , it t c ry that t p r l p sen e of a Po e c a m n t o re esen r s s o u c p , l i i g pr t Ch i t, h ld ” be ef us ns ear l t with i tead .