Green on Article XXXI: Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

This Article was composed by the English Reformers, and first appeared as the thirtieth of the XLII. Articles of 1553. It is parallel to Article III. Part II. of the Augsburg Confession, but there is not such close verbal agreement between the two as to warrant the conclusion that our Article was directly based upon the very much longer statement of the Lutheran formulary. Like our Article, the Augsburg Confession refers to the popular theory which led to the excessive multiplication of Masses : —

“ Accessit opinio, quae auxit privatas missas in infinitum, vide¬ licet quod Christus sua passione satisfecerit pro peccato originis, et instituerit missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis, mortalibus et venialibus. Hinc manavit publica opinio, quod missa sit opus delens peccata vivorum et mortuorum ex opere operato. Ilic coeptum est disputari, utrum una missa dicta pro pluribus, tantundem valeat, quantum singulae pro singulis. Haec disputatio peperit istam infinitam multitudinem missarum.”

25J

In this connection the same Confession also emphasises the unique character of the Sacrifice of Christ : —

“ De his opinionibus nostri admonuerunt, quod dissentiant a Scripturis sanctis, et laedant gloriam passionis Christi. Nam passio Christi fuit oblatio et satisfactio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis.” …

We may also compare the ninth of the XI. Articles of 1 5 59:—

“ The doctrine that maintaineth the mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead, and a mean to deliver souls out of purgatory, is neither agreeable to Christ’s ordinance, nor grounded upon doctrine Apostolic, but contrariwise most ungodly and most injurious to the precious redemption of our Saviour Christ, and his only sufficient Sacrifice offered once for ever upon the altar of the Cross.”

The word “blasphema” was inserted in the Article in 1563.

§ 2.— OBJECT.

To set forth the unique character and the completeness of the Sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross, and to oppose the idea current in the times immediately preceding the Reformation with regard to the repetition of that Offering in the “ Sacrifices of Masses.”

§ 3 .—EXPOSITION.

(1.) The Sacrifice of Christ, once offered, is the only Sacrifice for sin.

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, hut that alone. (See Heb. ix. 25, 26; x. 10, 26.)

The doctrine of the Atonement has been already treated in Articles II. and XV. (where see notes). The point specially emphasised in the present Article is the unique character and the completeness of the Sacrifice of Christ, a truth which had been obscured by the pre- Reformation system with regard to the offering of Masses. (See the quotations from the Augsburg Confession, Part II. Art. III., given in § 1 above.)

It is significant that in each place where the Offering of Christ is touched upon in the Articles the sufficiency of His Sacrifice as an Atonement for all sin is especially dwelt upon : —

Article II. :

“To be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, hut also for all actual sins of men.”

Article XY. :

“ He came to he the Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world.”

If the words of this thirty-first Article are carefully compared with the (more or less) parallel passage in the Augsburg Confession, the very emphatic manner in which this truth was stated by our English Reformers comes out in strong relief : —

Augsburg Confession :

“ Passio Christi fuit oblatio et satisf actio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis.”

Our Article contains the additional words, “ perfeda” … “ totius mundi.” Similar phraseology also appears in the Consecration Prayer as arranged in 1552 : —

“ 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 ivorld.” 1

(2.) Condemnation of the idea that in the sacrifices of Masses there is a repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ.

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.

1 In Bullinger’s “ Decades ” (1550), a book which exercised considerable influence in England, and was recommended by the Convocation of Canter¬ bury (1586) as a text-book for curates who were not licensed to preach, there is likewise emphasised the sufficiency of the Sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the whole world : —

[…]

What the Article thus strongly condemns is the popular theory (vulgo dicebatur) of the times immediately preceding the Reformation, in consequence of which the number of private Masses had been enormously multiplied, wherein it was supposed that Christ was offered for the remission of pain (especially Purgatorial pain) or guilt, and whereby both the unique character of the Sacrifice of Christ and the great end of the Institution of the Sacrament (viz., its reception by the faithful) had been obscured.

A strict attention to the precise wording of the Article, and a comparison with the Augsburg Confession (see § I above), make it evident that it is not the Primitive and Catholic doctrine as to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is here condemned, but the common opinion bound up with the pre-Reformation system of sacrifices of Masses (note the plural), which had come to be regarded as efficacious for living or dead “ ex opere operato,” and as affording in them¬ selves a satisfaction apart from, or supplementary to, the Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ upon the Cross.1

These “ sacrifices of Masses ” are said by our Article to be : —

(a) Blasphemous fables, in that it was taught that Masses are sacrifices for sin distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ.

[…]

Such strong language is indeed justified, for terrible results had followed upon the popular theory ; so many Masses were said for so much money, and in this way (so it was asserted) souls were released from Purgatory. It is easy to see how such a system would degenerate into most disgraceful imposture, and traffic for the sake of gain.

1 Bishop Gardiner, who was on the whole decidedly conservative in matters of doctrine, protested against the popular conception with which our Article deals. Cf., e.g., his Sermon on S. Peter’s Day, 1548 : —

“ When men added to the Mass an opinion of satisfaction, or of a new redemption, they put it to another use than it was ordained for.”

Cf. the same prelate’s words, as quoted by Cranmer, On the Lord’s Supper : —

“ This is agreed, and by the Scriptures plainly taught, that the Oblation and Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was and is a perfect work, once consum¬ mate in perfection without the necessity of reiteration, as it was never taught to be reiterated, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. It is also in the Catholic teaching, grounded upon the Scripture, agreed that the same Sacri¬ fice once consummate was ordained by Christ’s institution in His most Holy Supper to be in the Church often remembered and showed forth ” (p. 344).

Cf. the Homily for Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches : —

“ What dens of thieves the churches of England have been made by the blasphemous buying and selling the most precious Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass ” (p. 289).

The Homily of the Place and Time of Prayer also speaks of the

“gross abusing and filthy corrupting of the Lord’s Holy Supper, the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood ” (p. 369).

This thirty-first Article, while it u rightly censures that erro¬ neous view of the Sacrifice, does not declare against the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice rightly understood.” 1

It should be noted that the protest contained in the latter half of the Article is connected with the dogmatic statement of the former part by the word “ Wherefore,” indicating that the condemnation of the second part is directed against those who impugned the truth stated in the first, viz., against such as pro¬ fessed to make a fresh propitiation for sin distinct from that made upon the Cross of Calvary, or in any way to supplement “the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.” The Primitive and Catholic doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice (it should scarcely be necessary to state) does not in any way contravene this great truth.

The Sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist.

In the Eucharist as a Sacrament we receive spiritually the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; in the same Eucharist as a Sacrifice we in representation plead the one great Sacrifice which our High Priest continually presents for us in Heaven ; for one characteristic idea of the whole service, which comes out with especial prominence in the Primitive Liturgies, is that it is a re¬ presentation on earth of the pleading of His Atoning Sacrifice by our Lord within the veil (Heb. ix. 24). The Sacrifice was once for all offered on Calvary. It can never be repeated or supple¬ mented (Heb. ix. 25, 26), but its propitiatory virtue is ever- living and continuous (cf. Rev. v. 6, 12, where our Lord appears as the “Lamb as it had been slain,” bearing before the Father the memorial of His Sacrifice), and the fulness of the propitiation

is pleaded for the whole Church,1 wheresoever the commemora¬ tion of it is exhibited in the Holy Eucharist, wherein we, the members, are joined with our Head in His priestly action. When the priest says, “ Lift up your hearts,” we are in spirit lifted up to Heaven, entering in spirit the very Holy of Holies, and join¬ ing “ with angels and archangels, and with all the company of Heaven,” in the Triumphal Hymn ; then on the Altar, with the very acts and words of Christ, we make before the Father 2 the Memorial which Christ commanded us to make, in correspondence with the continual memorial made by Himself in Heaven.

Testimony to the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

(1.) Holy Scripture.

In dealing with the testimony of Holy Scripture, our chief concern must necessarily be to carefully study the significance of our Lord’s own words in instituting the Sacrament. In the first place, it cannot escape us that the words occur in a Sacrificial setting ; our Lord spoke at a Sacrificial time. Close attention to the words of Holy Scripture reveals further that He spoke in Sacrificial terms , in words which can only be rightly understood by reference to the old Sacrificial system.

[…]

The verb employed occurs very many times in the Septua- gmt in the sense “to offer”; e.g., Exod. x. 25, xxix. 38, 39; Lev. ix. 7, xvi. 24; c/., in the New Testament, Heb. xi. 28, and note especially that our Lord Himself uses the same word (S. Matt. xxvi. 1 8) in this sense with reference to the Passover Feast He was about to celebrate. In the same sense — “ to offer ” — the word also occurs with refer¬ ence to the Eucharist in Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” c. 41 : —

[…]

1 Cf. the Prayer of Oblation : —

“ We Thy humble servants entirely desire Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ; most humbly beseech¬ ing Thee to grant, that by the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remis¬ sion of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion.”

2 A memorial before God, and not merely before man, is clearly intended, for the words of Institution are recited and the manual acts performed in the course of a prayer to God.

[…]

avaiJLvr]<Jiv.

’ AvajuLvrjcris does not occur very frequently in Holy Scrip¬ ture. In the only other place in which it is found in the New Testament (Heb. x. 3) it is used of a Sacrificial memorial. Cf., in the Old Testament, Lev. xxiv. 7 ; Num. x. 10, where in each case the word is used with reference to a memorial before God. The Scriptural usage of the word is, in fact, restricted to this meaning.

(2.) The Primitive Liturgies.

These afford unmistakable evidence as to the belief of the Primitive Church. Though not actually composed by the Apostles and Fathers whose names they bear, they were the legitimate development of their unwritten traditions respecting the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Certain most im¬ portant parts of these Liturgies are common to all, and the wording of these portions, it is only reasonable to con¬ dude, may be assigned to a period considerably earlier than that from which the extant Liturgies date ; perhaps it would be scarcely too much to say (with the great liturgiologist, Dr. Neale) that it has come down to us without material change from the Apostolic authors themselves. Besides this verbal agreement which appears in certain portions, the general tenor of the Liturgies also presents a remark¬ able agreement throughout, the same great conceptions with respect to the Sacrament running through all, though they may be expressed in varying phraseology. It can scarcely be doubted that this general tenor has also been derived from the tradition of the Apostles themselves, form¬ ing part of the 7 rapaOr/icr] which they handed down to their successors, In comparing the general tenor of the Primi¬ tive Liturgies, we must be impressed by the very distinct enunciation of the Sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, which is so prominent a feature of them all. We here quote one or two examples : —

Liturgy of S. Clement :

[…]

Liturgy of S. James :

[…]

(3.) Early Christian Writers.

The Did ache (Palestinian Church, close of the first century a.d.) :

[…]

The reference here is to Mai. i. 1 1, 14.

%

S* Ignatius of Antioch (a.d. 100-118):

[…]

Justin Martyr (a.d. 133-165).

See the passage quoted above (p. 255, 256) from the “ Dialogue with Trypho,” c. 41. In the context Justin quotes Mai. i. 1 1 as prophetic of the Holy Eucharist.

IrENjEUS (a.d. 180):

“ Igitur Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est Ei” (Adv. Plaer., IV. xviii.).

2 K

S. Cyprian (a.d. 250):

“Nam si Iesus Christus Dominus et Dens noster ipse est summus sacerdos Dei patris et sacrificium patri se ipsum primus obtulit et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit ; utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, imitatur et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia Deo patri, si sic incipiat ofierre, secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse” (Ep. lxiii., ed. Coldhorn).

S. Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d. 386) :

[…]

(4.) The Council of Niccea (a.d. 325), which we acknowledge oecumenical, in several of its Canons assumes the truth of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Let one example suffice : —

[…]

(5.) The Prayer Booh.

It must be admitted that the Sacrificial aspect is not the prominent aspect of the Holy Eucharist dwelt upon in our Communion Office. It was thought necessary for those times by the Reformers to dwell rather upon the Eucharist as the Communion, because of the false conception current that the Offering of Calvary was literally repeated, or supplemented, at every celebration of Mass, and because such false notion had tended to obscure the great end of Christ’s Institution, the frequent reception by all the faithful, so that it had come about that the bulk of the people com-

municated very rarely. Hence the Office was entitled “ The Order for the Administracion of the Lordes Supper, or Holye Communion” and the name “ Holy Table,” or “ Lord’s Table,” is consistently used for “ Altar ” throughout in the Prayer Book.

Our Reformers, however, held the doctrine of the Eucha¬ ristic Sacrifice,1 and our Office, framed as it was upon ancient models, contains, as we should expect, passages which indisputably testify to the Sacrificial character of the Sacrament ; e.g. : —

(a) The Prayer of Consecration :

“And did institute, and in his Holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory2 3 […] of that his precious Death, until his coming again.”

The words recited and the acts performed immediately afterwards themselves constitute the memorial, and these occur, it should be specially noted, not in the course of an address to the people, but during a Prayer to God the Father, and are therefore addressed to Him.8 The Eucha-

“ Pie. What say you to that council, where it is said, that the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the Body of Christ ?

“ Ridley. I say, it is well said, if it be rightly understood.

[…]

“ Ridley. It is called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner, and in a mystery, and as a representation of that Bloody Sacrifice ; and he doth not lie, who saith Christ to be offerred ” (p. 250).

Cf. Church Catechism

‘ ‘ Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper ordained ?

“ Ansivcr. For the continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby.”

3 The significance of this will appear the more clearly if we compare the

treatment which the Eucharistic Office has received at the hands of those who

repudiate all notion of Sacrifice in connection with the Sacrament. While the

English Reformers in this, as in other matters, took their stand upon the

doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, Calvin, on the other hand, thus

26o

rist is thus primarily not a solemn reminder to men of Christ’s Death, hut Christ’s own appointed way of pleading before the Father the memory of His Sacrifice.

(b) The Prayer of Oblation : 1

“We thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly good¬ ness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanks¬ giving.”

The words “ Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving ” corre¬ spend to “ Sacrificium Eucharisticum ” of the older Service- books, and refer to the action of celebrating the Eucharist, not to the expressions of praise and thanksgiving occurring in the course of the Service.

(c) In this connection we may also draw attention to the reintroduction in i 5 59, by the Ornaments Rubric, of such Vestments of the Ministers “ as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth.” 2 The use

speaks of the Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist as it appears in the writings of the early Fathers : —

[…]

Accordingly, when laying down the “Manner of Celebrating the Lord’s Supper,” the Swiss Reformer gives these directions : —

“After Prayer and the Confession of Faith, to testify in the name of the people that all wish to live and die in the doctrine of Christ, he says aloud,

‘ Let us listen to the Institution of the Holy Supper by Jesus Christ, as narrated by St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (Calvin’s Tracts, vol. ii. p. 119).

Then follows the reading of the portion of Scripture specified, succeeded by an exposition of it, and an exhortation based upon it. But all this is addressed to the people, and the Sacrament is therefore only a memorial in the sense of a reminder to the people of what Christ has done for them.

Cf. the directions given in the Directory for the Public Worship of God drawn up by the Westminster Assembly of Divines : —

“Let the words of institution be read out of the Evangelists, or out of the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, chap. xi. 23, I have received of the Lord, cfrc., to the 27th verse, which the minister may, when he seeth requisite, explain and apply.”

1 In the Book of 1549 this followed immediately after the Consecration, hut since 1552 has been displaced, contrary to all Primitive usage, so that it is said after the Communion of the people.

2 The precise wording of the Rubric, as inserted in 1 559, is as follows : —

“And here is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of the comunion, and at all other tymes in hys ministracion, shall vse suche ornamentes in the

of these vestments was distinctly understood at the time to imply a recognition of the Sacrificial character of the Sacrament.1

It is sometimes urged that the absence of the word Altar from the Prayer Book indicates the intention of our Church (1552) to reject the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The word occurs frequently in the Book of 1 549, but was dropped in the revision of 1 5 5 2. 2

On this point we may note that —

(a) In the Act of Uniformity , 1552, it was explained that the alterations in the Prayer Book had been made in order to “ render the book fully perfect in all such places in which it was necessary to be made more earnest and fit for the stirring up of all Christian people to the true honouring of Almighty God, and with no intention of contradicting the former book.” The First Book is, moreover, described as a “ very godly order, agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church.”

In view of such statements as these we can scarcely interpret the substitution of Table for Altar as having been made with the intention of the rejecting the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The true reason of the substitution is no doubt to be found (as has been already indicated) in the feeling of our Reformers that it was necessary for those times to lay special emphasis on the Communion aspect of the Holy Eucharist.

( b ) The word Altar is retained in the Office for the Coronation of the Sovereign.

Since we recognise in the Eucharist both Sacrifice and

church, as wer in vse by aucthoritie of parliamet in the second yere of the reygne of king Edward the VI. according to the acte of parliament set in the beginning of thys booke.”

The Prayer Book of 1552, on the other hand, had provided —

“That the minister at the tyme of the Comunion and all other tymes in his ministracion, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope : but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet ; and being a preest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice onely.”

2 The word Priest, however, was retained.

Sacrament, we speak of the structure upon which the Elements are consecrated both as the Altar and as the Lord’s Table , or the Holy Table. Of the two names “ Altar ” is much the more ancient, the name “ Table ” being nowhere used in this connection by the Apostolic Fathers. “ God’s Board ” was a frequent old English appellation for the Altar ; c/., e.g.} the rubric at the com¬ mencement of the Communion Office in the Prayer Book of

1 549 : —

“ Then the Prieste standyng at Goddes horde shall begin.”

It seems somewhat strange that those who object to the use of the name “ Altar,” on the ground that it is not found in the Prayer Book, should themselves habitually speak of the “ Communion Table,” a name to which their objection equally applies, for it occurs nowhere in the Book of Common Prayer.

For the purpose of comparison we here add extracts from the Canons of the Council of Trent (Session XXII.), which deal with the subject treated in our thirty-first Article : —

Canon I. — “ Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et pro- prium sacrificium … anathema sit.”

[…]

In a decree of the same Session it is admitted that a “ private Mass ” is not an ideal service : —

“Optaret quidem sacrosancta Synodus, ut in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non solum spirituali affectu, sed sacramentali

etiam Eucharistiae perceptione communicarent, quo ad eos sanctis- simi hujus sacrificii fructus uberior proveniret : nec tamen, si id non semper fiat, propterea Missas illas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat atque adeo commendat ” (Cap. vi.).

It must be borne in mind that the above declarations bear date September iyr 1562, and that our Article, since it dates from 1 5 535 could not have been drawn up with reference to the authoritative statements of the Tridentine Council.

The following statements of Continental Confessions may also be compared : —

Augsburg Confession. See § 1, pp. 250, 251.

Tetrapolitan Confession, Cap. XIX. :

“ Et contra qui Missas celebrant, praesumunt Christum Patri offerre pro vivis et defunctis, Missamque tale opus faciunt, quo solo fere favor Dei et salus comparetur, quicquid vel credant homines, vel vivant. Unde et pudenda ilia ac bis terque impia sacri hujus nundinatio irrepsit, factumque est, ut nihil sit liodie Missa questiosius. Privatas itaque Missas rejecerunt, propterea quod Dominus in commune, discipulis hoc sacramentum commen- davit.”

Saxon Confession, Art. XV. :

“ Multi ante hoc tempus scripserunt, fieri oblationem in missa pro vivis et mortuis, et mereri earn facienti et aliis remissionem peccatorum ex opere operato… . Hac opinione cumulabantur sacrificia, et crescebant aucupia quaestus. Talis est et missarum mercatus, et prophanatio coenae Domini, fere in toto orbe ter- rarum. Yult autem Deus, vitiosos cultus taxari et aboleri. Ideo vocern divinam simpliciter et vere proponimus, quae errores illos damnat. Ac toto pectore adfinnamus coram Deo et tota Ecclesia in coelo et in terra, tantum fuisse unicum sacrificium propitia- torium, seu quo ira aeterni Patris adversus genus humanum placata est; scilicet, totam Filii Dei Domini nostri Jesu Cliristi crucifixi et resuscitati obedientiam.”

W URTEMBURG CONFESSION, Art. XIX. :

“ Deinde cum sacrificii nomen latissime pateat, ac generaliter significet sacrum cultum, libenter concedimus verum et legiti- mum usum Eucharistiae posse hoc modo sacrificium dici. Et si Eucharistia juxta institutionem Christi ita celebratur, ut in ea adnuncietur mors Cliristi, et dispensetur Ecclesiae sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi, recte vocatur Applicatio meriti pas- sionis Christi, his videlicet qui sacramentum sumunt.”

Second Helvetic Confession, Art. XXI. :

“Missa qualis aliquando apud veteres fuerit, tolerabilis an intolerabilis, inodo non disputamus : hoc autem libere dicimus, niissam, quae hodie in usu est per universam Romanam Ecclesiam, plurimas et justissimas quidem ob causas, in ecclesiis nostris esse abrogatam, quas sigillatim ob brevitatem nunc non commemoramus. Certe approbare non potuimus, quod ex actione salubri, specta- culum inane est factum, quod item facta est meritoria, vel celebrata pro pretio, quodque in ea sacerdos dicitur conficere ipsum domini corpus, et hoc offerre realiter, pro remissione peccatorum vivorum et mortuormn : addc et in honorem et celebrationem, vel memoriam sanctorum in coelis, etc.”

Notes

• Palmer’s Treatise 011 the Church, vol. i. p. 400 (ed. 1842).
• Bishop Ridley, owing to his zeal in issuing injunctions (enforced by an Order of the Council, November 24, 1550) for the removal of stone Altars, and substitution of movable Tables, is sometimes referred to as an opponent of the Sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist. It is apparent, however, from many passages in his works (ed. Parker Society) that no one at that time held more strongly to the Primitive doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice than he. We quote one passage from his examination at Oxford (1555) : —
• The word is, of course, adopted from our Lord’s words at the Institution of the Sacrament, and signifies, as has been already indicated (p. 256), a Sacrificial Memorial.
• See p. 13, note. It should be remembered that the Puritan party petitioned at the Savoy Conference (1661), desiring that the Rubric might be “wholly left out,” on the ground that it “seemeth to bring back the cope, albe, &c., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5 and 6 Edw. VI.” The request was deliberately refused.