Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26. 26-28).

The "all" refers to the company of disciples. "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my covenant blood."1 There is no word or act that indicates or implies that the cup was withheld from the laity.

The words of institution show a twofold consecration: "Jesus took bread, and blessed it"; "And he took the cup, and gave thanks”—a separate blessing or giving of thanks for each. The action of passing the elements to the disciples was twofold: of the bread, he "gave it to the disciples"; of the cup, he "gave it to them." The direction was twofold: "Take, eat; this is my body"; "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament."

The thought is carried forward into the Epistles of Saint Paul. His words clearly show that he intended that all alike, clergy and laity, should receive the sacrament in both kinds: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" (1 Cor. 11. 28).

A few instances are found in the New Testament where the "breaking of bread" is mentioned alone. It is not certain that these are allusions to the sacrament, and if they are may be easily explained, for by a figure common to Eastern nations bread stands for all that belongs to a meal.

Citations can be made from the early Church fathers that indicate the practice of the Church in the several centuries. The words of Justin Martyr are conclusive for the second century: "Those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread 1 Twentieth Century Testament.

and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”1

The words of Cyprian answer for the third century: "I have been admonished that, in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord must be observed, and that nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf, as that the cup which is offered in remembrance of him shall be offered mingled with wine.'

For the fourth century we have the testimony of Cyril of Jerusalem: "Then, after having partaken of the body of Christ, approach also to the cup of his blood. Be thou hallowed by partaking also of the blood of

Christ."3

It is unnecessary to make further quotations from the fathers, since the Church of Rome admits the early participation of the laity in both elements of the sacrament.

The antiquity of a custom cannot make that custom right, neither can the decrees of Councils or the edicts of Popes establish and make binding what is contrary to the Word of God. A privilege granted by Christ cannot be justly annulled by the Church. At the time of the Reformation the wine was restored to the laity by all Protestant Churches, but the Roman Church clung to its error. Further consideration of the matter was promised, and some things were referred to the Pope. Some exceptions have been made by special dispensations, but the great body of the Roman Church remains to this day bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent.

1 First Apology, chap. lxv.

Epistle lxii.

Cat. Myst., V, 22.

ARTICLE XX

OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST, FINISHED UPON THE CROSS

The offering of Christ, once made, is that 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 sacrifice of masses, in the which it is commonly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit.

I. THE ORIGIN

This Article, composed by the English Reformers, first appeared as the thirtieth of the Forty-two Articles of 1553. The subject treated is the same as in Article III, Part II, of the Augsburg Confession, but has no close verbal agreement with it. A few alterations were made in 1562, since which time it has remained unchanged. It was adopted entire by Wesley.

II. THE AIM

The purpose of the Article was, in setting forth the perfect character and completeness of Christ's sacrifice, to condemn and reject certain false conceptions and current theories of the eucharistic sacrifice.

The opinion prevailed in mediæval times that Christ by his sufferings and death satisfied the demand of justice for original sin, and the mass was instituted, in which might be made an oblation for daily sins both mortal and venial. The Article condemns this theory wholly,

carefully specifying the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for both "original" and "actual" guilt.

The doctrine of the mass was an outgrowth of the error of transubstantiation. Masses were sold and became a source of trade and of ill-gotten gain to the Church. "A small piece of money became their price," says Bishop Burnet; "so that a profane sort of simony was set up, and the holiest of all the institutions of the Christian religion was exposed for sale. Therefore we in cutting off all this, and in bringing the sacrament to be, according to its first institution, a communion, have followed the words of our Saviour, and the constant practice of the whole Church for the first ten centuries."1

III. THE EXPOSITION

The offering of Christ, once made, is that 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.

Herein is a clear statement of the doctrine of the atonement. The phraseology is similar to that used in the Prayer of Consecration in the communion service: "Who made there, by his oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."

This is based upon the Scriptures: "They truly were priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood, . . . who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7. 2327). The apostle having observed that the Jewish high

1 On the Articles.

[ocr errors]

priest entered into "the Holiest of all" "once every year, not without blood" (Heb. 9. 3, 7), adds that Christ, "neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (verse 12). And again, "Christ is not entered into the holy places, that he should offer himself often, . . . but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" (verses 24-28).

The apostle has made the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ once offered very emphatic. Christ is not offered once every year, not daily, not often, but once for all, and he by offering himself obtained eternal salvation for us.

The sacrifices offered under the Mosaic law were imperfect, and their repetition was demanded, but could "never take away sins"; but Christ, "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God. . . . For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10. 11-14). Christ has obtained by his own atoning blood remission for our sins, and "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin" (verse 18); therefore we may "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith" (verse 22). There is no defect in the sacrifice, the atonement is perfect; if there is no defect in our faith there will be none in our salvation.

In the primitive Church the Eucharist was a commemorative, but not a propitiatory, sacrifice. The early Christians were reproached by the heathen because their religion had no altars or sacrifices, and they never de

« ПредишнаНапред »