[285] cont,d
Consid. VII (cont,d) 4."The third particular I consider is: Suppose, in the whole Catholic Church militant, an "absolute infallibility in the prime foundations of faith absolutely necessary to salvation;" and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a General Council1 which represents it, [286] but that the council is subject to error. This supposition doth not only preserve that which you desire in the Church, an infallibility, but it meets with all inconveniences which usually have done, and daily do, perplex the Church.2 And here is still a remedy for all things: For if private respects, if bandies in a faction,3 if power and favour of some parties, if weakness of them which have the managing, if any unfit mixture of State Councils, if any departure from the rule of the Word of God, if any thing else, sway and wrench the council,"the whole Church,4 upon evidence found in express Scripture, or demonstration, of this miscarriage, hath power to represent herself in another body or council, and to take order for what was amiss, either practised or concluded. So here is a means, without any infringing any lawful authority of the Church, to preserve or reduce unity; and yet grant, as I did, and as the Church of England doth5 "That a General Council may err." And this course the Church heretofore took; for she did call and represent herself in a new council, and define against the heretical conclusions of the former; as in the case at Ariminum, and the second of Ephesus, is evident; and in other councils named by Bellarmine.6 Now, the Church is never more cunningly abused, than when men, out of this truth, That she may err, infer this falsehood, That she is not to be obeyed. For it will never follow: She may err,"Therefore, She may not govern. For [287] He that says, "Obey them which have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls," [Heb xiii. 17.] commands obedience, and expressly ascribes rule to the Church. And this is not only a pastoral power, to teach and direct, but a praetorian also, to control and censure too, where errors or crimes are against points fundamental or of great consequence. Else S. Paul would not have given the rule for excommunication [I Cor. v. 5.]; nor Christ Himself have put the man that will not hear and obey the Church, into the place and condition of an ethnic and a publican, as He doth. [Matt. xviii. 17] And Solomon,s rule is general, and he hath it twice: "My son, forsake not the teaching or instruction of thy mother." [Prov. i. 8.; Prov.vi.20.] Now this is either spoken and meant of a natural mother"and "her authority over her children is confirmed;" [Ecclus. iii. 2.; Prov. xv. 20.] and "the fool" will be upon him "that despiseth her"7"or it is extended to our mystical and spiritual mother the Church. And so the Geneva note8 upon the place expresses it. And I cannot but incline to this opinion; because the blessings which accompany this obedience are so many and great, as that they are not like to be the fruits of obedience to a natural mother only, as Solomon expresses them all. And in all this, here is no exception of the mother,s erring [Prov. vi. [20-23.]]; for mater errans, "an erring mother," loses neither the right nor the power of a mother by her error. [Prov. vi. 22] And I marvel what son should show reverence or obedience, if no mother that hath erred might exact it. It is true, the son is not to follow his mother,s error, or his mother into error; but it is true too, it is a grievous crime in a son to cast off all obedience to his mother, because at some time or in some things she hath fallen into error. And, howsoever, this consideration meets with this inconvenience, as well as the rest; for suppose, as I said, in the whole Catholic militant Church, an absolute infallibility in the prime foundations of faith absolutely necessary to salvation;"and then, though the mother Church, provincial or national, may err, yet, if the grandmother, the whole Universal Church, cannot in [288] these necessary things, all remains safe, and all occasions of disobedience, taken from the possibility of the Church,s erring, are quite taken away. Nor is this mother less to be valued by her children, because in some smaller things age had filled her face fuller of wrinkles. For where it is said, that "Christ makes to Himself a Church without spot or wrinkle," [Eph. v. 27.] that is not understood of the Church militant, but of the Church triumphant. And to maintain the contrary, is a branch of the spreading heresy of Pelagianism.9 Nor is the Church on earth any freer from wrinkles in doctrine and discipline, than she is from spots in life and conversation.
5."The next thing I consider is: Suppose a General Council infallible in ill things which are of faith: if it prove not so but that an error in the faith be concluded, the same erring opinion that makes it think itself infallible, makes the error of it seem irrevocable. And when truth which lay hid shall be brought to light, the Church, who was lulled asleep by the opinion of infallibility, is left open to all manner of distractions, as it appears at this day. And that a Council may err"besides all other instances, which are not few"appears by that error of the Council of Constance.10 And one instance is enough to overthrow a general, be it a Council. Christ instituted the sacrament of His body and blood in both kinds. [Matt.xxvi. [27.] I Cor. xi. 23, [25.]] To break Christ,s institution is a damnable error, and so confessed by Stapleton.11 The council is bold, and defines peremptorily, That to "communicate in both kinds is not necessary; with a non obstante to the institution of Christ." Consider now with me, Is this [289] an error, or not? Bellarmine and Stapleton,12 and you too, say it is not; because to receive under both kinds is not by Divine right. No!"No, sure; for it was not Christ,s precept, but His example.13 Why, but I had thought, Christ,s institution of a sacrament had been more than His example only; and as binding for the necessaries of a sacrament, the matter and form, as a precept.14 Therefore speak out, and deny it to be Christ,s institution; or else grant with Stapleton, "It is a damnable error to go against it." If you can prove that Christ,s institution is not as binding to us as the precept"which you shell never be able"take the precept with it, "Drink ye all of this;"15 [Matt.xxvi. [27.]; I Cor. xi. [23,25.]] which though you shift as you can, yet you can never make it other than it is, a binding precept. But Bellarmine hath yet one better device than this, to save the council. He saith, it is a mere calumny, and that the council hath no such thing: "That the non obstante hath no reference to receiving under both kinds, but to the time of receiving it"after supper; in which the council saith, the custom of the Church is to be observed, non obstante, notwithstanding, Christ,s example." How foul Bellarmine is in this, must appear by the words of the council, which are these: "Though Christ instituted this venerable sacrament, and gave it His disciples, after supper, under both kinds of bread and wine, yet, non obstante, notwithstanding, this, it ought not to be consecrated after supper, nor received but fasting. And likewise, that though, in the primitive Church, this sacrament was received by the [290] faithful under both kinds; yet this custom, that it should be received by laymen only under the kind of bread, is to be held for a law, which may not be refused. And to say this is an unlawful custom, of receiving under one kind, is erroneous; and they which persist in saying so, are to be punished and driven out as heretics."16 Now, where is here any slander of the council? The words are plain, and the non obstante must necessarily, for aught I can yet see, be referred to both clauses in the words following, because both clauses went before it; and hath as much force against receiving under both kinds, as against receiving after supper. Yea, and the after-words of the council couple both together in this reference; for it follows, "Et similiter, and so likewise,, that though in the primitive Church," &c. And a man by the definition of this council may be an heretic, for standing to Christ,s institution in the very matter of the sacrament. And the Church,s law for one kind may not be refused, but Christ,s institution under both kinds may; and yet this council did not err! No; take heed of it.
6."But your opinion is more unreasonable than this: for consider any body collective, be it more or less universal, whensoever it assembles itself, did it ever give more power to the representing body of it, than binding power upon all particulars, and itself? And did it ever give this power otherwise, than with this reservation in nature, That it [291] would call again and reform, yea, and if need were, abrogate, any law or ordinance, upon just cause made evident that this representing body had failed in trust or truth? And this power, no body collective, ecclesiastical or civil, can put out of itself, or give away to a parliament or council-or call it what you will that represents it. Nay, in my Consideration, it holds strongest in the Church; for a council hath power to order, settle, and define differences arisen concerning faith. This power the council hath not by any immediate institution from Christ, but it was prudently taken up in the Church, from the apostles, example.,17 [Acts xv.[6-29]] So that to hold councils to this end, is apparent apostolical tradition written; but the power which councils so held have, is from the whole Catholic Church, whose members they are; and the Church,s power from God. "And this power the Church cannot farther give away" to a General Couiicil,18 than that the decrees of it shall bind all particulars, and itself, but not bind the whole Church, from calling again; and in the aftercalls, upon just cause to order, yea, and if need be, to abrogate former acts. I say, upon just cause; for if the council be lawfully called, and proceed orderly, and conclude according to the rule, the Scripture, the whole Church cannot but approve the council, and then the definitions of it are binding. And the power of the Church hath no wrong in this, so long as no power but her own may meddle or offer to infringe any definition of hers made in her representative body, a lawful General Council. And certain it is no power but her own may do it. Nor doth this open any gap to private spirits; for all decisions in such a council are binding; and because the whole Church can meet no other way, the council shall remain the supreme, external, living, temporary, ecclesiastical judge of all controversies; only the whole Church, and she alone, hath power, when [292] Scripture or demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her, to represent herself again in a new council, and in it to order what was amiss.
7."Nay, your opinion is yet more unreasonable: for you do not only make the definition of a General Council, but the sentence of the pope, infallible, nay, more infallible than it. For any General Council may err with you, if the pope confirm it not.19 So belike this infallibility rests not in the representative body, the council, nor in the whole body, the Church, but in your head of the Church, the pope of Rome. Now I may ask you, To what end such a trouble for a General Council? Or wherein are we nearer to unity, if the pope confirm it not? You answer, though not in the Conference, yet elsewhere, That the pope errs not, "especially giving sentence in a General Council." And why "especially?" Doth the deliberation of a council help any thing to the conclusion? Surely not, in your opinion; for you hold the conclusion "prophetical," the means "fallible:" fallible deliberations cannot advance to a prophetic conclusion. And just as the council is, in Stapleton,s judgment, "for the definition and the proofs;" so is the pope, in the judgment of Melch[ior] Canus,20 and them which followed him, "prophetical in the conclusion." The council, then, is called but only, in effect, to hear the pope give his sentence in more state. Else what means this of Stapleton: The pope, by a council joined unto him, acquires no new power, or authority, or certainty in judging, no more than a head is the wiser by joining the offices of the rest of the members to it, than it is without them"?21 Or, this of Bellarmine: [293] "That all the firmness and infallibility of a General Council, is only from the pope, not partly from the pope and partly from the council?"22 So, belike, the presence is necessary, not the assistance; which opinion is the most groundless and worthless that ever offered to take possession of the Christian Church. And I am persuaded, many learned men among yourselves scorn it at the very heart; and I avow it, I have heard some learned and judicious Roman Catholics utterly condemn it. And well they may; for no man can affirm it, but he shall make himself a scorn to all the learned men of Christendom, whose judgments are not captivated by Roman power. And for my own part, I am clear of Jacobus Almain,s opinion: "And a great wonder it is to me, that they which affirm the pope cannot err, do not affirm likewise that he cannot sin. And I verily believe they would be bold enough to affirm it, did not the daily works of the popes compel them to believe the contrary."23 For very many of them have led lives quite contrary to the Gospel of Christ; nay, such lives as no Epicurean monster, storied out to the world, hath outgone them in sensuality, or other gross impiety, if their own historians be true. Take your choice of John the Thirteenth,24 about the year 966; or of Sylvester the Second, about the year 999 or John the Eighteenth, about the year 1003; or Benedict the Ninth, about the year 1033; or Boniface the Eighth, about the year 1294; or Alexander the Sixth, about the year 1492. And yet these, and their like, must be infallible in their dictates and conclusions of faith. Do your own believe it? [294] Surely no. For Alphonsus a Castro tells us plainly: "That he doth not believe that any man can be so gross and impudent a flatterer of the pope, as to attribute this unto him, that he can neither err nor mistake in expounding the Holy Scripture."25 This comes home, and therefore it may well be thought it hath taken a shrewd purge. For these words are express in the edition at Paris, 1534; but they are not to be found in that at Cologne., 1539; nor in that at Antwerp, 1556; nor in that at Paris, 1571. Harding26 says [295] indeed, Alphonsus left it out of himself, in the following editions. Well: First, Harding says this, but proves it not; so I may choose whether I will believe him or no. Secondly, Be it so, that he did,"that cannot help their cause a whit. For, say he did dislike the sharpness of the phrase, or aught else in this speech, yet he altered not his judgment of the thing; for in all these later editions he speaks as home, if not more than in the first; and says expressly, "That the pope may err, not only as a private person, but as pope."27 And in difficult cases, he adds, that the pope ought to consult viros doctos, "men of learning." And this also was the opinion of the ancient Church of Christ, concerning the pope and his infallibility. For thus Liberius, and he a pope himself, writes to Athanasius: "Brother Athanasius, if you think in the presence of God and Christ as I do, I pray subscribe this confession, which is thought to be the true faith of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that we may be the more certain that you think concerning the faith as we do. Ut ego etiam persuasus sim inhaesitanter, that I also may be persuaded without all doubting,, of those things which you shall be pleased to command me."28 Now I [296] would fain know, if the pope at that time were, or did think himself, infallible, how he should possibly be more certainly persuaded of any truth belonging to the faith, by Athanasius,s concurring in judgment with him. For nothing can make infallibility more certain than it is; at least, not the concurring judgment of that is fallible as S. Athanasius was. Beside, the pope complimented exceeding low, that would submit his unerring judgment to be commanded by Athanasius, who, he well knew, could err. Again in the case of Easter, which made too great a noise in the Church of old, "Very many men called for S. Ambrose,s judgment in that point, even after the definition of the Church of Alexandria and the bishop of Rome."29 And this I presume they would not have done, had they then conceived either the pope or his Church infallible. And thus it continued down till Lyra,s time; for he says expressly: "That many popes, as well as other inferiors, have not only erred, but even quite apostatized from the faith."30 And yet now nothing but " infallibility" will serve their turns. And sometimes they have not only taken upon them to be infallible in cathedra, in their chair of decision,, but also to prophesy infallibly out of the Scripture. But prophetical Scripture, such as the Revelation is, was too dangerous for men to meddle with, which would be careful of their credit in not erring. For it fell out in the time of Innocent the Third, and Honorius the Third, as Aventine tells us: "That the then popes assured the world, that destruction was at hand to Saracens, Turks, and Mahometans; which the event showed were notorious untruths."31 And it is remarkable [297] which happened anno 1179.32 For then, in a council held at Rome, Pope Alexander the Third condemned Peter Lombard of heresy; and he lay under that damnation for thirty and six years, till Innocent the Third restored him, and condemned his accusers. Now Peter Lombard was then condemned for something which he had written about the human nature of our Saviour Christ. So here was a great mystery of the faith in hand; something about the Incarnation. And the pope was in cathedra, and that in a council of three hundred archbishops and bishops; and in this council he condemned Peter Lombard, and in him, his opinion about the incarnation; and therefore, of necessity, either Pope Alexander erred, and that in cathedra, as pope, in condemning him; or Pope Innocent in restoring him. The truth is, Pope Alexander had more of Alexander the Great than of S. Peter in him; and being accustomed to warlike employments, he understood not that which Peter Lombard had written about this mystery. And so he and his learned assistants condemned him unjustly.
8."And whereas you profess after, "That you hold nothing against your conscience," [A.C. p. 68.]"I must ever wonder much how that can be true, since you hold this of the pope,s infallibility, especially as being "prophetical in the conclusion." If this be true why do you not lay all your strength together, all of your whole society, and make this one proposition evident? For all controversies about matters of faith are ended, and without any great trouble to the Christian world, if you can but make this one proposition good, "That the pope is an infallible judge." Till then, this shame will follow you infallibly and eternally, that you should make the pope, a mere man, principium fidei, "a [298] principle or author of faith;" and make the mouth of him, whom you call Christ,s vicar, sole judge, both of Christ,s word, be it never so manifest, and of His Church, be she never so learned and careful of His truth. And, for conclusion of this point, I would fain know"since this had been so plain, so easy a way, either to prevent all divisions about the faith, or to end all controversies, did they arise"why this brief but most necessary proposition, "The Bishop of Rome cannot err in his judicial determinations concerning the faith," is not to be found, either in letter or sense, in any Scripture, in any Council, or in any Father of the Church, for the full space of a thousand years and more after Christ? For had this proposition been true, and then received in the Church, how weak were all the primitive fathers, to prescribe so many rules and cautions for avoidance of heresy, as Tertullian, and Vincentius Lirinensis, and others do; and to endure such hard conflicts as they did, and with so many various heretics; to see Christendom so rent and torn by some distempered councils, as that of Ariminum, the second of Ephesus, and others; nay, to see the "whole world almost become Arian, to the amazement of itself;" and yet all this time, not so much as call in this necessary assistance of the pope, and let the world know "that the bishop of Rome was infallible;" that so in his decision all differences might cease! For either the fathers of the Church, Greek as well as Latin, knew this proposition to be true, "That the pope cannot err judicially in matters belonging to the faith," or they knew it not. If you say they knew it not, you charge them with a base and unworthy ignorance, no ways like to overcloud such and so many learned men, in a matter so necessary and of such infinite use to Christendom. If you say they knew it, and durst not deliver this truth, how can you charge them which durst die for Christ, with such cowardice towards His Church? And if you say they knew it, and withheld it from the Church, you lay a most unjust load upon those charitable souls, which loved Christ too well to imprison any truth, but likely to make or keep peace in His Church Catholic over the world. But certainly, as no divine of worth did then dream of any such infallibility in him, so is it a mere dream, or worse, of those modern divines [299] who affirm it now.33 And as S. Augustine34 sometimes spoke of the Donatists, and their absurd limiting the whole Christian Church to Africa only; so may I truly say of the Romanists confining all Christianity to the Roman doctrine, governed by the pope,s infallibility: "I verily persuade myself, that even the Jesuits themselves laugh at this; and yet unless they say this, which they cannot but blush while they say, they have nothing at all to say. But what is this to us? We envy no man. If the pope,s decision be infallible, legant, let them read, it to us out of the Holy Scripture, and we will believe it."
9."In the mean time, take this with you,"that most certain it is, That the pope hath no infallibility to attend his cathedral judgment in things belonging to the faith. For, first, Besides the silence of impartial antiquity, divers of your own confess it, yea, and prove it too by sundry instances.35
10."Secondly, There is a great question among the learned, both schoolmen and controversers, "Whether the pope coming to be an heretic may be deposed?" And it is learnedly disputed by Bellarmine.36 The opinions are different; for the Canon Law says expressly, "He may be judged and deposed by the Church in case of heresy."37 [300] John de Turrecremata is of opinion, "That the pope is to be deposed by the Church, so soon as he becomes an heretic, though as yet not a manifest one, because he is already deprived by Divine right;"38 and recites another opinion, "That the pope cannot be deposed, though he fall into secret or manifest heresy." Cajetan thinks that the "pope cannot be deposed but for a manifest heresy, and then he is not deposed ipso facto, but must be deposed by the Church."39 Bellarmine,s own opinion is, "That if the pope become a manifest heretic, he presently ceases to be pope and head of the Church, and may then be judged and punished by the Church."40 Bellarmine hath disputed this very learnedly and at large, and I will not fill this discourse with another man,s labours. The use I shall make of it runs through all these opinions, and through all alike. And, truly, the very question itself supposes, that a pope may be an heretic. For if he cannot be an heretic, why do they question whether he can be deposed for being one? And if he can be one, then whether he can be deposed by the Church before he be manifest, or not till after, or neither before nor after, or which way they will, it comes all to one for my purpose. For I question not here his deposition for his heresy, but his heresy. And I hope none of these learned men, nor any other, dare deny, but that if the pope can be an heretic, he can err; for every heresy is an error, and more. For it is an error ofttimes against the errant,s knowledge, but ever with the pertinacy of his will. Therefore out of all, even your own grounds, if the pope can be an heretic, he can err grossly, he can err [301] wilfully; and he that can so err, cannot be infallible in his judgment, private or public: for if he can be an heretic, he can, and doubtless will, "judge for his heresy," if the Church let him alone. And you yourselves maintain his deposition lawful, to prevent this. I verily believe Albert is of opinion, Pighius foresaw this blow; and therefore he is of opinion, "That the pope cannot become an heretic at all."41 And though Bellirmine42 favour him so far as to say his opinion is probable, yet he is so honest as to add that "the common opinion of divines is against him." Nay, though he labour hard to excuse Pope Honorius the First from the heresy of the Monothelites;43 and says that Pope Adrian was deceived, who thought him one, yet he confesses: "That Pope Adrian the Second, with the council then held at Rome, and the eighth General Synod, did think that the pope might be judged in the cause of heresy; and that the condition of the Church were most miserable, if it should be constrained to acknowledge a wolf manifestly raging for her shepherd."44 And here again I have a question to ask, Whether you believe the eighth General Council, or not? If you believe it, then you see the pope can err, and so he [is] not infallible. If you believe it not, then in your judgment that General Council errs, and so that [is] not infallible.
11."Thirdly, It is altogether in vain, and to no use, that the pope should be infallible, and that according to your own principles. Now, "God and nature make nothing in vain;" therefore, either the pope is not infallible, or at [302] least God never made him so. That the infallibility of the pope, had he any in him, is altogether vain and useless, is manifest; for if it be of any use, it is for the settling of truth and peace in the Church, in all times of her distraction. But neither the Church, nor any member of it, can make any use of the pope,s infallibility that way; therefore it is of no use or benefit at all. And this also is as manifest as the rest. For before the Church, or any particular man, can mike any use of this infallibility, to settle him and his conscience, he must either know or believe that the pope is infallible; but a man can neither know nor believe it. And first, for belief. For if the Church or any Christian man can believe it, he must believe it either by Divine or by human faith. Divine faith cannot be had of it; for, as is before proved, it hath no ground in the "written word of God." Nay, to follow you closer, it was never delivered by any tradition of the Catholic Church. And for human faith, no rational man can possibly believe, having no word of God to overrule his understanding, that he which is "fallible in the means," as yourselves confess the pope is,45 can possibly be "infallible in the conclusion." And were it so that a rational man could have human faith of this infallibility, yet that neither is, nor ever can be, sufficient to make the pope infallible; no more than my strong belief of another man,s honesty, can make him an honest man if he be not so. Now, secondly, for knowledge. And that is altogether impossible too, that either the Church, or any member of the Church, should ever know that "the pope is infallible." And this I shall make evident also out of your own principles. For your Council of Florence had told us, "That three things are necessary to every Sacrament,"46 the "matter," the "form" of the Sacrament, and the "intention of the priest," which administers it, that he intends to do as [303] the Church doth. Your Council of Trent47 confirms it for the "intention of the priest." Upon this ground"be it rock or sand, it is all one, for you make it rock and build upon it"I shall raise this battery against the "pope,s infallibility." First, The pope, if he have any infallibility at all, he hath it as he is bishop of Rome and S. Peter,s successor. This is granted.48 Secondly, The pope cannot be Bishop of Rome, but he must be "in holy orders first." And if any man be chosen that is not so, the election is void, ipso facto, propter errorem personae, "for the error of the person." This is also granted.49 Thirdly, He that is to be made pope, can never be in holy orders, but by receiving them from one that hath power to ordain. This is notoriously known; so is it also, that with you "order is a sacrament properly so called." And if so, then the pope, when he did receive the order of deacon or priesthood at the hands of the bishop, did also receive a sacrament. Upon these grounds I raise my argument thus: Neither the Church, nor any member of the Church can know that this pope which now sits, or any other that hath been, or shall be, is infallible. For he is not infallible unless he be pope; and he is not pope unless he be in holy orders; and he cannot be so unless he have received those holy orders, and that from one that had power to ordain; and those holy orders in your doctrine are a sacrament; and a sacrament is not perfectly given, if he that administers it have not intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, "an intention to do that which the Church doth" by sacraments. Now, who can possibly tell, that the bishop which gave the pope orders, was, first, a man qualified to give them; and, secondly, so devoutly set upon his work, that he had, at the instant of giving them, an intention and purpose to do therein as the Church doth? Surely, none but [304] that bishop himself. And his testimony of himself and his own act"such especially as, if faulty, he would be loth to confess"can neither give knowledge nor belief sufficient, that the pope, according to this canon, is in holy orders. So upon the whole matter"let the Romanists take which they will; I give them free choice"either this canon of the Council of Trent is false divinity, and there is no such intention necessary to the essence and being of a sacrament; or if it be true, it is impossible for any man to know, and for any advised man to believe, That the pope is infallible in his judicial sentences, in things belonging to the faith. And so here again a General Council, at least such an one as that of Trent is, can err, or the pope is not infallible.
12."But this is an argument ad hominen, good against your party only which maintain this Council. But the plain truth is, both are errors; for neither is the Bishop of Rome infallible in his judicials about the faith, nor is this intention of either bishop or priest of absolute necessity to the essence of a sacrament, so as to make void the gracious institution of Christ, in case by any tentation the priest,s thoughts should wander from his work at the instant of using the essentials of a sacrament, or have in him in actual intention to scorn the Church. And you may remember, if you please, that a Neapolitan bishop,50 then present at Trent, disputed this case very learnedly and made it most evident that this opinion cannot be defended, but that it must open a way for any unworthy priest to make infinite nullities in administration of the sacraments. And his arguments were of such strength, ut caeteros theologos dederint in stuporem,51 "as amazed the other divines" which were present; and concluded, "That no internal intention was required in the minister of a sacrament, but that intention which did appear opere externo, in the work itself, performed by him; and that if he had unworthily any wandering thoughts"nay more, any contrary intention within him,"yet it neither did nor [305] could hinder the blessed effect of any sacrament." And most certain it is, if this be not true"besides all other inconveniences, which are many"no man can secure himself upon any doubt or trouble in his conscience, that he hath truly and really been made partaker of any sacrament whatsoever"no, not of baptism; and so by consequence be left in doubt whether he be a Christian or no, even after he is baptized: whereas it is most impossible that Christ should so order His sacraments, and so leave them to His Church, as that poor believers in His name, by any unworthiness of any of His priests, should not be able to know whether they have received His sacraments or not, even while they have received them. And yet, for all this, such "great lovers of truth," and such "careful pastors " over the "flock of Christ," were these Trent Fathers, that they regarded none of this, but went on in the usual track, and made their decree for the internal intention and purpose" of the priest, and that "the sacrament was invalid without it."
1 285x Non omnia illa quae tradit Ecclesia sub definitione judiciali (i.e. in Concilio) sunt de necessitate salutis credenda, sed illa duntaxat quae sic tradit concurrente universali totius Ecclesiae consensu, implicite, vel explicite, vere, vel interpretative."Gerson. Tract. in Declaratione Veritatum, quae credendae sunt, &c. Op., par. i. § 4. p. 414. [ed. 1606. et, tom. i. col. 22. C. ed. Dupin. ubi sup. p. 216. note h.]
2 286y Possit tamen contingere quod quamvis generale concilium definiret aliquid contra fidem, Ecclesia Dei non exponeretur periculo: quia posset contingere, quod congregati in Concilio Generali essent pauci et viles, tam in re, quam in hominum reputatione, respectu illorum, qui ad illud Concilium Generale minime convenissent. Et tunc illorum leviter error extirparetur per multitudinem meliorum et sapientiorum et famosiorum illis, quibus etiam multitudo simplicium adhaereret niagis [scilicet quam decem, vel duodecim, aut quindecim, per quos possit generale concilium celebrari.]"Ockam. Dial. par. 3. lib. iii. cap. 13. [apud Goldast. Monarch. S. Rom. Imper. tom. ii. p. 829.]
3 286z Many of these were potent at Ariminum and Seleucia.
4 286a Determinationibus quae a concilio, vel pontifice summo fiant super eis dubitationibus, quae substantiam fidei concernunt, [quoad] dum universalis Ecclesia non reclamaret, necessario credendum est."Fran. Picus Mirandula, [de fide et ordine credendi,] Theorema viii. [in tit. apud Op., Joann. Pic. Mirandulae, tom. ii. p. 185.]
6 286c Tertio: Concilium sine papa [potest errare, etiam in fidei decretis, ut patet in Concilio Smyrnensi, cui subscripsit Hosius: item Mediolanensi, Ariminensi, Ephesino II., Constantinopolitano, sub Justiniano II., Constantinopolitano, sub Leone Isauro, et alio, sub Constantino Copronymo.]"Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 16. § 6. [Op., tom. ii. col. 94. D.]
7 287d Vide S. Augustin. Confess. lib. ii. cap. 3. [Op., tom. i. col. 83. In this chapter, S. Augustine speaks of the early care and watchfulness which his mother, Monica, exerted over him.]
8 287e "Forsake not thy mother,s instruction,, that is, the teaching of the Church, wherein the faithful are begotten by the incorruptible seed of God,s word.""Annot. in Prov. i. 8.
9 288f In id [etiam] progrediuntur (Pelagiani) ut dicant vitam justorum in hoc saeculo nullum omnino habere peccatum, et ex his ecclesiam Christi in hac mortalitate perfici, ut sit omnino sine macula et ruga, quasi non sit Christi Ecclesia, quae in toto terrarum orbe clamat ad Deum: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, &c."S. Augustin. Lib. de Haeresibus, Haer. lxxxviii. [Op., tom. viii. col. 26. D.]
10 288g Sess. xiii. [Vide infra, p. 290, note n.]
11 288h [Habemus igitur duos diversos mores. Habemus duplicem Ecclesiae consuetudinem. Quid ergo? an per alterutram harum violata est institutio Christi? nihil minus. Nos quidem tenemus .... quod ecclesia Christi in errorem aliquem damnabilem incidere non potest: qualis profecto est, institutionem Christi in aliquo sacramento administrando pervertere atque violare."Stapleton.] Return of Untruths upon Mr. Jewell, Art. 2. Untruth 49. [Falsitatis nota in Juellum retorta, Artic. ii. Falsum (sc. Stapletoni, sic Juell.) 49. Mendacium (sc. Juelli, sic Stapleton.) 94. Op., tom. iv. p. 1253. A.]
12 289i Bellarmin. de Eucharist. [lib. iv.] cap. 26. [Op., tom. iii. col. 761; in which, after arguing, Non pugnare cum divinis literis, seu cum Christi mandato, communionem sub una specie, (capp. 24, 25.) he meets the objections taken from the Fathers."And, Stapleton, ubi sup. note h.]
13 289k [Neque dicit (Concilium Constantiense,) servandum ecclesiae morem, non obstante Christi praecepto, sed, non obstante Christi exemplo.]"Bellarmin. ibid. § 46. [col. 768. B.]
14 289(l) And now lately in a Catechism printed at Paris, 1637, without the author,s name, it is twice affirmed thus: "The institution of a sacrament is of itself a command.""Conference xiv. p. 244; and again, [Conference xiv.] p. 260. "Institution is a precept.""[A Catechism of Christian Doctrine. Printed at Paris, 1637. It has the approbation of the Doctors of Divinity of the Faculty of Paris; and the Preface, p. 5, states, "that the author,s name alone, would he take it well to have it here mentioned, were enough to justify these words: who for profoundness of science, and consummateness in all parts of literature, both divine and human, is the honour of our times, and may be the envy of the happiest,"]
15 289m [ho Hiereus mystikôs;] Memnêmenoi toinun tês sôtêriou tautêsentolês"in Liturg. S. Chrysostom. [apud Goar. Euchologion, p. 77. et, apud Op., S. Chrysostom. tom. xii. p. 791. D.]
16 290n Licet Christus post coenam instituerit, et suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis et vini hoc venerabile sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, [sacrorum Canonum auctoritas laudabilis, et approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servavit et servat, quod hujusmodi sacramentum] non debet confici post coenam, neque [a fidelibus] recipi non jejunis."Here Bellarmine stays, and goes no farther, but the Council goes on: [nisi in casu infirmitatis, aut alterius necessitatis, a jure vel ecclesia concesso vel admisso.] Et [sicut haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandala est rationabiliter introducta,] quod licet in primitiva ecclesia [hujusmodi] sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, tamen haec consuetudo [ad evitandum aliqua pericula et scandula est rationabiliter introducta,] quod [a conficientibus sub utraque specie, et] a laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur: [cum firmissime credendum sit, et nullatenus dubitandum, integrum Christi corpus et sanguinem tam sub specie panis, quam sub specie vini veraciter continent. Unde cum hujusmodi consuetudo ab ecclesia et sanctis patribus rationabiliter introducta, et diutissime observata sit,] habenda est pro lege, quam non licet reprobare, [aut sine ecclesiae auctoritate pro libito mutare.] Quapropter dicere, [quod hanc consuetudinem aut legem observare, sit sacrilegum, aut] illicitum, censeri debet erroneum: et pertinaciter asserentes [oppositum praemissorum,] tanquam haeretici arcendi sunt, [et graviter puniendi per dioecesanos, &c."Concil. Constant. III. an. 1415.] Sess. xiii. [Concil. tom. xii. col. 100. B"D.]
17 291o In novo [verol testamento exemplum celebrationis conciliorum ab apostolis habemus: [qui ut colligitur ex libro Actuum, et ex traditione patrum, plures synodos ad nascentis ecclesiae informationem instituisse referuntur.]"Johan. de Turrecremata, Summ. de Ecclesia, lib. iii. cap, 2."Et firmitas conciliorum nititur exemplo primi concilii."Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 4. [Respons.] ad 3. [ubi sup. p 264. note z.]
18 291p This is more reasonable a great deal than that of Bellarmine, de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. cap. 18. [in tit.] Pontificem non posse subjicere seipsum sententiae coactivae conciliorum."[Op, tom. ii. col. 99. B.]
19 292q Bellarmin. de Concil. [auctoritat.] lib. ii. capp. 17, 18. [Op., tom. ii. col. 93. The substance of these two chapters is: Non esse in Concilio summam potestatem"and, Summum Pontificem absolute esse supra concilium.]
20 292r Et quidem in [decretis pontificiis duo cum primis distinguenda sunt. Unum est, tanquam intentio conclusioque decreti: alterum, quasi ratio et causa a pontifice reddita ejus rei, quam constituerit. Atque] in conclusione pontifices summi errare nequeunt, [si fidei quaestionem ex apostolico tribunali decernant.] Sin vero [pontificum] rationes [necessariae non sunt, ne dicam atptae, probabiles, idoneae, in his nihil est, videlicet immorandum."Melch.] Canus, de Locis [Theolog.] lib. vi. [de Eccles. Roman. auctoritat.] cap. 8. § 8. [p. 401. ed. Lovan. 1569.]
21 292s [Ad quartum dicendum, quod Augustinus illud dixit, non quia illud simpliciter necesse putabat, sed] quia ad compescendos [illos] importunos haereticos [illud] medium generalis concilii [evidentius et] illustrius, [ut re vera est, existimabat. Concilii enim generalis definitio, evidentior est haeresis condemnatio,] et [quae] vulgo hominum magis satisfacit, [quam unius Supremi Pastoris decretum."Stapleton.] Relect. Controv. [Controv.] vi. Q[uaest.] iii. A[rtic.] 5. [ad 4. Op., Tom. i. p. 827. B.]
22 293t At contra: nam [imprimis Dominus soli Petrus dixit: Oravi pro te, et, Pasce oves Meas, non dixit haec Petro et concilio. Item solum Petrum vocavit petram et fundamentum, non Petrum cum concilio:] ex quo apparet totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse a pontifice; non partim a pontifice, partim a concilio."[Bellarmin.] de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 3. § [34. Op., tom. i. col. 810 B.]
23 293u Et mirum est quod adversarii non asserant eum impeccabilem: et credo assererent, nisi quotidiana summorum pontificum opera ad credendum oppositum compellerent."[Libellus] de authoritate ecclesiae, [seu sacrorum conciliorum eam repraesentantium, editus a magistro Jacobo] Almain, [Senonensis dioecesis Doctore Thelogo, contra Thomam de Vio Dominicanum, qui his diebus suis scriptis nisus est omnem Ecclesiae Christi sponsae potetatem enervare.] cap. x. ad fin. [apud Opuscula Aurea Jac. Almain. Paris. 1517. fol. lix. Et apud Gersoni Op., tom. ii. col. 1005. ed. Dupin.]
24 293x Platina et Onuphrius in Vitis eorum, [Vitae Pontificum et Annotat. ibid.]
25 294y [The whole passage in the first edition of this work at Paris, 1534, and in that of Cologne, 1539, (for Laud is incorrect in speaking of its exclusion in that edition,) runs thus: Si vero concedet aliquam viam patere, qua homo ab errore revocari possit, docerique perperam sacram Scripturam intellexisse, quaero a quo docendus erit. Non ab alio homine, quia de quolibet homine causabitur illum decipi, nolatque ob id interpretationem ejus amplecti. Omnis enim homo errare potest in fide, etiam si papa sit. Nam de Liberio papa constat fuisse Arrianum, et Anastasium papam favisse Nestorianis qui historias legerit non dubitat, Quod autem alii dicunt eum qui erraverit in fide obstinate, jam non esse papam, ac per hoc affirmant papam non posse esse haereticum, est in re seria verbis velle jocari. Ad hunc enim modum quisposset citra impudentiam asserere nullum fidelem posse in fide errare, nam eum haereticus fuerit jam desinet esse fidelis. Non enim dubitamus, an haereticum esse, et papam esse, coire in unum possint, sed id quaerimus, an hominem qui alias in fide errare potuisset, dignitas pontificialis efficiat, a fide indeviabilem.] Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo impudentem Papae assentatorem, ut ei tribuere hoc velit, ut nec errare, aut in interpretatione sacrarum literarum hallucinari possit. [Nam eum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut grammaticam penitus ignorent, qui fut ut sacras literas interpretari possent. Si ergo in interpretatione sacrarum literarum quilibet homo errare potest, erit necessario judicium interpretationis penes totam ecclesiam, penes quam jus fuerit discernendi sacras Scripturas ab humanis. Nam haec errare non potest eum a Spiritu sancto sit edocta. Nullus enim verius Scripturam aliquam interpretari potest quam qui mentem et spiritum scriptoris habet. Ac certum est ecclesiam Spiritum Dei habere. Sic enim Christus illi promisit."Fr.] Alfonsi di Castro, [Zamorensi, ordinis Minorum,] adversus [omnes] haereses, [lib. xiii. In quibus recensentur et revincuntur omnes haereses quarum memoria extat, quae ab apostolorum tempore ad hoc usque saeculum in ecclesia orte sunt. Prelo Ascensiano,] lib. i. cap. 4. [fol. ix. The alterations seem to have been made in the edition of 1545, when the author was at Trent. In the dedication prefixed to the later editions, the author professes to have altered the work so as almost to have made it a new one.]And the Gloss confesses it plainly, in [Decret. par. ii.] C[aus.] xxiv. Q[uaest.] 1. cap. (ix.) A recta ergo. [ubi sup. p. 260. note n.]
26 294z [The passage referred to in the text is: "Alphonsus saith somewhat to your purpose, if the tale which you make him to tell were his own. Certainly, if he once wrote it, when he began first to write, afterward with better advice he revoked it. For in the books of the later prints these words, which you rehearse, are not found. Thus you say, (Defence, p. 715.) Alphonsus de Castro, one of M. Harding,s own special doctors saith: Non dubitamus, an haereticum esse, et Papam esse, coire in unum possent &c. Non enim credo, &c. (Alphonsus de Haeresibus, lib. 1. cap. 4.) This very saying M. Jewel bringeth in likewise against the popes, in the Defence, p. 615. under the name of Alphonsus &c.""A] Detection of [sundry foul errors, &c. uttered .... by M. Jewel, [in ... a Defence of the Apologie &c. (The falsehood of the Epistle to the Queen detected,) by Thomas] Harding, [D.D. Lovan. 1568. p. 6. v.]"[And, "Certainly,, saith he to me, (Defence, p. 617. 1. 2.) your own doctor Alphonsus saith, De Liberio Papa, constat fuisse Arianum. Touching Pope Liberius, it is well known he was an Arian., And where saith Alphonsus thus? Marry, saith M. Jewel, in his marginal quotation, Alphonsus contra Haeres. lib. i. cap. 4. But read that chapter who will, verily in the books of sundry prints that I have seen, he saith it not. If it were once so printed, and afterward by the author revoked, it ought not to be alleged.""Ibid. (Answer to the view of Untruths,)] p. 64.
27 295a Caelestinus erravit non solum ut privata persona, sed ut papa, &c. [His words are: Omnia enim homo errare potest in fide, etiam si papa sit. Nam de Liberio papa refert Platina illum sensisse cum Arrianis, et Anastasium II. pontificem favisse Nestorianis, qui historias legerit, non dubitat. Caelestinum etiam errasse circa matrimonii fidelium, quorum alter labitur in haeresim, res est omnibus manifesta. Neque hic Caelestini error talis fuit, qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat, ita ut illum errase dicamus veluti privatam personam, et non ut papam qui in qualibet re seria definienda consulere debet viros doctos: quoniam hujusmodi Coelestini definitio habebatur in antiquis Decretalibus in cap Laudabilem, titulo de Conversione Infidelium quem ipse vidi et legi. Si ergo nulli hominum jure tenemur in interpretatione sacrarum literarum credere, propterea quod quilibet homo solus errare potest, erit necessario judicium interpretationis penes totam ecclesiam.]"Alphons. a Castro, adv. Haereses, lib. i. cap. 4. [Op., col. 20. E. ed. Paris. 1571. ubi sup. p. 107. note z. With this agrees the edition of Antwerp, 1556, the last published in the author,s lifetime.]
28 295b [tautê oun tê homologia, adelphe Athanasie, tê ousê monê kai alêthôs pistei en tê hagia katholikê kai apostolikê ekklêsia, ei homophroneis moi hôs epi krisei theou kai Christou grapson moi, ei houtô phroneis katha kai hêmeis, kai ta isa en tê alêthinê pistei] hina kagô pepoithôs hô, adiakritôs peri hôn axiois keleuein moi"Liberius in Epist. ad Athanas. apud S. Athanas. [Op.,] tom. i. p. 42. ed. Paris. 1608. Et ed. Paris. Latino-Graec. 1627. [Et tom. ii. p. 664. C. ed. Benedict."Thls Epistle is generally considered to be spurious.]
29 296c [Unde necesse fuit, quia etiam] post AEgyptiorum supputationes, et Alexandrinae ecclesiae definitiones, episcopi quoque Romanae ecclesiae, per literas plerique meam adhuc expectant sententiam, quid existimem [scribere] de die paschae."S. Ambros. lib. x. Epist. lxxxiii. [Epistol. class. i. Epist. xxiii. Fratribus Episcopis, &c. § 8. Op., tom. ii. col. 882. D.]
30 296d Ex quo patet quod ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae, vel secularis, quia multi principes et summi pontifices, et alii inferiores inventi sunt apostatasse a fide: [propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei et veritatis."Nicholas de] Lyra, [Postill.] in S. Matth. xvi. 18. [apud Bibl. Latin. cum Gloss. ordinar.]
31 296e [Inter haec] pontifices Romani ex [sacra] historia, [nempe libro quam Joannis Divinationem appellant, fatum exitii Saracenis, Turcis, et Machometicae superstitioni adventasse interpretantur, classicum clangunt, ad arma ingeminant. Machometum antichristum fuisse sibi persuaserant sicuti et patrum memoria Joannes Annius in commentariis quos in eundem librum edidit, sentit, et nostro saeculo eam superstitionem desituram, Christum juxta Chiliastarum opinionem adventaturum, in terrisque regnaturum arbitratur,] quae mendacissima esse exitus probavit."[Io.] Aventini Annal. Bolorum, lib. vii. p. 529. ed. Basil.1580.
32 297f Baron. An. 1179. No. 13. [Delata fuit accusatio in eodem concilio (sc. Lateranensi) a quibusdam Alexandro Papae adversus scriptum Petri Lombardi Episcopi Parisiensis, quod male sensisset de Christi humanitate, et in aliis fidei articulis ab ecclesia Catholica deviasset. Tunc Alexander papa has dedit literas ad Guilielmum archiepiscopum Senonensem his verbis . . . ad abrogationem pravae doctrinae Petri quondam Parisiensis episcopi, qua dicitur, &c.]
33 299g "The wild extent of the Pope,s infallibility and jurisdiction, is a mistake." These are the words of a great Roman Catholic, uttered to myself. But I will spare his name, because he is living, and I will not draw your envy upon him.
34 299h Puto quod fpsi etiam rideant, cum hoc audiunt: et tamen nisi hoc dicant, quod erubescunt si dicant, non habent omnino quod dicant. Sed quid ad nos? Nemini invidemus. Hoc nobis legant de Scripturis Sanctio, et credimus."S. Augustin. [contra Donatistas Epistol. vulg.] de Unitat. Ecclesiae, cap. xvii. [Op., tom. ix. col. 368. D.]
35 299i Papa non solum errore personalui, sed et errore judiciali potest errare in materia fidei, [sicut et in aliis materiis.]"Almain. L[ibellol de Author. Ecclesiae, cap. x. [fol. lix. ubi sup. p. 293. note, u.]
36 299k [Bellarmin.] de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. et seqq. His conclusion is: Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam haereticum manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput . . . . quare ab ecclesia posse eum judicari, et puniri. Haec est sententia omnium veterum patrum, &c."col. 702. C.]
37 299(l) [Si papa sum et fraternae salutis negligens deprehendatur, inutilis, et remissus in operibus suis, et insuper a bone taciturnus, quod magis officit sibi et omnibus; nihilominus innumerabiles populos catervatim secum ducit, primo mancipio gehennae, cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus. Hujus culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus: quia cunctos ipse judicaturus, a nemine est judicandus, ni]si [deprehendatur] a fide devius: [pro cujus perpetuo statu universitas fidelium tanto instantius orat, &c.]"[Decret. par. i.] Distinct. xl. cap. [vi. ex dictis Bonifacii,] Si papa.
38 300m [Prima autem conclusio ex adverso opinantium non videtur vera, in qua dicitur, quod papa occulte in heresim lapsus, non] sit jure divino papatu privatus: [quoniam eam factus haereticus esset occultus, ceciderit a petra fidei, supra quam totius ecclesiasticae aedificii fabrica et potestas consurgit, necessario videtur quod a potestate ecclesiastica ruerit]"Joann. de Turrecremata, [Summ.] lib. iv. par. 2. cap. 20. [ad 1.]"Et, Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. ubi sup. note k.]
39 300n [Praemissa certitudine trium, scilicet quod] papa, [ex hoc quod] factus [est] haereticus, non est ipso facto, vel jure divino, vel humano, depositus, sed deponendus . . . . . [et quod Papa, si a fide deviat, deponendus est]"Cajetan. Tract. [1.] de auctoritat. Papae et Concilii, cap. ix. [in init. apud Opusc. omnia Thomae de Vit. Cajetani, tom. i. p. 21. ed. Lugd. 1662.]
40 300o Papa haereticus manifestus per se desinit esse papa et caput, &c. Et tum potest ab ecclesia judicari, et puniri."Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. &c. [ubi sup. p. 299. note k.]
41 301p Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae [assertio,] per [Albertum] Pighium. [Campensem,] lib. iv. cap. 8. [fol. cxxix. et seqq. ed. Colon. 1538."The subject of the whole chapter is: Non solum ad cathedram Petri, sed etiam ad ipsum et successores ejus Romanos pontifices pertinere illud Christi orationes eidem impetratum privilegium, ne quando deficere possit ejus fides ad fratrum confirmationem in fide. And the proposition is asserted, Ecclesiasticae hierarchiae praesidentium fidem conservari singulari privilegio.]
42 301q [Opinio Alberti Pighii (v. sup.) . . . probabilis est, et defendi potest facile . . . Quia tamen non est certa, et] communis opinio est in contrarium, [operae pretium erit videre, quid sit respondendeum, si papa haereticus esse possit.]"Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. § 2. [Op., tom. i. col. 669. A.]
43 301r [Bellarmin.] de Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 11. [Op., tom. i. col. 833. C.]
44 301s Tamen non possumus negare, quin Hadrianus cum Romano concilio, imo et tota Synodus VIII. generalis senserit, in causa haeresis posse Romanum pontificem judicari. Adde, quod esset miserrima conditio Ecclesiae, si lupum manifesto grassantem, pro pastore agnoscere cogeretur."Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. lib. ii. cap. 30. § 5. [Op., tom. i. col. 699. D.]
45 302t Stapleton. Relect. Controv. [Controv.] iv. Q[uaest.] ii. Notab. 4. [Op., tom. i. p. 749. ubi sup. p. 277. note t.]
46 302u [Haec] omnia sacramenta tribus perficiuntur, [videlicet rebus tanquam materia, verbis tanquam forma, et persona ministri conferentis sacramentum cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: quorum si aliquod desit, non perficitur sacramentum. Inter haec sacramenta, tria sunt, baptismus, confirmatio, et ordo, quae characterem, id est, spirituale quoddam signum a caeteris distinctivum, imprimunt in anima indelible. Unde in eadem persona non reiterantur. Reliqua vero quatuor characterem non imprimunt, et reiterationem admittunt.]"Decretum Eugenii IV. [ad Armenos,l in Concil. Florentin. [an. 1439. apud Concil. tom. xiii. col. 535. A, B.]
47 303x [Si quis dixerit, in ministris, dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt, non requiri intentionem, saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: anathema sit:]"Concil. Tridentin. Sess. vii. [de Sacramentis,] Can. xi.
48 303y Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont, lib. iv. cap. 3. § [6.] Alterum privilegium, &c. [ubi sup. p. 209. note t.]
49 303z Constantinus ex laico papa circa ann. 767, ejectus papatu. Et Stephanus III. qui sucessit, habito concilio statuit, ne quis nisi per gradus ecclesiasticos ascendens pontificatum occupare auderet sub poena anathematis."[Nullus unquam laicorum, neque ex alio ordine praesumat, nisi per distinctos gradus ascendens Diaconus, aut Presbyter Cardinalis factus fuerit, ad sacri Pontificatus honorem promoveri.]"Decret, [par. 1.] Distinct. lxxix. cap. [iv. ex Conc. Steph. III.] Nullus [unquam.]
50 304a Minorensis episcopus fuit. [. . . . "Ambrosius Catharinus, who is the person the relator means by the Neapolitan Bishop, who,, as his Lordship says, disputed so learnedly, against the common opinion in the Council of Trent.""Thorold (T. C. Laud,s Labyrinth,) p. 285.]
51 304b [P. Sarpi,] Hist. [Concil.] Trident. lib. ii. pp. 276, 277. Leidae, an. 1622. [Ubi sup. p. 162. note y.]