dent, that the neglect of the facrament in those who came not to it, and the profanation of it by those who came unworthily, both which grew very fcandalous at that time, fet that holy and zealous Bithop to many eloquent and fublime ftrains concerning it, which cannot be understood, without making thofe abatements that are due to a copious and Afiatic ftyle, when much inflamed by devotion. ART. XXXI. In the fucceeding ages we find great care was taken to fuffer none that did not communicate to stay in the church, and to fee the myfteries. There is a rubric for Dialog. this in the office mentioned by Gregory the Great. The Conc. Mowriters of the ninth century go on in the fame ftrain. It gunt. Can. was decreed by the Council of Mentz, in the end of 43. Charles the Great's reign, that no Prieft fhould fay mafs alone; for how could he fay, The Lord be with you; or, lift up your hearts, if there was no other perfon there befides himself? This fhews that the practice of folitary maffes was then begun, but that it was difliked. Wala- Walaf. fridus Strabus fays, that to a lawful mafs it was neceffary Strab. de that there fhould be a Prieft, together with one to anfwer, clef. c. 22. one to offer, and one to communicate. And the author of Micrologus, who is believed to have writ about the end of the eleventh century, does condemn folitary communions, as contrary both to the practice of the ancients, and to the feveral parts of the office: fo that till the twelfth century it was never allowed of in the Roman Church; as to this day it is not practifed in any other communion. But then with the doctrine of Purgatory and Tranfubftantiation mixt together, the faying of mafles for other perfons, whether alive or dead, grew to be confidered as a very meritorious thing, and of great efficacy; thereupon great endowments were made, and it became a trade. Maffes were fold, and a fmall piece of money became their price; fo that a profane fort of fimony was fet up, and the holiest of all the inftitutions of the Christian religion was expofed to fale. Therefore we, in cutting off all this, and in bringing the facrament to be, according to its firft inftitution, a communion, have followed the words of our Saviour, and the conftant practice of the whole Church for the first ten centuries. So far all the Articles that relate to this facrament have been confidered. The variety of the matter, and the important controverfies that have arifen out of it, has made it neceflary to enlarge with fome copioufnefs upon the feveral branches of it. Next to the infallibility of the Church, this is the deareft piece of the doctrine of the 112 Church Rebus Ec XXXI. ART. Church of Rome; and is that in which both priests and people are better inftructed, than in any other point whatfoever; and therefore this ought to be ftudied on our fide with a care proportioned to the importance of it: that fo we may govern both ourselves and our people aright, in a matter of fuch confequence, avoiding with great caution the extremes on both hands, both of exceffive fuperftition on the one hand, and of profane neglect on the other. For the nature of man is fo moulded, that it is not easy to avoid the one, without falling into the other. We are now vifibly under the extreme of neglect, and therefore we ought to ftudy by all means poffible to infpire our people with a juft refpect for this holy inftitution, and to animate them to defire earnestly to partake often of it; and in order to that, to prepare themselves feriously to fet about it with the reverence and devotion, and with thofe holy purposes and folemn vows, that ought to accompany it. ARTICLE ARTICLE XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the Ctate of angle Life, or to abskain from Parriage: Therefore it is lawful for them, as well as for all Chriftian Hen, to marrp at theiz own Difcretion, as thep shall judge the fame to sezve better to Godliness. T fore); HE firft period of this Article, to the word (Therefore), was all that was published in King Edward's time. They were content to lay down the affertion, and left the inference to be made as a confequence that did naturally arife out of it. There was not any one point that was more feverely examined at the time of the Reformation than this: for, as the irregular practices and diffolute lives of both feculars and regulars had very much prejudiced the world against the celibate of the Roman Clergy, which was confidered as the occafion of all those diforders; fo, on the other hand, the marriage of the Clergy, and alfo of thofe of both fexes who had taken vows, gave great offence. They were represented as perfons that could not mafter their appetites, but that indulged themfelves in carnal pleatures and interefts. Thus, as the fcandals of the unmarried Clergy had alienated the world much from them; fo the marriage of most of the Reformers was urged as an ill character both of them and of the Reformation; as a doctrine of libertinifm, that made the Clergy look too like the reft of the world, and involved them in the common pleasures, concerns, and paffions of human life. The appearances of an aufterity of habit, of a severity of life in watching and fafting, and of avoiding the common pleasures of fenfe, and the delights of life, that were on the other fide, did ftrike the world, and inclined many to think, that what ill confequences foever celibate produced, yet that these were much more fupportable, and more eafy to be reformed, than the ill confequences of an unreftrained permiffion of the Clergy to marry. In treating this matter, we must first confider celibate with relation to the laws of Chrift and the Gofpel; and then with relation to the laws of the Church. It does not feem contrary to the purity of the worship of God, or ART. of divine performances, that married perfons fhould offiXXXII. ciate in them; fince by the law of Mofes, Priefts not only might marry, but the Priesthood was tied to defcend as an inheritance in a certain family. And even the HighPriest, who was to perform the great function of the annual atonement that was made for the fins of the whole Jewith nation, was to marry, and he derived to his defcendants that facred office. If there was fo much as a remote unfuitablenefs between a married ftate and facerdotal performances, we cannot imagine that God would by a law tie the Priesthood to a family, which by confequence laid an obligation on the Priefts to marry. When Chrift chofe his twelve Apoftles, fome of them were married men ; we are fure, at least, that St. Peter was; fo that he made no diftinction, and gave no preference to the unmarried: our Saviour did no where charge them to forfake their wives; nor did he at all reprefent celibate as neceflary to the kingdom of Heaven, or the difpenfation of the Gofpel. He fpeaks indeed of fome that brought Matth. xix. themselves to the state of eunuchs for the fake of the Gof10, 11, 12. pel; but in that he left all men at full liberty, by faying, Let him receive it thai is able to receive it; fo that in this every man must judge of himself by what he finds himfelf to be. That is equally recommended to all ranks of Heb. xiii.4. men, as they can bear it. St. Paul does affirm, that Marriage is bonourable in all: and to avoid uncleanness, he 1 Cor. vii. fays, It is better to marry than to burn; and fo gives it as a rule, that every man should have his own wife. Among all the rules or qualifications of Bifhops or Priefts, that are given in the New Teftament, particularly in the Epiftles 1 Tim. iii. to Timothy and Titus, there is not a word of the celibate 2, 4, 5, 12. of the Clergy, but plain intimations to the contrary, that they were, and might be married. That of the bufband of one wife is repeated in different places: mention is alfo made of the wives and children of the Clergy, rules being given concerning them: and not a word is fo much as infinuated, importing that this was only tolerated in the beginnings of Chriftianity, but that it was afterwards to 1 Tim. iv. ccafe. On the contrary, the forbidding to marry is given as a character of the apoftafy of the later times. We find Aquila, when he went about preaching the Gofpel, was not only married to Prifcilla, but that he carried her about with him: not to infift on that privilege that St. Paul thought he might have claimed, of carrying about 9. 3. 5. 1 Cor. ix. with him a fifter and a wife, as well as the other Apofiles. And thus the first point feems to be fully cleared, that by no law of God the Clergy are debarred from marriage. There There is not one word in the whole Scriptures that does ART. fo much as hint at it; whereas there is a great deal to the XXXII. contrary. Marriage being then one of the rights of human nature, to which fo many reasons of different forts may carry both a wife and a good man, and there being no pofitive precept in the Gofpel that forbids it to the Clergy; the next queftion is, Whether it is in the power of the Church to make a perpetual law, reftraining the Clergy from marriage? It is certain that no age of the Church can make a law to bind fucceeding ages; for whatsoever power the Church has, fhe is always in poffeffion of it; and every age has as much power as any of the former ages had. Therefore if any one age fhould by a law enjoin celibate to the Clergy, any fucceeding age may repeal and alter that law. For ever fince the infpiration that conducted the. Apoftles has ceafed, every age of the Church may make or change laws in all matters that are within their authority. So it feems very clear, that the Church can make no perpetual law upon this fubject. In the next place it may be juftly doubted, whether the Church can make a law that fhall reftrain all the Clergy in any of thofe natural rights in which Chrift has left them free. The adding a law upon this head to the laws of Chrift, feems to affume an authority that he has not given the Church. It looks like a pretending to a strain of purity, beyond the rules fet us in the Gofpel; and is plainly the laying a yoke upon us, which must be thought tyrannical, fince the Author of this religion, who knew bett what human nature is capable of, and what it may well bear, has not thought fit to lay it on thofe whom he fent upon a commiflion that required a much greater elevation of foul, and more freedom from the entanglements of worldly or domeftic concerns, than can be pretended to be neceflary for the ftanding and fettled offices in the Church. Therefore we conclude, that it were a great abufe of church-power, and a high act of tyranny, for any Church, or any age of the Church, to bar men from the fervices in the Church, because they either are married, or intend to keep themfelves free to marry, or not, as they pleafe: this does indeed bring the body of the Clergy more into a combination among themfelves; it does take them in a great measure off from having feparated interefts of their own; it takes them out of the civil fociety, in which they have lefs concern, when they give no pledges to it. And fo in ages in which the Papacy intended to 114 engage |