Where the gifts are so carefully distinguished by our Lord and His Apostle, it seems the height of presumption to assert that "whole Christ" is so contained under either species that "they who receive one kind alone are not defrauded of any grace necessary to salvation." "1

Next, with regard to the Church's power to decree rites or ceremonies, we cannot admit that it extends to the alteration of a Divine command. Our Lord's words are express: "Drink ye all of it" (S. Matt. xxvi. 27). The limitations to the Church's legislative power have been already stated under Article XX. It was there shown that she may not "ordain anything contrary to God's word written "; and, with every desire to be charitable, it must be said that to order the celebrant alone to partake of the Eucharistic chalice is to ordain something that is directly contrary to Scripture.

(b) If the theological arguments thus fall to the ground, no weight whatever can be assigned to the practical ones. These are drawn mainly from convenience, the fear of accidents, and the desire, from motives of reverence, to do all that can be done to minimise the possibility of their occurring. As a matter of fact, we deny that the dangers are really serious. With due care

1 "Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptor noster ut antea dictum est in suprema illa cœna hoc sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit, et Apostolis tradiderit, tamen fatendum esse, etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi; ac propterea, quod ad fructum attinet, nulla gratia, necessaria ad salutem, eos defraudari, qui unam speciem solam accipiunt."-Conc. Trid. Sess. xxi. cap. iii. In connection with this the admission of Vasquez (quoted in Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 631) should be noted. "The opinion of those who say that greater fruit of grace is acquired from both species of this sacrament than from one only, has always appeared to me the more probable. . . . We grant that, according to this our opinion, the laity, to whom one species is denied, are defrauded of some grace indeed, yet not of any necessary to salvation; and that the Council did not mean to deny this."-Com. in Thom. Aq. P. III. q. lxxx. dist. ccxv. c. ii. iii.

...

they can in almost every case be guarded against.

But even if they were far more important than they are, we could not admit that they would justify the Church in departing from a plain direction of her Lord; for, if Holy Scripture is to have any weight with us, it is most certain that both the parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

ARTICLE XXXI

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 imposture.

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 Priests1 did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

THE alterations which have been made in this Article since it was first put forth in 1553 are insignificant and immaterial. In 1553 the English of the title was "of the perfect oblation of Christ made upon the Cross"; and in the last clause of the Article the "sacrifices of Masses" were said to be "forged fables," while “culpa was translated "sin" instead of "guilt," and there was nothing in the Latin corresponding to the word "blasphema," which was only introduced in 1563.

The wording of the Article as a whole does not seem to be actually based on any earlier document; but some expressions in it may be traced to a draft Article prepared by Cranmer for the Conference of Anglicans and Lutherans in 1538, but not actually accepted by the

1 In the majority of modern editions of the Articles this is incorrectly printed as "priest."

divines who then met together. This is headed "De missa privata," and in it occurs the following passage:

"Damnanda est igitur impia illa opinio sentientium usum Sacramenti cultum esse a sacerdotibus applicandum pro aliis, vivis et defunctis, et mereri illis vitam æternam et remissionem culpæ et pœnæ idque ex opere operato."1

The expressions here placed in italics reappear, it will be noticed, almost word for word in our own Article. Besides this, as will be shown presently, the general thought, if not the actual words, of the Article may be abundantly illustrated by language that had been previously used.

The object of the Article is by a restatement of the doctrine of the perfection of Christ's atonement to condemn current theories of the Eucharistic sacrifice which seriously conflicted with it, and which led to grave practical abuses. The subjects treated of in it

are thus two in number:

1. The sufficiency of the sacrifice of the Cross.

2. The condemnation of the "sacrifices of Masses."

I. The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of 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. It is clear from the position of this Article in the series, as well as from the connection of the two clauses, the second of which is introduced by wherefore, that the doctrine of the Atonement is only here introduced in order to assert

1 See Jenkyns' Cranmer's Remains, iv. p. 292 and cf. the Church Quarterly Review, vol. xlii. p. 39.

emphatically the ground on which the "sacrifices of Masses" are condemned. This first sentence, therefore, need not detain us long. Its language, which is very similar to that used in the opening of the Prayer of Consecration in the Order of the Holy Communion,1 is in entire harmony with the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which special attention may be drawn to the following passages:

vii. 26, 27: "For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this He did once for all (épáwa§), when He offered up Himself."

ix. 11-14: "But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?"

ix. 24-28: "Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often; as the

1 "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of Thy tender mercy didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."