242 "Sensualiter" made part of faith in H. Euch.

quired to express his belief in what he certainly did not believe-the real objective Presence-"sensualiter." Yet this was the declaration which he was required to make in the Roman Council of 1059.

"I consent to the holy Roman Church and the Apostolic See, and I profess, with mouth and heart, that, in regard to the Sacrament of the Table of the Lord, I hold that faith, which the Lord and venerable Pope Nicolas and this holy Synod, by evangelic and Apostolic authority delivered to me to be held, and confirmed to me; viz. that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, are, after consecration, not only the Sacrament, but also the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and are sensibly, not only in the Sacrament, but in the truth, handled in the hands of the priest, and broken and crushed by the teeth of the faithful; swearing this by the holy and consubstantial Trinity and by these all-holy Gospels of Christ."

As part of the same act, Berengarius had been required to anathematize as a heresy,—

"That the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be sensibly (sensualiter), save only in the Sacrament, handled by the hands of the priest or broken or crushed by the teeth of the faithful."

In the case of Papal infallibility, I see not how the term "sensualiter," the denial of which is rejected with anathema, and which is incorporated in the confession of faith prescribed by Nicolas II., would not be as much a part of faith as "Homöousios" or "Theotokos." The writers quoted say,"At the Synod of Rome, A. 1059, Nicolas II. set forth the

2 Conc. xii. c. 6. Col.
Der Papst, &c., p. 58.

Innocent III. held law in Deuteronomy binding.243

capernaitic error in doctrine, that in the Eucharist the Body of Christ is sensibly (sensualiter) touched with the hands, broken and crushed by the teeth, an error in doctrine else rejected by the whole Church, and contradicting the dogma of the impassibility of the Body of Christ; and at the same time compelled Berengar to acknowledge it. Lanfranc censures Berengar, that he subsequently wished to make another, Card. Humbert, instead of the Pope, responsible for this doctrine."

The strange inference of Innocent III., that,—

"Because Deuteronomy is interpreted the second law, it is proved from the force of the word, that what is there decreed ought to be observed in the New Testament,"

Innocent uses it

has been observed by Bossuet 5. in proof that all difficult cases ought to be brought to Rome, "on the ground of the direction, that in cases too hard for them, they should go to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose." Since this is not a moral law, Innocent's maxim would make the political and ceremonial laws in Deuteronomy binding on Christians; which, of course, he could not mean.

A like case of unguarded inference by the same Pope would, if pressed, involve the principle that the Pope could dissolve marriage.

"Innocent III., in order to exhibit the Papal power in the

+ Decr. Greg. 1X., L. iv. tit. 17, c. 13.

5 Def. L. ix. c. 39.

Der Papst, &c., pp. 58, 59. "Since, then, the spiritual band is stronger than the carnal, it must not be doubted that Almighty God reserved the spiritual marriage, which is be

244 Confusion in Eugenius IV. instruction to

highest splendour of Divine omnipotence, invented the new doctrine, that the spiritual band, which unites the Bishop of his diocese, is yet firmer and more indissoluble than what he speaks of as the fleshly' marriage band between man and wife, and so that God reserves to Himself alone the dissolution of that band, i. e. the translation of a Bishop from one see to another. Since, then, the Pope is on earth the Vicar of the true God, he and he alone dissolves this holy and indissoluble band, not by virtue of human, but by might of Divine, authority; and it is not man, but God, Who dissolves it. The inference which lies contained herein, that the Pope can dissolve the band of marriage too, as the less strong and less holy, Innocent, who, as we have seen, solemnly rejected the decision of Celestine III., as to the dissolubility of the marriage band, overlooked here, and involved himself unconsciously in a contradiction. Many Canonists have assumed this consequence of his doctrine, as right."

In this case, Innocent gave occasion to persevering wrong teaching. The question as to the definition of the form and matter of Sacraments, given by Eugenius IV. in his instruction to the Armenians, I will set down, as given in the same work.

tween the Bishop and his Church, to be dissolved by His own judgment alone, Who reserves the dissolution of the carnal marriage between man and woman for His own judgment alone, enjoining that 'whom God hath joined, man should not put asunder.' For not by human, but rather by Divine power is that spiritual marriage dissolved, when by authority of the Roman Pontiff, who is known to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ, a Bishop is removed from his Church by translation, or deposition, or even cession." Decr. Greg. IX., L. i. tit. 7, c. 2, repeated ib. c. 4, and, in part, c. 3. "With this doctrine a new article of faith was introduced; for through many centuries the Church knew nothing of this, that all cessions, translations, and depositions of Bishops, of Divine right, depended on the Pope alone." Ib. note 14.

"One of the most extensive dogmatic documents ever issued by Popes is the decree of Eugenius IV. to the Armenians, dated Nov. 22, 1439, three months after the Synod of Florence had been ended by the departure of the Greeks. It is a confession of faith of the Roman Church, which, in reference to the points in which the Armenians had hitherto varied, was to serve them as a rule of doctrine and of ecclesiastical life. The doctrines of the unity of the Divine Essence, of the Trinity, of the Humanity of Christ, and the seven Sacraments, are set forth. And the Pope asserts, moreover, that this decree, so solemnly published, had received the approbation of the Council, i. e. of those Italian Bishops whom he had retained in Florence.

"If this decree of the Pope were really a rule of faith, the Eastern Church would have only four Sacraments instead of seven; the Western Church would, at least for 800 years, have lacked three Sacraments, and among them one, the lacking whereof would have destroyed the value of all the rest, one only excepted. In this decree Eugenius IV. determines form and matter, the substance of the Sacraments or the things from whose presence or absence the existence of the Sacrament itself, according to the general doctrine, depends. He gives a form of Confirmation,' which in the one-half of the Church never existed, in the other came first into use after the tenth century. So is it with Penance. Here, too, there is given, as the essential Form of the Sacrament, a formula which the Greek Church never knew, nor the Western for eleven hundred years. When, moreover, in the Sacrament of Ordination, the touching of the vessels and the words to be spoken in so doing, are assigned as matter and form, it follows that for a thousand years the Latin Church had neither priests nor Bishops; nay, like the Greek, which never adopted that usage, possesses to this hour neither priests nor Bishops, consequently is deprived of the Sacraments too, except Baptism, and, perhaps, Marriage'.

↑ "See Denzinger, Enchiridion symbol. et definit. p. 200 sqq. Wirceb. 1854. Yet it must be said that Denzinger, in order

246 Mistakes of Sixtus V. in correcting Vulgate.

"It is remarkable that this decree, with which either Papal infallibility or the whole hierarchy, together with the Sacraments in the Church, stands or falls, is cited, refuted, and appealed to by all writers on dogma; but that the maintainers of Papal Infallibility have never entered upon its discussion. Neither Bellarmine nor Charles Aguirre, Orsi, or any other apologists of Curialism occupy themselves with it."

The necessity, under which Bellarmine found himself, to cover over the mistakes which Sixtus V. made in the correcting the Vulgate, shows the extent to which the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was thought to apply. I will give the account from the same work.

"Even, then, when the Papal claims of infallibility had in Rome won a more definite form, Sixtus V., through his edition of the Bible, again imperilled them. The Council of Trent had declared the translation of Jerome to be the authentic text of the Bible for the Western Church, but there was as yet no authentic edition of the Latin Bible; i. e. none accredited by the Church. Sixtus V. undertook to give one; and it appeared, provided with the anathemas and penal enactments which had now so long been stereotyped. His Bull declared, that this edition, corrected by his own hands, must be adopted and used by all and each as the only true and genuine edition, under pain of excommunication; any change, even of a word, was forbidden under the like penalty.

Now, then, it appeared that it was full of faults; some 2000 incorrect passages were found, for which the Pope himself was responsible. It was said that the Sixtine Bible must be openly forbidden. But Bellarmine advised to hush up, as far

to veil in some measure the full dogmatic character of this celebrated decree, omitted the part relating to the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, which is to be found in Raynaldus, Annal. A. 1439."

9 Ib. p. 65.