ARTICLE XXXI.

Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

De unica Christi oblatione in cruce perfecta.

Oblatio Christi semel facta, perfecta est redemptio, propitiatio, et satisfactio pro omnibus peccatis totius mundi, tam originalibus quam actualibus. Neque præter illam unicam est ulla alia pro peccatis expiatio. Unde missarum sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem offerre Christum in remissionem pœnæ, aut culpæ, pro vivis et defunctis, blasphema figmenta sunt, et perniciosa imposturæ.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE XXXI.

In this important doctrinal Article, the verbal criticism must not be overlooked. The following Latin equivalents may be noticed. 'Once made '—Latin, semel facta, semel=äñak, once only, and not again.' 'One oblation '—Latin, unica, not una: 'one only of its kind,' unique. 'Pain or guilt '—Latin, pænæ aut culpæ. Fables'-Latin, figmenta. 'Dangerous deceits-Latin, perniciosa impostura.

This Article is one of the original series of 1552, and only received verbal change in Elizabeth's time. One such change is noticeable, namely, the substitution of the word propitiation

in the English version for the original expression, 'the pacifying of God's displeasure.'

This Article is said by Hardwick to be based on the Augsburgh Confession, Part II. 3, but the resemblance appears very slight, and only extends to some obvious expressions.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXXI.

As first written, this Article was no doubt intended to meet the Roman doctrine of the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. In our day it has a further value. It will be found not only to meet the Romish error of excess, but also the modern rationalising errors of defect in the great doctrine of the Atonement.

It will be necessary first to state the Roman doctrine, which is as plainly opposed to the English as words can make it. We refer, as before, to the Council of Trent.1

6

Cap. II. Since the same Christ who once offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, and offered without blood, the holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is really propitiatory, and made by Christ himself. . . . . For assuredly God is appeased by this oblation, bestows grace and the gift of repentance, and forgives all crimes and sins, how great soever; for the sacrifice which is now offered by the ministry of the priests is one and the same as that which Christ then offered on the cross, only the mode of offering is different. And the fruits of that bloody oblation are plentifully enjoyed by means of this unbloody one; so untrue is it that the latter derogates from the glory of the former. Wherefore it is properly offered, according to apostolic tradition, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of living believers, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet thoroughly purified.'

Canon 1. If any one shall affirm that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the Mass, or that nothing else is offered save that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.'

1 Sess. xxii.

Canon 3. If any one shall affirm that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it only profits the receiver, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.'

Canon 4. 'If any one shall affirm that the most holy sacrifice of Christ finished on the cross is blasphemed by the sacrifice of the Mass, or that the latter derogates from it, let him be anathema.'

The scriptural treatment of this subject is twofold. First, negative, from considerations of the silence of the Epistles upon this subject. The application of the sacrifice of the death of Christ for sin is the most vital point of Christianity; but not a word is breathed throughout the Epistles as to this mode of applying it to the sinner's needs. Second, positive, from the numerous passages which speak of the death of Christ, and the sinner's justification by faith in Him. But especially from a careful study of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which deals at large with the priestly functions of Christ.

Turning to the Article itself, it will be observed that four words are accumulated to express the effect of Christ's death, 'Redemptio, propitiatio, satisfactio, expiatio.' These words are also used in the Communion Service (see especially the consecration prayer). Each of them expresses a particular bearing of the death of Christ on the salvation of a sinner. Redemption regards the price paid. Propitiation imports the restored favour of God. Expiation implies atonement made and accepted. But of all these words Satisfaction is in some respects the most important, as bringing the element of entire sufficiency into all these modes of expression. It is a word with a perfectly defined theological meaning, which may be illustrated by the following passage from Hooker. 'Satisfaction is a work which justice requireth to be done for contentment of persons injured; neither is it in the eye of justice a sufficient satisfaction, unless it fully equal the injury for which we Ecc. Pol.' vi. 5.

satisfy. Seeing, then, that sin against God eternal and infinite must needs be an infinite wrong, justice in regard thereof doth necessarily exact an infinite recompense, or else inflicts upon the offender infinite punishment. Now, because God was thus to be satisfied, and man not able to make satisfaction in such sort, his unspeakable love and inclination to save mankind from eternal death ordained in our behalf a Mediator to do that which had been for any other impossible. Wherefore all sin is remitted in the only faith of Christ's passion, and no man without belief thereof justified. Faith alone maketh Christ's satisfaction ours, howbeit that faith alone, which, after sin, maketh us by conversion His.'

It is through these four words, but especially through the word satisfaction, that this Article meets certain prevalent errors which obscure, if they do not deny, the propitiatory and satisfactory work of Christ in His sacrifice.

With regard to the historical treatment of the general subject of the Article it may be observed that in very early times the words 'sacrifice' and 'altar' were used in connexion with the Lord's Supper. When it is remembered that praise, almsgiving, self-devotion, &c., are called sacrifices in the New Testament, the student will not be unduly influenced by the above fact, but will enquire carefully further as to the sense in which such words were used. The words, however, having been once introduced, and having come into ordinary usage, suffered the usual fate of ambiguities. With the progress of doctrinal corruption the idea of expiatory sacrifice offered by the priest on an altar came in, and as with the doctrine of transubstantiation so with this; after centuries of oscillating and contradictory language, the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass became firmly established. The student must therefore be prepared to meet with very contradictory statements confidently alleged from writers of the first ten centuries on this subject. For the further consideration of the subject of the Christian sacrifice, especially in its bearing on the Lord's Supper, a careful study is recommended of a very valuable chapter (the twelfth) of Waterland on the Eucharist.

Amongst its statements we may select the following. From Augustine it is shown that a 'true sacrifice is any work done with a view to our bond of holy union with God, having a reference to Him as our highest good.' Thus works of mercy are 'true sacrifices,' according to Augustine, ' if done with a view to God,' otherwise they are no sacrifice at all. This throws light on the meaning of the ancients when they call the Eucharist a 'true sacrifice.' They looked upon the spiritual sacrifices as true and proper sacrifices; even more so than the legal offerings. And to make the Eucharist a material sacrifice would, in their estimation, have degraded it to the level of the legal ceremonies.

The 'true and evangelical sacrifices' are thus enumerated.

1. The sacrifice of alms to the poor and oblations to the Church, with a religious intent, and offered through Christ. Phil. iv. 18. The offering goes to the poor, but the service is God's.

2. The sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incense. Rev. v. 8.

3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to the Father, through the Son. Heb. xiii. 15.

4. The sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart. Ps. li. 17. 5. The sacrifice of ourselves, our souls, and our bodies. Rom. xii. 1.

6. The offering up of the mystical body of Christ, that is the Church, which is the same as the last taken collectively. 7. The offering up of true converts by their pastors, who have laboured successfully in this blessed work. Rom. xv. 16. 8. The sacrifice of faith and hope and self-humiliation in commemorating the grand sacrifice and resting finally upon it is another Gospel sacrifice, and eminently proper to the Eucharist.

all

'These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eucharist. Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian sacrifices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true or proper sacrifice.'