Minut. in

con. Cel

sum.

to God. And therefore it is remarkable, that when the ART. Fathers answer the reproach of the Heathens, who XXXI. charged them with irreligion and impiety for having no sacrifices among them, they never answer it by saying, that they offered up a sacrifice of inestimable value to God; which must have been the first answer that could have occurred to a man possessed with the ideas of the Church of Rome. On the contrary, Justin Martyr, in his Apology, Apol. 2. says, They had no other sacrifices but prayers and praises: and in his Dialogue with Trypho he confesses, that Christians offer to God oblations, according to Malachi's prophecy, when they celebrate the Eucharist, in which they commemorate the Lord's death. Both Athenagoras and Minutius Felix Leg. pro justify the Christians for having no other sacrifices but Christ. pure hearts, clean consciences, and a stedfast faith. Octav. Origen and Tertullian refute the same objection in the Lib viii. same manner: they set the prayers of Christians in opposition to all the sacrifices that were among the Heathens. Tert. Apol. Clemens of Alexandria and Arnobius write in the same c. 30. strain; and they do all make use of one topic, to justify Clem. their offering no sacrifices, that God, who made all things, Arnob. and to whom all things do belong, needs nothing from lib. vii. his creatures. To multiply no more quotations on this head, Julian in his time objected the same thing to the Christians, which shews that there was then no idea of a sacrifice among them; otherwise he who knew their doctrine and rites, had either not denied so positively as he did, their having sacrifices; or at least he had shewed how improperly the Eucharist was called one. When Cyril of Cyr. Al. Alexandria, towards the middle of the fifth century, came to answer this, he insists only upon the inward and spiritual sacrifices that were offered by Christians; which were suitable to a pure and spiritual essence, such as the Divinity was, to take pleasure in; and therefore he sets that in opposition to the sacrifices of beasts, birds, and of all other things whatsoever: nor does he so much as mention, even in a hint, the sacrifice of the Eucharist; which shews that he did not consider that as a sacrifice that was propitiatory.

These things do so plainly set before us the ideas that the first ages had of this Sacrament, that to one who considers them duly, they do not leave so much as a doubt in this matter. All that they may say in homilies, or treatises of piety, concerning the pure-offering that, according to Malachi, all Christians offered to God in the Sacrament, concerning the sacrifice, and the unbloody sacrifice of Christians, must be understood to relate to the prayers and

Strom.l. vii.

lib. x.

cont. Jul.

ART. thanksgivings that accompanied it, to the commemoration XXXI. that was made in it of the sacrifice offered once upon the cross, and finally to the oblation of the bread and wine, which they so often compare both to Abel's sacrifice, and to Melchisedec's offering bread and wine.

It were easy to enlarge further on this head, and from all the rituals of the ancients to shew, that they had none of those ideas that are now in the Roman Church. They had but one altar in a church, and probably but one in a city they had but one communion in a day at that altar so far were they from the many altars in every church, and the many masses at every altar, that are now in the Roman Church. They did not know what solitary masses were, without a communion. All the liturgies and all the writings of the ancients are as express in this matter as is possible. The whole constitution of their worship and discipline shews it. Their worship concluded always with the Eucharist: such as were not capable of it, as the catechumens, and those who were doing public penance for their sins, assisted at the more general parts of the worship; and so much of it was called their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it. When that was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of the Eucharist; and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed; from whence it came to be called the mass of the faithful. The great rigour of penance was thought to consist chiefly in this, that such penitents might not stay with the faithful to communicate. And though this seems to be a practice begun in the third century, yet both from Justin Martyr and Tertullian it is evident, that all the faithful did constantly communicate. There is a canon, among those which go under the name of the Apostles, against such as came and assisted in the other parts of the service, and did not partake of the Con. An- Eucharist: the same thing was decreed by the Council of tioch. Can. Antioch; and it appears by the Constitutions, that a DeaConst. A- con was appointed to see that no man should go out, and post. 1. viii. a Subdeacon was to see that no woman should go out, during the oblation. The Fathers do frequently allude to the word communion, to shew that the Sacrament was to be common to all. It is true, in St. Chrysostom's time, the zeal that the Christians of the former ages had to communicate often, began to slacken; so that they had thin communions, and few communicants: against which that Father raises himself with his pathetic eloquence, in words which do shew that he had no notion of solitary masses, or of the lawfulness of them: and it is very evi

Can. 9.
Apost.

2.

сар. 11.

Hom. 3. in

Ep. ad Eph. lib. ii.

dent, that the neglect of the Sacrament in those who came not to it, and the profanation of it by those who came unworthily, both which grew very scandalous at that time, set that holy and zealous Bishop to many eloquent and sublime strains concerning it, which cannot be understood, without making those abatements that are due to a copious and Asiatic style, when much inflamed by devotion.

43.

ART.

XXXI.

In the succeeding ages we find great care was taken to suffer none that did not communicate to stay in the church, and to see the mysteries. 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 same strain. It gunt. Can. was decreed by the Council of Mentz, in the end of Charles the Great's reign, that no Priest should say mass alone; for how could he say, The Lord be with you, or, Lift up your hearts, if there was no other person there besides himself? This shews that the practice of solitary masses was then begun, but that it was disliked. Wala- Walaf. fridus Strabus says, that to a lawful mass it was necessary Strab. de that there should be a Priest, together with one to answer, cles. 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 solitary communions, as contrary both to the practice of the ancients, and to the several parts of the office: so that till the twelfth century it was never allowed of in the Roman Church as to this day it is not practised in any other communion.

But then with the doctrine of Purgatory and Transubstantiation mixt together, the saying of masses for other persons, whether alive or dead, grew to be considered as a very meritorious thing, and of great efficacy; thereupon great endowments were made, and it became a trade. Masses were sold, and a small piece of money became their price; so that a profane sort of simony was set up, and the holiest of all the institutions of the Christian religion was exposed to sale. Therefore we, in cutting off all this, and in bringing the Sacrament to be, according to its first institution, a communion, have followed the words of our Saviour, and the constant practice of the whole Church for the first ten centuries.

So far all the Articles that relate to this Sacrament have been considered. The variety of the matter, and the important controversies that have arisen out of it, has made it necessary to enlarge with some copiousness upon the several branches of it. Next to the infallibility of the Church, this is the dearest piece of the doctrine of the

Rebus Ec

XXXI.

ART. Church of Rome; and is that in which both priests and people are better instructed, than in any other point whatsoever; and therefore this ought to be studied on our side with a care proportioned to the importance of it: that so we may govern both ourselves and our people aright, in a matter of such consequence, avoiding with great caution the extremes on both hands, both of excessive superstition on the one hand, and of profane neglect on the other. For the nature of man is so moulded, that it is not easy to avoid the one, without falling into the other. We are now visibly under the extreme of neglect, and therefore we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our people with a just respect for this holy institution, and to animate them to desire earnestly to partake often of it; and in order to that, to prepare themselves seriously to set about it with the reverence and devotion, and with those holy purposes and solemn vows, that ought to accompany it.

ARTICLE XXXII.

Of the Marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law either to vow the Estate of single Life, or to abstain from Marriage: Therefore it is lawful for them, as well as for all Christian Men, to marry at their own Discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to Godliness.

THE

HE first 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 assertion, and left the inference to be made as a consequence that did naturally arise out of it. There was not any one point that was more severely examined at the time of the Reformation than this: for, as the irregular practices and dissolute lives of both seculars and regulars had very much prejudiced the world against the celibate of the Roman Clergy, which was considered as the occasion of all those disorders; so, on the other hand, the marriage of the Clergy, and also of those of both sexes who had taken Vows, gave great offence. They were represented as persons that could not master their appetites, but that indulged themselves in carnal pleasures and interests. Thus, as the scandals of the unmarried Clergy had alienated the world much from them; so the marriage of most of the Reformers was urged as an ill character both of them and of the Reformation; as a doctrine of libertinism, that made the Clergy look too like the rest of the world, and involved them in the common pleasures, concerns, and passions of human life.

The appearances of an austerity of habit, of a severity of life in watching and fasting, and of avoiding the common pleasures of sense, and the delights of life, that were on the other side, did strike the world, and inclined many to think, that what ill consequences soever celibate produced, yet that these were much more supportable, and more easy to be reformed, than the ill consequences of an unrestrained permission of the Clergy to marry.

In treating this matter, we must first consider celibate with relation to the laws of Christ and the Gospel; and then with relation to the laws of the Church. It does not seem contrary to the purity of the worship of God, or