he can discover in support of the one are words which beyond all controversy refer exclusively to the other? But is the Church of England as silent as he appears to consider it on this important subject? Are we left to gather its great principles from that one passage in the Communion Service? Does it teach nothing on the subject of propitiatory sacrifice but in that one short sentence which has in fact no connexion with it? The whole of the Church of God depends on a completed propitiation, and we might well tremble for the Church of England if that one great central fact were altogether out of sight in its teaching. But, thanks be to God! it is not thus ignored, for this is just one of those points for which our Reformers were called to suffer, and respecting which they were most explicit. To begin with the Articles. The thirty-first consists of three parts. (1.) The perfect sufficiency of the great propitiation for sin. ‘The offering of Christ _once_ made’ (observe the _once_) ‘is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.’ (2.) The declaration that in consequence of that sufficiency there can be no further propitiation. ‘There is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.’ (3.) The condemnation of the pretended sacrifice of the mass. ‘Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of past guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.’ I am not ignorant that an attempt has been made to represent this Article as referring to the abuses which had gathered around the sacrifice of the mass, and not against the principle of sacrifice itself. As I should be extremely sorry to misrepresent the opinions of those who differ from me, I quote Dr. Pusey’s words as I find them in his _Eirenicon_, p. 25: ‘The very strength of the expressions used, of “the sacrifices of masses,” that they were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits, the use of the plural, and the clause “in which it was commonly said,” show that what the Article speaks of is not the sacrifice of the mass, but the habit (which, as one hears from time to time, still remains) 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.’ To what desperate shifts are persons driven who would endeavour to represent the Church of England as teaching the sacrifice of the mass! The Article declares the sufficiency and finality of the one sacrifice of our blessed Lord and Saviour, and because that one sacrifice is sufficient and final, it condemns in the strongest possible language the opinion current at the time, that in some form or other there was a repetition of sacrifice in the mass. But because the language is strong, because there is an allusion to the current opinion, and because the