After this follows an examination of the language of Fathers of the first four centuries when treating of Christian sacrifices. Waterland's conclusion is this: The Fathers well understood that to make Christ's natural body the real sacrifice of the Eucharist would not only be absurd in reason, but highly presumptuous and profane; and that to make the outward symbols a proper sacrifice, a material sacrifice, would be entirely contrary to Christian principles, degrading the Christian sacrifice into a Jewish one, yea, and making it much lower and meaner than the Jewish, both in value and dignity. The right way, therefore, was to make the sacrifice spiritual; and it could be no other on Gospel principles.'

The student may at least take this argument as a warning of the utter insecurity of relying upon isolated quotations from the Fathers, apart from an acquaintance with their phraseology, their habits of thought, and their mode of reasoning.

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 abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

De conjugio Sacerdotum.

Episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconis nullo mandato divino præceptum est, ut aut cœlibatum voveant, aut a matrimonio abstineant. Licet igitur etiam illis, ut cæteris omnibus Christianis, ubi hoc ad pietatem magis facere judicaverint, pro suo arbitratu matrimonium contrahere.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXXII.

The comparison of the Latin with the English text appears to throw no additional light on the subject of this Article. The corresponding Article of 1552 consisted of the first clause only of the present form, and that with some verbal variation. The change thus introduced is somewhat material. In the earlier form of the Article it was simply asserted that the marriage of the clergy was not forbidden. It is now added that they are under no different obligation from other Christian men in this respect, and that it is lawful for them to marry.

The wording of the Article does not appear to be traced to any special source. In the negotiations between Henry VIII. and the Lutherans in 1538 for agreement on a confession of faith, it was on the point of clerical celibacy, together with transubstantiation and private masses, that they failed to agree.1

'Hardwick, c. iv.

T

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXXII.

The Scripture authority on this question is so clear, that little remains beyond the history of the growth of the restriction on the marriage of the clergy.

From very early times there was an undue regard paid to celibacy, as having in itself some peculiar virtue, instead of being a state of life profitable for the usefulness of some, according to the decision of St. Paul on this subject.' 'Every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that.'

The origin of these opinions may with high probability be traced up to those notions of evil connected with matter which had for centuries been a part of Eastern philosophy, and which led to ascetic practices long before the commencement of Christianity. Gnostic and Manichean doctrines were vanquished by the Church, but, as often happens, the conquerors became tinged with some of the views of the conquered.

At the Council of Nice a decree to enforce celibacy on the clergy was proposed, but it was rejected. But shortly before this, A.D. 305, the Council of Illiberis, a provincial council in Spain, had prohibited the clergy from marriage. After this there was a struggle for centuries. The popular feeling undoubtedly attributed superior efficacy and sanctity to an unmarried priest. Gregory VII., A.D. 1074, is commonly spoken of as first effectually imposing celibacy on the clergy. In England Archbishop Anselm, A.D. 1108, finally enforced

the same.

The doctrine of the Romish Church is stated thus by the Council of Trent3:

Canon 6. Marriage is disannulled if one of the parties enters into a religious order.

Canon 9 anathematises all who affirm that persons in holy orders, or regulars, who have made a solemn profession of chastity, may contract marriage.

The Greek Church requires marriage as a qualification for the priesthood, but does not permit a priest who is a widower to re-marry-so interpreting 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12.

11 Cor. vii. 7. 2 Neander. iii. p. 197.

3 Sess. xxiv.

The question of the celibacy of the clergy has been, and is, much discussed in the Roman Church. It seems to be maintained from a feeling of its importance to the Papal system. It isolates the clergy from the ordinary interests and associations of their fellow-countrymen, and fits them better to be the willing ministers of a foreign power. It is probable also that the laity may upon the whole prefer an unmarried clergy to receive the secrets of the confessional.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXXIII.

The Latin equivalent for 'rightly cut off,' is ' rite præcisus,' for it does not suffice that the excommunication be right in point of the offender's deserts, but it must be in due order as respects the manner of the action of the Church. And one of the essentials in this is defined by the Article to be publicity, 'open denunciation,' or 'publicam denunciationem.' PenanceLatin, pænitentiam. Heathen-Latin, ethnicus, or Gentile: 'a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel.'

This was one of King Edward's Articles, and no special source is indicated for its style and language.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXXIII.

It is manifestly a power inherent in any community, civil or religious, to exclude from their body, or to deprive wholly or