The Third conclusion.

Heb. ix.

Christ's

body.

Also, the same Vigilius saith: "Which things seeing they be so, the course of the scripture must be searched of us, and many testimonies must be gathered, to shew plainly what a wickedness and sacrilege it is to refer those things to the property of the divine nature, which do only belong to the nature of the flesh; and contrariwise, to apply those things unto the nature of the flesh, which do properly belong to the divine nature'." Which thing the transubstantiators do, whilst they affirm Christ's body not to be contained in any one place, and ascribe that to his humanity, which properly belongeth to his divinity: as they do which will have Christ's body to be in no one certain place limited.

Now, in the latter conclusion concerning the sacrifice, because it dependeth upon the first, I will in few words declare what I think. For if we did once agree in that, the whole controversy in the other would soon be at an end. Two things there be which do persuade me that this conclusion is true: that is, certain places of the scripture, and also certain testimonies of the fathers.

St Paul saith, "Christ being become an high priest of good Sacrifice of things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holy place, and obtained for us eternal redemption, &c. and now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." And again: "Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many." Moreover he saith: "With one offering hath he made perfect for ever those that are sanctified."

Heb. x.

Christ never

offered but once.

These scriptures do persuade me to believe that there is no other oblation of Christ, (albeit I am not ignorant there are many sacrifices) but that which was once made upon the cross.

The testimonies of the ancient fathers which confirm the Bonif.Epist. same, are out of Augustine ad Bonifac. Epist. 23. Again in

August, ad

23.

['Quæ cum ita sint, series nobis divinarum percurrenda est literarum, et plurima testimonia congerenda, quibus demonstretur, quam sit impium et sacrilegum ea, quæ sunt propria carnis Christi, ad naturæ verbi proprietatem referre, et quæ sunt propria verbi, proprietati naturæ carnis adscribere. Id. lib. v. p. 88. ED.]

Quæst. 61.

tra Faus

And August.conthus tum, lib. xx.

cap. 18.

his book of Questions, in the 61st Question. Also in his August. book against Faustus the Manichee, Book xx. Chap. 21. in the same book against the said Faustus, Chap. 18. he writeth: "Now the Christians keep a memorial of the sacrifice past, with a holy oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ"." Fulgentius in his book De Fide calleth the same oblation a commemoration. And these things are sufficient for this time for a scholastical determination of these matters3.

[Unde jam Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosanctà oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi. S. Aug. cont. Faust. lib. xx. cap. 18. Op. Ed. Ben. Par. 1685, tom. ix. col. 345. ED.]

[The other passages from St Augustine are to be found in the notes to the Treatise on Transubstantiation: see pp. 39, 40, 41. ED.]

JUDICIUM DE EPISTOLIS DECRETALIBUS.

Nicolai Ridlei episcopi Londinensis judicium de epistolis decretalibus, sc. Clementis, Anacleti, Lucii, Pontiani, et aliorum vetustissimorum pontificum.

E MSS. Bibl. Coll. Emm. apud Cantab.

Ego sane censeo esse supposititias et ab impostoribus subornatas, ut crederentur falso esse patrum decreta-nec possum adduci ut credam quæ citantur ex decretalibus epistolis Gelasii et Vigilii et [aliorum] Pontificum Romanorum, esse vere illorum. Nunquam credam tam doctos viros tantopere delirasse, ut Petrum Cephas dictum dicerent quia esset caput, quod Cephas caput significaret. Et Jacobum mortuum esse constat priusquam Clemens in sede Romanâ constitutus est. Multaque præterea illic scribuntur, quæ ab illius temporis conditione prorsus sunt alienissima. In unâ epistolâ, sicut memini, dicitur, quòd, sicut uxor ob nullam viri culpam potest virum deserere, ita nunquam ecclesia potest deponere suum episcopum propter ulla crimina, &c.

Et doctrina talis multa est in illis, quæ, collata cum classicis scriptoribus et veteribus, facile meo judicio ostendit illas non esse istorum pontificum Romanorum, qui fuerunt viri doctissimi et sanctissimi. Hæc ego respondenda esse censeo Bradfordo meo ad suam quæstionem de authoritate harum epistolarum.

De phrasi in epistolis ascriptis Pontiano, in quâ dicitur, "Presbyteri ore conficiunt corpus Christi", nihil est quod quemcunque offendat, si more veterum intelligatur verbum: ita enim loquitur Hieronymus; "Absit ut aliquid mali suspicietur de iis qui ore sacro dominicum corpus conficiunt'."

[The following passage was probably that to which Ridley referred, "Absit ut de his [clericis] quidquam sinistrum loquar, quia Apostolico

JUDICIUM DE EPISTOLIS DECRETALIBUS.

181

Act. ii.

"Conficere corpus Domini” illis nihil aliud erat quam conficere sacramentum corporis Domini, quæ pars erat ministerii nostri Domini; nam qui ministrabant verbum Dei, iidem et panem perpetuo frangebant, et ut Tertullianus ait, antiquitus "non Paulus, nisi de præsidentium manu panem dominicum sumere consue- Act. xx. verunt," hoc est, non [nisi] ab illis sanctificatum. Et quod ad honorem presbyterorum pertinet, si modò tales essent quales esse deberent, qui et in verbo et doctrinâ laborarent, quales multos fuisse in illo tempore valde est credibile, status est vere venerabilium et honorabilium virorum.

gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos et nos Christiani sumus. S. Hieron. Epist. 5. ad. Heliodorum Monachum. Op. Ed. Ben. Par. tom. iv. pars 2. p. 10. ED.]

[The words of Tertullian are: 66 Eucharistiæ sacramentum et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis cœtibus, nec de aliorum manu quam præsidentium sumimus." De Corona, cap. 8. Op. Rigalt. Paris, 1641. p. 121. ED.]

A JUDGEMENT CONCERNING THE DECRETAL EPISTLES.

From the MSS. in the Library of Emmanuel Coll. Camb.

[The Judgement of Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London, concerning the decretal epistles, to wit, those of Clement, Anacletus, Lucius, Pontianus, and other most ancient pontiffs.

I fully believe them to be supposititious and suborned by impostors, that they might falsely be deemed to be the decrees of the fathers. Nor can I be induced to believe those passages which are cited from the decretal epistles of Gelasius and Vigilius, and of [other] Roman pontiffs, to be truly theirs. I will never believe such learned men so to have raved, as to say that Peter was called Cephas because he was the head, for that Cephas signifies "head." And it is evident that James was dead before Clement was appointed to the Roman see. And many other things besides are there written which are altogether inconsistent with the circumstances of that period. In one epistle it is asserted, as I remember, that as a wife may not on account of any fault in her husband desert her husband, so neither could a Church, on account of any crimes, depose her Bishop.

And much of such doctrine is there in them, which, when compared with the old and classical writers, shews them easily, in my judgement, not to be the works of those Roman Pontiffs, who were most learned and holy men. Thus then do I think it well to answer my Bradford's question concerning the authority of these epistles.

As to the phrase in the epistles ascribed to Pontianus, in which it is said, "the priests with their mouth make [conficiunt] the body of Christ",-there is nothing which can offend any body, if the word be understood after the usage of the ancients-for so also speaks Jerome: "Let there be