priest's offices, that I may eat a piece of bread." Here they say, the one element is signified; and they add, that so our laity should likewise be satisfied with the one part enjoyed by a priest, that is, with one element.

The authors of the Confutation are indeed impudent, egregious dolts; they play and cavil upon words in the Scripture as they please, explaining the history concerning the children of Eli, as alluding to the sacrament. For in this place, the condign punishment upon Eli and his children, is described. Will they also assert that the one element is granted to the laity for a punishment? They are silly and foolish enough.

The sacrament was instituted by Christ, to console the conscience of alarmed persons, and to strengthen their faith when they believe that the flesh of Christ was given for the life of the world, and that through this nourishment we become united with Christ, and have grace and life.

But our adversaries thus conclude that those who receive this sacrament in one element, are punished by it; and they declare that the laity shall and must permit themselves to be satisfied. This is an arrogant assumption. How, ye lords, dare we not also ask reasons why they must permit themselves to be satisfied? Or shall all be considered as pure truth, what you desire and say?

It seems strange, how insolent and destitute of shame our adversaries are they dare to deliver their words as imperious commands; they say freely, that the laity must be satisfied: but why must they? Are these the grounds and reasons, by which those are to be exculpated before the judgment-seat of God, who have hitherto withheld the people from the one element, and murdered innocent people on account of it? Shall they comfort themselves with the declaration relative to the children of Eli, that they shall beg? This will be a futile exculpation before the judgment-seat of God.

They assign more reasons still, why both elements should not be administered; viz., for fear that at some time a drop might be spilled out of the cup. And they adduce still more dreams of a similar character, for the sake of which the order of Christ should justly not be altered.

But even admitting, that it were left discretionary, to use one or both elements, yet how could they prove that they have power to forbid the use of both elements? Although it does not belong to men or the church, to assume such liberty, or to make out of the order of Christ res indifferentes, that is, things indifferent.

These poor consciences, which have been deprived by force of the

use of one element, and which have been compelled to sustain this injustice, we judge not here. But those who have forbidden the use of the one element, and who besides, have not only forbidden it, but also thus publicly preached and taught, seized and murdered the people on account of it, these heap upon themselves the terrible judgment and wrath of God, and we know no way of excusing them; they may examine how they will be able to give an account unto God for their assumptions. Nor should we receive too hastily, as the decision of the church, that which the bishops and priests resolve; especially, since the Scripture and the prophet Ezekiel say, that priests and bishops will come who know no divine command or law, Ezekiel, 7, 26.

XI. OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS.

Although the great and unheard of fornication and adultery among priests, monks, &c., in high institutions, churches, and monasteries, are so apparent throughout the world, as to excite public derision; yet our adversaries, who framed the Confutation, are so entirely deluded and destitute of shame, as to defend the papal law by which marriage is forbidden, even under the false appearance of spirituality. And although they should feel ashamed in their hearts, of this unrestrained, incontinent, dissolute life, tolerated in their institutions and monasteries, and on account of this alone, they should hesitate to appear openly amid the rays of the sun; and although their evil, restless hearts and minds reasonably make them so fearful, that they shrink back and tremble, on lifting up their eyes upon an emperor so amiable and exalted; yet they have, however, the audacity of a hangman; they act like the devil himself, and like all insolent, profligate people, they go on in their blind perverseness, forgetful of every kind of honor and reserve. And these impure, these incontinent people dare to admonish your imperial Majesty, the electors, and princes, "not to tolerate the marriage of priests, to the infamy and ignominy of the Roman empire." For these are their words; as though their shameful life were very honorable and commendable to the church.

How could our adversaries, with greater impropriety and impudence, have more openly stamped and divulged their own defeat and shame? It is impossible to find in the records of history, propositions to a Roman emperor so barefaced as these. Were they not known to the world, had not many pious and upright people, even their own canonists, made complaint among themselves, for a considerable length of time, on account of a state of affairs so shameful, irregular, and dishon

orable: if their dissolute, shameful, unholy life, carried out after the manner of heathens and epicureans, and if the very dregs of every species of incontinence, were not so apparent at Rome, that they will not ad nit of being cloaked or colored, their great purity, their uncontaminated chastity, might be considered a reason that they do not wish to hear any one make mention of a wife, or of the state of matrimony, and that they stigmatize this holy estate, which the pope himself styles a sacrament of holy matrimony, by the title of Infamiam Imperii.

We shall hereafter repeat their arguments and reasons. But let each Christian reader carefully and seriously consider how totally destitute of respect and honor, and of every kind of modesty these persons must be, who dare to call holy matrimony, which the sacred Scriptures commend and extol in the highest terms, a disgrace and an infamy to the Roman empire; as if their scandalous, abominable incontinence, such as is known to be the conduct of the Romanists and bishops, were a great honor to the church and the empire.

And these people seek aid from your imperial Majesty, most gracious Emperor, who art called in ancient writings, a chaste prince and king-for surely this passage was written concerning your imperial Majesty: Pudicus facei regnabit ubique;-yes, they dare without shame, to demand your imperial Majesty and the beloved estates of the empire, to countenance (God forbid) such abominable licentiousness. They require you to employ your imperial power,which the Almighty has graciously granted for the purpose of sustaining hitherto your imperial Majesty victorious and secure,-in the protection and defence of this infamous sensuality and unheard of vice, regarded as abominable even by heathens. And they are so disposed in their blood-thirsty, deluded hearts, that they would freely, disregarding all divine and natural laws, the councils and their own carons, sever with violence the matrimonial estate of priests at once; that they would execute unfeelingly on the gallows, and with the sword, many poor innocent people, for no other offence but their matrimonial estate; that they would murder the priests themselves, as the great evil-doers, on account of their marriage,—a cruelty of which even a heathen would not be guilty; they would force into exile many pious, innocent wives and children, making them poor forsaken widowed women and orphan children, and satiate their diabolical hatred in innocent blood. To the perpetration of these acts, they dare to admonish your imperial Majesty.

But inasmuch as the almighty God has blessed your Highness with special, native goodness and modesty, so that your Majesty, influ

enced by your high, noble, Christian dispositions, will feel averse from countenancing this great licentiousness, or from exercising this unheard of tyranny; and there is no doubt that you will take into consideration this affair in a manner far more becoming a prince and a Christian, than that in which these dissolute people do; we therefore, entertain the hope, that you will approve yourself in this matter nobly and graciously, and consider that we have good grounds and reasons for it in the holy Scriptures, against which our adversaries adduce nothing but falsehoods and erroneous opinions.

Nor are they really sincere in defending this state of celibacy and single life. For they know full well, how incontinent they are, and how few among them keep their chastity. But they adhere to that consolatory phrase which is found in their writings: Si non caste, tamen caute; and they know that to call themselves chaste and to boast of it, yet at the same time not to be so, has an appearance of chastity in the world; that by this also their papacy and priestcraft appear the more holy before the world. For the apostle Peter has duly apprised us that false prophets will deceive the people with delusive words, 2 Peter 2, 3.

Our adversaries do by no means take up the subject of religion, which is the principal thing, with sincerity. Whatever they do write or treat of, contains nothing but appeals ad hominem, that is, without earnestness, without fidelity, and without cordial feelings for the common good, in assisting the dictates of poor conscience or the church in a word, they strive for the mastery, of which they are suspicious, and finally, they prop themselves with mere ungodly hypocritical falsehoods; consequently, they must dissolve like butter before the sun. For this reason we cannot accept this law concerning a state of celibacy; for it is contrary to divine and natural rights, contrary to all the sacred writings, and contrary to the councils and canons themselves. It is, moreover, nothing but hypocrisy; it is dangerous to conscience and altogether pernicious; innumerable provocations, detestable and frightful sins and infamy, result from it, and, as we see in the priest-towns and residences as they call them, a dissolution of all domestic honor and chastity.

The other articles of our Confession, although they are substantially founded, are not, however, so clear that they might not be plausibly assailed. But this article is so clear, that it is hardly necessary to say any thing on either side; only that whoever is honest and fears God, can easily decide for himself; and although we have the open truth before us now, our adversaries still seek artifices for the purpose of assailing our positions in some way or other.

In the first place, it is written in Gen. 1, 28, that man and woman were so created of God, that they should be fruitful, &c.; and that the woman should have an affection towards the man, and the man in return, towards the woman. And we do not speak here of the inordinate desire which succeeded the fall of Adam, but of natural affection between man and woman, which affection would have been in nature, even if it had remained pure. And this is the creation and order of God, that the man feel an attachment for the woman, the woman for the man. Now, as no one can, or should alter the divine order and the constituted nature of things, except God himself, it follows, that the state of matrimony can not be abolished by any human statute or vow.

Our adversaries cavil against these strong reasons, asserting that immediately after the creation, this command: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," was admissible: but now, as the earth is replenished, marriage is not recommended. But observe, how wonderfully learned and prudent are the conclusions of our adversaries. By this divine declaration, "Be fruitful, and multiply," which still continues and never has ceased, man and woman were so constituted, that they should be fruitful, not only in the beginning, but as long as nature endures. For even as, by this declaration, Gen. 1, 11, where God said: "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed," &c., the earth was so constituted, that it brought forth fruit, not only in the beginning, but that it bring forth grass, herbs, and other productions every year, while nature endures; so man and woman were also constituted, to be fruitful, as long as nature continues existing. Now, as human commands and laws cannot so effect a change, that the earth should become unproductive, so also no monastic vow, or human command can so change human nature, that there should not be mutual affection between the sexes, without a special operation of God.

In the second place, since this divine constitution, this order of God, is a natural right, a natural law, the Jurisconsulti have rightfully said, that man and woman were mutually designed for each other, according to natural right. But, as this natural right is immutable, every one must be left at liberty to contract marriage. For where God does not alter the nature, there the property must also remain, which he has implanted in nature; and it can not be changed by human laws. It is, for this reason, puerile for our adversaries to say, that in the beginning, when man was created, matrimony was commanded, but not now. For it is even as if they would say, that about the time of Adam and the patriarchs, wher