'stood daily offering the same sacrifices,' Christ appeared once at the end of the world 'to put away sin by the sacrifice ' of himself;' so that we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all;' and 'this man, 'after he had offered up one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat 'down at the right hand of God' (Heb. v. 12. ix. 26. x. 10.). Thus also St. Peter:- Christ also hath once suffered, the 'just for the unjust, that he might bring us unto God' (1 Pet. iii. 18.). There remaineth,' therefore, no more 'sacrifice for sin' (Heb. x. 26.); none other satisfaction but that alone for he is the propitiation for our sins, and not 'for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world' (1 John ii. 2.).

5. What is the doctrine of the Church of Rome respecting Christ's sacrifice?

In the face of these pointed declarations of Scripture, which have the appearance of a prophetic warning against so gross an error, the Romanists, as a consequence of their belief in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, maintain that the real body of Christ is offered up, as an expiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, at every celebration of the Eucharist.

6. What corrupt practice has been built upon this erroneous doctrine ?

Under the impression that the pains of Purgatory were mitigated or wholly suspended by the sacrifice of the mass, persons were induced, according to their means, to give or bequeath sums of money for masses to be said for the repose either of their own souls, or those of their relatives. These masses are more or less numerous and imposing, and of course more or less effective, in proportion to the amount received for their performance; and they have always been a source of great wealth to the Church. As the priest alone takes part in them, they are called Solitary masses; though several are frequently going on at the same time at different altars in the same Church, in the presence of those whom curiosity or devotion may attract to the ceremony.

7. Can the Eucharist be strictly called a sacrifice; and if not, is there any sense in which it may be so considered?

Neither is the Eucharist a sacrifice, nor has the Christian Church any sacrifice, in the strict sense of the word: though in a larger or metaphoric sense, it is designated in the Liturgy, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.' Even in this sense however it is a commemorative, not a propitiatory, sacrifice. Thus also Contrition, Prayer, and Almsgiving, are said to be sacrifices (Psal. xli. 17. cxli. 2. Phil. iv. 18.); and we are exhorted to 'present our souls and bodies, as a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto God.

8. How is it then that, without a sacrifice, the Christian Church still has its priests?

The fact is, that there is no sacrificing priest under the Christian, as there was under the Jewish, Dispensation. The term iepeùs is applied by the New Testament writers, in a literal sense, to Christ only; and figuratively to Christians in general; whereas the word which corresponds with our word priest, and from which it is derived, is uniformly TреσẞÚTEроs, an elder. [See also Questions on the Liturgy; Sect. Ix. qq. 1-3.].

9. Are we to suppose then that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is nothing more than a mere commemorative institution?

No. Although the Eucharist is a commemorative rite, it is also a fœderal act, ratified by partaking of the sacrificial feast, as a pledge that we partake also of the spiritual benefits of the commemorated sacrifice. In this sacrifice, Christ was our victim: and although we cannot feast literally on his body, which is in heaven; yet the bread, of which we can partake, becomes to us the bread of life, because he himself appointed it to represent his body.

10. In what respect are the sacrifices of masses blasphemous fables?

Inasmuch as the notion that the sacrifice of the mass is either real or expiatory, as well as the doctrine of Purgatory itself (Art. xxII.). are not only unauthorized, but plainly contradicted, by Scripture, and inconsistent with the all-sufficiency of the one oblation of Christ once offered, they are appropriately designated blasphemous fables.

The

Romish doctrine also plainly implies a power in the priest to bring down Christ from heaven, and subject him to a continuance of his sufferings upon earth; for if he does not suffer, it can be no sacrifice; and if he does suffer, the heaven cannot have received him 'till the times of the ' restitution of all things' (Acts iii. 21.). Surely this is both blasphemous and absurd.

11. Why are masses deceits?

said to be dangerous

By holding out a hope of pardon which has no sanction in Holy Writ, and leading men to believe that the Salvation of God may be purchased by money, the Romish priesthood are guilty of beguiling their people with dangerous deceits. To maintain that an offering of the consecrated elements by the priest alone can procure 'remission of pain or guilt' either for the quick or dead,' who do not partake with him, can be nothing else than, as the Latin strongly expresses it, a pernicious imposture.

12. What may have been the object of the compilers of this Article in speaking of these errors of the Romanists as commonly current, and in the past tense?

Probably the past tense was adopted by the Reformers, because, when the Articles of Edward VI. were drawn up, the Council of Trent had not yet published their decrees; and although these things were then commonly current, they charitably hoped that the Romish Church might be led to renounce a doctrine so repugnant to the truth of the Gospel.

13. In what light does it appear that the Eucharist was regarded by the primitive Church?

Since the early Christians were reproached by the heathen for embracing a religion which had neither altars nor sacrifices, without alleging the Eucharist in reply, it is manifest that they did not regard it as a sacrifice in an expiatory point of view. Indeed Justin Martyr says expressly (Apol. 1. c. 13.) that the Christians have no other sacrifices but prayers and praises; and in the Apostolical Constitutions (VIII. 12.), the Lord's Supper is described as a pure and unbloody sacrifice. Compare also Justin M. Apol.

1. cc. 65. 67. Dial. Tryph. cc. 41. 117, 118. Moreover, says Augustine (c. Faust. Man. xx. 18.), Christians do still celebrate the memory of the sacrifice then made, in the offering and participation of the body and blood of Christ. Passages to the like effect are found in Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, and other writers.

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 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 cælibatum 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.

1. WHAT are the tenets to which this Article is opposed; and has any addition been made thereto since its first publication.

The

About the middle of the 11th Century, Priests, at their ordination gave a promise of celibacy, and bishops were bound by an oath, not to ordain a married man. Reformed Church generally declared against these vows; but, on the other hand, one of the six Articles of Henry VIII. affirmed that 'Priests may not marry by the Law of God.' With reference to these points the present Article was doubtless framed in 1552, when it consisted of the first clause only the second was added in the reign of Elizabeth.

2. What were the six Articles; and was their promulgation followed by any important results?

They were the several provisions of an Act, passed in the year 1539, when the Romish party had regained the ascendancy. The points enforced were Transubstantiation, Communion in one kind, the celibacy of the Clergy, the obligation of vows of Chastity, private masses, and Auricular Confession. It was on this occasion that Latimer resigned his bishopric, and retired into private life; and Cranmer only retained his post in the hopes of preventing still greater concessions.

3. To what extent, and under what conditions, was Celibacy advocated among the primitive Christians?

Beyond all question the minds of the early Christians were most deeply impressed with a notion of the superior sanctity of a single life: so much so, that the author of the treatise de Resurrectione attributed to Justin even applies the epithet avoμos to marriage (1. 3.). See also Ignat. Epist. ad. Polycarp. c. 5. Athenag. Legat. c. 33. Justin M. Apol. 1. cc. 15. 29. Dial. c. 110. Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 12. 100. Origen. c. Cels. 1. 25. It will appear however, from these references, that celibacy, whether Lay or Clerical, was so far from being enjoined, that it was only allowed on condition of the strictest chastity, and on no account to be made the subject of boasting.

4. Is the marriage of the Clergy prohibited in Scripture; and what do you infer from the sacerdotal succession under the Mosaic Law.

There is no command in Scripture which binds the Clergy to celibacy; but, on the other hand, St. Paul affirms that marriage is honourable to all' (Heb. xiii. 4.), and permits every man to have his own wife' (1 Cor. vii. 2.) without any exception or limitation whatsoever. Under the Jewish dispensation, the priesthood were, as a rule, obliged to marry; and as the exercise of the sacerdotal functions were vested in the descendants of one family, thus rendering celibacy impossible, it follows that the married state is not incompatible with ministerial efficiency.

5. Were any of the Apostles married; and is any thing known of the condition of their fellow