CHAPTER I. Of Communion in one kind. As there is nothing contained in the doctrines of our churches, inconsistent with scripture, or with the Catholic church; and as we have merely rejected certain abuses, some of which had in the course of time crept into the church, whilst others were forcibly introduced into it; necessity demands that we should give some account of them, and assign the reasons which induced us to admit the alterations, in order that your imperial majesty may perceive that nothing was done in this matter in an unchristian or presumptuous manner, but that we were compelled to admit these alterations by the word of God which is justly to be held in higher regard than any customs of the church. In our churches, communion is administered to the laity in both kinds, because we regard this as a manifest command and precept of Christ, Matth. 26: 27. Drink ye all of it. In this passage Christ teaches, in the plainest terms, that they should all drink out of the cup. And in order that no one may be able to cavil at these words, and explain them as referring to the clergy alone, Paul informs us, that the entire church at Corinth received the sacrament in both kinds, 1 Cor. 11: 26. And this custom was retained in the church, as is proved by history and the writings of the Fathers. Cyprian frequently mentions the fact that in his day, the cup was given to the laity. St. Jerome also says, the priests, who administer the sacrament, dispense the blood of Christ to the people. And pope Gelasius, himself commanded, that the sacrament should not be divided (distinct. 2. de con which secrat. cap. comperimus.) There is no canon extant, commands that one kind alone should be received. Nor can it be ascertained when, or by whom, the custom of receiving bread alone was introduced, although cardinal Cusanus mentions the time when it was approved. Now it is evident, that such a custoin, introduced contrary to the divine command, and also in opposition to the ancient canons, is wrong. It was therefore improper to coerce and oppress the conscience of those who wished to receive the sacrament agreeably to the appointment of Christ, and compel them to violate the institution of our Lord. And inasmuch as the dividing of the sacrament is contrary to its institution by Christ, the host is not carried about in procession amongst us. CHAPTER II. The Celibacy of the Priests. There has been general complaint among persons of every rank on account of the scandalous licentiousness and lawless lives of the priests; who were guilty of lewdness, and whose excesses had risen to the highest pitch. In order to put an end to such odious conduct, to adultery, and other lewd practices, several of our ministers have entered the matrimonial state. They themselves declare that in taking this step they were influenced by the dictates of conscience, and a sacred regard for the holy volume, which expressly informs us, that marriage was appointed of God to prevent licentiousness: as Paul says, (1 Cor. 7: 2.,) "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife." Again, "it is better to marry than to burn," (1 Cor. 7: 9,) and according to the declaration of Christ that not all men can receive this word, (Matth. 19: 12.) In this passage Christ himself, who well knew what was in man, declares that few persons are qualified to live in celibacy; for God created us male and female, Gen. 1:27. And experience has abundantly proved how vain is the attempt to alter the nature or meliorate the character of God's creatures by mere human purposes or vows, without a peculiar gift or grace of God. It is notorious that the effort has been prejudicial to purity of morals; and in how many cases it has occasioned distress of mind, and the most terrific apprehensions of conscience, is known by the confessions of numerous individuals. Since then the word and law of God cannot be altered by human vows or enactments, the priests for this and other reasons have entered into the conjugal state. A bishop then must be It is moreover evident from the testimony of history and the writings of the fathers, that it was customary in former ages for priests and deacons to be married. Hence the injunction of Paul to Timothy, (1 Tim. 3: 2.) blameless, the husband of one wife. years since the clergy in Germany were compelled by force to abandon the matrimonial life, and submit to a vow of celibacy; and so generally and resolutely did they resist this tyranny, that the archbishop of Maynce, who published this papal edict, was well nigh losing his life in a commotion excited by the measure. And in so precipitate and arbitrary a manner was that decree executed, that the pope not only prohibited all future marriage of the priests, but even cruelly rent asunder the social ties of those who had long been living in the bonds of lawful wedlock, thus violating alike not only the laws of God and the natural and civil rights of the citizen, but even the canons which the popes themselves made, and the decrees of the most celebrated councils! It is the deliberate and well known opinion of many distinguished, pious and judicious men, that this compulsory celibacy and prohibition of matrimony (which God himself instituted and left optional,) has been productive of no good, but is the prolific source of numerous and abominable vices. Yea, even one of the popes, Pius II, himself declared, as history informs us, that though there may be several reasons why the marriage of priests should be prohibited, there are many more and weightier ones, why it should not. And doubtless this was the deliberate declaration of Pius, who was a sensible and wise man. We would therefore confidently trust, that your Majesty, as a Christian Emperor, will graciously reflect that in these latter days, to which reference is made in the sacred volume, the world has become still more degenerate, and mankind more frail and liable to temptation. It will be well to beware, lest by the prohibition of marriage, licentiousness and vice be promoted in the German States. For on this subject no man can devise better or more salutary laws than those enacted by God, who himself instituted marriage for the promotion of virtue amongst men. The ancient canons also enjoin that the rigour of human enactments must on some subjects be accommodated to the infirmities of human nature, in order to avoid greater evils. Such a course would in this case be necessary and Christian for what injury could result to the church, from the marriage of the clergy and others who are to serve in the church? Yea, it is probable that the church will be but imperfectly supplied with ministers, should this rigorous prohibition of marriage be continued. If therefore it is evident from the divine word and command, that matrimony is lawful in ministers, and history teaches that their practice formerly was conformed to this precept; if it is evident that the vow of celibacy has been productive of the most scandalous and unchristian conduct, of adultery, unheard of licentiousness and other abominable crimes among the clergy, as some of the dignitaries at Rome have themselves often confessed and lamented; it is a lamentable thing that the Christian estate of matrimony has not only been presumptuously forbidden, but in some places speedy punishment been inflicted, as though it were a heinous crime ! Matrimony is moreover declared a lawful and honourable estate by the laws of your imperial majesty, and by the code of every empire in which justice and law prevailed. Of late, however, innocent subjects, and especially ministers, are cruelly tormented on account of their marriage. Nor is such conduct a violation of the divine laws alone; it is equally opposed to the canons of the church. The apostle Paul denominates that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage.1 And Christ says, The devil is a murderer from the beginning. For that may well be regarded as a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage and enforces the prohibition by the shedding of blood. But as no human law can abrogate or change a command of God, neither can any vows produce this effect. There Cyprian admonishes that if any woman do not observe the vow of chastity, it is better for her to be married :3 and all the canons observe more lenity and justice toward those who assumed the vow of celibacy in youth, as is generally the case with priests and monks. CHAPTER III. Of Mass. On this subject, the language of the Confession was less condemnatory than that which they soon after employed. In the 3 Lib. I. |