Maclear and Williams on Article XXXI: Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

i. Title and Connection. The Latin Title of the Article has been uniform since 1553. The English Title then ran, “Of the perfeicte oblacion of Christe made upon the crosse.” It forms the conclusion of the Sacramental Articles, which have all been leading up to it1, and it states what that is, independently of which the Sacraments have no value in themselves.

ii. Origin. The Article is derived from the Third Article of the Second Part2 of the Augsburg Series of 1530. That Article begins by stating emphatically that

1 F. D. Maurice On Art. XXXI. certain Lutheran Divines who met

the Holy Eucharist, or the Mass, had never been abolished by the Lutherans, but was celebrated by them with the greatest possible reverence, only with some changes of ceremonial, and with the addition of some German Hymns for the instruction of the people1.

iii. Object. The design of the Article is twofold : — (a) To urge with all possible emphasis and clearness

the uniqueness and completeness of the Sacri- fice, which our Blessed Lord offered upon His Cross2 ;

(/3) To refute a current form of misbelief as to the repetition of that offering in “the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priestes did offer Christe for the quicke and the dead, to haue remission of payne or gyltV

iv. Analysis. This being its object, the Article may be thus analysed : —

(a) It declares that the offering of Christ once made4 is ” the perfect redemption, propitiation,

2 “If the Sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the Sacrifice of the Cross, we attribute more unto it than yourselves; we place our whole hope of salvation in it. If you understand another Propitiatory Sacrifice distinct from that as this of the Mass seems to be ; if you think of any new meritorious Satisfaction to God for the sins of the

world ; you must give us leave to re- nounce your Sacrifice indeed, and to adhere to the Apostle,” By one offer- ing He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. x. 14; Archbp Bramhall, Works, vol. i. p. 54.

and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual ” ; It affirms that besides this One Sacrifice there is “none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone”; It repudiates the idea that the priest repeated this one Sacrifice once made in “the sacrifices of Masses,” so that they could be propitiatory1 for the quick and the dead.

v. The First Clause of the Article is noticeable for the number of words used to set forth the completeness and all-sufficiency of our Lord’s sacrifice of Himself “once made-” on the altar of His Cross. It is described as “the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins3 of the whole world, both original and actual.”

(i) The Perfect Redemption. The first of these three figures is borrowed from the redemption of a slave, and his deliverance from bondage. The idea of His Sacrifice being a ransom is one which our Lord Himself set forth. The Sou of

2 Or as one MS. has it ” once made for ever.”

3 Observe the fulness of the expres- sion ” pro omnibus peccatis totius mundi, tarn originalibus quam actuali- bus.” Compare the Augsburg Con- session, De Missa, “Passio Christi luit

8. (7)

oblatio et satisfactio, non solum pro culpa originis, sed etiam pro omnibus reliquis peccatis,” and the language of Article II. (above pp. 58, 59), where it is said that Christ came “ut esset hostia, non tantum pro culpa originis, verum etiam pro omnibus actualibus hominum peccatis.” So also in The In- stitution of a Christian Man we read, ” Now I may boldly say and believe, as indeed I do perfectly believe, that by His Passion. ..Christ hath made a sufficient expiation or propitiation towards God, that is to say, a sufficient satisfaction and recompense as well for my original sin, as also for all the actual sins that ever I have com- mitted, and from the everlasting pain due for the same.” Formularies of Faith, Henry VIII., p. 35.

Man, He said, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many1 (Matt. xx. 28). S. Paul also fre- quently uses the figure. In one place he says that our Lord gave Himself a ransom in behalf of all2 (1 Tim. ii. 6) ; in another he states that He is our redemption (1 Cor. i. 30) ; and in yet another, that in Him we have our redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of our tres- passes (Eph. i. 7). For man, having fallen into sin and become the servant of sin (John viii. 34), could not redeem himself from its guilt and consequences. He had no ransom, which he could offer to God for his sin. But what he could not pay himself, that of His “tender love towards mankind3” God the Father gave His only-begotten Son to pay for man, and out of the same “tender love” the Son consented to pay it for man, and constituted Himself man’s surety. To undertake this work of un- imaginable condescension He Himself ” became Man,” and in man’s nature lived a life of perfect

1 Compare also Mark x. 45, ‘0 vi&s rod avdpunrov owe ffKBe biaKOv-qB^vai, dXXct diaKovriaaL, Kal dovvat tt]v \puxT}v avrov XvTpov &.vtI iroWCiv. This and the parallel in S. Matthew are the only two passages where the word (/Tpov occurs in the Gospels. But several words group themselves round this idea of \vrpov, a ransom. Thus we have (1) the verb \vTpovv = to ransom (Luke xxiv. 21) ; (ii) the sub- stantive \vrpwrris = a ransomer or re- deemer applied to Moses (Acts vii. 35); (iii) \vTpuxris = the act of ransoming or redemption (Luke i. 68 ; ii. 38), and this is applied in Heb. ix. 12, to the eternal redemption wrought out by Christ, alwUm \iirpwaw ivpa/ievos.

[…]

3r>2

and absolute obedience to His Father’s will, and offered up on the Cross that perfectly unblemished life as an all-sufficient “ransom” for many1, and so redeemed all mankind alike from the power and from the consequences of sin.

(2) The Perfect Propitiation. The second figure employed is that of a Sin-offering or Propitia- tion. The Greek word thus translated, ‘IXacr/xo?, only occurs in the writings of S. John. Christ, says that Apostle, is the propitiation for our sins” (1 John iv. 10). The term is specially applicable to our Lord’s work upon the Cross, because it is He, Who, as the all-perfect sacri- fice, has covered or expiated the sin of the world. The idea is brought out in several passages. Thus, when the Baptist sees our Lord coming up from the scene of His tempta- tion, he exclaims, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away t/ie sin of the world (John i. 29, 36). When our Lord gives to His Apostles the Cup at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, He says, This is My Blood of the Covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins (Matt, xxvi. 28). By this He intimated that He was

[…]

about to be a sin-offering, and His Blood was about to be shed for the remission of sins. The oblation He offered was not the arbitrary substitution of one innocent Man for a guilty race1. He, the Eternal Son of God, Himself became Man, and so, when He suffered upon the Cross, our Nature suffered in Him2, for all humanity was not only represented by but gathered up in Him. By the offering up of His sinless Self, He bare our sins in His own Body on the tree (1 Pet. ii. 24), and by the transcen- dent merit of His sacrifice He made expiation for the sins of entire humanity. (3) The Perfect Satisfaction. The third term employed in the Article is one which is not found in the Greek Testament. Satisfaction, from the Latin satisfactio, is a word used in the processes of Roman civil law3, and in Classical Latin denoted the liquidation of a debt, or the offering an apology for some wrong done4. Employed first as an ecclesiastical expression

manity with God.” Westcott, Incar- nation and Common Life, p. 377, Ed. 1893.

[…]

4 Comp. Csesar Bell. Gall. vi. 9, ” Caesar Ubiorum satisfaclionem ac- cepit”; Bell. Gall. i. 41, ” Eorum satisfactione accepta.” See also the first Exhortation in the Communion Service, “And if ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbours ; then ye shall recon- cile yourselves unto them ; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers.”

by Tertullian, it was afterwards greatly de- veloped by S. Anselm, Archbishop of Canter- bury1. He lays it down that either punishment or satisfaction must follow every sin ; that man’s sin was so great that God alone could pay the debt he owed ; therefore One must pay it Who is God and Man. Hence arose the necessity for the Incarnation. But the Incarnation itself was not all. The life of spotless obedience which followed, and the Death, by which that life of obedience was crowned, paid in infinitely superabundant measure the debt, which man owed to the Justice and Holiness of God2. Thus ” the infinite worth of the Son of God3,” dying for man and in man’s nature, wrought out a perfect satisfaction for human sin, and availed to do that for man, which he alone and unaided could not have done for himself.

vi. The Second Clause of the Article asserts that besides this offering of Christ there can be none other satisfaction for sin. Offered by the Son of God Himself, this Sacrifice stands absolutely alone in the world. It is singular and unique as regards (1) the Victim, the spotless Lamb of God ; as regards (ii) the act, His voluntary sub-

1 The word “satisfaction” occurs 3 Compare the words of Hooker, in the Collect for the 4th Sunday in “No person was born of the Virgin Advent, and in the Communion Office but the Son of God, no person but the we assert that by His one oblation of Son of God baptized, the Son of God Himself once offered our Lord has condemned, the Son of God, and no made “a full, perfect, and sufficient other person, crucified ; which one only sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction ” point of Christian belief, the infinite for the sins of the whole world. worth of the Son of Cod, is the very

2 “Ipse sponte sustinuit mortem, ground of all things believed con- non per obedientiam deserendi vitam, coining life and salvation by that sed propter obedientiam servandi jus- which Christ either did or suffered as titiam, in qua tam fortiter perseveravit Man in our behalf.” Eccl. Pol. v. ut inde mortem incurreret.” S. Anselm, 52, 3.

Car Dens Homo, i. y.

mission to death for man ; and as regards (iii) the result, the accomplishment by Him of a perfect expiation of all the sins, both original and actual, of entire humanity. This one Sacrifice of the Son of God was offered once for all1. This is the point, on which the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews insists so strongly, when he says that every priest under the Law standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins2 : but He, when He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God3 (Heb. x. 11, 12). These words make it clear that the Sacrifice of Christ was efficacious for ever, and through all time, and is incapable of repetition, that once made, it lives on in heaven, and our Ascended Lord pleads it, generation after generation, for each one of our sinful race. It cannot be denied that the language of this passage from the Epistle fully justifies the anxiety manifested in the Article that nothing should seem to overshadow, or interfere with, or supplement the meritoriousness of the One Sacrifice of our Lord upon the Cross, to the merits of which He Himself adds nothing4.

[…]

una oblata hostia in sempiterno sedil ; Vulg. hie autem unam offerens hostiam in sempiternum. ” The sacrifice was efficacious for ever, through all time, being appropriated by each believer. The connexion of eh to Snji/e/ces with the following iKa.6t.o-ev [for ever sat down) is contrary to the usage of the Epistle ; it weakens the contrast with toTyKev ; and it imports a foreign idea into the image of the assumption (tK&dtaev) of royal dignity by Christ.” Bp Westcott in loc.

4 Hence we can understand the emphasis with which Bullinger says in his Decades of Sermons, published in ij.so, and dedicated to Edward VI., ” Itaque relinquitur jam indubitatum Christum Dominum plenariam esse propitiationem, satislactionem, hos- tiamque ac victimam pro peccatis (pro

vii. The Third Clause. It is natural that having dealt with this point the Article should proceed to treat of ” the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt.” It is to be noticed that the Latin is not ” Missse sacrificium,” “the sacrifice of the Mass,” but […] sacrifices of Masses.” The expression “sacrifices of Masses,” generally meant in the language of the sixteenth century ” private Masses,” which were said for the sake of gain, and were a source of much profit1. Respecting these “sacrifices of Masses” it is to be noticed that the Article is concerned with what was “commonly said” respecting them. ” This,” it has been truly observed, ” is a strictly historical mode of speaking of what the authors of the Articles knew to have been in force in time past and saw before their eyes2.” Now it was commonly held in the six- teenth century that the Body of Christ was once offered upon the Cross for original3 sin, but is continually offered on

poena, inquam, et pro culpa) totius mundi, et quidem so/am. Non est enim in alio quoquam salus.” Quoted in Laurence’s Bampton Lectures, p.

» Newman, Tract XC, p. 62.

3 This view seems to have been first

[…]

the altar for daily sin, that is, that in the Mass the One Sacrifice is repeated, and that in such a sense the Mass was a propitiatory sacrifice for daily sins1. It was also held that particular, special, Masses were more profitable to souls than “the one common Mass,” and whereas the suffrages of the Church benefited those most, who most deserved to be benefited, those offered specially benefited those most for whom they were performed, specially the Masses, which were offered for departed souls2. Thus the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, valid inde- pendently of the Sacrifice of the Cross, was accentuated by these private Masses, and they naturally became a potent source of gain to the priests who offered them. This is what the Article distinctly and energetically re- pudiates. It affirms that it is a ” blasphemous fable ” to

hostiam Mam, quam Christus obtulit pro peccato mundi, et pro delictis baptismum praccdentibus. ” See De Hierarchia Anglicana, p. 130. Bp Jewel quotes Catharinus in his Defence of the Apology, Works, Vol. iii., p. 45 1, Parker Soc. See also the present Bp of Salisbury’s pamphlet De Valiilitate OrdinumAiiglicanorum, p.o, Ed. 1894.

[…]

Christ, according as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so would He himself be exalted, that thereby as many as trusted in Him should have salvation ; but the devil would none of that : they would have us saved by a daily oblation propitiatory, by a sacrifice expiatory or remissory.” Sermons, pp. 72, 73, Parker Soc. And again in a Sermon preached be- fore Convocation in 1536 he speaks of those, “Who preached to the people the Redemption that cometh by Christ’s death to serve only them that died before His coming, that were in the time of the Old Testament, and that now since redemption and for- giveness of sins purchased by money and devised by men is of efficacy, and not redemption purchased by Christ.” Latimer, Sermons, p. 36, ed. Parker Soc.

[…]

teach that there is a sacrifice for sin other than the Death of Christ, and that Masses are that sacrifice1, introducing a second and continually recurrent atonement, or, as Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, expressed it, a “new re- demption2.” It further affirms that it is a “pernicious imposture” to turn this doctrine into a means of making gain, into a source of emolument for those who celebrate these Masses.

viii. Conclusion. Thus the Article lays down with striking emphasis that the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is “the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satis- faction,” “not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.” It affirms that the Eucharistic Sacrifice neither acquires nor possesses anything propitiatory in zVjy//” independently of that One Sacrifice; that it can only apply what was once and for all merited by that Sacrifice3.

is a perfect work, once consummate in perfection without necessity of re- iteration, as it was never taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it.” See Abp Cranmer’s Works, On the Lord’s Supper, P. S., p. 344. The teaching of the Bishop agrees with the statement agreed to at the Bonn Conference in 1S74, “The Eucharistic Celebration in the Church is not a continuous repetition or re- newal of the Propitiatory Sacrifice offered once for ever by Christ upon the Cross ; but its sacrificial character consists in this, that it is the permanent memorial of it, and a re-presentation and presentation on earth of that One oblation of Christ for the salvation of redeemed mankind, which according to the Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 11, 12) is continuously presented in heaven by Christ, who now appears in the presence of God for us” (ix. 24).

3 The idea condemned in the Article is that of the value of many Masses, as separate acts of sacrifice independent of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the one

3&>

As regards “the sacrifices of Masses” its language is to be understood as referring to the special doctrine which it is opposing1, and, though strong, is not more strong than that of an Ultra-montanist Bishop of the 14th century, when he says, “Our Church is full and overfull of altars, masses, and sacrifices, and therewith in them that sacrifice it is full of homicides, sacrileges, uncleanness, and simonies, and other wickednesses, excommunications, and irregularities to the very utmost. For to this day so many masses are said for gain, or custom, or complaisance, or to cover wickednesses2, or for their own justification, that both amongst priests and people the holy Body of the Lord is now held cheap. Whence also S. Francis willed that the brothers everywhere should be content with one Mass, foreseeing that the brethren would wish to justify them-

only-availing Sacrifice. Hence the force of the second clause, ” Where- fore the sacrifices of Masses…” The One Sacrifice of our Lord and its all- sufficient merits live on as in our Lord’s perpetual presentation of Him- self in heaven. So in the Eucharistic Sacrifice ” we have nothing apart from that One Sacrifice ; our Eucharistic Oblation is not something in and for itself ; something independent of that One Sacrifice, even while it pleaded it. Such is its union with that Sacrifice, that it is a perpetual application of its virtue; yet not as something distinct, but united with it through the oneness of that which is offered.” Bp Forbes, On the Articles, pp. 615, 610. “What we dare not say,” writes Bramhall, “is that the Holy Eucharist is a sacrifice propitia- tory in itself, by its own proper virtue and expiatory efficacy. Whatsoever power it hath, is in relation to the Sacrifice of Christ, as a means or- dained to apply that to true believers.” Bramhall, Works, Vol. V. Oxford 1845.

[…]

M.

37Q

selves by Masses, and reduce we see done at this day2.”

1 ” Why must a solitary mass, bought for a piece of money, performed and participated by a priest alone, in a private corner of a Church, be, not only against the sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church, but also against common sense and grammar, called a Communion, and be accounted useful to him that buys it, though he never himself receive the Sacrament, or but once a year ; but for this reason, that there % great gain, but no godli- ness at all, in this doctrine?” Bp Bull’s Sermons, Works, Vol. i. p. i Oxford i846. “The world was made believe, that by the virtue of so many masses, which were to be purchased by great endowments, souls were redeemed out of purgatory, and scenes of visions and apparitions, sometimes of the tor- mented, sometimes of the delivered souls, were published in the places; which had so wonderful an effect, that in two or three centuries, endowments increased to a vast extent … the practices by which this was managed, and the effects that followed on it, we can call by no other name than downright im- postures; worse than the making or vending false coin : when the world was drawn in by such arts to plain

them to a matter of gain1 as

bargains to redeem their own souls, and the souls of their ancestors and posterity, so many masses are to be said, and forfeitures were to follow upon their not being said: thus the masses were really the price of the lands,” Bp Burnet On Article XXII., p. 251, Oxford J 845.

2 ” Nostra autem Ecclesia plena et supplena est altaribus, missis et sacrificiis, sed cum hoc plena in sacri- ficantibus homicidiis, sacrilegiis et im- munditiis, et simoniis, et aliis sceleri- bus, excommunicationibus et irregu- laritatibus usque ad summum.. Tot enim hodie dicuntur missx quasi qux-stuariie vel consuetudinariae vel ad complacentiam vel ad scelera co- operienda vel propriam j usti ficationem, quod apud populura vel clerum Sacro- sanctum Corpus Domini jam vilescit… Unde et almus Franciscus voluit quod in quocunque loco fratres contend essent una missa, prospiciens fratres se velle justificare per missas, et ad qua;stum eas reducere sicut videmus hodie fieri.” Alvarus Pelagius, De Planclu Ecclesue, ii. 5, quoted by Pusey, Truth and Office of the English Church, p. 30. Alvarus Pelagius was a Penitentiary of Pope John XXII.

Notes

• The Second Part of the Augsburg the Elector at Torgau early in 1530, Confession is based on a Series called in anticipation of the Augsburg Diet, “the Torgau Articles,” drawn up by See Hardwick, Hist. Art., p. 22.
• ” Falso accusantur ecclesiis nos- tra, quod Missam aholeant, retinetur enim Missa apud nos et summa reve- rentia celebratur. Servantur et usitata? ceremonire fere omnes, praterquam quod Latinis cantionibus admiscentur alicubi Germanics, qua: additse sunt ad docendum populum.” Sylloge Con- fessionum, p. 138.
• “What the Article speaks of here is not ‘the sacrifice of the Mass,’ but the habit of trusting to the purchase of Masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy life, or repentance, and the grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus, while in health.” Pusey, Ei- renicon, i. pp. 25, 26.
• “There is only one Christ, one offering for sin, one purchase of man’s redemption.” Bp Forbes, On the Articles, p. 618.
• ” The Article was directed against the errors of those, who, by rejecting the doctrine of a sacrifice by way of commemoration and consecration, and not literally identical with that on the Cross, and by their crude and objec- tionable mode of expression counten- anced the vulgar error, that the sacri- fice of the Eucharist or Mass was in every respect equal to that of Christ on the Cross ; and that it was in fact either a reiteration or a continuation of that Sacrifice.” Palmer, Treatise on the Church, ii. p. 463.
• ” To the Jews of our Lord’s day the idea of a ’ ransom ’ was quite familiar, and the Law had regulated ransoms with much minuteness, whether for the redemption of a slave (Lev. xxv. 47 — 49), the life of the firstborn child (Num. xviii. 16), or the possession of an inheritance (Lev. xxv. 25 — 27). Ransoms were usually paid in money, but in a certain large class of cases the sacrifice of the life of one creature redeemed another from death (Exod. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20; Num. xviii. 15).” Dr Dale, The Atonement. p. 76.
• See the Collect for the Sunday next before Easter. ” The freedom of the Father’s gift of I lis blessed Son, and the freedom of the Son’s self- oblation, are insisted on in Holy Scripture.” Liddon, University Ser- mons, First Series, p. 243.
• ” Our Redeemer cannot be sub- stituted for man ; He is Man. One thing cannot be put in the stead of another unless it distinctly is another. But our Lord is not another. He has made Himself one with us. He has gathered us up into Himself.” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, p. 208, Ed. 1889.
• When He died for all, then, in the words of S. Paul, oi vavres airtdavov, all died in Him, 2 Cor. v. 15. “Though God is the Author of the Atonement, and without Him fallen humanity would have been unable to offer it, yet it was made by Man, acting in the true conditions of man’s nature.” Ibid. p. 209. “By offering Himself upon the Cross, He maintained, even through death, the fellowship of hu-
• It was the oblalio tmica, the offering of Christ once made, semel facta, ” for all the sins of the whole world, and there is none other satis- faction for sin but that alone,” neque pnetcr illam unicam est ulla alia. ” What ought to be more certain and known to all Christian people, than that Christ died once, and but once, for the redemption of the world?” Cran- mer, Answer to Gardiner, p. 366, sect. 393, Parker Soc.
• Thus Cranmer contrasts ” the many Masses everyday,” “the daily private Masses,” “the selling Masses,” with the one common Mass in a day. Defence of the Catholic Doctrine, v. 16. “These private Masses,” he writes again, “sprang of lucre and gain, when priests found the means to sell Masses to the people, which caused Masses so much to increase, that every day was said an infinite number, and that no priest would receive the Communion at another priest’s hand, but every one would receive it alone.” Cranmer, On the Lord’s Supper, p. 353, Parker Soc.
• “Art. XXXI. rejects the vulgar idea of the priest’s offering Christ at every celebration for the living and the dead, with a view to the remission of pain or guilt, and in his repeating the offering of Christ made once for all (as the first part of the Ankle de- clares) every time he offers Christ, and this as again procuring each time the grace of the one offering of Christ.” Prof. Friedrich in Jan. No. of The International Theological Review, p. II, 1895.
• Compare a Sermon of his preached on the Festival of S. Peter, 1548. “For when men add unto the Mass an opinion of satisfaction or of a new redemption, then do they put it to an- other use than it was ordained for.” See Foxe, Acts and Monuments, pp. 772, 773; Dixon, Hist.ofCh.of England,\. p. 264, Ed. 1S93. Gardinercould write strongly in 1 531 on the all-sufficiency of Christ ‘s sacrifice of Himself : “This is a- greed,“hesays, “and by the Scriptures plainly taught, that the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ was and
• Compare the language of the Homilies, ” 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, as the world was made to believe at diriges, at months’ minds, in trentalls, in abbeys and chantries.” Homily On Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches, p. 277, Cambridge 1850.