[125:1] [Ibid. p. 209. These results are taken from Less, and are practically accurate.]
[126:1] No. 85 [Discuss. p. 236].
[132:1] Ep. 93. I have thought it best to give an over-literal translation.
[132:2] Vid. Concil. Bracar. ap. Aguirr. Conc. Hisp. t. ii. p. 676. "That the cup was not administered at the same time is not so clear; but from the tenor of this first Canon in the Acts of the Third Council of Braga, which condemns the notion that the Host should be steeped in the chalice, we have no doubt that the wine was withheld from the laity. Whether certain points of doctrine are or are not found in the Scriptures is no concern of the historian; all that he has to do is religiously to follow his guides, to suppress or distrust nothing through partiality."—Dunham, Hist. of Spain and Port. vol. i. p. 204. If pro complemento communionis in the Canon merely means "for the Cup," at least the Cup is spoken of as a complement; the same view is contained in the "confirmation of the Eucharist," as spoken of in St. German's life. Vid. Lives of Saints, No. 9, p. 28.
[132:3] Niceph. Hist. xviii. 45. Renaudot, however, tells us of two Bishops at the time when the schism was at length healed. Patr. Al. Jac. p. 248. However, these had been consecrated by priests, p. 145.
[133:1] Vid. Bing. Ant. xv. 4, § 7; and Fleury, Hist. xxvi. 50, note g.
[135:1] Kaye's Justin, p. 59, &c.
[135:2] Kaye's Clement, p. 335.
[135:3] p. 341.
[135:4] Ib. 342.