FRQM-THE- LIBRARY-OF
TWNITYCOLLEGETORDNTO
V.
THE EUCHAR1ST1C SACRIFICE
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE
AN HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
OF THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPTION OF THE HOLY
EUCHARIST IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY THE
REV. ALFRED G. MORTIMER, D.D.
Rector of St. Mark's, Philadelphia
Author of " Helps to Meditation," " Catholic Faith and
Practice," etc.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY THE
REV. T. T. CARTER
Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford,
and Warden of the House of Mercy, Clewer
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1901
SA5
COPYRIGHT, 1901, BY
ALFRED G. MORTIMER
All Rights Reserved
Ube fmfcfcerbocfccr ipre0«, Hew
1
TO THE REV. T. T. CARTER,
HON. CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD,
AND WARDEN OF THE HOUSE OF MERCY, CLEWER,
FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SUPERIOR-GENERAL OF THE
CONFRATERNITY OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, AND FOR
MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY A REVERED TEACHER
OF EUCHARISTIC TRUTH IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
WITH DEEPEST RESPECT AND WARMEST AFFECTION,
I DEDICATE THIS BOOK.
INTRODUCTION.
THE following pages contain the first complete
treatment in English of the important doctrine
which they unfold and illustrate.
There have been many portions of the subject dwelt
on already, full of interest, but this volume gives a full
digest of the matter in its many details, so as to com
prehend the whole under one view.
The author is well known from his former works,
having devoted his active services to our brethren in
America, himself an English priest with a wide experi
ence, and ever giving himself enthusiastically to the
work to which he has been called, and which he has
embraced with constant energy.
This book comprises the entire subject of the Euchar-
istic Sacrifice, which the author has undertaken to un
fold from the beginning of Christianity, setting forth
at length the many expressions of the Fathers, con
tinuing the investigation down to the teachings of the
present day, and giving a digest of the various modes
in which this doctrine has been treated. The author
especially points out the dangers of a subtle form of
Socinianism which in its theory of the Atonement is
inconsistent with the teaching of the Prayer Book, that
upon the Cross our L,ORD made " (by His oblation of
Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient Sac-
V i i i IN TROD UC TION.
rifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world."
It is this comprehensiveness, this carrying on from
age to age the faith once delivered to the Saints, which
constitutes our position in the Catholic Church.
We accept what can be proved to be true in the dif
ferent ages, as the Church has advanced, but yet
keep to the Apostolic teaching and to the unfolding
of our LORD'S words under the guidance of the HOLY
GHOST.
I trust that this book may be prospered, and may be
helpful to the many who desire to live in the knowledge
and practice of the truth, as it has been set forth by
those who have given their minds and hearts to be an
ever-growing witness, and by whose guidance, under
our LORD'S overruling, we have been taught in all
charity to contend earnestly for the faith of the Gospel,
placing our whole trust only in the saving Blood which
was shed once for all on the Cross of Calvary.
T. T. C.
, September, 1900.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
THE purpose of this work is not so much to set
forth or to prove any special theory in regard to
the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, as
to gather from various sources, not easily accessible to
the ordinary reader, materials from which such theories
must be constructed, and by which their authority can
be tested.
The Church everywhere and always has taught that
the Eucharist is a true and proper Sacrifice in which
the lyORD's Death is shown forth, but the fact that she
never made any attempt to formulate a doctrine of the
mode of the Eucharistic Sacrifice until the sixteenth
century, should lead, in the theological controversies
of our own day, to diffidence in either asserting or re
jecting any special view of this much-debated question.
That the Eucharist is a Sacrifice is indisputable
among those who recognize the consensus of teaching
in the Church to be the final authority. In what man
ner it is a Sacrifice has never been authoritatively de
cided by the Church, and is therefore at most, while a
matter of deepest interest, only a matter of theological
opinion.
The object of this work is therefore eirenical in so far
as it would unite all schools in recognizing these two
facts. It is controversial only in pointing out the
ix
X PREFACE.
dangerous tendency of one particular view prevalent in
a more or less developed form in our own day, which
(though unintentionally) is in conflict with the doctrine
of the Atonement as set forth in Holy Scripture, recog
nized by the Catholic Church, and distinctly taught in
the formularies of the Knglish Prayer Book.
It has been an unfortunate though unavoidable result
of the circumstances of the Catholic revival in England,
that not a few matters both of faith and practice have
been taught as resting upon the authority of antiquity,
which more careful investigation has shown to be
traceable only to comparatively modern authorities.
The tendency to be definite, often at the risk of accu
racy, has led many to put forth opinions and statements
which they have been compelled afterwards to modify
or withdraw.
There are few questions of more interest to-day in
theology than those which are connected with the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist. In the first place, the Papal
Bull of 1897 makes the question of the Kucharistic
Sacrifice the ground for the condemnation of our
Orders. In our controversy with Rome, therefore, it is
of the utmost importance that we should be able to
state clearly what we mean by the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist; and that we should also be able to point out
precisely where the Roman contention on this subject
not only lacks the weight of antiquity, but in some re
spects is contradicted by testimony which Romanists,
like ourselves, recognize as authoritative.
In other words, in the Roman controversy we need an
accurate knowledge of the history of the sacrificial con
ception of the Eucharist in the Church in order to meet
the arguments which are brought against our Orders
on the ground that in our liturgy and ordinal the
PREFACE. XI
sacrificial character of the Eucharist (and therefore of
the priesthood) is not sufficiently recognized.
Secondly, our controversy with Protestantism, both
within and without the Church, turns largely on the
erroneous supposition that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is
such an addition to, or a substitute for, the one Sacri
fice of the Cross, as to take away from the full, perfect,
and sufficient character of that Sacrifice.
Nothing can therefore be more important in meeting
these questions than to show that the Catholic doctrine
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice does not in any way detract
from the sufficiency of our LORD'S Sacrifice upon
Calvary, and that in many points the assumptions of
modern Roman controversialists are not even supported
by the earlier teachings of the great theologians of their
own Church.
In 1896 Part I. of Catholic Faith and Practice ap
peared. While the reviews of it were generally very
favourable, one prominent Church paper took exception
to the following statement : " The passive pleading of
the Sacrifice in heaven is our LORD'S Mediatorial work,
His great Intercession. Some theologians, especially
those of modern times, connect the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist with this, but we must remember that this
is not what is meant by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist,
for the Sacrifice of the Eucharist on earth is an act,
while the Oblation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST in heaven
is a state, as is shown by the words in which S. John
describes it." *
In connection with this, several of the clergy wrote
asking me to recommend some modern English theo
logical works on this subject, especially such as not
only stated theories, but gave references to Fathers and
* Catholic Faith and Practice, Part I., p. 243.
xii PREFACE,
theologians in support of them. As I myself knew of
only one such English work, The One Offering, by Pre
bendary Sadler, and as I considered this not only very
inadequate but on some points very misleading,* I
wrote to several well-known professors of theology
asking them to give me the names of some books in
which this question was more fully treated. Their re
plies showed that, with the exception of a pamphlet
by the Rev. F. A. Brightman, The Eucharistic Sac
rifice, nothing on this subject had been written in
English during the past forty years.
Previous to this period there were two admirable
treatises, Dr. Pusey's tract on the Eucharistic Sacrifice,
No. 8 1 of the Tracts for the Times, published in 1838,
and the Bishop of Brechin's Theological Defence, pub
lished in 1860. While both these are of great value,
they do not deal with questions in regard to the char
acter of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which have arisen
since that time, and therefore do not meet the need to
which I have referred.
In deference to the request of several friends whose
opinion I valued highly, I began the preparation of a
pamphlet in which I proposed to deal with the present
aspect of this question. During the past three years,
however, the pamphlet has grown into a book con
siderably larger than the volume of Catholic Faith and
Practice, to which it was intended to be an Appendix.
Being anxious to overlook no evidence which was
favourable to the view maintained by certain modern
scholars that the Eucharist receives its sacrificial char
acter, not from the Sacrifice of the Cross but from an
active sacrifice which our LORD is said to be now
* A brief discussion of Prebendary Sadler's book will be
found in Appendix F, p. 546.
PREFACE. xill
offering in heaven, I wrote to six prominent advocates
of this view (four of them doctors of divinity and pro
fessors of theology in different universities and col
leges) to ask three questions: (i) Whether they knew
of any works in defence of this view ; (2) whether they
could cite any definite passages from the Fathers in
support of it, other than those found in Thomassinus
(which are not ad rem); (3) what they considered to
be the sacrificial act in our LORD'S Mediatorial work,
so as to constitute it a sacrifice.
To the first question the answer was that they knew
of no other works in English than Sadler's The One
Offering and Mr. Brightman's pamphlet, The Euchar-
istic Sacrifice.
To the second four replied that they could refer to
no definite passages in the Fathers, though one thought
that the germ of the theory was to be found in them,
and another sent two passages, neither of which can be
said definitely to support this view.*
Their answers to the third question differed, the
majority adducing the wounds in our LORD'S glorified
Body f as the sacrificial act ; others holding that while
there was no external sacrificial action, the interior
offering of our LORD'S Will was sufficient to constitute
a true and proper sacrifice in heaven.
I also wrote to several well-known theologians in Ger
many and France who have devoted themselves especi
ally to the study of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, and whose
works are recognized authorities on this subject to-day.
From all I received most courteous and interesting
replies.
* These passages are considered 011 pp. 230, 247, and 259.
f That these wounds are not an act but a state, is shown
on p. 143.
XIV PREFACE.
I asked permission to publish several of these letters
in an Appendix, and the Bishop of Durham, Mr.
Brightman, Dr. Lepin, and Dr. Paul Schanz kindly
gave their consent. The advocates, however, of the
Modern view in England to whom I wrote, with the
exception of Mr. Brightman, were not willing that their
letters should be made public.
As I am desirous that the reader should clearly
understand the standpoint from which this book is
written and my purpose in writing it, I would here
repeat very distinctly that it is not my aim to formulate
or to defend any particular theory of the mode of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice ; that I am perfectly willing
within certain limits to leave this an open question, as
I believe it always has been.
The task therefore which I have set before me is to
call attention to the various views of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice which are held in the present day, but espe
cially to gather together material from various sources
not easily accessible to those who have not a large
library within reach, from which material each may
be able to form an opinion for himself on the three
following points :
(1) What theories of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must
be carefully avoided as conflicting with dogmas which
are essential parts of the Catholic Faith.
(2) What theories claiming the authority of theologi
ans of weight in our own day, though lacking antiquity,
may be held as not inconsistent with Catholic truth.
(3) What doctrines must be affirmed as necessary to
the Catholic Faith, comprised therein, and clearly set
forth in the formularies of the Church of England.
I would earnestly disclaim any desire to encourage
acrimonious controversy on this subject in our Church.
PREFACE. XV
I believe, however, that nothing can more tend to
diminish such controversy and help towards a unity of
opinion in this matter than to demonstrate historically
how slender is the authority for any precise theory of
the mode of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, and yet how over
whelming is the testimony to the fact that the Eu
charist is a Sacrifice.
I have felt it my duty, however, to combat one theory
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is not only unsup
ported by Patristic testimony, but is inconsistent with it,
and which contradicts express statements of our Prayer
Book, and indeed of all Catholic theology. This
theory, which is really an insidious attack on the doc
trine of the Atonement, is essentially based on the
Socinian interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
It claims the support of the great body of Anglican
divines and Tractarians, but this claim is not only un
supported, but is positively refuted by their writings.
In order to make the evidence for the Eucharistic
Sacrifice as direct and as simple as possible, I have
omitted the treatment of many interesting questions
(as, for instance, the purpose of sacrifice) ; and other
matters I have relegated to Appendices.
I am conscious of having repeated, sometimes more
than once, arguments which had already been used in
previous chapters. I have done this in order to make
each chapter, as far as possible, complete in itself.
Certain phrases, too, will be found to recur quite often,
the result of an attempt to state views (which I was
combating) in the actual words of their exponents.
Any one of the chapters might have been greatly en
larged, but I do not believe the weight of the argument
would have been changed, nor am I conscious of having
omitted any important evidence on either side.
XVI PREFACE.
In quoting from Holy Scripture I have followed
Bishop Westcott's translations of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. In other books I have used the Authorized
Version, or, where that was faulty, I have given what
seemed to me the best translation.
I can scarcely dare to hope that all the references in
the foot-notes will be found to be accurate. In the great
majority of cases I have verified the passage myself be
fore quoting it. From a few works to which I was
unable to obtain access, I have been obliged to quote
at second hand. These have been chiefly the works of
writers from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries,
and therefore not contained in Migne's Patrologia. I
fear, however, that typographical errors may have
crept in, as most of my proof-reading of the book was
done at a great distance from home, where I had no op
portunity of verifying a second time these quotations.
I shall be very grateful to those who will call my
attention to any errors they discover.
For the assistance of the reader I have almost always,
where a writer is mentioned for the first time, given
the date of his death ; in a few cases, where it is omitted,
I have been unable to ascertain this date.
The relation of the Kucharistic Sacrifice to our
LORD'S one Oblation of Himself upon the Cross and to
His Mediatorial work in heaven, as revealed to us
especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews, imparts to the
study of this subject a fascination which I venture to
hope may lead many to investigate more deeply for
themselves these great doctrines of our Faith.
Dr. Lepin, in a private letter referring to his book,
L? Idee du Sacrifice dans la Religion Chretienne, expresses
this feeling when he speaks of it as ' ' la moitie de mon
ame" Bishop Westcott says : " No work in which I
PREFA CE. XV11
have ever been allowed to spend many years of contin
uous labour, has had for me the same intense human in
terest as the study of the Epistle to the Hebrews; " and
Dr. Vacant finishes his essay, Histoire de la Conception du
Sacrifice de la Messe, with these words : ''II ressort,
pensons-nous, de cette e*tude, que DIEU nous a fait
dans le sacrifice eucharistique un don d'une richesse
incomparable, et qu' apres dix-neuf siecles, la theologie
n'a pas encore fini d'approfondir ce que JESUS-CHRIST
nous en a revele en quelques paroles."
I trust that many of my readers, like these great
theologians, may so feel the attraction of this sublime
subject, that they may be led to pursue it not only as a
matter of theological controversy, but of deep spiritual
interest.
There remains to me the pleasant task of expressing
my great obligations to many friends who have espe
cially helped me in my work.
First to the Rev. Canon Carter of Clewer, who has
shown his kindly interest in it by writing the Intro
duction. It is difficult to find words in which ade
quately to express my sense of obligation to him. As
the last of those great teachers of the English Church
who carry us back to the stirring times of the Tracta-
rian movement, as connected with the Confraternity
of the Blessed Sacrament from its beginning, and for
twenty-five years its Superior General ; as the author
of Spiritual Instructions on the Holy Eucharist, as the
editor of the Treasury of Devotion, and therefore in so
many ways associated with the revival in the Church
of England of Eucharistic truth and worship, — there is
no name which I could more wish to have associated
with my book, and certainly none which should carry
more weight than that of Canon Carter. My obliga-
XV111 PREFACE.
tion to him for this kind office has been increased by
the generous expressions of sympathy and encourage
ment with which it has been accompanied.
To the Bishop of Durham I am not only indebted for
two kindly and helpful letters in regard to the subject
of this book, and for permission to print them in the
Appendix, but for the main argument of that part of
the work which treats of the testimony of Holy Script
ure. This I have drawn chiefly from his masterly
commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews.
To the Rev. F. E. Brightman, for his kindness
in answering certain questions in regard to views set
forth in his pamphlet, The Eucharistic Sacrifice, and for
giving me permission to print his letter. I would take
this opportunity of expressing my regret that I have
had to differ so widely from him. If I have severely
criticised his theory, it has been because I honestly be
lieve it to endanger faith in the doctrine of the Atone
ment. I trust, however, that I have not in any way
overpassed what may be permitted in controversy be
tween such good friends as we are.
To M. 1'Abbe Lepin, S.T.D., priest of S. Sulpice
and Director of the Grand Seminary of S. Irenseus at
Lyons, I am greatly indebted not only for courteous
replies to several letters, and the warm personal interest
manifested in my work, but for three letters of consider
able length in which his own view of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice is most clearly and beautifully stated, and his
dissent from Mr. Brightman's view unmistakably ex
pressed. These letters are given in Appendix G, and
are worthy of the most careful study.
My thanks are also due to the Rev. C. W. E. Body,
D.D., D.C.L., Professor of Old Testament Liter
ature and Interpretation in the General Theological
PREFACE. xix
Seminary, New York, for reading some parts of my
manuscript, and for valuable suggestions in regard to
Hebrew sacrificial terms.
To the Rev. J. R. Oliver, one of my fellow-clergy at
St. Mark's, I am indebted for assistance in looking up
references and for translations from the German of Dr.
Thalhofer and Dr. Schanz, and for the translation from
Socinus in Appendix B.
To Mr. W. H. McClellan for much help in preparing
the work for press, as well as in verifying references.
And last but not least, to the Rev. Shirley C.
Hughson, for the laborious task of reading and correct
ing the proof-sheets of the whole book.
May the HOLY GHOST, Who searcheth all things,
even the deep things of GOD, enlighten our minds and
enable us more fully to comprehend the Sacred Mys
teries of our LORD'S Body and Blood, that we may
offer the Divine Sacrifice with greater devotion, feed on
Him more worthily, and with deeper love adore Him
present beneath the Sacramental veils. So will our
Eucharists on earth prepare us to take our place in
eternity in the worship of heaven.
A. G. M.
S. MARK'S CLERGY HOUSE,
PHILADELPHIA,
Christmas, 1900.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
SOME DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR
TIMES.
PA(
Introductory : Human thought tends to exaggerated re
action. — Examples : the age of the Councils, and the
Renaissance, or Reformation .....
I. THIS TENDENCY SEEN IN THEOLOGY IN CENTURY XVI. J
in polity, morals, worship, and dogma. — The revulsion
greatest in priesthood and related questions. — On both
sides a distortion of truth revealed by comparison with
fundamental truths. — The importance of the " reductio
ad absurdum " method in theology. — The likeness of
century XVI. to our own age. — We should therefore
avoid the mistakes of the Reformation period
II. REMEDY FOR EXAGGERATION NOT COMPROMISE, BUT
THE "VIA MEDIA" OF ARISTOTLE. — The Catholic
Faith not a series of isolated propositions, but a body
of perfectly harmonious truth. — At the Reformation
the Atonement isolated from the Incarnation. — Now
the opposite tendency : the Atonement obscured, and
humanitarian distortions of the Incarnation intro
duced. — In this work theories must be tested by other
doctrines. — The violation of this principle illustrated
from Dr. Milligan's lectures on " The Ascension and
Heavenly Priesthood of our LORD." — Two charac
teristics observed in his work :
xxii CONTENTS.
1. The neglect of the writings of the Fathers and
theologians of the Church, and the weight
given to modern schismatics .... 5
2. His treatment of the Sacrifice of the Cross as a
question still open for discussion. — Dr. Mil-
ligan denies that our LORD'S Priesthood had
any connection with earth, and rejects various
theories offered by schismatical writers to
bring the Death of the Cross within the scope
of His priestly work, and so to recognize it as
a Sacrifice. — He considers that the universal
conviction of the Christian Church is ' ' not
without force." — He proposes a theory of his
own, based on the interpretation of one pas
sage of Scripture. — He considers that the ob
jection that it rests on one passage only has
no weight, but that its inconsistency with S.
Paul's language has a certain force. — Ex
amples of this. — A theologian is discredited :
(i) Who little values Catholic consent ; (2)
rests the Sacrifice of the Cross on one passage
of Scripture ; (3) and ignores the consensus
of the Fathers 6
III. TWO PRINCIPLES RECOGNIZED BY ANGLICANS : . . IO
1. The appeal to antiquity ; i. e., to the writings of
the Fathers as a whole, not merely to doubt
ful passages. — This test applied to the modern
theory of our LORD'S Sacrifice in heaven . 10
2. The Church herself the interpreter of all truth.
— The place therefore to be given to the
writings of schismatics. — The modern view of
the Kenosis started from Beron through
Lutheran sources. — The modern interpreta
tion of Hebrews comes from Socinus, and has
been spread in England through Dr. Milligan. n
IV. TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE US TO-DAY, PRIESTHOOD AND
SACRIFICE. — The questions which the Reformation
and the Oxford Movement took up were first Apos
tolical Succession, then the Doctrine of the Eucharist.
CONTENTS. XX111
Little critical work done in regard to the nature of
priesthood or sacrifice. — Renewed interest stimulated
by the Papal Bull of 1896, and more scientific investi
gation, which may yet afford a better basis for the
union of Christendom than Papal recognition. — The
investigation of these questions must be made in many
fields. — Many learned Roman Catholic treatises inval
idated by faulty premises. — An illustration of this in
the controversy as to the " form " in Holy Order . 13
V. THE QUESTION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE DEBATED
WITH GREAT DILIGENCE AND LIBERALITY IN GER
MANY. — Three German schools : .... 14
1. The extreme school of Thalhofer, started in
1870. — Its learning and literary industry. —
But little known in England . . . . 15
2. On the opposite side the works of Stentrup . 15
3. Between these the treatises of Scheeben and
Schanz, and, in France, of Lepin, and Vacant.
— In England Dr. Moberly's " Ministerial
Priesthood " supplies an example of con
structive treatment of priesthood, but we have
practically nothing on the Eucharistic Sacri
fice. — The only book on this subject Sadler's
" One Offering." — Mr. Kidd's work confined
to mediaeval doctrine. — The subject is touched
upon in various works on the Articles, and
treated more fully in a paper by Mr. Bright-
man. — These authors do not meet the diffi
culties involved in their theory, nor give any
substantial proofs of it. — The laborious work
done by the modern school in Germany. —
Bishop Westcott's great work on Hebrews en
tirely against the modern view 16
VI. THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORK CHIEFLY TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE. — Four difficulties
in treating the subject . . . . . . 21
1. The equivocal use of the term " sacrifice" . 22
2. No adequate attempt to determine the nature
of sacrifice till century XVI. ... 22
XXIV CONTENTS.
PAGE
3. Entire absence of modern works on the subject
in the English Church 23
4. The many departments of theology on which
the subject trenches " 23
CHAPTER II.
SACRIFICE.
Introductory : Its origin and meaning. — Religion distin
guishes man from other creatures. — Sacrifice the uni
versal characteristic of religion. — Its primaeval origin. —
Sacrifice not necessarily of Divine institution. — Its
meaning primarily the expression of Love. — Mediaeval
theology saw in Sacrifice a sense of sin, and a desire for
reconciliation with GOD. — This view true, but not the
primary conception. — Love itself is essentially self-
sacrificing ......... 24
I. THE PURPOSE OF SACRIFICE. — Sacrifice expresses man's
true relation to GOD and dependence on Him. — This
results first in inward acts or feelings, then finds ex
pression in outward acts of worship, since man consists
both of soul and body. — External worship not needed
to reveal man's heart to GOD, but to enable man to
fulfil his duty, and to confess GOD before his fellow-
men. — Socially, as well as individually, man must wor
ship God ......... 26
II. — THE CHIEF ACT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP IS SACRIFICE. —
Sacrifice is the union of two things. — Its' true side is
inward. — But this must be expressed by outward action.
— The union of outward and inward essential to a true
and proper Sacrifice ....... 28
1. The genus to which Sacrifice belongs is that of
" a sacred sign." — S. Augustine's definition.
— His treatment of the rationale of external
sacrifice. — S. Augustine, " De Civ. Dei,"
1. x., c. 5. — S. Thomas' treatment of Sacrifice,
2a 2ae, q. 85, a. i and 2 .... 29
2. Sacrifice derives its essential character from its
CONTENTS. XXV
institution. — This institution to be authorita
tive must be public. — In revealed religion this
authority is GOD alone .... 32
3. The external form demands some appropriate
sacrificial action ...... 33
III. SCHANZ'S PROPOSITIONS IN REGARD TO SACRIFICE. — A
twofold idea underlies Sacrifice : an outward expres
sion of religion, and a type of the future. — Offering is
the fundamental notion of Sacrifice. — Through accept
ance of Sacrifice, GOD admits to communion with
Him. — Its essential character not destruction, but con
secration. — The killing only preparatory to the Sacri
fice. — Greek, Latin, and Hebrew terms show that
destruction is not the essential idea. — With the Hebrews
the two sacrificial acts, effusion of blood and cremation.
— Philo's explanation of the effusion. — In burning in
cense and oil the object is the sweet odour, not the de
struction. — The meal a symbol of communion. — S.
Irenaeus. — Schanz's definition of Sacrifice ... 33
IV. VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF SACRIFICE .... 37
1. S. Augustine's famous definition. — Of a true
Sacrifice, not of Sacrifice in general. — The
union of two parts in Sacrifice. — " Verum ac
proprium sacrificium." — Use of " true " illus
trated from S. John xv. I. — S. Augustine's
definition of Sacrifice in general. — The sacri
ficial act illustrated from martyrdom . . 37
2. Definition of Alexander of Hales ... 41
3. Of S. Thomas 41
4. Of S. Isidore of Seville 42
5. Of Vasquez ....... 42
6. Of Biel and de Castro.— Vasquez's final definition. 43
7. Suarez's definition ...... 44
8. Scheeben's definition ..... 45
V. RECAPITULATION OF THE ELEMENTS IN SACRIFICE . . 45
1. Two parts, an outward and an inward . . 45
2. The sacrificial action, on which the Sacrifice
depends ....... 46
3. This must be performed by a priest ... 46
xxvi CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.
PAGE
Introductory : THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS THE ONLY
ABSOLUTE SACRIFICE.— All others are relative in that
they gain their efficacy from it. — Investigate how the
Sacrifice of the Cross fulfils the general definition of
Sacrifice. — Not necessary here to examine any of the
theories of the Atonement ...... 47
I. HOLY SCRIPTURE DESCRIBES OUR LORD'S DEATH AS A
SACRIFICE BY APPLYING TO IT SACRIFICIAL TERMS. —
In Isa. liii. the word " niggas " in v. 7 is a sacrificial
term, and the word "asham " in v. 10. — The " obla
tion and sacrifice " of 2 Cor. v. 21 and Eph. v. 2 are
also sacrificial. — So I Cor. v. 7; Rom. iii. 25; I S. John
ii. i, 2, and I S. John iv. 10 ..... 47
II. FIVE ACTIONS IN THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS, CORRE
SPONDING WITH THOSE OF THE JEWISH LAW . . 49
1. The dedication of the victim .... 49
2. The identification of the victim with the offerer.
— Our LORD not a mere substitute for man,
but the Representative of man ... 49
3. The interior act : the offering in will of a life
of perfect obedience ..... 50
4. The shedding and presentation of the blood. —
The significance of the victim's death, and of
the sprinkling of the blood in the Levitical
Law. — On the Cross both the slaying of the
Victim and the sprinkling of the Blood find
place. — The significance of the rending of the
veil of the Temple ..... 50
5. The cremation of the victim. — The significance
of fire. — This is fulfilled on the Cross in two
ways : i. As the great act of love by which
the world was redeemed ; ii. As offered
"through the Eternal Spirit," the action of
His Godhead in the Sacrifice. — Socinus' view
of this passage. — Thus every rite of the Old
Testament is fulfilled upon the Cross . . 53
CONTENTS. XXV11
III. OUR LORD WAS PRIEST AND VICTIM IN His HUMAN
NATURE ALONE. — In His Divine Nature He receives
the Sacrifice offered. — " Communicatio idiomatum." —
Our LORD is actively the Priest, passively the Victim. 54
IV. A DIFFICULTY REMAINS : In what precisely did our
LORD'S sacrificial action consist ? — Socinus claims that
our Lord's Death was a martyrdom, not a Sacrifice. —
The argument of Socinus drawn almost exclusively from
Hebrews. — The system of Socinus. — Its kernel his
view of our LORD'S Priesthood. — This Socinus
limited to heaven. — Socinus treats of the relation of
the Cross to the Jewish sacrifices and to the Me
diatorial work in heaven. — He denies that all the
Jewish sacrifices typify the Death of CHRIST, but
confines this chiefly to that on the Day of Atonement.
— He asserts that in Hebrews CHRIST'S Obla
tion refers only to His work in heaven. — He argues
from the Day of Atonement that the Death of
CHRIST was not a Sacrifice. — He also denies that
any " satisfaction" was made by our LORD. — Alford
and Bengel go beyond Socinus in teaching that our
LORD'S Blood was presented by Him, separated from
His Body, after the Ascension: Heb. xii. 24. — The issue
raised by Socinus practically the basis of the Modern
view of our LORD'S Sacrifice. — If the essentially sacri
ficial act took place in heaven, our LORD'S Offering
upon the Cross was not a Sacrifice and the statement
in the English Prayer of Consecration is untrue . . 56
V. IF THE SOCINIAN POSITION BE ASSUMED, HOW ARE WE TO
EXPLAIN : 59
1. The words, " It is finished" .... 60
2. Our LORD'S work in Hades .... 60
3. Our LORD'S gift of peace on Easter Day . 60
4. Our LORD'S gift of absolution on Easter Day. 61
5. Our LORD'S claim, " All power is given unto
Me in heaven and in earth"? 61
VI. EXAMINATION OF THE SOCINIAN THEORY THAT ON
THE CROSS OUR LORD WAS NEITHER PRIEST NOR
SACRIFICE . 61
xxvill CONTENTS.
PAGE
1. When did our LORD'S Priesthood begin?—
From Heb. x. 4-9, theologians unanimously
answer, At the Incarnation. — The Unction of
the HOLY GHOST at His Baptism con
sidered. — Summary of the argument from
Heb. x. 4-9 61
2. Was our LORD'S Death a Sacrifice or a martyr
dom ? — The elements of a true and proper
sacrifice found in the Cross. — The difference
between martyrdom and sacrifice examined.
i. The martyrs were neither priests, ii. nor
victims, iii. nor as sinners could they offer
sacrifice ....... 64
VII. THE LAST OBJECTION, THAT OUR LORD WAS SLAIN BY
HIS PERSECUTORS, BUT NOT AS A SACRIFICE. — The
proper sacrificial action indicated in S. John x. 17, 18.
— The agents of our LORD'S Death did not act
against His will. — A sacrificial action may be per
formed by a layman under the priest's direction, e. g.,
the Roman sacrifices, and those of the Jews. — Our
LORD, therefore, on the Cross adequately fulfilled the
law of Sacrifice. — The Socinian theory in regard to
our LORD'S heavenly Priesthood the foundation of
the Modern view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice . . 66
VIII. THAT MAN'S REDEMPTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON
THE CROSS IS SHOWN BY MANY REFERENCES TO IT IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT. — The point at issue restated. —
Passages in the New Testament which refer man's re
demption to the Cross : S. John iii. 14, 15 ; i Thess.
v. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; S. Matt. xx.
28 ; Rom. viii. 32 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Eph. v. 25 ; Titus ii.
13, 14 ; i S. Pet. iii. 16 ; S. John x. II, 15, 18 ; S.
John xv. 13 ; Rom. v. 6, 8 ; I S. Pet. ii. 24; Rom. v.
10 ; Eph. ii. 16 ; Col. i. 21, 22 ; Phil. ii. 8, 9 ; Heb.
ii. 14, 15 ; Heb. xiii. 12. — For the Socinian view no
passage can be quoted. — Conclusion. — The Catholic
Church teaches that upon the Cross our LORD offered
His perfect Sacrifice 68
CONTENTS. XXIX
CHAPTER IV.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
PAGE
Introductory : We are now able to examine the Eucharistic
Sacrifice. — The best method is to give the three pre
valent views, in the words of representative writers, and
to notice the accretions attaching to each. — Then to
consider the support for each in Scripture, the liturgies,
history, the Fathers, theologians, Anglican divines, and
Tractarians ........ 73
I. THE CATHOLIC VIEW IN THE WORDS OF BOSSUET . 74
1. He teaches that : the essence of the Sacrifice is
in the Consecration ; CHRIST both conse
crates and offers ; priests are only His minis
ters ; the Sacrifice is a consequence of the
Real Presence ; in it is renewed the Death
upon the Cross ; and this makes GOD pro
pitious to us ; this Sacrifice does not take
away from the sufficiency of that upon the
Cross ; in the Holy Eucharist we apply the
merits of the Cross ; there is no destruction
of the Victim ; the Holy Eucharist, while a
proper Sacrifice, depends entirely upon the
Sacrifice of the Cross. — The salient features
of this view ....... 74
2. Summary : i. The essence of the Sacrifice con
sists in the Consecration ; ii. The Sacrifice is
related directly and essentially to the Sacrifice
of the Cross ; iii. The destruction of the Vic
tim only mystical ...... 77
3. A large school makes destruction an essential
element, relying on S. Thomas as interpreted
by Vasquez. — It finds its fullest expression in
De Lugo. — There has always been a school
which rejected this view. — In our day De
Lugo's view represented by Franzelin. — The
opposite opinion gaining ground : its ex
ponents Scheeben, Schanz, Lepin, Tyrrell. —
Destruction not a necessary element of the
Catholic view ...... 77
XXX CONTENTS.
II. THE PROTESTANT VIEW ; taught by Luther, held by most
Protestant bodies 79
1. Well set forth by Burnet 79
2. Summary : i. This view agrees with the Catho
lic in recognizing the Cross as the only absol
ute Sacrifice ; ii. a reaction from exaggerated
claims for the Mass ..... 80
3. Modifications of the Protestant view : i. Mede's
theory of a material offering of bread and
wine ; ii. Spiritual sacrifices of prayer, etc.
— Dr. Hickes' view. — Waterland's view . 81
III. THE MODERN VIEW. — The name discussed. — The term
" Anglican View " misleading ..... 82
I. Mr. Brightman's paper its exponent. — Mr.
Brightman's exposition. — The Eucharistic
Sacrifice reproduces, not the moment of the
Cross, but our LORD'S action in heaven. —
The Cross only the initial act of the Sacrifice.
— The other acts are fulfilled perpetually in
heaven. — The assumption that the Holy Eu
charist is pre-eminently the memorial of
CHRIST'S Death, in its most exaggerated
form, found in popular teaching. — In a less
exaggerated form, in our own liturgy. — A de
nial that this exclusive reference of the Holy
Eucharist to the Cross is found in the New
Testament or the early Church. — " Do this in
remembrance of Me " suggests no special
reference to our LORD'S Death, but to Him
self. — In the Institution nothing to suggest a
relation to our LORD'S Death.— The mark
of death only in the separate Consecration of
the chalice. — The witness of the Holy Eu
charist is not " I died," but " I am He that
liveth."— The Holy Eucharist related to the
Cross only through the eternal action of
CHRIST in heaven.— The Holy Eucharist is
an absolute Sacrifice. — And the Atonement
ought to be interpreted by it, not it by the
CONTENTS. XXXI
Atonement. — This view is most radical, but it
is a clear-cut, definite system. ... 83
2. Summary : It differs from the Catholic view :
i. In that it relates the Holy Eucharist not to
the Cross but to what our LORD is now
doing in heaven. — Its claim that only the
initial act of Sacrifice was performed .on Cal
vary ; that the essential act by which man
was redeemed took place in heaven. — This
view is precisely that which originated with So-
cinus. ii. It regards the Holy Eucharist as
an " absolute " Sacrifice. — The sense in which
some Romans have considered it an "ab
solute " Sacrifice. — Scheeben's view that rela
tivity is the specific " form " of this Sacrifice.
— Mr. Brightman would interpret the Atone
ment by the Holy Eucharist, iii. In the In
stitution he sees no special reference to our
LORD'S Death.— In spite of S. Paul's words,
i Cor. xi. 25, 26 88
3. These views are, however, repudiated by many
of the Tractarian school: e. g., Bp. Forbes,
" Articles ; " Rev. B. J. Kidd, " Articles ; "
Rev. E. C. S. Gibson, "Articles;" Dr.
Mason, " The Faith of the Gospel." — Dr.
Mason's peculiar view in regard to the man
ner of our LORD'S Presence ... 92
4. The principal accretion to the Modern view, as
stated by Alford. — Taken from Bengel. — And
rejected by most writers except Sadler and
Jackson. — Conclusion. — The essential differ
ence between the Catholic and Modern views . 96
CHAPTER V.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
Introductory : In this chapter the Catholic and Modern
views are compared with the teachings of Scripture. — 100
Does Scripture teach :
XXX11 CONTENTS.
I. THAT THE HOLY EUCHARIST is A SACRIFICE? . . 100
II. THAT ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER DEPENDS ON ITS
RELATION TO THE CROSS, OR TO OUR LORD'S
WORK IN HEAVEN ?....... IOO
I. THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE TO THE FACT OF THE
EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE 101
1. The evidence of the Old Testament: i. The
Passover, Ex. xii. 3, 6, 8, 14 ; Lev. iii. I, vii.
15 ; i Cor. v. 7. — In two points it is typical
of the Holy Eucharist : (i) as a commemora
tive Sacrifice ; (2) as a feast upon a Sacrifice,
ii. The prophecy of Malachi i. n : (i) re
fers to external worship ; (2) contrasts the
"pure Offering" with the legal sacrifices;
(3) contrasts its universality with their local
character ; (4) the word used is " Minchah,"
and the other terms are sacrificial. — The
early Christian Fathe|§ interpret the prophecy
of the Holy Eucharist 101
2. The evidence of the New Testament : i. The
Consecration of the chalice, S. Matt. xxvi.
28 ; S. Mark xiv. 24 ; S. Luke. xxii. 20. ii.
The Consecration of the bread, iii. " This
do in remembrance of Me," S. Luke xxii. 19 ;
i Cor. xi. 24-26. iv. "We have an Altar,"
Heb. xiii. 10. — Conclusion as to the fact that
the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice . . . 103
II. THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE ABOUT THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE HOLY EUCHARIST is A SACRIFICE.— The
Catholic theory. — Difference between the Catholic and
Modern views. — Each school bases its view on the
same passages of Scripture ...... 106
i. The words of Institution : The Catholic view
connects this with our LORD'S Death. — " Do
this in remembrance of Me." — Mr. Bright-
man's interpretation of this passage. — He re
fers to Godet and Milligan for the force of
ydp in i Cor. xi. 26. — Godet, however,
preserves the literal sense. — Milligan does not
CONTENTS. XXX111
notice the force of ydp, but extends the
remembrance to our LORD'S exaltation in
heaven. — Mr. Brightman questions whether
the reference is to our LORD'S Death as an
historical event. — He cites the liturgies as
commemorating the Resurrection and Ascen
sion. — The method of interpretation popu
lar but vicious. — It would never have been
thought of except to support an " a priori"
theory. — No Father or Church commentator
has advanced this interpretation . . . 107
2. The Epistle to the Hebrews the battle-ground
of the two views : i. A sketch of the purpose
and argument of the Epistle. — From Melchis-
edec the writer contrasts the universal and
eternal nature of CHRIST'S Priesthood with
the local and transitory character of that of the
Jews. — The two main points in regard to
the Sacrifice are, that it was offered once for
all, and that its effects, or merits, live on in our
LORD'S Mediatorial work.— Thus far both
views accord, but here they divide. — The
Catholics teach that the Sacrifice was com
pleted on the Cross, and that in heaven our
LORD pleads only the merits of this Sacrifice.
— The Modern school are split into different
camps, the more radical denying that the
Sacrifice was completed on the Cross, others
trying to find some sacrificial action in our
LORD'S Mediatorial work, or taking the
word only in a passive sense. — The passages
in the Epistle on this subject fall into two
divisions : Our LORD'S Priesthood as typified
by Melchisedec, or in the Day of Atonement.
—The ruling thought is CHRIST'S High-
Priesthood. — (i) Chaps, ii., iii., and iv. give
a prefatory treatment of the subject and show
the foundation of CHRIST'S Priesthood in
the Incarnation (ii. 17, 18) ; (2) Chaps, v., vi.,
XXxiv CONTENTS.
vii., set forth the nature of this Priesthood;
(3) Chaps, viii., ix., x., treat of the work of
CHRIST as High Priest ; (4) In the remain
ing chapters the fruits of this Priesthood
are applied to believers, ii. Our LORD'S
Priesthood as typified by Melchisedec. — The
statements and silence of Scripture about
Melchisedec. — The universal character of this
priesthood. — The special features tithes and
blessings. — No reference to the bread and
wine. — The Fathers assume that they were
the materials of a Sacrifice. — The argument
concludes that such an High Priest needs not
to offer daily, for this He did once for all. —
But that He is able to save all that come to
GOD through Him, and ever liveth to make
intercession for them. — Not only is there no
mention of any Sacrifice offered in heaven,
but it seems explicitly excluded. — The Mod
ern school object that since our LORD is a
Priest for ever, He must continually offer Sacri
fice. — This objection answered. — Our LORD
exercises His Priesthood in intercession, plead
ing the merits of His Sacrifice, in blessing,
and in presenting to the FATHER His own
glorified Humanity and His Mystical Body
the Church. — In Chap. viii. we reach the main
point, that we have an High Priest Who ful
fils all the conditions required, and has sat
down at the Right Hand of GOD.— The chief
characteristic, that He reigns as royal High
Priest, and that He is a Minister of the
sanctuary. — hsirovpyoS not the same as
" Sacrificator." — CHRIST reigning and serv
ing shows forth His Divine Majesty and in
finite love. — The idea suggested by the true
tabernacle. — The earthly tabernacle symbol
ized three things : GOD dwelling among men,
His holiness, His " approachableness." — The
CONTENTS. xxxv
Fathers consider the tabernacle to be our
LORD'S Flesh or Humanity.— In this Body
CHRIST ministers.— In Heb. viii. 3 are we
to supply ijv or $.6 TI 1 — This does not
affect the argument. — What is the nature of
CHRIST'S Offering ?— Certainly not His
Blood, but either Himself or His Body,
iii. Our LORD'S High-Priesthood as typified
by the ritual of the Day of Atonement. — The
signification of this ritual. — The effect of sin
twofold : A sense of alienation from GOD,
and a conviction of guilt. — The conception of
Sacrifice also twofold, as a means of removing
the guilt, of reconciling man with GOD. —
The chief significance of the ritual, that till
the sufficient Sacrifice is offered there is no
free access to GOD, but that the yearly en
trance of the high priest within the veil arouses
hope. — The first tabernacle was open to the
priests daily, the Holy of holies only to the
high priest once a year. — The purpose for
which the high priest went within the veil was
not to sprinkle the blood, but to appear before
GOD. — The sprinkling of the blood was not
the "end," but the "means." — Thedetailsof
the ritual. — Summary of teaching on this
point : (i) The Old Testament teaches that
(i.) Sacrifice was not offered in the Holy of
holies, (ii.) but that in certain cases the blood
of a sacrifice was applied to atone or recon
cile ; (2) The Epistle points out resemblances
and contrasts between the high priest and our
LORD : (i.) Resemblances : (a) The entry
into the Holy of holies; (b) "Not without
blood ; " (c) To intercede ; (d) The waiting
people, (ii.) Contrasts : (a) Many times, and
" once for all ; " (b) A place made with hands,
and heaven ; (c) " With the blood of another,"
and through His own Blood. — The interpre-
XXXvi CONTENTS.
tation of the type in the Epistle. — The con
trast between the repeated entrance of the
high priest, and our LORD'S entrance once
for all. — The means in each case "through
blood," but not "with blood." — The chief
thought, that the blood was the means of
access. — The preposition " juera " is never
found in the New Testament in connection
with blood as the means of access to GOD. —
Examination of the eleven passages in the
New Testament in which blood is thus re
ferred to. — From this it is evident that the
Blood is the " instrumental means " of access.
— The truth signified by the blood here is
that "without shedding of blood there is no
remission." — Most of the Modern school
admit this : Alford and perhaps Sadler are
exceptions. — In verses 13 and 14 the supe
riority of CHRIST'S Blood to that of animal
sacrifices is shown. — The word ajuoojuor con
nects our LORD'S Sacrifice with the Cross.—
Chap. ix. concludes by relating our LORD'S
Intercession to His finished Sacrifice. — Two
passages in Chap. x. to be considered : (i)
Verse 10 implies that our LORD'S Sacrifice is
the only absolute Sacrifice ; (2) Verses 11-14
repeat this thought, but add to it our LORD'S
Session. — Three points here : (i) The signifi
cance of "sitting," as indicating finished
work, excludes any actual sacrifice from our
LORD'S Intercession. — This is admirably ex
pressed by Euthymius Zig. : (2) The Sacrifice
was offered before He sat down ; (3) The
significance of CHRIST'S perfecting the
faithful by one Offering. — The last passage
quoted from this Epistle as favourable to the
Modern view, xii. 24. — Bengel and Alford's
interpretation. — The context shows that the
sphere of the action is not heaven but earth.
CONTENTS. XXXvil
— An analysis of the whole passage proves
this. — Summary : All the sacrifices under the
Law foreshadowed different aspects of the
Sacrifice of CHRIST.— The two great an
nual rites prefigure the Holy Eucharist and our
LORD'S Intercession. — The Passover typifies
the Holy Eucharist ; the Day of Atonement
our LORD'S Intercession. — Both rites point
to the same source of merit, but to a different
application of it. — No part of the rite on the
Day of Atonement prefigures the Holy
Eucharist no
3. Rev. v. 6, the " Lamb as It had been slaugh
tered." — The Modern school are here divided
into two groups, the more moderate seeing
only a description of our LORD as the Vic
tim, which is quite justifiable. — Some of the
Modern school see in the wounds a sacri
ficial action. Thalhofer's argument shown
to be altogether invalid. — Illustration from
the difference between a martyr and mar
tyrdom. — Between a state and an act. — So
the Lamb is the Sacrifice, but does not offer
sacrifice ....... 140
III. SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY : . . . .145
1. Old Testament and New Testament both prove
that the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice . . 145
2. The New Testament recognizes only one absol
ute Sacrifice. — The Holy Eucharist is there
fore a relative Sacrifice, in which we make the
memorial of our LORD'S Death . . .145
3. There is no indication of any sacrifice being
offered in heaven. — This is not inconsistent
with our LORD'S being a Sacrifice in a passive
sense, or with His offering a virtual Sacrifice.
— The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice because
essentially identical with that of Calvary. — It
is accidentally related to our LORD'S Medi
atorial work. ...... 145
XXXV111 CONTENTS.
PAGE
4. Scripture affords no support to the view that the
essentially sacrificial act took place in heaven,
and that therefore the Cross is not a com
pleted Sacrifice. ...... 146
CHAPTER VI.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES.
The witness of the liturgies to the Eucharistic Sacrifice is natu
rally of great importance. — We must not expect in them
the accuracy of definition which belongs to a creed. —
That the liturgies prove the sacrificial character of the
Holy Eucharist may be assumed ; the only question is,
whether they support the Modern view. — The contro
versy concerns only two classes of passages in the litur
gies. — Mr. Brightman refers to both .... 148
I. HIS REFERENCE TO THOSE WHICH COMMEMORATE THE
RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION. — He says the liturgies
do not confine the memorial to the act of our LORD'S
Death, and gives examples from various sources. —
The Roman rite. — The Anglican, Scotch, and Ameri
can liturgies. — Mr. Brightman's inferences from these
quotations. — The facts indisputable ; the inferences
unwarranted. — Catholic writers teach that the Holy
Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation, as well
as a memorial of the Passion, and brings before us our
LORD'S whole Life both on earth and in glory. —
The word dvajuvr/tftS has both a subjective and an
objective force. — Mr. Brightman quotes that part of
" the Oblation " in the Scotch and American rites in
which it is used subjectively, but omits the context in
which it is referred objectively only to our LORD'S
Death. — Answers to the contention that the two are
identical. — The valuable element in the Modern view,
the relation of the Holy Eucharist to the Life of glory. —
This does not involve a heavenly Sacrifice. — The charge
that Reformation theology obscures the Incarnation
CONTENTS. xxxix
and the great Intercession by dwelling exclusively on
the Atonement. — The precise import of this, and the
conclusion which follows from it. — The relation of our
life now to the Life of glory. — The dangerous tendency
of the day to ignore the more severe side of revela
tion. — The evidence of the Gospels to the importance
of our LORD'S Passion. — A conclusion noted which
does not follow from the premises. — The interpretation
of Fathers and commentators must determine the sig
nificance of the passages in the liturgies. . . . 149
II. THE SECOND CLASS OF PASSAGES ARE THOSE WHICH
SPEAK OF A " HEAVENLY ALTAR." — Mr. Brightman's
statement of his case. — He specially refers to the
"Supplices Te" of the Roman rite. — The facts again
are indisputable, but the inferences unwarranted. —
This prayer supplies Thalhofer with his main ar
gument for a "heavenly Sacrifice." — He refers the
" heavenly altar " of the liturgies to Isa. vi. 6 and Rev.
viii. 3. — He argues that since these passages speak of
a heavenly altar they imply a heavenly Sacrifice. — It is,
however, evident that the Sacrifice must precisely cor
respond with the altar. — So that if the altar be only
figurative, we cannot infer a literal Sacrifice. — A literal
altar involves manifest difficulties. — The Fathers inter
pret this passage of Isaiah mystically : S. Ambrose,
S. Jerome, Haymo, Philastrius, S. Basil, S. Cyril. — Cor
nelius a Lapide points this out. — All take the passage
figuratively. — That the heavenly altar is only figura
tive is seen from the adjectives applied to it in the litur
gies, e. g., vTtepovpdviov, rospoy, TtvevjuariHoy. —
The Fathers and later writers take this altar as our
LORD Himself. — S. Chrysostom explains " heavenly "
as equivalent to "spiritual," and applies it to the
Church and her rites. — The importance of his evidence.
— He was conversant with the liturgies, and Greek was
his mother tongue. — The same interpretation given by
Theophylact, and Primasius. — The Fathers speak often
of a heavenly altar, but never of a heavenly Sacrifice.
EitovpdvioS is used in the New Testament of gifts
xl CONTENTS,
in the Church on earth : Eph. i. 3 ; Eph. ii. 6, 19 ;
Phil. iii. 20; Col. iii. i. — 'EitovpdvioS occurs six
times in Hebrews of things on earth : Heb. iii. i,
vi. 4, viii. 5. — Having determined the sense of
"heavenly altar," we must investigate the liturgical
meaning of the "Supplices Te." — This prayer found
only in the Roman and Ambrosian liturgies. — It
differs from the corresponding prayer in Eastern
liturgies. — This prayer in the Clementine liturgy. — In
the liturgy of S. James. — Another prayer in the same.
— Eastern liturgies have no mention of the angel carry
ing the gifts. — The Roman must be interpreted in ac
cordance with the Eastern. — Liturgical writers differ
on three points in this prayer : (i) Some refer " hsec"
to the prayers, others to the sacramental gifts ; (2)
Some take the " angel " of angels generally ; others of
our LORD ; (3) The purpose of the prayer as expressed
in the Roman and in the Eastern liturgies. — A pe
culiar interpretation in century IX. — Duchesne's view
of the "Supplices Te."— The theological difficulties
of the modern interpretation of the prayer. — The rela
tion of this prayer to the words of S. Irenaeus. — These
words must be interpreted by their context, 1. iv., c.
xviii. — From the context it is doubtful whether " obla
tion " refers to the Holy Eucharist. — The passage itself
shows that ' ' altar " is only used figuratively. — The altar
not one on which sacrifice is offered, but towards which
" prayers and oblations " are directed. — It seems equi
valent to the "throne of grace." — The discussion of
the heavenly altar thus summed up : . . . . 156
1. The phrase frequently found in the liturgies . 173
2. 'ErtovpanoS signifies only what pertains to
the Kingdom of heaven . . . .174
3. The meaning of " haec " doubtful. . . .174
4. The true and valuable element in the Modern
view, the prominence given to the union of
the worship of earth and heaven. — This must
be earnestly asserted, but without admitting
the Modern view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 174
CONTENTS. xli
CHAPTER VII.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPTION OF
THE EUCHARIST.
PAGE
A bird's-eye view of theological opinion of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice from the sub-apostolic age to our own time,
— This will enable us to relegate the various views to
their place in history. — The field falls into three
divisions :......... 176
I. THE EARLY AGES, FROM S. CLEMENT TO S. GREGORY
THE GREAT ; the Holy Eucharist treated synthetically
as a great whole . . . . . . . .177
II. THE MIDDLE PERIOD, FROM S. GREGORY TO S. THOMAS ;
the treatment practical, regarding effects and liturgical
forms 178
III. THE MODERN, FROM S. THOMAS TO OUR OWN TIMES ;
the treatment analytical, in determining the sacrificial
act. — The strongest evidence of the fact of the Euchar
istic Sacrifice is that till century XVI. there was no
attempt to define it. — From century IX. to XVI. contro
versies about the Real Presence occupied theologians.
— This began with the controversy between Paschasius
Radbertus and Ratramnus. — S. Peter Damian appar
ently the author of the term " transubstantiation " . 178
In the first period we shall find :
1. The Holy Eucharist regarded by all as a
Sacrifice ....... 179
2. No trace of the Modern view . . . .179
3. Certain Greek Fathers even deny that our
LORD is now offering Sacrifice, except
through His Church . . . . .179
4. The Fathers generally relate the Holy Eu
charist to the Sacrifice of the Cross . . 179
I. THE EARLY AGES BEGIN WITH S. CLEMENT OF ROME. —
Writers trace analogies between Old Testament sacri
fices and the Holy Eucharist. — The Holy Eucharist as
the Church's Sacrifice and as the bond uniting her to her
Head. — S. Clement sets forth its public and sacrificial
character, and restricts its celebration to bishops and
priests. — S. Ignatius speaks of the altar and calls the
xlii CONTENTS.
Holy Eucharist the Flesh of CHRIST.— He confines
its fruits to those in union with the Church. — He re
gards it as the centre of the Church's unity. — The
" Didache " regards it rather from the moral stand
point of the sanctity required in the offerer.— S. Justin
Martyr describes the liturgical service and affirms that
the Holy Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion. — S.
Irenaeus associates the Holy Eucharist with our
LORD'S Blood shed on the Cross ; and calls the obla
tions the first-fruits of creation. — S.Cyprian teaches that
the Holy Eucharist reproduces the Passion of JESUS
CHRIST.— The priest in it fulfils the functions of
the Sovereign Priest. — It is a proper Sacrifice in which
the Passion is re-presented. — S. Ambrose says that in
it the Sacrifice is the same as that of the Cross. — S.
Augustine regards it as uniting us to GOD and depend
ing for its effects upon right dispositions in the offerer.
— He defines sacrifice and shows that our LORD'S
Sacrifice is renewed daily in the Holy Eucharist. — S.
Leo the Great sees in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the ac
complishment of all mysteries ..... 180
The Eastern Fathers :
1. connect the Holy Eucharist with the Passion ;
2. and Incarnation ;...... 187
3. and point out that through the Church our
LORD is now exercising His Priesthood . 187
In this period both East and West dwell upon
the relation between CHRIST'S Mystical
Body and His Body in the Holy Eucharist,
and between the Holy Eucharist and His In
tercession in heaven ; but have no knowledge
of any sacrifice now being offered in heaven . 188
II. THE MIDDLE PERIOD BEGINS WITH S. GREGORY AND
ENDS WITH S. THOMAS. — The Sacrifice of the Mass
treated practically, and its character sought in its
effects. — The image of our LORD'S Death sought in
the liturgical forms. — S. Gregory teaches the efficacy
of the Sacrifice for the souls in purgatory ; that in it
the Passion is reproduced ; and that by it heaven and
CONTENTS. xliii
earth are united. — He gave an impulse to liturgical
study. — S. Isidore of Seville contributes a definition of
Sacrifice. — Bede's view is similar. — In century VI. one
Mass only was allowed on the same day at any altar
by the Synods of Auxerre and Merida. — In century IX.
Strabo notices an increase in the number of Masses. —
The Eucharistic writers of century IX. : Amalarius,
Florus, Paschasius, Ratramnus, Strabo, Rabanus. — In
century IX. a new current sets in, mystical rather than
theological, resulting from liturgical study, and at
tempting to find in the liturgy itself the image of the
Passion. — Amalarius its source. — His exposition of the
liturgy. — His serious theological errors. — Stercorian-
ism, and the triple form of our LORD'S Body. — These
views were attacked by Florus and condemned at
Quiercy. — Their strange reappearance in the works of
other writers. — The views of the Pseudo-Rabanus
Maurus. — Florus' "De Expositione Missae" the most im
portant contribution of century IX. — The controversy
between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus. — Wal-
afrid Strabo. — Centuries X. and XI. added nothing to
the subject. — The attack of Berengarius upon the Real
Presence, century XI. — Century XII. a period of litur
gical activity. — Odo of Cambrai, S. Ivo of Chartres, V.
Hildebert of Mans. — The view of Peter the Ven. and
William of S. Thiery.— Robert Pulleyne.— Peter Lom
bard the first author to see in the double Consecration
the image of the Passion. — His peculiar theory about
the species. — Algerus of Liege the ablest writer on the
Holy Eucharist of century XII. — Lombard's view re
produced by Innocent III., Albert the Great, Alexan
der of Hales, and S. Bonaventura. — A strange theory
about the Consecration of each species. — William of
Auvergne. — His definition of Sacrifice. — Albert the
Great regards the Sacrifice from two standpoints. —
But he places its essence in its effects. — His " Expla
nation of the Canon of the Mass." — His view of the
"Elevation." — The Greek theologians of this period :
S. John of Damascus, S. Dionysius the Areopagite. —
xliv CONTENTS.
The commentators : (Ecumenius, Euthymius Ziga-
denus, Theophylact iSS
III. POST-MEDIEVAL AND MODERN EPOCH. — S. Thomas
introduces this period. — While scarcely touching on the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, he gives a definition of Sacrifice
which changes the current of theological thought. — His
definition, revived by Vasquez, became the basis of the
treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — S. Thomas also
held that Sacrifice was the sign of " latria." — He lays
great stress on the representative character of the
priest. — On this point Scotus takes the opposite view.
— The writers of centuries XIV. and XV. contributed
nothing new. — The attacks of Protestantism led to at
tempts to define Sacrifice. — Luther entirely denied the
sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist. — He is
refuted by Clichtovee, Eck, Cajetan, and others. — The
theory that the Mass was for the remission of actual
sin and the Cross for original sin was popularly held
in century XVI., but its author is unknown. — Vasquez
attributes it to Catharinus ; and with Canus repudiates
it. — Suarez charges Catharinus with teaching that
the Mass was a separate source of grace. — Catharinus,
however, was not the author of this view, for it is men
tioned in the Augsburg Conference in 1530, and denied
by Arnold Wesaliensis, John Cochlseus, and Peter
Anspach. — Melanchthon traces it to the " Opusc. de
Ven. Sac. Altaris," ascribed to S. Thomas ; but the
statement there is capable of an orthodox interpreta
tion, as shown by R. P. Dummermuth. — Dr. Paulus
holds that the opusculum is not the work of S.
Thomas, and attributes it to Albert the Great. — Dr.
Vacant refutes this authorship. — The diversity of
view at Trent in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. —
Corrionero places the sacrificial act in the Oblation ;
Canus in the fraction of the Host. — The Council only
stated that the Holy Eucharist was a Sacrifice, without
defining the mode. — In centuries XVI. and XVII.
theologians who treat of this subject fall into three
groups : 202
CONTENTS. xlv
1. Those who eliminate destruction from their
definition, as Salmeron ..... 211
2. Those who find this only in the ritual action, as
Canus, Vasquez, and in a less degree Suarez,
Bellarmine, and Lessius . . . 211
3. The third group represented by De Lugo, who
is followed by the majority of Roman theo
logians. — In century XVII. the great Galli-
can theologians trace an accidental relation
between the Holy Eucharist and our LORD'S
Mediatorial work. — In century XVIII. Cien-
fuegos suggests a strange theory. — In Eng
land since the Reformation the Eucharistic
Sacrifice has received but slight treatment. —
Bishop Andrewes refers to it. — Overall and
Taylor connect the Holy Eucharist more di
rectly with our LORD'S Offering in heaven,
and this view is followed by the Modern
school. — Since 1870 a radical school has ap
peared in Germany, headed by Thalhofer. —
The brilliant theologians, Scheeben and
Schanz, follow Suarez. — The Eastern Church
has contributed nothing new on the subject. —
In century XIV. Cabasilas wrote an " Expos
ition of the Liturgy ; " in 1643 the Catechism
of Peter Mogila was approved ; and in our
own times Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, has
put forth a treatise on dogmatic theology ; but
all follow the Catholic view . . . .213
CHAPTER VIII.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.
Introductory : The Fathers of the first six centuries : . . 218
I. PASSAGES SUPPORTING THE CATHOLIC VIEW . . . 219
II. THOSE ADDUCED IN FAVOUR OF THE MODERN VIEW . 2IQ
III. PASSAGES TREATING OF OUR LORD'S INTERCESSION . 219
xlvt CONTENTS.
I. WITNESSES TO THE CATHOLIC VIEW, LIMITED HERE TO
THOSE OF SPECIAL WEIGHT. — Realize first precisely
what we are seeking, — not a theological theory of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, but to show that the Fathers re
late it to the Sacrifice of the Cross .... 219
The Greek Fathers : i. S. Irenseus, 2. S. Cyril of
Jerusalem, 3. S. Gregory of Nyssa, 4. S. Cyril
of Alex., 5. S. Chrysostom, 6. S. Chrysostom
— Thomassinus on this passage, 7. S. Chrys
ostom ........ 220
The Latin Fathers : 8. S. Cyprian, 9. S. Cyprian,
10. S. Cyprian, n. S. Ambrose, 12. S.
Ambrose, 13. S. Augustine, 14. S. Augustine
15. S. Augustine, 16. S. Augustine, 17. S.
Augustine, 18. S. Augustine, 19. S. Augustine,
20. S. Augustine, 21. S. Gregory, 22.
S. Gregory 224
Summary of passages supporting the Catholic view . 228
II. PASSAGES THOUGHT TO SUPPORT THE MODERN VIEW. —
This view stated in two propositions. — Mr. Brightman
cites four passages : S. Ignatius, S. Justin Martyr, S.
Irenaeus, S. Cyril of Alex. — These passages considered.
— English writers only refer to the Fathers generally in
support of this view. — Thalhofer, however, adduces
many passages. — Dr. Thalhofer is orthodox in his view
of the Sacrifice of the Cross. — His innovation is an act
ual Sacrifice in heaven. — His assumption in regard to
a "heavenly" Sacrifice. — The terms examined : (i.)
"heavenly" as explained by S. Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact, Primasius. (2.) The use of the word 4< altar" by
S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, Hernias, Clement of Alex.,
S. Methodius, S. Chrysostom, and S. Cyril of Alex.
(3.) Different senses in which "sacrifice" is used. —
Hence the character of the sacrifice must be deter
mined by that of the altar in heaven .... 228
1. S. Irenasus ....... 234
2. Origen. — Thalhofer's argument. — Origen's
words in full. — Thalhofer's exposition of
them. — Other passages from Origen. — Thai-
CONTENTS. xlvii
hofer omits the context, which refutes his in
terpretation. — The full context of the passage.
— No allusion here to a heavenly altar or
sacrifice ....... 235
3. Origen. — Inference from this passage . . 239
4. Origen. — The passage examined . . . 242
5. Origen. — Origen's teaching considered . . 243
6. Origen. — The sense of the passage examined . 245
7. S. Chrysostom. — This passage refutes rather
than supports Thalhofer .... 246
8. A passage attributed to S. Chrysostom : Another
passage of S. Chrysostom. — Which is incon
sistent with Thalhofer's view . . . 247
9. S. Gregory.— The passage examined . . 248
10. S. Ambrose, quoted by both Brightman and
Thalhofer. — Neither Mr. Brightman nor Thal
hofer is the author of this misinterpretation of
S. Ambrose, which is found in the works of
Edmond Albertino and proves too much ; for
it is inconsistent with S. Ambrose's words in
other passages. Its fallacy exposed : i. By S.
Ambrose's explanation of the term " imago ; "
ii. By the clause omitted by Mr. Brightman ;
iii. By the " reductio ad impossibile " . . 249
11. S. Augustine ....... 255
12. S. Augustine : a second passage. — The passage
examined ....... 257
13. S. Gregory ....... 259
Result of examination of Thalhofer's authorities . . 260
(i.) No passage really supports his view . . 260
(2.) The Fathers teach that our LORD presents in
heaven the worship of the Church, and there
fore the Holy Eucharist .... 260
(3.) They explain the heavenly altar by our
LORD'S Humanity, though some apply the
term to the altar of the Church . . . 260
III. PASSAGES WHICH EXPLAIN OUR LORD'S INTERCESSION.
The Greek Fathers : i. S. Chrysostom, 2. The-
odoret, 3. Euthymius Zig., 4. S. Chrysostom,
xlviii CONTENTS.
5. S. Chrysostom, 6. S. Cyril of Alex., 7.
Eusebius Caesar, 8. S. John of Damascus, 9.
Euthymius Zig. ...... 260
Latin Fathers. 10. Primasius, n. S. Augustine,
12. S. Augustine, 13. S. Gregory the Great,
14. S. Gregory ...... 265
Summary of Patristic testimony : 267
(i.) No passage supports the Modern view . . 267
(2.) Some passages inconsistent with it . . . 268
(3.) The explanation of our LORD'S Intercession
excludes it ....... 268
CHAPTER IX.
THE TESTIMONY OF MEDIAEVAL AND POST-
MEDIAEVAL WRITERS.
Introductory: IMPETUS GIVEN TO THE STUDY OF THE Eu-
CHARISTIC SACRIFICE IN CENTURY IX. ; which bore
fruit in century XII. in mystical works on the liturgy. —
Of these Mr. Brightman claims Paschasius Radbertus,
Ivo of Chartres, and Hildebert of Tours as favourable
to his view. — Thalhofer adds Guitmundus, Odo of
Cambrai, Hugo of S. Victor, and Algerus. — Only pas
sages adduced in support of the Modern theory con
sidered here. — The mediaeval writers frequently speak
of a "heavenly altar," from which Thalhofer infers a
heavenly Sacrifice ....... 269
I. EXAMINATION OF THE PASSAGES QUOTED .... 270
1. Paschasius Radbertus. — The passage con
sidered. — Paschasius explains his meaning in
the context, which refutes Thalhofer's infer
ence. — Paschasius takes the heavenly altar as
CHRIST'S Humanity, through which our
prayers are offered to GOD. — Paschasius :
another passage. — No trace here of any sac
rifice other than the Holy Eucharist. — Mr.
Brightman's reference to Paschasius . . 270
2. Thalhofer cites Guitmundus Aversanus, who is
CONTENTS. xlix
defending S. Augustine against Berengarius in
regard to his use of the word " sign." — Noth
ing in Guitmundus supports Thalhofer's views. 277
Thalhofer quotes from Odo of Cambrai. — He
is discussing the " Supplices Te." — The full
context. — The passage cited only a paraphrase
of the prayer. — Its real purport. — Another
passage from Odo. — Its interpretation. — A
third passage from Odo. — Stentrup's comment
on this passage. — Odo gives no support to
Thalhofer's theory ..... 279
Mr. Brightman refers to S. Ivo of Chartres
and Hildebert of Tours.— Mr. Brightman's
statements both misleading and inaccurate. —
S. Ivo's work on the Sacrifices of the Old and
New Testaments. — A good example of the
mystical treatment of the liturgy. — He divides
it into two parts : the first is interpreted by
our LORD'S first Advent and by the sacrifices
offered without the veil ; the second by our
LORD'S Passion and Intercession and by the
priest's action within the veil and after his
return to the people. — S. Ivo the first to at
tempt this parallel. — Its difficulties avoided
by S. Ivo. — Mr. Brightman's statement about
S. Ivo's teaching is entirely unfounded. — S.
Ivo's introduction to his treatment of the
liturgy, i. The Introit and Litany. — The
"Gloria in Excelsis."— The Collect, Epistle,
Gospel, Creed, and Offertory. — S. Ivo's intro
duction to the Canon, ii. From the Offertory
to the end of the Canon. — The three secrets cor
respond with the prayers in Gethsemane, and
with the three sacrifices of the bullock, ram, and
goat. — The " Sursum Corda" and the exhort
ation to "Watch and pray." — The Preface,
the ministry of angels, and the cherubim. — The
Canon.— The two goats signify CHRIST'S
two Natures : the goat slain, His Human Na-
CONTENTS.
ture ; the scapegoat, His Divine Nature. — The
" Memento of the Living," the intercession of
the Levitical priest, and of CHRIST on earth.
— The incense of the Day of Atonement is
connected with the fragrance of our LORD'S
Humanity, and with the commemoration of
the Apostles and Martyrs. — The significance
of the breastplate noted. — The incense in the
Apocalypse taken of the "Quam Oblatio-
nem ; " its spiritual significance pointed out.
— The sprinkling of the mercy-seat with blood
typifies CHRIST'S Mediatorial work in
heaven, and the sign of the Cross made over
the elements before and after the Consecra
tion. — The act of Consecration is referred
solely to the Death on the Cross. — In the
" Unde et Memores" the Sacrifice is offered,
and in the "Supra Quse " the priest prays
that it may be accepted. — S. Ivo then takes
the " Supplices Te " of the scapegoat and the
high priest's return to the camp as typifying
our LORD'S Ascension and Intercession. —
The mystery of our LORD'S Presence in the
Holy Eucharist while still in heaven must be
apprehended by faith. — S. Augustine quoted.
— The washing of the high priest's garments
taken of Baptism and Confession, and of
our LORD'S work of reconciliation. — The
mention of the Apostles and Saints connected
with the high priest's breastplate and ephod.
— Commemoration of the Saints and of their
merits. — S. Ivo again asserts that the Holy
Eucharist commemorates the Passion. — Mr.
Brightman's statement, compared with S.
Ivo's words : i. The " Anaphora," — the Jew
ish ritual, parallelled with our LORD'S
actions on earth, ii. The three sacrifices
represent only the Passion, iii. The incense
the fragrance of our LORD'S glorified Body
CONTENTS.
which had been offered on earth, iv. The
crucial point the act of Consecration. — The
mercy-seat sprinkled with the blood of a sacri
fice which had been offered. — The force of
"immolati." — The sprinkling in heaven of
Blood which had made the FATHER pro
pitious. — The force of " fecit." — S. Ivo the
author of the expression, "sprinkling the
FATHER." — V. Hildebert's explication of
S. Ivo's words. — S. Ivo's application of the
blood-shedding to the liturgy. — The force
of "hanc aspersionem " connects the action
of the liturgy with that of the Cross. — The
act of Consecration commemorates the Death
on the Cross, and not our LORD'S action in
heaven, v. The " Supplices Te " corre
sponds with the scapegoat and with the Ascen
sion. — Duchesne considers this the Epiklesis,
which is neither the act of Consecration nor
the sacrificial act, and has no place in the
English liturgy. — Our LORD'S Intercession
corresponds with the high priest's prayer and
washing, and with Baptism and Penance in
the Church. — The " Memento" and the " No-
bis quoque " connected with the breastplate
and ephod. — Mr. Brightman's statement con
trary to facts. — S. Ivo's teaching summed up . 280
5. Mr. Brightman and Thalhofer cite V. Hilde-
bertof Tours. — His verses on the " Supplices
Te." — On the " Te Igitur." — Some passages
from his prose works ..... 307
6. Hugo of S. Victor merely repeats Hildebert's
thought 309
7. Algerus of Liege : his great authority, and his
affinity with the Greek Fathers. — His discus
sion of the mode of CHRIST'S Presence in
the Holy Eucharist and at the same time in
heaven. — From which Thalhofer quotes a pas
sage. — The only heavenly sacrifice known to
Hi CONTENTS.
Algerus is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — Some
passages overlooked by Thalhofer ; in which
Algerus clearly relates the Eucharistic Sacri
fice to that of the Cross. — His other work on
the Holy Eucharist, " De Sac. Missae," — His
comment on the " Te Igitur," in which he
actually uses the words " heavenly sacrifice,"
but of the sacrifice on earth in the Holy
Eucharist. — The sign of the Cross tells of the
sprinkling of blood. — He also treats of the
" Supplices Te," and makes clear his former
statement. — No support for Modern view
found in Mediaeval writers . . . .310
II. GALLICAN WRITERS OF CENTURY XVII. : De Berulle,
founder of the Oratory ; de Condren, the theologian
of the Resurrection ; Olier, founder of S. Sulpice ;
Thomassin. — Theology of the latter two influenced
by de Condren. — All three, but especially Thomassin,
claimed by Modern school. — De Condren's and Olier's
writings chiefly on ascetics. — Thomassin's great work
on dogmatics. — Restatement of the characteristics of
the Modern view, that we may see what support can be
found for it in Thomassin. — The headings of his chap
ters misleading. — He speaks of a heavenly Sacrifice,
but explains his meaning, and does not support the
Modern view. — He connects this Sacrifice with the
Resurrection, not with the Ascension ; with the " cre
mation," not with the " sprinkling of blood." — His
exposition of this : 1.x., c. xi. — The " cremation " has
no place on the Day of Atonement. — He does not say
that our LORD'S Blood is carried within the veil to be
presented, but that His Body is carried there to be con
sumed in the fires of the Deity. — This view mystical,
but unobjectionable, more fully set forth in c. xiv. —
His treatment of our LORD as the eternal holocaust. —
His quotations from S. Augustine and S. Gregory Mag.
— Thomassin's review of the chapter. — He speaks of a
Sacrifice in heaven, and explains it by our LORD'S In
tercession. — He says that the Sacrifice is figurative and
CONTENTS. liii
metaphorical. — In c. xvii. he connects the Eucharistic
Sacrifice with that of the Cross directly and distinctly.
— The three propositions of the Modern view find no
support in Thomassin 316
1. De Condren's view ...... 329
2. and Olier's view. — Both are identical with
that of Thomassin ..... 330
3. Traces of the same idea in Benedict XIV. . 331
4. and in Bossuet 331
III. THE WITNESS OF TWO EASTERN WRITERS . . . 332
1. Cabasilas, century XIV., the first to attempt
to formulate a theory of the Eucharistic Sacri
fice. — The value of his testimony to the views
of the Greek Fathers. — Cabasilas is strongly
anti-Latin. — Two passages in Cabasilas which
refute Mr. Brightman's arguments. — Incident
ally he sees in the Holy Eucharist a com
memoration of the Resurrection and Ascen
sion. — He devotes a chapter to the signification
of " Do this in remembrance of Me," in which
he explicitly repudiates Mr. Brightman's
view. — Also a chapter on the nature of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. — He finds the sacri
ficial act in the Consecration, and relates the
Sacrifice solely to that of the Cross. — The
statements of Cabasilas and Mr. Brightman
compared ....... 332
2. The other Eastern writer, Macarius, century
XIX.— He teaches that the Holy Eucharist is
a Sacrifice, and that it is related solely to the
Cross. — No trace, therefore, of the Modern
view in the Eastern Church. — Conclusion ad
verse to the claims of the Modern school . 337
CHAPTER X.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES.
Introductory : MR. BRIGHTMAN CLAIMS THAT ANGLICAN
THEOLOGIANS HOLD THE MODERN THEORY OF SACRI-
liv CONTENTS.
FICE, AND GIVES AS HIS AUTHORITY THE CATENA IN
" TRACT 81 " 339
I. BEFORE EXAMINING THE AUTHORITIES, CERTAIN FACTS TO
BE NOTICED 34O
1. The purpose of " Tract 81 " was not to support
any theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, only
to show a consensus of Anglican divines as to
the fact of the Sacrifice ..... 340
2. The writers were prejudiced against everything
Roman, and so avoided the terminology of
Rome 341
3. Hence it is often difficult to determine the force
of their statements ..... 341
4. They certainly appealed to the Fathers ; hence
little trace of any clear theory of the mode
of the Sacrifice is found in their writings. —
The Tract contains extracts from sixty-three
writers, of whom twelve make no allusion to
the mode of the Sacrifice. — Of the fifty-one
left, four, Overall, Taylor, Johnson, and Phil-
potts, favour in some measure the Modern
view. — Five others, Mede, Hammond, Thorn-
dike, Fell, and Scandret, are claimed on in
sufficient grounds as on the same side. — Forty-
two, however, clearly witness to the Catholic
view. — The method pursued in selecting ex
tracts. — The Tract does not comprehend all
Anglican writers, but represents the best . 341
II. WE BEGIN WITH THOSE WHO FAVOUR THE MODERN
VIEW 343
1. Overall quotes from Cassander. — The authen
ticity of the passage disproved . . . 343
2. Jeremy Taylor. ...... 346
3. Johnson. — His unorthodox views detract from
his authority ....... 349
4. Philpotts. — Other passages from his writings
greatly modify this statement . . . 353
III. THE FIVE WRITERS WHO ARE CLAIMED BY THE MODERN
SCHOOL, BUT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT GROUND . . 353
CONTENTS. lv
i. Mede, 2. Hammond, 3. Thorndike, 4. Fell (?),
5. Scandret ....... 354
Review of the opinions of these five writers . . 362
IV. THE FORTY-TWO WRITERS WHO TEACH THE CATHOLIC
VIEW
I. Jewell, 2. Bilson, 3. Field, 4. Buckeridge, 5.
Morton, 6. Andrewes, 7. Mason, 8. White,
9. Laud, 10. Hall, n. Mountague, 12. Forbes
of Edinburgh, 13. Bramhall, 14. Cosin, 15.
Heylyn, 16. Sparrow, 17. Feme, 18. Brevint,
19. Scrivener, 20. Patrick, 21. Towerson, 22.
Bull, 23. Stillingfleet, 24. Beveridge, 25.
Hickes, 26. Sharp, 27. Comber, 28. Leslie,
29. Nelson, 30. Wake, 31. Wilson, 32. Sher
lock, 33. Grabe, 34. Brett, 35. Potter, 36.
Hughes, 37. Laurence, 38. Law, 39. Wheatly,
40. Ridley, 41. Daubeny, 42. Jolly . . 363
SUMMARY OF OUR INVESTIGATION OF THESE PASSAGES. — In
four writers are passages relating the Holy Eucharist
to our LORD'S Intercession. — Only one, however,
teaches that the Oblation was not " finished " upon
the Cross. — Five passages in the other forty-seven
writers which seem to relate the Holy Eucharist to our
LORD'S action in heaven, but which are explained by
other passages in their writings. — In forty-two writers
clear reference of the Holy Eucharist to the Sacrifice
of the Cross. — We are therefore justified in affirming
that Mr. Brightman's statement about Anglican au
thorities is not borne out by the facts, since, of sixty-
three authors, only one really representative Anglican
divine explicitly connects the Holy Eucharist with our
LORD'S offering in heaven, and they do not favour
that view which sees in the Cross only the initial stage
of our LORD'S Sacrifice. — The explanation of the in
definite character of passages put forth by the Modern
school considered and refuted. — "Tract 81 " proves
that there are no grounds for claiming that the Modern
view is " the Anglican position." — It remains to trace to
their source the two new currents in Anglican theology. 393
ivi CONTENTS.
The view which relates the Holy Eucharist
to our LORD'S Intercession, as taught by
the Pseudo-Overall, Taylor, Philpotts, and
others, can claim no authority from the
Fathers, nor from any writer earlier than
century XVI., but does not conflict with
Catholic dogma. — Its source, so far as Angli
can writers are concerned, is Cassander. —
Cassander's history. — The passage in his
" Consultatio" in which this view is stated. —
The Pseudo-Overall's words compared with
Cassander's. — Cassander the undoubted source
of this view, so far as Anglicans are con
cerned. — Its attraction as a " via media." —
Only one Anglican, however, follows Cassan
der in the objectionable feature of his theory ;
all others avoid, and therefore reject, it. — A
passage in Watson's "Sermons" claims our
notice at this point. — Watson's history. — His
view of our LORD'S Intercession and of its
relation to the Holy Eucharist. — He is the
earliest writer in whom this teaching is found.
— It is, however, balanced by an accurate ex
position of the Sacrifice of the Cross. . . 397
The source of the radical form of the Modern
view, which holds that the Cross was only the
initial act of our LORD'S Sacrifice.— Most of
its English adherents admit that our LORD
was then a Priest. — Dr. Milligan points out
that this has a vital bearing on the Atone
ment. — He attributes the view to Grotius ;
we may trace it, a century earlier, to Socinus,
who seems to be the real source of the theory,
as shown by three arguments. — Reasons why
the views of Cassander and Johnson should
be rejected by members of the Anglican
Church. 407
CONTENTS. Ivii
CHAPTER XI.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS.
PAGE
Introductory: THE TRACTARIANS THE LEADERS OF THE
CATHOLIC REVIVAL. — The great debt the Church owes
to them. — Their wonderful lives. — Some difficulties of
their task, especially from two assumptions, in part
true but liable to bias the judgment .... 413
1. That Roman teaching was necessarily wrong. 414
2. That a "via media" between Romanism and
Protestantism could be found in the Fathers.
— The true "via media," the touchstone of
truth, considered ...... 414
I. IT IS WONDERFUL HOW FULLY THE TRACTARIANS GRASPED
THE CATHOLIC FAITH 415
1. A progress may, however, be observed in the
views of the leaders : i. as is evidenced in a
letter of Pusey to Rev. B. Harrison ; ii. and
in a letter to Bishop Wilberforce . . .415
2. The absence of a contemporary theological lit
erature threw the Tractarians back on the
Fathers and Anglican divines. — Hence their
view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is that of the
Fathers, coloured by Anglican writers. — They
formulate no definite theory in regard to it,
and if we find traces of modern influence, that
is more than counterbalanced by their explicit
recognition of its relation to the Sacrifice of
the Cross ....... 417
II. THIS WILL BE EVIDENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR
PRINCIPAL WRITINGS ON THE SUBJECT. — This examina
tion will be limited to the works of Pusey, Keble, and
Forbes 418
i. Dr. Pusey's view stated in " Tract 81 : " i. The
passage quoted. — Dr. Pusey first states the
doctrine as he finds it in the Fathers, and
then analyzes it.— No theory is formulated. —
The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice made in
memory of the Cross, therefore a commemo-
Iviii CONTENTS.
rative Sacrifice. — The Sacrifice was completed
on the Cross, its merits presented in heaven.
— His reference to a heavenly altar, ii. Three
passages from his sermon on our LORD'S In
tercession. — Dr. Pusey distinguishes between
the Atonement finished on the Cross and its
effects abiding in our LORD'S Intercession,
and so gives no support to the Modern view.
— He uses the word " sacrifice " only in a pas
sive sense, quoting from S. Epiphanius. . 419
2. Mr. Keble's view : i. It is expressed in pas
sages from his sermon on " The Unchange
able Priesthood of CHRIST;" ii. in his
treatise "On Eucharistical Adoration," iii.
and in his "Considerations." — It differs but
slightly from Dr. Pusey's view ; it is less Pa
tristic, and coloured by Cassander's theory,
though without its objectionable features ; but
it sets forth the finished Sacrifice of the
Cross 428
3. The most important witness to the Tractarian
view is the Bishop of Brechin. i. The " The
ological Defence " the joint work of Keble,
Pusey, and Bishop Forbes. — The circum
stances of the trial. — Keble's "Considera
tions." — The Bishop's presentation, ii.
Extracts from his "Primary Charge." iii.
Passages from his " Theological Defence."
iv. A passage from his sermon on Manasseh.
v. A review of the Bishop's teaching : (i)
That the Sacrifice of the Cross is complete ;
(2) that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is substan
tially the same as that of the Cross ; (3) that
our LORD'S whole life has a sacrificial char
acter ; (4) but that the expression "celestial
sacrifice " is only used in a passive sense. —
The affinity of these views with those of John
son ; but the Bishop in three places seems to
disown Johnson's authority. — Bishop Forbes
CONTENTS. lix
makes two admissions in regard to Johnson's
theory which are its condemnation. . . 433
Conclusion : An examination of the Tractarian writings
discloses a recognition of a relation between the Holy
Eucharist and our LORD'S Intercession, but the Eu-
charistic Sacrifice is explicitly and directly connected
with that of the Cross. The Tractarians would there
fore have repudiated the more extreme form of the
Modern view. ........ 448
CHAPTER XII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
Introductory : 450
I. THREE POINTS ESTABLISHED : (i) The Eucharist is a Sac
rifice, (2) whose character depends on the Sacrifice of
the Cross; (3) no theory of the mode " de fide." —
Summary of the results of our investigation. . . 450
1 . Of Holy Scripture, ..... 450
2. Of the liturgies, ...... 450
3. Of the Fathers 451
4. Of mediaeval writers, . . . . .451
5. Of Anglican divines, 451
6. Of Tractarian writers ..... 452
History shows that no theory of the mode of the Eu-
charistic Sacrifice is " de fide." — Some theories, how
ever, are " contra fidem," for they conflict with the
doctrine of the Atonement. — The Modern school falls
into four divisions, three of which are entirely ortho
dox. — The school of Cassander, of Lepin, of Drs.
Scheeben and Schanz. — These differ not only in degree
but in kind from the extreme Modern view. . . 452
II. THERE ARE THREE POINTS ON WHICH WE SHALL EX
PRESS AN OPINION : (i) What views must be denied as
" contra fidem ; " (2) what may be held as not " contra
fidem ;" (3) what must be affirmed as " de fide." . 455
i. Propositions " contra fidem : " i. That the Sac
rifice of the Cross was imperfect or unfinished ;
Ix CONTENTS.
ii. That the Sacrifice of the Altar consists in
aught else than doing what our LORD did,
i. e., consecrating bread into His Body and
wine into His Blood ; and that in our LORD'S
Intercession there is any counterpart to this
Consecration ; iii. That the mere presence of
a once sacrificed Victim is a " proper " Sacri
fice ; iv. that our LORD " offers" any Sacri
fice in heaven. ...... 456
2. Propositions not " contra fidem : " i. That
there is an altar in heaven on which are offered
the oblations of the Church ; ii. That our
LORD may be in mystery styled a " perpetual
Oblation " in heaven ; iii. That our LORD
" is " a Sacrifice in heaven. .... 457
3. Propositions necessarily " de fide:" i. That
our LORD offered upon the Cross a full, per
fect, and sufficient Sacrifice ; ii. That the Eu-
charistic Sacrifice though a true is not an
absolute Sacrifice, but depends for efficacy on
the Sacrifice of the Cross ; iii. That the remem
brance of the mysteries of our LORD'S life,
and the oblations and intercessions, are not
essential parts of the Eucharistic Sacrifice,
which consists only in doing what our LORD
did and commanded us to do. — These state
ments are not peculiar to any school, but be
long alike to the teaching of every part of
the Church. — An explanation of the purport
of the foregoing propositions in their relation
to modern theories. ..... 457
III. CATHOLIC DOGMA EMBRACES ALL SIDES OF TRUTH.— The
exaggeration at the Reformation, of the doctrine of the
Atonement, which was then made the foundation and
centre of all theology. — In correcting this, and supply
ing what was lacking, we must not abandon what was
true ; the Tractarians acted on this principle. — In our
day a danger of giving up truth in response to a popular
clamour, which represents the "irreligious conscience."
CONTENTS. Ixi
The attack not limited to the Atonement ; the Incarn
ation also assailed. — At the same time is seen a tend
ency to develop a view of our LORD'S Life in glory,
which is made the centre of a new theology. — Much
that is helpful in this if it be not allowed to conflict
with other truths. — The value of a realization of our
privileges as fellow-citizens with the Saints, but this is
not the centre of Christian theology. — The Incarnation
the centre ; its relation to the Atonement and to the
Holy Eucharist. — The attraction of the life of glory, but
first must come the life of suffering. — The remembrance
of the Passion as a force in the our lives, and in the lives
of the Saints ........ 467
Conclusion : To be Catholic we must hold all sides of the
truth 472
APPENDIX A.
An examination of the sacrificial terms used in Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew 473
Latin sacrificial terms: Sacrificare, Mactare, Litare,
Immolare ....... 473
Greek sacrificial terms : Qvtfia, 6cpd£s£iv, itoieiv,
epdsiVy npo6(psp£iv, dracpspeiv, Xeirovp-
ys"iv, ^arpEvEiv 475
Hebrew sacrificial terms : Minchah, Korban, Ze-
bach, Olah, Shelem, Chattath, Asham. . 478
APPENDIX B.
Faustus Socinus : " Disputation on Jesus Christ our Saviour."
Part II., chapter xv. ....... 480
APPENDIX C.
Tertullianus :" Adversus Judaeos," chapter xiv. . . . 492
APPENDIX D.
A catena of passages from the Fathers which bear witness
to the fact that they regarded the Eucharist as a Sacri
fice :
Ixii CONTENTS.
PAGE
I. S. Irenseus, 2. S. Irenseus, 3. S. Hippolytus,
4. Tertullian, 5. S. Cyprian, 6. S. Cyprian,
7. S. Cyprian, 8. S. Cyprian, 9. S. Cyprian,
10. S. Cyprian, n. S. Cyprian, 12. S. Lau
rence, 13. Council of Nicaea, 14. S. Ephrem
Syrus, 15. S. Optatus, 16. S. Cyril of Jeru
salem, 17. S. Macarius of Egypt, 18. S.
Gregory of Nyssa, 19, S. Ambrose, 20. S.
Ambrose, 21. S. Ambrose, 22. S. Ambrose,
23. S. Ambrose, 24. S. Ambrose, 25. S.
Chrysostom, 26. S. Chrysostom, 27. S. Chrys-
ostom, 28. St. Chrysostom, 29. S. Chrysos
tom, 30. S. Chrysostom, 31. S. Chrysostom,
32. S. Chrysostom, 33. S. Chrysostom, 34. S.
Chrysostom, 35. S. Chrysostom, 36. S. Chrys
ostom, 37. S. Chrysostom, 38. S. Jerome, 39.
5. Jerome, 40. S. Jerome, 41. S. Jerome, 42.
S. Jerome, 43. S. Jerome, 44. S. Jerome, 45.
S. Gaudentius, 46. S. Augustine, 47. S. Au
gustine, 48. S. Augustine, 49. S. Augustine,
50. S. Augustine, 51. S. Augustine, 52. S.
Augustine, 53. S. Augustine, 54. S. Augus
tine, 55. S. Augustine, 56. S. Augustine, 57.
S. Cyril of Alexandria, 58. S. Cyril, 59. S.
Cyril, 60. S. Proclus, 61. S. Proclus, 62.
Theodoret, 63. Theodoret, 64. Theodoret,
65. S. Leo, 66. S. Leo, 67. S. Leo, 68. S.
Leo, 69. S. Leo, 70. S. Gregory the Great . 495
APPENDIX E.
The reports of the Oxford Conference on Priesthood and
Sacrifice and of the Fulham " Round Table" Confer
ence .......... 5T5
Conference held at Oxford, December 13, 1899.— It consisted
of ten Churchmen and five Nonconformists. — The
question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice only incidentally
touched upon. Father Puller's view similar to Mr.
Brightman's. — This view supported by no other mem-
CONTENTS. Ixiii
ber, but condemned by several in " obiter dicta." —
Father Puller's speech at the first discussion. — Father
Puller's second speech. — Father Puller's third speech. —
Father Puller's " Statement." — Dr. Ryle's views, Canon
Scott Holland's, Dr. Moberly's, Canon Bernard's,
Canon Gore's, Rev. C. G. Lang's, Dr. Sanday's, Rev.
A. C. Headlam's, Dr. Fairbairn's, Dr. Davison's. —
Father Puller divides the process of Sacrifice into six
acts, — three sacerdotal and three not sacerdotal. — He
considers the priestly acts to be confined to heaven and
to the Holy Eucharist ; and that the Death on the Cross,
not being a priestly act, cannot be a strictly sacrificial
act. — Father Puller nowhere relates the Eucharistic
Sacrifice to the Death on the Cross. — He quotes only
two authorities, Dr. Milligan and Dr. Davison, both
Presbyterians. — Mr. Lang's reference to Father Puller's
view. — Dr. Ryle's "obiter dicta" inconsistent with
Father Puller's theory ; Canon Scott Holland's, Canon
Bernard's, Canon Gore's, Dr. Sanday's, Mr. Headlam's,
Dr. Fairbairn's, Dr. Davison's, Dr. Moberly's, Canon
Bernard's. — Conclusion to be drawn from the Oxford
Conference ......... 515
Fulham Conference. — Its constitution. — The subject dis
cussed was the Holy Eucharist. — A written statement
invited in preparation for the Conference. — That of the
Rev. N. Dimock taken as the starting-point for dis
cussion. — One entire session devoted to the Eucharistic
Sacrifice. — The Modern view conspicuous by its ab
sence. — A practical agreement that the sacrificial aspect
of the Eucharist depends solely on its relation to our
Lord's Sacrifice on the Cross ; the only possible ex
ception Canon Gore's theory about S. Irenasus. . . 535
I. Extracts from the statements : I. Rev. N.
Dimock, 2. Rev. H. E. J. Bevan, 3. Lord
Halifax, 4. Rev. Dr. Moule, 5. Rev. Canon
Newbolt, 6. Rev. Dr. Robertson, 7. Rev.
Canon Robinson, 8. Rev. Dr. Wace . . 537
II. Extracts from the discussion : I. Canon Gore,
2. Dr. Wace, 3. Lord Halifax, 4. Canon
Ixiv CONTENTS.
Gore, 5. Mr. Dimock, 6. Dr. Robertson, 7.
Canon Gore, 8. Lord Halifax . . .539
Summary. — No one puts forth the Modern view. — All trace
the Eucharistic Sacrifice solely to the Death upon the
Cross. — Canon Gore's interpretation of S. Irenseus con
sidered. — No reference of the Holy Eucharist to the
ritual of the Day of Atonement. — Drs. Wace and
Robinson connect it with the Passover. — Lord Halifax
gives the Catholic view ; and even Mr. Dimock, so far
as he sees any sacrificial action, traces it to the Death
upon the Cross. — No one refers it to our Lord's
Mediatorial work in heaven. — Conclusion . . . 542
APPENDIX F.
On Sadler's " The One Offering " 546
APPENDIX G.
CORRESPONDENCE.
Letter (first) from the Bishop of Durham to Dr. Mortimer . 551
Letter (second) from the Bishop of Durham to Dr. Mortimer. 552
Letter from the Rev. F. E. Brightman to Dr. Mortimer . 553
Letter from Dr. Mortimer to Dr. Paul Schanz . . . 556
Letter from Dr. Schanz to Dr. Mortimer . . . -557
Letter (first) from Dr. Mortimer to M. 1'Abbe Lepin . . 560
Letter (first) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer . . . 563
Letter (second) from Dr. Mortimer to M. Lepin . . . 571
Letter (second) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer . . . 574
Letter (third) from Dr. Mortimer to M. Lepin . . . 578
Letter (third) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer . . .581
LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE
PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK.
Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, New York, 1892.
Albert the Great, Opera, Lugdunum, 1651.
Alexander of Hales, Opera, Coloniae, 1662.
Alford, Greek Testament, London, 1874-1877, 4 vols.
Algerus, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 180.
Amalarius, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 119.
S. Ambrose, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1853, 4 vols.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh, 1873, 24 vols.
S. Augustine, Opera Omnia, Gaume, n vols.
" " " Migne, P. L., 16 vols.
" " " Rotterdam, 1535, 10 vols.
S. Basil, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1834, 5 vols.
Bellarmine, De Controversiis, Prague, 1721, 4 vols.
Benedict XIV., Opera Omnia, Prati, 1843, 17 vols.
S. Bernard, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1890, 2 vols.
Biel, Gabriel, Opera, Lugdunum, 1527.
¥>vs\$\2cn\.,Christian Antiquities, London, 1878, 2 vols.
Blunt, Annotated Prayer Book) London, 1876.
" Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, London, 1874.
" Theological Dictionary, London, 1870.
Bona, Opera Omnia, Antuerpise, 1723.
S. Bonaventura, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1864, 15 vols.
Bossuet, CEuvres Completes, Tours, 1862, 12 vols.
Brightman, The Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Cabasilas, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. G., torn. 150.
Cajetan, Opera Omnia, Antuerpise, 1612.
Campion and Beaumont, The Prayer Book Interleaved, London, 1880.
Canus, Melchior, De Locis Theol, Venetiis, 1776.
Ixv
Ixvi LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.
Cassander, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1616.
S. Chrysostom, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1839, 2O vols.
Cienfuegos, Vita Abscondita, Rome, 1728.
S. Clement, Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, London, 1890, 4 vols.
Condi. Trident, Canones et Decreta, Minister, 1847.
Cornelius a Lapide, Comment., Paris, 1865, 10 vols.
Cosin, Works, Oxford, 1843, 5 vols-
Cursus Scripture Sacrce, Rome, 21 vols.
S. Cyprian, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1726.
Cyril Alex., Opera Omnia, Basileae, 1566 (also Migne, P. G., torn.
68-77, 10 vols.).
Cyril Jerus., Opera Omnia, Paris, 1720.
De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, Rome, 1889, 2 vols.
De Lugo, De Fide, Paris, 1868, 2 vols.
De Lyra, Biblia Sacra, Venetiis, 1638, 6 vols.
Dictionary of National Biography, London, 1885-95, 62 vols.
Didache, Funk, Tubingen, 1887.
S. Dionysius Areop., Opera, Migne, P. G., torn. 3, 2 vols.
Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, Paris, 1889.
Duns Scotus, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1891, 26 vols.
Eusebius Caesar., Opera Omnia, Colonise, 1688, 3 vols.
Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, Rome, 1766, 5 vols.
Florus, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 119.
Forbes, Articles, London, 1878.
" Primary Charge, London, 1858.
" The Creed, London, 1866.
" Theological Defence, London, 1860.
Franzelin, Opera, Rome, 1887, 8 vols.
Fulham Conference, London, 1900.
Gavantus, Thesaurus, Antuerpiae, 1646, 3 vols.
Gibson, Thirty-Nine Articles, London, 1896, 2 vols.
Grancolas, Anciennes Liturgies, Paris, 1774.
" L Antiquite" des Ceremonies, Paris, 1792.
S. Gregory the Great, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1862, 5 vols.
Grotius, Hugo, Opera Omnia, Amsterdam, 1679, 4 v°ls-
Hammond, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford, 1878.
Hardwick, Articles of Religion, London, 1851.
Hefele, History of the Councils, Edinburgh, 1871, 5 vols.
Hildebert of Mans, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 171.
Hiquseus, Comm. in Scot., Lugdunum, 1639.
LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Ixvii
Hittorpius, De Divinis, Colonise, 1568.
Hore, Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church, London,
1899.
Hugo of S. Victor, Opera Omnia, Rothomagi, 1648, 3 vols.
S. Ignatius, Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers, London, 1889, 4 vols.
Innocent III., Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 217.
S. Irenseus, Opera Omnia, Stieren, Lipsiae, 1853, 2 vols.
S. Isidore of Seville, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1601.
S. Ivo of Chartres, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 161, 162.
S. Jerome, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1693, 5 vols.
S. John of Damascus, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1864, 3 vols.
S. Justin Martyr, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 6.
Keble, Considerations, Oxford, 1872.
Eucharistical Adoration, Oxford, 1872.
Life, by Coleridge, Oxford, 1869, 2 vols.
" Sermons on the Christian Year, London, 1887.
Kidd, Later Mediaval Doctrine of the Encharistic Sacrifice, Lon
don, 1898.
Kidd, The Thirty-Nine Articles, London, 1899, 2 vols.
Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Paris, 1672, 18 vols.
S. Leo, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 54.
Lepin, L Idee du Sacrifice dans la Religion ChrMenne, Paris, 1897.
Lessius, Opera Omnia, Antuerpise, 1618-1620.
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, 89 vols.
Liddon, Life of Pusey, London, 1898, 4 vols.
Liturgiarum Orientalium Coll., Renaudot, Francofurti, 1847.
Macarius, The'ologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, Paris, 1859, 2 v°ls-
Mackay, Life of Bishop Forbes, London, 1888.
Magee, The Atonement, London, 1816, 3 vols.
Martene, De Antiquis, Antuerpise, 1736, 4 vols.
Masarello, Cat. Cone. Trid., Agram, 1874.
Mason, The Faith of the Gospel, London, 1890.
Meyer, Comm. on the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1883, 10 vols.
Milligan, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood, London, 1892.
The Resurrection, London, 1894.
Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, London, 1898.
Neale, History of the Eastern Church, London, 1847, 4 vols.
" Tetralogia Liturgica, London, 1849.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1887, 28 vols.
B. Odo of Cambrai, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn. 160.
Ixviii LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO.
Origen, Opera, Basileae, 1557.
Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church, London, 1898.
Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Trident., Antuerpise, 1673.
Palmer, Origin es Liturg. , London, 1845.
Pearson, The Creed, Cambridge, 1859.
Pelliccia, Polity of the Church, London, 1883.
Percival, Digest of Theology, London, 1893.
Perrone, Prczlectiones Theolog., Lovanii, 1838, 8 vols.
Petavius, Theol. Dogmat., Antuerpios, 1700, 6 vols.
Peter Lombard, Sententia, Lovanii, 1557.
Peter the Venerable, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 189.
Les Petits Bollandistes, Paris, 20 vols.
Pitisco, Antiq. Roman., Venetiis, 1719, 3 vols.
Pulleyne, Robert, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 177.
Pusey, Doctrine of the Real Presence, London, 1883.
" Eirenicon, Oxford, 1870, 3 vols.
" University Sermons, London, 1872.
Rabanus Maurus, Opera Omnia, Colonise, 1626, 3 vols.
Radbertus, Paschasius, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 120.
Ratramnus, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 121.
Robertson, History of the Christian Church, London, 1871, 5 vols.
Romsee, Opera Liturgica, Mechlin, 1830, 4 vols.
Sadler, The One Offering, London, 1889.
Salmeron, Opera Omnia, Colonise, 1604.
Sanday, Priesthood and Sacrifice, London, 1900.
Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New York,
1894, 4 vols.
Schanz, Die Lehre von den Heiligen Sacramenten, Freiburg im Breis-
gau, 1893.
Scheeben, La Dogmatique, Paris, 1882, 4 vols.
Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, London, 1872.
Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, London, 1877, 4 vols.
Smith and Cheetham, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, London,
1876, 2 vols.
Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography, Boston, 1877,
4 vols.
Socinus, Opera, Eirenopoli, 1656, 2 vols.
Stentrup, De Verb. Incarnat., (Eniponti, 1889, 2 vols.
Strabo, Walafrid., Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 114.
Suarez, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1856, 30 vols.
LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO. Ixix
Suicer, Thesaurus, Amsterdam, 1728, 2 vols.
Suidas, Lexicon, Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols.
Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologies, Tournai, 1897, 3 vols.
Tertullian, Opera Omnia, Migne, P. L., torn, i, 2.
Thalhofer, Das opfer des alien und des neuen Bimdes, Regensburg,
1870.
Thalhofer, Handbuch der Katholischen Litiirgik, Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1894.
S. Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1882, 34 vols.
Thomassinus, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1868, 7 vols.
Tracts for the Times, Oxford, 1840, 7 vols.
Vacant, Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans
VEglise Latine, Paris, 1894.
Vasquez, Opera Omnia, Lyons, 1631, 9 vols.
Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889.
Wilberforce, Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, London, 1854.
Wilhelm and Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, New York,
1899, 2 vols.
William of Auvergne, Opera, Paris, 1674.
William of S. Thiery, Opera, Migne, P. L., torn. 180.
Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, Rome, 1776, 3 vols.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
CHAPTER I.
SOME DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES.
T
tendency of the pendulum of human thought introductory:
is always to swing to extremes, and in no de- Ifuman
thought tends
partment is this more evident than in theology, to exaggerated
We see it in the age of the Councils swinging from reaction-
A • • A IV • • r AT Examples, the
Arianism to Apollinarianism, from Nestonamsm to age of the
Eutychianism. But the epoch in which we are able to Councils>
trace this tendency in its most exaggerated manifest- naissance, or
ation is, of course, that extraordinary period which fol- Reformation.
lowed the revival of classical learning, which we call,
in literature and art, the Renaissance; in religion, the
Reformation.
Everywhere the desire is manifested to abandon the i. Thistend-
old paths and to enter new ones, to leave the old doc- e"cyseenin
r theology in
trines and to seek their opposite poles ; and this not century xvi.;
only in dogma, but in morals and polity. Indeed,
there seems to be no division of theology in which this
strange revulsion was not exhibited. In church pol- in polity,
ity the change was from a theory of ecclesiastical des
potism to one of downright Erastianism ; in morals, morals,
from a standard of saintly asceticism to a positive re
pudiation of good works, which opened the door to the
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
worship,
and dogma.
The revulsion
greatest in
priesthood
and related
questions.
On both sides a
distortion of
truth revealed
by comparison
with funda
mental truths.
The import
ance of the
' ' reductio ad
absurdum "
method in
theology.
grossest licentiousness ; in worship, from excessive
formalism to absolute irreverence ; from an overesti
mate of objective religion to the entire substitution of
a subjective faith.
When, however, we come to dogma, we find the
most violent revulsion taking place in those doctrines
which are more or less connected with the idea of
priesthood : the doctrines of sacrifice and the Sacra
ments of merit and grace. From an almost mechan
ical theory of the operation of the Sacraments, we pass
to their virtual reduction to mere symbols ; from a
somewhat arithmetical doctrine of merit to a theory of
indefectible and irresistible grace; from an exaggerated
sacerdotalism to a practical rejection of all priesthood ;
from giving an excessive prominence to a distorted
view of the Sacrifice of the Mass to a denial of any
sacrifice except that of the Cross. Indeed, with the
Reformers the Atonement became the one saving doc
trine of Christianity, to the practical obscuration of the
Incarnation and its extension and consequences in the
Sacramental system of the Church.
In all these antitheses we have on either side an ex
aggeration which practically amounts to a distortion
of the truth. This becomes evident by comparing dis
puted doctrines with fundamental truths of the Catho
lic Faith. For since one truth cannot contradict or be
inconsistent with another truth, where this contradic
tion or inconsistency is discovered we may fairly assume
that there has been some overstatement or exaggeration
of the doctrine in question. The importance of this
method of testing and correcting theological opinions
can scarcely be overestimated. It is of course the ap
plication to theology of the reductio ad absurdum or
ad impossibile method in logic.
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 3
The likeness which exists between the Reformation The likeness
period and our own is most striking. Both were pre- ^Tto^ur
pared for by an age of degeneracy and decay. The four- own age.
teenth and the first half of the fifteenth centuries were
sterile arid unproductive, and the same may be said of
the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth cent
uries. In the sixteenth and nineteenth, forces which
had long lain dormant began to manifest themselves,
with very much the same results. In each period we
recognize the same restless intellect, the same super
ficial reading, the same hasty, ill-considered judgments,
the same desire for novelty, the same disregard of
authority; and, on the other hand, the same forward
leap in invention and artistic development. There
was much of good, much of evil, in both.
To-day we should surely strive to learn from the we should
mistakes of an age so like our own, and especially to therefore avoid
the mistakes of
be on our guard in theological controversy, against theReforma-
that tendency to the exaggeration of one aspect of a tion Period-
doctrine to the neglect of its complementary truth, of
which we have such abundant example in the Reforma
tion period. To this tendency may be traced the re
ligious evils, the narrowness and prejudice from which
our fathers so long suffered, and which we ourselves
have not yet entirely shaken off.
But what is the remedy or safeguard for this ? Cer- n. Remedy for
tainly not compromise, which is absolutely fatal to notcSmpro-n
truth, but that true Aristotelian via media which mise, but the
strives to avoid excess or defect, and in theology ac-
complishes this by comparing doctrinal statements with
accepted truths, and examining whether they err in ex
cess or defect, and so contradict, or are inconsistent
with, the truths with which they are compared.
We need to keep ever before us the fact that the
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Catholic
Faith not a
series of iso
lated proposi
tions, but a
body of per
fectly har
monious truth.
At the Refor
mation the
Atonement
isolated from
the Incarn
ation.
Now the oppo
site tendency :
the Atone
ment obscured,
and humani
tarian distor
tions of the
Incarnation
introduced.
Catholic Faith is not a series of theological proposi
tions strung together without any necessary and intim
ate relation to each other, but a great body of truth,
built up into such perfect unity that one part cannot
conflict with another part, but that all cohere in perfect
proportion and absolute harmony. From this it follows
that the exaggeration or distortion of any truth is most
easily exposed by showing that such a view does not
fit in with the whole body of truth, but conflicts with
some recognized doctrine.
At the Reformation, as we have already observed,
the doctrine of the Atonement was so isolated from the
rest of the Christian Faith, and so developed as the
sole foundation-doctrine of Christianity, as practically
to obscure the dogma of the Incarnation and its conse
quences in the Sacramental system of the Church. In
our own day the tendency is in the opposite direction.
The Atonement in popular theology is relegated to the
background. Its vicarious character is denied. Its
sufficiency and completeness are, to say the least,
called in question by a modern theory of a celestial
Sacrifice without which the Sacrifice of the Cross would
be incomplete ; while some even go so far as to teach
that since our LORD'S Priesthood did not begin until
after His Ascension into Heaven, the oblation of our
L,ORD on the Cross was, strictly speaking, not a Sacri
fice at all, the true Sacrifice being made when our Great
High Priest entered into the Holy of Holies and offered
Himself upon the heavenly Altar.
On the other hand, the doctrine of the Incarnation
has been brought into deserved prominence as the
foundation-doctrine of the Christian Faith ; but in some
quarters there has been a tendency to exaggerate it,
from what might be called an humanitarian point of
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 5
view, by a Kenotic theory, which, in order to make
our lyORD more Human, makes Him less Divine.
In the subject which we are to treat in this volume, in this work
we must continually strive to avoid overstatement on theories must
. be tested by
either side, and to correct, by comparison of one truth other
with another, any tendency in this direction into which doctrine?.
we may have inadvertently fallen.
It may be well at this point to illustrate the operation The violation
and the importance of this principle by a somewhat ^^^^"
lengthy reference to a work by the late Rev. William trated from Dr.
Milligan, D.D., the well-known Presbyterian divine,
which has deservedly attracted much attention in the
Church, and is probably responsible for some of the
ill-balanced views of later writers.
In 1891 Dr. Milligan chose for the subject of his on"TheAs-
Baird Lecture, The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood censionand
Heavenly
of Our LORD. This work, while not directly touching priesthood of
on the Eucharist, deals with the kindred questions of °urI<ORD-"
priesthood and sacrifice, and especially with the inter
pretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The treatment
of the subject is most devout, and shows remarkable
freedom from the bias of Presbyterian theology, espe
cially in the discussion of sacramental and sacrificial
questions.
On the other hand, we must call attention to two TWO character-
typical characteristics. First : The neglect of any refer- j^f, ^osre^ed
ence to the writings and views of the Fathers and (i.) The neglect
theologians of the Church. Almost the only works of the writings
. . . of the Fathers
with which Dr. Milligan seems familiar, or at least andtheoiog-
which he cares to quote as authorities, are those of fans of the
writers of our own times, and while a few of these are
divines of the Anglican Communion the great majority and the weight
belong to schismatical bodies. It is true, as we shall giventomod-
, , , - . ern schismat-
see later, that before the sixteenth century no authority jcs.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
(2.) His treat
ment of the
Sacrifice of the
Cross
as a question
still open for
discussion.
Dr. M. denies
that our
can be found for the main contention of Dr. Milligan's
treatise, and this may account for his entire neglect of
patristic authority. And we, as members of a Church
which bases its doctrine on the appeal to antiquity,
especially to the primitive Church and to the Fathers,
certainly ought to look askance at arguments which
ignore this appeal entirely.
Second : If there be one doctrine which may be
claimed as truly Catholic in the sense that it has been
held and taught as a fundamental doctrine of Christian
ity always, everywhere, and by every part of the Catho
lic Church, it is the doctrine that upon the Cross our
LORD " JKSUS CHRIST . . . 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." Therefore there can be
110 other absolute Sacrifice than that of the Cross, and
nothing can be wanting to the completeness of that
Sacrifice. While it is true that no particular definition
of the Atonement has been set forth by the Church, it is
also true that the fact of the Atonement is a fundamen
tal doctrine of the Christian Religion. When, there
fore, a view is put forth in our own days, which is
inconsistent with this fact, or implies that our LORD'S
Sacrifice upon the Cross was incomplete, it must cer
tainly be rejected by all Catholics, and especially by
all Priests of the Anglican Communion, since, in the
most solemn service of the Church, they profess their be
lief that upon the Cross our LORD " 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."
Dr. Milligan, discussing the questions, " When did
the Priesthood of our LORD begin ? Was our LORD at
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES.
any period of His earthly life a Priest, or did He only LORD'S
enter on His Priesthood when He entered Heaven ? " *
answers : ' ' That the teaching ... of [certain] with earth,
passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews is so distinct as
to admit of only one conclusion, that the order of
Melchisedec is the only order of Priesthood to which
our LORD belonged, and that the order has no con
nection with earth." f He then goes on to show that
there are also texts of the " same Epistle which set
before us the sufferings, and especially the death of
CHRIST, as priestly acts, thus leading to the inference
that CHRIST was a Priest when He endured them, ' ' and,
therefore, that He offered Sacrifice upon the Cross.
This, as he points out, is inconsistent with the conclu
sion which he has reached, ' ' that the order of Melchise
dec is the only order of Priesthood to which our LORD
belonged, and that the order has no connection with
earth."
He then takes into consideration various solutions and rejects
which have been proposed by modern writers, mostly rfeTo^eredb
belonging to schismatical Communions : e. g., that on schismaticai
earth " our LORD is to be regarded as a destinated, wnters
rather than as a consecrated Priest; " J that " our
LORD was indeed in Himself a High Priest on earth,
while learning obedience by the things which He suf- to bring the
fered, but that He did not become fully High Priest ^s^wfthin
until through that obedience He had been perfected ; " § the scope of
and, " the idea of fulfilling different orders of the His priestly
Priesthood . . . [rather than] of belonging to ^cognize SC
them." These solutions Dr. Milligan rejects, and pro- it as a sacrifice.
* Milligan, The Ascension, p. 72 ff.
f Ibid., p. 74.
\ Jackson, Priesthood of Christ, chap, xi., 5.
§ Hofmann, Schriftbeweiss, ii., i, 402.
s
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
He considers
that the
universal con
viction of the
Christian
Church is "not
without force.1'
He proposes a
theory of his
own, based on
the interpret
ation of one
passage of
Scripture.
poses a solution of his own, after making the following
extraordinary statement : " To all this may be added,
as not without force in a controversy of the kind, the
conviction of the Christian Church in every land and
age, that the death of our LORD upon the Cross was
an offering in which He was not merely a Victim, but
a Priest, and as a Priest was engaged in carrying out
that Mediatorship between GOD and man which always
has been, and must be, the leading function of any
Priesthood, either in its lowest or its highest form.
Must we, then, abandon this idea, as has been done
by some ? " *
Attention is here specially called to Dr. Milligan's
opinion that " the conviction of the Christian Church
in every land and age " is " not without force in a con
troversy of the kind." To those who believe that the
conviction of the Christian Church in every land and
age represents the undoubted teaching of the Church
in all matters of dogma, arid is the fulfilment of our
LORD'S promise that the HOLY GHOST should guide
the Church into all truth (cf. S. John xvi. 13), this ex
traordinarily inadequate statement must surely invali
date Dr. Milligan's opinion as to the basis of Christian
doctrine, since it shows that he considers that a funda
mental doctrine of the Faith, which rests upon " the
conviction of the Christian Church in every land and
age," is still unsettled and open to discussion.
The solution which Dr. Milligan proposes is based,
not merely upon a single text of Holy Scripture, but
upon the rendering of a preposition in that text. He
says f that the text (S. John xii. 32), " And I, if I be
lifted up on high, out of the earth, will draw all men
unto Myself," (his own translation), clearly shows
* Milligan, The Ascension, p. 75. f Ibid., p. 78.
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES.' 9
that our LORD'S life of glory begins, not with the
Resurrection, but with the Crucifixion, since our L,ORD
was " lifted up on high, out of the earth (SH titf y ?/$),"
and therefore that His Priesthood began from this
moment, and that His Crucifixion, " instead of the
extremity of shame," was " a weight of glory."
He ingenuously remarks * that ' ' it may, perhaps, be He considers
objected, (i) that the explanation now offered rests too that the objec-
r . tion that it
much upon one passage of Scripture ; that if true, we rests on one
might have expected allusion to be made to it in the ^Js^e onl.y'h
Epistle to the Hebrews ; and (2) that it is inconsistent
with that language of S. Paul in which the Cross of but that its
CHRIST is regarded as humiliation rather than exalta- inconsistency
with S. Paul's
tion, and as shame rather than glory. He goes on to language, has
show that, in his opinion, " the first of these objections acertain force-
has no weight. . . . That there is a certain force
in the second objection, may be allowed."
Of course, there come into our mind, among other
passages, the two statements, (i) " He humbled Him- Examples oi
self, and became obedient unto death, even the death this-
of the Cross. Wherefore GOD also hath highly exalted
Him." f Here the humiliation of the Cross is con
trasted with the exaltation which followed, and therefore
is certainly not considered as the same thing. And (2)
' Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the
Cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the Throne of GOD. ' ' J And this latter text is
from the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which, truly, there
is no support for Dr. Milligan's theory, but a clear
" allusion " to the question before us, namely, whether
the Sacrifice of the Cross belongs to the life of glory, or
to a moment of humiliation and shame.
* Milligan, The Ascension, p. 80.
f Phil. ii. 8, 9. J Heb. xii. 2.
10 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
While the reference to Dr. Milligan's work in this
place may seem a digression, inasmuch as we have not
yet reached the exposition of the subject, it is intro
duced as an example of that ill-balanced and one-sided
treatment of Christian doctrine against which we have
to be so constantly on our guard in discussing a sub-
A theologian is ject so controverted as the Kucharistic Sacrifice. We
fi^wh^mtie trust we may be Pardone(i f°r saying that a writer is
values catholic entirely discredited as a theologian who (i) considers
" the conviction of the Christian Church in every land
and age ' ' (in regard to a fundamental doctrine of
Christianity) to be only " not without force" and to
(2) rests the s. leave the question still open ; who (2) thinks that
of the cross on ^ supreme question in regard to whether our lyORD's
one passage of
Scripture; work upon the Cross was a Sacrifice or not, may fairly
be allowed to rest upon his own interpretation of one
(3) and ignores passage of Holy Scripture ; and who (3) ignores the
^r^Trf"8 whole consensus of the Fathers and theologians of
of the Fathers. . _ ...
the Christian Church in favour of opinions chiefly of
schismatics of the present day.
in. Twoprin- It may not be amiss at this point to invite attention
nized be°°S to two Principles which should be steadily kept in view
Anglicans: by all members of the Anglican Church,
i. The appeal First, that our Church appeals to antiquity ; that it
recognizes not only a principle of continuity in the
Apostolical Succession of its Ministry, but of continuity
in Apostolic doctrine ; and that, while it does not shut
the door to legitimate development in the interpretation
of Holy Scripture and of the doctrines of the Church,
that development only can be considered legitimate
which is not inconsistent with those articles of faith
which the whole Church has accepted as settled, either
by formal definition or by universal consent and con
viction.
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. II
Further, that an appeal to the Fathers must be fairly i. e., to the
made, and must not be based upon a few equivocal ^^^^^
passages, when the general trend of their teaching in whole, not
other passages is inconsistent with the view for which merely to
doubtful
their authority is claimed. It is quite legitimate to passages,
point out that, where the consideration of a subject
was not fully before the Fathers, their silence does not
imply disapproval. Yet, on the other hand, where pas
sages of Scripture are definitely expounded by them,
without any recognition of the doctrines which in the
present day are drawn from these passages, the testi
mony of the Fathers must be considered as adverse
rather than favourable.
For instance, in the commentaries upon the Epistle This test ap-
to the Hebrews written by Theodoret, S. Chrysostom, Pliedt°tlie
J modern theory
S. John of Damascus, and, indeed, by every commenta- Of our LORD'S
tor before the sixteenth century, we find no such view sacrifice in
heaven.
as that our LORD'S heavenly Priesthood is in any sense
needed as a completion of His offering of Himself upon
the Cross. That is regarded as the one complete Sac
rifice, the finished work by which the world was re
deemed, our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven being
looked upon only as the pleading and application of
this finished Sacrifice. This fact is certainly adverse,
so far as the authority of the Fathers is concerned, to
the modern view of a celestial Sacrifice which is not
merely the pleading and application of the Sacrifice of
the Cross, but is itself either a proper Sacrifice, or such
an essential element of the Sacrifice of the Cross as
leaves that Sacrifice incomplete without it.
The second point for our consideration is, that the 2. The church
Church herself, inspired as she is by the HOLY GHOST, herself the
interpreter of
is the teacher and interpreter of all truth. While, aii truth.
therefore, the researches of learned men outside of her
12
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The place
therefore to be
given to the
writings of
schismatics.
The modern
view of the
Kenosis
started from
Beron through
L,utheraii
sources.
The modern
interpretation
of Hebrews
comes from
Socinus, and
has been
spread in Eng
land through
Dr. Milligan.
fold and cut off from her unity, who possess only a valid
Sacrament of Baptism, may be profitably employed in
illustrating questions of scholarship, it is scarcely con
sistent with the view that the HOLY GHOST in the
Church guides her into all truth, to accept readily the
modern theories of schismatics and heretics, unless their
arguments are irresistible. Many of these men deny
the Church's Sacraments, the authenticity of Holy
Scripture, and, in some cases, the Divinity of our LORD.
It is inconceivable, on the supposition that the Church
is the organ of the HOLY GHOST, that GOD in the
nineteenth century should almost always choose those
outside of the pale of the Church as the instruments
by which He reveals new aspects of truth to the world.
And yet, such is the case with respect to the modern
view of the Kenosis, which started in our own day
from Lutheran and German Reformed sources ; was
introduced into England through the writings of Godet,
a French Protestant ; and may probably be traced, in
its original source, to the heretics Marcion and Beron.
The same is true of the more radical interpretation
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to which we have been
referring. Its source seems to have been Socinus, the
founder of Unitarianism, and its principal exponent in
England in our own day, the Presbyterian Dr. Milligan.
While fully recognizing and honestly admiring much
in the latter's treatment of the subject, one may still
claim that a Churchman ought to receive with great
hesitation from such sources doctrines which are prac
tically inconsistent with the authoritative teachings
of the Church.
We venture to insist that these two points to which
we have drawn attention, namely, the authority of
antiquity, and the fact that the Church is herself the
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 13
teacher of truth, ought to be kept steadily in view in
all theological controversies of the present day.
Among the questions most prominently before us iv. TWO ques-
now, as in the sixteenth century, are two which tlonsbefore
. , , us to-day,
mutually connote one another, priesthood and sacn- priesthood and
fice. As we have seen, in the Reformation period sacrifice.
there was a strong reaction against the claims then
made for priesthood and the Sacrifice of the Mass, this
revulsion leading to a practical denial of any real
priesthood in the Church, and of any proper sacrifice
in the Eucharist. It is not surprising to find that at
the beginning of the Catholic revival in our times the
same questions in regard to priesthood and sacrifice The questions
were among the very first to which attention was whichtke
11-1 • 1 Reformation
directed, and which may be said to have been the and the
cardinal points on which the whole movement turned, oxford Move-
ATM r- ,1 i • • c ii« ment took up
There was, nrst, the bringing forward the importance were first Apos-
of the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, which resulted toiicai succes-
in a higher appreciation of the Sacerdotal Office ; and Doctnne'of the
then, as a necessary consequence, the restoration of the Eucharist.
Holy Eucharist to its proper position in the Church's
system.
While much was written in proof of the fact of uttie critical
Apostolical Succession and of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, work done in
... .... regard to the
very little was done towards investigating the character nature of
and consequences of priesthood and sacrifice. This priesthood or
., . ., . sacrifice.
last question was, however, brought most prominently Renewed in-
forward, and the keenest interest and closest inquiry terest stimu-
stimulated, by the Papal examination and condemna- papaiBuUof
tion of Anglican Orders. Indeed, even now one can 1896,
see in this action which at first only seemed so unjust
and so prejudicial to Christian unity one beneficial re- and more sci-
sult,— that it directed the attention, not merely of e investi'
Anglicans, but of all theologians, to the question which
THE EUCHAR1STIC SACRIFICE.
which may yet
afford a better
basis for the
union of Chris
tendom than
Papal recogni
tion.
The investiga
tion of these
questions must
be made in
many fields.
Many learned
R. C. treatises
invalidated by
faulty pre-
An illustration
of this in the
controversy as
to the " form "
in Holy Order.
V. The ques
tion of the
Kucharistic
Sacrifice de
bated with
had received such inadequate treatment: What are the
essentials of priesthood and sacrifice ? And we may
surely be permitted to hope that when this question has
been fully worked out, a better basis for the reunion
of the divided Churches of Christendom will have been
found than could possibly have been furnished by the
mere recognition by the Bishop of Rome of the claims
of the Anglican priesthood.
The investigation of these questions must be pur
sued in many fields, the chief of which are Holy
Scripture, Liturgies, Patristics, History, and Theology.
Further, special care must be taken to examine the
foundations upon which theories are built up.
Hitherto, most of the Roman works upon these sub
jects, though exhibiting great learning and most pa
tient research, have been invalidated by being based
upon certain assumptions or premises which, although
long accepted as indisputable, have been greatly weak
ened, if not positively overthrown, by the recently ac
quired evidence of antiquity, and especially of Liturgies
and Ordinals. We have an example of this in the dis
covery that what was held by the great majority of
Roman theologians to be the ' ' form ' ' in the Sacra
ment of Order, is not found in the ancient Roman
Ordinals ; and that the definition of sacrifice which has
generally been put forth in Roman text-books cannot
be traced farther back than the thirteenth century.
This definition is no longer maintained by a large
number of the most brilliant theologians of the Roman
Communion.
A notable exception must, however, be made in the
case of certain schools of Catholic theologians in Ger
many, who during the past thirty years have investi
gated, with painstaking research and in a most liberal
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 15
spirit, the whole question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, great diligence
They have ventured to go outside of the old beaten anaiiberaiity
in Germany.
paths, and, breaking free from the fetters of long-
accepted but untrustworthy tradition, have accumu
lated a vast store of valuable material, from which a
sounder theory of sacrifice is being constructed. In
deed, to the abundant treasure which they have gath
ered this work owes much.
These theologians may be grouped in three divi- Three German
sions. There is, first, the new and extreme school of J°^1°els:xtrem
Thalhofer. In 1870, in his wrork Das Opfer des Alien school of Thai-
und des Neuen Bunden, he put forth a theory somewhat h°fer' started
similar to that held by the modern school in our own
Church, though far less radical. In 1887 and 1893
this work was followed by two volumes entitled Hand-
buck der Katholischen Liturgik (Freibourg im Breisgau) ;
and in these three works his position is supported with
great learning and industry. Indeed, one may venture its learning
to think that almost every conceivable argument in andliterary
industry.
favour of a celestial Sacrifice, from which the Eucha
rist derives its sacrificial character, and which is the
completion or culmination of our I^ORD'S redemptive
work upon the Cross, may be found in these volumes.
That they are little known in England seems to follow But little
from the fact that those Anglican writers who take this known in
England.
view do not refer to the works of Thalhofer nor use
his arguments. He has many followers in Bavaria,
among the most distinguished, perhaps, being Dr.
Franz, to whose work, Die Eucharistische Wandlung
und die Epiklese der Griechischen und Orientalischen
Littcrgien (in the Second Part), it may be sufficient
here to call attention.
On the opposite side the most able opponent of 2. ontheoppo-
this school was the Jesuit Professor at Innsbruck, site side the
i6
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
works of
Stentrup.
3. Between
these the
treatises of
Scheeben and
Schanz •
and in France,
of I^epin,
Ferdinandus A. Stentrup, who devoted a great part of
the second volume of his Soteriologia to the examin
ation and refutation of Thalhofer's arguments.
Between these stand the brilliant names of Scheeben
and Schanz, who, while by no means accepting Thal
hofer's most radical positions in regard to our LORD'S
sacrificial work in heaven, admit that His heavenly
offering, while not an actual sacrifice, is a virtual
sacrifice. A summary of their conclusions, rather than
of their arguments, may be found in Wilhelm and
ScamielPs Manual of Catholic Theology > which is based
on Scheeben's Dogmatik, and is probably the only
English work which touches on this subject. They
do not, however, notice the Thalhofer school, although
it doubtless had its influence upon the work of Scheeben
and Schanz. Unfortunately, neither of these wrote in
Latin. Scheeben's Dogmatik^ however, can be had in
a French translation, published by Palme, Paris.*
More recently, a French theologian has given us a
most valuable contribution to the whole question of
sacrifice as it is summed up and fulfilled in our LORD
and Saviour JKSUS CHRIST. In 1897 M. 1'Abbe M.
Lepin, Doctor of Theology, and Director of the Semin
ary of S. Sulpice at Issy, near Paris, put forth a work
entitled L1 Idee du Sacrifice dans la Religion Chre'tienne.
Following that illustrious school of French Oratorians
in the seventeenth century, whose works even now re
main a storehouse of dogmatic and ascetic theology, M.
Lepin traces, in the work of the Incarnate Word as the
representative of all creation, and especially of the hu
man race, the fulfilment in time and in eternity of the
great law of sacrifice which seems to be as innate in
the human heart as the knowledge of GOD itself. The
*This does not contain the last three books on "Grace,"
"The Church and the Sacraments," and the " Last Things."
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. I/
author regards our Blessed LORD first as the Repre
sentative of all creation in that glorious work of
adoration for which the world was made, and in which
every creature finds at once its true end and supreme
happiness; and secondly, as the Restorer of the human
race, whose nature He so perfectly assumed. He then
shows that in this twofold work the law of sacrifice
finds its true interpretation and fulfilment — in the work
of restoration, until the end of time; in the work of
adoration, continuing through all eternity.
In Part III. of his book M. Lepin treats of the Sacrifice
of our Blessed LORD at the Incarnation, during both
His hidden and public life, at the Passion, at the Re
surrection and Ascension, and in His life of glory in
heaven ; and he ends this Part with the consideration
of the Sacrifice of our LORD in the Holy Eucharist.
The whole work is most helpful and suggestive ; and
in his treatment of the celestial Sacrifice in its relation
to that of the Holy Eucharist, M. Lepin preserves that
theological balance which is disregarded by so many
modern writers; and, while treating with much beauty
the accidental relation of the Eucharist to our LORD'S
life in glory, he clearly asserts its essential relation as
a sacrifice to the one Sacrifice on the Cross.*
M. Lepin's work was preceded in 1894 by a most use- and vacant,
ful pamphlet, entitled Histoire de la Conception dzi Sacri
fice de la Messe dans V Eglise latine, the work of Dr.
Vacant, a Professor in the Seminary of Nancy. Brief
as this little treatise is, it contains a most scholarly and
judicious examination of all the principal theories of
*In Appendix G will be found a correspondence with M.
Lepin on this subject, in which he states with great clearness
his position in relation to the opinions of certain English di
vines to whose writings his attention had been called.
2
i8
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
In England Dr.
Moberly's
" Ministerial
Priesthood"
supplies an ex
ample of con
structive
treatment of
priesthood,
but we have
practically
nothing on the
E. S.
The only book
on this subject
Sadler's "One
Offering."
Mr. Kidd's
work confined
to mediaeval
doctrine.
The subject is
touched upon
the Eucharistic Sacrifice from the sub- Apostolic age to
modern times. From an historical standpoint this little
work is invaluable and should be read by all interested
in the subject.
In regard to the question of priesthood, the most im
portant contribution of our own Church in this direction
is Dr. Moberly's Ministerial Priesthood, which, while
only claiming to be an introduction to the subject,
devotes itself almost exclusively to an investigation of
the principles and meaning of Christian Priesthood as
exhibited in the New Testament and in the writings of
the sub-Apostolic age. Many writers have pointed out
that the same sort of treatment is needed in discussing
the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but so far no
one in our Communion has contributed any serious
work on the subject. Indeed, with the exception of
pamphlets, occasional papers, portions of chapters in
works upon the Articles or general treatises on theology,
our Church in recent times has produced practically
nothing upon this subject, which is so prominently
before men in the controversies of to-day. The
largest treatise on the Eucharistic Sacrifice is a little
book, entitled 77ie One Offering, by the Rev. M. F.
Sadler, published some twenty years ago, and chiefly
intended to show that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is
recognized by the Church of England in the writings
of her principal divines, as well as in the works of the
Fathers.
A most admirable little treatise, by the Rev. B. J.
Kidd, published two years ago by the S. P. C. K., con
fines itself to the mediaeval doctrine of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, in relation to the thirty-first Article of Re
ligion. There is also a brief treatment of the Euchar
istic Sacrifice under the heading of Article XXXI. in
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 19
the same author's contribution to the Oxford Church in various
Text Books, on " The Thirty-Nine Articles." works on the
J . Articles,
Dr. Mason, in The Faith of the Gospel, devotes six
pages to this question. Perhaps among the best- and treated
known monographs on the subject is a paper of six- m°r*r ^lllJI1rn a
teen pages on the Kucharistic Sacrifice, by the Rev. Brightman.
F. E. Brightman, read before the Confraternity of the
Blessed Sacrament in 1890.
While these and other authors present a more or less
similar theory of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, no one of
them attempts to treat the subject at all exhaustively,
or, indeed, to do more than to state a view, the proof of
which does not seem to fall within the scope of their
work. As a rule, they do not take into consideration These authors
the difficulties involved in their theory, nor do they donotmeet
J the difficulties
meet the objection that it seems to conflict with the involved in
complete and finished character of our L,ORD'S Sacrifice their theory,
r~\ ArAi • f n°r 8^Ve anV
on the Cross. They usually quote no authority for substantial
their view, unless it be from modern authors, although proofs of it.
some of them refer in general terms to the Fathers as
on their side. Mr. Brightman, in the paper mentioned
above, quotes four passages,* one each from S. Ignatius,
S. Justin Martyr, S. Irenseus, and S. Cyril of Alexan
dria, which he seems to think give some support to his
view, and which we shall examine later on.f
Another writer, in response to a request for some
definite passages from the Fathers, refers in general
terms to Thomassinus. Yet another, confesses him
self unable to name any particular passages, while a
fourth thinks that the germ of the theory may be found
*S. Ignat.,AdSmyrn.,vi\. i ; S. Justin Martyr, Trypho, Ixx. ;
S. Iren., Adv. H&r., iv. 17, 18, v. 2 ; S, Cyril, M. Ep. ad
Nest. CEcum.^ ii. 7.
t Chapter VIII.
20
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The laborious
work done by
the modern
school in
Germany.
Bishop West-
cott's great
work on
Hebrews en
tirely against
the modern
view.
in the Fathers. No English writer, however, of this
school seems to have carried his researches in this
matter farther back than the sixteenth century.
Very different is the work done in England from
the painstaking and laborious research of German
theologians of the school of Thalhofer, to which we
have already referred. They have gone most care
fully through the Fathers, with the result that, while
Thalhofer confesses * that neither in the Fathers, nor
in the theologians of the Middle Ages or even of later
times, can he find any precise statements in regard to a
celestial Sacrifice, yet he believes there are signs that
the conception of this Sacrifice was by no means un
known to them. He then goes on to quote very fully
every such passage. In Chapters VIII. and IX. we
shall give these quotations, together with some discus
sion of their value in support of his theory, and in so
doing we may fairly assume that we have before us
practically every passage which has been thought in
any way favourable to his view.
We have already referred to Dr. Milligan's Lecture
on The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of Our Lord,
which, while not touching directly on the Eucharist,
deals with the kindred questions of priesthood and
sacrifice, and especially with the interpretation of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
In striking contrast to this work we have the great
commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, by Bishop
Westcott, the result, he tells us, of " many years of
continuous labour ; " a work by the greatest living
authority on Biblical exegesis in England ; a work
exhibiting not only the most accurate scholarship and
the most patient and impartial investigation, but
* Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik, p. 229.
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 21
enormous reading. Almost every commentary, ancient
and modern, seems to have been consulted; and, while
the authority of the Fathers of the Church is not recog
nized as absolute, yet in all important questions it is
placed before us and fairly weighed. The question of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice is not discussed in this book,
but the interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews
on which the modern view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
rests receives most thorough treatment and refutation.*
This, in fact, would seem to be the necessary conse
quence of a study of the Fathers and of ancient com
mentaries ; nor need we confine this remark to ancient
commentaries, for most of the greater works on the
Epistle to the Hebrews reach the same conclusions, the
modern view being found not so much in treatises on
the Epistle as in transient papers on theological con
troversies.
Of these various works we shall have more to say
hereafter. They are introduced in this place only to
show how inadequately the Eucharistic Sacrifice has
been discussed in Anglican theology.
In the preface it has been stated that the purpose of vi. Thepu-r-
this work is not to put forth a view, or to prove one pose of this
, . r . work chiefly to
already put forth, so much as to arrange materials present evid-
gathered from divers sources and not easily accessible ence not
to those who have not a large theological library within £*" Y
reach ; to collect authorities, examine and test argu
ments, and so to present to the reader in a compact
form the evidence upon which the question must be
decided.
At the outset it may be well to point out that for Four difficult-
many reasons,— of which we shall briefly notice four,—
the treatment of the subject presents unusual difficulty.
* Westcott, Ifeb., p. 230.
22 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
1. The equivo- First, the extreme looseness with which the term
caiuseofthe "sacrifice" is employed by theological and other
term"sacri- J
fice." writers. Sometimes it has an active sense, sometimes
a passive, as when our LORD is said to offer the Sacri
fice of Himself, and to be Himself the Sacrifice. Some
times it is used of interior acts and dispositions of mind,
as when we read in the Psalter: " The sacrifice of GOD
is a troubled spirit ; a broken and contrite heart, O
GOD, shalt Thou not despise." At other times, it is
referred to the external act or sign by which these feel
ings of devotion are manifested, as when we speak of
the sacrifice of Isaac, Sometimes it is confined to the
external act alone, as in the yearly Passover, which,
as a commemoration of a past event, apparently did
not necessarily demand any special disposition of heart
other than that of obedience to the law. Sometimes
the fruits of the earth are spoken of as sacrifices ; some
times the prayers of the people ; sometimes the bread
and wine placed upon the Altar at the Offertory in the
Holy Eucharist.
From this it follows that before any progress can be
made there must be such a careful examination of all
the elements of sacrifice as may enable us to draw up a
definition of the term which will really cover the whole
ground. We have, on the one hand, to take into
account the widest use of the word " sacrifice," and,
on the other, to point out such limiting characteristics
as shall distinguish between the word used in its strict
and in its loose sense.
2. NO adequate The next difficulty is that until the sixteenth cent-
teShilthe6" urv tliere was no ade(luate attempt to determine the
nature of sac- essential characteristics of sacrifice, and that the en-
rificetiii deavours then made were so biased by the theological
century XVI.
prejudices of the different parties that the structures
DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES. 2$
built up were rendered unstable by the weakness of
their foundations. Protestant writers confined them
selves to what they called "spiritual sacrifices," by
which they meant purely subjective acts, and Romanists
were hampered by a definition which required them to
find in the victim some change equivalent to destruc
tion in order to constitute a proper sacrifice.
The third difficulty, which has already been touched 3. Entire ab-
upon, is the entire absence of any modern works in the sence of mod'
ern works on
Anglican Church which treat the subject of sacrifice the subject in
scientifically or with any fulness. There are many the English
Roman Catholic treatises, which, while they are all
that can be desired in learning and scientific method,
are rendered useless by the fact that they start with a
wrong definition of sacrifice, and labour to prove as the
essence of sacrifice a theory which cannot be traced
back, in its full development, much beyond the seven
teenth century.
The last difficulty which we shall notice is, that the 4. The many
subject branches out in so many directions and touches dePartments of
theology on
upon so many kindred topics that it is not easy to pur- which the sub-
sue any definite method which will enable us in mod- iect trenches-
erate space adequately to present it in its entirety.
CHAPTER II.
SACRIFICE.
Introductory :
Its origin and
meaning.
Religion dis
tinguishes
man from
other
creatures.
Sacrifice the
universal char
acteristic of
religion.
Its primaeval
origin.
S. not neces
sarily of Divine
institution.
IT has been well said that the characteristic which
most perfectly distinguishes man from all other
creatures is the knowledge of GOD, or, in other
words, religion. For although we say that man differs
from all other creatures in the gift of reason, yet we
may perhaps trace some glimmer of this gift in in
stinct and memory in the higher animals ; but the
knowledge of GOD, the possession of religion, belongs,
so far as we know, absolutely to man alone.
When in turn we take religion and examine its mani
festations in the widely scattered human race, in nations
separated from one another alike by time and distance,
wre find, on its objective side, that its most universal
characteristic — one present in some form or other in
every part of the human family — is sacrifice.
If we attempt to trace sacrifice back to its origin,
revelation carries us to the gates of Paradise, and
natural theology to the cradle of the human race. Hx-
pressed under different forms, often grotesque, some
times terrible, but always testifying in the main to the
same ideas, sacrifice is, and ever has been, practically
coextensive with religion.
On this account some have held that sacrifice must
have been originally of Divine institution, a survival
of a primitive revelation from GOD to man. Others, on
SACRIFICE. 25
the contrary, pointed out that in spite of this uni
versality no inspired writer ever traces it to such an
origin. They see in this an argument against it, and
would rather ascribe it to an instinct implanted in
human nature, as universal and as fundamental as the
idea of GOD itself.
We may turn, perhaps, with more profit from the its meaning
question of the origin of sacrifice to that of its meaning,
And here, in the light of recent and exhaustive investi- i,ove.
gation, the answer seems to be that the meaning of
sacrifice is L,OVK.
An older theology generally answered the question Mediaeval theo-
differently, and saw in sacrifice the effort of man to ex- ^^f^
press, on the one hand, his sense of sin, and therefore and a desire for
of alienation from GOD, and, on the other, his desire for ^t°n^tion
reconciliation, pardon, and restoration to communion This view true,
with GOD. In this view there is indisputable truth, but not the
. r 11 primary con-
and yet, when we come to examine the subject carefully, ception.
we find that sin, though a prominent factor in the con
cept of sacrifice, is not its root.
Sacrifices, in their simplest form, are gifts to GOD
by which man strives to express certain feelings, de
sires, and ideas. And while in man's fallen state, in a
sinful world, the presence of sin must necessarily enter
into and colour his intercourse with GOD, yet a very
little thought will show that sin is not the root idea of
that which sacrifice strives to express. Before the Fall
man's intercourse with GOD was the effect of that love
which drew man to GOD with the knowledge that GOD
loved him ; and there was no obstacle to that perfect
fellowship of love. Sacrifice before the Fall, therefore,
would contain no propitiatory idea. As S. Augustine
has so beautifully said, the heart of man was made for
GOD, and is restless until it rests in Him, and while
26 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
sin did much to destroy or distort what was fairest and
best in human nature, it did not change the end for
which man was made, the aim to which he must tend,
the haven in which alone he can find happiness and
rest, — GOD.
Love itself is lyOve, however, not only strives to express itself by
essentially gjfts which may be tokens of love, but is in itself es-
self-sacrific-
ing. sentially self-expending, self-sacrificing. In a sinless
condition, such as that of man before the Fall or such as
that of man in Heaven, this self-expenditure, this self-
sacrifice involves no suffering, but is a source of ecstatic
joy. In the sin-laden atmosphere of this world, how
ever, pain and suffering are involved in almost every
effort to express love, so that here below a sacrifice
which costs us nothing is scarcely accounted a sacrifice.
While recognizing, therefore, the presence and po
tency of sin, we must not, in our examination of sacri
fice, rest in what is but a secondary idea, superinduced
by a factor not originally present in human nature, the
terrible factor of sin, but we must seek its true meaning
in that which is the very antithesis of sin, man's most
godlike endowment, love.
We have thus far observed that religion is the char
acteristic which differentiates man from the rest of
GOD'S creatures, and that sacrifice is the most uni
versal expression of religion. Let us now go on to
consider the purpose of sacrifice, that is, what sacrifice
is intended to express, and let us further examine to
what extent, and under what authority, it does express
man's religious feeling.
i. The purpose I. We may notice that the relation in which man
of sacrifice. stands to GOD, as the First Principle and Final End
of his being, demands, amongst other things, that he
should recognize GOD'S infinite excellence and His
SACRIFICE. 27
absolute dominion over all things, especially over man
himself, and therefore should profess his insignificance
and absolute dependence on GOD.
In other words, the purpose of sacrifice is that of prac- s. expresses
tical religion in general, to acknowledge GOD as the J^n^'JfJo
Beginning and Bnd of man and of all things ; that is, and depend-
to profess our entire dependence on Him, both for ex- ence ou Him-
istence and for ultimate happiness.
This recognition first finds expression in inward acts, This results
that is, in certain thoughts, religious emotions, and \ ^ ™ ™rd
acts of the will. The very law of nature, however, ings, then finds
requires that man should express these inward feelings ^f^Trd'actTof
by outward actions, since man consists not only of soul, worship, since
but also of body, and must worship GOD with his man consists
both of soul
whole being. Religion therefore demands outward acts and body,
expressive of inward feelings and beliefs.
This outward expression of religion is not required, External wor-
as some have foolishly taught, because GOD needs sens- shl?n,ot
J & . needed to re-
ible signs in order that He may know what is passing veai man's
in our souls. There is no religion which does not heart to GOD,
teach that GOD knows the secrets of the heart, and
has no need that any man should tell Him what is
going on in his mind. But an outward expression of but to enable
religious faith and feeling is necessary in man in order
that he as man may worship GOD with his whole being,
that is, with his body as well as with his soul. For
though man's spiritual nature is the more exalted and
important part of his being, it is not his whole being.
Moreover, it is natural to man to manifest by external
signs the inward thoughts and feelings of his soul, so
that the very law of nature teaches him to express
his religious faith and devotion by signs, which, while
they are not necessary in order that GOD may know and to confess
what is passing in the soul, are necessary in order
28
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Socially, as
well as individ
ually, man
must worship
GOD.
II. The chief
act of public
worship is S.
S. is the union
of two things.
Its true side is
inward.
But this must
be expressed
by outward
action.
The union of
outward and
that man may with his whole being worship GOD and
profess his religious belief before his fellow-men.
Then again, not only is man as an individual re
quired to worship and serve GOD, but as a society he
is bound to express the same recognition of his rela
tion to GOD ; for the relation of man as a society to
GOD is precisely the same as the relation of man as an
individual. Socially he is as dependent on GOD as he is
individually, hence society is bound to show forth by
fitting religious acts its recognition of its relationship
to GOD. Oa this account, therefore, natural law de
mands public worship as it does private. But public
worship is necessarily of an external character, since
in no other manner can man as a society express his
religious obligations.
II. When, however, we examine public worship, we
find everywhere that its chief characteristic is, and ever
has been, sacrifice. But what is sacrifice ? It is clearly
the union of two things, one of which is inward and the
other outward. Its more important side, its true side,
is the inward, the thoughts and feelings of devotion
towards GOD, the motions in the soul of love, of peni
tence, of gratitude, of prayer, etc. This is the more
important, the true side of sacrifice, because if it be
wanting the mere outward act is clearly worthless, a
body without a soul, and therefore dead. On the other
hand, the interior feelings of devotion to GOD must be
expressed by some outward action, in order that the
sacrifice may be complete. A sacrifice, therefore, must
be something more than an intention of the mind ; it
must be carried out in action, it must have an outward
as well as an inward part, a body as well as a soul.
For while the outward act of sacrifice without the in
ward devotion of the soul is dead and worthless, the
SA CRIFICE. 29
inward feeling without the outward action is incom- inward essen-
plete, and therefore no proper sacrifice. and*0™*™6
From this we may conclude with all theologians lt The genus to
that the genus to which sacrifice belongs is the genus which s. be-
of " a sacred sign ; " for, as S. Augustine says* : " A of^sLred
sacrifice is a visible sacrament, that is, a sacred sign sign." ^S.AU-
of an invisible sacrifice. ' ' And this sign is not needed |^^on
in order that GOD may know our feelings of devotion,
but to enable us to give expression to them. In
the same way, although GOD knows our needs, we are
taught by Him to give utterance to them in prayer.
S. Augustine treats of this point at some length, f In His treatment
answer to certain objections to "the sacred ceremonies, of the rationale
. J ... ; of externals.
the sacrificial victims, the burning of incense, and all
other parts of worship in our temples, ' ' he says : ' ' This
question is obviously founded upon the passage in our
Scriptures in which it is written that Cain brought to
GOD a gift from the fruits of the earth, and Abel
from the firstlings of the flock. Our reply, therefore,
is, that the more proper inference to be drawn from
this passage would be the great antiquity of the ord
inance of sacrifice, which the infallible and sacred
writings declare to be due to none other than the One
and True GOD ; not because GOD needs our offerings,
seeing that in the sacred Scriptures He has most clearly
written : ' O my soul, thou hast said unto the L,ORD,
Thou art my GOD ; my goods are nothing unto Thee ' ;
but because, even in the acceptance or rejection or ap
propriation of these offerings, GOD considers the advan
tage of men, and of them alone. For in worshipping
GOD we benefit ourselves, not Him. When, there
fore, He gives an inspired revelation to teach us how
* S. Aug., De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. 5.
| S. Aug., Epist., cii., q. 3.
30 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
He is to be worshipped, He does this from no sense
of need on His part, but only from a regard to our
highest good. For all such sacrifices are significant,
being symbols of certain things by which we ought
to be roused to search for, or know, or recollect the
thing which they symbolize."
s. Augustine, Again we read * : " No one is so foolish as to
j' DC ov. Dei," fafafc that those things which are offered in sac
rifice are necessary for any purposes of GOD. For
the whole reason why GOD must be rightly wor
shipped [that is, according to His law] is that man
may be benefited, not GOD. For no man would say
he bestowed a benefit on a fountain by drinking, or
on the light by seeing. And the fact that the ancient
Church offered animal sacrifices, which the people
of GOD nowadays read about without imitating, proves
nothing but this, that those sacrifices symbolized the
things which we do for the purpose of drawing near
to GOD and inducing our neighbour to do the same.
A SACRIFICE, THEREFORE, IS A VISIBLE SACRA
MENT, THAT IS, A SACRED SIGN OF AN INVISIBLE
SACRIFICE. Hence that penitent in the Psalm, or, it
may be, the Psalmist himself, entreating GOD to be
merciful to his sins, says : * Thou desirest no sacrifice,
else would I give it Thee ; but Thou delightest not in
burnt offerings. The sacrifice of GOD is a troubled
spirit: a broken and contrite heart, O GOD, shalt Thou
not despise. ' Observe how, in the very words in which
he is expressing GOD'S refusal of sacrifice, he shows
that GOD desires sacrifice. He does not desire the
sacrifice of a slaughtered beast ; He desires the sacri
fice of a contrite heart. Thus that sacrifice which he
says GOD does not wish, is the symbol of the sacrifice
* S. Aug., De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. 5.
SA CRIFICE. 3 1
which GOD does wish. GOD does not wish sacrifices
in the sense in which foolish people think He wishes
them, namely, to gratify His own pleasure ; for if He
had not desired that the sacrifices He requires (as, for
example, a heart contrite and humbled by penitent sor
row) should be symbolized by those sacrifices which He
was supposed to wish for because pleasant to Himself,
the Old L,aw would never have enjoined their presenta
tion. And they were destined to be merged when the
fit opportunity arrived, in order that man might not
suppose that the sacrifices themselves, rather than the
things symbolized by them, were pleasing to GOD or
acceptable in us."
Here S. Augustine clearly teaches that the character
of a sacred sign so pertains to the essence of sacrifice
that sacrifice cannot by any means be separated from it ;
that is, indeed, that sacrifice is itself contained in the
" genus " of a sacred sign.
S. Thomas treats of sacrifice in the Secunda Secundce, s. Thomas'
q. 85, a. i and 2. In the latter Article, while showing ^t™ent8°fs"
that it must be offered to GOD only, he uses this a.iand2.
argument : " The offering of sacrifice is made for the
purpose of signifying something. But sacrifice which
is offered outwardly signifies an inward spiritual sacri
fice, by which the soul offers itself to GOD, according
to the words of the Psalmist, ' The sacrifice of GOD is
a troubled spirit.' For, as has been before remarked,
the exterior acts of religion are ordered with respect to
the interior acts. But the soul offers itself to GOD in
sacrifice as to Him Who is the Principle of its creation
and the End of its happiness. Now, according to a
true faith, GOD alone is the Creator of our souls, so that
He is the Principle of our being, and in Him only the
beatitude of our souls consists, as has been said before.
32 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Therefore, as we ought to offer spiritual sacrifice to the
Most High GOD alone, so ought we to offer outward
sacrifices to Him alone. . . . For we see that this
is observed in every government, that the supreme
ruler is honoured by some peculiar sign, which, if it
were offered to anyone else, would be the crime of
treason." S. Thomas, therefore, considers it a question
about which there can be no doubt that sacrifice is con
tained in the " genus " of a sacred sign.
2. s. derives its Again, we may observe that sacrifice, regarded as
essential char- a sacred sign, obtains its essential character, that is, its
acter from its ... ....
institution. power of signifying, from its institution. For, mate
rially considered, as an action, it has not in itself that
signification which constitutes it a sacrifice, but only
an aptitude for assuming that signification. Indeed,
when we examine the actual signification of sacrifice,
that is, the force and power of signifying, we find
that this is not anything intrinsically in the sacri
fice, but is an extrinsic designation derived entirely
from its institution, so that it is quite possible for us
to conceive that the same signification could be con
veyed by an entirely different sign, provided that this
signification was attached to it by proper authority in
its institution.
This institu- This brings us to the further question, What kind of
turn to beau- authority is required in the institution of a sacrifice in
thontative
must be public, order that the signification may be established in it?
The natural aptitude of the gift to be the subject-
matter of an act of worship receives its final form
when, by authorized institution, certain sacrifices are
set apart to express certain acts of worship. For public
worship necessarily postulates public institution by
lawful authority. This alone can determine the signi
fication of the individual acts of the whole community,
SACRIFICE. 33
and impart to the whole system the uniformity required
by society considered as a unit.
In the supernatural order the lawful authority is in revealed re-
GOD, and in revealed religion He alone determines h^lon thls
0 authority is
what sacrifices He accepts, for what purpose He ac- GOD alone,
cepts them, and by whom they are to be offered. Holy
Scripture is most explicit in this matter; nothing es
sential is left to the arbitrary decision of man. GOD
reveals the matter, the form, and the minister of the
sacrifices by which He commands men to worship
Him, as well in the Old Testament Dispensation as in
the Christian Church.
The external form of sacrifice seems to demand 3. The external
some appropriate action done to the victim, or eift, by form demands
J some appropri-
a lawful minister by which the gift is consecrated or ate sacrificial
handed over to GOD ; and this is the essentially sacri- action-
ficial action. This indeed is implied in the very word
" sacrifice " (sacrum facere} , to make a thing sacred,
to consecrate it by some action of an appropriate minis
ter, whether he be priest or layman. Such action of
old was generally accomplished by the outpouring or
sprinkling of the blood, or the libation of the drink-
offering, or the consumption of the gift by burning.
This, however, as we shall see later, did not necessarily
imply that its destruction was essential to the idea of
sacrifice, but was rather a means of handing it over
to GOD and thus making it sacred.
III. We may sum up what has been said thus far in in. schanz's
the following propositions, practically drawn from Dr.
Paul Schanz's celebrated work, Die Lehre von den
Heiligen Sacramenten * .•
The idea which underlies the various sacrificial rites A twofold idea
of the ancient world, whether Jewish or Pagan, seems underliesS-:
* Quoted by Wilhelm and Scannell, pp. 450 sqq.
3
34
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
an outward ex
pression of re
ligion, and a
type of the
future.
Offering is the
fundamental
notion of S.
Through ac
ceptance of S.,
GOD admits to
communion
with Him.
Its essential
character not
destruction,
but consecra
tion.
The killing
only prepara
tory to the S.
to be twofold. On the one hand, sacrifices are the
symbols of certain feelings, desires, and ideas ; on the
other, they are types of the future. The first we gather
from the rites themselves ; the second from their fulfil
ment in the Christian Dispensation. The notion of
offering (pblatio, npoa^opa) may be taken as the fund
amental notion of all sacrifices. Man gives to the
Divinity part of his property, in order either to express
his veneration and gratitude, or to secure the Divine
favour, taking it for granted that GOD is pleased with
such gift and with the dispositions of the giver. The
Divine pleasure is supposed to be increased by the fact
that the gift implies submission, adoration, and venera
tion on the part of the giver. The burning or outpour
ing of the gifts hands them over to GOD, and through
their acceptance GOD admits the giver to communion
with Him ; for the essential character of the sacri
ficial gift is not its destruction, but its handing over
and consecration to GOD. The outpouring of the liba
tions and the killing of the animals are but the means
for handing over the gift to GOD and bringing the
giver into communion with Him. The killing neces
sarily precedes the burning, but the killing is not the
sacrifice. ' ' The victim is killed in order to be offered "
(S. Gregory, in Ezek., i., 2, Horn., x., 19). In other
words, the killing is preparatory to the sacrifice. The
privation suffered by the giver in parting with his
property, and the dispositions with which that priva
tion is endured, may have a great moral effect on the
giver, but they are not essential, since many sacrifices
involve no appreciable privation, — the Sacrifice of the
Mass probably none at all.
We may here remark that an examination of the
sacrificial terms used in Greek, L,atin, and Hebrew
SACRIFICE. 35
quite bears out this view that destruction is not the Greek, Latin,
essential element in sacrifice,* inasmuch as ff<pa&w is ^nd Hebrew
terms snow
the only Greek sacrificial word which contains the that destruc-
notion of slaughter, and of Latin terms not one in its tion is not the
essential idea.
original signification suggests this idea ; while in the
Old Testament Hebrew, Zebach (fQT) alone of the seven
terms used for sacrifice signifies " the slaughtering
of animals."
In the Hebrew sacrifices, the two sacrificial actions with the He-
seem to have been the outpouring of the blood and the brewsthetwo
* sacrificial acts,
burning of the offering. The greatest importance at- effusion of
taches to the blood of the victim, which is gathered and blood> and
cremation.
poured out at the Altar; for, according to ancient ideas,
the life, or the soul, is in the blood : " For the life of
the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you
upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls ;
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the
soul." f When, therefore, the blood is offered, the
highest that man can give — that is, a soul or a life — is
handed over to GOD. This may be seen in that, while
the pouring out of the blood is the especial function of
the Priest, the killing may be performed by a layman.
In the sprinkling of the blood there is more than an
act of propitiation, and in the cremation of the offering
there is more than an act of supreme worship (latrid).
Both may well express, in the first place, the oblation
of self to GOD, and the communion of self with GOD.
The sanctifying power of fire is as well known as the
r61e it plays in heathen mythologies. GOD Himself
* As the discussion in this place of these various sacrificial
terms would occupy several pages, and therefore would some
what interrupt the course of our argument, the reader is re
ferred, for a fuller treatment of them, to Appendix A.
f Lev. xvii. n.
36 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
was the Fire : " Our GOD is a consuming Fire " (Heb.
xii. 29) ; or the fire was a power sent from heaven, and
frequently the heavenly fire is said to have consumed
the victim.
Philo Judaeus * explains the shedding of the blood as
?hTeffu°sionf an oblation of the soul- Our LORD Himself says that
He will give His soul (ipvxrfr) for our redemption (S.
Matt. xx. 28). The independent unbloody sacrifices
can only be explained from the same point of view,
namely, that they express oblation of self to, and com-
in burning in- iiiunion with, GOD. In the most ancient sacrifices of
<?ns? anf oil> incense and of oil, the sweet odour generated by the
the object is the ' J
sweet odour, burning is the chief object in view. The Fathers f re-
notthede- mark that burnt bones and flesh produce no sweet
struction.
odour, and, consequently, that the pleasure GOD finds
in the sacrifices must lie in the pious dispositions of
those who offer.
The meal a Again, the sacrificial meal is an element to be con-
symbol of com- g^ered jn t^e interpretation of sacrifices, but taken by
munion.
itself it affords no explanation for the outpouring of the
blood, which is not food, nor of the incense offered.
The eating of the victim accepted by GOD is simply
the symbol of the communion with GOD intended by
those who offer the sacrifice. This making perfect
(reXsiMffiZ, Heb. ix. 9, x. i, 14) is the end and final
s. ireuaeus. object of all sacrifices. S. Irenaeus J says : " Sacrifices
do not sanctify man, for GOD is not in want of sacrifices;
but it is the conscience of him who offers that sanctifies
the sacrifice, for when it is pure it causes GOD to accept
the sacrifice as from a friend."
Sacrifice in general, therefore, is defined by Schanz
* Philo J., 839 B. in the Paris edition of 1640.
f Theodoret, in Exod. q. 62.
J S. Iren., Adv. H&r., 1. iv., c. xviii., 3.
SACRIFICE. 37
as " the presentation to GOD of a visible gift at the schanz-s
hands of a legitimate minister, through its transform- definition of s-
ation, for the purpose of recognizing the Divine Ma
jesty, and as a means of propitiation and of union
with GOD."*
IV. Here we may well go on to consider some of the iv. varkmsde-
definitions of sacrifice in general, which have been put fimtlonsofs-
forth at different times by the Fathers and the theo
logians of the Church.
We begin with the famous quasi-definition of S. i. s. August-
Augustine : "Every good deed, therefore, which is Definition011*
performed to unite us with GOD in holy fellowship,
that is, having regard to that final good in which we
are able to be perfectly happy, is a true sacrifice." f
We must examine this definition with the greatest
care, not only on account of the authority of the author,
but because it is relied upon by a certain school of the
ologians in our own time as the chief support of a
modern view of sacrifice which lays so much stress
upon the inward dispositions of the offerer as practically
to ignore the outward sign of the sacrificial action.
Now, what exactly is S. Augustine defining ? Cert- of a trues., not
ainly not ''sacrifice," since "sacrifice" is the pre- °fs. in general,
dicate, and not the subject of his definition. In the
chapter of the De Civitate Dei which immediately pre
cedes this definition, S. Augustine has been pointing
*Schanz, Die Lehre von den Heiligen Sacramenten der
Katholischen Kirche, p. 479.
t " Proinde verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut
sancta societate inhcereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad ilium
finem boni quo veraciter beati esse possimus" (De Civ. Dei,
lib. x., cap. vi.). It is strange how many translate sacrificium
as though it were the subject instead of the predicate; e. g.,
the translation of S. Augustine in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, and the Bishop of Brechin's Primary Charge, p. 48.
38 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
out that the important part of sacrifice is the inward
part, that is, the dispositions of the offerer, so that GOD
calls " a broken and contrite heart " a sacrifice. This
chapter, which we have already given,* ends with the
statement that in a certain sense mercy is a sacrifice,
for GOD says, " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." f
The next chapter begins with the words of our de
finition, " Proinde verum sacrifidum." S. Augustine
affirms that every good deed, therefore (and we must
carefully notice the " therefore," which connects the
statement with the argument of the last chapter), is a
true sacrifice. He does not, however, imply that the
terms " every good deed " and tl sacrifice " are coex
tensive. If we may use a homely illustration, it would
be as correct to say that in the proposition ' ' Kvery man
is an animal," we were defining the genus " animal,"
and that in putting into it the species " man," we were
asserting that the two were coextensive, as to say that
in this passage S. Augustine is defining sacrifice. He
merely states that every good deed which is done to unite
us with GOD in holy fellowship, etc., is a true sacrifice,
that is, has those characteristics which entitle it to be
considered not " a sacrifice," but " a true sacrifice."
At first sight " a true sacrifice " may seem an ex
pression of wider significance than ' ' sacrifice ' ' without
the qualifying attribute " true," but even a superficial
examination shows us that this is not so, since the ad
jective " true," in distinguishing the word which it
qualifies, really limits it and imparts to it a different
meaning. S. Augustine is evidently only contrasting
a true sacrifice with what is not a true sacrifice.
The union of Now, we have already pointed out that sacrifice " is
two parts m s. cieariv the union of two things, one of which is inward,
* Page 28. t S. Matt. ix. 13.
SACRIFICE. 39
and the other outward. Its most important side, its
true side, is the inward, the thoughts and feelings of de
votion towards GOD, the motions in the soul of love, of
penitence, of gratitude, of prayer, etc. This is the most
important, the true side of sacrifice, because if it be
wanting the outward act is clearly worthless, a body
without a soul, and therefore dead." It is through
these interior acts that we are united to GOD, and so
tend toward GOD as our supreme End, our highest
Good, our truest Happiness. But the interior feelings
of devotion to GOD must be expressed by some outward
action, in order that the sacrifice may be complete ; in
order, that is, that it may be not only a true sacrifice,
but a sacrifice properly so called.
This is what theologians mean by the phrase verum "verumac
ac proprium sacrificium. We can illustrate this best, Pr°Prium sac-
' rificmm." Use
perhaps, from our LORD'S own words, " I am the true Of"true"iiius-
Vine." * What do we understand by this ? That the trated from s.
living union between our LORD and His Disciples was
in such strict analogy to that interior relation which
exists between a vine and its branches that He could
speak of Himself as " the true Vine." But no one for
a moment supposes that by this He meant to describe
Himself as actually a vine, that is, as possessing the
outward characteristics of a vine. The metaphor must
be strictly confined to the interior relationship which
exists between a vine and its branches, not to its out
ward form. So S. Augustine's venim sacrificium must be
strictly confined to the inward side of sacrifice, without
which the sacrifice would not be true or of any value.
This is at once evident by a reference to the context.
In the passage f which precedes this and with which
* S. John xv. i.
t Cap. v., which we have quoted in full on pp. 29-31.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
S. Augustine's
definition of S.
in general.
The sacrificial
act illustrated
from martyr
dom.
it is connected by the conjunction "proinde," S. Augus
tine is treating of ' ' the sacrifices which GOD does not
require, but wishes to be observed for the exhibition of
those things which He does require." That is to say,
he is contrasting the outward acts of sacrifice, without
any right dispositions of heart, with those dispositions
of heart which express themselves by outward acts.
He begins, indeed, by defining sacrifice, in its general
sense, as " a visible sacrament, that is, the sacred sign,
of an invisible sacrifice."* Here he clearly recog
nizes both the outward and the inward part in sacrifice,
and, without any qualifying term, defines sacrifice.
In the next chapter he goes on to treat of the inward
part alone, and begins with the words of our definition:
" A true sacrifice therefore [that is, an inward sacrifice]
is any work," etc.
Thus we see that it would be most unfair to take S.
Augustine's definition of a " true" sacrifice, that is,
of one particular kind of sacrifice, apart from his defin
ition of sacrifice in general. And, while no words can
be too strong to insist upon the importance of right
dispositions of heart in order that the sacrifice may be
of any avail, either to the honour of GOD or to the
sanctification of the offerer, yet right dispositions of
heart alone are most certainly not a sacrifice properly
so called, for S. Augustine says that " a sacrifice is a
visible sacrament, that is, the sacred sign, of an invisible
sacrifice." It is not alone the martyr's willingness to die
that constitutes mart)^rdom, but this will carried into
action. So, it is not alone feelings of devotion to GOD
that constitute sacrifice properly so called, although they
are in themselves a true sacrifice ; but it is this devotion
* " Sacrificium ergo visible invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum,
id est sacrum signum, est." — De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. 5.
SACRIFICE. 41
expressed by a sacred sign divinely instituted for the
purpose of honouring GOD and benefiting the offerer.
We have dwelt at great length upon S. Augustine's
definition because it is so important and has been so
often misapplied.
Alexander of Hales, following S. Augustine, defines 2. Definition of
sacrifice thus : " Sacrifice is an oblation which in the
offering becomes sacred and sanctifies the offerer." *
S. Thomas has several definitions, or quasi-defini- 3-ofs.Thomas,
tions ; e. g. : ''In the oblations and sacrifices man
offered to GOD things of his own, to acknowledge that
he held them from GOD." f " Properly speaking, a
sacrifice is something done to give GOD the honour
due to Him and to appease Him " \ — " in order per
fectly to unite the spirit of man with GOD." § " The
term ' sacrifice ' signifies that man makes something
sacred." " Sacrifices are properly so called when
something is done to things offered to GOD, as when
[by the Jews] animals were slain and burned, and [now]
bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And this the
word itself signifies, for sacrifice is so named from the
fact that man makes something sacred." ^[
* " Sacrificium est oblatio qucs sacra fit offerendo et sanctifi-
cat offerentem."
f "/# oblationibus et sacrificiis . . . homo ex rebus suis,
quasi in recognitionem quod haberet ea a Deo, in honorem Dei
ea offerebat" (za 2<z, q. cii., a. 3).
% ' ' Sacrificium proprie dicitur aliquid factum in honorem
proprie Deo debitum, ad eum placandum " (3 q. xlviii., a. 3).
\ "quod spiritus hominis perfecte Deo uniatur" (3 q. xxii.,
a. 2).
\ " Sacrificia proprie dicuntur quando circa res Deo oblatas
aliquid fit ; sicut quod animalia occidebantur et comburebantur,
quod panis frangitur et comeditur et benedicitur. Et hoc ipsum
nomen sonat, nam Sacrificium dicitur, ex hoc quod homo facit
aliquid sacrum " (2a 2<c, q. Ixxxv., a. 3, ad. 3).
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
4. of S. Isidore
of Seville,
5. ofVasquez,
Although S. Thomas here repeats the etymology of
" sacrifidum" given by S. Isidore of Seville* in his
definition of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, yet he introduces
a new idea, although rather in an "obiter dictum " than a
definition ; for he practically confines the " something
which is done to things offered to GOD " to a destruc
tion, or physical modification, of the offering, when he
adds, " as when animals were slain and burned, and
now bread is broken and eaten and blessed. ' ' While
his own treatment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is most
brief, yet in these few words defining sacrifice in
general, he started a theory which has led to many
controversies, especially since the sixteenth century,
concerning the manner in which this destruction or
physical modification of the victim is to be found in
the Holy Eucharist, and how the Eucharist may be
brought under the definition of sacrifice in general,
that is, under the genus sacrifice.
Vasquez narrows the notion of sacrifice by describing
the " confedio rei" as " destrudio" the " immuiatio"
as " demutatio" " a change for the worse," and the
" dominium Dei" as the Divine dominion over life and
death. This idea of the destruction, started by S.
Thomas, revived and emphasized by Vasquez, is de
veloped by De Lugo, whose most distinguished pupil
in our own day, Cardinal Franzelin, makes the notion
of sacrifice to include the following elements : " Sacri
fice is an offering made to GOD by the destruction, or
quasi-destruction, of some sensible object, such offering
having been instituted by public authority, to acknow
ledge GOD'S supreme dominion over all things and man's
* " Sactificium dictum quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mys-
tica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominiccz passionis "
(S. Isid., Sev., Etymolog., 1. vi., cap. xix., n. 38).
SA CRIFICE. 43
absolute dependence on GOD for life and everything ;
after the Fall it also expresses a sense of sin, for which
Divine justice must be satisfied." * This, however,
we shall notice more fully in the following chapter.
Vasquez, in his 22oth Disputation, " On the Essence
and Nature of Sacrifice in General," discusses the dif
ferent opinions and definitions of sacrifice given in his
own day. He shows that Gabriel Biel and Alphonsus 6. of Biei and
de Castro adopt S. Augustine's definition verbatim. deCastro-
He points out, however, as we have already noticed,
that S. Augustine's definition, introduced as it is
by the conjunction " proinde" is the conclusion of a
previous chapter, in which, after defining sacrifice
in general, he contrasts the verum sacrifidum, the
broken and contrite heart, with the outward sign
of slaughtered beasts unaccompanied by right disposi
tions on the offerer's part. He reminds us also that
S. Augustine ends this chapter by saying that mercy is
a true sacrifice, which he justifies from Hosea vi. 6:
"I desired mercy, and not sacrifice." After this
S. Augustine introduces his definition of verum sacri
fidum by the conjunction ' ' proinde. "
Vasquez, in his first chapter on sacrifice in general,
goes on to discuss different definitions by heretics. In
the next chapter he treats of definitions given by
Catholic theologians of his own day, and then, in the
third chapter, presents his own views on the subject.
The whole treatment is most interesting, especially
from the historical standpoint, but far too diffuse to be
quoted here.
Finally, he defines sacrifice partly by its form or vasquez's final
signification, partly by its matter. The first part of the definition-
definition, which has regard to the form of sacrifice, is
* Franzelin, De Euch. Sac., Thes. ii.
44 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
as follows : " Sacrifice is a mark existing in a thing by
which we acknowledge GOD to be the Author of life and
death." * To this he adds that by the " mark existing
in the thing " we are to understand a sign which is in
the thing itself, and not merely in the words ; " be
cause," he says, " the Divine Omnipotence as seen in
the power of preserving or destroying all things, is
rightly signified in the change of the thing that is offered,
and without that change, it cannot be fitly represented."
The second part of the definition, which treats of the
matter of sacrifice, he expresses thus : " A thing which
by a change in itself is offered to GOD, or the change of
a thing which is offered to GOD, is a sacrifice." f This
definition treats of the material sacrifice, or thing
offered, as the former does of the action of sacrificing.
In the introduction of the idea of a change in the thing
offered, effected by the act of sacrifice, Vasquez, as we
have already said, started anew the fruitless contro
versy about destruction as a necessary characteristic of
sacrifice in general.
His contemporary, Suarez, introduces the term ll con-
ficere rem" and points out that since sacrifice is a sens
ible action for the purpose of recognizing the sovereign
excellence of GOD, this purpose is accomplished as well
by a productive as by a destructive act ; that a change
for the better in the victim fulfils this condition as ad
equately as a change for the worse.
Suarez, like Vasquez, gives a twofold definition of
7. suarez's de- sacrifice, partly physical, partly metaphysical. J The
finition.
* "Sacrifidum est nota existensin re: qua profit smur Deu m
audorem vita; et mortis.'"
t " Sacrificium est res quce per sui immutationem Deo offer-
tur, seu immutatio rei qutz Deo offertnr."
\ Suarez, Disput, Ixxii., § vi., 3. Tom. xxi., p. 617.
SACRIFICE. 45
first part is : ' ' Sacrifice is an offering made to GOD by
the change of anything for the purpose of testifying, in
a manner lawfully instituted, to GOD'S Majesty and our
reverence for Him." The other definition is longer,
and is as follows : " Sacrifice is a sensible sign insti
tuted for the purpose of immediately signifying the
Divine excellence and the worship due to it, through
the immutation of something ; or, in other words, it is
an external act of religion containing the supreme
worship of ' latria^ due to GOD alone." To this Suarez
adds that, in order that the definition may be ade
quate, we must understand by ' ' an external act ' ' an
action distinct from the mere utterance of words, or
from such praise and worship as may be expressed by
words.
To bring our list down to our own day, we shall close s. scheeben's
it with the definition of Tanner, adopted by Scheeben : detinition-
" Sacrifice is an oblation of a corporeal thing, in which
oblation this thing, by means of a transformation, is
made and consecrated in recognition of the Divine
Majesty, and of the subordination of the creature to
GOD, its First Principle and Last End."
V. Since the whole doctrine of the Kucharistic Sac- v. Recapituia-
rifice must necessarily be founded upon a clear and tlonoftlie
J elements in S.
accurate conception of what is meant by sacrifice,"
it will be well, even at the risk of repetition, to close
this chapter with a brief recapitulation of those elements
which go to make up the idea of sacrifice in revealed
religion, and which must be present in every offering
in order that it may be a true and proper sacrifice.
Sacrifice has distinctly two parts, an outward and i. TWO parts,
an inward. While the latter may be the more im- anoutward
and an inward.
portant, and may, indeed, be called the true sacrifice,
inasmuch as without it there can be no true sacrifice, —
46 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
yet this inward part, or act alone, is not a sacrifice
properly so called.
2. The sacri- The sacrificial action, which alone can constitute
ficiai action, on sacrifice in the proper sense of the term, belongs
which the S.
depends. strictly to the outward part. While it ought to sig
nify or express the inward part, yet it gains its char
acter, not from this, but from the authority by which
it was instituted. Hence, where the inward part is
wanting, as, for instance, when the offerer approaches
without right dispositions, there is a proper sacrifice,
but not a true sacrifice. To constitute a true and
proper sacrifice both parts must be combined.
3. This must be This sacrificial action is something done to the
offering by a Priest> by which the offering is conse
crated, and the sacrifice effected.
F
CHAPTER III.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.
OR the Christian there is but one absolute Sacri- introductory :
fice,— that which our LORD and Saviour JESUS j^f^eoni
CHRIST offered upon the Cross on Calvary, and absolute s.
by which the world was redeemed. All other sacrifices Allothers
. . are relative, in
are relative to the Sacrifice of the Cross. To it point that they gain
the sacrifices of the Jewish Law, and even those of the their efficacy
heathen world ; and from it the Sacrifice of the Holy
Eucharist gains its value.
In the last chapter we examined the essential ele- investigate
ments in the general notion of sacrifice. We must f^croLlufiis
now apply these to a consideration of the Sacrifice of the general
the Cross, and see how far they are fulfilled in it. definition of s.
It is not necessary here to investigate any of the Not necessary
theories of the Atonement, or even to inquire in what ^^^^j
manner the world was redeemed by our LORD'S Sacri- theories of the
fice. We must, however, most carefully examine our Atonement-
LORD'S Offering of Himself for our redemption, in order
that we may not only be assured that it fulfils all
the conditions of a sacrifice, but that we may clearly
understand in what way these conditions are fulfilled,
I. First, we may observe that the Holy Scriptures, i. Holy script-
both of the Old and New Testaments, distinctly speak JJ^J^wJ^1
of our LORD'S Death as a Sacrifice; that is, they apply Death as a s.
to it sacrificial terms. A consideration of all the pas- bv applying to
, . .... it sacrificial
sages bearing upon this part of the subject is quite terms.
47
48
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
In Isa. liii.
the word "nig-
gas" in v. 7 is a
sacrificial
term,
and the word
"asham" in
v. 10.
The "oblation
and sacrifice"
of 2 Cor. v. 21
and Eph. v.
2 are also
sacrificial.
So i Cor. v. 7,
unnecessary. It will be sufficient to quote a few of the
most important.
" He was abused, while He willingly suffered, and
opened not His mouth, like the lamb that is led to the
slaughter. " * In this passage the word ' ' niggas ' ' (iftp)
is by many considered a sacrificial word and equivalent
to " He is sacrificed," the manner of the sacrifice being
indicated in the next clause, " like the lamb that is led
to the slaughter. ' '
Without, however, pressing this, since it has been
differently rendered by some scholars, we find in the
tenth verse : " And it pleased the LORD (JEHOVAH) to
bruise Him ; He laid sickness on Him ; if His soul were
to make a guilt offering, He should see posterity." \
The word "asham" (BBWt), " trespass-offering," is
clearly sacrificial, and denotes that the Death of
CHRIST, here prophesied, was a propitiatory Sacrifice
for the sins of man.
S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and others refer to this
S. Paul's statement, " He hath made Him to be sin for
us, Who knew no sin; " J and, " CHRIST also . . .
gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to
GOD, for an odour of a sweet smell." § In this place
not only the phrase " gave Himself up for us " (nape-
dcoHsr\ but the terms npoacpopav nca Bvaiav are
clearly sacrificial, showing that the Death of CHRIST
was not only an Offering, but a Sacrifice, and a Sacri
fice (( of a sweet smell."
Again : " For our Passover also hath been sacrificed,
even CHRIST ;" || where it is distinctly said that
CHRIST has been sacrificed, and it is implied that in
this He, as the Lamb of GOD, fulfilled the typical sacri
fice of the Paschal Lamb.
*Isa.liii. 7. t Isa. liii. 10. J 2 Cor. v. 21. $Eph.v. 2. || i Cor. v. 7.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 49
And again : " CHRIST JESUS, Whom GOD set forth Rom. 111.25,
to be a propitiation through faith by His Blood ; " *
and, " We have an Advocate with the FATHER, JESUS is.joim 11.1,2,
CHRIST the Righteous, and He is the propitiation for
our sins ; " f and again : " Herein is love, not that we and i s. John
loved GOD, but that He loved us, and sent His SON to iv* I0-
be the propitiation for our sins." I
There are many more passages ; it is not necessary,
however, to quote them. These are sufficient to show
that the Death of CHRIST is distinctly .spoken of in
Holy Scripture as a Sacrifice and as a Propitiation.
II. In our LORD'S Sacrifice we may notice five dis- n. Five actions
tinct acts, accurately corresponding: with the five stages in the s' of the
' Cross, corre-
in sacrifice which are clearly set forth in the different spending with
sacrifices under the Jewish Law.
1. There was the dedication of the victim by the
offerer. " If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the tionofthe
herd, let him offer a male without blemish : he shall
offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD." §
The dedication of the offering in our LORD'S case
has been variously seen in the institution of the Holy
Eucharist ; in the great High Priestly Prayer in the
seventeenth chapter of S. John, where our LORD says,
" For their sakes I consecrate Myself; " || and in the
Garden of Gethsemane : " O My FATHER, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as
I will, but as Thou wilt." ^
2. The identification of the victim with the offerer. 2. Theidentifi-
" He shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt ^P110"?6
*• m ^ victim with
offering ; and it shall be accepted for him to make the offerer,
atonement for him." **
* Rom. iii. 25. f * S- John ii. i, 2. f i S. John iv. 10.
% Lev. i. 3. I Verse 19. ^ S. Matt. xxvi. 39. ** Lev. i. 4.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
OurlyORD not
a mere substi
tute for man,
but the Repre
sentative of
man.
3. The interior
act: the offer
ing in will of a
life of perfect
obedience.
4. The shed
ding and pre
sentation of
the blood.
While, as we have said, it is not our purpose to enter
upon the various questions which arise in connection
with our LORD'S Atonement, we may observe here,
that, whereas the victim under the Law was a mere
symbolical substitute for the offerer, our Blessed LORD
was in the truest sense the Representative of the hu
man race. The Jewish victims were irrational creat
ures, distinct from the person of the offerer ; in CHRIST,
on the contrary, the Gift offered up is included in the
Person of the offering Priest. It is His living human
Flesh, animated by His rational Soul, and therefore,
in the language of Scripture, a spiritual (nv^v^ariKJi)
and rational (Koyinr]} Offering. Hence, the sacrificial
Victim offered by CHRIST is not a merely symbolical,
but a real and equivalent Substitute for mankind, on
whose behalf It is sacrificed. Again, It is a Victim of
immaculate holiness : " The Precious Blood of CHRIST,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." *f
3. As S. Augustine points out from Holy Scripture,
a true sacrifice must be associated with certain interior
acts, with which it is offered. Our LORD'S Offering
upon the Cross was the consummation and expression
of a life of perfect obedience to the Will of GOD, and
therefore the dispositions which accompanied that
Sacrifice began at the first moment of the Incarnation,
and only culminated in the supreme moment of the
Sacrifice on the Cross. There our LORD offered in will
His whole life, all His acts, all the devotion of a sinless
and perfect life.
4. The effusion of the blood. In the Jewish sacri
fices, while the slaughtering of the victim was a part,
the presentation of the blood was the essential act of
* i S. Pet. i. 19.
f Wilhelm and Scannell, p. 202.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 51
the sacrifice. Some have thought that the slaughter
of the victim was merely for the purpose of obtaining
the blood which was to be offered. Others, with deeper death,
appreciation of the mystery, see in the act of death a
recognition of the penal consequences of sin, and a
special character, therefore, given to the blood, — that
as the life was in it, and the life was offered, it was
a life which had passed through death, a life which had
paid the debt due to sin.
The blood, by the I^evitical lyaw, was sprinkled seven and of the
times before the veil of the Sanctuary,* the veil, that
is, which separated the Holy place from the Holy of
holies, and which signified " that the way into the 1<aw-
Holiest of all was not yet made manifest," f free access
to GOD being barred by man's sin, for within the
Holy of holies was the Mercy Seat, symbolical of
GOD'S Presence. Into the Holy of holies, and there
fore into the Presence of GOD, the high priest alone,
the representative of the people, entered once a year.
The fact that, although the blood of each victim was
sprinkled towards the veil, it still remained unmoved,
signified that the blood of the legal victim was not able
to take away that effect of sin typified by the veil,
namely, separation from GOD.
The priest then put some of the blood upon the horns
of the Altar of Sweet Incense, which was in the Holy
place in the Tabernacle of the Congregation, after which
he poured all the blood of the victim at the bottom of the
Altar of Burnt Offering, which was at the entrance of
the Tabernacle of the Congregation. This symbolic
act seems to mean that the blood had been offered, and
had failed to remove the obstacle which barred free
access to GOD, Some of the blood was then put upon
* I^ev. iv. 5-7. f Heb. ix. 8.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
On the Cross
both the slay
ing of the Vic
tim and the
sprinkling of
the Blood find
place.
The signifi
cance of the
rending of the
veil of the
Temple.
the horns of the Altar, to plead for the individual offerer,
and the rest was poured at the bottom of the altar, in
token that it was powerless to take away this effect of
sin.
In our Blessed LORD'S Sacrifice on the Cross we have
clearly brought before us both the slaughtering of the
Victim and the presentation of the Blood. As all the
blood of the victim was used in the sacrifice, so our
LORD there shed all His Precious Blood for us. But
what the blood of the legal victim could never effect
was at once accomplished by the Precious Blood of
CHRIST; for (unlike the sprinkling of the blood before
the veil of the tabernacle), the effect of the shedding of
our LORD'S Blood was seen in the rending of the veil of
the Temple, thus showing that the Sacrifice was effi
cacious, accepted by GOD for the pardon of man's sin,
and that the way of access to GOD was opened.
There seems to be no other possible explanation of
the rending of the veil of the Temple. That veil had
always stood as the symbol of separation from GOD.
Once a year the high priest, the representative of the
people, entered within it, to signify that the day should
come when the true Representative of humanity would
enter for ever into the Presence of GOD, through His
own Blood, and so become THE WAY * by which man
might freely approach GOD. When, therefore, our
LORD, " by His one Oblation of Himself once offered,"
made upon the Cross " a full, perfect, and sufficient
Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world," we are explicitly told by all three of
the Synoptists that " the veil of the Temple was rent
in twain from the top to the bottom." f
* S. John x. 9, xiv. 6.
f S. Matt, xxvii. 51 ; S. Mark xv. 38 ; S. Luke xxiii. 45.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 53
5. There is but one ceremony of the sacrificial rite 5- Thecrema-
fr» KP nntir-p'rl flip rTPtnaHnn nf tVif* virtitn wViirVi
victim.
still to be noticed, — the cremation of the victim, which, tion of the
in the case of the burnt-offering, was wholly consumed
upon the altar, while in that of the sin-offering, only
certain parts of it were burned. This action expressed
the idea of the sacrifice ascending as a sweet savour
before GOD. The fire which consumed the sacrifice
originally descended from heaven upon the altar of
the first Tabernacle, and afterwards upon the altar of
Solomon's Temple, as we are expressly told. * There
is, too, a similar tradition in regard to the sacrificial
fire in the second Temple.
The descent of the fire from heaven was a sign of
GOD'S acceptance of the offering; a symbol of the God- cauce of fire-
head, especially of the HOLY GHOST; and also a token
of love : e. g., " The LORD thy GOD is a consuming
Fire ; " t the Burning Bush ; J " I am come to send
fire on the earth ; " § the HOLY GHOST at Pentecost. ||
In two ways we may trace the fulfilment of this This is fulfilled
ceremony in our LORD'S Sacrifice on the Cross. on the Cross in
two ways :
First, it was the great act of love of GOD for man. i. AS the great
As S. Paul says, " CHRIST also hath loved us, and
hath given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to world was re-
GOD for a sweet smelling savour ; " ^[ in which text, as deemed.
we have already .seen, the terms are distinctly sacri
ficial, and the words <( a sweet smelling savour" evi
dently refer to the burnt-offering of the Jews. On the
Altar of the Cross, therefore, the Victim was consumed
in the flames of Divine Love. " GOD so loved the
world, that He gave His only begotten SON."**
* Lev. ix. 24 ; 2 Chrou, vii, j, $ S. Luke xii. 49.
f Deut. iv. 24. || Acts ii. 3.
\ Ex. iii. 2. \ Eph. v. 2.
** S. John iii. 16.
54 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
CHRIST so loved us that He " gave Himself for us,
an offering and a sacrifice to GOD for a sweet smelling
savour. ' '
n. AS offered Secondly, it was THE action in which our LORD'S
-through the Godhead had part; for wllile our LORD jn His Human
Eternal
spirit," the ac- Nature was both Priest and Victim, yet His Divine
tion of His Personality had its part in the offering of this Sacrifice,
Godhead in the
sacrifice. since we are told of CHRIST that He through the
Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to GOD." *
Here " the Eternal Spirit " is not to be taken for the
HOLY GHOST, the Third Person of the Ever-Blessed
Trinity, but " as the seat of His Divine Personality in
His Human Nature; " f " His Godhead, which from
before time acquiesced in and wrought with the re
demptive purpose of the FATHER." J
Socinus'view It is impossible, with Socinus, to refer the moment
of this passage. Qf ^s offering to our LORD'S entry into Heaven, since,
as Delitzsch and others have rightly pointed out, the
ritual word a^oo/.wy here shows that the Offering on
the Cross, which corresponds to the slaying, and offer
ing of the victim on the altar, is intended.
Thus every rite We have now shown that every ceremony of the Old
of theoidTes- Testament sacrifice finds its counterpart in our LORD'S
filled upon the Sacrifice on the Cross; that is, He adequately fulfils
cross. aii the conditions prescribed in the typical sacrifices
of the Levitical Law.
in. our LORD III. In treating of our LORD'S Sacrifice upon the
was priest and Cross, we ought, perhaps, to touch upon the fact
Victim 111 His
Human (about which, however, there is no controversy) that
Nature alone, jje was Priest and Victim in His Human Nature
in His Divine alone, as the Son of Man. In His Divine Nature He
Nature He jg Qne ^^ ^ FATH£R aild the HOIvY GHOST. As
* Heb. ix. 14.
t Westcott iu loc., p. 262. \ Alford in loc.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 55
the Fathers have pointed out,* it follows necessarily receives the s.
from this that, as One with the FATHER and the HOLY offered-
GHOST, He receives the Sacrifice which is offered to
Them. He Who upon the Altar of the Cross offered
the Sacrifice in His Human Nature, in His Divine
Nature as One with the FATHER and the HOLY GHOST
received that Sacrifice.
While no one who believes that by virtue of the Hy-
postatic Union CHRIST was perfect GOD and perfect
Man can doubt this truth, yet the question has been
asked by some, how one and the same person is able at
the same time to offer and to receive sacrifice ; since
no one can offer sacrifice to himself. CHRIST the In
carnate SON of GOD, as a Priest, offered Sacrifice on
the Altar of the Cross, not in His Divine, but in His
Human Nature; and it is still more evident that the
SON of GOD was offered as a Victim on the Altar of the
Cross, only in His Human Nature. The Victim is in- communkatio
deed the SON of GOD, and therefore the Second Person
of the Holy Trinity, but He is the Victim, not in rela
tion to that Nature in which He is consubstantial with
the FATHER and the HOLY SPIRIT, but in relation to
that Nature which He assumed, and in which He is
consubstantial with us. And hence we find Holy
Scripture speaking of the LORD of Glory as crucified, f
of the Prince of Life as slain, J of GOD as purchasing
the Church with His own Blood. §
Since that Human Nature in which CHRIST is the
Victim was assumed by the SON of GOD, and therefore
belongs to Him, we must believe the Victim in the Sac
rifice of the Cross to have been the LORD of Glory, the
Prince of Life, GOD Himself. If, however, the Priest
* Theodoret, in Psalm cix. 4. \ Acts iii. 15.
f i Cor. ii. 8. g Acts xx. 28.
56 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
our LORD is and the Victim are not different, but absolutely one and
p^f7 the the same, and that not according to different natures but
passively the according to the same nature, the relation of Priest can
victim. fog distinguished from the relation of Victim in thought
only, not in fact. So the CHRIST is the Priest in so
far as He acts, but the Victim in so far as He suffers.
iv. A difficulty IV. There remains, however, one further question to
in^hat : re ^e treate^> one serious difficulty to be met. The question
ciseiy did our is, In what precisely did the sacrificial action in our
fida^caonCri~ ^ORD'S offering on tlie Cross consist ? The difficulty
consist? is the objection of Socinus, that, unless this sacrificial
socinus claims act can be clearly shown, our LORD'S Death was a
LORD'S Death martyrdom for truth, but not a Sacrifice. It is of great
was a martyr- importance that we should both grasp and fully meet
the objection of Socinus, for much that concerns our
treatment of the Kucharistic Sacrifice later on must
depend upon the elucidation of this question and our
answer to this objection.
The argument The works of Socinus are probably but little read by
of socinus English theologians of the present day, and yet a cer-
drawn almost
exclusively tain class of modern theology is largely permeated with
from Hebrews, }ajs views of our LORD'S Sacrifice. Many of the argu
ments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, by
which it is sought to establish a celestial Sacrifice in
the strict acceptation of the term, are simply the argu
ments which Socinus first introduced to the world, the
interpretation which he first put upon these passages
of Holy Scripture.
The system of It is not necessary here to review the whole system
socmus. Of $ocinuSt it was not unlike that of the Channing
School of Unitarianisin in America in the present day,
for, while denying the Divinity of our Blessed LORD,
it allowed worship to be given to Him as the Repre
sentative and Viceroy of GOD. We must, however,
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.
57
draw attention to one special feature, which is the very
kernel of the Socinian system, namely, his view of our
L,ORD'S Priesthood.
Socinus limited the Priesthood of CHRIST strictly to
heaven. * He denied that our LORD was in any sense
a Priest on earth, or that His Death was in any sense a
Sacrifice. It was, he held, a martyrdom for truth.
In the second volume of the works of Socinus is a
treatise De Jesu Christo Servatore, in the form of a
disputation with Covetus, in the Second Part of which
the relation of our LORD'S Offering on the Cross to
the Jewish sacrifices, and to His Mediatorial work in
heaven, is very fully treated.
In the ninth chapter of the Second Part, he denies
that all the sacrifices under the Law foreshadowed
the Death of CHRIST. This he confines to those
offered for the whole people, and especially to that
offered on the Great Day of Atonement. In the twelfth
chapter he treats of the sacrifice offered on that Day ;
and in the fifteenth he gives his interpretation of
Hebrews, chapters xiii. and xiv.
Starting from the text, " Who through the Eternal
Spirit offered Himself without spot to GOD," he main
tains that this is not to be referred only to the Death of
the Cross, but to the entrance into the Holy place,
that is, into heaven itself. He further asserts that
throughout the whole Bpistle to the Hebrews " the
Oblation of CHRIST " is to be understood only of His
presentation of Himself before GOD for us in heaven.
He claims that the slaying of the victim was not the
essential part of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement,
but the presentation of the blood in the Holy of holies.
He therefore asserts that the Death of CHRIST was
* See Appendix B.
Its kernel his
view of our
CORD'S Priest
hood.
This Socinus
limited to
heaven.
Socinus treats
of the relation
of the Cross to
the Jewish sac
rifices and to
the Mediator
ial work in
heaven.
He denies that
all the Jewish
sacrifices
typify the
death of
CHRIST, but
confines this
chiefly to that
of the Day of
Atonement.
He asserts that
in Hebrews
CHRIST'S
Oblation refers
only to His
work in
heaven.
He argues from
the Day of
Atonement
that the Death
of CHRIST was
not a Sacrifice.
58 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
in no real sense a Sacrifice, but that after GOD had
raised Him from the dead and exalted Him to heaven,
CHRIST presented in heaven the Blood which He had
shed, and that this was His true Oblation or Sacrifice.
He also denies He also denies that any satisfaction was made to the
that any "sat- justjce of QOD jn our CORD'S Atonement. This last
isfaction " was J
made by our point, however, does not affect the question before us,
which is whether our LORD on the Cross " made there,
by His one Oblation of Himself once offered, a full,
perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfac
tion for the sins of the whole world," or whether, as
Socinus says, no Sacrifice was made on the Cross, since
our LORD was not then a Priest. For, as he rightly
observes, " Priest and Oblation are relative terms, so
that where there is not a true Priest there cannot be a
true Oblation or Sacrifice."
Aifordand Alford, in his note on Heb. xii. 22-24, " Ye are
Bengeigobe- come unto Mount Sion, and to JESUS the
yond Socinus
in teaching Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the Blood of
that our sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of
Blood was pre- Abel," sa}rs the writer of the Kpistle " assigns to the
sentedbyiiim, Blood of sprinkling, by which we are redeemed unto
after GOD, a place in the heavenly City next to, but sepa-
the Ascension : rate from, JESUS Himself in His glorified state." He
goes on to contend that our LORD'S Resurrection Body
was bloodless, and that the Blood which our LORD shed
upon the Cross did not corrupt, but is mentioned sepa
rately from the LORD Himself as an item in the glories
of the heavenly City, and as yet speaking. Alford
refers to a long excursus on the point in Bengel's note
in loco ; indeed he takes his idea entirely from Bengel,
who asserts that " at the time of the Ascension the
Blood, separated from the Body, was carried into
heaven." Dean Jackson seems to hold this view, and
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 59
Sadler, in his The One Offering, quotes it with apparent
approval.* Milligan notices this theory, but regards
it as " too carnal," although he seems to hold that the
presentation of our LORD'S Precious Blood took place
in heaven.
While the opinions of Alford and Bengel go some- The issue
what beyond even that of Socinus, they are all to be raised by so-
emus practi-
traced to the interpretation which he gave to the caiiy the basis
Epistle to the Hebrews. As all practically agree that of the inodern
, , «. . view of our
the essential act of sacrifice was not merely the effusion LORD'S Sacri-
of the blood, but its presentation by a priest, the whole fice-
issue resolves itself into two questions : Was our LORD
a Priest when He died on the Cross ? and, Did He
there and then make the presentation of His Precious
Blood, and so complete His Sacrifice ? If He was not iftheessen-
a Priest until after His Ascension, as Socinus and
others teach, then the Cross was not an Altar, and our place in
LORD'S Death was therefore not a Sacrifice. Even if ?eay!?«
lyORD S
He were then a Priest, and yet did not make the pre- ing upon the
sentation of His Blood until after His Ascension into cross was not
a S.
heaven, the Sacrifice was only begun upon the Cross,
was, therefore, incomplete, and the statement in the and the state-
Canon of the English Liturgy that He " made there, ^^^yer
by His one Oblation of Himself once offered, a. full, ofconsecra-
perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfac- tion is untrue,
tion for the sins of the whole world " is not consistent
with this fact. There is no possible escape from one
of two facts, — that our LORD'S Sacrifice was finished
on the Cross, and that mankind was there and then re
deemed, or that its essential part was offered in heaven,
and that man's Redemption did not take place until after
the Ascension.
V. If, for the sake of argument, we assume for a v. if the socin-
* Sadler, The One Offering p. 44.
6o
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ian position be
assumed, how
are we to ex
plain
i. the words,
"It is fin
ished ; ' '
2. our LORD'S
work in Hades:
3. our LORD'S
gift of peace on
Easter Day ;
moment the latter alternative, how are we to explain
not merely " the conviction of the Christian Church in
every land and age," but the following statements in
Holy Scripture ?
1. The words of our LORD upon the Cross : " It is
finished,"* which have always been interpreted in
connection with His other saying, " My meat is to do
the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work," f
as CHRIST'S own testimony on the Cross to the fact
that His FATHER'S work wyas done and man was
redeemed.
2. The statement of S. Peter that CHRIST was " put
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by
which also He went and preached unto the spirits in
prison." J This, together with other passages, has led
to the belief that our LORD as Victor, through the
power of His completed Redemption, brought out from
Hades the " prisoners of hope," the Fathers of the Old
Covenant. In connection writh this we may notice that
S. Leo, speaking of the triumph of the Cross, says :
" So swift was the effect of faith, that of the robbers
crucified with CHRIST, he who believed in CHRIST the
SON of GOD entered Paradise justified." § But how
could he have been so " swiftly " justified if the meritor
ious cause of his justification, the Sacrifice of CHRIST,
was not to be offered for some forty-three days ?
3. The salutation which our LORD addressed to His
Disciples immediately after His Resurrection, " Peace
be unto you." || It has been pointed out again and
* vS. John xix. 30.
f S. John iv. 34.
J i vS. Pet. iii. 18, 19.
% Leo Magnus, Sermo Iv. (alias \i\\.}, De Passions Domini.
|| S. Jolm xx. 19.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 6 1
again by the Fathers of the Church, that this gift of
peace implied that peace had been made between GOD
and man, which would not have been the case if that
which was the meritorious cause of our justification had
not then been completed.
4. On the evening of Easter Day, when our LORD 4. our
breathed upon the Apostles, He said: " Receive ye the
HOLY GHOST: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- Day;
mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained." * This surely implied that the
gift of pardon was already His to bestow, and was
not something still in the future, awaiting the present
ation of His Blood, and therefore the accomplishment
of the Sacrifice.
5. But perhaps the strongest passage of all is our 5. our LORD'S
LORD'S statement made to the Disciples assembled on claim> "AU
x e > power is given
the mountain in Galilee: " All power is given unto Me unto Mem
in heaven and in earth." f This power was certainly heave« and m
given to the Son of Man only as the consequence of the
accomplishment of His redeeming work, as merited by
His finished Sacrifice.
VI. We have now to investigate carefully the objec- vi. Examina
tion that our LORD was not a Priest, and that His Death tion of<?ie So'
ciniau theory
was not a Sacrifice, but a martyrdom. The most satis- that on the
factory way of meeting these difficulties will be to show Cross our
when our LORD became a Priest, and precisely in what neither priest
manner His sacrificial act as a Priest was performed. norS-
i. Was our LORD a Priest when He died on the i. when did
Cross ? And if so, when did He become a Priest ?
Catholic theologians have generally taken the following begin ?
passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews as the basis of
their answer to this question :
" For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats
* S. John xx. 22, 23. f S. Matt, xxviii. 18.
62
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
From Heb. x.
4-9,
Theologians
unanimously
answer, At the
Incarnation.
The Unction of
the HOLY
GHOST at His
Baptism con
sidered.
should take away sins. Wherefore when He cometh
into the world, He saith,
Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not,
But a body didst Thou prepare for Me ;
In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou
hadst no pleasure :
Then said I, Lo, I am come
(In the roll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Thy will, O GOD.
Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt
offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered
according to the law), then hath He said, Lo, I am
come to do Thy will. He taketh away the first, that
He may establish the second." *
Since these words are evidently to be referred to the
moment of the Incarnation, theologians have unani
mously taught that CHRIST then became a Priest ; that
the unction of the Priesthood was the anointing of His
Human Nature by the HOLY GHOST at the moment of
the Incarnation. Some of the Fathers see in the de
scent of the HOLY GHOST at our LORD'S Baptism, and
the declaration, f< This is My beloved SON, in whom I
am well pleased," an unction to the Priesthood and a
proclamation of that office,! as they also see in the Voice
from heaven at the Transfiguration the proclamation
of our LORD'S Prophetical Office, and in the Voice in
the Temple on Palm Sunday that of His Regal Office.
Yet they do not thereby imply that our LORD was con
stituted Prophet, Priest, and King by these respective
proclamations, but on the contrary they recognize that,
* Heb. x. 4-9.
t Cf. S. Peter Damian, Opusc., vi., c. 4.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 63
since from the first moment of His Incarnation He was
Prophet, teaching by His whole life as well as by His
words, and since at His Nativity His Kingship was
recognized by the royal gifts offered by the Magi, so
His Priesthood also dates from his Incarnation. In
deed, the three gifts of the Magi are commonly con
sidered as a testimony that He was then Prophet, Priest,
and King. The proclamation at His Baptism, there
fore, is generally explained, not as the beginning of His
potential Priesthood (as Socinus takes it), but as the
beginning of His public ministry, and, therefore, of the
exercise of His Office.*
That the above passage from the Epistle to the He- summary of
brews is distinctly sacrificial, is most obvious. It has
been thus paraphrased : " Behold, I come ; in the roll
of the Pentateuch (which, through the typical ritual of
the Law, witnesses not only in a general sense to Me,
but to My unique Sacrifice) it is written of Me that I
should fulfil Thy will. But this will refers to a sacri
fice quite different from any under the Law, to that
Sacrifice which consists in the offering of My Body.
Moreover, in saying that GOD did not desire legal obla
tions, and that He did not find satisfaction in legal
sacrifices, and then in adding, ' Behold, I come to do
Thy will,' the legal sacrifices are abrogated, and a new
Sacrifice instituted. But the character of this new
Sacrifice is clearly intimated in the revelation of that
will of the FATHER which CHRIST came to fulfil, the
will, that is, that He should offer the Sacrifice of His
Body. But the purpose of this will was that through
that offering, once for all, of the Body of CHRIST we
* The whole subject is treated in Petavius, De Incarnations,
1. xii., c. xi., n. 5, and iu Pearson, On the Creed, at great
length.
64 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
might be wholly sanctified. For this Sacrifice was per
fect, whereas all the legal sacrifices were imperfect.
Here the Incarnation is regarded as providing the Vic
tim. Therefore CHRIST in the Incarnation itself, and
by it, and not in any other external and visible conse
cration, is constituted a Priest. That is, at the very
moment of His Incarnation, CHRIST conceived the will
to offer the Sacrifice desired by GOD, and therefore
CHRIST was then a Priest. So that it was by the In
carnation that He became Priest." *
2. was our 2. The other objection of Socinus in regard to our
LORD'S Death j^ORD's Offering on the Cross is, that it was not a
a S. or a mar
tyrdom? Sacrifice, but a martyrdom, in that, although our lyORD
willingly submitted to His Passion, He only did what
martyrs have done who have willingly died for their
faith. This objection raises a question which needs the
most careful answer, and in order to give it we must
state precisely the elements which constitute a true and
proper sacrifice.
As we have seen in the last chapter, there are in sacri
fice an outward and an inward part. The inward part
is determined by the will of the offerer, and the out
ward part must fitly express this will. This outward
part or sign must, moreover, be some sensible thing, an
offering, which has an aptitude for assuming that
signification which has been attached to it by its insti
tution ; and, furthermore, something must be done to
this offering by a priest, in order to constitute it a
proper sacrifice. So that, as regards the outward part,
there must be the priest, the victim, or offering, and
the sacrificial act ; and all these must have been or
dained by lawful authority. In revealed religion that
authority is GOD. In the Levitical sacrifices GOD
* Stentrup, Soteriologia, Part II., p. 195.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 65
appointed the outward part or sign, in that He desig
nated the priest, the victim, and the sacrificial act in
every detail.
We have already shown that in our LORD'S Offering The elements
upon the Cross the various actions of a proper sacrifice of a true and
proper S.
are to be found. These actions could only be per- found in the
formed by a Priest, and we have proved that our LORD Cross-
was a Priest. But there is still a difficulty. Was it
He who performed the acts ? Or was it not rather His
executioners, who certainly were not priests, nor in
tentionally offerers of a sacrifice ?
This is what Socinus seems to mean in his really The difference
acute, though mistaken, criticism that our LORD'S betweenmaf-
, ~ .- ,. tyrdoni and S.
Death was a martyrdom, but not a bacrmce ; for a examined,
martyr has the intention and will to offer up his life to
GOD in confession of his faith ; but his persecutors
actually take his life.
The sacrificial action, so far as the slaying is con
cerned, is practically the same as in our LORD'S case,
and the martyr has the will to offer himself to GOD.
i. But martyrs were not priests destined to offer i. The martyrs
themselves to GOD as sacrifices, and in this they
differed from our LORD, Who was a Priest, destined *
to offer Himself as the One Sacrifice by which the world
was to be redeemed.
ii. The martyrs not only were not priests, but were H. nor vie-
not proper victims, as our LORD was, since their bodies tims '
were not without spot and sinless, designated by GOD
for sacrifice ; whereas our LORD'S Body was without
spot, and was " prepared " f by GOD for sacrifice, as
we read, " Him hath GOD the FATHER sealed," J where
reference is made to the mark put upon the victim after
* Heb. x. 5-7.
t Heb. x. 5. | S. John vi. 27.
5
66
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
iii. nor as sin
ners could they
offer S.
VII. The last
objection, that
our IVORD was
slain by His
persecutors,
but not as a S.
The proper
sacrificial ac
tion indicated
in S. John x.
17, 18.
The agents 01
our LORD'S
Death did not
act against
His will.
it had been examined by the priest, to signify that it
was without blemish and fit for sacrifice.
iii. The martyrs, though saints, were not without
sin, and needed salvation, and therefore could offer no
sacrifice for the salvation of others.
VII. This part of the difficulty, therefore, is removed.
But there still remains the objection that our L,ORD
was slain by His persecutors, and could not lawfully
have taken His own life. This, however, is answered
when we consider that it was not essential that the
priest himself should slay the victim. Certainly, in
many cases in the Jewish L,aw the mactation was per
formed by a layman, who in this acted as the priest's
assistant, since, although the offerer could slay the
victim, there could be no sacrifice without the priest to
present the blood and to perform the other accompany
ing rites.
Can the slayers of CHRIST, however, in any sense be
said to have assisted Him in offering the Sacrifice, when
they were acting altogether against His will ? This is
precisely the point where a proper sacrificial action can
be shown, since our LORD distinctly stated of Himself
that He gave His life for the sheep, when He said :
" Therefore doth My FATHER love Me, because I lay
down My life, that I might take it again. No man
taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again." *
Hence we see that the agents of our LORD'S Death
were, in a sense, not acting against His will, not taking
from Him what He could not withhold. For, though
we must not say that He willed that they should put
Him to death, yet, on the other hand, when they willed
*S. John x. 17, 18.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 6/
to put Him to death, and He had the power to
withdraw Himself out of their hands, He did not do
so, but on the contrary willed to give Himself as the
Sacrifice.
An action, as we have seen, may be termed in the A sacrificial
truest sense sacrificial, when, although not performed *£^
by the priest himself, it is performed by another under iayman under
his direction. In the ancient Roman sacrifices, the the priest's
1 1 ^t • ^' direction,
popa, or vidimamus, who slew the victim, was not a e. g.,theRo-
priest, but an assistant to the priest, and performed man sacrifices,
the act under his direction, the priest sprinkling the
salted spelt upon the victim and offering the sacrifice, and those o
In a somewhat similar way, under the Jewish Law, to the Jews<
repeat what we have already said, the offerer brought
the victim to the priest, and under his direction slew
the victim ; but the priest offered the sacrifice.
Thus our LORD, Who was both Priest and Victim, our LORD,
adequately fulfilled the sacrificial act. Not only had therefore, on
J . the Cross ade-
He the will to die as a Sacrifice to redeem mankind, quateiyfui-
but at any moment during the Sacrifice He could have filled the law
withdrawn Himself from the hands of His enemies. In
stead of this, however, He carried out His will to die, by
submitting Himself to their cruelty, and upon the
Altar of the Cross not merely died, but offered to
GOD the Blood which others caused to be shed.
The Sacrifice, meanwhile, was consumed in the fires
of love ; and the rending of the veil of the Temple
was GOD'S testimony that the Sacrifice was perfect,
and therefore had effected the salvation of the world,
for which it was offered.
It may seem that we are devoting unnecessary Thesocinian
space to an examination of the Socinian theory of our theory mre-
gard to our
LORD'S Sacrifice. That this is not the case will be LORD'S
evident when we come to consider the doctrinal founda- heavenly
68
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Priesthood the
foundation of
the modern
view of the
E. S.
VIII. That
man's redemp
tion was ac
complished on
the Cross is
shown by
many refer
ences to it in
the N. T.
The point at
issue restated.
The Socinian
view.
tion of the modern theory of the Bucharistic Sacrifice,
which is precisely the theory which Socinus introduced
to the world in his interpretation of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Therefore it is of supreme importance that
at this stage of our work we should grasp clearly the
Socinian theory of our LORD'S Sacrifice, and effectually
meet the objections which Socinus and his modern dis
ciples bring against the Church's doctrine that the
Sacrifice was offered and completed upon the Cross.
VIII. There can be no doubt that for a Christian the
most satisfactory evidence in regard to this great quest
ion is that which is supplied by the inspired writers of
the New Testament; throughout which are many allu
sions to the mystery of man's Redemption. The fact
that these passages are found scattered through the
various books, and are often little more than references
to a doctrine which is assumed as not only familiar to
every Christian, but the accepted basis of man's salva
tion, manifestly increases their evidential value.
Before examining these passages of Holy Scripture,
let us state precisely the point at issue. We have seen
that, as typified in the Jewish sacrifices, not only the
death of the victim, but the presentation of the blood
was essential to the completion of the sacrifice. The
Catholic doctrine of the Atonement closely connects
these two acts, and teaches that both were accom
plished upon the Cross. It points, amongst other proofs
of this, to the rending of the veil of the Temple, which
signified that the Blood shed had been efficacious for
the removal of the barrier between GOD and man, and
therefore that the Sacrifice by which the world was re
deemed had been consummated and accepted.
The Socinian view, on the other hand, separates the
offering of the Blood from the Death of CHRIST by an
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS. 69
interval of time extending from our LORD'S Crucifixion
to His Ascension, and by a change of scene and place
from earth to heaven. In the many references in the
New Testament to the fact of CHRIST'S Atonement, do
we find this fact generally associated with the Passion,
or the Ascension ; with a work done on earth, or with
an event which took place in heaven ? The issue is
clearly dogmatic, and ought not to be obscured by
mystical references to the fellowship which now exists
between the Church on earth and our LORD'S Media
torial work in heaven.
We shall now proceed simply to quote certain pas- passages in the
sages which clearly relate to the act by which our LORD J^'^JJ
redeemed mankind. Redemption to
' ' As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, the Cross-
even so must the Son of Man be lifted up : that whoso
ever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
eternal life " (S. John iii. 14, 15). " GOD hath not ap- s. johnm. 14,
pointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our I5-
LORD JESUS CHRIST, Who died for us " (i Thess. v. 9, i Thess. v. 9, 10.
10). " If one died for all, then were all dead : and
. . . He died for all, that they which live should
not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him
Which died for them, and rose again " (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). 2 cor. v. 14, 15.
" I am crucified with CHRIST : nevertheless I live ; yet
not I, but CHRIST liveth in me : and the life which I
now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the SON of
GOD, Who loved me, and gave Himself for me ' ' * (Gal. Gai. a. 20.
* In the large number of passages in which the phrase "gave
Himself for us" occurs, the expression is distinctly sacrificial,
and refers always to the Death upon the Cross as the act by
which our LORD "gave Himself," — TtapedwKEv, e. g., Bph. v.
2, 25 ; and sometimes without the preposition, as S. Matt. xx.
28.
;o
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
S. Matt. xx. 28.
Rom. viii. 32.
Eph. v. 2.
Eph. v. 25.
Titus ii. 13, 14.
i S. Pet. iii. 18.
i S. John iii. 16.
S. John x. ii,
15, 18.
S. John xv. 13.
Rom. v. 6, 8.
i S. Pet. ii. 24.
Rom. v. 10.
Eph. ii. 16.
ii. 20). " The Son of Man came not to be ministered
unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for
many " (S. Matt. xx. 28). " He . . . spared not
His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all " (Rom.
viii. 32). "CHRIST . . . hath loved us, and hath
given Himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to GOD
for a sweet smelling savour " (Eph. v. 2). " CHRIST
. . . loved the Church, and gave Himself for it"
(Eph. v. 25). " Our Saviour JKSUS CHRIST . . .
gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all
iniquity " (Titus ii. 13, 14). " CHRIST also hath once
suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might
bring us to GOD" (i S. Pet. iii. 18). " Hereby per
ceive we the love of GOD, because He laid down His
life for us " (i S. John iii. 16). " I am the Good Shep
herd: the Good Shepherd giveth (riOfffir} His Life for
the sheep. ... I lay down My Life for the sheep.
. . . No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down
of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again" (S. John x. n, 15, 18).
" Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
la}7 down his life for his friends" (S. John xv. 13).
" When we were yet without strength, in due time
CHRIST died for the ungodly. . . . But GOD com-
mendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, CHRIST died for us" (Rom. v. 6, 8).
' Who His own self bare our sins in His own Body on
the tree " (i S. Pet. ii. 24). " For . . . when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to GOD by the Death
of His Son " (Rom. v. 10). " That He might recon
cile both unto GOD in one Body by the Cross, having
slain the enmity thereby " (Eph. ii. 16). " And you,
that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind
by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the
THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.
Body of His Flesh through death, to present you holy
and tmblanieable and unreproveable in His sight"
(Col. i. 21, 22). " He humbled Himself, and became 001.1.21,22.
obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross.
Wherefore GOD also hath highly exalted Him " (Phil. Phil, ii. s, 9.
ii. 8, 9). "He . . . took part of [flesh and blood],
that through death He might destroy him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them
who through fear of death were all their lifetime sub
ject to bondage " (Heb. ii. 14, 15). " JESUS also, that Heb.ii. 14, 15.
He might sanctify the people with His own Blood, neb. xiii. 12.
suffered without the gate " (Heb. xiii. 12).
These passages are probably more than sufficient to
prove our contention that in the New Testament our
LORD'S atoning Sacrifice is always associated with His
work on the Cross, and not with anything which took
place after His Ascension into heaven. For the So- FortheSocin-
cinian view, we believe, no passage can be quoted. ^J^^n be
Those which Socinus cites in regard to our LORD'S quoted,
appearing in the presence of GOD for us, evidently re
fer to His present Mediatorial work, and not to the act
by which He redeemed the world.
We may therefore bring this chapter to a close by conclusion,
asserting that the Catholic Church teaches, that upon churcffeaches
the Cross our LORD " made ... by His one Ob- that upon the
lation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sum- Crossou^
LORD offered
cient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins His perfects.
of the whole world " ; that this is proved by showing
that upon the Cross all the essentials of Sacrifice, as
typified in the Jewish Law, are fulfilled ; that the
writers of the New Testament invariably refer to the
work of our LORD upon the Cross as that by which
man was redeemed ; and that the objections brought
against the Catholic view by the Socinians are of no
72 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
weight. On the other hand, we maintain that the
Socinian theory that the Sacrifice of our LORD really
took place after His entrance into heaven, finds no
support in Holy Scripture, and is contrary to the teach
ing of the Church.
W
CHAPTER IV.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
B are now in a position to begin the treatment introductory:
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, having clearly we are now
J able to ex-
before us the essential characteristics of sac- amine the
rifice in general, and their fulfilment in the one and ^. s.
only absolute Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of our I^ORD upon
the Cross.
The simplest method of treating the subject seems to The best
be to give in this chapter the three views of the Eu- methodisto
. . . . give the three
charistic Sacrifice which are found among Christians prevalent
to-day, all of which, with some modifications, may be views>
traced back to the sixteenth century. These views in the words
will be stated as far as possible in the words of repre- of rePresenta-
tive writers,
sentative writers of the three schools, and will be ac
companied by such extracts from their writings as will
leave no doubt in regard to their opinions. We shall and to notice
then notice various developments of each view, which th
ft m attaching to
may be regarded as accretions, or exaggerations, and each.
as unessential to the fundamental theory.
It will be further necessary to examine briefly the
different theories, so as to bring out clearly the real
purport of each, and to show on what ground the accre
tions must be rejected. When we have thus distinctly Then to con-
before us the questions in dispute we shall in successive siderthesuP-
-1 port for each
chapters consider what support can be found for each in scripture,
in Holy Scripture, in the ancient liturgies, in the his- the liturgies,
73
74
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
history, the
Fathers, theo
logians, Angli
can divines,
and Tract-
arians.
tory of this doctrine in the Church, in the writings of
the Fathers, theologians, Anglican divines, and Tract-
arians. We shall then be in a position to draw certain
inferences from our work, by which we may reach
some general conclusion in regard to the doctrine of
the Sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist.
I. The Catholic
view in the
words of
Bossuet.
i. He teaches
that:
the essence of
the S. is in the
Consecration.
CHRIST both
consecrates
and offers ;
I. THE CATHOLIC VIEW.
It seems best, for several reasons, to give the Cath
olic view in the words of Bossuet. He was not only a
theologian of recognized authority, but he represented
that great school in the Gallican Church which sought
a basis for the unity of Christendom in Catholic theo
logy as distinguished from Ultramontanism. Then
the statement which follows was used by him in his
negotiations with the French Calvinist, M. Ferry, and
its terms were therefore carefully considered ; and fur
thermore it is quoted by Dr. Pusey in his Eirenicon *
with apparent approval.
Bossuet writes f : " The essence of the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist consists precisely in the Consecration, where
by, in virtue of the words of JESUS CHRIST, His Body
and Precious Blood are placed really on the holy Table,
mystically separated under the species of bread and
wine. By this action taken precisely, and without
anything added by the priest, JESUS CHRIST is really
offered to His FATHER, inasmuch as His Body and His
Blood are placed before Him, actually clothed with
the signs representing His Death.
' ' As this consecration is done in the Name, in the
Person, and through the words of JESUS CHRIST, it is
* Part III., pp. 44 sqq. We follow Dr. Pusey's translation,
f Bossuet, (Euvres, torn vi., pp. 116, 117, 118.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 75
He in truth Who both consecrates and offers, and the priests are only
priests are only simple ministers.
" It appears that this real oblation of the Body and the s. is aeon-
Blood of JKSUS CHRIST is a consequence of the doctrine
of the Real Presence, and that the Church is not to be
asked to produce any other commission to ' offer ' than
that which is given her to consecrate, since the oblation
in its essence consists in the Consecration itself. . . .
" We believe that this action, whereby the SON of in it is renewed
GOD is placed upon the holy Table under signs repre- £*^l.ttpon
sentative of His Death, viz., the Consecration, carries
with it the recognition of the high sovereignty of GOD,
in that JKSUS CHRIST, present, renews in it the mem
ory of His obedience even to the Death of the Cross,
and in some sort perpetuates it.
" We believe, also, that this same action makes GOD and this makes
propitious to us, because it sets before His eyes the G°Ppr°~
pitious to us ;
voluntary Death of His SON for sinners, or rather His
SON clothed, as was said, with the signs representa
tive of that Death whereby He had been appeased.
c< On this ground we say that JKSUS CHRIST still
offers Himself in the Eucharist ; for having once given
Himself for us to be our Victim, He does not cease to
present Himself to His FATHER, as the Apostle says
that ' He appears before GOD for us.'
" We believe, then, that His Presence on the holy
Altar, in this figure of death, is a continual oblation
which He makes of Himself, of His Death and His
merits, for the human race. . . .
" It is not good reasoning to say, that the Oblation this s. does not
of the Cross is not sufficient, supposing that JKSUS f^^esuf
CHRIST still offers Himself in the Kucharist, any more ficiencyofthat
than it would be to say that, because He continues to "pon the cross;
intercede for us in Heaven, His Intercession on the
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
in the H. E.
we apply the
merits of the
Cross ;
there is no
destruction of
the Victim ;
the H. K.,
while a proper
S., depends
entirely upon
the S. of the
Cross.
The salient
features of this
view.
Cross was imperfect and insufficient for our salva
tion. . . .
' We know that the whole merit of our Redemption
is in such wise attached to this great Sacrifice of the
Cross that there is nothing left for us to do in that of
the Eucharist but to celebrate its memory and to apply
to us its virtue.
" Moreover, let us not think that the Victim, which
we present in the Eucharist, is to be there in truth
anew destroyed ; because the SON of GOD has once
most abundantly satisfied this obligation by the Sacri
fice of the Cross, as S. Paul the Apostle proves divinely
in his Epistle to the Hebrews ; in such wise that, the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist being established in com
memoration, we ought to seek therein only a mystical
death and destruction, wherein the effectual Death
which the SON of GOD once suffered for us is repre
sented.
''Such is the Sacrifice of the Church, a spiritual
Sacrifice, where the Blood is shed in mystery only,
where death intervenes only in mystery ; still a very
true sacrifice, in that JKSUS CHRIST, Who is the Victim,
is really contained there under this figure of death ; but
a commemorative sacrifice, which subsists only through
its relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross, and derives therein
all its virtue."
From this somewhat lengthy statement we may
frame the following simple expression of the Catholic
view :
By the double Consecration in the Holy Eucharist
our LORD'S Body and Blood are produced, under the
species of bread and wine, separated as by death. In
this is made that memorial of our LORD'S Death and
Sacrifice on Calvary which He commanded us to make,
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 77
and thus the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice, in that it is
a re-presentation and renewal of that perfect and fin
ished Sacrifice once for all offered upon the Cross in
propitiation for the sins of the world.
We may especially note in Bossuet's exposition the summary:
following points :
That he makes the essence of the Sacrifice consist i. The essence
precisely in the Consecration. of the s- con"
/T,, ..„.,, . S1StS 1U tnC
That he relates this Sacrifice directly and essen- consecration,
tially to the Sacrifice which our LORD offered once for "• The s- is
" i r\ -r-\ i • • i • • related directly
all upon the Cross. From this it derives its value ; an(j essentially
and its sacrificial action is the showing forth of our to the s. of the
LORD'S Death. Although he recognizes a relation be
tween the Kucharist and our LORD'S Intercession for
us in heaven, yet he does not base the sacrificial charac
ter of the Eucharist upon this. This accidental relation
to our LORD'S Offering in heaven is also touched upon
in his Explication de quelques Difficultes sur les Priercs
de la Mcsse, a un nouveau Catholique, which we shall
consider in its place. We may notice here, however,
that this relation is not an essential element in his
definition of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
He explicitly discountenances the view that the de- m. The de
struction of the Victim is necessary to the Sacrifice, st™;tionofthe
Victim only
when he says : (( Let us not think that the Victim, mystical,
which we present in the Eucharist, is to be there in
truth anew destroyed. . . . We ought to seek
therein only a mystical death and destruction."
A large school in the Roman Church, influenced by 2. A large
certain great Jesuit theologians, has added, as essential schoolmakes
0 J destruction an
to the definition of sacrifice, the element of destruction, essential eie-
real or equivalent. This idea, which, as we have al- ment. re'yins
T . , . . , . „ ~ .-.-.-I on S. Thomas
ready said, originated in an obiter dictum of S. Thomas, as interpreted
was taken up again by Vasquez. It is true that Vasquez byvasquez.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
It finds its
fullest expres
sion in
De I/ugo.
There has
always been a
school which
rejected this
In our day De
I/ugo's view
represented by
Franzelin.
The opposite
opinion gain
ing ground : its
exponents
was satisfied with a mark or sign in the Eucharist
which represented the actual immolation of the Victim
which took place upon the Cross. But this was because
he regarded the Eucharist only as a commemorative
Sacrifice, and therefore found the real immolation in
that of which it was a commemoration, the Sacrifice of
the Cross. His best exponent in modern times is
Perrone.*
This theory of destruction was treated as an essential
characteristic of the Eucharistic Sacrifice by the great
Jesuit controversialists of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, and finds its fullest expression in the theory
of De Lugo.
There has, however, always been in the Roman
Church a school which rejected or greatly modified
the theory that some real destruction or its moral
equivalent must be found in the victim of every sacri
ficial act. Salmeron (ob. 1585) taught on this point
practically the same view which Bossuet so well ex
presses; and Melchior Canus, Bellarmine, Suarez, and
others each put forth a theory in which, while the
element of destruction is not entirely eliminated, M.
Canus satisfies it by the fraction of the consecrated
Host, Bellarmine by the Communion, and Suarez by
the production, rather than the destruction, of the
Victim.
In our own da}r De Lugo's view has many followers,
and is most ably presented in Franzelin's work on the
Eucharist.
On the other hand, in the Roman Church a large and
increasing school is returning more and more to a view
of sacrifice which eliminates the element of destruction
altogether. This school numbers among its followers
*Perrone, Prcelect, Theolog., vol. v.; Tract, de Euch.> Part 2.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 79
many distinguished theologians ; e. g., in Germany, scheeben,
Scheeben and Schanz ; in France, Lepin ; in Kngland,
Tyrrell. It points out that such an element does not
correspond 'to the notion of sacrifice in the ancient
world, nor does it express the significance of the Jewish
sacrifices, where the victim was not infrequently killed
by the person offering it, and not by the priest ; and
that, whatever change may take place in the bread and
wine, the Victim Which is offered in the Kucharist is
not the bread and wine, but CHRIST, Whose glorified
Humanity is impassible and can suffer no change in
the Kucharistic Sacrifice.
We have said enough, however, to show that the Destruction
theory of destruction is no essential part of the Catho- n<*anecessary
element of the
lie view of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, but may be con- catholic view,
sidered as an accretion, or illegitimate development,
of a particular school in the Roman Church.
ii. THE; PROTESTANT VIEW.
At the opposite pole we have the Protestant view, n. The pro-
taught by Luther, and held by most of the Protestant testantview;
taught by
bodies, and by many members of our own Church : that i^ther, held
the Kucharist is not a Sacrifice, since our LORD upon
the Cross fulfilled all sacrifice ; and that any further
claim of a sacrifice, or priesthood, or altar, detracts
from the one Sacrifice of the Cross, and is therefore to
be condemned.
This view is well expressed by Bishop Burnet in his i. well set
history of the Articles : *orth b/
J . Burnet.
;< It is clear that in the strictest sense of the word,
CHRIST Himself is the only Priest under the Gospel ;
and it is also no less evident that His Death is the only
Sacrifice, in opposition to the many oblations that were
80 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
under the Mosaical L,aw to take away sin, which ap
pears very plain from these words : ' 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.' He opposes to
the annual expiation made by the Jewish high priest,
that, ' CHRIST entered in once to the Holy place,
having made redemption for us by His own Blood; '
and, having laid down that general maxim that ' with
out shedding of blood there is no remission,' he says,
' CHRIST was offered once, to bear the sins of many.'
He puts a question to show that all sacrifices were now
to cease : ' When the worshippers are once purged,
then would not sacrifices cease to be offered ? ' And
he ends with this, as a full conclusion to that part of
his discourse : ' Every priest stands daily ministering
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sin : but this Man, after He had
offered up one Sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on
the right hand of GOD.' Here are not general words,
ambiguous expressions, or remote hints, but a thread
of a full and clear discourse, to show that in the strict
sense of the words, we have but one Priest and likewise
but one Sacrifice under the Gospel." *
summary : In regard to the Protestant doctrine we may observe :
i. This view That it agrees with the Catholic view in asserting
agrees with the ^t ^Q sacrjnce of Our LORD upon the Cross was a
Catholic in *
recognizing full, perfect, and complete Sacrifice, which could never
the cross as fog added to or repeated by anything done either in
absolute s. heaven or in earth. This view (as strongly as the
Catholic) condemns the opinion that the Epistle to the
Hebrews teaches that the presentation of the Blood of
the Victim, which was the essential act of Sacrifice,
* Burnet, Expos. XXXIX Articles, Art. XXXI., p. 352.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 8 1
took place in heaven ; for this, as a necessary part
of the Sacrifice, was offered once for all upon the Cross,
though in our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven it
is continually pleaded as meriting our salvation.
The Protestant view was a reaction from the ex- ii. A reaction
asfsrerated teaching of a certain class of Roman writers from e*af~.
gerated claims
at the Reformation, who practically taught that the for the Mass.
Eucharist was a Sacrifice independent of the Sacrifice
of the Cross, possessing its own merit, and available as
a propitiation for actual sin, as the Sacrifice of the
Cross was for original sin.*
As Protestants denied any real Presence of our
LORD'S Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist, they
could not, of course, admit a relative Sacrifice, such as
is taught in the Catholic Church.
In the seventeenth century certain modifications of 2. Modifica-
the Protestant view were adopted by those who realized tlonsofthe
J Protestant
that in denying the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, they view,
had the authority of the Fathers, and practically of all
Church writers, against them. They therefore pro
posed two modifications of this bald denial of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice.
In 1635 Mede endeavoured to show that it was a i. Mede's
material Sacrifice, in that at the Offertory bread and theory of a ma-
terial offering
wine were ntually offered as gifts to GOD. He pointed Of bread and
out that this offering of bread and wine in the Eucharist wine-
was associated by many early writers with the offering
* The Thirty-first Article was directed against this last view,
which was very prominent in the practical teaching of the first
half of the sixteenth century. It is not clearly found in the
writings of theologians. Vasquez refers it to Catharinus, but it
is very doubtful whether he was really its author. Indeed, it
is doubtful whether it can be definitely traced to any Roman
writer. See p. 206.
82
THE EUCIIARISriC SACRIFICE.
ii. Spiritual
sacrifices of
prayer, etc.
Dr. Hickes'
view.
Water-land's
view.
of first-fruits, and regarded as part of the sacrificial
rite.
In the next century the ground was entirely shifted
by writers of the type of Waterland, who, reviving S.
Augustine's definition of " a true Sacrifice," claimed
that the only sacrifices which were possible after the
Sacrifice of the Cross were spiritual sacrifices, as of
prayer, and thanksgiving, and praise. Indeed, as
early as 1697 Dr. Hickes had said : " Vocal sacrifices
are commonly called spiritual. . . . These are true,
real sacrifices, . . . and therefore our Saviour is
said to have offered them up,* and they are expressly
called sacrifices." f And again: "The sacrifice of
praise and prayers unto GOD ... is a proper, but
spiritual sacrifice." J This whole subject is very fully
and ably treated by Waterland in his two essays, " The
Christian Sacrifice Explained," and " Distinctions of
Sacrifice." §
As the purpose of our work is to show in what way
the Holy Kucharist may be regarded as a true and
proper Sacrifice, we may here dismiss from any further
consideration the Protestant view, which, in rejecting
the Real Presence, asserts that in no way is the
Eucharist a proper Sacrifice.
III. The
Modern View.
III. A MODERN VIEW WHICH RELATES THE EUCHARIST
DIRECTLY TO OUR LORD'S WORK IN HEAVEN.
The name dis
cussed.
It is very difficult to find a convenient term by
which to designate this view. It has been called, by
* Heb. v. 7.
f Heb. xiii. 15 ; I S. Peter ii. 5.
\ Hickes, Two Disc., pp. 53, 6r.
$ Waterland' s Works, vol. viii.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 83
some of its adherents, ' ' The Anglican view ; ' ' but,
inasmuch as we shall show that it is not the view of
the majority of those whom we are accustomed to con
sider representative Anglican divines, and as the only
theologians who have written anything larger than
a pamphlet in its defence are to be found in the
Presbyterian Church in Scotland and the Roman
Church in Germany, it scarcely seems fair, and is The term
somewhat misleading, to term it " the Anglican view." ^JJfJJJJj
To avoid the difficulty we shall in this work designate leading,
it simply " The Modern view," a title which is cer
tainly not inappropriate, since the theory in its essen
tial features cannot be traced back beyond the sixteenth
century, and in its fully developed form is scarcely
thirty years old.
We shall give it in the words of Mr. Brightman, i. Mr.
whose paper on " The Eucharistic Sacrifice," read be- man'*
its exponent.
fore the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament in
1890, contains the most explicit statement and the
fullest discussion which this particular view of the sub
ject has yet received from any English divine. It is
true that his treatment only extends to sixteen pages,
but it is from the pen of one who has evidently weighed
carefully the words which he has used. And, in the
light of some further explanations by the same writer,*
it affords the clearest and most logical exposition of
this view, which indeed is touched upon by many
writers, but to the direct explication of which few have
devoted even as much as a page. Further, it may be
remarked that in corresponding with those theologians
who are representative teachers of the modern view,
several have quoted Mr. Brightman' s tract as the most
satisfactory and authoritative exponent of their opinion.
* In a private letter to the author.
84
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Mr. Bright-
man's exposi
tion.
The E. S. re
produces, not
the moment of
the Cross, but
ourLORD'Sac-
tion in heaven.
The Cross only
the initial act
of the Sacrifice.
The other acts
are fulfilled
perpetually in
heaven.
The assump
tion that the
H. E. is pre
eminently the
memorial of
CHRIST'S
Death,
in its most ex
aggerated
form, found in
popular teach
ing.
Mr. Brightman's words are as follows: " There is
the succession [of Anglican theologians] which fully
accepts and enforces the Eucharistic Sacrifice as ordin
arily stated — as the representation and commemora
tion before the Eternal FATHKR of the One Sacrifice
of CHRIST. But what is more characteristic among
our theologians is the theory which is remarkable by
its general absence in the Roman writers — the inter
pretation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the reproduc
tion on earth, not of the moment of the Cross* but of
our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven, as the Minister
of the True Tabernacle." f
" [In the account of the Levitical Sacrifice] the slay
ing of the victim is the initial act and one moment in a
process which included many subsequent acts : and
. . . the object of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
largely to show that, whereas that act [the slaying of
the victim] in our LORD'S Sacrifice was fulfilled when
He died once for all upon the Cross, He has passed into
the heavens, and is the Minister of the True Tabernacle,
to fulfil perpetually the other acts of His Sacrifice which
the slaying of the Victim made possible.
' ' The other assumption ... is ... [that]
the Holy Eucharist is directly related to our LORD'S Offer
ing of Himself on the Cross, as pre-eminently and exclus
ively the memorial of His Death, the commemoration
of His Passion. This assumption in its most exagger
ated expression is familiar to us all. There is a popular
teaching which dwells upon the broken bread and the
outpoured wine as representing our LORD'S Suffering
and Death, His Body broken on the Cross and His
Blood shed there, and this as an adequate and fairly
exhaustive account in general terms of the meaning of
* Italics are ours. f Brightman, p. 2.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 85
the Eucharist. And it is not confined to popular teach
ing. In a less exaggerated form it is prominent in our in a less
own formulae. . . . And of course so far as it goes exaggerated
lorai, in our
it is true, but it is not the whole truth. And it is to this own liturgy,
that I want especially to call your attention, and to re- A denial that
mind you that in the New Testament and in the early ^^^
mind of the Church this reference of the Holy Eucharist the H. E. to the
to one moment in the life of our LORD, and to one ^^^"or
act of His Priesthood, is not found in this exclusive the early
sense. church-
' ' Now the charter of the Eucharist and the basis of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice lies in our LORD'S words, ' Do "DO this in re-
this in remembrance of Me,' ' for My commemoration.' ^^an°ees°sf
And in this there is nothing which suggests a special no special re-
reference to our LORD'S Death ; it suggests rather the ferencetoour
lyORD'S
thought of His whole work, of His Person in the ful- Death,
ness of Its significance as perfected in that work. It
suggests Himself, not merely His work. It leads us,
therefore, to relate the Holy Eucharist to Himself as He but to Himself,
is known in the full Catholic belief as to His Person,
and only through this to any particular act or acts of
His earthly life. We should expect, therefore, the com
memoration of the acts of His life, and among them of
the supreme act of His Offering of Himself on the
Cross, to fill the same place, if one may so speak, and
to bear the same proportion to the whole Eucharist in
its full conception as the act itself to the fulness of His
Person. We should expect the mark of death on the
Eucharist to be analogous, not to its place, if again one
may so speak, in His History at the moment of the
Cross, but to its place in His glorified Person. We
should look in the Eucharist for something analogous,
not to the Agony of the Cross, but to the Wounds in
the Hands and the Feet and the Side of His Risen
86
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
In the Institu
tion nothing to
suggest a re
lation to our
CORD'S
Death.
The mark of
death only in
the separate
Consecration
of the chalice.
The witness of
the II. E. is not
"I died," but
"I am He that
liveth."
Body. We should expect it to be the commemoration
of the Lamb, ' as It had been slain,' but yet ' standing
in the midst of the Throne.'
" And so, in fact, we find it in our LORD'S Institu
tion. . . . ' This is My Body, which is for you,'
or, in S. Luke, ' is given,' or ' is being given for you.'
There is here no necessary suggestion of death and
nothing to relate the Institution with our LORD'S
Death ; it is only so far implied in it as it is in ' GOD
so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
SON.' The degree of the reality of that giving was, in
fact, measured by its perseverance ' unto Death, even
the Death of the Cross,' but the giving does not, in
itself, imply death. Where the mark of death on the
Eucharist really lies is in the separate Consecration of
the chalice. ' This is My Blood ' is not the whole In
stitution, but the singling out, as it were, of one side
of it, the giving of His Blood in isolation from the
Body, in which it has been already given — the added
gift of His life no longer as it is in virtue of the Incarn
ation, but as it is in virtue of having passed through
Death and been resumed eternally. Even here it is not
Death as an event that is marked — not the momentary
shedding of our LORD'S Blood on the Cross. The word
represented by ' shed ' is the word used for the outpour
ing of the blood of the sacrifice in the Old Testament,
and it suggests the eternal significance of the blood,
rather than its momentary liberation in death. The
witness of the Eucharist is not merely * I died,' but ' I
am He that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive
for evermore.' In it we realize that we c are come to
Mount Sion . . . and to JKSUS, the Mediator of the
New Covenant, and to the Blood of Sprinkling.' " *
* Brightman, pp. 4-7.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 8/
' ' For such an interpretation as relates the Bucharist
immediately to our LORD'S ' perfected ' and glorified
Person, the foundation is laid as we saw in earlier
divines and in the Liturgies. If it is so related, and
if its relation to the unique act of the Cross is only
through His Person ' as He is ' — if, that is, it is related Then. E. re-
to the Cross as the eternal act of our High Priest in Jf^^6
heaven is related to the Cross — then it is a simple in- through the
ference ; it seems to lie in its nature that it is an action JSS^rta
parallel to our LORD'S present work in heaven, where, heaven,
because He is a High Priest, ' He must needs have
somewhat to offer. ' " *
To this statement we may add, from another source : f
" The results of comparative religion . . . are
quite illuminating for this subject. So far, they mean
that the Eucharist requires no discussion as to the fact
of its being obviously, absolutely ,\ and primarily a TheH.E. is an
Sacrifice. It simply satisfies the definition and em- absoluteS-
bodies the idea, and this becomes the fundamental fact
from which we start, not the result at which we arrive, And the Atone-
in all theorizing and speculation upon it. And, in fact, f3^ ought f-°
. ,. ' be interpreted
it seems to be implied that we ought to have begun by it, not it by
with the Bucharist as the Sacrifice, and derived our theAtone-
conception of sacrifice from it, and interpreted the
Atonement by it."
Some of the positions taken by Mr. Brightman are This view is
most radical and startling, in that they demand a revol- most radical>
ution in the doctrine of the Atonement taught by theo
logians of the Church in all its branches, not merely
from the Reformation, but, so far as we can judge,
from the beginning of Christianity. It is, however,
* Idem., pp. 12, 13.
t From a private letter to the author, explaining certain
points in the Tract. Cf. p. 553. J The italics are ours.
83
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
but it is a clear-
cut, definite
system.
Summary
it differs from
the catholic
view :
i. in that it re-
lates the H. E.
not to the Cross
but to what our
LORD is now
heaven?
its claim that
performed on
man was re-
deemed took
place in
heaven.
only fair to point out that Mr. Brightman thinks that
some such theory, while not found explicitly in the
writings of the early Fathers, was not unknown to
them ; indeed he contrasts the treatment of the Incarn
ation in S. Athanasius' De Incarnatione with that in
S. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, with a view to showing
that in the latter the Cross and Passion had become
isolated from what followed and interpreted them, i. e.,
the Resurrection and Ascension.
We have, however, in Mr. Brightman's paper a
clear-cut and definite system, in striking contrast to
. J '
^ie vague an(l inconsequential sketches so often found
elsewhere. The salient points in which it differs from
the catholic view are tfce following :
That " the interpretation of the Eucharistic Sacri-
fice Rs] the reproduction on earth, not of the moment
TL J_ .
of the Cross, but of our LORD S perpetual action in
heaven, as the Minister of the True Tabernacle."
This is further explained by pointing out that in the
Levitical sacrifice " the slaying of the victim is [but]
the initial act and one moment in a process which in
cluded many subsequent acts : and that the object of
the Epistle to the Hebrews is largely to show that,
whereas that act [tbe slaying] in our LORD'S Sacrifice
was fulfilled when He died once for all upon the Cross,
He lias Passed into tbe beavens) and is the Minister
of the True Tabernacle, to fulfil perpetually the other
acj-s of jjis Sacrifice which the slaying of the Victim
-111
ni ade possible.
Here we have most distinctly set forth the kernel of
this theory. The Levitical sacrifice, as we have seen,
consisted of several acts, viz., the slaying of the victim,
the presentation of the blood, and the burning of the
whole or of a part of the victim. Of these, the first was
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
scarcely a sacrificial act, except in the widest applica
tion of the term, since it was often performed not by a
priest, but by a layman. The essentially sacrificial act
was the presentation of the blood, and this was followed
by the cremation, which implied GOD'S acceptance of
the gift and His communion with man in the fruits of
the sacrifice. Hence the inference of the modern
school is that upon the Cross our LORD accomplished
only the initial act of the Sacrifice, the slaying of the Vic
tim, which was effected by His murderers, and was not
the priestly act of Sacrifice. The essential act of Sacri
fice, according to this theory, wras not accomplished until
His Ascension into heaven, when He presented Himself
before the FATHKR and there completed the Sacrifice.
While, of course, Mr. Brightman and the school of This view is
which he is so distinguished a member believe in the Precisely that
Divinity of our Blessed LORD, in other respects this originated
view is precisely that of Socinus ; namely, that our with socinus.
LORD'S Death upon the Cross was not a Sacrifice, but
that the Sacrifice was offered after His entry into
heaven. And we must admit that the interpretation
which Socinus gives of the type — the entrance of the
high priest into the Holy of holies with the blood of
the victim on the Day of Atonement — is not without
force, — if we ignore the purpose for which the high
priest entered the Holy of holies, and isolate the sacri
fice on that day from all the other sacrifices of the Jew
ish Law, which is precisely what Socinus contends we
ought to do.*
That the Eucharist is "obviously, absolutely, and ii. it regards
primarily a Sacrifice. It simply satisfies the definition the H- E- as an
, ... . " absolute "S.
and embodies the idea. . . . And in fact it seems
to be implied that we ought to have begun with the
* See p. 57.
90
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The sense in
considered it
an "absolute
scheeben'
specific
of
Eucharist as the Sacrifice, . . . and interpreted
the Atonement by it." *
Some of the more extreme theologians of the Roman
church of the sixteenth century, against whom our
thirty-first Article was principally directed, taught
tilat ^Q Eucharist was an absolute Sacrifice, inde
pendent, in its effects and in its merits, of the Sacrifice
of the Cross ; and there are some in the present day
who assert that the Eucharist is an absolute Sacrifice,
although they explain it in a very different sense, f
But almost all great Roman theologians teach that
the Eucharist is only a relative Sacrifice, the Sacri
fice of the Cross being the only absolute Sacrifice.
Indeed, Scheeben considers this relativity to be the
sPecific "form," and to give the proper essence, the
true nature, the essential character, to the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist. He says : "In the definition of man as
* a rational animal ' the specific element (reason) fixes
the generic element (animal), as the form fixes and de
termines the matter. The genus is the secondary, the
specific difference the primary, element in the com
pound. Hence in the definition of the Mass as ' a Sacri
fice relative to the Sacrifice on the Cross,' the element
* relative ' is the form, and gives us the proper essence,
the true nature, the essential character, of the ' Mass.'
The relativity is founded extrinsically upon the will of
CHRIST, and intrinsically on the identity of the Sacri-
ficer and Victim on Cross and Altar, and on the simil
arity between the mystical and the real effusion of Blood.
The representation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST is, there
fore, the proper essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass." J
* Private letter from Mr. Brightman.
f Tanquerey, vol. ii., p. 435.
J Quoted in Wilheltn and Scaunell, vol. ii., p. 459.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Mr. Briglitman, in teaching that the Eucharist is an Mr. Brightman
absolute Sacrifice, differs from almost all theologians p^f^^^
not only in the use of the term, but in its extension, mentbythe
since he not only considers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist H- E-
an absolute Sacrifice in itself, but would interpret the
Atonement by it, thus reversing whatever relativity
there may be.*
That the sacrificial phrase, ' ' Do this in remem- m. in the in-
brance of Me," suggests no special reference to our J^"^ ° he^ial
LORD'S Death, but " rather the thought of His whole reference to
work, of His Person in the fulness of Its significance our LORD'S
as perfected in that work. It suggests Himself, not
merely His work. . . . We should expect the
mark of death on the Eucharist to be analogous, not
to its place ... in His History at the moment of
the Cross, but to its place in His glorified Person ;
not to the Agony of the Cross, but to the
Wounds in the Hands and the Feet and the Side of
His Risen Body."
It is true that S. Paul states, " This do ye, as oft as in spite of s.
ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as p*ul's words'
t i Cor. xi. 25, 26.
ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the
LORD'S Death till He come." f Mr. Brightman, how
ever, thinks this passage can be explained otherwise
than as the Church has always received it, and in ac
cordance with his view that the celebration of the Holy
Eucharist is a commemoration of our LORD'S Death
only to the same extent as it is a commemoration of
His Resurrection and Ascension.
We must also observe that, while stating that the
relation of " the Holy Eucharist ... to our
LORD'S Offering of Himself on the Cross, as pre-emin
ently and exclusively the memorial of His Death,"
* See quotation from private letter, p. 87. f I Cor. si. 25, 26.
92
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
These views
are, however,
repudiated by
many of the
Tractariaii
school, e. g. :
is found in its most exaggerated form in certain speci-
• fied popular teachings, Mr. Brightman considers that
' ' in a less exaggerated form it is prominent in our own
formula" He is, of course, referring to the opening
words of the Canon in our Prayer Book : " 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 ; and did
institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to con
tinue, a perpetual memory of that His precious Death
and Sacrifice, until His coming again." He seems to
characterize this as an " exaggeration " and as a sup-
prcssio veri, " true so far as it goes, but not the whole
truth." * This must surely impose a very serious
strain upon the consciences of those priests who hold
the Modern view, every time they perform the most
solemn function of their priesthood by celebrating the
Holy Eucharist.
Before we pass to an examination of the accretions
which have attached themselves to this theory, and
which would be repudiated by most of its followers, it
is only fair to point out that many of those who hold
that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice on account of its rela
tion to what our LORD is now doing in heaven, rather
than on account of its relation to what He once did
upon the Cross, emphatically repudiate any intention
of detracting from the completeness of the Sacrifice of
the Cross. That is to say, they hold that upon the
Cross our LORD made " a full, perfect, and sufficient
Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction, for the sins of the
whole world," and, therefore, that while His Media
torial work in heaven may be a virtual Sacrifice, it is
not an actual Sacrifice, since the sacrificial action was
* Quoted, pp. 84, 85.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 93
completed on the Cross. To prove this we quote from
a few of the more prominent writers of this school.
Bishop Forbes of Brechin, in his work on the Ar- Bp. Forbes,
tides, which had Dr. Pusey's co-operation and ap- "Artlcles"
proval, says :
" One common argument against the Bucharistic
Sacrifice is, that according to this belief [that it is a
propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and dead] one must
hold and teach the blasphemy . . . that one must
deny that the Oblation of CHRIST was finished upon the
Cross. . . . We have nothing apart from that one
Sacrifice ; our Kucharistic 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. . . . On the Cross that offering was
made once for all with shedding of Blood ; on earth the
offering is made in unbloody manner, as the ancient
Church attests. . . . No Christian can say other
wise than that the Sacrifice of the Cross was ' the One
Oblation of CHRIST.' ... It is one and singular
in the Victim, the act, and the result. There is only
one CHRIST, one offering for sin, one purchase of man's
redemption. The Sacrifice of the Cross was CHRIST'S
offering of Himself, performing an act which was
unique in itself, and securing a purchase which was
entire in itself. ' ' *
While Bishop Forbes elsewhere traces the relation of
the Kucharistic Sacrifice to the Mediatorial work of
our LORD in heaven, there can be no doubt that he
repudiates any view which implies that the act of Sacri
fice by which the world was redeemed was not finished
upon Calvary. Indeed he says that for one to deny
* Forbes, XXXIX Articles, pp. 614-619.
94
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Rev. B. J.
Kidd, "Arti
cles":
Rev. E. C. S.
Gibson, "Ar
ticles" ;
that the Oblation of CHRIST was finished on the Cross,
is blasphemy.
Again, the Rev. B. J. Kidd, in his work on the
Thirty-Nine Articles, says :
' ' As to the perfection of His Sacrifice on the Cross,
the Epistle to the Hebrews is conclusive. He ' 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.' " And
yet he says : " The Death on Calvary is consummated
by the entry of the High Priest ' into heaven itself,
now to appear before the face of GOD for us; ' " and
considers that ' ' the sufficiency of the Sacrifice on the
Cross is to be reconciled with the reality of a Sacrifice
in the Eucharist, by their common relation to the
eternal self-oblation of our LORD in heaven." And
again he says : " The Lamb of GOD exhibits Himself
to the FATHKR, and pleads the Atonement as once fin
ished in act but ever living in operation. The notion
that it was not unique or perfect, but could be reiterated
or supplemented, in heaven or on earth, was justly
denounced as a ' blasphemous fable ' in Art. 31." *
Rev. E. C. S. Gibson, on the Thirty-Nine Articles
(after quoting Heb. vii. 26, 27, ix. 11-14, 24~28, x.
10-14), says : " These passages are absolutely conclus
ive as to the perfection of the Sacrifice once offered on
Calvary. The language of the Article is entirely cov
ered by them, and exception to this first clause in it
could hardly be taken by any well-instructed theo
logian. But if so much is admitted, an important con
sequence follows, for the words are entirely destructive
of any notion that in the Eucharist there can be any
Sacrifice suppletory or additional to the Sacrifice made
*Kidd, XXXIX Articles, vol. ii., pp. 243, 244.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 95
' once for all ' on the Cross." * He then goes on to
quote the passage which we have just given from Mr.
Kidd's work.
The last quotation is from Dr. Mason, The Faith Dr. Mason,
of the Gospel : " T1Ve Fa*h,ot
* the Gospel."
;< The way, then, in which the Sacrifice must be
conceived of is this : CHRIST is present with us at the
Altar in the same manner as in heaven. He allows us
at the Altar to do with Him what He Himself does in
heaven. Although He is for ever seated there, as one
whose toils are over, yet He is ' a Priest upon His
throne ' (Zech. vi. 13), and is perpetually engaged in
presenting on our behalf the life which He once for all
laid down and has taken again, and never needs to lay
down from henceforth. ... In the living Person
of CHRIST, the eternal Sacrifice of Calvary remains an
ever fresh fact, neither needing nor admitting of a re
newal. CHRIST presents Himself in heaven for us
in the inexhaustible virtue of His past suffering ; and
all the efficacy of the Bucharistic Sacrifice is derived
from the same. ' ' f
It is not quite clear whether or not Dr. Mason, like Dr. Mason's
Mr. Brightman, regards the Sacrifice of the Cross as ?eculiar 7iew
in regard to
not complete until the presentation of our L,ORD Him- the manner of
self before the FATHKR in heaven ; he seems, how- our LORD'S
ever, to relate the Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the
Cross. But he makes an original contribution to the
Modern view of the Eucharist, which is worthy of our
notice, when he says, " CHRIST is present with us at
the Altar in the same manner as in heaven." At first
sight the phrase, " in the same manner," would seem
certainly to be a slip of the pen, but a careful perusal
* Gibson, XXXIX Articles, vol. ii., p. 690.
f Mason, The Faith of the Gospel, pp. 330, 331.
96 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
of the article shows it to be intended; and therefore we
can only say that in this Dr. Mason differs from all
other theologians, who have taught that our L,ORD is
present in heaven alone " naturally, corporally, and
locally," and in the Eucharist only " supernaturally,
spirit- wise, supra-locally, and sacramentally. ' ' Indeed,
it is difficult to conceive that which Dr. Mason's state
ment implies.*
There are many who, like the Bishop of Brechin (and
Dr. Pusey), would consider it " blasphemy " to " deny
that the oblation of CHRIST was finished upon the
Cross. ' ' These in relating the Eucharist to our LORD'S
Sacrifice in heaven mean no more than that in heaven
our I^ORD is still and for ever " the Sacrifice," " the
I,a mb as it had been slain; " and that whatever sacri
ficial character His Mediatorial work possesses depends
solely on the pleading of the merits of that finished
Sacrifice which CHRIST offered once for all upon the
Cross. From this view Mr. Brightman's theory differs
' ' toto ccelo ; ' ' since he places the essentially sacrificial
act in heaven only, and thereby implies that the Cross
was not in any proper sense a sacrifice.
2. Theprin- The principal accretion to the Modern view, which is
to^Modern exPlicitlY rejected by Mr. Brightman,t and Dr. Mason,!
view, as stated is well stated in Alford's note on, " Ye are come unto
by Aiford. Mount Sion, . . . and to JESUS the Mediator of the
New Covenant, and to the Blood of Sprinkling, that
speaketh better things than that of Abel." § Aiford
says that the writer of the Epistle " assigns to the Blood
of sprinkling, by which we are redeemed unto GOD, a
place in the Heavenly City next to, but separate from,
* Cf. Newman, Via Media, vol. ii., p. 200.
f Private letter to the author.
% Mason, pp. 323-324. \ Heb. xii. 22-24.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 97
JESUS Himself in His glorified state." He goes on to
contend that our LORD'S Resurrection Body was blood
less, and that the Blood which our LORD shed upon
the Cross did not corrupt, but is mentioned separately
from the LORD Himself as an item in the glories of the
Heavenly City, and as yet speaking. Alford refers to
a long excursus on the point in Bengel's note in loco ;
indeed he takes his idea entirely from Bengel, who Taken from
asserts that " at the time of the Ascension the Blood, Bensel-
separated from the Body, was carried into heaven."
Dean Jackson seems to hold this view, and Sadler, in And rejected
his The One Offering quotes it with apparent approval.* ^^rfexce
Milligan notices this theory, but regards it as " too sadierand
carnal," although he apparently holds that the presen- Jackson-
tation of our LORD'S Precious Blood was in heaven.
As this opinion has but few followers, and is ex
plicitly rejected by so many of the holders of the
modern theory, it is not necessary to comment on it
further than to say that it is founded upon a misread
ing of the text, as is shown in Bishop Westcott's
masterly analysis of the passage, in his Commentary
on the Hpistle to the Hebrews, f
Before closing this chapter we would repeat that we
quite realize that there are many who, while relating conclusion,
the Eucharistic Sacrifice to our LORD'S Mediatorial
work, would repudiate any view which seemed to
make the Sacrifice of the Cross incomplete. These,
like the Tractarians, probably hold that our LORD is
in heaven a Sacrifice only in a passive sense, that He
is ' ' the Lamb as it had been slain ; ' ' and that sub
stantially (quoad substantiam) He is in the Kucharist
what he is in Heaven, that is, the Sacrifice.
* Sadler, The One Offering, p. 44.
t Westcott, Heb.> pp. 412-417.
98
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The essential
difference be
tween the
Catholic and
Modern views.
This is entirely true, and quite unobjectionable ; in
deed, it is what the Fathers again and again assert,
but it must be remembered that it does not recognize
or provide for any sacrificial action, by which the Eu-
charist becomes, in an active and therefore proper sense, a
sacrifice.
This sacrificial action in the Eucharist consists pre
cisely in " doing " that which our LORD Himself did
and commanded His Apostles to continue, namely, tak
ing bread and consecrating it into His Body, taking
wine in the cup and consecrating it into His Blood.
This double consecration is the sacrificial act in the
Eucharist ; for by it our LORD'S Body and Blood are
produced, under the diverse species, as severed by
death ; and this act certainly has no counterpart in our
LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven, but does find its
only counterpart in the Sacrifice of the Cross.
The mere presence of a sacrificed victim is not a
proper sacrifice, that is, in the active sense of the word;
and while our LORD'S glorified Humanity, sitting at
the Right Hand of the FATHER, and now appearing in
the presence of GOD for us, may be analogous to His
continued presence in the reserved Sacrament, yet it
certainly is not analogous to the act of Consecration,
which is in the Eucharist the act of Sacrifice.
We must therefore carefully bear in mind that the
Catholic view differs from the Modern, not in denying
that our LORD is, in heaven and in the Eucharist, " the
Sacrifice," " the Lamb as it had been slain," but in
teaching that this alone does not constitute the Euchar
ist a sacrifice. According to the Catholic view the sac
rificial act consists in doing what our LORD commanded
us to do, when He said, " Do this in remembrance of
Me," that is, in consecrating bread and wine into His
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 99
Body and Blood; and, further, the Catholic doctrine
teaches that " upon the Cross for our Redemption"
our LORD made " by His one Oblation of Himself once
offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Oblation,
and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ;"
and that our L,ORD " did institute and in His Holy
Gospel command us to continue a perpetual Memory
of that His precious Death and Sacrifice until His
coming again."
The 'Catholic doctrine teaches, then, that the double
consecration in the Eucharist is that Memorial of our
LORD'S Death which He commanded us to make, and
hence that, as a sacrificial act, the Eucharist depends
solely upon the Sacrifice of the Cross.
CHAPTER V.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
introductory: \ Tf 7E have now clearly before us the three views
^^is^hf.pter V V in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which
the Catholic V V
and Modern are to be found among Christians in the
present day. Our work henceforth must be to con-
vews are com-
pared with the .
teachings of sider what testimony ana arguments can be drawn from
scripture. various sources for or against two of these theories,
since it will not be necessary to give any further con
sideration to the Protestant view, because, as it is
purely negative, recognizing no real Sacrifice in the
Eucharist, whatever testimony is brought forward in
support of either of the other views will be in itself a
refutation of the Protestant contention.
Does scripture The first testimony which we must consider, both in
i^Thatth order of time and in weight of authority, is, of course,
E. isas.? Holy Scripture. We must examine whether it can be
ii. That its proved from Holy Scripture that the Eucharist is a
acter depends Sacrifice, and, further, whether its sacrificial character
on its relation is to be traced to its relation to the Sacrifice of the
to our LORD'S Cross, or to our LORD'S present Mediatorial work in
work in heaven. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is
alike recognized by the supporters of both the Catholic
and the Modern views, but the one school relates this
character to the Sacrifice of the Cross, the other to our
Oblation of Himself in heaven.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. IOI
I. Our first endeavour, then, must be to show that i. The witness
in Holy Scripture there is ground for our belief that
the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. E. s.
i. The evidence of the Old Testament : i. The evidence
' ' They shall take to them every man a lamb ; . . . ?f ££ ^^
and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel over, EX. xii. 3,
shall kill it in the evening ; . . . and they shall 6- 8> J4-
eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleav
ened bread. . . . And this day shall be unto you
for a memorial ; and ye shall keep it a feast to the
L,ORD throughout your generations ; ye shall keep it a
feast by an ordinance for ever. ' ' *
" And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering, Lev. m. i, vii.
if he offer it of the herd ; whether it be a male or I5'
female, he shall offer it without blemish before the
lyORD. . . . And the flesh of the sacrifice of his
peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the
same day that it is offered." f
The Church has always seen in the Passover the
great type of our LORD'S Sacrifice. Indeed, S. Paul
makes this evident when he says: l( CHRIST our Pass- icor. v. 7.
over is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the
feast." I It differs from the other sacrifices under the
L,aw, in that a yearly commemoration of it was en
joined by GOD, and this commemoration, while in it
self a sacrifice in the same sense as the other Jewish
sacrifices, differed from them in that it was related to,
and commemorated, an event in the past. Thus it was in two points
in two points especially typical of the Kucharist, (i) jjj?£pjj:alof
as a relative and commemorative Sacrifice, (2) as (i) AS a com-
being a feast upon the Sacrifice. This last aspect, memorative s.
, . , , . , _. (2) As a feast
however, it shared with the peace offering. Hence the upon a s.
* Ex. xii. 3, 6, 8, 14. f Lev, iii. I, vii. 15.
J i Cor. v. 7.
102
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ii. The pro-
pliecy of Mala-
chi i. ii.
(i) Refers to
external wor
ship.
(2) Contrasts
the "pure Of
fering" with
the legal sacri
fices.
(3) Contrasts
its universality
with their local
character.
(4) The word
used is "Min-
chah,"
and the other
terms are sac
rificial.
Passover and the peace offering find their distinct ful
filment only in such a Sacrifice as the Eucharist.
" From the rising of the sun even unto the going
down of the same My Name shall be great among the
Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered
unto My Name, and a pure Offering : for My Name
shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of
Hosts."*
The whole prophecy of Malachi is essentially Mes
sianic, foretelling the coming of the Messenger of the
Covenant, the Sun of Righteousness, and of His Fore
runner, who should come " in the spirit and power of
Klias." It is therefore fitting that Malachi should also
foretell the Christian Sacrifice. We may observe, (i)
that from the passage itself, and from the context, f it is
evident that the Prophet is dealing exclusively with
external worship. As the sacrifices to be abolished are
real and true sacrifices, so the pure Oblation to be sub
stituted for them is a real and true Sacrifice. (2) That
he contrasts this Sacrifice with the legal sacrifices, in
which GOD had no pleasure. (3) That he contrasts its
universality — ' ' from the rising of the sun even unto the
going down of the same," "in every place," " among
the Gentiles" — with the Jewish sacrifices, which were
local. (4) That the word used for " Offering," Min-
chah (nnjD, lyXX. BvGia), is the same as that used for
the meat offering in Lev. ii. ; and that all the technical
terms in the Hebrew of the text are distinctly sacri
ficial. The word muqtdr Ottpfjp), a form oiqdtar (iDp),
to burn incense, is used 146 times in the Old Test
ament in a sacrificial sense ; muggdsh (£>}£), from
ndgash (EttJ), " to offer," at least 12 times ; and Min-
chah about 154 times. Nowhere are these words used
* Mai. i. ii. f Vs. 5-10.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCR IP T UK E. 1 03
in connection with internal worship ; nowhere are
they applied to oblations other than proper sacrifices.
Taking, then, the three words together, we have a
threefold argument in favour of the sacrificial char
acter of the promised new worship. The early Christ
ians saw the force of the prediction, — that sacrifice was
contrasted with sacrifice ; the bloody sacrifices, which
were ended when the One Sacrifice was made by our
lyORD upon the Altar of the Cross " for the sins of
the whole world," with that Sacrifice which He com
manded to be made on our Altars as a memorial of
Him. S. Justin Martyr, and in fact practically all The early
the Fathers,* interpret this prophecy of Malachi of Ch»stian
, . r . . Fathers inter-
the Holy Eucharist, and, indeed, there is no other way pretthepro-
in which we can explain its fulfilment.! We may phecyofthe
therefore say that at the least it would lead us to ex
pect a sacrifice in the Christian Dispensation, and a
sacrifice which should be offered " in every place ; "
and this is fulfilled only by the Catholic view of the
Eucharist.
2. We shall pass now to the New Testament, and 2. The evidence
first consider the sacrificial character of the records of the N< T-
of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist. As this
* Cf. Petavius, De Incarn., 1., xii., § 12 sqq.
f It is not necessary here to consider the objection made by
higher critics, that the construction of the whole passage may
be taken as present instead of future, and that Malachi is con
trasting the insincere though legal sacrifices of the Jews with
the devout sacrifices of the heathen, — further than to say that
it never has been so taken by the Christian Fathers, and that
its position in a prophecy which, as we have said, is essentially
Messianic, is a strong argument against such a view ; and, fur
ther, that it is scarcely conceivable that a Jewish patriot and
prophet, like Malachi, would assert that the offerings of the
heathen were " a pure Minchah," acceptable to GOD.
104
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
i. The Conse
cration of the
chalice.
S. Matt. xxvi.
28.
S. Mark xiv. 24.
S. lyuke xxii.
20.
ii. The Conse
cration of the
bread.
character is most clearly indicated in the Consecration
of the chalice, let us begin with it.
In S. Matthew we read, " This is My Blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many for the re
mission of sins ; " * in S. Mark, " This is My Blood of
the New Testament, which is shed for many ; " f and
in S. L,uke, " This cup is the New Testament in My
Blood, which is shed for you." J
While differing slightly in words, they all speak of
the Blood of CHRIST, and of that Blood being shed,
while S. Matthew and S. Mark add the purpose for
which It is shed: " for many, for the remission of sins "
(S. Matt.), " for many " (S. Mark). Here we have a
distinctly sacrificial action, not only the shedding the
Blood, but the shedding It for the remission of sins, as
a sacrificial act.
The words used in the Consecration of the bread
are, " Take, eat ; this is My Body," § and, " This is
My Body which is given for you; " || to which we may
add: " This is My Body, which is [broken] for you," ^f
(where the word " broken " is of doubtful authority),
and, " The Bread that I will give is My Flesh [which
I will give] for the life of the world," ** (where the
bracketed words ' ' which I will give ' ' are also of
doubtful authority).
Whether we consider the giving of the Body or the
breaking of the Body as the giving It in food, or, with
others, the giving It for the Sacrifice, the sacrificial
character of the expression is the same, the difference
being that the one has regard to the feast upon the
Sacrifice, and the other to the act of Sacrifice. ft
* S. Matt. xxvi. 28. f S. Mark xiv. 24. J S. Luke xxii. 20.
$ S. Matt. xxvi. 26; S. Mark xiv. 22. || S. Luke xxii. 19.
ff i Cor. xi. 24. ** S. John vi. 51.
tf Frauzeliu, De Euch., Thesis xi.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. IO5
S. lyuke adds: " This do in remembrance of Me ; " * m. "This do in
and S. Paul, besides placing these words after the
Consecration of the bread, has a similar expression s.
connected with the Consecration of the cup, namely : J9-
" This Cup is the New Testament in My Blood : this x
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup,
ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He come." f Here
again we have a distinctly sacrificial expression, ezV
rrfv ejArfv drafitvijffiv (S. Luke), which indicates the
purpose for which the action is to be performed,— as a
commemorative Sacrifice.
It has been pointed out by many that the words
"This do" (rovro Ttoisirs) are also distinctly sacri
ficial, and are used of a sacrifice some seventy-six
times in the Septuagint Version. As, however, the
Greek Fathers have never taken them in this sense, it
is better to pass over this argument,
;' We have an Altar, whereof they have no right iv. "wehave
to eat which serve the Tabernacle." J In this passage
" the position of 1'xofJ.ev and the absence of the per
sonal pronoun indicate that the passage presents a con
trast to some supposed deficiency. Christians as such,
so it appears to have been urged, are in a position of
disadvantage ; they have not something which others
have. The reply is, We have an Altar. . . . There
is not a sharp opposition between Christians and Jews
at first, but this comes in later. The main contention
is that the exclusion from the sacrificial services of the
Temple is compensated by something which answers to
them, and is of a nobler kind. . . . From the con
nection it seems that the Altar (Ouffiaffr/jpior) must
correspond to the Temple Altar, as including both the
*S. Ivuke xxii. 19. f i Cor. xi. 24-26. } Heb. xiii. 10.
IO6
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Conclusion as
the -H '
ii. The teach-
iTre about the
manner in
which the H.E.
is a S
The catholic
idea of Sacrifice, and the idea of food from the
Sacrifice." *
It is scarcely necessary to develop this thought fur
ther than to say that, while this Altar has been applied
almost universally in its primary sense to the Altar of
the Holy Eucharist, it has also been taken by the
Fathers for the Cross, and for our LORD Himself.
We may therefore conclude that both type and
Pr°Phecy in the Old Testament point to the Eucharist
as a Sacrifice ; that every record of its Institution, by
the sacrificial terms used, confirms the view that the
Eucharist is the Christian Sacrifice; and that this view
is further proved by the assertion " We have an Altar."
II. So far we have considered the testimony of
ScriPture only in regard to the fact that the Eucharist
is a Sacrifice, which, as we have seen, is demanded
ai^e by the Catholic and the Modern views. WTe must
now interrogate Holy Scripture in regard to the manner
in which the Eucharist is a Sacrifice ; and to do this
we must examine the passages which each of the two
schools adduces in support of its theory.
The Catholic theory is that the Eucharist is a true
and proper Sacrifice, in that it fulfils the conditions of
a sacrifice, and is related to the one absolute Sacrifice
of our LORD upon the Cross, in such sense that it is
not a mere commemoration of it, but is identical with
it, for in it are found the same Priest, the same Victim,
and a real sacrificial action (although the manner of
offering is different) ; and further, that it is the Sacri
fice instituted by our LORD Himself in His Church.
The Catholic view sees in the production of our
LORD'S Body and Blood under the species of bread and
wine, separated as in death, the mystical immolation
* Westcott, on Heb. in loc.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. IO/
of the Victim, and His real presentation of Himself to
GOD upon the Altars of the Church, by which act the
Sacrifice of Calvary, without being reiterated, is re
newed and applied for the needs of the whole Church.
This view sees the essential act of Sacrifice in the
double consecration, by which, as we have said, our
LORD is mystically immolated and offered; and relates
the Sacrifice directly to that Offering of Himself which
our LORD made once for all upon the Cross.
It is in this latter point that the Modern view chiefly Difference
differs from the Catholic, since it refers the Sacrifice betweenthe
. Catholic and
of the .Eucharist, not to the moment of the Cross, Modem views.
but to our LORD'S Mediation now in heaven ; and,
while seeing in it some notes of Calvary analogous
to the marks of the wounds in His Risen Body in
heaven, relates it more directly to that state of glory
wherein He reigns at the Right Hand of GOD the
FATHER.
The solution of this point depends upon the inter- Each school
pretation put upon certain important passages of Holy JJJ^sBmeT
Scripture, which each school claims as supporting its passages of
OWn View. Scripture.
i. The first and most important of these is contained i. Thewordsof
in the words of Institution, " Do this in remembrance Jf^"^:
The Catholic
of Me." The Catholic school points out that the whole view connects
background, so to speak, of the Institution of the
Eucharist was connected with our LORD'S Death. Death.
" Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends."* The Death on the
Cross was the great act of love in which our LORD
gave Himself sacrificially for us, gave Himself through
suffering and death on our behalf ; and that which the
Eucharist commemorates is this act of love in which
* S. John xv. 13.
loS
THE EUCHAKISTIC SACRIFICE.
Mr. Bright -
man's inter
pretation of
this passage.
He refers to
Godet and Mil-
ligan for the
force of yap in
i Cor. xi. 26.
His whole life of love culminated. Therefore, while
the Kucharistic Sacrifice brings to remembrance His
whole life, His Incarnation, His glorious Resurrection
and Ascension, its most prominent feature, and that,
indeed, which gives it this sacrificial aspect, is the
showing forth of the LORD'S Death. In support of
this S. Paul's words are quoted : " This do ye, as
oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as
often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye
do shew the LORD'S Death till He come." Here it
seems almost impossible to avoid the conviction that
S. Paul interprets the phrase " Do this in remembrance
of Me" as a command to show forth our LORD'S
Death. It may be asserted, too, that this has been
the view taken by the Fathers and all commentators
on this passage until very recent times.
Of course, if we accept this interpretation, the quest
ion is practically settled in favour of the Catholic
view. But let us see what is said on the other side.
Mr. Brightman points out that the phrase " Do this
in remembrance of Me " does not command a com
memoration of our LORD'S Death, but of His Person,
— "of Me," by which he understands His whole life ;
and in regard to S. Paul's interpretation, he considers
that the words, " For as often as ye eat this Bread,
and drink this Cup, ye do shew the LORD'S Death,"
are not to be taken as equivalent to, or strictly interpre
tative of, the phrase, "Do this in remembrance of Me."
First he calls in question the force of the word " for "
(yap), referring to Godet and Milligan. Let us see
what they say. Godet does not consider that the ob
jections brought forward by Kwald and Hofmann* are
* Meyer (/ Cor., in loc., pp. 343, 344) recognizes the inferen
tial force of yap.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. IOQ
of much force, for he says : ' ' But what so great diffi- Godet, how-
culty is there in preserving the literal sense of yen pi ever, preserves
J ' the literal
All that is needed is to connect it with the words ' in sense.
remembrance of Me.' ' If JKSUS so expressed Himself,
it is because in fad the action you perform every time
you celebrate the Supper is a memorial of His Person,
for the meaning of the action is to show His Death ! '
That is to say, he considers ' ' a memorial of His Per
son " equivalent to " to show His Death." Miiiigan, f Miiiigan does
however, says: "In the LORD'S Death, therefore, «>t notice the
' force of yap,
which we proclaim in the Sacrament of Communion,
we proclaim not only JKSUS on the Cross, but the LORD
exalted in heaven." He makes no reference to the
interpretation of " for," but simply makes the assertion but extends the
that "the LORD'S Death" does not mean only the ^U^ORD^S
death of " JKSUS on the Cross," but " the LORD ex- exaltation in
alted in heaven ; " a method of interpretation by which lieaven-
almost any results could be obtained, and which is too
unreasonable to be worthy of further notice.
Mr. Brightman then goes on to say that, admitting Mr. Brightman
that the LORD'S Death is shown forth in the Kucharistic <iuestiolls
whether the
Sacrifice, the question is in what order it is shown reference is to
forth ; whether primarily, as an historical event, or our LORD'S
.... _ Death as an
as existing in His Person perfected through suffering, historical
In support of the second alternative he quotes from the eveut-
Liturgies, which ' ( make an addition to S. Paul's words, ^turgies as
and say not only, ' ye do shew the LORD'S Death,' but, commemor-
' ye do shew the LORD'S Death, and confess His Resur- Resurrection
rection,' and sometimes, also, ' and His Ascension,' and Ascension.
1 till He come.' " To this it may be replied, that the
very fact that the Liturgies add to the words ' ' ye do
shew the LORD'S Death " the further expression -' and
* Godet, i Cor., vol. ii., p. 161.
f Miiiigan, The Resurrection, p. 299.
IIO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
confess His Resurrection," and sometimes, also, " and
His Ascension, ' ' seems to show that these latter events
are not contained in the first phrase, since, if they were,
why should the Liturgies add, " and confess His Resur
rection," and sometimes, (< and His Ascension " ?
The method of Again, if we are to interpret S. Paul's definite ex-
interpretation pression < < por as Qften as ye eat, . . . ye do shew
popular, but J
vicious. the LORD'S Death," as referring, not to an historical
event in our LORD'S life, but to something quite differ
ent, we are clearly pursuing a method of interpretation
most popular indeed in the present day among higher
critics, who first say what they think the author ought
to have meant, and then interpret his words in the
light of this assumption ; but one indeed from which no
trustworthy results can be obtained, and which must
be emphatically rejected by those who do not accept
the canons of higher criticism. To be told that when
S. Paul speaks of our LORD'S Death, which all knew
to have taken place upon the Cross, he is not referring
it would never to that event only, but to His life at the right hand of
have been ^Q pA^H^R jn glory, is most unsatisfactory, since S.
thought of ex
cept to support Paul certainly knew the meaning of words ; and, ex-
an "a priori" cept to support an a priori theory, no one would argue
that by the word " death " he meant " life."
NO Father or The fact that no Father, or commentator of the
church com- Church until this modern theory was started, has ever
mentator has , .
advanced this understood the words of S. Paul in this sense, is also
interpretation. strOng evidence against this interpretation.*
2. The Epistle 2. The real battle-ground of these two views is the
the batu?1^3 Epistle to the Hebrews, for the Modern view in its ap-
groundofthe plication of other passages of Holy Scripture reads
two views. into them (as we have already seen in regard to the
* It may be observed that all the persons quoted in its favour
are modern schismatics.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. Ill
words of Institution) an a priori theory which is cert
ainly not suggested by them, but which the writers of
this school think they are justified in assuming from
certain passages in the Epistle. Before considering i. A sketch of
these passages, therefore, it may be well to give a ^nda^ument
slight sketch of the purpose and argument of this of the Epistle.
Epistle as it has been understood by all commentators
before the sixteenth century, and by all who have writ
ten on the subject since then, with the exception of
Socinus and those who hold the Modern view.
The Hpistle, as its title indicates, was written to Jews,
and its chief purpose, like that of the Epistles to the
Romans and the Galatians, was to show that the An
cient Covenant, as represented by the Law with its
priesthood and sacrifices, had but " a shadow of the
good things to come," and was unable to " make per
fect them that drew nigh." * And further, it showed
that this Law, priesthood, and sacrifice, was abrogated
when the New Covenant in CHRIST'S Blood took its
place, which not only fulfilled all that by type and cere
mony had been foreshadowed, but far excelled in dig
nity, scope, and power the brightest hopes of Judaism.
Taking up the two questions of priesthood and sacri- From Meichis-
fice, the Epistle shows that the Priesthood of our LORD edec the writer
contrasts the
was foreshadowed in the priesthood of Melchisedec be- universal and
fore the legal Covenant had any existence. From this
the writer draws a contrast between the universal and priesthood
eternal nature of CHRIST'S Priesthood, and the local with the local
and transitory character of the Levitical priesthood. He character of ry
contrasts, too, the sacrifices which were offered daily that of the
by the Levitical priests, and yearly by the high priest,
and which by their very reiteration implied their im
perfection, with the One " full, perfect, and sufficient
* Heb. x. I.
I 12
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The two main
points in re
gard to the S.
are, that it was
offered once
for all, and that
its effects, or
merits, live on
in our LORD'S
Mediatorial
Thus fag both
views accord,
but here they
divide.
The Catholics
teach that the
S. was com
pleted on the
Cross, and that
in heaven our
LORD pleads
only the merits
of this S.
The Modern
school are split
into different
camps, the
more radical
denying that
the S. was
completed on
the Cross,
others trying
to find some
sacrificial
action in our
LORD'S Medi
atorial work,
Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction " " once offered"
by our LORD upon the Cross " for the sins of the whole
world."
The two points upon which the writer of the Epistle
especially dwells with regard to the Sacrifice are: first,
that it was once for all, and, being perfect, in that it
effected its purpose it needs not to be repeated ; and,
second, that its effects, or merits, live on in heaven in
the great Mediatorial work of CHRIST upon His Throne
of Glor}^. This is illustrated in the Epistle by refer
ence to the function of the high priest on the great
Day of Atonement.
Thus far both views are practically in agreement.
But here they part company. The Catholic school,
with all writers before Socinus, teaches that the Sacri
fice was offered once for all, completed and finished
upon the Cross, that is, before the Ascension into
heaven, and that in heaven our LORD presents Him
self " before the face of GOD for us," pleading the
merits of His Sacrifice, offering, if you will, a virtual
Sacrifice, but not an actual Sacrifice, or Sacrifice pro
perly so called, inasmuch as He performs no sacrificial
action in connection with His great Intercession.
The Modern school, on the other hand, puts forth
several theories. Its more advanced representatives,
like Mr. Brightman, place our LORD'S sacrificial act,
the presentation of the Blood, after the Ascension
into heaven, and thus implicitly deny that the Sacrifice
was completed and finished upon the Cross. Others,
while fully holding that the Sacrifice was complete on
the Cross, either try to find some sacrificial action in our
LORD'S Mediatorial work, or teach, with Bishop Forbes,
the perfectly unobjectionable doctrine that in speaking
of our LORD'S Sacrifice in heaven, the word " sacri-
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 113
fice " is to be understood, not in an active, but in a or taking
passive sense. They point out that He is in heaven
what He was upon the Cross, " the Lamb of GOD,
Which taketh away the sin of the world," and that,
having been once for all offered, He therefore abides
continually the Sacrifice, although He performs no
proper sacrificial act.
With this introduction we shall proceed to an exam- The passages
ination of the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews ** the Epistle
. ATM r 11 • • on this subject
bearing upon the subject. They fall practically into faii into two
two divisions : those which refer to the Priesthood of divisions:
our LORD as typified by Melchisedec, and those which priesthood as
exhibit it as fulfilling the typical functions of the high typified by
priest on the great Day of Atonement. Thus regarded, oAntheDay
they yield the following analysis: * of Atonement.
The ruling thought of the whole Epistle is, CHRIST'S The ruling
High-Priesthood. It is indicated in the opening verses,
where the culminating characteristic of the SON is that
" after He had Himself made purification of sins," hood-
He " sat down on the Right Hand of the Majesty on
high." f Here the priestly and royal offices of CHRIST
are placed together in the closest connection, and the
whole Epistle is the development of this thought.
In chapters ii., iii., and iv. we have a preparatory d) chaps, ii.,
treatment of the subject. First the foundation of i"-. and iv. give
CHRIST'S High-Priesthood is shown to be in the Incar- treatment^
nation (ii. 17, 18); then follows an exhortation to a care- the subject and
ful study of this aspect of our LORD'S work (iii. 1,2); foundation of
and, finally, we have a recapitulation of this introduct- CHRIST'S
ory argument, showing that CHRIST is a High Priest fhTincarna1-11
Who has fulfilled the conditions of His Office, and there- tion (ii. 17, 18)
fore can feel with men, and is alike able and ready to
succour them (iv. 14-16).
* Cf. Westcott cm Heb., pp. 70, 71. f Heb. i. 3.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
(2) Chaps, v.,
vi., vii. set
forth the nat
ure of this
Priesthood.
(3) Chaps, viii.,
ix., x. treat of
the work of
CHRIST as
High Priest.
(4) In the re
maining chap
ters the fruits
of this Priest
hood are
applied to
believers.
ii. Our
LORD'S
Priesthood as
typified by
Melchisedec.
The state
ments and sil
ence of Script
ure about
Melchisedec.
In chapters v., vi., vii. the nature of CHRIST'S
High-Priesthood is set forth, showing the characteris
tics of the Levitical high-priesthood as realized in
CHRIST (v. i-io); the Priesthood of CHRIST after the
order of Melchisedec (vi. 20, vii. 14-19) ; and His
characteristics as absolute and eternal High Priest
(vii. 26-28).
The work of CHRIST as High Priest is considered
in chapters viii., ix., and x. The scene of this work is
shown to be a heavenly and not an earthly Sanctuary
(viii. 1-6) ; His atoning work is contrasted with that of
the high priest on the Day of Atonement (ix. 1 1-28) ;
and the abiding efficacy of His One Sacrifice is set forth
(x. 1-18).
In the remaining chapters we have the applica
tion of the fruits of CHRIST'S High-Priesthood to
believers.
Thus we see that the characteristics of our CORD'S
High-Priesthood are deduced from two types : that of
Melchisedec ; that of the high priest on the great
Day of Atonement. Let us consider what the writer
of the Epistle tells us of each.
Our CORD'S High-Priesthood as typified by Mel
chisedec (Heb. v., vi., vii.). The writer of the Epistle
bases his arguments on two passages of the Old Testa
ment. He starts from the verse in the Psalm,* (< Thou
art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec,"
and determines the idea suggested by this phrase from
an investigation of the single record of Melchisedec
found in the Book of Genesis. He argues partly from
what is there told us, and partly from what is there
omitted ; that is, both from the statements and from the
silence of Scripture. His treatment is distinctly typi-
* Ps. ex. 4.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 1 15
cal, not allegorical, the difference being that a type
presupposes a purpose wrought out in history from age
to age, while an allegory rests finally in the imagination.
From the silence of Holy Scripture in regard to the
parentage or genealogy of Melchisedec and the com
mencement or close of his priestly office, he distinguishes
between the Priesthood of our LORD as the Eternal SON,
" having neither beginning of days nor end of life," *
and the L,evitical priesthood. He points out that both
rest upon an authoritative institution : the Levitical
upon GOD'S command to Moses, and our LORD'S upon
the Divine utterances, ' ' Thou art My SON, to-day hs.ve
I begotten Thee," and, " Thou art a Priest for ever,
after the order of Melchisedec" (vv. 5-7). And he
shows that the superior excellence of the Melchisede-
cean priesthood over the L,evitical is not only seen in
the nature of the priest and in the circumstances of His
Ordination, but that it is typically manifested in Abra
ham's attitude towards Melchisedec. The victorious
patriarch, himself a priest and the ancestor of the
L,evitical priesthood, recognizes the greater dignity of
the royal priesthood of Melchisedec by paying tithes,
and receiving Melchisedec' s blessing.
We have already touched on the fact that the inferior The universal
priesthood of Levi was but local and Judaic, while that
of Melchisedec was universal. We must point out, hood.
however, that the only features of the type upon which The sPecial
the writer of the Epistle dwells are the payment of tithes and
tithes and the receiving of blessing. He passes over blessing.
in complete silence the gifts of bread and wine. The the bread and
Fathers, from Clement of Alexandria f and Cyprian \ wine.
* Ch. vii. 3.
f Clement of Alex., Strom., iv. 25, § 163; also Strom., ii.
5, \ 21. \ Ep. ad Ccecil., Ixiii., 4.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Fathers
assume that
they were the
materials of
aS.
The argument
concludes that
such an High
Priest needs
not to offer
daily,
for this He did
once for all.
But that He is
able to save all
that come to
downward, have assumed that the bread and wine were
the materials of a sacrifice offered by Melchisedec, and
S. Jerome * distinctly states that they were offered for
Abraham. This silence in regard to the gifts Bishop
Westcott thinks very significant as indicating that the
writer presents Melchisedec as priest, not in sacri
ficing, but in blessing ; that is, in communicating the
fruits of an efficacious sacrifice already made. And
if we adopt the opinion that the bread and wine had
already been offered in sacrifice, it falls in well with
the Catholic view of our LORD'S Intercession, that He
is now in heaven, pleading and dispensing on earth
the fruits of His Sacrifice once offered upon the Cross.
The verses in which the argument from Melchisedec
concludes, are: " He, because He abideth for ever, hath
His Priesthood inviolable. Whence also He is able to
save to the uttermost them that come unto GOD through
Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for
them. For such an High Priest [in truth] became us,
holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and
become higher than the heavens ; Who hath no need
daily, as the high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for
their own sins, then for the sins of the people, for this
He did once for all in that He offered up Himself"
(vii. 24-27). From this we may gather, in support
of the Catholic view, that though our LORD'S Priest
hood is " inviolable " and continuous (tzV ror ai(^voi)f
that is, it cannot pass to another, yet " He hath no
need daily to offer up sacrifices, for this He did once
for all (£(pa7ta&) when He offered up Himself; " but
that, being " holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from
sinners, and become higher than the heavens," " He
is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto
* S. Jerome, Ad Matt., xxii. 41 ; cf. Ad Matt., xxvi. 26.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. II?
GOD through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make in- GOD through
tercession for them." Here the phrase " to make in- Him-andever
\ , / liveth to make
tercession" (£i$ to evrvyx<xi/£ii/), as has often been intercession
pointed out, implies the work of a Mediator interacting forthem-
between GOD and man, being able as Man from " the
things which He suffered " to sympathize with man,
and being able as GOD " to save to the uttermost"
those for whom He intercedes.
There is here not only no mention of the offering Not only is
of Sacrifice, but this is explicitly excluded by the state- *f0enre0f °nmesn~
ment that He " hath no need daily to offer up Sacri- offered in
fice," either " for Himself " or " for the people," " for heaven, but it
this He did once for all in that He offered up Himself. ' ' cmy*Lciuded.
This certainly seems purposely to exclude from the
idea of intercession or mediation the offering of any
actual sacrifice.
The objection of the Modern school to this is, that The Modern
since it is the function of a priest to offer sacrifice, and s^hoo|obJect
x that since our
our LORD is admittedly " a Priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec," He must not only " have some- Priest forever>
thing to offer,"* but must continually offer it. This tinuaiiy offers.
objection does not seem well taken, since a priest does This objection
not cease to be a priest when he is not actually offering answered-
sacrifice, and there are other sacerdotal functions be
sides sacrifice. Aaron was high priest from the day
of his consecration to the day of his death, and not only
at the time when he was exercising his peculiar office
on the great Day of Atonement. And if we accept the
Catholic view that our LORD was a Priest from His In
carnation, we believe that He passed thirty-three years
of His life without actually exercising the sacrificial
function, although doubtless daily in will offering up to
GOD His interior purpose to consummate on the Cross
* Heb. viii. 3.
Il8
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
intercession
sacrifice, in
blessing, and in
the FATHER
His own giori-
cai Body the
in chap. viii.
that we have
Who fulfils all
the conditions
required, and
has sat down at
the Right
Hand of God.
the Sacrifice by which the world was to be redeemed.
There is, therefore, no difficulty in believing that, hav
ing offered this One Sacrifice, as we are so distinctly
told, " once for all," and needing not to offer any other
Sacrifice, He " abideth a Priest perpetually."
For He exercises His sacerdotal functions in inter-
cessi°n> by pleading the merits of His Sacrifice once
offered, by presenting to the FATHER with His own
glorified Humanity His Mystical Body the Church,
which He has redeemed with His Precious Blood. Like
Melchisedec His work is to bless; and this is indicated
nl S. Luke's account of His Ascension : " It came to
pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven." * And like Melchisedec
also He feeds His people on earth with the fruits of His
Sacrifice, in the Holy Eucharist.
We now pass to the opening verses of the next chap-
ter : " Now *n ^ie thinSs which we are saying the chief
point is this : We have such a High Priest as sat down
on the Right Hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
& J J
heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true
tabernacle, which the LORD pitched, not man. For
. . rr
every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and
sacrifices; whence it was necessary that this [High
Priest] also should have something to offer. Now if
He were [still] upon earth, He would not be a priest at
all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according
to law, such as serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly
order, even as Moses is warned of GOD, when about to
make the tabernacle, for, See, saith He, thou shalt make
all things according to the pattern that was shewed
thee in the mount. But, as it is, He hath obtained a
Ministry so much the more excellent as also He is
* S. I,uke xxiv. 51.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 119
Mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted
upon better promises " (viii. 1-6).
Our attention is here directed to the chief point of
the writer's argument. It is that " we have such a
High Priest " as has been described in the last chapter,
that is, One Who fulfils all the conditions of priesthood;
and that He has " sat down on the Right Hand of the
throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the
sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle."
The principal feature, we are told, in our great High The chief
Priest's work, is that He reigns as a royal High Priest. Characteristic,
J . that He reigns
The Fathers are never weary of pointing out that to sit as royal High
down is not the attitude of a sacrificing priest, and is, Priest>
indeed, entirely inconsistent with the idea of offering
sacrifice. But while reigning as our High Priest, He and that He is
is also a Minister (keirovpyos) of the sanctuary, and
of the true tabernacle. Thalhofer and his school con
tend that ksiTOVpyog is equivalent to sacrificator, but an
examination of the history of the word shows that this
was not its meaning in classical Greek, nor is it the
meaning in which it is used in other passages in the
New Testament. The adoption of the word Xeirovpyia Aeirovpyd? not
to describe the Sacrifice of the Eucharist led in later ^cesa!"eas ,
"Sacrificator."
times to a sacrificial idea being associated with \eirovp-
yo$, but we must not anticipate by five centuries this
meaning of the word, and there are certainly no grounds
for associating the idea of sacrifice with the word in the
New Testament.*
Bishop Westcott points out that there is a signifi- CHRIST reign-
cant contrast here between the Session of CHRIST and insa*dserv-
ing shows
His " serving; " that the two words, in fact, present the forth His
two complementary aspects of CHRIST'S Person and Divine Majesty
* For the history of this word and a discussion of its use in
tlie New Testament, see Appendix A.
120
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and infinite
love.
The idea sug
gested by the
true taber
nacle.
The earthly
tabernacle
symbolized
three things:
GOD dwelling
among men,
His holiness,
His"approach-
ableuess."
The Fathers
consider the
tabernacle to
beour LORD'S
Flesh or
Humanity.
work, His Divine Majesty and His infinite Love. The
true tabernacle (akriQivif) is the ideal tabernacle, of
which the earthly was a symbol. But no local distinc
tion can be attached to this term. The general thought
here expressed is that of the immediate Presence of
GOD, not of a place which corresponds in heaven to
the tabernacle on earth.
The idea is taken up again in the eleventh verse of the
next chapter, where we have the expression " CHRIST,
having come a High Priest of the good things realized,
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle," etc.
In both places we observe that it is not " a tabernacle,"
but " the tabernacle " ; in one, " the true tabernacle,"
in the other, " the greater and more perfect taber
nacle." And it may be worth while to consider some
what carefully the conception suggested by this image.
The earthly tabernacle symbolized three main ideas :
the idea of the dwelling of GOD among men, of His
holiness, and of His " approachableness." It was that
through which He was pleased to make His Presence
and His Nature known, under the conditions of earth,
to His people Israel. And the antitype of the taber
nacle, whether on earth or in heaven, must fulfil the
same office, and fulfil it perfectly. The Fathers, both
Greek and Latin, commonly understood this tabernacle
to be the LORD'S Flesh, or Humanity.* In our LORD'S
historical work on earth He wras the perfect revelation
of the FATHER, and the Way to Him. In the ideal
archetype of the tabernacle we must take account of
our LORD'S Ministry in heaven. In this the heav
enly High Priest and the heavenly tabernacle are in
some sense distinguished, and the LORD acts as High
* Cf. Chrysostom, Theodoret, O^cumenius, Primasius, Euthy-
rnius, Theophylact, in loc.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 121
Priest in His Human Nature. In this relation, then,
it may be said that " the greater and more perfect
tabernacle" of which CHRIST is Minister, and in
which the Saints worship, gathers up the various
means by which GOD reveals Himself in the spiritual
order, and through which men approach to Him.
Under one aspect these are represented by the union of
the redeemed and perfected hosts made one in CHRIST,
as His Body. Through this glorified Church, answer
ing to the complete Humanity which CHRIST assumed,
GOD is made known, and in and through this each be
liever comes nigh to GOD. In this Body, as a spiritual in this Body
temple, CHRIST ministers. As members in this Body, J^,18'
believers severally enjoy the Divine Presence. This
vision enables us to connect redeemed humanity with
the glorified Human Nature of the LORD, and to con
sider how it is that humanity, as the summing up of
creation, may become in Him the highest manifestation
of GOD to finite being, and, in its fulness, that through
which each part is brought near to GOD. This heav
enly tabernacle is spoken of as ' ' greater and more per
fect; " greater in comparison with the narrow limits of
the earthly tabernacle, more perfect as answering to
the complete development of the Divine plan.*
In the third verse of the eighth chapter we have a in neb. vm. 3
disputed passage : " For every high priest is appointed
to offer both gifts and sacrifices ; whence it was neces
sary that this [High Priest] also should have something
to offer."
Here we have first to notice a controversy in respect
to the tense of the verb which must be supplied with
ay ay KOLI 'ov. Is it i]v or fffri ? Our version and
the Vulgate read " is." Scholars of many different
* Cf. Westcott, on Heb., pp. 214, 240, 256-258.
122
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
This does not
affect the argu
ment.
What is the
nature of
CHRIST'S
Offering?
Certainly not
His Blood,
schools consider that it should be ' ' was. * ' The point is
not easily decided. The aorist subjunctive Ttpoasveyxri
would seem to suggest ijv^ as has been pointed out by
Bengel, Meyer, and others, and adopted by Westcott
and Thalhofer. The aorist subjunctive, however, has
not any necessary temporal significance, and therefore
others have thought that the tense must be decided by
the general context of the passage, which they consider
demands the present. The matter is really of little
consequence to our argument, as may be seen by the
fact that Thalhofer and Bengel, who hold the Modern
view, read fjv, and from it support their own position,
while Catholic writers generally read iffti9 and refer it
to the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is simply asserted that
it is necessary that a high priest should have some
thing to offer; and this is equally well satisfied, whether
we refer it to the Offering once made upon the Cross,
or to an Offering made immediately after our I/ORD'S
Ascension, or, again, to a continuous Offering.
We may therefore pass over this passage with the
remark that rtpoGeveynri reminds us that in the next
chapter it is said, 6 Xpiffroz anaZ, 7rpoffev6x6eig,*
where the idea of the Offering being " once for all " is
again insisted on.
The other question suggested by this passage is, the
nature of the Offering which CHRIST made. " It was
necessary that He should have something to offer."
What was this something? Bishop Westcott justly ob
serves that it seems necessary to supply that object
which is elsewhere used with TtpoffQspeiv in the same
connection. Some have interpreted the rl of the
Blood, but, as we shall see later, the blood was not
properly offered in the Holy of holies on the Day of
* Heb. ix. 28.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 12$
Atonement, but was used rather as the means of en
trance and purification. So CHRIST entered into the
Divine Presence ' ' through ' ' (<?*<*), not ' ' with ' ' (jterd),
His own Blood, and by that purifies the heavenly things
and people, but we do not read that He offered it. but either
We should rather supply either " Himself" (vii. 27, ^jmseif or ms
ix. 14, 25) or " His Body " (x. 19).
iii. We now come to the second part of the argument m. our
of the Epistle, that which is drawn from our LORD'S ^tfpriest
High-Priesthood as typified by the high priest on the hoodastypi-
Day of Atonement (ix., x.). After describing the f^y^*
tabernacle, with the Holy Place and its furniture, and Day of Atone-
the Holy of Holies and its contents, we read : " But ment-
when these things have been thus prepared, the priests
enter into the first tabernacle continually, accomplish
ing the Divine services ; but into the second, once in
the year, the high priest alone, not without blood,
which he offereth for himself and for the ignorances of
the people, the HOLY GHOST thus signifying that the
way into the Holy Place hath not yet been made mani
fest, while the first tabernacle hath still an appointed
place ; which is a parable for the season now present ' '
(ix. 6-9).
Before we pass to the second part of the chapter, in
which our LORD'S fulfilment of the type is indicated,
it will be well for us to pause and carefully consider
exactly what was signified by the ritual of the Day of
Atonement.
The effect of sin on the human soul is twofold: first, The effect of
a sense of alienation from GOD, Who is the Source of f ns^s°ef°0f :
all true life ; and, flowing from this, when the conse- alienation
quences of this separation from GOD are realized, an from GOD>
... •-,' • • and a con-
llltense longing for reconciliation or restoration to com- viction of guilt.
munion with GOD. Secondly, an even more deeply
124
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The concep
tion of S. also
twofold as a
means
of removing
the guilt,
of reconciling
man with GOD.
The chief sig
nificance of the
ritual, that till
the sufficient S.
is offered there
is no free
access to GOD,
but that the
yearly en
trance of the
high priest
within the veil
arouses hope.
The first taber
nacle was open
to the priests
daily, the
Holy of
Holies only to
the high priest
once a year.
grounded conviction of guilt, which must be removed
before such access to GOD and communion with Him
can be restored. We find also a twofold conception of
the effects of sacrifice as remedying these consequences
of sin : first, by removing the guilt which prevents
man from standing in GOD'S Presence ; and, secondly,
by thus making an access to GOD, and so reconciling
man with GOD.
The fundamental significance of the great Day of
Atonement (which is often overlooked) is its teaching
that, while the first tabernacle was in existence, that
is, before CHRIST'S Sacrifice had been offered, there
was no possibility of free access to GOD, " the HOI,Y
GHOST thus signifying that the way into the Holy
place hath not yet been made manifest, while the
first tabernacle hath still an appointed place." And
furthermore the great Day of Atonement was the
earnest and pledge of this access as a thing to be hoped
for ; and the whole purpose of the entrance of the high
priest once a year into the Holy of holies was to keep
alive this hope by typifying the work of CHRIST, the
true High Priest, Who " when He had overcome the
sharpness of death, opened the Kingdom of Heaven
to all believers."
The first tabernacle, that part of the sanctuary which
was called the Holy place, was open to the priests
daily, but the second, the Holy of holies, only upon
one single day of each year, and then to the high
priest alone. And on this occasion his entrance was
accompanied by a ritual which, while it inspired hope,
pointed clearly to the means by which alone the barrier
between GOD and man could be removed, namely, the
Precious Blood of CHRIST, the Lamb of GOD, Which
taketh away the sin of the world. We must keep
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 12$
distinctly in niind that the purpose for which the high The purpose
priest went into the Holy of holies was not to sprinkle ^^ p^gf16
the blood, but ' ' to appear in the Presence of GOD, ' ' to w^nt within
typify the entrance into heaven of Him Who " having theveilwas
J r * ' not to sprinkle
obtained eternal redemption [for us], " through His the blood, but
own Blood entered in once for all into the Holy place," to appear be-
"to appear openly before the face of GOD on our be
half." * The sprinkling of the blood was not, as we
have said, the end for which the high priest entered The sprinkling
the Holy of holies, but typified the means by which oftheblood
J . Jr was not the
this end was to be attained. The end was access to "end, "but the
GOD, the removal of the barrier symbolized by the "means-"
veil, which none but the high priest could pass. The
sprinkling of the blood showed the means, the Precious
Blood of CHRIST, by which the world was to be re
deemed, and also typified the application of that Blood
as the fruits or merits of a finished sacrifice for the pro
pitiation of sin. For, asS. Paul says, " It pleased the
FATHER that in Him should all fulness dwell ; and
having made peace through the Blood of His Cross by
Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, whether
things in earth or things in heaven." f And S. John,
" The Blood of JESUS CHRIST His SON cleanseth us
from all sin." J And again, <( If any man sin, we have
an Advocate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the
Righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins." §
We must now examine carefully the ritual which Thedetaiisof
accompanied the high priest's entrance, and inquire thentual-
into its significance. On the day itself, after bathing,
the high priest put on his white linen robes || as repre
senting the people before GOD, not the golden robes,
* Heb. ix. 12, 24.
f Col. i. 19, 20. \ i S. John ii. i, 2.
\ i S. John i. 7. || Lev. xvi. 4.
126
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Summary of
teaching- on
this point.
which represented him as the messenger of GOD to the
people. Then the victims for the congregation and
for the high priest were prepared and presented : for
sin offerings, a bullock for the high priest and two
goats for the people ; for burnt offerings, a ram for
each.* One of the goats was assigned by lot to the
I^ORD, and the other to Azazel. Then the high priest
killed the bullock and made an atonement for himself
and for his house (i. e., the priesthood), entering within
the veil under cover of a cloud of incense, that he
might not die. After this (and, according to the later
ritual, he returned meanwhile from the Holy of holies,
and re-entered it with the blood) he took of the blood
and sprinkled it with his finger upon the mercy-seat
eastward, and before the mercy-seat seven times. So
the high priest and the scene of the manifestation of
GOD were duly atoned, and the high priest was able
to act for the people. Then the goat, the sin offering
for the people, was killed, and his blood treated as
the blood of the bullock. Afterwards the high priest
made atonement for the Holy place, being there alone, f
and for the altar of burnt offering. J Having thus
made atonement for priests and people and the whole
place of service, that is, the sanctuary in its three
parts, the high priest laid his hands upon the head of
the live goat, and confessed over it all the iniquities
of the Children of Israel, putting them upon the head
of the goat, and sent it away into the wilderness. §
Thus the special service ended. ||
Here let us pause to gather up in a concise form the
teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews in regard to our
* Lev. xvi. 3, 5, 6. f Ex. xxx. 10. J Lev. xvi. 16-20. g Vv. 20, 21.
|| This description is taken from Westcott, on Ifeb., pp. 279,
280.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 12?
LORD'S work as typified by the ritual of the Day of
Atonement, (i) From the Old Testament we learn that : (i) The o. T.
(i.) Sacrifice under the Jewish Law was not offered [^f^^ot
within the Holy of holies, but in the Court of the offered in the
Tabernacle where was the altar of burnt offering, upon Holy of holies'
which the blood was sprinkled round about (zarak,
|T1T, in its original Assyrian form, means " to scatter "
(Arabic, to throw), hence in Hebrew " to pour out or
sprinkle in large quantities") ; at the foot of which,
after the sprinkling, the remainder of the blood was
poured out ; and upon which the victim was burned.*
This surely teaches that only upon earth sacrifice was
to be offered.
(ii.) Besides this the blood was applied (ndthan, jrti, (H.) but that in
to give) to the horns of the burnt offering in the case cf rt^n <fsf
' the blood of a
of a sin offering for one of the common people ; to the s. was applied
horns of the altar of incense and some sprinkled with to atone or re"
concile.
the finger before the veil seven times, in the case of a
sin offering for a priest or for the congregation. The
word used for this sprinkling (Jiizzah, n-JH, from HTJ) in
its Aramaic and Syriac forms means " to spring or spirt
up," and in Hebrew " to sprinkle in smaller quanti
ties " as with the finger, an application, that is, of the
blood of the sacrifice which had been offered. f And
on the Day of Atonement only some of the blood was
carried into the Holy of holies and sprinkled (nTH not
pIT) with the finger upon the mercy-seat and before the
mercy-seat seven times. J Here we have the application
of the merits of a sacrifice, which had been offered, to
the cleansing or atoning or reconciling of articles
symbolical of things on earth and in heaven. §
* Lev. i. 5, iii. 2, vii. 2 ; Lev. iv. 7, iv. 30, v. 9. Lev. i. 9, iii.
3-6, iv. 8-1 1. \ Lev. xvi. 14, 15, 18, 19.
t Lev. iv. 30, iv. 7, iv. 6. § Col. i. 19, 20.
128
THE EUCHAR1STIC SACRIFICE.
(2) The Epistle
points out re
semblances
and contrasts
between the
high priest and
our I^ORD.
(i.) Resem
blances :
(a) The entry
into the Holy
of holies.
(b) "Not with
out blood."
(c) To inter
cede.
(d) The waiting
people.
(ii.) Contrasts :
(a) Many times,
(2) In the Epistle to the Hebrews the action of the
Jewish high-priest and the ritual of the Day of Atone
ment is put in parallel with our LORD'S Atoning work,
and our attention is directed both to the likeness and
to the contrast between them.
(i.) We find the points of resemblance chiefly in
chapter ix. They are four :
(a) The entry into the Holy of holies of the high
priest alone. So we as priests offer the sacrifice which
CHRIST has commanded us to offer, but He alone has
entered within the veil.
(b) " Not without blood," that is, not apart from
blood (ov x°°pk ai'jj.aroz') (v. 7). We may observe
here how carefully the inspired writer avoids the
phrase " with blood " (^sra ai'^aro^] since in this
the high priest differs from our LORD in His entry into
heaven, as is afterward noted (in v. 25).
(c) " To appear in the presence of GOD for us " (v.
24). So the Fathers* speak of the very presence of
our LORD'S Humanity at the Right Hand of the
FATHER as His Intercession, and they point out that
this Intercession is not merely verbal prayer. Surely
this, too, is typified by the fact that the high priest
within the veil uttered no words, but bore upon his
heart the breastplate engraven with the names of the
tribes of Israel.
(d) The multitude who waited without for the high
priest's return ; so are we told of our LORD that He
' ' shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them
that wait for Him unto salvation " (v. 28).
(ii.) The points of difference and contrast are even
more strongly emphasized. They are chiefly •
(a) That whereas the high priest entered into the
* Buthymius Zigadenus, in Heb. ix. 25.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 1 29
Holy of holies many times and with the blood of many
victims, our LORD " once for all, at the close of the and "once for
ages, hath been manifested to disannul sin by the all>"
sacrifice of Himself."
This contrast is dwelt upon again and again and
brought out by the use of ana^ * and scpanaZ^ and
excludes the possibility of any repetition of the One
Sacrifice of our LORD.
(b) That our LORD did not, like the high priest, o>) A place
enter a Holy place made with hands, but into heaven ^^^
itself. heaven.
(c) That whereas the high priest entered with (fV) % (o "with the
blood not his own, our LORD entered through (dia) ^-^d
His OWn Blood. through His
Thus the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews would own Blood-
teach us that as under the Jewish Law things were
atoned or reconciled by the application of the blood of
a sacrifice which had been offered ; so the application
of the Precious Blood of CHRIST, shed and offered once
for all upon the Cross, avails for ever as a propitiation,
and for the cleansing of sin.
Having now clearly in view the significance of the
entrance of the high priest into the Holy of holies,
namely, to symbolize the access of man to GOD through
the great High Priest JESUS CHRIST ; and the means
which were employed, the sin offerings for himself and
for the people, showing that this access could only be
obtained through the Precious Blood of CHRIST ; we
shall pass to the second part of this chapter, and at the
* axa^, Heb. ix. 26.
f ^(pdna^ Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, x. 10.
$ev with the dative in general use is applied to that with
which one is furnished, which he brings with him. Cf. Winer,
Part III., £48.
9
130
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The interpret
ation of the
type in the
Epistle.
The contrast
between the
repeated en
trance of the
high priest,
and our
CORD'S en
trance once for
all.
The means in
each case
' ' through
blood,"
but not ' ' with
blood."
The chief
thought, that
the blood was
the means of
access.
The preposi-
risk of considerable repetition examine in detail the
manner in which the writer of the Epistle interprets
the type and shows how far it was fulfilled by CHRIST
Himself.
" But CHRIST, having come a High Priest of the
good things realized, through the greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of
this creation, nor yet through blood of goats and calves,
but through His own Blood, entered in once for all into
the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption ' '
(ix. n, 12).
In contrast with the repeated entrance of the Jewish
high priest into the Holy of holies with the blood
of the appointed victims, CHRIST once for all entered
into the true sanctuary, the actual Presence of GOD,
through His own Blood, and thus obtained, not a tem
poral, but an eternal deliverance.
Here we must carefully observe the force of the
phrase oude di ai^arog rpaycov xai ^OG^GDV dia de
rov idlov ai'}j.aToZy eiGr/\6£v ecpana^ £zV ra ayia.
There is not in this the slightest ground for the theory
put forth by some of the Modern school, that as the
high priest entered the Holy of holies with the blood
of the victims, so CHRIST entered heaven with His own
Blood, that is to say, carried it into heaven. The fact
that the high priest entered the Holy of holies with
the blood is not the point to which the writer of the
Kpistle to the Hebrews draws attention, since it was a
mere detail of the ritual. The prominent idea con
nected with the blood is that it was the means through
which the priest was enabled to enter the Holy of holies,
by making an atonement. Indeed, it is extraordinary
that such a theory as the one just mentioned should
have been propounded by any one familiar with the
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 131
Greek Testament, since not only would it have re- tion ' v^a » is
quired f^era in this place instead of dia, but there are ^Tin con **
no less than eleven other passages in Holy Scripture nectionwith
referring to the Blood as the means of access to GOD, bloodasthe
/ means of ac-
and in not one case is //£ TO. used. In one case we have Cess to GOD.
ov x<vpte? in another dia, and in the other nine fV. Examination
ATM r 11 -r-r 1 ? ' of the eleven
The passages are as follows : Heb. ix. 7, ov xoop-is passages in
ai^arog ; Kph. i. 7, dia rov ai^arog avrov $ Heb. N.T.
ix. 22, ev ai'juartj x. 19, fV r&3 ai^ari IrjGov $ xiii.
20, «V ai^ari diadrjKrfi aioonov ?- Rom. iii. 25, fV rc5 to.
avrov aifAari} v. 9, fV rc5 ai'j^ari avrov ; Eph. ii.
13, fV rcj) ai^iari rov Xpiffrov ; Rev. i. 5, iv r&)
aiuari avrov : v. 9, fV rc5 aiuari ffov : vii. 14, eV
. « ~ ' /
rco aiuari rov apviov.
A study of these passages shows that there can be no From this it is
question that the blood, whether of the type or of CHRIST evidentthat
* the Blood is the
Himself, is always regarded as the instrumental means « instrumental
of access to GOD, under whatever name that access means"°f
. . . . access.
may be described, as reconciliation, redemption, etc.
If, then, CHRIST, "having obtained eternal redemp- '
tion, entered in once for all into the Holy place, through
His own Blood," we are certainly to understand this
expression, as in every other reference to the Blood, as
indicating the condition of redemption ; not as im
plying that the Blood accompanied our great High
Priest, but that It was the means by which human
ity in Him, its first-fruits and crown, entered into the
Presence of GOD. The truth which was signified by The truth sig-
the use of the blood on the Day of Atonement, was nifiedbythe
. . ... . blood here is
that which all the sacrifices alike signify, that without that " without
shedding of blood there is no remission.* And in its shedding of
, . , , blood there is
application to our Blessed LORD precisely the same
idea is set forth, that our great High Priest, as the
* Heb. ix. 22.
no remsson.'
132 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Representative of humanity, entered once for all into
the Holy place, the Presence of GOD in heaven, hav
ing obtained eternal redemption, not by means of the
blood of goats and calves, but by means of His own
Blood. In the case of all the other Jewish sacrifices,
which pointed to CHRIST just as much as that of the
Day of Atonement, the sprinkling of the blood was
the essentially sacrificial act, and indicated the means
by which the world should be redeemed. But in none
of these was the blood carried within the Holy of holies.
Most of the We may therefore conclude our examination of this
Modem school passage by remarking, what the majority of the Mod-
Aifordand ern school admit, that "through His own Blood"
perhaps sadier jmpiies oniy the instrumental means of the access of
are exceptions. „
humanity to GOD, and affords no ground for the theory
of Alford and Bengel, that the Precious Blood was car
ried into heaven, or, indeed, that apart from our
lyORD's glorified Humanity It pleads in heaven.*
in verses 13 In verses 13 and 14 we have a very distinct reference
superiorit^ of to CHRIST'S Offering of Himself : "For if the blood of
CHRIST'S goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling
Blood to that of them that have been defiled, sanctifieth unto the clean-
animal sacri-
fices is shown, ness of the flesh, how much more shall the Blood of
CHRIST, Who through [His] eternal Spirit offered
Himself without blemish to GOD, cleanse our con
science from dead works, to the end that we may serve
a living GOD ? "
*Mr. Brightman writes in a private letter: "In speaking of
Him as presenting His Blood, I conceive one means that He is
doing, or rather He is, what was symbolized by the presenta
tion of the blood. In fact, His Blood is merely Himself in a
certain relation resulting from His historical acts. Accord
ingly, I do not wish to find myself within measurable distance
of the appalling view of Alford and Beugel."
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 133
Here, from two typical examples of Levitical sacri
fices, — that of goats and bulls on the Day of Atone
ment,* and the occasional sacrifice of the red heifer, f
— the writer draws attention to the superior efficacy of
CHRIST'S Blood, which cleanses not from the merely ex
ternal impurity, but from moral defilement. Thesacri- The word
ficial term " without blemish" (ajuco^or) carries our "^o.con-
nects our
thought to the moment when the victim is handed CORD'S s.
over to the priest for sacrifice. And the fact that the with the
aorist "He offered Himself" (TtpoGrjvsynsv} is so
closely associated with it, certainly indicates that this
priestly Offering of Himself took place in close con
nection with the initial act of His Sacrifice, and is in
consistent with the Modern view that this Offering did
not take place until after His Ascension.
This chapter concludes with a striking passage in chap. ix. con-
regard to our LORD'S Intercession and Sacrifice : " For cludest>yre-
lating our
CHRIST entered not into a Holy place made with IBRD'S inter-
hands, like to the pattern of the true, but into the cession to His
heaven itself, now to appear openly before the face of
GOD on our behalf; nor yet [did He enter] in order
that He may often offer Himself, as the high priest
entereth into the Holy place year by year with blood
not his own ; since in that case He must often have
suffered since the foundation of the world ; but now
once for all, at the close of the ages, hath He been
manifested to disannul sin by the Sacrifice of Himself.
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men once to die,
and after this [cometh] judgment ; even so CHRIST
also, having been once offered to carry the sins of
many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to
them that wait for Him, unto salvation " (ix. 24-28).
Here we are told that the purpose for which CHRIST
* Ivev. xvi. f Num. xix.
134 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
entered heaven was not that He might often offer
Himself, for this He had done once for all ; but that
He might ' ' appear openly before the face of GOD on
our behalf ; ' ' where, although the great Intercession
and Mediatorial work of our LORD is indicated as the
presenting of Himself on our behalf in the Presence of
GOD (pleading, therefore, the merits, that is, the effects
of His Sacrifice), there certainly seems to be no room
for the modern idea that our LORD entered into heaven
for the purpose of offering a Sacrifice, which it is said
He even now continues to offer.
TWO passages There are two interesting passages in the tenth
in chap. x. to chapter which are germane to our subject.
be considered. J
(i) verse 10 im- "In which will we have been sanctified through
plies that our t]ie offering of the Body of TKSUS CHRIST once for all ' '
LORD'S S. is ° j i 4.1. j «
the only absoi- (verse 10). Here we need only notice the word once
utes. for all" (ecpdrtag'), which occurs also in vii. 27 and
ix. 12, and qualifies the Offering. Its introduction in
these three passages would seem to make it impos
sible to believe that there could be any other abso
lute Sacrifice than the Sacrifice of our LORD'S Body
offered once for all upon the Cross. Whatever other
sacrifice there may be, whether on earth or in heaven,
it can only be relative to this one and only absolute
Sacrifice.
(2) verses 11-14 In the following verse we read: "And while
repeat this every priest (high priest) standeth day by day minis-
thought, but . .„",.,
add to it our tenng and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which
LORD'S ses- can never take away sins, He, when He had offered
one Sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the Right
Hand of GOD, henceforth waiting till His enemies be
made the footstool of His feet. For by one Offering He
hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified ' ' (x.
11-14).
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 135
In this passage there are three points to which we Three points
must draw attention.
First, the contrast between "every priest" stand- d) The sigmfi-
ing to minister and offer sacrifice, and CHRIST, who. canceof''sit-
ting, as indi-
after He had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever, eating finished
sat down on the Right Hand of GOD. The idea of work>
standing is that of work still to be done, service still to
be rendered. So the angels stand before GOD. The
significance of sitting, or rather of taking one's seat
(for the verb is xa6iC?ir, not KvtQrfffQai), implies that
work has been finished, although its effects continue.
S. Chrysostom * says : " As standing is the mark of
ministering, so sitting is the mark of being ministered
unto." We have already noticed how much import
ance the Fathers attach to this statement that our LORD
" sat down " on the Right Hand of GOD, as indicating
His finished work, and therefore as inconsistent with
any actual Sacrifice finding place in His great Interces- excludes any
sion. That Intercession was simply the abiding Pre- ^rToRD™"1
sence of His glorified Humanity at the Right Hand of intercession.
GOD. His Humanity pleads for us with all-prevailing
power. This is admirably expressed in the commentary This is ad-
of Kuthymius Zigadenus on this verse: " His very
Humanity, therefore, pleads with the FATHKR on our
behalf, "f zig-
We notice that He did not sit down on the Right (2) The s. was
Hand of GOD until after He had offered the one Sacrifice offere? !>efore
He sat down.
for sins for ever. While this is not incompatible with
* S. Chrys. In /fed., Horn, xviii., \ 3.
•f'Avrr} ovv ?} ErtarOpGJ7r?j6ils avrov Ttapana'X.E.'i TOV
Ilarepa vnep rjn&v . I am indebted to the kindness of the
Bishop of Durham for calling my attention to this quotation in
a private letter. This work of Euthymius, which was first putr
lished at Athens in 1887, is not well known.
• 36
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
(3) The sig
nificance of
CHRIST'S per
fecting the
faithful by one
Offering.
The last pas
sage quoted
from this
Kpistle as
favourable to
the Modern
view, xii. 24.
Ben gel and
Alford's inter
pretation.
such an Offering having been made in Heaven imme
diately after the Ascension and before the Session, it
certainly does not suggest this, and is more easily sat
isfied by the Catholic view that the one Oblation once
made was accomplished upon the Cross, and that our
LORD ascended into heaven to take His place at the
Right Hand of GOD. This view, too, is entirely in
accord with our LORD'S statement before His Ascen
sion, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
earth." * It seems impossible to reconcile these words
with the idea that the Sacrifice of which this power was
the fruit had not yet been made.
" By one Offering He hath perfected forever them
that are sanctified." Here we need only point out
that it is not said that the Offering sanctifies, but
that our LORD sanctifies by the Offering. That is,
that He sanctifies those who from time to time, by us
ing the means of grace, realize in fact that which was
once potentially obtained for them.
There is but one other passage in the Epistle to the
Hebrews which has been quoted by the Modern school
as favourable to their theory. It is as follows : " But
ye are come to mount Sion, and to the city of the Liv
ing GOD, a heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable
hosts of angels in festal assembly, and to the Church
of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven, and to the GOD of
all as Judge, and to spirits of just men made perfect,
and to the Mediator of a new Covenant [even] JESUS,
and to the Blood of sprinkling that speaketh better
than Abel " (xii. 22-24).
Bengel, Alford, and others, as we have already
pointed out, have constructed from the last words of
this passage an extraordinary theory that our LORD'S
* S. Matt, xxviii. 18.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 137
glorified Body was bloodless, and that He carried into
heaven His Precious Blood separated from His Body,
and presented It to GOD, and continues to present It.
While there are few who hold this ' ' appalling ' ' theory,
the words are quoted by many to show that there is
now in heaven a sacrificial action in connection with
the Precious Blood, equivalent to the sprinkling of the
blood under the Law. As Abel's blood cried for venge
ance upon Cain, so the Blood of CHRIST in heaven
is thought to plead for mercy on sinful man.
We have only to examine the context carefully to The context
see that the sphere of the action of the " Blood of «*ows that the
*• . sphere of the
sprinkling " is not heaven, but earth. We must begin action is not
at the eighteenth verse, where we have the scene at heavenbut
Sinai at the giving of the Law vividly set before us.
In striking contrast with this we have in the passage
quoted the privileges of the Christian Dispensation
(verses 22-24). C1) In the first two verses the Christ- Ananaiysisof
ian Revelation is seen in its fulfilment from the Divine the whole pas-
sage proves
side. We have (a) the foundation, (b) the structure, this,
(c) the persons (angels and men). (2) Then follows
the Christian Revelation seen in its efficacy from the
human side : (a) the judgment (earthly life over) : the
Judge, and those who have been perfected; (b) the gift
of grace (earthly life still lasting) : the Covenant, arid
the Atonement. The words which we have to consider
form the latter of the two members of the last subdi
vision. The former member is the Covenant, i.e., ' ' the
Mediator of a new Covenant, even JESUS ; " then the
Atonement, " the Blood of sprinkling, that speaketh
better than Abel." This Blood was shed once for all
upon the Cross, and is contrasted with the blood of
Abel, which was shed once for all and cried to GOD for
vengeance. The Blood of CHRIST both pleads to GOD
138 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
for mercy, and is itself the means by which man is
cleansed from sin. There is, however, no indication
here that this cleansing takes place in heaven ; indeed,
we are told elsewhere that nothing impure, that is, un-
cleansed, can ever enter heaven, and there is no system
of theology in existence, we believe, which holds that
sinners are to be cleansed after their entrance into
heaven. We know that the cleansing takes place on
earth, through the Sacraments, in which the soul is
sprinkled with the Precious Blood for the remission of
sins in Baptism and Penance, and is refreshed, as well
as cleansed, by the Precious Blood in the Holy Eu
charist. Further, the words, " Ye are come to mount
Sion," etc., were addressed to men still living in this
world, and only signified that as members of CHRIST'S
Mystical Body the Church, they had fellowship with
the Saints and Angels, and were partakers of all the
privileges of members of CHRIST, having entered into
covenant with Him by Baptism, and being supplied
with grace through the other Sacraments, especially
those Sacraments which are efficacious in applying to
the soul the Precious Blood.
The actual phrase, "the Blood of sprinkling," of
course carries us back in thought to the Jewish ritual,
in which all things were cleansed by the sprinkling of
blood. In the Christian Sacraments, however, the
cleansing of the soul takes place on earth, not in
heaven, and the Precious Blood is applied through the
Sacraments to penitent sinners here, not to perfected
Saints in heaven.*
summary: Before leaving the Epistle to the Hebrews we would
Aiithesacri- (jraw attention to the fact, recognized by all but Socin-
fices under the
* For a full discussion of this passage see Westcott, on Heb.
in loc.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 139
ians, that the whole sacrificial system of the Jews fore- i*w fore
shadowed different aspects of the One Sacrifice which «hadoweddif-
r ferent aspects
our LORD was to offer for the redemption of the world, of the s. of
In the Book of Leviticus we find a complete sacrifi- CHRIST-
cial system instituted, in which were regulated the dif
ferent sacrifices offered both for individuals (whether
priests or laymen) and for the congregation. In addi
tion, however, to these we also find two special annual The two great
sacrifices appointed, to which were attached extraordi- annualrites
prefigure the
nary solemnities, namely, the Passover, and the sacn- H. E. audour
fices on the great Day of Atonement ; and in seeking in LORD'S Inter-
. . . cession.
the Christian dispensation the significance of these, we
observe that they correspond, respectively, to the Holy
Eucharist, and to our LORD'S Intercession in heaven.
For the Passover was a representative sacrifice, The Passover
commemorating the redemption of the Israelites from typifiesthe
the bondage of Egypt, the Passover then celebrated,
and it was also a feast upon a sacrifice, for the Paschal
Lamb was eaten. This is fulfilled in the Holy Euchar
ist, and in the Holy Eucharist only ; since in it alone
we show forth the LORD'S death till He come, and in
it alone we feed upon the Body and Blood of Him
Who is the Lamb of GOD. The ritual of the Day of the Day of
Atonement, on the other hand, clearly typifies our
LORD'S Intercession in heaven, and that only ; for on
the Day of Atonement the Jewish high priest entered
the Holy of holies with the blood (dv ai^ari) of a
sacrifice which he had offered, not in order that he
might offer sacrifice there, but that he might appear in
the presence of GOD as representing the people of GOD.
In GOD'S presence he uttered no word of prayer, but
bore over his heart the breastplate on which were en
graved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.
His presence there and his intercession were possible
Both rites point
to the same
source of
merit, but to a
different appli
cation of it.
No part of the
rite on the Day
of Atonement
prefigures the
H.E.
3. Rev. v. 6,
the " I,amb as
It had been
slaughtered."
The Modern
school are
here divided
into two
groups,
the more
moderate see
ing only a
I4O THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
only through the application of the blood of the sacri
fice. So our Great High Priest entered heaven through
His own Blood, that He might appear in the Presence
of GOD for us, and this is His Intercession for us,
Both rites alike point to the same source of merit, the
Sacrifice of our LORD upon the Cross, but they fore
shadow different applications of it.
The Passover points to its renewal by commemora
tion in the Holy Eucharist, in which also the offerer
feeds upon the sacramental gifts of our LORD'S Body
and Blood.
The entry of the priest into the Holy of holies typi
fies most distinctly the great Intercession of our LORD
in heaven, but there is absolutely no part of the rite
which recalls either the double Consecration in the
Eucharist or the sacramental feast attached to it.
Mystical writers may find a parallel between it and
the prayers in the Liturgy, but they can point to
nothing which theology can recognize as fulfilled by
our LORD in His institution of the Holy Eucharist.
3. After leaving the Epistle to the Hebrews, one
other passage only demands our consideration. In the
Book of Revelation we read : " I saw in the midst of
the throne, and of the four living beings, and in the
midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though
slaughtered" ((&£ sfftpay^vov).^
Upon this text the followers of the Modern school rely
to a great extent for proof of the existence of a celestial
sacrifice. They are, however, divided here into two
distinct groups, the more moderate of which claims that
the title by which our LORD is described, " a Lamb as
though slaughtered," represents Him distinctly as still
a Sacrifice. And in this claim they are undoubtedly
* Rev. v. 6.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 141
justified, since He is in heaven what He is in the description of
Eucharist, what He was on the Cross, what He was by ^vfctS*8
GOD'S predestination from the first moment of His In- which is quite
carnation,— the Victim. First He was the Victim de- Justifiable-
stined for Sacrifice, " for Him hath GOD the FATHER
sealed ; " * " wherefore, when He entereth into the
world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest
not, but a Body didst Thou prepare for Me. ' ' f Then,
after the Sacrifice had been consummated upon the
Cross, He became the Victim slaughtered, raised from
the dead, yet still the Lamb of GOD, though standing
in the midst of the throne. But here we must most
distinctly observe that our LORD is the Sacrifice only
in the passive sense of the word. He stands in the
midst of the throne with the marks of slaughter, the
wounds still showing in His glorified Body; as the
ancient Easter office-hymn has it,
" The wounds, the riven wounds, He shows,
In that His Flesh, with light that glows."
Yet here is no sacrificial action. As Bishop Forbes \
points out, He is the Victim, the Sacrifice, in a passive
sense ; but the action of Sacrifice took place upon the
Cross.
Indeed, it would seem impossible to understand the
* S. John vi. 27. f Heb. x. 5.
J "The matter may be made clearer by the distinction be
tween 'the active and passive sacrifice,' i. e., sacrifice as ' the
action of offering,' and sacrifice as 'the thing offered.' . . .
Theologians [Anglicans] use the word ' sacrifice ' in the one
English sense of ' the thing offered.' Those who object to their
teaching take it in the other, of 'the act of offering.' . . .
As an act of immolation, atonement, satisfaction, the offering
of CHRIST was 'finished once for all.'"— Forbes On the Ar
ticles, pp. 617, 618.
142 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
words GO£ effcpayfAevov in any other sense. The latter
word is a perfect participle, and indicates an action
which has taken place in past time, the effects of which
are still enduring. It implies that the Lamb had been
slaughtered at some time in the past, and still remains
in the condition in which that act had placed Him, i. e.,
a Victim, a Sacrifice. We have a similar instance of
the use of the perfect participle in the first verse of the
fourth chapter : ' ' Behold, a door set open in Heaven ' '
(Jldov Ovpa r}V£Gpy}j.£vrf iv TO) ovpavcp}. Here t}vecpy-
}*£vri signifies that the act of opening the door had
taken place at some past time, as we say in the 7>
Deum, (< When Thou hadst overcome the sharpness of
death, Thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all
believers ; " but that in his vision S. John beheld the
door still open. In a word, the perfect participle asserts
the effects of a past act and nothing else ; but the effects
of a thing cannot be the thing itself. The effects of our
LORD'S Sacrifice, its fruits, or, as we say, His merits,
are pleaded in his great Intercession,* but the pleading
of His merits is not, strictly speaking, the offering of a
Sacrifice.
some of the A group of the Modern school, as represented by
Modem school Thalhofer, and perhaps Brightman,t try to find in the
* " He, when he had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever
(sit TO 8irjvsH8<i}, sat down." — Heb. x. 12.
t <l We should expect the mark of death on the Eucharist to
be analogous, not to its place, if one may so speak, in His his
tory at the moment of the Cross, but to its place in His glori
fied Person. We should look in the Eucharist for something
analogous, not to the agony of the Cross, but to the wounds in
the Hands and the Feet and the Side of His risen Body. We
should expect it to be a commemoration of the Lamb ' as It had
been slain,' and yet 'standing in the midst of the throne.' "
— Brightman, p. 6.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 143
wounds some sacrificial action. Thalhofer calls this see in the
" the outward form of the sacrificial action." * In the J^SJ^J
Sacrifice of the Cross he distinguishes between the in- Thaihofer's
ward and the outward form of the Sacrifice. The out- argument,
ward form, he says, was the actual shedding of the
Blood and the death of the Cross, in which, alone, a
sacrificial character is not found. But the inward form
he holds to be the patient and enduring obedience and
the tender love which were manifested by the voluntary
shedding of His Blood. In the celestial Sacrifice, as
in the Eucharist, he tries to find this same twofold form
in the inward and spiritual act of resignation (die innere
Entsagung} by which our LORD wills, as He did upon
the Cross, to do His FATHER'S will, and in the outward
act by which He expresses this inward disposition, and
which, inasmuch as it is a manifestation of it, imparts
the essentially sacrificial character to the act. He con
siders the marks of the wounds in our LORD'S glorified
Body as the outward form, since they are the effect of
the inward form, that is, the manifestation of this in
terior act of resignation, inasmuch as it was through
these wounds that our LORD shed His Blood.
A very slight examination of Thaihofer's argument shown to be
suffices to show that it is altogether vicious and in-
valid. Although the wounds originally manifested our
LORD'S voluntary obedience in dying upon the Cross,
— that is to say, in that act of Sacrifice the inward and
the outward form were connected as cause and effect, —
yet it cannot be asserted from this that the marks of the
wounds, which live on in our LORD'S Body, are the
effect of the inward spirit of resignation to His FATHER'S
will which lives on in our LORD'S human will. On the
other hand, it is evident that the marks of the wounds
* Thalhofer Das Opf-;r> S. 214.
144
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Illustration
from the
difference
between a
martyr and
martyrdom.
Between a
state and an
act.
So the Lamb is
the S., but does
not offer S.
are entirely independent of any present interior disposi
tion of our L/ORD'S human will. By this we are not in
the slightest degree denying that our L,ORD in His
glorified Humanity preserves the same desire to die for
us which He manifested in act upon the Cross. We
do assert, however, that this desire is altogether inde
pendent of the marks of the wounds, which simply bear
witness to a past Sacrifice, and have no necessary con
nection with any present sacrificial disposition.
We may illustrate this by the example of a confessor,
or martyr in will, who, though so grievously tortured
as to bear to the day of his death the marks of his mar
tyrdom, escaped with life. Such an one at the time
of his martyrdom had the will to die for CHRIST, and
the scars and marks of mutilation are the testimony that
this inward disposition was carried into act. There
fore they confer upon him a right to the title of martyr,
since they indicate that, in will at least, he suffered
martyrdom. As long as he lives, the marks of these
scars prove that he is a martyr ; but we cannot from
this draw the conclusion that every day of his life he
suffers martyrdom. The scars are the witness to a past,
not to a present, act; and though it may be argued that
the martyr still retains the same inward disposition and
readiness to die for CHRIST, this disposition is quite in
dependent of the scars which he bears, since if he were to
apostatize from the Christian Religion, the scars would
remain, though the inward disposition would have
changed. So the scars exhibited in the "Lamb as though
slaughtered, standing in the midst of the throne," test
ify that He is the Sacrifice, that He once consummated
the act of Sacrifice ; but they are not " the external
form," as Thalhofer calls it, of a present Sacrifice.
Hence we may conclude our examination of this last
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 145
passage by saying that the interpretation put upon it
by the moderate school of Bishop Forbes is quite un
objectionable ; but that the attempt of the Thalhofer
school to find in these scars a sacrificial action which
will constitute a celestial Sacrifice, properly so called,
fails absolutely, and, indeed, does little credit to their
logical perception.
We may further observe that the \j2tfcfo\sstanding\\\
the midst of the throne of GOD, not lying upon an altar,
as would be expected if He were, strictly speaking, a
celestial Sacrifice. For a celestial Sacrifice demands,
not a throne, but an altar ; not the attitude of stand
ing, but of a slaughtered Victim laid upon that altar.
III. We may now sum up the results of our investi- in. Summary
gation of Holy Scripture in regard to the Kucharistic
Sacrifice, somewhat as follows:
1. From type and prophecy in the Old Testament, i. o. T. and
and from the use of sacrificial terms in connection with Nro^ebt^t the
the Institution of the Eucharist in the New, it is proved H. E. is a s.
that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice.
2. That our great High Priest JKSUS CHRIST upon 2. The N. T.
the Cross made one Sacrifice of Himself once offered, rec°gnizes
only one
is the reiterated teaching of the New Testament, absolutes.
Hence it follows that this is the only absolute Sacrifice
which Holy Scripture recognizes, and the Eucharist is, The H. E. is
therefore, a relative Sacrifice, a Sacrifice of commemo- therefore a
ration, of re-presentation, by which the Sacrifice of the
Cross is renewed, but not repeated. This follows from
S. Paul's exposition of the words, " This do ye, as oft in which we
as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me ; " which he thus makethe
-r-s . . memorial of
explains : For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink our LORD'S
this Cup, ye do shew the CORD'S Death till He come." * Death.
3. There is no indication of any Sacrifice, properly 3. There is no
* i Cor. xi. 25, 26.
146
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
indication of
any S. being
offered in
heaven.
This is not
inconsistent
with our lyORD
being a S. in a
passive sense,
or with His
offering a
virtual S.
The H. E. is a
S. because
essentially
identical with
that of Calvary.
It is accident
ally related to
our CORD'S
Mediatorial
work.
4. Scripture
affords no sup
port to the
view that the
essentially
sacrificial act
took place in
heaven, and
that therefore
the Cross is not
a completed S.
so called, being offered by our LORD in heaven. This
does not conflict with the doctrine that in the passive
sense of the word " sacrifice," He is in heaven what
He was on the Cross, what He is in the Eucharist, —
the Sacrifice, the propitiation for the sins of the world.
Nor is it inconsistent with the view that, since in our
LORD'S Mediatorial work He presents His glorified
Humanity, and so pleads with the FATHER for man,
He continues to offer a virtual, but not an actual Sacri
fice ; for He offers the fruits of His one Sacrifice upon
the Cross, pleading His merits for the remission of our
sins. To this virtual Sacrifice the Sacrifice of the
Kucharist stands in a very true relation, but a relation
which is accidental rather than essential.* The Ku
charist is a Sacrifice because it is essentially identical
with the Sacrifice of Calvary, which it reproduces and
re-presents. It is accidentally related to our LORD'S
Mediatorial work in heaven, because in it the same
Priest officiates and the same Victim is present. But
in the Eucharist there is a sacrificial action, the act of
Consecration, by which the Body and Blood of CHRIST
are produced under the forms of bread and wine, sep
arated as by death ; whereas in our LORD'S heavenly
Offering no such sacrificial action can be found.
4. The witness of Holy Scripture, especially of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, affords no support for the view
that the real sacrificial act in our LORD'S great Offering
took place after His Ascension, and not upon the Cross.
On the contrary, such a view is quite incompatible
with the many passages in which it is stated that man's
redemption was purchased upon the Cross, and that by
CHRIST'S Death we were redeemed. f
* See Ivepin's exposition of this point, Appendix G.
f These passages have been discussed, pp. 69-71., G.
THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 147
While not strictly pertaining to this part of our treat
ment of the question, we may here state that in no
commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews before
the sixteenth century are any traces of this view to be
found. It is entirely unknown to the Fathers,* and
there are many passages in their writings which absol
utely conflict with this view.f And, further, since the
sixteenth century we know of no commentary on this
Kpistle of any weight which adopts this view, unless
it be the works of some of the German schismatics.
Therefore, so far as the text and interpretation of Holy
Scripture is concerned, we may confidently affirm that
this theory has no authority whatever.
* " In regard to the ' modern conception of CHRIST pleading
His Passion in Heaven,' the thought is, as far as I know, not
found in the Fathers."— Private letter of the Bishop of Durham.
t S. Chrysostoin, Horn., xiii., $ 3 ; Buthymius Zigadenus, Ep.
ad Heb. vii. 27 ; Theodoret, in Psal. cix. 4. These passages
will be considered later.
CHAPTER VI.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE UTURGIKS.
The witness of
the liturgies
to the E). S. is
naturally of
great
importance.
We must not
expect in them
the accuracy of
definition
which belongs
to a Creed.
That the litur
gies prove
the sacrificial
character of
the H. B. may
be assumed ;
the only ques
tion is,
whether they
AFTER the testimony of Holy Scripture in regard
to the Bucharistic Sacrifice, we take up next,
both in order of time and of importance, the
witness of the liturgies of the Church. For they
not only express her teaching, but, inasmuch as they
are exclusively concerned with her Bucharistic worship,
we naturally expect to find in them, more than in any
other authoritative documents, an indication of her view
of the Bucharistic Sacrifice.
It is well, however, to bear in mind that in the
liturgies we ought not to look for the accuracy of ex
pression or clearness of definition which belongs to a
Creed. The liturgies grew simply and naturally out of
the devotional needs of the Church, whereas the Creeds
were the definite expression of the Church's mind at
a time when most of the doctrines contained in them
had already been called in question.
It is scarcely necessary for us here to show to what
extent the liturgies bear witness to the fact that the
Church's Bucharistic worship was regarded as dis
tinctly sacrificial. Our work is rather to inquire
whether the liturgies afford any support to the Modern
view, which regards the Bucharist as a Sacrifice only
in so far as it is related to a Sacrifice which our
148
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 149
is supposed to be now offering in heaven. We shall support the
therefore proceed at once to consider those pas- Modem view.
sages which are cited as evidence that in the earliest
ages of Christianity, when the liturgies took form,
this view was in the minds of those who compiled
them.
It is not our purpose to examine the structure of the
liturgies as a whole, or to investigate the different
families into which they are divided. For our present
need all we have to consider is two classes of passages, Thecontro-
which are so admittedly found in almost all liturgies versy concerns
* only two
that our controversy is narrowed down simply to an classes of pas-
investigation of their significance. These are, first, sasesillthe
those which commemorate the Resurrection and As
cension ; and, second, those which speak of a " heav
enly altar."
Mr. Brightman, in his paper, refers £o both classes Mr. Brightman
of passages. In regard to the first, he says : refers to both.
" It is common, if not usual, to add to the recital of i. Hisrefer-
the Institution, ' Do this in remembrance of Me,' S. encetothose
which com-
Paurs words, for as often as ye eat this Bread and memoratethe
drink this Cup, ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He Resurrection
, . n ,_ T_. ,. ..., _. , __. and Ascension.
come, or ye do shew My Death till I come. Now
it is not uncommon to treat these two phrases, ' do in
remembrance of Me ' and ' shew the LORD'S Death,' as
if they were equivalent, so that ' remembrance of Me '
is limited and interpreted to mean ' shew My Death.'
We might question whether this is justifiable or re
quired by the text of S. Paul. But without discussing
the force of ' for ' in i Cor. xi. 26, we may say that
the question is not whether ' the LORD'S Death ' is
1 shewn forth,' but in what order — whether primarily,
and as a historical event, or as existing, so to speak,
in His Person, perfected through suffering. And at
ISO
THE EU CHARTS TIC SACRIFICE.
He says the
liturgies do
not confine the
memorial to
the act of our
LORD'S
Death,
and gives ex
amples from
various
sources.
The Roman
rite.
The Anglican,
Scotch, and
least the liturgies embody this second alternative:
they do not treat the memorial as confined to the act
of our LORD'S Death on the Cross — for, in order to
make these two phrases more explicitly equivalent,
they commonly make an addition to S. Paul's words,
and say not only, ' ye do shew the LORD'S Death,' but
' ye do shew the LORD'S Death and confess His Resur
rection,' and sometimes, also, ' and His Ascension'
' till He come. '
"Again, the next paragraph of the liturgy expressly
interprets the words ' in remembrance of Me.' Be
ginning ' we therefore remembering,' it proceeds to
detail what is included in the commemoration — what
' the remembrance of Me ' embraces and implies. And
in every liturgy I know, the scope of the commemora
tion includes more than our LORD'S Death, while in
some cases this latter is not particularized at all. The
commonest types include the moments of our LORD'S
Life from the Cross to the Second Advent. In some
cases it includes all from the Incarnation to the Coming
of the HOI<Y GHOST and the Second Advent. To give
an example — in the Roman rite : ' Wherefore, O
LORD, we Thy servants and Thy holy people, remem
bering as well the blessed Passion of the same CHRIST
Thy SON our LORD, and His Resurrection from the
dead and His glorious Ascension into heaven, offer
unto Thee,' etc. Or in the Greek rite: 'Wherefore,
O LORD, we also remembering His saving Sufferings,
His quickening Cross, His three days' burial, His
Resurrection from the dead, and His Ascension into
heaven, His Session at Thy right hand, GOD and
FATHER, and His glorious and fearful Second Advent,
we offer unto Thee,' etc. Or, once more, in the Anglican
rite, the Scotch and American liturgies, following that
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 151
of 1549, read: ' Having in remembrance His blessed American
Passion and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection lltur&ies-
and glorious Ascension,' etc. The liturgies, therefore, Mr. Bright-
plainly interpret the memorial of the Kucharist, not as encesfrom
a historical memorial of the past fact of His Death and these
Passion, but as the memorial of Himself as He reveals quo ltl°$s'
Himself and manifests His eternal Person and Its
significance in His acts, past, present, and to come : as
He is in His exaltation, not merely as He was in His
humiliation : the memorial of His historical acts only
as they reveal the meaning of His present Life : the
memorial in which we ' know Him and the power of
His Resurrection,' and, therefore, ' the fellowship of
His Sufferings.' "*
As one would expect, the facts to which Mr. Bright- The facts in-
man calls our attention are indisputable, although we disPutable ;
. the inferences
cannot admit that they will bear the weight of the unwarranted,
arguments which he hangs upon them. There is
probably scarcely a treatise on the Eucharist by any
Catholic writer of repute which does not set forth the catholic
truth that in the Eucharist the whole mystery of our ^^^
LORD'S Life is brought before us ; that it is an exten- is an extension
sion of the Incarnation, as well as a memorial of the of the incarna
tion, as well as
Passion; that it is related to His mighty Resurrection a memorial of
and glorious Ascension," since the Body there present the Passion,
is not His dead Body, but that glorified Body which, f^eu^cS
"being raised from the dead, dieth no more," over LORD'S whole
which " death hath no more dominion ; " and which, earthancHn
while present upon our altars " clothed with signs glory,
representative of His Death," f still reigns glorious at
the Right Hand of GOD. While thankfully making the
memorial our LORD has commanded of the crowning
act of love by which we were redeemed, the Sacrifice
* Brightman, pp. 8 and 9. f Bossuet.
152
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The^ord
ai'a/u.VTjo'is has
both a subject
ive and an ob
jective force.
Mr. B. quotes
that part of
"the Obla
tion" in the
Scotch and
American
rites in which
it is used sub
jectively,
of the Cross, we also rejoice in the remembrance of
" His mighty Resurrection," by which He overcame
death, and of " His glorious Ascension," by which He,
as the First-fruits of redeemed humanity, entered
heaven and sat down at the Right Hand of GOD.
The word avdjAvrjiJiS includes both a subjective
action in the mind and an objective representation
of a past event. Now it is evident that our remem
brance of the mysteries of our LORD'S Resurrection
and Ascension must be subjective only; but in the
mystery of His Death upon the Cross the subjective
remembrance becomes in the Eucharist an objective
representation since we offer there our LORD'S Body
and Blood, present under the diverse species severed as
by death.
Mr. Brightman says: " In the Anglican rite, the
Scotch and American liturgies, following that of 1549,
read, ' Having in remembrance His blessed Passion
and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection and
glorious Ascension,' " etc., but strangely and con
veniently he omits the passage which precedes these
words : ' * Wherefore, O LORD and Heavenly FATHKR,
according to the institution of Thy dearly Beloved SON
our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, we Thy humble servants
do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty,
with these Thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto
Thee, the Memorial Thy SON hath commanded us to
make ; having in remembrance His blessed Passion
and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection and
glorious Ascension ; rendering unto Thee most hearty
thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us
by the same." We have given here the whole of the
Oblation in order that the position of the passage
quoted by Mr. Brightman may be clearly apprehended.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 153
It is surely both unfair and misleading to quote only but omits the
one passage from the Oblation and to omit the ^u^ius re
words which show that in addition to the subjective fen-ed object-
remembrance of the great mysteries of the Passion, ivelyomyto
our I^ORD S
Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, an objective ME- Death.
MORIAI, is made, which is contrasted with the subjective
remembrance which follows.
If it be suggested that the two are identical, the Answers to the
answer is (i) that the structure of the passage excludes ^"t the two
this, since an objective memorial commanded by our are identical.
LORD is made by means of offering certain holy Gifts,
the Body and Blood of CHRIST ; and together with this
objective memorial are associated two subjective acts,
the remembrance of the Passion, Death, Resurrection,
and Ascension, and hearty thanks for the innumerable
benefits procured unto us by the same.
(2) And further that in what our LORD commanded
us to do in the Holy Eucharist there is clearly no act
which can be shown to be an objective memorial or coun
terpart of His Resurrection and Ascension, whereas the
separate consecration of the bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of our LORD, severed as by death
under the diverse species, is the objective memorial
which our LORD instituted and commanded us to make.
At this point we gladly draw attention to what we The valuable
believe to be the true and valuable element in the !le™ent iu the
Modern view,
Modern view, namely, the relation of the Eucharist to the relation of
our LORD'S Life in glory ; although we distinctly deny ^"^^ the
that this involves what the Modern view, as expressed This does not
by Mr. Brightman, claims, namely, a celestial Sacrifice involve a heav-
in the proper sense of the term " sacrifice," or the
transference of the sacrificial act in our LORD'S Offering
of Himself, from the moment of the Cross to His en
trance into heaven.
54
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The charge
that Reform
ation theology
obscures the
Incarnation
and the great
Intercession
by dwelling
exclusively on
the Atone
ment.
The precise
import of this,
and the con
clusion which
follows from it.
The relation of
our life now to
the Life of
Glory.
It is quite true that under the dominance of Re
formation theology, the Life of Suffering, the Sacrifice
by which we were once for all redeemed, has been
allowed to obscure the Life of Glory, the great Inter
cession, the continual presentation to GOD of CHRIST'S
Mystical Body, the Church, through His Mediatorial
work in heaven. It is also true, as Mr. Brightman
points out, that this tendency to dwell too exclusively
upon the Atonement can be traced back far beyond the
Reformation. It is even true that the writers of the
early Church lay more stress on our LORD'S Resurrec
tion and present exaltation at the Right Hand of the
Majesty on high, as the Son. of Man, the Firstborn
from the dead, the Head of His Church, than they do
upon His Life of suffering, and upon His Death of
shame.
But what is the actual import of these facts ? Not
that in the treatment of the Holy Eucharist only the
doctrine of the Atonement was allowed so to preponder
ate as to obscure, on the one hand, the doctrine of the
Incarnation, and, on the other, its relation to His Life
of Glory ; but that this was the case in every department
of theology. What, then, is the conclusion which fol
lows from this ? Surely, that we are to endeavour to
correct this tendency by bringing forward the great
importance of the Incarnation as the foundation of all
Christian dogma, and of the Life of Glory as the goal
of all moral effort ; but not that we are to go to the oppos
ite extreme, and practically forget the Cross and Passion
in the ecstatic joy of the heavenly Life. It is true
that " our light affliction, which is but for a moment,
worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight
of glory," only " while we look not at the things which
are seen, but at the things which are not seen." Yet
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 155
it is also true that one of the most dangerous tendencies The dangerous
of the present day, manifesting itself as much in doc- tendency of the
day to ignore
trine as in practice, is to ignore the more severe side of the more
revelation ; to keep in the background the Cross in the severe side of
life that now is, and the possibility of eternal loss in the
life to come ; to wear the Cross in jewelled form, as
the symbol of a victory which but few are striving to
win, rather than to bear daily that Cross of CHRIST in
which S. Paul gloried because by it the world was
crucified unto him and he unto the world.
In view of this undoubted tendency, it would be well The evidence
to observe the relative space which the writers of the ofthe GosPels
.to the import-
Gospels devote to the record of our LORD'S Passion and anceofour
to that of His Resurrection and Ascension. In S. LORD'S Pas-
Matthew the story of the Passion occupies 141 verses,
that of the Resurrection only 20. In S. Mark the pro
portion is 119 to 20 ; in S. Luke, 127 to 53 ; and in S.
John (if we include the discourses after the Last Sup
per), 237 to 56. So that, even if the Church for the last
thousand years has given greater prominence to the
Death and Passion of our LORD than to " His mighty
Resurrection and glorious Ascension," she may, per
haps, plead some justification, in that she has only
followed in the steps of the inspired writers of the
Gospels.
A conclusion which most certainly does not follow A conclusion
from the premises iust stated, is that because the doc- notedwhlch
J does not fol-
trine of the Atonement has in every department of iow from the
theology obscured that of the Incarnation and of the Premises-
Life of Glory, therefore the sacrificial character of the
Eucharist is related to the Life of Glory rather than
to the Sacrifice of the Cross. A more complete non
sequitur than this can scarcely be imagined. S. Paul
explicitly says : " This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in
156 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this Bread,
and drink this Cup, ye do shew the LORD'S Death till
The interpret- He come." And it is no argument against the inter-
ationof pretation which has been put upon these words by
Fathers and r
commentators practically every Father, theologian, and commentator
must determ- of the Church, that in the liturgies a remembrance was
nificanceofthe also made of His Resurrection and Ascension, and that
passages in the c^ Justin Martyr* speaks of the Eucharist as a me
morial of His Incarnation.
ii. The second II. The second class of passages which the Modern
class of Pas- school cites in support of its theory Mr. Brightman
sages are those .,-...,. .
which speak of refers to in the following extract : y
a "heavenly « Qr again, to put it in another way, It [the Euchar-
Mr Bright- ist] is that in which the Church offers ' on the heavenly
man's state- altar,' in which it presents its material gifts on earth
mentofhis tliat tliey may be gathered up into the action of the
Great High Priest as He ministers at the altar on
He specially high. This figure of the ' heavenly altar ' is a com-
referstothe mon one jn ^Q liturgies, most strikingly in the Roman
Te"P0ftheeRo- canon, where the celebrant prays : ' We humbly be-
man rite. seech Thee, Almighty GOD, command these gifts to be
carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel on to Thine
altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty,
that all we who by this participation of the altar shall
receive the most holy Body and Blood of Thy SON,
may be fulfilled with all grace and heavenly bene
diction."'
The facts again Here, again, we must say that there is no question
are mdisput- jn regar(j to the facts which Mr. Brightman cites, but
able, out the
inferences un- the inferences which he draws from these facts seem
warrant quite unwarranted.
suppiiesThai- As Thalhofer treats this prayer from Mr. Bright-
hoferwith his man's point of view, only much more elaborately, we
* S. Justin M., Trypho, Ixx. f Brightman, p. 13.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 157
shall at once proceed to consider the arguments put main argu-
f orth by the former. ^ent for a
. heavenly S. ' '
In the first place, he considers that those passages of He refers the
the liturgies which refer to a heavenly altar are dis- "heavenly
tinctly based upon two passages of Holy Scripture, Isa. murgies to iL
vi. 6, and Rev. viii. 3: " Then flew one of the sera- vi. 6 and Rev.
phims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which '
he had taken with the tongs from off the altar : and he
laid it upon my mouth. " ' ' And another angel came
and stood at the altar, having a golden censer ; and
there was given unto him much incense, that he should
offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden
altar which was before the throne."
Thalhofer asserts that if we admit that there is He argues that
an altar in heaven, whatever may be the conception since these pas~
t,- 1 4/u • r •*. *. sa&essPeakof
which we otherwise form in regard to it, we must a heavenly
necessarily admit a heavenly Sacrifice corresponding altar they
to it. So that he conceives that in proving the exist- heavenly s.
ence of this heavenly altar, he at the same time proves
the existence of a heavenly Sacrifice, since the term
" altar " necessarily connotes the term " sacrifice."
But at this point we must insist upon its being clearly it is, however,
recognized that this heavenly Sacrifice can be conceived evident that
the S. must
of only in precisely the same sense as the heavenly altar, precisely cor-
That is, if the altar be an actual and proper altar, we
must of course admit the Sacrifice to be an actual and
proper sacrifice ; but if the altar is to be understood so that if the
only in a symbolical, figurative, metaphorical sense, fi^ativeTwe
then the Sacrifice must be understood in precisely the cannot infer a
same sense. With this principle of interpretation literals-
clearly in our minds, let us now examine these two
passages of Holy Scripture which Thalhofer quotes.
; ' Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a
live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
A literal altar
involves mani
fest difficulties.
The Fathers
interpret this
passage of
Isaiah
mystically :
S. Ambrose;
S. Jerome,
Haymo,
Philastrius;
S. Basil,
S. Cyril.
tongs from off the altar : and he laid it upon my
mouth." " And another angel came and stood at the
altar, having a golden censer ; and there was given
unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the
prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was
before the throne."
The question upon which the whole argument de
pends is this : Are we to understand by these verses
that there is in heaven an altar upon which fire burns,
and at which an angel offers sacrifice and incense with
the prayers of the saints ? And was it from such a
material altar that an angel, with material tongs, took
a piece of coal glowing with fire, with which he touched
the lips of Isaiah ?
If this is what we are to understand by the passage,
it would be natural to pass on to the consideration of
the physical effect upon the lips of Isaiah of contact
with this live coal. Probably there is no one, not even
excluding Thalhofer and the Modern school, who
understands this passage otherwise than in a meta
phorical and figurative sense. Certainly the Fathers,
to whose interpretation Thalhofer appeals, understood
the heavenly objects only as symbolical; for S. Am
brose says that the live coal represented the grace of
the HoivY SPIRIT, which purified and sanctified Isaiah
from sin. S. Jerome, Haymo, and Philastrius regard
the coal as the Word of GOD, and the altar as Holy
Scripture, from which the Word of GOD is taken. S.
Basil and S. Cyril see in the coal the mystery of the In
carnation, for as fire is united to coal, and coal to fire,
so humanity was united hypostatically to the Word,
and the Word Incarnate is as a glowing coal, which
by contact kindles us with the fire of love. Others
have seen in the coal a type of the fiery tongues at
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 159
Pentecost. Cornelius a Lapide, after remarking that, Cornelius a
this being a vision, all things are to be considered as LaPide p°int
figurative, not real, even draws attention to the very
difficulty we have noticed, — that if a hot coal had
touched the lips of Isaiah they would have been injured
and rendered unfit for preaching, whereas symbolically
the contact with the coal signified not only the forgive
ness of sin, but that GOD thereby imparted to him the
gift of prophecy, together with faith and courage to
overcome the difficulties of his great task.
But it is unnecessary to go through all that the
Fathers have written in regard to this passage, since it
is evident that they all take it simply in a metaphorical AH take the
or figurative sense. But if the passage is metaphorical,
and the altar, therefore, only figurative, it follows that
the sacrifice connected with it can only be taken in a
metaphorical or figurative sense, which is not the sense
required by Thalhofer's argument.
That the liturgies themselves imply that the altar is That the heav-
not an altar in the proper sense of the term, but only a enjy^ltaris
' . , only figurative
figurative altar, may be shown from the adjectives by is seen from
which this altar is described. While some liturgies the adjectives
„. ~ . ~ , \ applied to it in
simply pray that GOD will take the bacnnce £i$ TO the liturgies,
vnzpovpaviov ffov Ou&iaffTT/pwv.,* others qualify e-s->
. « . ... r\ vnepovpaviov,
with various adjectives, e. g., uvGiatf-
voepov. f Perhaps the fullest example is VOeP6v,
in the Liturgy of S. James, J where we have ezV ro
ayiov xai V7t£povpaviov7 rospcv, nai Ttrsv^iariHOr wvev^anKov.
avTOv 6v6ia6T?jpiov. Here the adjective rospor cer
tainly conflicts with any idea of an actual altar, for
* Liturgy of Constantinople, Prayer of Oblation ; Hammond,
Liturgies Eastern and Western, p. 89.
t Liturgy of S. Basil, Prayer of Second Oblation ; Hammond,
p. 104. J Hammond, p. 46.
i6o
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Fathers
and later
writers take
this altar as our
IvORD Him
self.
S. Chrj'sostom
explains
" heavenly" as
equivalent to
"spiritual,"
and applies it
to the Church
and her rites.
6v<3ia(3rrjpiov v os pov connotes Ovffia vospa, since an
altar apprehended only in thought demands a sacri
fice of the same character.
We may here notice what will be considered more
fully in Chapters VIII. and IX., that, while the
Fathers and liturgical commentators very frequently
speak of a heavenly altar in much the same terms as
those which are used in the prayer Supplices Te, they
almost unanimously take the altar as our LORD Him
self, or as His Body, which ill accords with the Modern
view that the Sacrifice of our LORD'S Body and Blood
offered upon the altars of the Church on earth is a
Sacrifice only because we are doing in the Eucharist
what our LORD is doing in heaven.
While the full discussion of this particular point be
longs rather to our treatment of patristic authorities,
it is well to draw attention to it in this chapter, since
in using the expression " heavenly altar " the Fathers
are doubtless quoting from the liturgies.
Fortunately we have in S. Chrysostom's homilies on
the Epistle to the Hebrews a very full discussion of
the sense in which we are to understand the term
" heavenly." He is treating of the passage " [Priests]
such as serve that which is a copy and shadow of the
heavenly things," * and he says :
1 ' What are the ' heavenly things ' spoken of here ?
Spiritual things. For although they are done on
earth, yet nevertheless they are worthy of the heavens.
For when our LORD JKSUS CHRIST lies slain [sacpay-
jueVos'] ; when the SPIRIT is with us ; when He who
sitteth on the Right Hand of the FATHER is here; when
sons are made by the laver ; when they are fellow-
citizens with those in heaven ; when we have a
* Heb. viii. 5.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. l6l
country, and a city, and citizenship there ; when we
are strangers to things here, how can all these be other
than ' heavenly things ' ? But what ! Are not our
hymns heavenly ? Do not we also, who are below,
utter in concert with them the same things which the
divine choirs of bodiless powers sing above ? Is not
the altar also heavenly ? . . . How, again, can
the rites which we celebrate be other than heavenly ?
Nay, one would not be wrong in saying even
this, for the Church is heavenly, and is nothing else
than heaven." *
No one will dispute that S. Chrysostom was not only The import-
thoroughly conversant with the liturgies in which anceofhis
occurs the expression " heavenly altar," but that he He was con-
certainly was a better interpreter of the ideas which versantwith
1 • * j j A. -L-L. • the liturgies,
these words were intended to convey than anyone in and Greek was
the present day, not even excepting those writers of the his mother
Modern school who are so fond of appealing to him.
And, commenting on the very passages in the Epistle
to the Hebrews in which the earthly priesthood, sacri
fice, and tabernacle are compared with the heavenly,
he says over and over again that by " heavenly " we
are to understand " spiritual" as opposed to carnal ;
that is, the altars of the Church as contrasted with the
altars of the Mosaic Dispensation. He claims that the
whole services of the Church on earth are heavenly,
since they are united to the services of the choirs on
high. " Are not our hymns heavenly ? Do not we
also, who are below, utter in concert with them the
same things which the divine choirs of bodiless pow
ers sing above? Is not the altar also heavenly?"
What can be clearer than his exposition of this pas
sage ? And it is entirely in agreement with other
* S. Chrysostom in Heb., Horn. xiv. 3.
1 62
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The same in
terpretation
given by
Theophylact,
and
Primasius.
The Fathers
speak often of
a heavenly
altar, but
never of a
heavenly S.
'ETToupavio? is
used in the N.
T. of gifts in
the Church on
earth.
passages of the Fathers. For example, Theophylact al
most repeats his argument, though with greater brevity :
" Our possessions are heavenly ; for when nothing
is earthly, but all spiritual things are being fulfilled in
the Sacraments (since in them are the angelic hymns,
in them are the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and
the remission of sins, and again, on the other hand,
the bonds) ; when our citizenship is in heaven, surely
our possessions are heavenly. ' ' *
And again, Primasius,t the Latin writer, defining
" heavenly," says : " Heavenly things, that is, spirit
ual, are those which in truth are celebrated only in
the Church."
It is not worth while to multiply quotations from the
Fathers. We frankly admit that they speak often of
a heavenly altar, although never of a heavenly sacri
fice ; but they tell us most distinctly, in passages such
as we have cited, exactly in what sense they use the word
' ' heavenly. ' ' And with good reason do they under
stand " heavenly " in this sense, since the language of
the New Testament was the mother tongue of many
of them, and the greatest commentators of our own day
agree in translating this very word STtovpavioz as re
ferring, in many passages of the New Testament, not
to things which are locally in heaven, but to those
heavenly gifts which are even now in the possession
of the Church on earth. For example : ' ' Blessed be
GOD, . . . Who hath blessed us with every spiritual
blessing in the heavenly places in CHRIST" (Bph. i.
3), where L,ightfoot J observes : " The believer, in the
language of this Epistle, has been already seated in
* Theophylact, Ad Heb. viii. 5.
f ' ' Coelestia, id est spiritualia quce in veritate modo in Ec-
clesia celebrantur." — Ad Heb. ix. 23. \ lyightfoot, in loco.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES, 163
heaven with CHRIST (ii. 6). He is an alien upon Eph. a. 6, 19.
earth, but a citizen of GOD'S Kingdom (ii. 19). There
is his no^irsv^a Phil. (iii. 20). There, consequently, Phii.iii.2o.
he enjoys his privileges and receives his blessings.
The heaven of which the Apostle here speaks is not
some remote locality, some future abode ; it is the
heaven which lies within and about the true Christian."
With this we may compare S. Paul's words : "If,
then, ye were raised with CHRIST, seek those things
which are above" (Col. iii. i), where he is referring coi.m. i.
to the duties and privileges of the baptized, which
he speaks of under this imagery because they are
related to that heavenly Kingdom into which the be
lievers were admitted by Baptism, but into the complete
fruition of which they do not come while they are still
in this world.
The word STtovpavtog occurs no less than six times 'ETrovpa^os
in the Epistle to the Hebrews (iii. i, vi. 4, viii. 5, ix. occurssix
r times in Heb.
23, XL 16, xii. 22). In the first passage, Where- Of things on
fore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling," earth.:..
etc., it is quite clear that the " heavenly calling " is
something which is possessed in this world, and " is
heavenly, not simply in the sense that it is addressed
to man from GOD in heaven, but has been a calling to
a life fulfilled in heaven, in a spiritual realm," * — the
Kingdom of heaven.
Again: " For in the case of those who were once for Heb.vi.4-
all enlightened, having both tasted of the heavenly
gift, and being partakers of the HOLY SPIRIT," etc.
(vi). 4. The " heavenly gift " is evidently something
which is tasted on earth, and is heavenly as pertaining
to that Kingdom of heaven of which they are members.
' * [Priests] such as serve a copy and shadow of the
* Westcott, in loco.
1 64 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Heb. viii. 5. heavenly order (viii. 5). Here 'heavenly order' is
equivalent to the scene of the spiritual life, with the
realities which belong to it." *
It is, however, superfluous to quote in detail the
various passages which we have indicated in which
ertovpavioz is applied to things belonging to the King
dom of heaven on earth, and not to heaven locally.
Having de- Having sufficiently investigated the sense in which
teriniiied the tke Fathers and liturgical writers use the term
sense of heav
enly altar," we "heavenly altar," we must now investigate the lit-
must investig- urgical significance of the prayer Siipplices Te rog-
icai meaning amus, which both Thalhofer and Mr. Brightman cite
of the !' sup- in support of their theory. Its words are as follows :
' ' We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty GOD, command
these [gifts] to be carried by the hands of Thy Holy
Angel on to Thine Altar on high, in the sight of Thy
Divine Majesty, that all we, who by this participa
tion of the altar shall receive the most holy Body and
Blood of Thy SON, may be fulfilled with all grace
and heavenly benediction." f
This prayer This prayer is found" only in the Roman and Am-
tte^omanand brosian liturgies. It is not infrequently referred by
Ambrosian liturgical writers to the Clementine liturgy found in
liturgies. the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, and to
it differs from a passage in S. Irenaeus. { But while we must obviously
interpret it in the same sense as the corresponding
ponding _ ....
prayer in East- prayers in the Eastern liturgies, yet it differs from them
em liturgies. to a very marked extent.
* Westcott, in loco.
t " Supplices Te rogamus, Omnipotens Deus, jube hcec prcs-
ferri per manus sancti Angeli Tui in sublime altare Tuum, in
conspectu divines Majestatis Tu<z, ut quotquot ex hac altaris
participatione, sacrosanctum Filii Tui corpus et sanguinem
sumpserimuS) omni benedictione ccelesti et gratia repleamur"
\ S. Irenseus, Adv. If<zr., 1. iv., c. xviii. 6.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 165
In the Clementine liturgy we find in the same posi- This prayer in
tion (that is, immediately after the Consecration and
Great Oblation) in the Invocation the following words :
' ' We beseech Thee that Thou wouldest look graciously
upon these gifts now lying before Thee, O Thou self-
sufficient GOD (0v 6 dvevdsrfs dsos), and accept them
to the honour of Thy CHRIST ; and send down Thy
HOLY SPIRIT, the witness of the sufferings of the lyORD
JESUS, that He may make this bread the Body of Thy
CHRIST, and this cup the Blood of Thy CHRIST ; that
all who shall partake of It may be confirmed in godli
ness, may receive remission of their sins, may be de
livered from the devil and his wiles, may be filled
with the HOLY GHOST, may be made worthy of Thy
CHRIST, and may obtain everlasting life ; Thou, O
LORD Almighty, being reconciled to them." *
In the liturgy of S. James the corresponding prayer in the liturgy
of the Invocation is : " Have mercy upon us, O GOD, of s- James-
according to Thy great goodness, and send upon us,
and upon these gifts now lying before Thee, Thy Most
HOLY GHOST, the LORD and Life-Giver, . . . that
coming upon them with His holy and good and glorious
Presence, He may hallow and make this bread the Holy
Body of Thy CHRIST." f And later in the Litany we Another
find this prayer : " That the LORD our GOD, having
received these [gifts] to His holy, heavenly, intellectual,
and spiritual altar for the odour of a sweet-smelling
sacrifice, would send down in their stead to us Divine
grace and the Gift of the Most HOLY GHOST." %
We observe that in the Eastern liturgies there is no Eastern iiturg-
reference to the " gifts " being carried by the hands of ieshavetl°
* Clementine liturgy, Invocation ; Hammond, p. 18.
| Liturgy of S. James, Invocation ; Hammond, p. 42.
\ Liturgy of S. James, Litany ; Hammond, pp. 46, 47.
1 66 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
mention of the an angel to the heavenly altar. The prayer is simply
that GOD would a006?1 them> in the Clementine liturgy,
" to the honour of Thy CHRIST," and in S. James'
liturgy, " for the odour of a sweet-smelling sacrifice."
The Roman While the Roman liturgy employs different imagery,
must be inter- must certainly interpret this imagery by the more
preted in ac- • " *Ui
cordance with simple statement of the Eastern liturgies. That is, we
the Eastern. must not infer from the Roman prayer the existence
of ideas or doctrines which cannot be traced in any of
the Eastern liturgies.
liturgical If we turn now to the principal liturgical writers of
writers differ ^ church, we find that there has always been great
on three points ' J
in this prayer, diversity of interpretation m regard to the first two of
the three questions raised by the prayer Supplices Te :
(i) To what does " h&c" refer? (2) Who is the
' ' angel ' ' mentioned ? (3) For what purpose do we
ask that the ' ' gifts ' ' may be carried to the altar on
high ? Indeed, in the ninth century, when liturgical
study may be said almost to have had its beginning in
the works of Florus and Amalarius, we find Florus
saying : ( ' Who can understand words so profound, so
wonderful, so marvellous, and who can worthily treat
of them ? In explaining their meaning, reverential
awe is better than discussion. ' ' * And later, Innocent
III. f re-echoes the sentiments of Florus when he
writes : "So great is the depth of these words that
the human mind is scarcely able to grasp them."
(i.) some refer The great majority of liturgical writers take
payers Others " ^ " s*mpty of the prayers which are offered, while
to the sacra- some, like Le Brun, refer it to the sacramental gifts. J
mental gifts. * Floras, De Exposition Misses.
f Innocent III., De Mysteriis, 1. v., c. vi.
\ Grancolas, Ancienne Liturgie, torn. II., p. 795; L> Anti-
quite des Ceremonies, p. 414 ; Romsee, Opera Liturgica, torn.
III., p. 263.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 16?
There is the same diversity of opinion with regard (2.) some take
to the " angel " spoken of in the prayer, some seeing
here a reference only to the ministry of angels, which aiiy;
has ever been so closely associated with the Holy
Eucharist ; e. g., " with angels and archangels, and
with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify
Thy glorious Name." This is well expressed by Odo
of Cambrai as follows : ' * CHRIST needed not the help
of angels when by His own power He ascended into
heaven. Why, then, do we ask that this sacrifice
may be carried by the hands of an angel into the pre
sence of GOD, since the offices of angels are unnecessary
to this translation ? But what is said is this : that by
the translation of the Body and Blood of CHRIST we
ask that our prayers may be carried [to the throne of
grace]. There are, however, angels appointed for us,
who daily offer our prayers to GOD, whence it is writ
ten that ' their angels do always behold the Face of my
FATHER.' * So in mentioning CHRIST we ask that
our prayers may be carried by the hands of an angel,
that under the plea of so great a Sacrifice, good angels
may bear our prayers to the throne of grace." f
Other writers, among whom is L,e Brun,J see in the others of our
" angel" mentioned in the prayer none other than
our LORD Himself; and Le Brun points out that in
the Clementine liturgy our LORD is called ' ' the Angel
of Great Counsel." The passage is: " Thou createdst
all things out of nothing by Thine Only Begotten SON,
. . . GOD the Word, . . . the Living Wisdom,
the Firstborn of every creature, the Angel of Thy
* S. Matt, xviii. 10.
f Odo Cam., Expos, in Can. Miss., Diss, III. ; Migne, P. L.,
torn. 1 60, col. 1066.
J Le Brun, Explication de la Messe, vol. i., p. 518.
1 68
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
(3.) The pur
pose of the
prayer as
expressed in
the Roman
and in the
Eastern
liturgies.
Great Counsel, Thy High Priest." * It must, however,
be observed that this passage in the Clementine liturgy
has nothing whatever to do with the question before
us, since it occurs in the Eucharistic Preface before
the Consecration, and is simply one of the titles given
to our L,ORD, and, as we have already shown, there is
no mention in any Eastern liturgy of an angel in con
nection with the carrying of the sacramental gifts to
the heavenly altar.
The prayer in the Roman canon clearly specifies
the purpose for which the gifts are to be carried to the
heavenly altar; not that they may be offered as a sacri
fice, or may become part of a sacrifice which is there
offered, but ' ' that all we, who by this participation of
the altar shall receive the most holy Body and Blood of
Thy SON, may be fulfilled with all grace and heavenly
benediction." The Sacrifice is offered upon the altar
of the Church, and we pray that those who offer it may
enjoy its fruits, that is, may be fulfilled with all grace
and heavenly benediction.
In the Greek liturgies, as we have seen, the object
of the corresponding prayer is that GOD would accept
the gifts to the honour of His CHRIST, f or for the
odour of a sweet-smelling sacrifice.! This last expres
sion in the liturgy of S. James evidently refers to the
effects of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as fulfilling the type
of the burnt offering among the Jews. In this the
smoke ascended to heaven, typifying the sweet-smell
ing savour with which GOD was pleased ; and, as we
are told by S. Paul § that CHRIST " gave Himself up
for us, an offering and a sacrifice to GOD for an odour
of a sweet smell," so we pray, what we know is accord -
* Clementine liturgy, Eucharistic Preface; Hammond, p. 12.
f Clementine liturgy. J Liturgy of S. James. \ Eph. v. 2.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 169
ing to GOD'S will, that the fragrance, so to speak, of
our Eucharistic Offering may ascend to Him, and that
His grace and blessing may descend upon us.
There is an interesting though mistaken interpreta- A peculiar in-
tion of these words in a writer of the ninth century,
In a letter* written against Paschasius Radbertus,
which has been attributed, probably without reason,
to Rabanus Maurus, the author explains that in this
prayer the priest asks that the virtue of the Body of
JESUS CHRIST, which ever lives in heaven, may be
communicated to that Body which is on the altar, for
the sanctification of those who communicate worthily.
The author of this letter evidently held those peculiar
views in regard to the triple Body of CHRIST to which
we call attention in Chapter VII. t
Our work would indeed be incomplete, if we were
to pass from this point without giving the opinion of
Duchesne, who is probably our greatest living authority
on liturgical questions.
He considers that the Roman canon corresponds
practically with that of the Eastern liturgies ; so that
the Invocation or Epiklesis is to be found not in the
prayer, Quam oblationem, preceding the Consecration,
but in the Supra qua, in which he includes the
Supplices Te.
Duchesne' s words are as follows: " The recitation of Duchesne's
the Institution (Qui pridie) and the Anamnesis (Undc
et Memores], which is the continuation of it, offers no
peculiarity. It is not so, however, with the Epiklesis.
This part of the Canon is thus expressed: ' Supra qua
et gratia repleamurS
:' This passage is far from having the precision of the
Greek formularies, in which the grace asked for is
* Migne, P. I,., torn. 112, col. 1510-1518. f P. 193-
1 70 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
clearly specified, namely, the intervention of the HOLY
GHOST to effect the transformation of the bread and
wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST.
" It is nevertheless true : (i) that it occupies, in the
material and logical sequence of the formula, exactly
the same place as the Greek Epiklesis ; (2) that it is
also a prayer addressed to GOD that He may intervene
in the mystery. But where the Greek liturgies express
their meaning in clear and simple words, the Roman is
here involved in mystical images.
' ' It prays that the angel of the L,ORD may take the
Oblation on the visible altar, and carry it to the
highest heavens, to an invisible altar erected before
the throne of the Divine Majesty.
' ' The symbolic movement is in the opposite direction
to that of the Greek formularies. It is not the HOLY
SPIRIT Who descends towards the Oblation, it is the
Oblation which is carried to heaven by the angel of
GOD. But, in both cases alike, it is after His approach,
His communication, with divine virtue, that the Obla
tion is spoken of as the Body and Blood of CHRIST."*
Duchesne evidently implies that the Supplices Te
is precisely equivalent to the Greek Kpiklesis, by which
it is therefore to be interpreted ; since the Greek litur
gies express their meaning in clear and simple words,
and in them the grace asked for is clearly specified,
while the meaning of the Roman prayer is involved in
symbolic figures and mystical images. Hence it can
afford no foundation for a view of the Kucharistic Sacri
fice which is foreign to the Greek rite.
The theoiogi- In addition to the great diversity of opinion among
cai difficulties liturgical writers, we may draw attention to the serious
* Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chreticnne, pp. 172, 173 (ed.
1889).
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 171
theological difficulties which arise if this prayer is used of the modem
to support a heavenly sacrifice, since not only is there
in it no explicit mention of such a sacrifice, but the
idea suggested by such a sacrifice seems incomprehen
sible. For what does this modern theory ask us to
conceive ? Let us remember, in the first place, that
the prayer is not offered until the Consecration has
been completed, and therefore the Sacrifice consum
mated. Now the Modern theory asserts that some
thing is carried up from the altar on earth to an altar
in heaven. But what ? Is it the Body and Blood of
our Blessed LORD, under the species of Bread and
Wine ? We know that the species sensibly remain
upon the altar, and we are taught that the Presence of
our LORD remains with the species. Therefore, it must
remain upon the altar. If not, we are adoring One who
is no longer present. Then, too, as the Communion
almost immediately follows, are we to suppose that the
Body and Blood of CHRIST, having been carried up to
heaven by angel hands, are brought back again for
the purposes of Communion ? Such a view is, of course,
not inconsistent with the Lutheran doctrine that our
LORD'S Presence in the Eucharist is only for the pur
pose of Communion, but it certainly is not suggested in
the slightest degree by the prayer Supplices Te, or by
the corresponding prayers in the Eastern liturgies.
Many liturgical writers associate this prayer in the The relation of
liturgy with the passage in S. Irenaeus : "There is,
therefore, an altar in the heavens, for thither our pray-
ers and oblations are directed;' ' * and the phrase in the
Clementine liturgy, ffv o avzvdsrfS Olos, certainly
justifies this reference ; for, although this passage of
S. Irenaeus does not exist in the Greek, we find in the
* S. Ireii., Adv. Hcer., 1. iv., c. xviii., n. 6.
1/2
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
These words
context, i. iv.,
L,atin, " Offerimus enim ei non quasi indigently and
S. Irenseus evidently had in mind the words of the lit
urgy which he used so often.
As we should expect, Thalhofer lays great stress
uPon this <luotation from $• Irenseus as one of the
strongest supports of his theory. In order that we
may apprehend its meaning, it will be necessary for
us to consider it together with its context.
The whole of Chapter XVIII. (Book IV.) of the Adv.
Hcereses is devoted to a consideration of sacrifices and ob
lations, and of those who rightly offer them. The Christ
ian offerings are contrasted with the Jewish offerings
and with the offerings of the heathen, and the importance
of right dispositions in the offerer is noticed as a condition
of a true sacrifice. The Eucharist is instanced ; and the
chapter ends as follows : ' ' GOD, Who stands in need
of nothing, takes our good works to Himself for this
purpose, that He may grant us a recompense of His
own good things." Then follows an enumeration of
the corporal works of mercy, as found in the twenty-
fifth chapter of S. Matthew, followed by the comment :
" As, therefore, He does not stand in need of these
[services], yet does desire that we should render them
for our own benefit, lest we be unfruitful, . . .
therefore it is also His will that we too should offer a
gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission."
Then comes the passage : " There is, therefore, an
altar in the heavens, for thither our prayers and obla
tions are directed ; and a temple, as John saith in the
Apocalypse, ' And the temple of GOD was opened ; '
and a tabernacle, for ' Behold,' he says, ' the taber
nacle of GOD, in which He will dwell with men.' "
What light does the context throw upon the passage
which Thalhofer quotes ?
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 173
First, we may observe, from what precedes it, that From the
it is doubtful whether the " oblations " in the expres- SSSi*
sion " thither our prayers and oblations are directed," whether "ob-
have any reference to the Eucharist at all. They seem °" 'rers
H
to be the good works, which GOD teaches us to offer,
not because He has any need of them, but lest we
should be unfruitful.
Secondly, if by the phrase ' ' there is an altar in the The passage
heavens " we are to understand an altar in the proper ^t^dter'' is
sense of the word, then we must also understand a only used fig-
temple and a tabernacle in the proper sense of the uratlvely-
words. We do not do so, but take the Temple of GOD
as symbolizing His Presence in heaven, and the Tab
ernacle (with the Fathers) as His Humanity, through
which He represents man. And this shows that we
must also understand the altar only in a figurative sense.
Thirdly, S. Irenaeus does not say that there is an
altar in heaven on which a heavenly Sacrifice is Theaitamot
offered, but, what is very different, an altar towards ^offe^df
which our prayers and oblations are directed. That but towards
is, the prayers and oblations which are offered on earth ^hlch
"prayers and
are directed heavenward, so that, as our altar on earth oblations" are
symbolizes our LORD'S throne amongst us, so the altar directed-
in heaven would seem to be equivalent to the " throne it seems equiv-
Of erace " alenttothe
"throne of
We have now examined very carefully the passages grace."
in the liturgies in which a heavenly altar is mentioned, The discussion
and to which the Modern school appeals in support of of the heavenly
rr altar thus
its view of a heavenly sacrifice. And our discussion summed up :
may be thus summed up :
i . The expression ' ' heavenly altar ' ' (Svaiaffrrfpior i. The phrase
STtovpdviov or vnepovpaviov} is found frequently in f^1^1^
the Greek liturgies, and the similar expression altare liturgies.
sublime in the Latin.
174 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
2. The sense in which enovpdviog is to be under-
stood is the sense in which it is used in similar passages
what pertains •*•
to the King- in the New Testament, and in which the Greek and
domof L,atin Fathers clearly explain it; that is, of things per-
heaven. *
taming to the Kingdom of heaven, or spiritual things.
3. The mean- 3. It is not certain what precisely we are to under-
doubtfui1*0" stand b^ the word " 1uBC" in the Prayer Supplices Te;
and it is difficult to conceive in what sense the sacra
mental gifts can be actually carried up to the altar in
heaven. It seems more satisfactory to understand by
this term either ' ' prayers, ' ' or the ' ' sweet savour ' ' of
the Sacrifice already offered.
4. The true and 4. There is a true and valuable element in the Modern
menun the" view> esPeciallY as ifc was set fortl1 bY tne Tractarians.
Modem view, The passages quoted from the liturgies and the Epistle
the promi- to the Hebrews, and the explanation of them found in
nence given to .—»,,,. .
the union of the Fathers, all point to a union between the Church
the worship of on earth and the Church in heaven, a fellowship not
heaven. only of interest but of life and worship. This finds
itself most perfectly realized in that act by which
" GOD is most honoured and man most blessed," the
offering of the Holy Eucharist. There the spiritual
energies of the Kingdom of GOD are brought together
for an act of worship in which is expressed the adora
tion of the Church on earth and in heaven. The one
ness of this worship is such that we speak of the ' ' an
gels and archangels and all the company of heaven' ' as
joining with us in the Church on earth in our service
of praise and adoration. And we think of ourselves
as carried, with our offerings, into the very Presence
of GOD in heaven, so that the altar of the Church
becomes the heavenly altar, the Eucharist of the
Church the heavenly worship. And JESUS our great
High Priest, the true Priest in every Eucharist,
THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. 175
appears for us before the face of GOD, ' ' His very Hu
man Nature interceding for us." *
No words can be too strong to express the closeness This must be
of this joyous fellowship, which in the dark days of the
past three hundred years has indeed been obscured by
the cold, unsacramental worship of the Church in Eng-
land. While striving, however, to surround the Holy
Eucharist with those glorious adjuncts of Catholic
ritual which help us to realize our oneness with the
worship of heaven, and at the same time to teach those
doctrines of the Real Presence and the Eucharistic
Sacrifice upon which this fellowship depends, let us be
very careful not to go to the opposite pole and teach but without
as the fundamental doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
a theory unheard of by the Church in the days of its
glorious unity, unknown to its Fathers and theolo
gians, rejected alike by East and West, and inconsistent
with the express teaching of the English Prayer Book.
* Buthymius Zig., in Heb.^ cap. vii., v. 25.
CHAPTER VII.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPTION OF THE
EUCHARIST.
A bird's-eye
view of theo
logical opinion
of the E. S.
from the sub-
apostolic age
to our own
time.
This will en
able us to re
legate the
various views
to their place
in history.
BEFORE proceeding to an examination of the
testimony of the Fathers and theologians of the
Church, we shall find it useful to stop and take
a bird's-eye view of the growth and fluctuations of the
conception of the Eucharistic Sacrifice from the sub-
apostolic age to our own time. An exhaustive treat
ment of the historical aspect of this question would,
of course, require of itself a large volume ; but such
a treatment is unnecessary for two reasons : first, be
cause we shall consider the principal theories of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice more fully in the succeeding
chapters, which deal with the opinions of the Fathers
and theologians of the Church ; and secondly, because
what we here need is a general survey of the whole
subject, which will enable us hereafter to relegate the
teachings of the various authors to their proper places
in the history of the development of this doctrine. For
our purpose, then, a sketch will be more useful than a
full history of this subject, and in tracing such a sketch
we shall follow the outline indicated by Dr. Vacant in
the valuable essay to which attention has already been
directed.*
* Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans
V Eglise Latine. Delhomme et Briguet, Paris, 1894.
176
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 177
This would seem to be the best point in our argument
at which to introduce a review of the history of the
question, since it divides the testimony of Holy Script
ure and of the liturgies from that of the Fathers and the
ologians, and thus draws attention to the fact that the
difference in the weight of the authority of these two
groups is a difference not only in degree but in kind.
The authority of Holy Scripture is, of course, absol
utely unique, since it is the authority of GOD Himself,
Who inspired Holy Scripture ; and next in evidential
value is the testimony of the liturgies, which, as the
official documents of the Church, carry a weight
greater than that of any individual writer of the
Church, however much revered for his learning and
sanctity.
When we survey the field of history, we are at once The field fails
struck with the clearness and simplicity of the three 1'nt?three
* divisions :
divisions into which it is marked out. To adopt Dr.
Vacant' s .suggestive classification, we see, in the first,
the Sacrifice of the Bucharist regarded synthetically,
as a great whole, as the Church's Sacrifice. In the
second it is treated almost exclusively from a practical
standpoint ; with respect partly to the effects of the
Sacrifice upon the offerers, and partly to the lessons
taught in the liturgical forms of the Church. In the
third the treatment is essentially analytic and theo
logical. In it we find that theologians are looking
chiefly for such an analysis of the Sacrifice as may
enable them to determine precisely in what the sacri
ficial act consists.
These divisions, as we have said, fall into clearly de- i. The Early
fined epochs, the first extending through some five c^enTtos'
centuries, from the writings of S. Clement of Rome in Gregory the
the sub-apostolic age to the beginning of the papacy of Great'
178 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the H. E. treat- S. Gregory the Great ; the second, from S. Gregory the
Great, or the earliest years of the seventh century, to
great whole. the age of S. Thomas Aquinas ; and the last, from the
n. The Middle age of 3^ Thomas, or the middle of the thirteenth cen-
Period, from S. '
Gregory to s. tury, to our own times.
Thomas; the The first period may be termed the " Karly Ages "
practical, re- of the Church ; the second, the " Middle Period; " and
garding effects the third, the " Post- Mediaeval and Modern Epoch."
formItUrglCa Before we turn our attention to an examination of
in. The Mod- these three periods, there is one point which it is very
Th^maTto^our important we should state most distinctly. It is,
own times; that until the controversies of the sixteenth century
the treatment brougnt into question the doctrine of the Bucharistic
analytical, in ° -1
determining Sacrifice, no serious attempt was made by the theo-
the sacrificial iOgians of the Church to investigate the nature of the
Sacrifice itself. In a way this is disappointing; and
The strongest yet it is, perhaps, the strongest evidence we could
evidence of the produce of the fact that the Kucharist was always re-
fact of the E. S. r t J
is that till cent, garded as a true and proper Sacrifice. The history of
xvi. there was dOgma shows us that doctrines are never fully dis-
no attempt to
define it. cussed or defined until their truth is assailed. So we
find that from the earliest writer of the sub-apostolic
age, S. Clement of Rome, the Eucharist is spoken of and
treated as a Sacrifice, without any attempt to analyze
or define its sacrificial character, until this was called
in question in the sixteenth century.
From cent. ix. From the ninth century, theologians were so en-
lerSs "about0" grosseci in tneir attempts, first to define the doctrine of
the Real Pre- our LORD'S Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and then
sence occupied to Defend their definition, that they gave but little
theologians. _^
attention to the question of the Euchanstic Sacrifice,
about which, as we have said, there was no controversy
until the sixteenth century.
In the ninth century the attempt to define the mode
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 179
of our LORD'S Sacramental Presence in the Holy This began
Eucharist began with the controversy between Pascha- ^hthe^"
sius Radbertus (ob. 865) and Ratramnus of Corbey tween Pascha-
(ob. circa 868). The term " transubstantiation " seems sius Radbertus
to be found first in an Exposition of the Canon of the
nus.
Mass, by S. Peter Damian (ob. 1072) ; and the dis- s Peter Da-
, . r ,1 r mian appar-
cussion received a new impetus from the writings of entiytheau-
Berengarius, Archdeacon of Angers (ob. 1088). From thoroftheterm
this time on, the mode of our LORD'S Presence so satiation "
monopolized the disputations of the schoolmen that the
doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice can scarcely be
said to have received any serious consideration.
On this account, as we have said, we must not expect in the first
to find in the first fifteen centuries of the Church's his- Periodwesha11
nncl :
tory any definite theory in regard to the precise char
acter of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. What we shall find
to be abundantly evident is,
1. That the Eucharist was regarded as a Sacrifice by i. The H. E.
all Christian writers. rega"ded by a11
as a S.
2. That no one in any way refers to it as dependent, 2. NO trace of
for its sacrificial character, on our LORD'S present work ^e Modern
view.
in heaven ; but
3. That some of the Greek Fathers, among whom are 3- certain
Theodoret, S. Chrysostom, and Euthymius, explicitly ^n^en^that
deny that our LORD is now exercising His Priest- our LORD is
hood in heaven or otherwise than through His Church nowoffe«ng
. . S., except
on earth in the offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice through His
and in the administration of the Sacraments. church.
4. That a very large number of the Fathers, both 4. The Fathers
East and West, speak t>f the Eucharist as related only J^^H^
to the Sacrifice of the Cross. to the s. of the
With these facts clearly before us, let us now review Cross-
in order the three periods into which the history of the
sacrificial conception of the Eucharist is divided.
i8o
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
I. The Early
Ages
begin with S.
Clement of
Rome.
Writers trace
analogies be
tween O. T.
sacrifices
and the H. E.
H. E. as the
Church's S.
and as the bond
uniting her to
her Head.
S. Clement sets
forth its public
and sacrificial
character,
and restricts
its celebration
to bishops and
priests.
S. Ignatius
speaks of the
altar and calls
the H. E. the
I. THE KARI<Y AGES.
We shall naturally examine with special interest the
age in which the great Fathers of the Church lived, in
which the General Councils of the Church were held,
and in which the doctrines of the primitive Church
may best be studied. This period, as we have said,
begins with S. Clement of Rome, and ends just before
the accession of Gregory the Great to the papal throne.
Throughout it we find the doctrine of the Bucharistic
Sacrifice clearly and distinctly taught, though without
anj^ attempt at definition. The Kucharist is regarded
as a whole, and considered as the continual memorial
of the Sacrifice of the Cross, without, however, any
effort being made to show how or why it is a Sacrifice,
or to determine whether the sacrificial act is to be sought
in the liturgical forms or in the act of Consecration.
The writers of this period occupy themselves with
tracing analogies between the Sacrifice of the Euchar
ist and the sacrifices of the Old Testament which pre
figured it, and in establishing its relation to the whole
body of Christian dogma and morals. The character
istic view of this era represents the Eucharist as the
Church's Sacrifice and as the bond by which she
was united to her Head, JESUS CHRIST.
In the first Epistle of S. Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians, written about A.D. 94, we find the pub
lic and sacrificial character of the Eucharist clearly
set forth. S. Clement compares the celebration of the
Eucharist with the sacrifices of the Jews, and restricts to
bishops and priests the power of offering the Eucharist.
S. Ignatius (ob. circa 115), who wrote some years
later, calls the Holy Table an altar ; the Eucharist,
the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST, Which suffered for us and
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. l8l
for our sins, and Which the FATHKR raised again from Flesh of
the dead.* He teaches that the fruits of the Eucharist CHRIST-
are preservation from death, and life in JESUS CHRIST ;
but he adds that these fruits of the Kingdom of GOD He confines its
cannot be found amongst those who are in heresy or fruits .to th?f^
0 in union with
schism, f As there is only one Flesh of JKSUS CHRIST the church.
and one chalice of His Blood, so there is but one altar
upon which the Bread of GOD is found, and this is the
altar of the lawful Bishop. % Schismatics find in this
Sacrament death rather than life.§ S. Ignatius thus He regards it
regards the Eucharist as the centre and instrument of
the Church's unity. unity.
In the Didache of the Twelve Apostles the Eucharist
is treated from a somewhat different standpoint, per
haps because the schisms and heresies to which S.
Ignatius refers were unknown to its writers. The
Didache regards the Sacrifice of the Eucharist rather The"Did-
from a moral point of view, dwelling upon the sanctity
which it requires in the offerer. It is interesting to the moral
notice that it applies our LORD'S command, " Give not standpoint of
rr , the sanctity
that which is holy unto the dogs,' || to the Eucharist ; required in the
and some have therefore been led to think that these offerer
words of our LORD were an inculcation of that dis-
ciplina arcani which we know was practised among
the early Christians with respect to the Eucharist.
What is, however, more to our purpose, the Didache
teaches that the Eucharist is that Sacrifice foretold by
Malachi, which was to take the place of the sacrifices
of the Old Testament. 1
* S. Ignat., Ad. Ephes., xx. 2 ; Ad. Sniyrn., vii. i.
f Ad. Ephes., v. 2 ; Ad. Smyrn., vii. ; Ad. Philadelph., iii.
3 and 4.
t Ad. Ephes., v. 7. 3 Ad. Smyrn., vii.
I S. Matt. vii. 6. \Didache, ix., x., xiv., and xv. I.
182
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
S. Justin Mar
tyr describes
the liturgical
service and
affirms that
the H. E. is a
memorial of
the Passion.
S. Irenseus as
sociates the H.
B. with our
LORD'S Blood
shed on the
Cross ;
S. Justin Martyr (ob. circa 165), like S. Ignatius and
the writers of the Didache, speaks of the Eucharist as
the union of the Church with the Sacrifice of her Head.
In his first Apology, written for the Roman Emperor
Antoninus Pius, he describes a celebration of the
Kucharist, carefully choosing terms which would be
more intelligible to a gentile than the ordinary liturgical
language of the Church. He points out that it is the
"president" who alone pronounces the Eucharistic
Prayer, that is, the Prayer of Consecration, the people
only responding with the " Amen ; " that this prayer
contains the words of our LORD, " This is My Body,"
" This is My Blood ; " and that by these words bread
and wine become the Body and Blood of CHRIST.* He
affirms that the Kucharistic Sacrifice was instituted by
our LORD JESUS CHRIST at the Last Supper in memory
of His Passion. \ It is not, however, a bloody Sacrifice,
but a Sacrifice of praise and prayer. Like his pre
decessors he shows that the Kucharist as a Sacrifice ful
fils the prophecy of Malachi.
S. Irenseus (ob. circa 202), in his great work Adversus
H<zreses, refers in many places to the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist. His principal treatment of the Eucharist
is found in the fourth book, chapter xviii., and the fifth
book, chapter ii. The first passage we have already
quoted \ in connection with the prayer Supplices Te.
In the second passage he associates the Eucharist with
our LORD'S Blood shed upon the Cross. For, when
treating of those Gnostic heretics who, because they
believed matter to be essentially evil, rejected the doc
trine of the Resurrection of the Body, and therefore
of any salvation of the flesh, he says: " But if this [the
* S. Just. Mart., ApoL, n. 65, 66.
f Apol.y n. 66, 67 ; and Dialog., n. 41. J Page 172.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 183
flesh] indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did
the L,ORD redeem us with His Blood, nor is the cup
of the Eucharist the Communion of His Blood, nor
the bread which we break the Communion of His
Body."*
When S. Irenseus speaks of the Eucharistic oblations and calls the
it is difficult to be sure
. first-fruits of
about his meaning. Perhaps he is referring to our creation.
Blessed I^ORD as * ' the first-begotten of every creat
ure; " f or possibly he means that the bread and wine
in the Sacrifice, which become the Body and Blood of
CHRIST, are thus the first-fruits of that new creation to
which our LORD refers when He says, " I will not
drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in My FATHER'S
kingdom." J
* S. Iren., 1. v., c. ii., n. 2. Mr. Brightman, after referring
to this very passage, and to 1. iv., c. xvii., xviii., says : " In S.
Irenseus, so far as I can remember, there is no exclusive rela
tion of the Eucharist to the Passion suggested. Of course his
allusions are limited by his particular aim, but his argument
for our resurrection, drawn from the Eucharist, suggests a rela
tion between the Eucharist and our LORD'S Resurrection"
(p. 7). We would point out that the passages before us sug
gest no relation between the Eucharist and our LORD'S
Resurrection. They are very well summed up by Vacant as
follows: " Le sacrifice eucharistique, complete par la com
munion que tous les Chretiens y recoivent, sert de trait d' union
entre la passion de JESUS- CHRIST et la resurrection glorieuse
qui en est le fruit et a laquelle on rattachait alors tous les bien
e"ternels" (p. n). The Eucharist is here essentially related to
the Passion, to the Blood by which our LORD redeemed us, and
its fruits are said to be life eternal and the resurrection of our
bodies (S. John vi. 54) ; there is no suggestion whatever of its
relation to our LORD'S Resurrection.
f Col. i. 15. \ S. Matt. xxvi. 29.
1 84
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
S. Cyprian
teaches that
H. E. repro
duces the Pas
sion of JESUS
CHRIST.
The priest in
it fulfils the
functions of
the Sovereign
Priest.
Tertullian (ob. circa 245) speaks in many places of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice as offered not only for the
living and in honour of the martyrs, but for the souls
of the faithful departed.* f
So far the writers quoted have treated of the Sacri
fice of the Eucharist only incidentally. In the writings
of S. Cyprian we find the first distinct treatise on this
subject. It takes the form of a letter (Epist. Ixiii.) in
which S. Cyprian shows that in consecrating the Holy
Eucharist the mixed chalice only should be used, and
that the Eucharist reproduces in its fulness the Passion
of JESUS CHRIST, \ and that in its form it ought to re
present the Last Supper, at which it was instituted. §
The priest who celebrates fulfils the functions of JESUS
CHRIST the Sovereign Priest. 1 1 The wine of the Sacri
fice is the Blood of our LORD shed during His Passion. ^
The water mingled with wine, as well as the grains
which compose the bread, represent the people, whose
sins our LORD bore upon the Cross, and who are united
with Him at the altar. **
* Tertullian, Ad Scapulam, c. 2, Apol., c. 30.
f Dr. Vacant (p. 15), in referring to Tertullian, makes the fol
lowing statement, which the author has been unable to verify :
"Mais il voit surtout dans la celebration des saints mysteres,
une priere dont jESUS-CmusT est le souverain poutife. II rat-
tache done ces mysteres venerables a 1'intercession glorieuse de
JiCSUS-CHRiST ressuscite pour nous." He gives as his authority
Tertullian, Adv. Judceos, c. 14. This chapter, however, con
tains no reference whatever to the Bucharist. One finds the
same statement in Thomassinus (De Incarn. Verbi, 1. x., c.
xii., $ 5, torn, iv., p. 339), with precisely the same reference
(Tert., Adv.Jud&os, c. 14). Dr. Vacant has therefore probably
simply followed Thomassinus. In Appendix C we give the
passage of Tertullian in full.
J S. Cyp., Epist. Ixiii., n. 17. \ Ibid., n. n.
\ Ibid., n. 14. || Ibid., u. 14. ** Ibid., n. 13.
PIT STORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 185
The fruits of the Sacrifice, S. Cyprian teaches, are
the bestowal of all virtues, even the grace of martyr
dom ; * the remission of sins, f and the inheritance
of heaven. These fruits, he tells us, can be applied to
those who are absent,! and to the faithful departed,!
whom the priest names, and for whom he prays at the
altar. 1 1 In a word, S. Cyprian clearly recognizes in
the Eucharist a proper priesthood possessing a proper it is a propers,
sacrifice, in which the Passion of JKSUS CHRIST is re- ^f^116
presented, the Body and Blood of CHRIST being the re-presented,
matter of the Sacrifice.
The Western Fathers after S. Cyprian, while show
ing the influence of his teaching, dwell upon the
Eucharist in its relation to the mysteries of the In
carnation and of grace. S. Ambrose (ob. 397) lays s. Ambrose
stress upon the fact that in the Eucharist our LORD ^fs^ifthe*
offers Himself in His Humanity for the remission of same as that of
our sins. T In it there is the same Priest, the same theCross-
Victim, and consequently the same Sacrifice as on the
Cross.**
S. Augustine's (ob. 430) idea of the Eucharist has s. Augustine
affinities with that of S. Irenseus. The Sacrifice has resardsitas
uniting us to
for its end our union with GOD. This is for our good GOD and de-
alone, for this union is our true end and ought to be* Pending for
. . . its effects upon
our supreme happiness. tt Such a union must depend right disposi-
largely upon the interior dispositions of the offerer, tionsinthe
offerer.
* S. Cyp., Epistola Synodica, n. 3.
f Idem., De Lapsis, n. 16.
\ Idem., Epist. lx., n. 4.
§ Idem., Epist. Ixvi., n. 2.
|| Idem., Epist. lx., n. 4.
\ S. Ainbr., De Officiis, 1. i., c. Ixviii., n. 238.
**Idem., In Psalm., xxxiii., n. 26.
ft S. Aug., De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. 5, 6.
1 86
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
He defines S.
and shows
that our
LORD'S S. is
renewed daily
in the H. E.
S. Leo the
Great sees in
the E. S. the ac
complishment
of all mys
teries.
The Eastern
Fathers
While sacrifice properly so called is " the visible sacra
ment, that is, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice,"
in order that it may be a true sacrifice there must be
joined with it the invisible sacrifice of the will in acts
of penitence, humility, and love. Every man who
lives for GOD is himself a sacrifice. Moreover, the
Church herself is a sacrifice, in which JESUS CHRIST is
the great High Priest, and of which the Sacrament of
the Altar is the outward sign.* The one absolute
Sacrifice was offered by our LORD Himself, Who " took
upon Him the form of a servant ' ' that He might offer
Himself to His FATHER. And by this Sacrifice our
LORD unites man to GOD in the closest fellowship, f
Our LORD'S Sacrifice, which was typified by the sacri
fices of the Old Testament, is renewed daily in the
Kucharist upon our altars, so that the Church, which
is His Mystical Body, unites herself to the Sacrifice of
her Head. I
S. Leo the Great (ob. 461) sees in the offering of our
LORD'S Body and Blood in the Kucharist, the Sacrifice
of the Lamb of GOD, Which taketh away the sin of the
world, the accomplishment of all mysteries. For him
the Kucharist is that Sacrifice which supersedes all the
various carnal sacrifices and offerings, both of the
heathen world and of the Jewish Church, and which
unites all nations in one great Kingdom. §
We must now turn from the West to the Kast and
notice briefly the treatment of the Kucharist by those
Greek Fathers of the fourth century whose voluminous
works contribute so greatly to the theological treasures
* S. Aug., De Civ. Dei., 1. x., c. 6.
f S. Aug., De Trinitate, 1. iv., c. xiv.
J S. Aug., De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. vi., ct. xx.
§ S. Leo, Serm.t lix., c. vii.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. l8/
of the Church. We shall not need here to do more
than draw attention to the general features of their
teaching, since in the next chapter we shall have to
bring forward and carefully examine many passages
from their writings. We may observe :
1. That they connect the Kucharist most closely with i. connect the
the Passion, one of them, in speaking of the ' ' triduum " H> E> with the
Passion *
of the Passion, even insisting that the Institution of
the Eucharist must be counted in this period, since the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist was so entirely one with the
Sacrifice of the Cross that it practically contained it,
and was therefore an essential part of the Passion.*
Besides this, they recognize the Eucharist as the Sacri
fice in which the Passion is continually reproduced. f
2. They see in the Eucharist an extension of the 2. andincar-
Incarnation.f nation;
3. They associate the Priesthood of our LORD with 3. and point
that of Melchisedec, especially pointing out that He is outthat
through the
now, through His priests in the Church, offering in church our
is now
the Eucharist that Sacrifice which was typified by
Melchisedec's offering of bread and wine.§ priesthood.
* S. Greg. Nyss., In Christ. Resurrect., Oratio i. ; Migne, P.
G., torn. 46, col. 611 ; S. Cyril Alex., Homil. Div., x., In Mys-
ticam Ccenam; Migne, P. G., torn. 77, col. 1018.
f S. Chrys., In Heb., Horn. vii. ; Migne, P. G., torn. 63, col.
130; ibid., col. 131.
$ S. Chrys., In Joan., Horn, xlvi., n. 2, 3 ; Migne, P. G., torn.
59, col. 260 ; ibid., n. 3, col. 261 ; S. Cyril Alex., in Joan, iii. 6 ;
Migne, P. G., torn. 73, col. 519; ibid., torn. 74, col. 528, 529;
Isid. Pelus., Epist., 1. iii., 195 ; Migne, P. G., torn. 78, col. 879;
Thomassin., De In earn, torn. iv. ; 1. x., c. 21.
§ Euseb. Cses., Dem. Evangel., v. 3 ; Migne, P. G., torn. 22,
col. 367 ; S. Chrys., In Genes., Horn, xxxv., n. 5 ; Migne, P. G.,
torn. 53, col. 328; ibid., Horn, xxxvi., n. 3, col. 336; S. Cyril
Alex., In Genes., 1. ii., n. 10 ; Migne, P. G., torn. 69, col. 107.
1 88
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
In this period
both East and
West dwell
upon the rela
tion between
CHRIST'S
Mystical Body
and His Body
in the H. K.(
and between
the H. E. and
His Interces
sion in
heaven ; but
have no know
ledge of any
S. now being
offered in
heaven.
We may bring our notice of this first period to an
end by saying that the Fathers, both Eastern and
Western, dwell upon the relation between the Mystical
Body of CHRIST and His Body in the Eucharist, and
recognize also a relation between the Eucharist and
our LORD'S great Intercession in heaven. But of any
Sacrifice now being offered in heaven they not only
have no knowledge, but expressly state, either that
our LORD offered His Sacrifice once for all, and is now
set down at the Right Hand of GOD,* or that He is now
exercising His sacerdotal functions only [through the
priesthood of His Church in offering the Sacrifice of
the Holy Eucharist, f
II. THE MIDDLE PERIOD.
II. The Middle
Period begins
with S. Greg
ory and ends
with S.
Thomas.
The S. of the
Mass treated
practically,
and its charac
ter sought in
its effects.
This period, which begins with the accession of S.
Gregory the Great to the papacy and ends with the
early days of S. Thomas Aquinas, extends from the
close of the sixth to the middle of the thirteenth cent
ury. As the point of view from which the Sacrifice
of the Mass was regarded in the early ages of the
Church was clearly synthetic, so we may consider its
treatment during the period we are now to survey as
distinctly practical. There was no change of view in
regard to the nature of the Sacrifice or of its relation to
the Sacrifice of the Cross, but its sacrificial character
was sought in the effects which it produced ; and, above
all, in the dispositions which were required in the
offerer that he might appropriate the fruits of the
Sacrifice. No attempt was yet made to determine in
* S. Chrys., In Heb., Horn, xiii., 8.
f Theodoret, In Psalm., cix., 4 ; Migne, P. G., torn. 80, col.
1773-
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 189
what manner the Eucharist was to be regarded as a The image of
Sacrifice, or where the essentially sacrificial action in ™rI<ORD's
it was to be found. While the writers of this period in the iiturgi-
recognized in the Mass an image of the Death of the cai forms.
Saviour, yet they often sought this image outside of
the act of Consecration, and ordinarily placed it in the
liturgical ceremonies instituted by the Church.
S. Gregory the Great (ob. 604) led the way in this s. Gregory
new departure by his teaching both in his Dialogues
and in his Letters. In these he sets forth the efficacy thes.
of the Mass to obtain various graces, and especially the forthesouis
deliverance of souls from purgatory.* He shows that that hTit the'
our LORD renews His Sacrifice for us in the Eucharist, Passion is
and that this Sacrifice is an unceasing reproduction of
the image of His Passion for the remission of our sins.
At the moment of our LORD'S daily immolation of Him- and that by it
self in the Eucharist, according to S. Gregory, heaven hea*enand
opens at the voice of the priest, to unite itself with the united.
Church on earth.f
S. Gregory also gave an impulse to the study of the He gave an im-
Mass from a liturgical point of view, by introducing pulse l° llturs-
the Roman liturgy into Gaul. In the ninth century
the liturgical writings of Amalarius, Florus, and others
testify to the greater value set upon the liturgies, espe
cially upon that of the Roman Church.
S. Isidore of Seville (ob. 636) adds to the theological s. Isidore of
stores of the Church a definition of the word " sacri- Sevillecon-
tributes a de-
fice " which long held sway: The term sacrifice,' " finitionofs.
he says, " is equivalent to ' a thing made holy,' since
the sacrifice is mystically consecrated by prayer in
memory of our LORD'S Passion for us." \
* S. Greg. Mag., Dialog., iv., c. xlvii., xlviii.
f Ibid., c. xlviii.
|" Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece
190
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Bede's view is
similar.
In cent. VI.
one Mass only
was allowed on
the same day
at any altar
by the Synods
of Auxerre
and Merida.
In cent. IX.
Strabo notices
an increase in
the number
of Masses.
The Venerable Bede (ob. 735) treated the subject on
much the same lines.
A development of the sacrificial aspect of the Kuchar-
ist which was practical rather than doctrinal may be
noticed about this time. In the sixth century a com
paratively small number of Masses were celebrated, the
Synod of Auxerre (578) in its tenth canon forbidding
the saying of two Masses on the same day at the same
altar ; * while in the Council of Merida, in Spain
(666), the nineteenth canon directs that all the in
tentions of the assistants and of the benefactors of the
Church should be recommended together at the Mass.
A little later than this the opinion seems to have gained
ground that the offering of a Mass for one intention
exclusively was more efficacious than the commemora
tion of many intentions in the same Mass. This
naturally led to a multiplication of Masses in order to
give people an opportunity of offering them with special
intentions, and in the ninth century Walafrid Strabo
tells us that some of the faithful were in the habit of
going from one Mass to another in order to assist at as
many Masses as they had intentions to present. f As
a result of this, many priests were in the habit of say
ing two or three Masses a day in order to satisfy the
mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominica passi-
onis " (S. Isidore Hispal., EtymoL, 1. vi., c. xix.). Kidd, in his
The Later Mediceval Doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, p. 43,
quoting from Vacant, p. 26, gives this reference as 1. v., c. xix.
In Vacant, p. 26, it is 1. iv., c. xix., but on p. 23 he quotes it cor
rectly as 1. vi., as it is in the Paris edition of 1601, which we
use. In this place other definitions of the word "sacrifice"
are found, and, indeed, that part of the chapter which refers to
the Eucharist deserves to be read.
* Hefele, vol. iv., p. 411.
f Strabo, De Rebus Eccles., pt. i., c. xxii.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 191
demands of the faithful, and also for their own inten
tions.* In the beginning of the eleventh century this
practice had become so much abused that it was for
bidden, or at least regulated, by the decrees of several
local Councils, f
The ninth century witnessed unusual literary activity
in regard to the Holy Eucharist, especially in the
writings of Amalarius and his opponent Florus, the Amalarius,
Deacon of L,yons ; Paschasius Radbertus and his ad- Florus>
versary, Ratramnus, the monk of Corbey ; Walafrid
Strabo and Rabanus Maurus. Amalarius was the first
who treated the liturgy as mystically setting forth the
Passion of our LORD, and so laid the foundation for
the mystical writers of the twelfth century.
About this time we observe the setting in of a new incent. ix. a
current of opinion, flowing side by side with the pre- newcurrent
0 sets in, mystic-
Vailing theory of the Ii^ucharistic Sacrifice, which, as ai rather than
we have said, viewed it in its effects rather than in its theol°glcal>
essential character. The new current was mystical
rather than theological, and while at first in conflict
with the theological conception of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, as evidenced by the controversy between
Amalarius and Florus, the two were harmonized in the
writings of Paschasius Radbertus.
This new current of thought was the result of the resulting from
impetus given to liturgical study. It endeavoured to lltl"~&lcal
* Strabo., De Rebus Eccles., pt. i., c. xxi.
t The Council of Seligeustadt (1022) forbade priests saying
more than three Masses a day ; and later they were forbidden
to say more than one Mass, unless in exceptional cases. Cf.
Alexander II. (A.D. 1065), Decret., 3 p., De Consecratione,
Cap. liii. ; Innocent III. (1212), Decret., 1. iii., tit. xli., c. 3 ;
Council of Westminster (1199), Canon 2 ; of Oxford (1222),
Canon 6 ; of Treves (1227), Canons 3 and 9 ; of Rouen (1231),
Canon 12 ; of Tarragona (1239), Canon 6.
and attempt
ing to find in
the liturgy
itself the
image of the
Passion.
Amalarius
its source.
His exposition
of the liturgy.
192 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
find in the liturgical services the image of the Passion,
and therefore the accomplishment of S. Paul's words,
' ' As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do
shew the LORD'S Death till He come." The writers
of this school considered these words as a precept
enjoined especially upon the priest who celebrated, to
make remembrance of our LORD'S Passion in the Mass;
and they thought that the Church, having instituted
and arranged the ceremonies and prayers which pre
cede and follow the Consecration, intended by them to
aid the priest to fulfil this precept. They were therefore
led to seek in the ceremonies of the Mass a picture in
tended to recall the Death, and even the Life of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Amalarius (ob. 837), who was distinctly the leader in
this new method of regarding the Eucharist, sketches
the picture somewhat as follows : The Introit and
the Kyrie, he says, remind us of the preparation by the
Prophets of the Old Testament for the coming of the
Messiah. The Gloria in Excelsis tells of the Birth of
CHRIST ; the Epistle, of the preaching of S. John the
Baptist ; the Gospel, of the preaching of our LORD
Himself. The Offertory represents His triumphal en
trance into Jerusalem ; the Preface, the hymn which
was sung after the Institution and before proceeding
to Gethsemane. The Te igitur he takes of the Prayer
in the Garden of Olives ; the Consecration, of the
Crucifixion ; the Unde et memores, of the elevation of
the Cross. According to his view, the Nobis quoque
peccatoribus > pronounced with a loud voice in the midst
of the silence of the Canon, expresses the cry of the
dying LORD. By the number seven, which corresponds
to the sabbath, the petitions of the Paternoster tell of
the rest of His Burial. The particle of the Host min-
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 193
gled with the Wine after the fraction symbolizes the
Resurrection, which reunites His Soul to His Body ;
and the final benediction recalls that blessing which
JESUS gave to His Apostles at His Ascension.*
When, however, Amalarius dealt with the question His serious
of the mode of our LORD'S Presence at the same time
in heaven and in the Eucharist, he fell into grievous
error. For he taught that our LORD'S glorious Body stercoriamsm,
divides and multiplies Itself in different Bodies as new
Hosts are consecrated. He even speculated whether
after the Communion our LORD'S Body re-ascended to
heaven, or remained in our bodies until their burial,
or whether It passed away in the processes of digestion.!
These gross views were branded with the name of
Stercorianism. He also fell into another error when
trying to find the signification of the three fragments
into which the priest after the Consecration divides the
Host. For Amalarius says that the Body of JESUS and the triple
CHRIST has a triple form : the Body born of the Blessed
Virgin and raised from the dead being represented by
the fragment placed in the chalice ; the Body which is
on earth, represented by the fragment which serves
for the Communion of the priest and people ; and
finally, the Body which lies in the sepulchre, repre
sented by the third fragment, which is left upon the
altar for the reservation for the sick.]; In a later
work § Amalarius makes no reference to this triple
Body of JESUS CHRIST, but teaches that the fraction
of the Host recalls the appearance to the disciples at
* Amal., De Eccles. Offic,, 1. iii. Migne, P. L,., toin. 105, col.
986-1242.
t Amal., Epist. ad Gunther, col. 1336-1339.
\ Amal., De Offic., 1. iii., c. xxxv., col. 1154.
\ Amal. , Eclogce, col. 1328.
13
194
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
These views
were attacked
by Florus and
condemned at
Quiercy.
Their strange
reappearance
in the works of
other writers.
The views of
the pseudo
Rabanus
Maurus.
Bmmaus. He sees a difficulty, however, in the fact
that only a particle of the Host is put into the chalice,
whereas JKSUS CHRIST rose from the dead whole and
entire. He endeavours to solve this difficulty by say
ing, JKSUS CHRIST is in part risen and living in
heaven, partly still upon earth.
These extraordinary views of Amalarius were as
sailed by Florus, and after discussion were condemned
by the Council of Quiercy-sur-Oise (837) and Amal
arius was compelled to retract them. But afterwards
they had a most curious historjr, in that they passed into
the additions made to the Glossa Ordinaria of Walafrid
Strabo, and also into the additions made to the treatise
of Rabanus Maurus, De Institutione Clericorum. They
were also introduced by Remi d'Auxerre (908) into a
treatise, DeOffitiis, and in such a way connected with the
statement that Pope Sergius revived the custom of re
citing the Agnus Dei, that a careless reader would think
that this opinion of Amalarius was really attributed to
Sergius.* On this account it attracted the attention of
many theologians, e. g., Peter Lombard, Innocent III.,
and S. Thomas Aquinas, though all these authors ex
plain the supposed pontifical utterance in an orthodox
manner, as indicating the effects produced by the Body
of JESUS CHRIST in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory.
In a letter attributed, probably without reason, to
Rabanus Maurus, this idea of a triple Body of our
Blessed LORD is differently explained as referring to
His Mystical Body the Church ; to His Living and In
tegral Body, which pronounced the words of Consecra
tion at the Last Supper, and reigns, risen from the
dead, in heaven ; and to His Body deprived of life and
grace (sic), which was produced by the words of Con-
* Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, p. 381, n. 82.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 195
secration at the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, and
is still present in the Blessed Sacrament.
These unorthodox views of Amalarius were bitterly
attacked by Florus (ob. circa 860), the learned Deacon
and head of the Cathedral School at Lyons, and were,
as we have said, condemned by the Synod at Quiercy-
sur-Oise. Florus, whose work, De Expositione Misscz* Florus' "DC
is the most valuable production of the ninth century ?*posi*i°ne
r . J Missae"the
on this subject, regards the Sacrifice of the Mass as the most import-
representation of the LORD'S Death, not on account of ant contribu
tion of centjx.
the words which are used in the liturgy, but by reason
of the mysteries which are fulfilled in the Kucharist.
He regards the Consecration as the essential part of the
Sacrifice, and dwells on the substantial transformation
which it produces. In his view the Consecration repre
sents the Passion of our LORD because it is produced
by the same love with which He loved us unto the end,
and because it produces the same effects, appl}ring to
us through each Eucharist the blessings and graces
which were merited for us by CHRIST upon the Cross, f
Paschasius Radbertus (ob. 865) is best known for his Thecontro-
investigations into the mode of our LORD'S Presence versy between
" . Paschasius
in the Eucharist. His work is generally considered to Radbertus and
have started the discussion of that great mystery which Ratramnus.
has engrossed the attention of theologians even down
to our own days. The controversy began with an
answer to the view set forth by Radbertus, written by
Ratramnus of Corbey (ob. circa 868). Radbertus is
theologically in accord with Florus, and refutes the
Stercorianism of Amalarius, whose mystical treatment
of the subject, however, he does not reject.
* Florus, De Expos. Miss., Migne, P. L., torn. 119, col. 15
to 71.
| Florus, De Expos. Miss., n. 63, col. 54, 55.
196
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Walafrid
Strabo.
Cents. X. and
XI. added
nothing to
the subject.
The attack of
Berengarius
upon the Real
Presence,
cent. XI.
Cent. XII. a
period of litur
gical activity.
Odoof
Cambrai,
S. Ivo of
Chartres, V.
Hildebert of
Mans.
The view of
Peter the Yen.
Rabanus Maurus (ob. 856) and Walafrid Strabo
(ob. 849) placed the memorial of the Passion in the
prayer Unde et memores.
We may pass over the tenth and eleventh centuries
without remark, since the works which they produced
were either compilations from Florus and Amalarius, *
or liturgical treatises, t During this period the Euchar-
istic Sacrifice was still regarded in its effects, and the
representation of the Passion of JESUS CHRIST was
referred rather to the liturgical acts which He Himself
performed at the Last Supper than to the ceremonies
of the liturgy.
In the eleventh century, however, the attack of
Berengarius upon the Real Presence of our LORD in
the Blessed Sacrament, while it stimulated inquiry in
this one direction, served to divert the attention of
theologians from the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist.
In the next century we have another period of litur
gical activity, for the twelfth century produced Odo of
Cambrai, S. Ivo of Chartres, V. Hildebert of Mans (or
of Tours), Peter the Venerable (of Cluny), the English
man Robert Pulleyne, Algerus of Liege, William of S.
Thiery, and Peter Lombard, the " Master of the Sen
tences." Of these Odo of Cambrai (ob. 1113), S. Ivo
of Chartres (ob. 1116), and V. Hildebert of Tours (ob.
1134) wrote works on the liturgy. As their support
is claimed by the Modern school, we shall here pass
them over, and consider their works more fully in
Chapter IX.
Peter the Venerable (ob. 1156) and William of S.
Thiery (ob. 1150) placed the representation of the
* E. g., the work of Peter d'Auxerre.
f B. g., the MicrologuS) sometimes ascribed to S. Ivo of
Chartres, and the Libellus of Bernon de Reichenau.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 197
Passion of our LORD in the fraction of the Host, and wniiam of
Peter seeing it in the fraction together with the s- Thi6ry-
Communion.
Robert Pulleyne (ob. circa 1147) is of special inter- Robert
est to Englishmen, in that his Summary of Theology Pulleyue-
preceded the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which was so
long the basis of the majority of theological treatises.
Peter Lombard (ob. circa 1160) himself devoted but Peter Lombard
small space in his great work to the treatment of the tose^ttuf0'
Sacrifice of the Mass, but he was the first author of double conse-
the Middle Ages who placed the representation of the J^f0^1^
Passion in the double Consecration of the bread and passion,
wine ; and so he may probably be considered as the
source to which may be traced the view which sees in
this double Consecration our LORD'S Body and Blood
separated as by death. Peter Lombard, however, was
far from grasping this whole conception, although he
is entitled to the credit of having given the first hint
which was afterwards developed into the theory so well
stated by Bossuet. He had a peculiar theory about the His peculiar
sacramental species, in that he referred the Consecration
of the bread to the Flesh of CHRIST, and that of the wine
to the Soul of CHRIST, because, he says, the blood is
the seat of the soul, and our LORD willed the Consecra
tion to be made under the species of bread and wine,
to show that He had taken human nature wholly, body
and soul, in order to redeem it wholly, that is, to re
deem our bodies and souls.*
Algerus of Liege (ob. circa 1 135) is by far the most im- Aigerus of
portant writer on the Eucharist in the twelfth century. ^St writer
While the purpose of his work was to refute the errors on the H. E. of
of Berengarius, he takes a wider survey of the Euchar- cent- xn-
ist than any of his contemporaries, and shows consider-
* Lombard, Sent., 1. iv., dist. xi., n. 6.
198
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
I/ombard's
view repro
duced by
Innocent III.,
Albert the
Great,
Alexander
of Hales, and
S. Bonaven-
tura.
A strange the
ory about the
Consecration
of each species.
William of
Auvergne.
able affinities with the early Greek Fathers, especially
S. Gregory Nazianzen, in dwelling upon the oneness of
the Eucharistic Service with the worship of heaven.
The Middle Period ends with Albert the Great, the
master and predecessor of S. Thomas. We have there
fore still to notice the writers of the early part of the
thirteenth century : Innocent III., William of Au
vergne, Alexander of Hales, and Albert the Great.
The theory started by Peter Lombard, that the
species of bread represents our LORD'S Body and the
wine His Soul, we find reproduced in the thirteenth
century by Innocent III., Albert the Great, Alexander
of Hales, and S. Bouaventura. These theologians
also still saw the image of the Passion in the liturgical
ceremonies instituted by the Church, and make the
Sacrifice of the Mass consist principally in the applica
tion of the effects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. With
the exception of Alexander of Hales* none of them
considered the double Consecration as producing the
Body and Blood of our LORD separated as by death,
and he only throws out as a passing thought this sug
gestion, which, as we have seen, had been hinted at by
Peter Lombard.
A strange tendency was then prevalent among theo
logians to insist upon the powerlessness of the words
of each Consecration to produce exclusively that which
they express ; for, under the pretext that the Body
of the risen Saviour could not be separated from His
Blood, many held that JKSUS CHRIST did not become
present upon the altar until after the two Consecrations
had taken place.
William of Auvergne (ob. 1249) contributes a striking
thought, which was developed by later theologians.
* Alex. Hales, Summa, 1. iv., 9 ; x., 11. 2, a. 2.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 199
Starting from the fact that the immolation of the vic
tims of the Old Testament implied a substitution of
these victims for men, and a voluntary abasement of
man before GOD,* he shows that the only perfect sac
rifice would be that of a man free from all sin, who
with every power of body and soul should perfectly
fulfil the will of GOD ; for this victim would be a
sweet- smelling savour and a live coal of charity offered
to GoD.f Such, he says, was JKSUS CHRIST, sacri
ficed in Soul and Body upon the Cross, where, to re
concile man to GOD, He presented to Him sacrifice
and reparation infinitely greater than the offence of
our sins.J He sees in the Passion the ransom of the
whole world, and in the Eucharist the application
which our Blessed L,ORD makes of this ransom to those
whom He finds rightly disposed. He also adds to our His definition
conception of sacrifice an interesting definition : " To ofs-
sacrifice, properly speaking, is this : to make sacred
the gift itself by offering it, and so to sanctify the
offerer as well as the person for whom it is offered." §
The voluminous writings of Albert the Great (ob. Albert the
1280) close this period and prepare the way for the f^f^f^
work of his illustrious disciple, S. Thomas. We find in standpoints.
Albert the Great a theory of the Mass far more fully
worked out than in any of his predecessors, whose
views to a certain extent he gathers up and harmo
nizes. He regards the Sacrifice from two points of
* William of Auvergne, De Legibus, c. xxiv.
f Ibid., c. xxviii.
J Idem., De Sacramento Eucharisti<z, c. ii.
\ "Hoc estproprie sacrificare, ipsum scilicet munus offerendo
sacrum facere^ et tarn offerentem quam eum pro quo offertur
sacrificare \_sanctificare'} " (De Legibus, c. xxiv.). He speaks
also of the priest " qui sacramental seu sanctificat populum"
(De Sac. Eucharist.^ c. ii.).
200 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
view. For CHRIST, he says, is immolated and offered
in Sacrifice to GOD His FATHER. But " immolation "
signifies the act of oblation from the point of view of
the thing offered, and " sacrifice " the same act from
the point of view of the effect produced.* Further, in
comparing the Eucharist with the sacrifices of the L,aw,
he calls it " the one Sacrifice of truth," because it alone
produces and contains that which it signifies, the Body
and Blood of JESUS CHRIST ; and because it alone com
prises the source of an abundant sanctification.f
But he places Albert, however, places all the essence of the Sacrifice
its effect^ iU in its effects> but> regarding it from this twofold aspect,
he sees a double effect : on the one hand, our union
with JESUS CHRIST in His oblation ; on the other, our
participation in the fruits of His Sacrifice. And this
double effect manifests itself to him in the twofold
matter of the Eucharist, for he regards the bread,
formed from many grains, as the symbol of the union
of the faithful with JESUS CHRIST, and the wine, as
the symbol of the application of the Redemption which
is made for us in the Eucharist. He even thought
that our L,ORD had in view this double element of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice when He said: J " He that eateth
My Flesh [under the species of bread] and drinketh
My Blood [under the species of wine], dwelleth in Me
[by reason of the union with Me signified by the species
of bread], and I in him [by reason of the Redemption
applied to him by My Blood, which is signified by the
species of wine]." §
* " Immolatio dicit actum offerendi ex parte rei oblatce,et
sacrificium dicit eumdem actum ex parte effectus" (Albert
Mag., Sent., 1. iv., d. xii., a. 23).
t Idem, De Sac. Buck., d. v., c. 4.
% S. John vi. 56.
§ Albert Mag., Sent., 1. iv., d. viii., a 13, ad I.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 2OI
It is the consideration of this double relation of the His"Expiana-
faithful to JESUS CHRIST offered in the Eucharist which *ion of "J^
Canon of the
furnished Albert the Great with the main thought Mass."
of his Explanation of the Canon of the Mass. In the
three prayers which precede the Consecration he traces
our union with our LORD ; and in the prayers which
follow, our participation in the fruits of His Sacrifice.
For he sees in the three prayers at the beginning of
the Canon what he calls " the triple Communion of the
Church " with the Victim about to be offered : (i) in
the Te igitur, the union of the Universal Church ; (2)
in the Memento of the living, the union of individuals ;
(3) in the Communicantes^ the union of the saints in
heaven. Then, he says, follows the completion of the
Eucharist by the Consecration ; and after that comple
tion, another part begins, which he terms the " Ele- His view of the
vation," because with him it extends as far as the "£levation-"
elevation of the Host which precedes the Paternoster.
It is in this part that the fruits of the Sacrifice, and
our participation in those fruits are described. They
are, glory rendered to GOD, and graces produced in us;
for, according to Albert, it is by participating in the
fruits of the Sacrifice that we are sanctified, and, being
thus sanctified, are brought nearer to GOD, Whom
we thus glorify. He points out that this elevation
begins with the offering of the Body of JESUS CHRIST
and of all those who are united to Him by means of the
triple Communion which precedes the Consecration.
This offering is made through the prayers which fol
low the completion of the Consecration, as far as
the Supplices Te. The elevation continues throughout
the prayers which ask the application of the fruits of the
Mass to the dead (the Memento etiam Dominc famul-
orum, etc.), and to the living (Nobis quoquepeccatoribus).
2O2
THE EUCHAKISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Greek
theologians of
this period.
S. John of
Damascus.
S. Dionysius
the Areopa-
gite.
The com
mentators:
CEcumenius,
Euthymius
Zigadenus,
Theophylact.
It ends in the elevation of the Host with the as
cription, Per quern hcec omnia. This elevation, Albert
says, recalls the lifting up of our LORD upon the Cross,
and is the climax of the Sacrifice of the Mass, since the
Sacrifice consists in the effects of the offering, and
these effects are expressed in the Mass by this elevation.
During this period the Greek theologians con
tributed practically nothing to the elucidation of our
subject. The celebrated work of S. John of Damascus
(ob. 756), DC Fide Orthodoxa, was largely the basis of
the theological summaries of the Western Church in
the Middle Ages. It had been translated into Latin a
few years before Peter Lombard wrote his book of the
Sentences, and was itself probably not a little influenced
by the writings of S. Dionysius the Areopagite. In
this, the only systematic work on dogmatic theology
in the Greek Church, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is
dismissed in a few words which contribute nothing
new to the conception of it.
The later Greek commentators, CEcumenius (ob.
circa 950), Kuthymius Zigadenus (fl. about noo), and
Theophylact (fl. about noo), simply repeat the teach
ing found in the commentaries of S. Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and S. John of Damascus.
III. Post-
Mediaeval and
Modern Epoch.
S. Thomas
introduces
this period.
While scarcely
touching on
theE. S.,he
gives a defini
tion of S. which
changes the
current of
III. THE POST-MEDIEVAL AND MODERN EPOCH.
This period begins with the works of S. Thomas
Aquinas, who, while he contributed but little to the
treatment of the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, in
cidentally changed the whole current of theological
thought in regard to this subject, by his view, not so
much of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, as of sacrifice in gen
eral. With respect to the former, we find in S. Thomas
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 203
indications of the old conception of the Eucharistic Sac- theological
rifice, which regarded it from the point of view of its thousht-
effects. In tracing in the Eucharist the image of the
Passion, S. Thomas introduces a new idea, in that he
sees in the act of offering, not merely a moral effect
upon the offerer, but a physical transformation of the
thing offered. This new thought is expressed in the
following general definition of sacrifice :
" Sacrifices are properly so called when something is HIS definition,
done to things offered to GOD, as when [among the
Jews] animals were slain and burned, when [with us]
bread is broken and eaten and blessed. And this, in
deed, the word itself signifies; for sacrifice is so named
from the fact that man makes something sacred." *
While the old view still lived on for some time, }^et revived by
in the sixteenth and following centuries this definition Vas<iuez>
was, from the time of Vasquez, the basis of most of the became the
theological treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. And *>asif of ^e .
treatment of
it is responsible for importing into the definition of the 3. s.
sacrifice, as a necessary condition, the idea of a physical
destruction, or of its moral equivalent.
Another element in the conception of sacrifice, which s. Thomas also
originated with William of Auvergne and Albert the ^t£?V^
Great, but gained new force from its adoption by S. ofiatria."
Thomas, was the view that sacrifice was the exterior
sign of that worship of latria, which we render to
GOD as the Author and End of our being, and by
which GOD is reconciled to man.t
A third point on which S. Thomas enlarges in his
* S. Thorn., Summa 20, 2cz, q. Ixxxv., a. 3, ad 3. For the
Latin of this passage see footnote, page 41.
f " Sacrificium proprle dicitur aliquid faclum in honorem
proprie Deo debitum ad eum placandum " (S. Thorn., Summa
3a, q. xlviii., a. 3).
204 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
He lays great
stress on the
representative
character of
the priest.
On this point
Scotus takes
the opposite
view.
treatment of the Eucharist, and which clearly shows
that he regards the whole Sacrifice as fulfilled by the
act of Consecration, is the representative character of
the action of the priest in the Mass. For he teaches
that the priest who consecrates so represents JKSUS
CHRIST as to consecrate in His Person and power,
and therefore that the Priest and the Victim in the
Eucharist are the same as in the Sacrifice of the Cross.*
As a development of this, the later Thomists taught
that JESUS CHRIST Himself co-operates as the principal
Priest in the Sacrifice of the Mass, by an act of intellect
and will ; that in it He is the immediate Minister, and
that the priests who celebrate in His Name simply
lend Him, as it were, their voices for the Consecration,
although they determine by their intention the applica
tion of the Mass, f Hence these priests are personally
the ministers of JKSUS CHRIST Himself, and not merely
the ministers of His Church ; and the Eucharistic
Sacrifice has the same value as the Sacrifice of the
Cross, since it is offered immediately by JKSUS CHRIST.
Duns Scotus (ob. 1308), however, took exactly the
opposite view. Although he admitted that our L,ORD
might be the principal Priest of the Mass, yet he as
serted that He did not directly co-operate in it, since it
was offered, not by an act of His will, but by an act of
the will of the officiating priest. Scotus also regarded
the recital of the entire Institution, and not merely
of the words " Hoc est Corpus Meum," etc., as necessary
for the Consecration. Hence the Scotists taught that
the officiating priests were not directly the ministers
and representatives of JKSUS CHRIST Himself, but
* S. Thorn., Summa, 3a, q. Ixxxviii., a. i, ad. 3.
f Suarez, disp. Ixxvii., $ i, torn. xxi. ; De Lugo, De Sac.
Euch., torn, iv., disp. xix., § vii.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 2O$
rather of the Church, since they offer the Sacrifice in
the name of, and in dependence upon, the Church, to
which our L,ORD has confided it. From this they
conclude that the Mass, not being directly the act of
our L,ORD, has not the same value as the Sacrifice of
the Cross, since it only applies part of the benefits
of that Sacrifice ; and that this application is made,
not on account of an actual offering of the Victim by
our lyORD Himself, but by reason of the prayer of the
Church.
The writers of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries The writers of
contributed nothing new to the sacrificial conception of cfnt- XIV; and
the Mass. Pighius, Gabriel Biel, and Alfonsus de uted nothing
Castro, as Vasquez shows, treat the subject quite inade- new-
quately, basing their work simply upon S. Augustine's
quasi-definition, " Proinde verum sacrifidum" etc.
When, however, the storm of Protestantism burst The attacks of
upon the Church in the sixteenth century with a denial Protestantism
-1 . led to attempts
of any sacrificial character to the Bucharist, the atten- to define s.
tion of theologians was directed, as never before, to the
work of defining the term " sacrifice " and of proving
that the Eucharist fulfilled this definition.
L,uther, as the leader of the Protestants, while ad- Luther en-
mitting in some sense a Real Presence of our I^ORD in *!felyd<:*i<:d1
& . . . the sacrificial
the Eucharist, regarded it simply as a feast instituted character of
by Him and received by Christians in mere remem- theH-^-
brance of His Death. He therefore denied that there
was in the Mass any oblation of the Body of JKSUS
CHRIST, or any " satisfactory " value.
Catholic theologians at once met these two negations He is refuted
by proofs from tradition, and especially from Holy kyciichtovee,
Scripture, showing that the Mass was not a mere com- cajetan,
memorative feast, but an Offering made to GOD of the andothers-
Body of JKSUS CHRIST, and that it had, as a Sacrifice,
206
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The theory
that the Mass
was for the re
mission of
actual sin and
the Cross for
original sin
was popularly
held in cent.
XVI.,
but its author
is unknown.
Vasquez attrib
utes it to
Catharinus ;
through its relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross, a
1 1 satisfactory " value. Such was the line taken by
Clichtovee, Bck, and Cajetan.
Here, however, we must notice a theory of the Sacri
fice of the Mass which in its consequences led to most
serious errors both in doctrine and practice. It as
signed to the Mass a quantitative value equivalent to
the Sacrifice of the Cross, and even a virtue of its own,
by teaching that while the Sacrifice of the Cross was
for the remission of original sin, that of the Mass was
needed for actual sin. It was against this doctrine and
its practical results in the enormous multiplication of
Masses, that our thirty-first Article was directed.
While there seems little doubt that such a doctrine
was popularly held and taught in the sixteenth century,
it is almost impossible to trace it to its source, and here
we cannot do more than outline the history of this
view. The best method will be to start with the state
ments of Vasquez and Suarez in regard to it, and work
backward.
Vasquez attributes it to Catharinus, one of the Do
minican theologians at the Council of Trent, Bishop of
Minori, and afterwards Archbishop of Conza. He
says that Catharinus* teaches that there are two kinds
of sin to be expiated by priesthood and sacrifice :
original sin, and those sins which are committed after
Baptism ; and that for each a sacrifice has been pro
vided. For the remission of original sin and those sins
which are associated with it, Catharinus teaches that
the Priesthood of CHRIST and His Sacrifice on the
Cross are required, and the Sacrament of Baptism,
which applies the merits of that Sacrifice. For post-
baptismal sins he states that the unbloody Sacrifice of
* Cathariuus, De Veritate Incruenti Sacrificii.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 2OJ
the Mass is the remedy, since such sins are committed
voluntarily and daily, and so demand a sacrifice which
can be offered daily.
Vasquez * and Melchior Canus f both repudiate this and with
teaching of Catharinus as contrary to the Catholic ^^repudi"
Faith and manifestly absurd. Suarez charges Catha- suatez charges
rinus with teaching that the Sacrifice of the Mass is in Catharinus
with teaching
itself a source of grace in a sense co-ordinate with the that the Mass
Sacrifice of the Cross: and, like Vasquez and Canus, was a separate
1 , • ^1 ,, . . . + source of grace.
he condemns in the severest terms this opinion. J
Whether the inferences which these theologians
draw from the writings of Catharinus are entirely
justified, is very questionable, since there are passages
in his work which not only modify the crude expres
sions quoted from him, but show that he held the
Catholic view that the Eucharist depended for its sac
rificial character upon the Sacrifice of the Cross. §
One thing, however, is very evident, — that whether
or not Catharinus taught this view, he was not its Catharinus,
author, since his work, De Veritate Incruenti Sacrfiitii, however, was
J not the author
was not published until 1552, and therefore is scarcely Of this view,
likely to have been known to those who drew up our
Article. Moreover, we find practically the same for it is men-
charge brought against Catholics in the Augsburg
Confession in 1530, namely, that they taught that
CHRIST by His Passion satisfied for original sin, and
* Vasq., Comment, in tert. part. S. Thorn. , q. Ixxxiii.,
a. i ; rlisp. 221, c. iv., torn, vii., pp. 402 sqq.
t Canus, De Locis TheoL, 1. xii., c. xii., pp. 307, 308 (quoted
in Kidd, The Later Mediceval Doctrine, etc., from Migne as c.
ix.).
J Suarez, In tert. part. S. Thorn., disp. 79, \ i, n. 2 ; \\ 6, 15;
Opera, torn. 21, p. 709.
\ This side of the question is well treated in Kidd's The Later
Medieval Doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, pp. 85-96.
208
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and denied by
Arnold
Wesaliensis,
JohnCochleeus,
and Peter
Anspach.
Melanchthon
traces it to the
" Opusc. de
Yen. Sac. Al-
taris," as
cribed to
S. Thomas ;
but the state
ment there is
capable of an
orthodox inter
pretation,
instituted the Mass, in which an offering could be
made for daily sins, both mortal and venial. *
This charge was at once denied by Arnold Wesalien
sis (ob. 1534) and John Cochlseus (ob. 1552), two of the
most prominent theologians on the Roman side, and
later it was again repudiated by the committee of
divines appointed by the Emperor to draw up the con
futation of the Protestant contention. In 1553 Peter
Anspach, the Dominican court theologian, alluding to
this accusation, branded it as a lie, and fifty years later
Bellarmine repudiated it in the same terms.
In 1531, however, Melanchthon attempted to prove
this charge by appealing to a work supposed to have
been written by S. Thomas, and found in his Opuscula,
under the title, De Venerabili Sacramento Altaris. In
the first sermon of this work the following passage
occurs : " The second cause of the institution of this
Sacrament is the Sacrifice of the Altar against certain
daily ravages of our sins, that, as the Body of our
lyORD was offered once upon the Cross for original sin,
so It may be offered continually for our daily sins upon
the altar, and that in this Sacrifice the Church may
have a gift with which to propitiate GOD, more precious
and acceptable than all the Sacraments or sacrifices of
the Law."
This accusation has been recently most thoroughly
refuted in a series of articles in the Revue Anglo- Ro-
maine, Nos. 23, 24, and 51. In all three articles it is
shown from other passages of the treatise that the
words were intended to bear an entirely orthodox con
struction ; that again and again the Sacrifice of the
Cross is asserted to be the only Sacrifice for the remis
sion of sin, and that the Sacrifice of the Mass properly
* Con/. Aug., pt. ii., art. 3.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 209
related to that of the Cross ; and further, that in this
passage the daily sins referred to are evidently not
mortal, but venial sins.
Of these articles, the second, by the R. P. Dummer- as shown by
muth, O. P., is devoted to proving the orthodoxy ^mutT"
of the expression. The first, by the Rev. Dr. N. Dr. pauius
Paulus, shows clearly that the sermon is not the work holdsthat the
. ,, opusculum is
of S. Thomas ; and, on the authority of Peter of Prus- not the work of
sia, who about the year 1486 wrote a biography of s. Thomas, and
Albert the Great, Dr. Paulus asserts that Albert was A1t,ert the
the author of the sermon. The third article, by Dr. Great.
Vacant, of Nancy, refutes Dr. Paulus' contention by
showing that it rests only upon a supposed recognition authorship,
of Albert's handwriting by Peter of Prussia, who lived
more than two hundred years after Albert's death ;
that in no ancient manuscript actually known or exist
ing are these sermons attributed to Albert the Great ;
and further, that there are many passages in these ser
mons which are quite inconsistent with views expressed
by Albert the Great in his recognized works.
Here we shall leave the subject, referring the reader
for further information to the very interesting articles
in the Revue Anglo- Romaine* and merely remarking
that while it is evident that this doctrine was popularly
taught in the sixteenth century, its author and source
cannot be determined.
In September, 1562, the twenty-second session of the Thediversity
Council of Trent met to define the doctrine of the Sac- of view at
Trent in regard
rifice of the Mass. Several preliminary congregations to the 3. s.
had been held both in this year and in 1551 for the
purpose of discussing this doctrine and determining the
* The article by Pere Dummermuth will be found in vol. ii.,
p. 302 ; that by Dr. Paulus in vol. ii., p. 252 ; and that by Dr.
Vacant in vol. iii., p. 723.
2IO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
form of its definition, at which it became evident that
there was absolutely no agreement among the theolo
gians present with respect to the mode in which the Mass
was to be regarded as a Sacrifice. Some even doubted
whether the Eucharist were a true Sacrifice. Others
considered it a Sacrifice because in it was made a com
memoration of the Sacrifice of our I^ORD upon the
Cross.
corrionero Corrionero, Bishop of Almeria, contended that a
fidai acHn the P"est ^oes not o:^er an^ sacrifice by consecrating, but
oblation ; that it is the Oblation afterwards that constitutes the
canus in the Sacrifice. Melchior Canus, who took a prominent part
in the discussion, seems to have considered the fraction
the Host.
of the Host an essential feature of the Sacrifice, since,
while admitting that a sacrifice is the offering of a con
secrated gift, he did not think a mere offering sufficient,
but thought that some external sacrificial act such as
fraction supplied was required.*
The council The Council of Trent in its definition, while stating
only stated that ^ia|- ^g J^ucharist is verum et -broprium sacrifirium,
the H. E). was a
s., without really did nothing to determine in what the sacrificial
act cousisted- Thenceforth the history of this question
is a record of the attempts made by theologians to
solve this problem.
in cent. xvi. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the
and xvii. Eucharistic Sacrifice engrossed the attention of theo-
theologians
who treat of logians as never before, and all their efforts were
this subject directed to determining in what manner the Eucharist
three groups: was a sacrifice, and in what the sacrificial action con
sisted. They can scarcely be arranged in clearly de
fined schools, but, speaking loosely, we may divide
them into three groups :
* Massarello, Ada Cone. Trid., torn, i., pp. 608, 609; Melch.
Can., De Locis Theol., 1. xii., c. xii., p. 295.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 211
1. The first class, with, the Jesuit Salmeron (ob. i. Those who
1585), practically eliminate the element of destruction ^^^fr^
from their definition of sacrifice, or substitute for their defini-
physical destruction a mystical action.* These are tion'as
Salmeron.
more in accord with the ante-Tndentme writers, such
as De Castro, Biel, Pighius, and Contarini, all of
whom base their views of sacrifice more or less on
S. Augustine's definition.
The other two classes accept S. Thomas' dictum that
some sort of destruction of the victim is a necessary
element of a proper sacrifice, and labour to find in the
Eucharist some act which will satisfy this condition.
2. The second class, however, find this change only 2. Those who
in the ritual action of the Eucharist. find *his °^y
in the ritual
Melchior Canus (ob. 1560), who was one of the theo- action, as
logians who took part in the discussion of the Sacrifice Canus'
in the congregation of the Council of Trent held in
1551, considers that the fraction of the consecrated
Host satisfies the requirements of destruction and so
constitutes a true sacrifice.
Vasquez (ob. 1604), teaching f that the Eucharist is vasquez,
only a commemorative Sacrifice, is content to find in it
some nota or mark, of a physical destruction which
took place in the Sacrifice of the Cross. This he finds
in the separate Consecration of the species of bread and
wine. Not that he gives up destruction as a neces
sary condition of a proper sacrifice, but that he limits
it to the Cross, and considers the Eucharist to be only
a presentation of the Victim sacrificed on Calvary,
clothed with signs representative of His Death.
* Salmeron's definition of sacrifice is : ' ' Res sensibilis soli
Deo oblata per mysticam aclionem " (Opera, torn, ix., pp. 216-
225).
\ Vasquez, In tert. part.) q. Ixxxiii., disp. 220, 222.
212
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Beiiarmine,
and in a less His contemporary Suarez * (ob. 1607), while recog-
Suarez, ujzing the necessity of some physical modification of
the victim as a condition of a proper sacrifice, holds
that this is satisfied as well by a productive act as by a
destructive act. Suarez therefore sees in the super
natural production of the Victim on the altar by the
words of Consecration the essence of the Sacrifice,
which consists, not in the destruction of the Victim,
but in Its production; not in the " demutatio " of Vas-
quez, or the placing of our LORD in a lower condition,
the " status declivior" of De Lugo, but in the produc
tion of our LORD'S glorified Body upon the altar.
Bellarmine f (ob. 1621) seems to have found the sac
rificial act in the Consecration and Communion taken
together (though he would probably not consider the
latter as essential to the Sacrifice, but only to its in
tegrity), the first being necessary to put the Victim in
a condition for immolation or destruction, and the
second to complete it. His definition is as follows :
" Sacrifice is an outward oblation made to GOD alone,
by which, in recognition of human weakness and ac
knowledgment of the Divine Majesty, some sensible
and permanent thing is in a mystic rite consecrated
and transmuted by a lawful minister." J
Bellarmine's opinion is followed by the Salmanti-
ceuses, Tournely, S. Liguori, and others.
Lessius § (ob. 1623), instead of seeing in the double
* Suarez, In tert. part., disp. 73-79; Opera, torn, xxi., pp.
600-766.
t Bellarm., De Missa, 1. i., c. xxvii.
$ Idem, De Missa, 1. i., c. ii.
\ Lessius, De Perfectionibus Divinis, 1. xii., c. xiii. In his
earlier work, De Justitia et Jure, 1. ii., Lessius seems to have
held Bellarmiue's view, which, however, he afterwards aban
dons.
andi,essius.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 21$
consecration an image of the Sacrifice of the Cross,
considers the words of Consecration as a sacrificial
sword, so that, in place of the material sword with
which the victims of old were slain, the words pro
nounced by the priest at the Consecration are a spiritual
sword, and by their power put the Body of JESUS
CHRIST under the species of bread, and His Blood
under the species of wine, and while respecting the
Victim's life, nevertheless place Him in a state of
immolation.
3. The third class is represented by De Lugo* (ob. 3.
1660) and his followers. This great theologian pre-
sents the most complete development of the theory of
destruction. By the Consecration the Body of CHRIST
is destroyed (humano modo]. It assumes the lower
condition of meat and drink, so that it is rendered
worthless for the ordinary functions of a human body.
This induced victim-state sufficiently corresponds to
the essentials of sacrifice, for our LORD'S Kucharistic
Presence involves a lowering of the condition of His
glorified Human Body.f
The majority of Roman theologians have followed whoisfoi-
De Lugo, and in our own day his best representative is J^*^^e
Franzelin, J who elaborates De Lugo's view and in- Roman theo-
geniously strives to answer the objections brought losians-
against it.
In the seventeenth century we have a most brilliant in cent. xvn.
school of theologians, of whom Pere de Condren, Su- the great Gaiii-
0 can tneolog-
penor of the French Oratory, M. Olier, founder of S. ians trace an
Sulpice, and the great Bossuet were representatives.
* De Lugo, De Sacr. Eucharist., torn, iv., disp. xix., $ 5,
pp. 198-203.
t Kidd, The Later Mediceval Doctrine, pp. 131-134.
% Franzelin, in his work, De Eucharistia.
214
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
accidental re
lation between
the H. E. and
our CORD'S
IMediatorial
work.
In cent. XVIII.
Cienfuegos
suggests a
strange
theory.
In England
since the Re
formation the
E. S. has re
ceived but
slight treat
ment.
Bp. Andrewes
refers to it.
They taught that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was essen
tially relative to, and dependent upon, the Sacrifice of
the Cross ; and that the Consecration, by which our
LORD'S Body and Blood were produced under the forms
of bread and wine, separated as by death, was the sacri
ficial act. They rejected from their definition of sacri
fice the element of destruction, and especially devoted
themselves to tracing the accidental relation between
the Eucharist and our LORD'S Mediatorial work in
heaven.
In the eighteenth century Cardinal Cienfuegos*
added to the theory of De Lugo by suggesting that,
after having exercised at the moment of Consecration
certain physical acts, our LORD laid aside the power of
action until the commingling of the bread and wine in
the chalice, which symbolized the Resurrection ; and
that He immolated Himself in the Sacrifice by thus
stripping Himself of His vital functions. This theory,
however, has had practically no followers.
In our own day Cardinal De Lugo's view is pre
dominant, as we have said, largely as the result of
Franzelin's masterly presentation of it. The theory
of Vasquez has found its best exponent in Perrone,
while that of Suarez has been followed, with some
modification, by Scheeben and Schanz.
In England since the Reformation the doctrine of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice has received but little atten
tion, the great Anglican divines accepting the Catholic
teaching in regard to the fact of the Sacrifice, though
without discussing the Jesuit speculations in regard to
its mode. This Bishop Andrewes (ob. 1626), in his con
troversy with Bellarmine, points out in the following
words ; " Take away from the Mass your doctrine of
* Cienfuegos, Vita Abscondita.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 21$
transubstantiation, and there will be no longer any dis
pute between us in regard to the Sacrifice. ' ' *
In the works of Overall and Jeremy Taylor the overall and
Eucharistic Sacrifice is connected more directly with Taylor connect
the H. E. more
our LORD'S Offering in heaven than with the Sacrifice directly with
of the Cross. This theory, however, received but slight
consideration in their works ; although within the last heavenfand
ten years a radical development of it has appeared in this view is fo1-
i ATA-I • i i .1-1-1 lowed by the
certain quarters, f This development is founded upon Moderu school.
an interpretation of the Kpistle to the Hebrews which
places the essential act of our LORD'S Sacrifice, the
Presentation of His Precious Blood, after His Ascension
into heaven, and so makes His Offering upon the since 1870 a
Cross incomplete as a sacrifice. Since 1870 this view ^appeared1
(though without in any way depraving the complete- in Germany,
ness of the Sacrifice of the Cross) has shown itself in Beaded by
J Thalhofer.
Germany in the writings of Thalhofer, Franz, and The brilliant
others ; and side by side with it we find the orthodox theologians,
school of Scheeben and Schanz, who follow Vasquez schanz, follow
and Suarez and have affinities with the views of Bossuet
and the Gallican school of the seventeenth century.
These represent, perhaps, the latest and best theologi
cal work on this difficult and interesting question.
We must bring the chapter to an end by pointing The Eastern
out that during this last period the writers of the chu/<?*la*
contributed
Eastern Church have contributed nothing new to the nothing new
conception of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Eastern on the subJect-
Church clearly holds that it is a sacrifice because it is
identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, but her theo-
* "At vos tollite de Missa transubstantiationem vestram ;
nee diu nobiscum Us erit de sacrificio " (Andrewes, Lib.
Anglo-Oath. Theol., Responsio ad Bellarminum, p. 251).
f E. g., Milligan's The Ascension, and Briglittnan's The
Eucharistic Sacrifice.
2l6 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
logians have made no attempt to discuss the manner in
which the Eucharist is a sacrifice, or to determine in
what the sacrificial act consists.
in cent. xrv. About the middle of the fourteenth century Nicholas
cabalas wrote Cabasilas, Bishop of Thessalonica, wrote a work en-
an IJxposi- *•
tionofthe titled An Exposition of the Divine Liturgy,* which
seems to have been the only treatise on the Holy
Eucharist produced by the Greek Church for many
centuries. In the thirty-second chapter of this Exposi
tion he treats of the sacrificial character of the Euchar
ist, but adds nothing to the ordinary Western idea.
He holds that there is in the Eucharist a true immola
tion of our LORD'S Body and Blood, and that the
Eucharist depends upon the Sacrifice of the Cross.
in 1643 the cat- In the year 1643 the Catechism of Peter Mogila,
MoSwaPseter Metropolitan of Kieff, was approved and recommended
approved; by the four Patriarchs as " a safe and faithful guide for
all orthodox Christians," and has since been known as
" the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apos
tolic Eastern Church." In Question 107 of this Cate
chism we find the following reference to the Eucharistic
Sacrifice: "This holy Mystery is also offered as a
sacrifice for all orthodox Christians, as well living as
those who sleep in hopes of a joyful resurrection ; and
this Sacrifice shall never fail nor be discontinued, even
unto the end of the world. The fruits of this Mystery
are chiefly these : First, a commemoration of the suf
ferings and of the Death of CHRIST, wherewith He
was afflicted not for His own, but for our transgres
sions; secondly, this Mystery is a propitiation or atone
ment with GOD for our sins, both of the living and of
the dead." f
* Cabasilas, De Expos. Misses, Migne, P. G., torn. 150.
f Orthodox Con/., Resp. 107, p. Si.
HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL IDEA. 21 J
In our own times a systematic work on dogmatic and in our own
theology has been put forth by Macarius, Bishop of t^esMaca-
Vinnitza and Rector of the Theological Seminary of S. Bishop of vin-
Petersburg. It was written in Russian, and a French
translation appeared in 1860.* In this the Sacrifice of on dogmatic
the Kucharist is treated in much the same way as in theology;
Latin theology, Macarius asserting that the Eucharist the catholic*
is a sacrifice offered to GOD, in its nature the same as view-
that of the Cross.
Here our survey of the history of the growth and
fluctuations of the sacrificial idea of the Kucharist ends.
It may enable us in the succeeding chapters to treat the
opinions of individual authors with a better apprecia
tion of their historical position in the theology of the
Catholic Church.
* Theologie dogmatique orthodoxe par Macaire. Paris, 1860.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.
introductory: TN the last chapter we took a bird's-eye view of
the whole history of the sacrificial conception
of the Eucharist. We must now go over the
ground more carefully, examining in detail those
passages of the Fathers which throw light upon the
subject. It is not, however, necessary for our purpose
to give the many passages in which the Eucharist is
spoken of merely as a Sacrifice,* without any indica
tion of its relation either to the Sacrifice of the Cross or
to our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven. We shall
therefore in this place only notice those which may be
claimed in support of one of the two views of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. We mean, of course, the Catho
lic view, which relates the Eucharist to the Sacrifice of
the Cross, and the Modern view, which makes it depend
upon a sacrifice which our LORD is supposed now to be
offering in heaven.
The Fathers of In this chapter we shall consider the testimony of the
Fathers of the first six centuries, so as to make our in
quiry cover the first historical period of the last chapter.
* The introduction of such passages at this point would tend
to obscure rather than to help our present argument ; as they
are however of value in establishing the fact that the Fathers
regarded the Eucharist as a Sacrifice we give them in Ap
pendix D.
218
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 2IQ
Our treatment of the subject will therefore necessarily i. Passages
fall into three divisions : first, the witness of the Fathers
Catholic view.
to the Catholic view ; second, an examination of all the n. Those
passages which have been adduced in support of the adducedm fa
vour of the
Modern view ; and third, a consideration of the teach- Modem view.
ing of the Fathers in regard to our LORD'S present m- Passages
Mediatorial work, His Intercession in heaven. IBRD'S 'in ter-
This last part of the subject is of great importance, cession.
since, in treating of our LORD'S High-Priestly work,
not only do the Fathers never say that He is offering
any proper sacrifice in heaven, but, as we shall see,
they use language which is entirely incompatible with
any such view.
I. THE WITNESS OF THE FATHERS TO THE CATHOLIC
VIEW.
It will not be necessary to quote all the Fathers. It i. witnesses to
will suffice for our purpose to select those whose author- the Cathollc
view, limited
ity is greatest and whose treatment of the particular here to those
point before us is clearly ad rem. of special
Before we begin this investigation, let us understand
precisely what we expect to find. We shall not find in Realize first
the Fathers any discussion of the double Consecration Preciselv what
we are seeking-,
as the essential sacrificial act in the Eucharist, since, as not a theoiogi-
we have already pointed out, this theory cannot be
traced back beyond the twelfth century. Nor is it to show that
necessary to the Catholic view of the Kucharistic Sacri- the Fathers
f, TTT1 . . ,. 1 . . - A . A. ... relate it to the
fice. What is essential is to show that in the writings s Of the cross.
of the Fathers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist has always
been related to, and made to depend upon, the Sacrifice
of the Cross. The question, therefore, now before us,
is, Can we find in the Fathers conclusive evidence of
this fact ? And first we take the Greek Fathers.
220
THE EUCPIARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Greek
Fathers :
i. S. Irenseus.
2. S.Cyril of
Jerusalem.
S. Irenseus,* after relating the Institution of the
Eucharist, adds : "He [JESUS CHRIST] established
the new oblation of the New Testament, which the
Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to GOD
throughout the whole world." And again, speak
ing of those who disbelieve in the resurrection of
the body, he says: ll If this [the flesh] indeed do
not attain salvation, then neither did the LORD re
deem us with His Blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist
the communion of His Blood, nor the bread which we
break the communion of His Body. ... By His
own Blood He redeemed us, ... and as we are
His members, we are also nourished by means of the
creation. . . . He has acknowledged the cup,
which is a part of the creation, as His own Blood, from
which He bedews our blood, and the bread, also a part
of the creation, He has established as His own Body,
from which He gives increase to our bodies." f
S. Irenaeus is here treating of Gnostic heresies, and
only mentions the Holy Eucharist incidentally, but
in the latter quotation he twice connects it with the
Blood of Redemption, that is, with the Sacrifice of the
Cross.
S. Cyril of Jerusalem (ob. 386), J speaking of the
Eucharist, says : " Then, after the spiritual sacrifice is
perfected, the bloodless service, upon that sacrifice of
propitiation [the Cross] we entreat GOD, . . . and
offer this sacrifice." And again : " We offer up
CHRIST sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merci
ful GOD both for them and for ourselves. " § In both
* S. Iren., Adv. H&r., 1. iv., c. xvii., n. 5.
f Ibid., 1. v., c. ii., n. 2.
J Dates given in the last chapter are not repeated.
§ S. Cyril, Jer., Myst. Cat., xxiii., n. 8, TO.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 221
these passages S. Cyril seems to relate the " spiritual
sacrifice" to that Sacrifice of propitiation which was
offered up on the Cross. In the second passage he
speaks as though the two sacrifices were identical.
S. Gregory of Nyssa (ob. circa 395) : " In a hidden 3- S.Gregory
kind of sacrifice, which could not be seen by men [the cf Nyssa<
Holy Eucharist], He offers Himself as a Sacrifice and
immolates a Victim, being at the same time the Priest
and the Lamb of GOD which taketh away the sin of the
world. When did He perform this ? When He gave
to His assembled disciples His Body to eat and His
Blood to drink. Then He clearly showed that the
Sacrifice of the Lamb was now perfect, for the body of
a victim is not fit to eat if it be living. Wherefore,
when He gave to His assembled disciples His Body to
eat and His Blood to drink, then in a hidden and mys
terious manner His Body was immolated." *
This passage of S. Gregory of Nyssa is preceded
by a computation of the triduum of CHRIST'S Death,
the beginning of which he places in the very sacrifice
itself of the original Eucharist. Hence we see that S.
Gregory considers that the Death of the Cross is truly
anticipated in the first Eucharist, and that this Euchar
ist is a sort of premature Cross and anticipatory Death,
since the time of the Death is computed from it. From
this we may understand how closely he associated the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist with that of the Cross.
S. Cyril of Alexandria (ob. 444) : " CHRIST to-day 4. s.Cyniof
receives us to a feast ; CHRIST to-day ministers to us. Alex*
CHRIST Himself, the Lover of men, warms us back into
life again. What is said is wonderful, what is done is
awe-inspiring. The fatted Calf Himself is slain. The
* S. Greg., Nyss., In Christ. Resurrect. , Ratio i. ; Migne,
P. G., torn. 46, col. 611.
222 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
L,amb of GOD, Which taketh away the sin of the world,
is slain. The FATHER rejoices ; the SON is willingly
immolated ; not, indeed, to-day by the enemies of GOD,
but by Himself, in order that He may signify that He
endured the sufferings of the Cross voluntarily for the
salvation of men." *
Here S. Cyril teaches that our L,ORD voluntarily im
molates Himself in the Eucharist to signify that He
voluntarily endured the sufferings of the Cross.
5. s.chrysos- S. Chrysostom (ob. 407) : " What then? Do not
tom. we Oger [-f^e Eucharist] daily ? We offer, indeed, but
by making a remembrance of His Death ; and this
[Sacrifice] is one, and not many. How is it one and
not many ? Because it was offered once for all, like
that offering which was carried into the Holy of holies.
The latter was the figure of that Offering [on the
Cross], and this [the Eucharist] is the remembrance
of that [the Cross]." " He is our High Priest, who
offered upon the Cross the Sacrifice that cleanseth us.
We also offer now that which was then offered, which
is inexhaustible. This is done in remembrance of what
was then done, for He saith, * Do this in remembrance
of Me.' It is not another victim that we offer, as the
high priest offered then, but we offer always the same,
or rather, we make a remembrance of the [same]
Sacrifice." f
It would be difficult to find a clearer expression of
the relation of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to that of
the Cross. S. Chrysostom says that, as on the Cross
and in the Eucharist the Victim is one and the same,
* S. Cyril, Alex., Honiil. Div. in Mysticam Ccenam ; n. x.
Migne, P. G., tom. 77, col. 1018.
t S. Chrys., InHeb., Horn, xvii., n. 3 ; Gaume, vol. xii., pp.
241, 242.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 22$
so the Sacrifice is one and the same ; and in this pas
sage there is not the slightest reference of the Eucharist
to our LORD'S work in heaven, although the allusion
to the high priest entering the Holy of holies would
have suggested to S. Chrysostom such a reference, had
he been of the opinion that the Sacrifice of the Euchar
ist was dependent upon our LORD'S work in heaven,
and only through this indirectly related to the Sacrifice
of the Cross.
Again S. Chrysostom says: ''Let us, therefore, 6. s. chrysos-
reverence this Table of which we are all partakers, tom-
CHRIST slain for us, the Sacrifice placed upon this
Table."* Thomassinusf has the following interest- Thomassinus
ing note on this passage : " The Victim slain upon the ^ "lispas~
Cross is in the Eucharist forthwith given for food.
The slaying is interwoven with the eating, the eating
is joined with the slaying. The Cross serves the
Eucharist, the Eucharist leans upon the Cross. One
is the Sacrifice of the Victim slain upon the Cross, con
sumed upon the altar. And the very eating of the
Victim is indeed a commemoration of the same slaying
upon the Cross, not, indeed, a mere empty remem
brance, but the very re-presentation (both the presence
and the fruit of the Sacrifice itself), since the very eat
ing of the Victim is a renewed immolation of the
Victim."
And again, commenting on the words of S. Chrysos- 7. s. Chrysos
tom : " Believe, therefore, that even now this is that tom-
Supper at which He Himself sat down. For this is in
no respect different from that ; nor doth man do this,
and Himself the other, but He offers both this and
* S. Chrys., In Rom., Horn, viii., 8 ; Gaume, vol. ix., p.
558.
t Thomassin., vol. iv., p. 365.
224
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The I,atin
Fathers :
8. S. Cyprian.
9. S. Cyprian.
that, ' ' * — Thomassinus says : f " But who can doubt
that CHRIST'S Supper pertained to the Cross ? "
Let us now turn to the Latin Fathers.
S. Cyprian : " For if JKSUS CHRIST our LORD and
GOD is Himself the High Priest of GOD the FATHER,
and has commanded this to be done in commemoration
of Him, he is indeed a priest who truly officiates in the
place of CHRIST, who copies that which CHRIST did ;
and he then offers in the Church to GOD the FATHER
a true and full sacrifice, if he so take in hand to offer
according to that which he sees that CHRIST Himself
offered." J And again : " Since we make mention of
His Passion in every sacrifice (for the Sacrifice which
we offer is the Passion of the LORD), we do nothing else
10. s. Cyprian, than that which He did." § And again : " The Blood
of CHRIST being offered, the LORD'S Sacrifice is not
celebrated by a lawful consecration unless our Oblation
and Sacrifice correspond to His Passion." ||
In these passages S. Cyprian most definitely states
that in the Church a true and full sacrifice is offered,
and explains this by saying that the Sacrifice which we
offer is the Passion of the LORD. S. Cyprian certainly
sees the essential character of the Bucharistic Sacrifice
only in its relation to that which our LORD Himself did
in His Passion.
11. S.Ambrose. S. Ambrose (ob. 397) on the passage, " Thou lettest
us be eaten up like sheep," says: " Our good LORD
JESUS CHRIST, since Pie was made the Sheep of our ban-
* S. Chrys., In Matt., Horn. 1. (al. li.), n. 3 ; Gaume, vol. vii,
p. 581.
f Thomassin., vol. iv., p. 366.
% S. Cypr., Bpist. Ixiii., De Sacramento Dom. Ccen., n. 14 ;
Migue, P. I,., torn, iv., col. 385.
^ Ibid., n. 17. || Ibid., n. 12.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 22$
quet ! Do you ask liow He was made ? Hear him who
says, 'CHRIST our Passover is sacrificed for us,' and con
sider how our forefathers, in a figure rending it, ate a
lamb, signifying the Passion of JESUS, upon the Sacra
ment of which we daily feed." * Again : " ' My Flesh 12. s. Ambrose,
is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.' You
hear of flesh, you hear of blood, you understand the
mysteries of the L,ORD'S Death. For as often as we
receive these mysteries, which by the mystical prayer
are transfigured into His Flesh and Blood, we show
forth the Death of the LORD." f
Nothing can be clearer than that S. Ambrose in
these passages relates the Kucharistic Sacrifice to that
of the Cross, and to that alone.
S. Augustine : " The Hebrews, in the victims of the 13. s. Augus-
flock which they offered to GOD in many and various tine-
ways, proclaimed, as was fitting in so great a matter,
a prophecy of the future Victim which CHRIST offered.
Whence Christians now celebrate the memorial of the
same finished Sacrifice in the sacred offering and com
munion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST." J Here
we are told that the Eucharist is the memorial of the
Sacrifice which TNQ& finished upon the Cross.
Again : ' ' The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice, be- 14. s. Augus-
fore the advent of CHRIST, was prophesied by figurative tme-
victims ; in the Passion of CHRIST it was rendered in
very truth ; after the Ascension of CHRIST it was cele
brated in the Sacrament of its commemoration." § In
*S. Ambrose, In Psalm. , xliii., n. 37; Migne, P. L., torn,
xiv., col. 1107.
f Idem, De Fide, 1. iv., c. x. (al. v.), n. 124; Migiie, P. L.,
torn. 16, col. 641.
\ S. Aug., Contra Faustum, 1. xx., c. xviii. ; Migne, P. L.,
torn. 42, col. 382.
$ Ibid., 1. xx., c. xxi.; Migne, P. 1^., torn. 42, col. 385.
15
226 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
this passage S. Augustine affirms that in the Passion
of CHRIST His Sacrifice was rendered in very truth,
and that after the Ascension this Sacrifice was cele
brated, not by a sacrifice in heaven, but in the Sacrament
of its commemoration, that is, in the Holy Eucharist.
There are four passages in S. Augustine's Confes
sions which are very much to the point. In describ-
15. s. Augus- ing his mother's burial he says: " For ... in
tine- those prayers which we poured forth unto Thee when
the Sacrifice of our Redemption was offered up unto
16. s. Augus- Thee for her, ' ' * etc. And again : ' ' She . . . only
desired to have her name remembered at the altar,
which she had served without the omission of a single
day ; whence she knew that the Holy Sacrifice was dis
pensed, by which the handwriting that was against us
17. s. Augus- was blotted out ;" f Again : " Who will restore to Him
the innocent Blood ? Who will repay Him the price
with which He bought us, so as to take us from Him ?
Unto the Sacrament of which our ransom did Thine
handmaid bind her soul by the bond of faith." J And
is. s. Augus- again : " I consider my ransom, and eat and drink and
tine' communicate it." §
In every one of these passages the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist is so interwoven with that of the Cross as to
be spoken of as one and the same Sacrifice, the Eu
charist being called ' ' the Sacrifice of our Redemption, ' '
" the Holy Sacrifice by which the handwriting that
was against us was blotted out," " the Sacrament of
our ransom ; " S. Augustine also saying, ' ' I eat and
drink my ransom."
* Confessions, 1. ix., c. xii., 32 ; Migne, P. 1^., torn. 32, col. 777.
t Ibid., c. xii., 36. Cf. Col. ii. 14.
J Ibid., c. xii., 36.
$ Ibid., 1. x., c. xliii., 70.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 22/
Again, S. Augustine says: 'Whilst the Body is 19. s. Augus-
broken, whilst the Blood from the chalice is poured tine-
into the mouths of the faithful, what else is it but the
immolation of the L,ORD'S Body upon the Cross, the
shedding of the Blood from His side ? Therefore also
He broke His Body and gave it, that He might signify
that of His own will He would break and give Himself
for us in His Passion, Who alone had the power of lay
ing down His own life; and that He might also signify
that upon the altar in His stead priests imitate Him in
order that by outward action they may re-present the
same, that is, the Body of CHRIST, the Sacrament of
CHRIST and of the Church." *
And again : (< Because by the Death of CHRIST we 20. s.
are set free, we signify that we are mindful of this in tme>
eating and drinking the Flesh and Blood which were
offered for us. For that the Body of CHRIST in the
Sacrament is laid in the hands of the faithful, is broken,
is bruised by the teeth, and is incorporated into the
faithful, signifies that He was tried in His Passion by
the hands of the wicked, and broken unto death, and
bruised for our sins, and that His Church, that is, His
Body, by the imitation of this His Passion, is incorporated
and conformed to Him." f
In these last two passages S. Augustine is most ex
plicit in saying that the Kucharist is nothing else than
" the immolation of the LORD'S Body upon the Cross,
the shedding of the Blood from His side ; ' ' that in His
stead priests at the altar re-present the same Passion ;
that since by the Death of CHRIST we are set free, in
the Kucharist we signify that we are mindful of this ;
* S. Aug., In Sent. Prosperi, quoted by Algerus ; Migne, P.
L., torn. 1 80, col. 795,
t Ibid., col. 796.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
21. S. Gregory
the Great.
that the Eucharist signifies our LORD'S Passion, and
that His Church, by the imitation of this Passion, is
incorporated into Him in the Eucharist.
S. Gregory the Great : " For this unique Victim
saves the soul from eternal death, and by a mystery
renews for us the Death of the Only Begotten." And
22. s. Gregory, again : ' ' From this, therefore, let us consider what
kind of a sacrifice for us this is, which for our salvation
continually re-presents the Passion of the Only Begot-
23. s. Gregory, ten SON." And again : " For the Victim of the sacred
altar, offered with tears and a willing mind, pleads
effectually, because He Who in Himself rising from the
dead dieth no more, still through this Victim suffers for
us in His mystery. For as often as we offer to Him
the Victim of His Passion, so often we renew for the
remission of our sins that Passion." * From these
three passages there can be little doubt that S. Gregory
connected the Sacrifice of the Eucharist most directly
with the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Here we bring to an end the first division of this
chapter. It would, of course, be quite easy to multiply
quotations from the Fathers, but we venture to think
that the explicit statements of such writers as S.
Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, andS. Chrysostom
are alone sufficient to show that in the first six centuries
of the Church's life the Eucharist was looked upon as
a Sacrifice because it renewed the Sacrifice of the Cross.
II. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS TO THK
MODERN VIEW.
In examining the passages from the Fathers which
are brought forward in support of the Modern theory
Summary of
passages sup
porting the
Catholic view.
II. Passages
thought to
support the
Modern view.
* S. Greg. Mag. Horn, in Evang., 1. ii,, Horn, xxxvii., n. 7 ;
Migne,P . Z,.,t. 76, col. 1279.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 2 29
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it is only fair to recall what
we have already said, that we must at the outset
understand precisely the point in the Modern view for
which the authority of the Fathers is claimed. It is
that the Eucharist, in so far as it is a sacrifice, is
directly related to, and depends upon, a sacrifice which
our lyORD is now offering in heaven. This thesis em
braces two propositions: (i) that our I^ORD is now This view
offering: in heaven a sacrifice, by which, of course, an statedmtw°
propositions.
actual or proper sacrifice is understood ; (2) that the
Eucharist is a sacrifice through its essential relation to
this heavenly sacrifice-
It is, then, in their bearing upon these two points,
and these two points only, that we are to consider the
passages from the Fathers and other writers cited by
the modern school.
Mr. Brightman brings forward only four passages Mr. Brightman
from the Fathers. He says (the italics are his) : ^a^eT-
" S. Ignatius * describes certain heretics as holding s. Ignatius,
aloof from Eucharist and prayer ' because they do not
confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour
JESUS CHRIST which suffered for our sins, which in
His goodness the FATHER raised upS And S. Justin s. Justin
Martyr, f while he speaks of the Eucharist as the me- Martyf>
morial of the Passion, speaks also more explicitly of
' the Bread which our CHRIST delivered unto us to offer
for a memorial of His Incarnation for the sake of those
that believe on Him, for whose sakes also He became
capable of suffering.' In S. Irenaeus,! so far as I can s. irenseus,
remember, there is no exclusive relation of the Euchar
ist to the Passion suggested. Of course his allusions
* S. Ignat., Ad Smyrn., vii, \ i.
f S. Justin Martyr, Trypho, 70.
% S. Iren., Adv. H&r., iv. 17, 18 ; v. 2.
230 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
are limited by his particular aim ; but his argument for
our Resurrection, drawn from the Eucharist, suggests
a relation between the Eucharist and our LORD'S Re-
s. cyrii of surrection. Add to these S. Cyril of Alexandria, *
Alex. < showing forth the Death, according to the flesh, of
the only-begotten Son of GOD, to wit JESUS CHRIST,
and confessing His Resurrection from the dead and
His Ascension into heaven, so we celebrate the un
bloody service in the Churches.' '
These passages It is quite unnecessary to make any comment on
considered. these passages, as they evidently have not the remotest
reference to the two propositions which we are consider
ing. In justice to Mr. Brightman we should point out
that they are quoted by him as showing only, what no
Catholic writer would dream of disputing, that in the
Eucharist we have " in remembrance His blessed Pas
sion and precious Death, His mighty Resurrection and
glorious Ascension. ' ' But they are given here because,
so far as we know, they are the only passages quoted
by an Anglican writer in any way in support of the
modern theory, f
English writ- While Anglican writers of the modern school refer to
tTtheFa^ers the Fathers generally, and to S. Chrysostom especially,
generally in as supporting their view, yet so far as we are aware
support of this ^ey have not, with the exceptions that we have men
tioned, cited any definite passages. We must therefore
* S. Cyril, Alex., Epist. ad Nest, cecum., ii., 7.
t As we have stated in the Preface, an application to six pro
fessors of theology who are advocates of this theory, for definite
passages from the Fathers in its support, resulted in one only
citing S. Gregory (Greg. Mag., Moral., in Job, 1. i., xxxii.) and
S. Chrysostom as quoted in Wordsworth on Heb. viii. 4 ; no
such words, however, are to be found in S. Chrysostom's Horn.
in Heb. These passages will be noted in their place ; the first
is also quoted by Thalhofer. See page
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.
turn to the German school, who, as we have said, have
gone into the subject with characteristic thoroughness
and learning.
In the works of Thalhofer, Das Opfer des alien und
des neuen Bunden and Handbuch der katholischen Litur-
gik, a number of passages are quoted, and when we
have discussed these we are inclined to believe that we
shall have met most of the authorities that can be
brought together from the Fathers and mediaeval
writers.
Injustice to Dr. Thalhofer we must point out that
his view of the Kucharistic Sacrifice differs " toto coslo "
from that of Mr. Brightman ; since it is entirely free
from any unorthodox or Socinian tendency so far as
the Sacrifice of the Cross is concerned ; for, with all
Catholic theologians, he teaches that upon the Cross
our I^ORD made a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice,
and that His blood-shedding on the Cross was the
sacrificial action.*
Where, however, Dr. Thalhofer introduces an innov
ation is in his attempt to find an actual sacrifice in
our lyORD's Mediatorial work in heaven, to which the
* Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik (2nd ed., vol. i.,
1894). Cf. " On the Sacrifice of the Cross, complete and found
essentially in the blood-shedding," pp. 212-220; "The death
on the Cross the most complete of ceremonial acts," p. 213.
''Shedding of blood, forcible, painful separation of it from
the Body, is the foundation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST," pp.
213, 214.
"The entire power of the Sacrifice of CHRIST lay in the
blood-shedding," p. 214.
" The Sacrifice of Him Who was essentially the SON of GOD,
was absolutely acceptable to the FATHER, and of endless po
tentiality," p. 216.
"The Sacrifice of the Cross, the most complete of thank-
offerings," p. 217.
Thalhofer,
however, ad
duces many
passages.
Dr. T. is ortho
dox in his view
of the S. of the
Cross.
His innovation
is an actual S.
in heaven.
232
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
His assump
tion in regard
to a "heav
enly " S.
The terms
examined.
(i.) "Heav
enly ' ' as ex
plained by
S. Chrysostom,
Theophylact,
Primasius.
(2.) The use of
the word
"altar" by
S.Ignatius,
Eucharist may be related. This celestial sacrifice, like
the Sacrifice in the Kucharist, he considers a pleading
of our CORD'S Passion, a showing forth of His Death
" till He come." We must, however, remember that
in heaven (in a passive sense) our L,ORD is the Sacrifice
"for ever;" not only till He comes to judge the
world.
We shall now examine Thalhofer's authorities. He
starts with the assumption that from all those pas
sages of the Fathers which speak of an altar in
heaven we may conclude that a sacrifice is offered in
heaven, since an altar implies a sacrifice. Before we
proceed to the consideration of the passages which
he adduces in support of this claim, we must pause
for a moment to investigate the exact meaning of the
terms used.
In the expressions * ' heavenly altar ' ' and ' ' heavenly
sacrifice ' ' three terms are employed.
(i.) The first, " heavenly," we have very fully dis
cussed in Chapter VI.* on the liturgies, and we
learned from the teaching of S. Chrysostom, Theophy
lact, Primasius, and others, that it often implied no
thing more than that the subject which it qualified
belonged to the Kingdom of GOD, the Church on earth.
(2.) If we investigate the meaning of the term "altar"
(OvffiofffT^piov\ we shall find that it is also frequently
used in an equivocal sense. S. Ignatius in his Epistles
often uses it figuratively ; in one place, for the arena
in which he expected to die ; f in three other passages
as expressing the unity of the Christian society. J In
the last passage he speaks of our LORD as Himself the
* Pp. 160-164.
f S. Ignat., Ad Rom., ii.
\ Idem., Ad Ephes., v. ; Ad Trail., vii. ; Ad Magn., vii.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 233
Altar. S. Polycarp uses the image of an altar for the
widows of the Church, since, as he says, the alms of
the faithful on them are offered to GOD, and because
they themselves offered to GOD sacrifices of service and
prayer. * Hennas uses it twice in a purely spiritual Hennas,
sense. For him the altar is that whereon the offerings
of men are placed that they may be brought to Goo,f
and in the second passage this idea is extended so as
to include man himself, who, after being tested by the
scrutiny both of angels and men, is himself offered to
GOD. Clement of Alexandria speaks of our altar on clement of
earth as the assembly of those devoted to prayer. { Alex->
S. Methodius uses it of the assembly of the holy. § S. s. Methodius,
Chrysostom speaks of the poor as a living altar on ^chrysostom,
which the alms of the faithful are offered ; || while S. s.CyriiofAiex.
Cyril of Alexandria speaks of Christians as living
stones which are framed together into an altar, as well
as into a temple. ^[
From these passages we are certainly justified in as
suming that the Greek Fathers were frequently in the
habit of using the term QvGiaGrrjpiov in a figurative
sense, and therefore, as with the terms "heavenly"
and ' ' sacrifice, ' ' we must from a careful consideration
of the context in each case determine in what sense
the word is used before we can deduce from it any
argument. '
(3.) We have already shown in Chapter I.** that the
* S. Polycarp, Ad Philipp., iv.
t Hermas, Mand.y x., 3, 2f.
J S. Clem., Alex., Strom., vii. 31.
$ S. Methodius, Symp., v. 6.
|| S. Chrys., in Joan., 4, Horn. xiii.
\ S. Cyril, Alex., Glaph. in Deut. ; Migne, P. G., torn. 69,
col. 668.
** Page 22.
234
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
(3.) Different
senses in which
"sacrifice
used.
is
Hence the
characterofthe
S. must be de
termined by
that of the
altar in
heaven.
i. S. Irenseus.
word " sacrifice " has several different meanings. In
an active sense, which is the only proper sense of sac
rifice, it is used of the action by which some sensible
thing is offered to GOD. In a passive sense it is used
of the victim which is to be, or has been, slain. In a
figurative sense it is used of those interior acts of the
soul which should accompany the actual offering, and
also employed as symbolizing Christian graces, prayers,
praises, etc.
From this it follows that the character of the sacrifice
which Thalhofer claims must be admitted in the men
tion of an altar in heaven, will depend entirely upon
the character of the altar. If the altar in heaven be an
altar properly so called, that is, having a sensible and
objective existence, we quite agree with him that it im
plies a proper sacrifice, that is, the offering of something
which has a sensible and objective existence, such as
the Body of our I^ORD. If, however, we find only a
figurative altar, for instance, one that is apprehended
only in thought (dvaiaffrrjpiov roepov), and which
has no sensible or objective existence, then we can only
infer from this a figurative sacrifice.
In examining, therefore, the passages cited by Thal
hofer we must carefully bear in mind this fact, that all
three of the terms, ' ' heavenly, " " altar, ' ' and ' * sac
rifice, ' ' are equivocal terms, and that before any argu
ment can be based upon their use, we must discover
from the context precisely in what sense they are
employed.
S. Irenaeus says : " There is, therefore, an altar
in the heavens, for thither our prayers and oblations
are directed." *
This passage has already been fully discussed in
* S. Iren., Adv. Hczr., iv., xviii., 6.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 235
Chapter VI., * but we will briefly repeat the principal
points of the argument.
First, that it is very doubtful from the context f
whether the " oblations" in the expression " thither
our prayers and oblations are directed," have any re
ference whatever to the Eucharist. They seem to be
the good works which GOD teaches us to offer, ' ' not
because He has any need of them, but lest we should
be unfruitful."
Secondly, that the passage goes on to speak of a
temple and a tabernacle ; and if we are to understand
that there is in heaven an altar in the literal sense of
the word, we must also understand a temple and a
tabernacle in the literal sense of the words, which no
one has ever asserted.
Thirdly, that S. Irenseus does not say that there is an
altar in heaven on which a heavenly sacrifice is offered,
but, what is very different, an altar towards which our
prayers and oblations are directed. That is, the prayers
and oblations which are offered on earth are directed
heavenward, so that, as our altar on earth symbolizes
our LORD'S throne among us, the altar in heaven
would seem to be equivalent to " the throne of grace."
The next authority Thalhofer cites is Origen : ' ( On 2 origen.
the Day of Atonement He enters into the Holy of
holies ; that is, with the completed dispensation He
penetrates the heavens, and goes in to the FATHER
that He may make Him propitious to the human race,
and that He may plead for all those who believe in
Him. ... A day of propitiation, therefore, re
mains for us until the sun sets, that is, until the world
receives its end."
*
Pp. 172, 173. |See page 172, -where the context is given.
Origen, In Levit., c. xvi., Horn, ix., p. 169.
236 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Thaihofer's Thalhofer says, in regard to this passage, that Origen
considers the functions of the Aaronic high priest on
the Day of Atonement as the type of the functions of
CHRIST in heaven, which is the true Holy of holies, in
which, until the consummation of the ages, He exer
cises the gift of reconciliation. Origen, he says, often
speaks of the altar of incense in the Holy of holies as
the altar in heaven, where CHRIST, assisted by angels,
offers to GOD prayers and good works as a sweet
savour, and he calls those Christians blessed to whom
it may be granted to supply the heavenly High Priest
with incense of this kind.
origen's words Origen's words are : " Do you think my LORD the
true High Priest will deign to receive from me any part
of the incense compounded of grains [of spices] which
He bears with Him to the FATHER ? . . . Blessed
is he, the coals of whose burnt offering He shall find so
living and so glowing that He may consider them fit to
place upon the altar of incense. Blessed is he in whose
heart He shall find a disposition so subtle, so minute,
so spiritual, and so compounded of the fruits of differ
ent virtues, that from it He may deign to fill His hands
and to offer to GOD the FATHKR a sweet odour of this
disposition."
Origen observes that the sacerdotal function of
CHRIST in heaven, however, was not fulfilled by this
one offering of incense. For not only did the Aaronic
pontiff on the Day of Atonement offer incense in the
sanctuary, but he also sprinkled blood, so that it is
necessary to find also in the true sanctuary that of
which this may be the type. But how can we find the
sprinkling of blood in heaven ? Origen therefore says :
" Do not cling to the carnal blood, but understand
rather the Blood of the Word, and hear Him saying to
THE TESTIMONY OF 7 "HE FATHERS. 237
thee, ' This is My Blood, which shall be shed for you
for the remission of sins.' He who is initiated in the
mysteries has known both the Flesh and Blood of the
Word."
Thalhofer thinks that this saying of Origen's is ob-
scure, but that the context makes it clear. He says exP°sition of
them.
there is, according to Origen, in heaven a place for
some sprinkling of blood, not material blood, but rather
spiritual ; and Origen intimately connects this heavenly
sprinkling of blood with the celebration of the Euchar
ist, so much so as to identify them. For unless it be
granted that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice,
and that the celebration of it is identical with the
heavenly sprinkling of the blood, the words of Ori
gen do not supply a sense which conforms to the
context.
He also says that Origen indicates the function of
CHRIST, by which He offers a propitiatory sacrifice
in heaven itself, in his homilies on I^eviticus, where other passages
he says of CHRIST our Advocate, "He goes up to from0risen-
the altar in order that He may reconcile me a sin
ner." * In Homily vii. on Judges, n. 2, he speaks of
the martyrs " who attain to the altar in heaven . . .
that they may there assist in the divine sacrifices." f
So far we have Thaihofer's argument, which indeed Thalhofer
seems very far-fetched. For, to take the first passage, ^stheoon-
. . text, wnicn
m which Origen refers to the Aaronic high priest refutes his
entering the Holy of holies once in the year, we interpretation,
observe that Thalhofer has omitted much of the con
text. We give it here in full.
" If, therefore, I consider my LORD JESUS CHRIST, Thefuiicon-
the true High Priest, how indeed when in the flesh He textofthis
* Origen, In Levit., Horn, vii., n. 2, p. 150.
t Idem, fnjudic.t Horn, vii., n. 2, p. 393.
238 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
was the whole year with the people, that year of which
He Himself said, ' He sent Me to preach the Gospel to
the poor, to proclaim the acceptable year of the L,ORD,
and the day of remission ' [here follows the passage
quoted b}^ Thalhofer] ; consider how once in that year,
on the Day of Atonement, He enters into the Holy
of holies, that is, with the completed dispensation He
penetrates the heavens and goes in to the FATHER,
that He may make Him propitious to the human race,
and that He may plead for all those who believe in
Him." [Then follows what is omitted by Thalhofer :]
"John the Apostle says of this atonement by which He
propitiates the FATHER, ' This I say, little children,
that ye sin not ; but if any man sin, we have an Advo
cate with the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the righteous,
and He is the propitiation with the FATHER. ' * But
Paul also in the same way speaks of this propitiation
when he says of CHRIST, ' Whom GOD hath set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in His Blood.' "f
[Then comes the remainder of the passage quoted by
Thalhofer :] " Therefore a day of propitiation remains
for us, until the sun sets, that is, until the world re
ceives its end. For we are standing now without the
gates, awaiting our Pontiff, who lingers within the
Holy of holies, that is, with the FATHER, and pleads
for the sins of those who are awaiting Him." f
NO allusion In this passage, part of which is quoted by Thal-
here to a heav- hof there • certainly not the slightest allusion either
enly altar or S. J
to a heavenly altar or to a heavenly sacrifice ; and
Origen's treatment of our LORD'S Intercession is in
strict accordance with that of all Catholic theology,
that our Great High Priest " ever liveth to make
* i S. John ii. i, 2.
t Rom. iii. 25, \ Origen, In Levit.^ Horn, xi., n. 5.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 239
intercession for us," that He is our Propitiation, our
Advocate ; but that is all.
In the next passage, towards the end of the same 3. origen.
homily, Origen writes : " I^et us [first understand
what the narrative describes, and then let us inquire
what is its spiritual meaning. The sanctuary of the
tabernacle or of the temple of the LORD is a double
structure. In the first sanctuary is the altar of burnt
offering, on which the perpetual fire burns, where the
priests alone are allowed to be present and to perform
the rites and ministries of the sacrifices. . . . But
there is a second, interior structure, separated from
this only by a veil, within which veil is the ark of the
testimony and the mercy-seat. . . . Into this the
high priest entered once only in the year, having first
offered the sin offering, which we have already ex
plained, and with both hands full, in one carrying a
censer of coals, in the other the incense compounded
[of various spices], so that when he had entered he
might immediately put the incense on the coals, that
the smoke might ascend and fill the whole sanctuary.
. . . If you are familiar with the ancient custom of
sacrifice, you will see what these things mystically
signify. You have heard of two sanctuaries, one
visible and open to the priests, the other invisible and
inaccessible excepting to the high priest alone, the
others being without. This first tabernacle I think we
should understand as that in which we are now living
in the flesh, i. e., the Church, in which priests minis
ter at the altar of burnt offerings, having kindled that
fire of which JKSUS speaks, * I came to send fire upon
earth, and what will I but that it be kindled ? ' * And
I am not surprised that this sanctuary should be open
* S. L,uke xii. 49.
240 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
only to priests, for all who are anointed with the unc
tion of the sacred chrism have been made priests, as
Peter says to all the Church, ( Ye are a chosen genera
tion, a royal priesthood, an holy nation.' * Ye are
therefore a priestly race, and therefore ye enter the
sanctuary. But each one of us also has a burnt offer
ing in himself, and himself kindles the altar of burnt
offering, that it may be always burning. If I give up
all that I possess, and take up my cross and follow
CHRIST, I offer a burnt offering at the altar of GOD.
. . . If I mortify my members from all fleshly de
sires, if the world is crucified unto me and I unto the
world, I offer a burnt offering at the altar of GOD, and
I myself act as the priest of my sacrifice. In this
manner, therefore, the priesthood is exercised in the
first sanctuary, and sacrifices are offered ; and from
this sanctuary the high priest, clad in his sacred vest
ments, goes forth and enters within the veil, as we said
above in the words of S. Paul, * CHRIST is entered into
heaven itself, now to appear in the Presence of GOD for
us.' f Heaven itself, therefore, and the very throne
of GOD is signified by the figure and image of the
inner sanctuary. But the order of the mysteries is
wonderful to behold. The high priest entering into
the Holy of holies carries with him fire from this altar
and takes incense from this sanctuary, and the vest
ments also in which he is arrayed he took from this
place. Do you think my LORD the true High Priest
will deign to receive from me any part of the incense
compounded of grains [of spices] which He bears with
Him to the FATHER ? Do you think He will find in
me any little spark of fire, and my burnt offering glow
ing, that He may deign of it to fill His censer with
* i S. Peter ii. 9. f Heb. xi. 24.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 241
coals, and on them to offer to GOD the FATHER an
odour of sweetness ? Blessed is he the coals of whose
burnt offering He shall find so living and so glowing
that He may consider them fit to place upon the altar
of incense. Blessed is he in whose heart He shall
find a disposition so subtle, so minute, so spiritual, and
so compounded of the sweetness of different virtues,
that from it He may deign to fill His hands and to
offer to GOD the FATHER a sweet odour of this dispos
ition. But, on the other hand, miserable is that soul
whose fire of faith is extinguished, whose ardour of
charity is growing cold, to whom, when our celestial
High Priest comes seeking from it living and glowing
coals upon which He may offer incense to the FATHER,
He finds in it dead cinders and cold ashes." *
This is the whole passage of which Thalhofer has inference from
quoted only a part. In it mention is certainly made of thls Passa&e-
a priesthood, of sacrifice, of an altar, of fire, of incense.
But in what sense ? Figurative or literal ? There
cannot be, it seems to us, the slightest doubt, since
Origen explicitly says that the burnt offering is self-
denial, self-discipline, mortification ; that the incense
is compounded of dispositions of heart and the fra
grance of different virtues; and he qualifies the dispos
itions of heart by saying that they are most subtle and
most spiritual. Hence it is evident that all the other
images used are also figurative ; that he is speaking of
an altar only in a figurative sense, upon which these
dispositions of heart are offered as a sacrifice. He tells
us that he is speaking of a priesthood which includes
all who have been anointed with the sacred chrism,
that is, all the baptized. And the whole passage, while
most beautiful, leaves no room whatever to suppose
* Origeii, In Levit.y Horn, ix., n. 9, p. 173.
16
242
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
4. Origen.
The passage
examined.
that Origen ever conceived that there was in heaven an
altar or a sacrifice in the strict sense of the words.
There is yet another passage quoted from this
homily : * " * And he shall place incense on the fire in
the sight of the LORD ; and the smoke of the incense
shall cover the mercy-seat, which is above the testi
mony, and he shall not die. He shall take of the
blood of the bullock, and shall sprinkle it with his
finger above the mercy-seat towards the east. ' f He
taught how among the ancients the rite of atonement
for men, which was made to GOD, should be celebrated.
But thou who dost come to CHRIST the true High
Priest, Who by His own Blood made GOD propitious to
thee and reconciled thee to the FATHER, dost thou
cling to the carnal blood ? Do not cling to the carnal
blood, but understand rather the Blood of the Word,
and hear Him saying to thee, ' This is My Blood, which
shall be shed for you for the remission of sins.' He
who is initiated in the Mysteries has known both the
Flesh and Blood of the Word. Let us not, therefore,
linger upon those things which are known to the
initiated but are hidden from the ignorant."
Here again we must repeat that there seems to be
nothing in this passage which in any way supports
Thalhofer's contention for a heavenly altar or a
heavenly sacrifice. The point to which he draws
attention is the sprinkling of blood, which he thinks
takes place in heaven, and so implies a heavenly sacri
fice. But this is the very ritual act which Origen takes
special pains so to explain as to make Thalhofer's ap
plication of it impossible. For Origen exhorts Christ
ians, who have been reconciled to GOD by the Blood
of CHRIST, not to cling to the thought of the blood
* Origen, Ibid., n. 10, p. 173. f ^ev. xvi. 13, 14.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 243
sprinkled by the priest in the sanctuary, but with their
whole mind to apprehend that of which it was the
type, the Blood of the Word, which was shed upon the
Cross (and nowhere else] for the remission of sin, and
which is given to us in the Holy Eucharist. For he
adds : " Hear our LORD saying, ' This is My Blood,
which shall be shed for you for the remission of sins.'
He who is initiated in the Mysteries has known both
the Flesh and Blood of the Word." Even Thalhofer
admits that this refers to the Eucharist, and we fail to
see a single word which indicates that it is to be asso
ciated with anything that is now being done in heaven.
Indeed, the very passage refutes the idea of a sacrifice
in heaven, for Origen, treating of the sprinkling of the
Blood by the Levitical high priest in the Holy of
holies, distinctly refers it to the Eucharist.
In the next passage which Thalhofer quotes * 5. origen.
Origen is explaining our LORD'S saying, " I will not
drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day
when I drink it new with you in My FATHER'S King
dom." f " My Saviour," he says, " even now grieves
over my sins. J My Saviour cannot rejoice while I
remain in sin. Why cannot He ? Because He is the
Advocate with the FATHER for our sins, as S. John, to
* Origen, Ibid., horn, vii., n. 2.
f S. Matt. xxvi. 29.
J S. Bernard, in a sermon entitled "On the Words of Origen,"
seriously objects to this phrase, pointing out that our LORD in
His life of glory is impassible and cannot mourn over our sins.
Genebradus, on the other hand (Collect. , c. vi.), defends
Origen, quoting S. Paul's words, "The SPIRIT Itself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered "
(Rom. viii. 26). Strictly, of course, S. Bernard may be right;
but there is a sense in which the words of Origen can be
justified.
244 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
whom our LORD made known the mysteries, proclaims,
saying, ' If any man sin, we have an Advocate with
the FATHER, JESUS CHRIST the Righteous, and He is
the propitiation for our sins.' How then is He, Who
is the Advocate for my si us, able to drink the wine of
gladness, Whom I sadden by my sins ? How can He,
Who goes to the altar to make reconciliation for me a
sinner, be joyful, to Whom the piteous cry of my sins
is always ascending ? For all this, therefore,
He stands in the Presence of GOD, interceding for us.
He stands at the altar that He may offer an atonement
for us, and therefore, when about to approach that
altar, He said, ' I will not drink henceforth of this
fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new
with you in My FATHER'S Kingdom.' "
In these words of Origen we indeed see a setting
ing considered. ^^ of QUr T^ORD'S work of propitiation, but we are
not told that CHRIST is offering a propitiatory sacrifice
in heaven. Origen says that CHRIST goes to the altar
" to make reconciliation for me a sinner," indeed
" that He stands at the altar that He may offer to
GOD an atonement for us." But he clearly indicates
the sense in which he uses this expression, by putting
it side by side with the passage of S. John, " He is the
propitiation for our sins." He makes mention, in
deed, of an altar, for CHRIST is the propitiation for our
sins, having offered once for all upon the altar of the
Cross that Sacrifice by which we were redeemed. In
heaven itself He is our propitiation only by the pre
sentation of the merits of His Sacrifice. Origen is
therefore using the word " altar" figuratively, as he
clearly shows by intimating that his words are to be
understood as equivalent to the passage which he
quotes from S. John, " If any man sin, we have an
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 245
Advocate with the FATHKR, JKSUS CHRIST the right
eous, and He is the propitiation for our sins." We are
quite aware that some of the modern school have
claimed the last clause of this passage as supporting
their theory. For, they say, if JKSUS CHRIST is now
the propitiation for our sins, He must now be offering
a propitiatory Sacrifice. The answer is not difficult.
Whatever our LORD'S Offering was, and whenever and
wherever it took place, we are told over and over again
that it was offered " once for all," that is, by one act.
Whether, with the Catholic Church, we locate this
act, both as regards time and place, in our LORD'S
Sacrifice on the Cross, or, with Socinus and the modern
school, to a period after His Ascension, and in heaven,
the act is completed before our LORD sits down at the
Right Hand of GOD, since, indeed, this session is the
result of that act. That He is the propitiation for our
sins is, therefore, also the result of that act, and not of
any sacrifice which our LORD offered after He had sat
down at the Right Hand of GOD. He is the propitiation
for our sins because He is our Mediator, because He
ever lives to make intercession for us, because the very
presence of His Humanity upon the throne of GOD, as
the Greek Fathers say, pleads for us.
We shall now consider Thalhofer's last quotation 6. ongen.
from Origen : ' ' Who can follow the soul of a martyr,
which, mounting above all the powers of the air, makes
its way to the heavenly altar ? For there, under the
altar of GOD, the souls of the martyrs are placed, who
day and night are said to cry, ' How long, O LORD,
holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our
blood on them that dwell on the earth ? ' * Placed
there, they assist at the divine sacrifices." f
* Rev. vi. 10. f Origen, Injitdic., Horn, vii., n. 2.
246
THE EUCPIARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The sense of
the passage
examined.
7. S. Chry sos-
tom.
Here certainly we have mention of a heavenly altar,
and of the altar of GOD, but surely we are not to under
stand either the altar or the sacrifice in their literal
sense. We have already many times shown that the
heavenly altar is to be understood figuratively, but in
addition to this we may remark that some commenta
tors refer this whole passage in Revelation, from which
Origen is quoting, to the saints, not of Christianity,
but of Judaism. And further the martyrs are said to
assist, not at " a divine sacrifice," but at divine " sacri
fices " (plural), i. e., the sacrifices of praise and thanks
giving offered by the Church Triumphant. But no
one has ever taught that our lyORD in heaven is offering
sacrifices, except in so far as He presents to the FATHER
the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving offered by His
whole Church.
The next authority whom Thalhofer quotes is S.
Chrysostom, and, strangely, he claims S. Chrysostom's
comment on Heb. viii. 5 as supporting his view. We
have already drawn attention to it.* It is as follows :
"What are the * heavenly things' spoken of here?
Spiritual things. For although they are done on earth,
yet nevertheless they are worthy of the heavens. For
when our LORD JESUS CHRIST lies slain ; when the
SPIRIT is with us; when He Who sitteth on the Right
Hand of the FATHER is here ; when sons are made by
the laver ; when they are fellow-citizens of those in
heaven ; when we have a country, and a city, and
citizenship there ; when we are strangers to things
here, how can all these things be other than ' heavenly
things ' ? But what ! are not our hymns heavenly ?
Do not we also, who are below, utter in concert with
them the same things which the divine choirs of bodi-
* In Chap. VI., p. 160.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 247
less powers sing above ? Is not the altar also heavenly ?
How, again, can the rites which we celebrate
be other than heavenly ? Nay, one would
not be wrong in saying even this, for the Church is
heavenly, and is nothing else than heaven." *
It would seem difficult to find any passage which This passage
was a more complete refutation of the Modern view refutes rather
than supports
than this, for S. Chrysostom (who certainly knew in Thaihofer.
what sense the term " heavenly altar," as used in the
liturgies, wras understood in his day) tells us that
11 heavenly " is to be taken as equivalent to " spirit
ual," and refers to that which is done in the Church on
earth, especially at the Kucharist, since the Church on
earth is part of our I^ORD'S Mystical Body, and in the
Kucharist is so joined to the worship of heaven as to
be one with it.
One other passage said to be from S. Chrysostom, 8. A passage
not alluded to by Thaihofer, is claimed as favouring the attributed to
S. Chrysostom:
Modern view of a heavenly sacrifice. It is as follows :
" He ascended into heaven in order that He might have
heaven as His Sanctuary, wherein to officiate as
Priest." f
Perhaps the simplest answer to this interpretation of Another
the passage is to place side by side with it S. Chrys- Pfssage tof s"
J J Chrysostom.
ostom's comment on Heb. vii. 27 : J " Do not, then,
having heard that He is a Priest, suppose' that He is
always executing the Priest's office, (offering sacri
fice) for He executed it once, and thenceforward sat
down."
* S. Chrys., In Heb., Horn, xiv., n. 3.
f Quoted by Wordsworth, on Heb., c. viii., 4, but the author
has been unable to verify the passage, which is certainly not
in S. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Hebrews.
J S. Chrys., In Heb., Horn, xiii., 3; Gaume, vol. 12, p. 191.
248
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Which is
inconsistent
with Thal-
hofer's view.
9. S. Gregory.
S. Chrysostom is here discussing the words, " Who
hath no need daily, as the high priests, to offer up
sacrifices first for their own sins, then for the sins of
the people, for this He did once for all in that He
offered up Himself." And he asserts that though
CHRIST abides a Priest, and so exercises certain
priestly functions, especially through His Church in
the Eucharist, yet in thinking of Him as a Priest we
are not to suppose that He is always sacrificing
* for this He did once for all (arta% yap
CHRIST indeed has heaven as His Sanc
tuary wherein to officiate as our Great High Priest in
His Mediatorial work, but S. Chrysostom expressly
points out that this does not mean that He there offers
sacrifice.
Thalhofer next quotes the following passage from
S. Gregory the Great : f " From this, therefore, let us
consider what kind of a sacrifice for us this is, which
for our salvation continually re-presents the Passion of
the Only Begotten SON. For who is there of the
faithful who doubts that at the very time of the im
molation, at the voice of the priest the heavens are
opened, that in that mystery of JKSUS CHRIST the
choirs of angels are present, the lowest things are
linked to the highest, earthly things are joined with
heavenly, and things visible and invisible become one ?
For this unique Victim saves the soul from eternal
death, and by a mystery renews for us that Death of
the Only Begotten, Who, although being risen from the
dead He now dieth no more, death hath no more
dominion over Him,| nevertheless in Himself, living,
* S. Chrysostom seems to use iepdofiiat as equivalent to ispevoo,
which is often found in Theodoret.
| S. Greg., Dialog., 1. iv., c. Iviii. J Rom. vi. 9.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 249
immortal, and incorruptible, offers Himself again in
this mystery of the sacred oblation. There, indeed,
His Body is eaten, there It is divided for the salvation
of the people. His Blood is poured, not now upon the
hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of the faith
ful."
These words of S. Gregory merely state what every The passage
Catholic has always held, that in the Eucharist heaven examined-
and earth are joined in one great act of worship. They
give no countenance, however, to the idea that there is
a heavenly altar or a heavenly sacrifice. The moment
of immolation which is spoken of is the moment when
the Priest pronounces the words of Consecration. In
the beginning of the passage, S. Gregory refers to our
LORD'S Death upon the Cross, by which man's salva
tion was accomplished ; and he says that our LORD in
His Resurrection life immolates Himself again in this
mystery of the sacred oblation, that is, in the Holy Eu
charist. It is quite inconceivable that S. Gregory could
have written these words if he had had the slightest
idea of a heavenly sacrifice such as the Modern theory
requires, for in that case he would have said that,
having risen from the dead, CHRIST offers Himself in
sacrifice in heaven.
We pass next to S. Ambrose, whom both Thai- 10. s. Ambrose,
hofer and Mr. Brightman claim as supporting their q™ted by both
Brightman and
view. They both cite the same passage : * We Thaihofer.
must, therefore, seek those things in which is perfec
tion, in which is truth. Here is the shadow, here the
image; there the truth. The shadow in the Law, the
image in the Gospel, the truth in heavenly things.
Before a lamb was offered a bullock also was offered ;
now CHRIST is offered. But He is offered as Man, as
* S. Ambrose, De Offic., 1. i., c. xlviii.
250
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Neither Mr.
Brightman
nor Thalhofer
is the author
of this mis
interpretation
of S. Ambrose,
which is
found in the
works of
Kdmond
Albertino and
proves too
much ;
renewing His Passion ; and He as Priest offers Himself,
that He may take away our sins. Here in image, there
in truth, where with the FATHER He, as Advocate, in
tercedes for us. Here, therefore, in the image we walk,
in the image we see ; there, face to face, where is full
perfection ; for all perfection is in truth."
We fail to see in these words the slightest proof
either of a heavenly altar or of a heavenly sacrifice.
Mr. Brightman, however, renders this passage some
what differently; his translation reads : " Beforetimes
a lamb was offered, a calf was offered ; now CHRIST is
offered. Himself offers Himself, as a Priest for the
remission of our sins : here in symbol, there in fact
(hie in imagine, ibi in veritate}, where He intercedes, as
our Advocate, with the FATHER."
Before we proceed to discuss this passage we may
observe that neither Mr. Brightman nor Thalhofer is
the author of the misinterpretation of S. Ambrose
which in rendering " imagine" by " in symbol " im
plies that in the Eucharist our I^ORD is only offered in
symbol, the real offering being in heaven ; and further
that the " pathology of interpretation " is often instruc
tive, for in tracing an opinion to its source we are
sometimes enabled to see the point of view or theologi
cal bias which really underlies it.
So far as we know, the first writer to put this con
struction on the words of S. Ambrose was Kdmond
Albertino, a Calvinist minister of Charenton in France
(ob. 1652), who, in his work, Traite contre Eucharistie,
which became very popular among Protestants, uses
this passage to show that S. Ambrose believed neither
in the Real Presence nor in the Kucharistic Sacri
fice. And, indeed, if we admit with Mr. Brightman
Albertino's premise that our L,ORD in the Eucharist is
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 251
offered only in symbol, it is difficult to see how we can
deny his conclusion that in the Eucharist S. Ambrose
saw no objective Presence of our L,ORD'S Body and
Blood, and therefore no proper sacrifice.
Mr. Brightman's interpretation does not prove his
contention that S. Ambrose considered the Eucharist
a sacrifice depending upon our LORD'S action now in
heaven, but it does imply what Albertino maintains,
that the Saint did not believe in any Real Presence or
proper sacrifice in the Eucharist.
Such a view, however, is inconsistent with S. Am- for it is incon-
brose's treatment of the subject in many other places, sistent™th
. . m S. Ambrose's
and, indeed, with his words in this passage. The fal- words in other
lacy of Mr. Brightman's interpretation is evident from Passages-
j.1. r 11 • .• Its fallacy
the following considerations : exposed :
i. His translation, " Here in symbol, there in fact" i. Bys. Am-
(Jiicin imagine, ibi in veiitati), is misleading and un- b™^uon~of
justifiable ; for not only is " symbol " a very far-fetched the term
rendering of " imago" the primary meaning of which
is " a copy," while that of " symbolum " is " a mark or
sign or token, ' ' but S. Ambrose in another passage takes
pains to tell us exactly in what sense he here uses this
term ; for he says : " In what image then does man
walk ? Surely he walks in that [image] in the likeness
of which he was made, that is, in the image of GOD.
But the image of GOD is CHRIST ; Who is the splendour
of His glory and the image of His substance. CHRIST,
therefore, the image of GOD, came to earth that we
might not walk in the shadow, but in the image; for in
CHRIST, he who follows the Gospel walks in the image.
Therefore He says to His disciple, * Get thee behind
Me (S. Mark viii. 33), that thou mayest follow Me.' " *
Does Mr. Brightman teach that the image of GOD in
*S. Ambrose, Enarrat. in Ps., xxxviii., n. 24.
252
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
By the
fa Mr
man.
man is only symbolic ? or, if with reverence we may
ask the question, would he say that our LORD is the
express image of the FATHKR only in a symbolic
sense ? Yet these are the two passages cited by S.
Ambrose as showing the sense in which he uses the
term. By what principle of scholarship, then, does Mr.
Brightman substitute " symbol " for " image " ?
ii. S. Ambrose, in the first half of the sentence, ex-
P^a^ns in what sense CHRIST is offered here in image,
viz., " as Man, as renewing His Passion,"* that is,
in the Eucharist the immolation by which His Pas
sion is renewed is a mystical immolation. f
It will scarcely be credited that Mr. Brightman not
only omits this clause, but omits it without any dots to
indicate a lacuna. His translation is as follows :
" Beforetimes a lamb was offered, a calf was offered ;
now CHRIST is offered. Himself offers Himself, as a
Priest for the remission of our sins : here in symbol,
there in fact (hie in imagine, ibi in veritate), where
He intercedes, as our Advocate, with the Father." J
* We often find "quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem "
translated, " as a Man, as capable of suffering ; " but " recipiens "
has not the sense of " capax" and CHRIST is not now capable
of suffering, for His resurrection Body is impassible. On the
other hand, the primary meaning of "recipiens" is to take
back, to bring back, and therefore to renew, and in the Bu-
charist our LORD'S Passion is mystically renewed ; for in it we
"shew forth His death."
t Cf. note in Migne's edition of S. Ambrose, P. L., torn,
xvi., col. 99, in which Albertino's objection is answered.
J " Ante agnus offerebatur et vitulns, nunc Christus offertur,
sed off ertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem, et offert se
ipse quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostradimittat; hie in imagine,
ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus
intervenit."
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 253
It will be observed that there is in Mr. Brightman's
quotation no indication whatever that an inconvenient
clause has been omitted.
iii. The reductio ad impossibile argument; for S. m. By the "re-
Ambrose is showing that the Church on earth is in a ductio ad im-
possibile.
condition intermediate between the synagogue and
heaven. In the synagogue all was shadow, all was
type ; but in heaven all is open truth, for shadow and
type will have passed away. The Church on earth,
however, under the Gospel dispensation is intermedi
ary, for in it truth is not joined with the shadow, which
is unreal, but with the image ; since, as S. Paul says,
' ' Now we see as in a mirror in riddle but then face to
face : now I know in part ; but then shall I know
even as I was known." *
But neither the Incarnation nor the Sacrifice of the
Cross took place in heaven. Are we then to regard these
fundamental verities of the Christian Faith as mere
shadows, as partial truths ? Such a supposition would,
of course, be absurd ; for, while we can only partially
apprehend these mysteries in their full significance in
this life, and it will be one of the joys of heaven to com
prehend them in their fulness in the life to come, yet
they are absolutely true. So while the Presence and
Sacrifice of our LORD in the Eucharist is a mystery,
which is apprehended now by faith alone, yet it is none
the less true. In heaven the veil will be lifted and we
shall see Him face to face Whom here we worshipped
beneath the sacramental veils ; but our I/DRD will not
be more truly in heaven (though present there after a
different manner) than He is in the Holy Eucharist.
iv. By examining another passage from S. Am- w. Bythepar-
brose's Commentary on the Psalms, f which has allel passage-
* i Cor. xiii. 12. f S. Ambrose, In Psalm., xxxviii., n. 25.
254 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
evidently been overlooked by the Modern school, we see
clearly his meaning : " The shadow, therefore, went
first ; the image followed ; truth is to come. The
shadow in the L,aw, but the image in the Gospel ; truth
in heavenly things. The shadow of the Gospel and of
the congregation of the Church is in the L,aw ; the
image of future truth [that is, of full truth] is in the
Gospel; truth itself in the judgment of GOD. So it is
in regard to the things that are celebrated in the
Church ; their shadow was in the words of the Pro
phets ; their shadow was in the flood, in the Red Sea,
when our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the
sea ; the shadow was in the Rock from which water
flowed, and which followed the people. Was not that
in shadow a sacrament of this Holy Mystery ? The
water from the rock, was it not in shadow as the Blood
from CHRIST, which followed the people who fled from
it, that they might drink and not thirst, that they
might be redeemed and not perish ? But now the
shadow of the night and of the darkness of the Jews
has departed, the day of the Church has come. We
see now good things through the image, and we hold the
good things of the image. We see the High Priest
coming to us ; we see and hear Him offering His Blood
for us ; we priests follow, so far as we can, in order
that we may offer sacrifice for the people ; for even
though we are weak in merit, we are honourable in the
Sacrifice. For though now CHRIST is not seen to offer,
nevertheless He Himself offers on earth when He offers
the Body of CHRIST. Moreover, He Himself manifestly
offers in us, whose word sanctifies the Sacrifice which
is offered ; and He indeed takes His place with the
FATHER as our Advocate, but now we see Him not ;
then we shall see Him, when the image shall pass
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 255
away and the truth shall come. Then indeed, not
through a glass, but face to face will be seen those
things which are perfect."
There is no more satisfactory method of determining
the meaning of a passage than by the author's own
writings elsewhere ; and in this second quotation,
which contains the same thought as the first, S. Am
brose, if we may so say, seems to have anticipated the
misuse that has been made of the first passage, and so,
while using precisely the same imagery and almost the
same words, he explicitly adds that " although now
CHRIST is not seen to offer, nevertheless He offers on
earth when He offers the Body of CHRIST, ' ' that is, of
course, in the Eucharist. But he does not give the
slightest hint of any heavenly sacrifice which our
LORD is offering, but only states that in heaven " He
indeed takes His place with the Father as our Advo
cate ; ' ' and we may repeat what we said in regard to
S. Gregory, that it is inconceivable that S. Ambrose
could have written this if he had any knowledge of a
proper sacrifice which CHRIST was now offering in
heaven.
The last of the Fathers quoted by Thalhofer is S.
Augustine, from whose writings he brings forward two
passages.
The first is from his Commentary on the Psalms:* n. s. Augus-
11 You wash your hands, not indeed with visible water, tine:
but when you reflect devoutly on your works and are
innocent in the sight of GOD, since that altar is in the
Presence of GOD, whither the Priest has entered Who
* Enarrat. in Psalm., xxv., n. 10. We may notice here that
S. Augustine wrote two commentaries on this Psalm, and that
the passage in question is found in the second of these com
mentaries.
256 THE EUtHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
first offered Himself for us. There is a heavenly altar,
and he only compasses that altar who washes his hands
in innocency. For many who are unworth}^ touch this
altar [of the Church], and GOD permits His sacraments
to suffer outrage at the time. " But, my brethren,
the heavenly Jerusalem will not be like these walls
[i. e., of the material Church]. In Abraham's bosom
you will not receive [the Sacrament] together with
the wicked, as you now receive it with the wicked,
within these walls of the Church. But fear not ; wash
your hands.
" And ' I will compass the altar of GOD.' There
you offer to GOD your vows ; there you pour out your
prayers ; there your conscience is pure ; there you con
fess to GOD what you are, and if by chance there is in
you anything which displeases GOD, He to Whom you
confess heals it. Wash, therefore, your hands in in
nocency, and compass the altar of GOD, that you may
hear the voice of praise."
Here it is scarcely necessary to do more than point
out that S. Augustine is using the term "heavenly
altar " as it is used in the liturgies, and in the books
of Isaiah and Revelation, — in a figurative sense. So
in Psalm xxiv. 3 we read : " Who shall ascend into the
hill of the lyORD ? or who shall rise up in His holy
place ? " — where David, as in so many places, evidently
uses the hill of Sion as a type or figure of GOD'S
heavenly sanctuary. Yet from this passage we do not
suppose anyone ever thought of attempting to prove
that there were hills in heaven. S. Augustine's argu
ment is that although the good and wicked together
approach the altar of GOD'S Church when they make
their Communion, and both receive the Sacrament of
our LORD'S Body and Blood, yet only those who ap-
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.
proach with right dispositions really feed on CHRIST,
and therefore may be said to approach His heavenly
altar, and to join in the heavenly worship of angels
and archangels, and so "to hear the voice of praise."
The second passage is taken from one of S. 12. s. Aug-us-
Augustine's sermons.* In this passage S. Augustine tine: a second
,. , . . - , . passage.
is appealing to a man who is conscious or being in
mortal sin " to judge himself unworthy of the partici
pation of the Body and Blood of our L,ORD, so that he,
who fears to be separated from the Kingdom of heaven
by the final sentence of the Great Judge, may for a
while be separated by ecclesiastical discipline from the
Sacrament of the heavenly Bread. Let him put be
fore his eyes," he says, " the image of the judgment
to come, so that when others approach the altar of GOD,
whither he himself does not approach, he may reflect
upon the terrible character of that sentence by which,
while some receive eternal life, others are cast into eter
nal death. For many, even of the wicked, are able to
approach this altar which is now placed in the Church
on earth, exposed to earthly eyes, for the purpose of
celebrating the symbols of the Divine Mysteries. GOD
indeed now in time commends His patience, that in
future He may show His severity. The ignorant,
truly, approach, since the patience of GOD leads them
to penitence. . . . But to this altar whither our
forerunner JESUS is entered for us, whither the Head
of the Church is gone before, while His other members
follow, — to this altar none of those is able to approach,
of whom, as I have already noticed, the Apostle said,
' They who do such things shall not possess the King
dom of GOD.' f
" For there the Priest alone stands, but this clearly
* S. Aug., Serm., cccli., n. 7. t Gal. v. 21.
17
258 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
[implies] the whole Priest, that is with that Body
added of which He is the Head, which already has as
cended into heaven. He it is of whom the Apostle
Peter said, ' a royal priesthood, an holy nation.' *
How, therefore, shall he either adore, or be able to
enter within the veil and into that invisible sanctuary,
who, despising the medicine of heavenly discipline, is
unwilling for a little while to be separated from the
visible Church ? For he who will not be humiliated in
order that he may be exalted, when he wills to be
exalted shall be cast down, and in eternity shall be
separated from the eternal saints, who in time by the
merit of obedience and the satisfaction of penitence has
not secured for himself a place in the Body of the
Priest."
The passage In this very beautiful passage S. Augustine evidently
examined. considers that " to approach that altar whither our
forerunner JESUS is entered for us, whither the Head
of the Church is gone before, while the other members
follow, ' ' is equivalent to ' ' possessing the Kingdom of
heaven," to " entering within the veil into the invisible
sanctuary," and to being " joined for ever with the
eternal saints. ' ' That is, he is expressing in sublime
language the mystical union which now exists between
CHRIST and every living member of His Church.
The worship in heaven is represented in the Book of
Revelation as the mystical worship of the Lamb stand
ing in the midst of the throne of GOD; and yet in a
sense the Lamb, as the Great High Priest, leads the
worship of heaven, and in His Humanity offers to GOD
the worship of His whole Church, both in heaven and
on earth.
The Fathers and the liturgies, as we have many
* I S. Peter ii. 9.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 259
times pointed out, represent the same idea under the
figure of a heavenly altar, and they take pains ex
plicitly to say that by this altar they mean CHRIST
Himself. S. Augustine in the passage before us em
ploys the term " altar " in this sense, and represents
our Head, our Great High Priest, offering the worship
of heaven and earth, while the lowest members of His
Body, those who communicate worthily at His altar
on earth, join in that act of worship and are offered by
their Great High Priest.
There is, however, nothing here which indicates any
idea of a literal sacrifice in heaven, or any other sacri
fice than that which was once offered upon the Cross,
and which our LORD, by the very presence of His
Human Nature, pleads for us.
Our last quotation from the Fathers under this 13- s. Gregory
division is taken from S. Gregory's Morals on the Book
of Job : * " Job does not cease to offer sacrifice every
day, because our Redeemer without intermission offers
for us a burnt offering, Who always exhibits to the
FATHER on our behalf His Incarnation. For His In
carnation is itself the offering of our purification, and
while He shows Himself as Man, He washes away by
His Intercession \interveniens~\ the sins of man, and in
the mystery of His Humanity He immolates a per
petual sacrifice, even because those things which He
cleanses are eternal; " that is, He is the abiding Propi
tiation for our sins.
Here, while S. Gregory uses the term " sacrifice,"
he shows in the context that by it he means nothing
more nor less than our LORD'S Intercession, and that
he understands this Intercession to be our LORD'S
showing of Himself as Man to the FATHER for us.
*S. Greg., Moral., 1. i., c,xxiv,, n. 32.
260
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Result of ex
amination of
Thalhofer's
authorities.
1. No passage
really supports
his view.
2. The Fathers
teach that our
IvORD presen ts
in heaven the
worship of the
Church, and
therefore the
H. E.
3. They ex
plain the
heavenly altar
by our CORD'S
Humanity,
though some
apply the term
to the altar of
the Church.
We shall see that this is precisely what the Fathers
generally teach.
This is the last of the passages from the Fathers
which have been brought forward by the supporters of
the view that our LORD is now offering an actual or
proper sacrifice in heaven. Before passing to the third
division of this chapter, we may sum up the testimony
of the Fathers thus far by saying :
1. That not one passage has been adduced which
lends any real support to the Modern view.
2. That the Fathers teach that our LORD upon His
throne of glory is presenting to the FATHER through
His own Humanity His Mystical Body the Church,
with all her prayers and sacrifices, so that in this sense
her worship in the Eucharist is presented by Him to
GOD.
3. They speak of a " heavenly altar," by which
some of them explicitly state that they understand
our LORD Himself in His Humanity. Others show
that they understand it only in a figurative sense, as
that whereon the offerings of men are placed when
brought to GOD ; while others, again, explain that the
altar of the Church is the heavenly altar, because the
worship of the Kucharist is one with the worship of
heaven.
III. Passages
which explain
our LORD'S
Intercession.
III. THE TEACHING OF THE FATHERS IN REGARD TO
OUR LORD'S PRESENT MEDIATORIAL WORK.
It will be obvious to everyone that the class of
patristic passages which really have most bearing on our
subject, and which indeed may be considered as decisive
of the matter in controversy, are those which treat of
our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven, those which
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 261
explain His great Intercession. For if this Mediatorial
work, this great Intercession, be the offering in heaven
of a sacrifice in the proper sense of the term, then it is
absolutely inconceivable that the Fathers should inter
pret it again and again without the slightest reference
to any such sacrifice, — inconceivable, that is, on the
supposition that the early Church believed that our
lyORD as the Great High Priest was now offering an
actual sacrifice in heaven.
To avoid extending this chapter to an unnecessary
length we shall confine our quotations to a few pas
sages, which, however, will quite suffice for our pur
pose.
The Modern school generally claim that the Greek The Greek
Fathers are especially favourable to their view. We Fathers-
shall therefore begin with them.*
And, first, S. Chrysostom: " Do not, then, having i. s. chrysos-
heard that He is a Priest, suppose that He is always tom"
offering sacrifice, for he offered sacrifice once for all,
and thenceforward sat down." f
Theodoret: "But CHRIST is now a Priest sprung 2. Theodoret.
from Judah according to the flesh, Himself not offering
anything, but acting as the Head of those who offer.
For He calls the Church His Body, and through her
exercises His Priesthood as Man, but as GOD receives
those things which are offered. For the Church offers
the symbols of His Body and Blood, sanctifying the
whole lump by the first-fruits." \
* It will be convenient here to group the writers with refer
ence to the argument rather than chronologically.
t MT; Toivvv avrov iepsa ctxovdaS, del iepadQcn ro/in^e.
OLTta.%, yap iepdtfaro, ual "koiitov kud$i6£v (In Heb., Horn,
xiii., 3 ; Gaume, vol. xii., p. 191).
\ ^Isparsvei ds vvv 6 ££ 'lovda Hard 6apua
Xpzdrof, OVH avroS n 7tpo6cp£pGov,dX'\.d T<£V
262
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
3. EJuthymius
Zig.
4. S. Chrysos-
tom.
5. S.Chrysos-
tom.
Euthymius Zigadenus : " These [the I^evitical
priests] indeed offered sacrifice daily throughout their
whole life, but CHRIST offered Sacrifice once for
all."*
S. Chrysostom, commenting on the verse, " Having
become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' '
(Heb. vii. 20), says : " For behold we have in heaven
a Victim, in heaven a Priest, in heaven a Sacrifice.
For we offer such sacrifices as can be offered on that
altar, no longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and
odour. All these things have been abolished, and in
their place a rational worship introduced. But what
is a rational worship ? Those things which are offered
through the soul, those things which are offered
through the spirit. ' GOD is spirit, and they that wor
ship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.' f
Which things have no need of body, have no need of
organs, have no need of place. But of what kind are
these sacrifices ? Modesty, prudence, mercy, long-
suffering, forbearance, humility." \
In another place S. Chrysostom writes : " He [S.
John Baptist] says not [of the Lamb of GOD], ' Who
shall take away, ' or ' who did take away, ' but, ' who
taketh away the sin of the world,' speaking of Him as
doing this continually. For He did not then only take
yap avrov
, ual did ravrr]$ isparsvei ok avtipoortoS, dsxsrai de rd
7tpo6<psp6u.£va a?? @£o£. IIpotfqjepEi de ?} 'EnxX^ia rd rov
tfoojiiaroS avrov ual rov aijiiaroS 6vjufioAa, nay rd <pvpa/.ia
did rrjs aTtapxrjS dyid^ovda (In Psalm., cix., 4 ; Migiie, P. G.,
torn. 80, col. 1773).
* ^EuEivoi nev df oX.rj's 'rrjS savrcor ^GOTJC, ua$ jj/uepav
lEpdrsvor, 6 ds XpitfroS aita'c, iepdrsvdEv (In Heb., vii., 27).
t S. John iii. 24.
\ S. Chrys., In Heb., Horn, xi., 3 ; Gaume, vol. xii., p. 163.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 263
away [sins] when He suffered, but from then until
now He takes them away ; not by being continually
crucified (for He offered [once] one Sacrifice for sins),
but by that one Sacrifice He is continually cleansing
us from sin." *
It seems strange that Thalhofer and others should
have overlooked these passages, which so explicitly re
fute their contention that our L,ORD is offering sacrifice
in heaven.
Again, S. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on the 6. s. Cyriiof
verse, " We have such an High Priest, who is set on Alex<
the Right Hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens," says : " That ancient tabernacle of the Old
Testament was well adapted to priests, but the taber
nacle appropriate to CHRIST was that supernal and
glorious city heaven itself, which is truly a Divine
and perfect tabernacle, not the work of human art, but
holy and wrought by GOD. After CHRIST has entered
this tabernacle He offers to GOD and the FATHER those
who believe in Him and who through the SPIRIT have
attained to sanctification." f
What a disappointing conclusion this must be to
Thalhofer ! One would have expected here at least,
if S. Cyril had known anything of a heavenly sacrifice,
that after this glowing description of the tabernacle
appropriate to CHRIST, he would have said, " In it He
offers to GOD and the FATHER the sacrifice of Him
self." But He only says that He presents the offering
of His Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea, speaking of our I/DRD as a 7. Eusebius
Priest after the order of Melchisedec, says : ' ' For as C8esar-
* S. Chrys., In Joan., Horn, xviii., 2 ; Gaume, vol. viii., p. 121.
f S. Cyril, Alex., Ad Reginas de Recta Fide, n. 44 ; Migne,
P. G., torn. 76, col. 1395.
264 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
he [Melchisedec], who was the priest of the Gen
tiles, nowhere seems to have exercised sacrificial
functions, except with bread and wine only, when
he blessed Abraham, so certainly our LORD and Sav
iour first, and those afterwards who went out from
Him as priests into all nations performing the spirit
ual gift of the priesthood according to ecclesiastical
ordinances, represent with bread and wine the mys
teries both of His Body and of His Saving Blood.
Which mysteries, indeed, Melchisedec had recognized
before in so divine a spirit, and had used in images
of corporeal things, as the writings of Moses signify :
* And Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread
and wine.' " *
And S. John of Damascus says: " Melchisedec re-
s. s.john of ceived Abraham, returning from the slaughter of the
aliens, with bread and wine, for he was the priest of
the Most High GOD. That table prefigured this mysti
cal Table, as also that priest set forth the figure and
image of CHRIST the true Priest." f
It will be observed that Kusebius here points out that
the only priestly function which Melchisedec exercised
was the offering of bread and wine, and he therefore
draws the conclusion that our LORD'S priestly functions
were thus exercised, first, at its Institution, and then
through His priests in the Holy Eucharist ; and S.
John of Damascus seems to have very much the same
idea. And yet, in the treatment of our LORD'S Mel-
chisedecan Priesthood, one would have expected these
Fathers, had they known of a sacrifice in heaven, to
* Euseb., Caes., Demonstrat. Evangel., v. 3 ; Migne, P. G.,
torn. 22, col. 367.
f S. Joan., Datnasc., De Fide. Orthod., 1. iv., c. xiii. ; Migne,
P. G., torn. 94, col. 1150.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 26$
speak of such a sacrifice as the distinguishing charac
teristic of this Priesthood, instead of interpreting it, as
they do, by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Before we turn to the Latin Fathers, there is a
passage to be noticed in the commentary of Eu-
thymius Zigadenus which expressly set forth what
they understand by our IBRD'S Intercession.
The passage in Kuthymius, as the Bishop of Dur-
ham remarks, "expresses the true conception of the Zlg>
LORD'S Intercession with singular terseness and force."
Kuthymius says : ' ' His very Human Nature, therefore,
pleads with the FATHER on our behalf." * This brief
sentence is really a summing up of the patristic view
of our LORD'S Intercession.
We shall only add the opinions of three Latin i^atin Fathers.
Fathers:
Primasius (ob. circa 560) expresses this idea in 10. Primasius.
other words when, commenting on the phrase, " Who
also intercedes for us," he says : " In this Intercession
it is affirmed that as true and eternal High Priest He
shows and offers to the FATHER, as our pledge, man,
taken into Himself and for ever glorified." f
Again, interpreting Heb. vii. 25, Primasius says :
" But He intercedes for us in this very fact, that He
took human nature for us, which He continually pre
sents to the FATHER for us."
S. Augustine: "To obtain GOD'S pardon, propiti- n. s. Augus-
ation is made through some sacrifice. One, therefore, tme-
hath come forth, sent from GOD the LORD, One Who is
* AVTTJ ovv ff £7tavBpw7t??6t$ avrov 7Capana\El tor liar spa
vneprju&v (Comm. in Heb., vii., 25). I am indebted to the
Bishop of Durham for calling my attention to this passage.
t Primas., In Epist. ad Rom., viii., 34 ; Migne, P. I/., torn.
68, col. 466.
266
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
12. S. Augus
tine.
13. S. Gregory
the Great.
our Priest. He took upon Him from us that which He
might offer to the LORD. We are speaking of those holy
First-fruits of the flesh from the womb of the Virgin.
This holocaust He offered to GOD. He stretched out
His hands upon the Cross in order that He might say,
* Let My prayer be set forth in Thy sight as the in
cense, and let the lifting up of My hands be an evening
sacrifice.' " *
In this passage we see that S. Augustine connects
the offering of the holocaust with the lifting up of our
LORD'S hands upon the Cross, and so clearly shows
that he considers the burnt offering to have been
made upon the Cross, and not upon the altar of
heaven.
Again S. Augustine says : " In the victims of the
flock which the Hebrews offered in many and various
ways to GOD, they proclaimed, as was fitting in so
great a matter, a prophecy of the future Victim which
CHRIST offered. Whence Christians now celebrate
the memorial of the semifinished Sacrifice in the sacred
offering and Communion of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST." f
In this passage S. Augustine speaks of our LORD'S
Sacrifice on the Cross being a finished Sacrifice, which
leaves no room for the offering of the Blood in heaven
as the essentially characteristic act of sacrifice.
S. Gregory writes: " For He Himself is our High
Priest, Who upon the altar of the Cross for the salvation
of the whole world offered as a Victim His Body ; a
High Priest, that is, of good things to come, Who by
* S. Aug., Enarrat., in Psalm, Ixiv., n. 6 ; Migne, P. L., torn.
36, col. 777.
t S. Aug., Contra Faustum^ c. xx., 18; Migne, P. L., torn.
42, col. 382.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 26 J
His own Blood entered once for all into the Holy
place, having obtained eternal redemption." *
S. Gregory teaches that it was upon the altar of the
Cross that our LORD offered His Body as a Victim ;
that He was then our High Priest, since He was a
High Priest of good things to come ; and that He
entered once for all into the Holy place by His own
Blood, when He had obtained eternal redemption, that
is, after His redemptive work was complete.
Again, S. Gregory, explaining the words of S. 14. s. Gregory.
Paul, " CHRIST . . . Who is even at the Right
Hand of GOD, Who also maketh intercession for us ' '
(Rom. viii. 34), says: " To intercede for man is for the
Only Begotten SON to present Himself as Man in the
Presence of the co-eternal FATHKR ; and to plead for
human nature is for Him to have taken that same
nature into the exaltation of His Divinity." f
Here S. Gregory, like Euthymius, is definitely ex
plaining — or we might almost say, defining — what
he understands by our LORD'S Intercession. He makes
no reference to any offering of sacrifice in heaven, but,
like the other Fathers, considers that the Presence of
our LORD'S Humanity there is His Intercession for us.
We end this third section, and indeed the chapter summary ot
generally, by saying that an investigation of the writ-
ings of the Fathers, both East and West, shows:
1. That not one passage cited from the Fathers gives i. NO passage
any real support to the theory of a proper sacrifice
being now offered in heaven.
2. That in this last division S. Chrysostom,
* S. Greg., in Psalm Pcenit., Psalm 1., n. 9 ; Migne, P. Iy.,
torn. Ixxix., col. 587.
f S. Greg., Moral., 1. xxii., c. xvii., n. 42 ; Migiie, P. L.,
torn. 76, col. 238.
268 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
2. some pas- Theodoret, and Kuthymius expressly assert that such a
sagesinconsist- sacrjfice was offered but once, and that though our
ent with it.
LORD remains a Priest for ever we are not therefore to
think of Him as offering sacrifice, except through His
Church. In another passage S. Chrysostom, after
saying, " For behold, we have in heaven a Victim, in
heaven a Priest, in heaven a Sacrifice, for we offer
such sacrifices as can be offered on that altar," goes on
to tell us that these sacrifices are ' ' modesty, prudence,
mercy, long-suffering, forbearance, humility."
3. The expian- 3. That Primasius, S. Gregory, and Euthymius, in
loT^sTnter 8lv'in8 wliat *s practically a definition of our LORD'S
cession ex- Intercession, say that it is simply the Presence in
eludes it. heaven of His glorified Humanity. And such a defini
tion is the best evidence that any other sacrifice in
heaven than CHRIST'S mystical offering of His Church
and the prayers and good works of her members was
entirely unknown to the Fathers.
CHAPTER IX.
THE TESTIMONY OF MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDI^VAI,
WRITERS.
I
N the ninth century, as we pointed out in Chapter introductory:
VII., a great impetus was given to the study of impetus given
J . to the study of
the Euchanstic Sacrifice, both from a dogmatic the 3. s. m
and a mystical standpoint, by a group of writers of cent- IX- ;
marked and original ability, among the more promi
nent of whom were Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo,
Amalarius, Florus, and Paschasius Radbertus.
These gave a new direction to the treatment of this
subject, especially in its mystical and liturgical aspects,
and the seed sown by them produced fruit in the which bore
twelfth century in several valuable mystical commen- Jj? m cent
/ ^ / XII. in mys-
taries on the liturgy, such as the writings of S. Ivo of ticai works
Chartres, B. Odo of Cambrai, V. Hildebert of Le Mans, °ntheiiturgy.
Peter the Venerable, Algerus of Liege, Hugo of S.
Victor, and Guitmundus Aversanus.
Mr. Brightman refers to passages in Paschasius Rad- of these Mr.
bertus, Ivo of Chartres, and Hildebert of Le Mans or Brishtman
. . claims Pas-
Tours, as favourable to his view, while Thalhofer quotes chasius Rad-
from Paschasius Radbertus, Odo of Cambrai, Hildebert
of Le Mans, Hugo of S. Victor, Algerus, and Guitmun-
dUS AverSanUS. Tours as fa-
. . . vourable to his
In this chapter we shall examine the passages cited view
from these authors, and shall then pass to the considera- Thalhofer adds
269
270
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Guitmundus,
odoofcam-
brai, Hugo of
s.victor, and
Aigerus.
only passages
adduced m
support of the
Modern theory
The medieval
writers fre-
oif?' heavenly
altar,"
from which
Thalhofer in-
fers a heavenly
i.
tion of the pas-
rSschasius
Radbertus.
tion of a school of Galilean writers in the seventeenth
century, to whom we have already referred, — De Con-
dren, Olier, Thomassin, and Bossuet, — who are also
claimed as giving countenance to the Modern theory.
We shall not, as heretofore, bring forward passages
j support of the Catholic view, and for two reasons :
rr '
(i) Because to do so would require far more space than
could be devoted to it in this chapter, and (2) because
in the examination of the writers quoted in favour of
the Modern school (whom we are quite willing to accept
as fair representatives of their age), we shall incident
ally show that they all hold the Catholic view and teach
that the Eucharist is essentially related to the Sacrifice
of the Cross.
The liturgical writers of the Middle Ages, following
t ^e preCedent of the Fathers and of the ancient liturgies,
frequently speak of a "heavenly altar." Thalhofer,
therefore, claims them as supporting the Modern view.
__ < A 11 ^1 • L\ A- • *• A 1
He says : All these, without exception, intimately
connect that heavenly altar with the Kucharistic Sacri
fice, which descends from the heavenly altar to the
earthly, and from it ascends again to the heavenly
altar, as the Sacrifice of the priest and of the faithful,
and is there finally offered with full efficacy."
I. Without commenting on this misleading state-
ment let us examine Thalhofer' s authorities in chrono-
logical order. His first quotation is from Paschasius
Radbertus (ob. 865):* " Do you think that there is
any other altar at which CHRIST, the High Priest,
stands, than His own Body, through which and on
which the prayers of the faithful and the faith of be
lievers are offered to GOD the FATHER ? But if you
truly believe that heavenly altar to be the Body of
* Pasch. Radb., De Corpore et Sanguine Domini , c. viii.
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 2JI
CHRIST, you will not now think that you receive the
Flesh and Blood from anywhere else than from that
very Body of CHRIST." In another place in this same
chapter, Paschasius says : ' ' The Flesh of CHRIST is
never rightly received unless from His Hand and from
the altar on high, where CHRIST, the High Priest of
good things to come, stands for us."
Here Paschasius teaches what we have already learned The passage
from S. Augustine,* that those who receive the Eu- considered-
charist unworthily, receive the Sacrament from the
hands of the earthly priest, from the altar of the Church
on earth; but though they receive the Sacrament, they
do not feed on CHRIST, they do not receive from His
Hands, from His heavenly altar, His Body and Blood
to their souls' health. Therefore Paschasius says :
" The Flesh of CHRIST is never rightly received unless
from His Hand and from the altar on high."
This will be still more evident if we give the whole
context of the passage quoted by Thalhofer. It is as
follows : ( l The unhappy man [the unworthy communi
cant] fears not the presence of the Divine Majesty,
since he considers only the things which are seen, nor
understands that the Flesh of CHRIST is never rightly
received unless from His Hand and from the altar on
high where CHRIST, the High Priest of good things to
come, stands for us. Wherefore the priest, when he
begins to offer these gifts, amongst other things says :
' Command these gifts to be carried by the hands of
Thy Holy Angel on to Thine altar on high in the
sight of Thy Divine Majesty.' And dost thou, O man,
think to receive It from anywhere else than from that
altar where, transported on high, It is consecrated ? "
This last sentence may at first sight seem favourable
* S. Aug., Enarrat. in Psalm. , xxv., n. 10; cf. pp. 255, 256.
272
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Paschasius ex
plains his
meaning in
the context,
which refutes
Thalhofer's
inference.
to Thalhofer. But let us observe carefully the expla
nation of Paschasius which immediately follows. For
in answer to the objection, " How can it be carried
away so unexpectedly into heaven, into the presence
of the Divine Majesty, when here, whether it be called
' bread ' or ' Flesh,' it is all the time held visibly in
the hand of the priest, ' ' Paschasius replies : * ' Learn to
apprehend something different from what is tasted by
the mouth of flesh ; to see something different from
what is manifested to these fleshly eyes. Learn that
GOD, as a Spirit, is locally everywhere. Understand
that these things are spiritual, so that neither locally
nor indeed carnally are they carried on high into the
presence of the Divine Majesty. Consider, then, if
anything corporeal can be more sublime than the sub
stance of bread and wine inwardly and efficaciously
changed into the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, so that
then, after the Consecration, the true Flesh and Blood
of CHRIST is believed to be present, and is judged by
believers to be nothing else than CHRIST the Bread of
heaven. [Then follows Thalhofer's quotation :] Do
you think that there is any other altar at which CHRIST
the High Priest stands, than His own Body, through
which and on which the prayers of the faithful and the
faith of believers are offered to GOD the FATHER ? But
if you truly believe that heavenly altar to be the Body
of CHRIST, you will not now think that you receive the
Flesh and Blood from anywhere else than from that
very Body of CHRIST. ' '
As usual we find that the context, which Thalhofer
does not quote, entirely refutes the inference drawn
from the passage which he does quote. Paschasius
certainly says that the Flesh of CHRIST should never
be received except from the Hand of CHRIST and from
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 273
the heavenly altar where CHRIST, the High Priest of
good things to come, stands ; and he quotes in support
of this statement the liturgical prayer Supplices Te.
But in answer to the objection, How can the gifts be
carried to the altar on high when they are visibly held
in the hand of the priest, he explains that GOD, as
pure spirit, is everywhere, so that you are not to think
of the oblations being carried to the altar of GOD on
high by any local translation which could be discerned
by bodily eyes, but you are to apprehend these things
spiritually.
Certainly, he says, there is nothing corporeal which
is more sublime than the substance of the bread and
wine changed inwardly and efficaciously into the Body
and Blood of CHRIST, so that after the Consecration it
is no longer considered by the faithful to be bread and
wine, but the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST Himself,
Who is the Bread from heaven. But, he says, the Paschasius
altar at which CHRIST the High Priest stands, is the takesthe
heavenly altar
very Body of CHRIST, that is, the Humanity of CHRIST, as CHRIST'S
on which and through which the devotions and prayers Humanity.
,/-•,«/• i i • rr i i through which
and faith of believers are offered to the Kternal Our prayers are
FATHER. So that, when we ask that our oblations offered to
may be carried on to the altar on high in the sight of
GOD, we simply pray that through CHRIST'S Interces
sion for us they may become efficacious. And when
we say that the Flesh of CHRIST is taken from the
altar on high, we mean that the Flesh and Blood of
CHRIST pertains to that Humanity in which He now
' ' appears in the presence of GOD for us. ' '
Besides, Paschasius had said that the Flesh of
CHRIST is never rightly received except from the Hand
of CHRIST, which he explains more fully in these
words : " Each [communicant] ought to consider how
2/4
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Paschasius :
another
passage.
terrible it is amongst the multitude of the angels to
approach unworthily to Communion. How terrible,
indeed, is that very Sacrament of the Body and Blood,
in which the virtue of CHRIST is so fully received, and
which is bestowed by no other than by CHRIST Him
self, the High Priest, although the visible priest seems
to be present, and to distribute to each. . . . For
who worthily receives His Flesh and Blood, unless from
Him whose Flesh it is ? " There is certainly nothing
in these words to support Thalhofer's view.
He quotes, however, some other passages. From the
twelfth chapter of the same work he cites the follow
ing: " Holy Scripture shows that He always stands at
the altar of the altar on high, so that from His immo
lation we may receive His Body and Blood." * But
Paschasius in many places shows what he means by
this ( ' immolation ' ' on the heavenly altar, as, for in
stance, when in the same connection, treating of the
functions of the Mediator in heaven, he writes as fol
lows: " He is made High Priest for ever after the order
of Melchisedec, as the Apostle teaches, in order that
He may intercede for us, offering Himself to the
FATHER." And again: " A fitting Advocate, He in
tercedes for those who are sinning against Him (as He
had before done upon the Cross), by offering Himself
to the FATHER." t
Here Paschasius shows that the Intercession of
CHRIST in heaven involves more than mere prayer ;
that it is an act of offering in the presence of the
FATHER. But it is very clear from the former pas
sages that in speaking of immolation Paschasius is
referring, not to the heavenly altar, but to the altar of
* Pasch. Radb., Ibid., c. xii.
f Ibid., c. viii., cf. also the end of chap. xii.
MEDIsE VAL A ND POST-MEDIAE VA L WRITERS. 2?$
the Eucharist ; for he says : " Behold what faith has
instituted, behold what CHRIST has granted, that we
may have His Body and Blood, that through these we
may be daily translated into the Body of CHRIST. But
before the Body of CHRIST becomes present by Conse
cration, there is the offering of the priest, or, as he says
[in the Commemoration of the Living], the offering of
each congregation of offerers. But in the word and
power of the HOLY SPIRIT a new creature is made in
the Body of the Creator, for the restoration of our sal
vation. [Then follows Thalhofer's quotation :] Whence
Holy Scripture shows that He always stands at the
altar of the altar on high, so that from His immolation
we may receive His Body and Blood." *
Again Thalhofer ignores that which precedes this
passage and which explains it. Paschasius is only say
ing in other words that it is not the earthly priest who
is the real priest that offers and sacrifices upon the
Eucharistic altar, but the Goo-Man, the High Priest
for ever.
This is confirmed by another passage, in which he
says : f " But now as it is He Who baptizes, so is it He
Who by the HOLY SPIRIT makes this His Flesh and
transmutes the wine into His Blood. For Who else
could so create in the womb, that the Word might be
come Flesh ? Thus indeed in this Mystery we must
believe that by the same virtue of the HOLY SPIRIT
and by His invisible operation, through the word of
CHRIST His Flesh and Blood are produced. Whence
also the priest says : ' Command that these gifts be
carried by the hands of Thy Holy Angel on to Thine
altar on high in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty.'
But how does He ask that these things may be carried
* Pascb. Radb., c. xii. ad fin. f Ibid., n. i.
2/6
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
there, unless it be understood that these things are
done through His Priesthood ? For He is made High
Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec, as the
Apostle teaches, in order that He may intercede for us,
offering Himself to the FATHER. For this purpose,
then, He entered once for all into the Holy place, not
by the blood of another, but by His own Blood. From
this [we learn that ] what is His own is not rightly re
ceived from another, but from Himself the great High
Priest ; nor are His Flesh and Blood produced by
any other than by Him Who produced them in the
womb of the Virgin, that the Word might be made
Flesh."
NO trace here In this passage taken as a whole we certainly find
thaTuit'H^lT n° tmCe °f any Sacrifice Other than ttiat °f tlie Ell-
charist. And this is the more evident from the title of
the chapter, which is, ' ( Whether this Mystery conveys
more grace if celebrated by a good priest, or less if
offered by a wicked priest."
Mr. Bright- Mr. Brightman also sums up the teaching of Pas-
enaCe'Stoefer~ chasius as follows : " According to his [Paschasius'J
paschasius. representation, the Church on earth offers its gifts and
devotions through the hands of its organ, the earthly
priest ; and so far it can be called the Sacrifice of the
priest or of the Church. But then in Consecration, by
the Word and HOLY SPIRIT, it passes out of our hands,
and is translated into the heavenly places, is borne on
to the heavenly altar, which is the Body of CHRIST,
Who as our High Priest ministers it before the throne
of the FATHER, and identifies it with His own ' immo
lation ' of Himself, so that in it (through the double
Consecration), ' spiritually, not carnally,' ' in mystery,
not in fact,' — for He ' dieth no more,' — His self-immo
lation is reproduced and commemorated, and so He
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 277
gives it back to us as His Body and Blood, in its new
power and significance." Mr. Brightman infers from
this passage that Paschasius " strives to represent the
reality and the mystery of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, to
give reality to our action, while limiting it and preserv
ing the unique prerogative of CHRIST our LORD — to
represent our co-operation with Him and the absorp
tion of our action into His, and to insist on the reality
of His true and abiding Priesthood in His Church, as
' the High Priest of our offerings ' — to negative the
thought of the Kucharist as a * bringing down CHRIST
from above,' and to enforce that of our gathering
round the altar on high, ' with Him in the heavenly
places. '"*
His inference is perfectly just, and all this is entirely
consistent with the Catholic doctrine upon the subject ;
it proves that our L,ORD is now, through His Priest
hood, offering a proper sacrifice on earth, but it in no
way proves that He is offering a proper sacrifice in
heaven upon which the Kucharist depends for its sac
rificial character.
Thalhofer, again, quotes Guitmundus Aversanus f 2. Thaihofer
(ob. circa 1090) as teaching that CHRIST at the Right <:ites GuitmUQ-
dus Aversanus,
Hand of the FATHER exercises His function of Medi
ator; that He intercedes and re-presents to the FATHKR
a universal sacrifice offered on earth ; that He sub
stantially repeats it ; and that the celebration of the
Eucharist is a real sign of the functions of the Mediator
in heaven.
The passage in Guitmundus from which Thalhofer
quotes is as follows : ' ' When CHRIST also in time past
* Brightman, pp. 13, 14.
t Guitmuud. Avers., De Corporis et Sanguinis Christi veri-
tate, 1. ii. ; Migne, P. L., torn. 149, col. 1455 sqq.
278 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
was teaching, working miracles, living a most righteous
life among men, eating, drinking, sleeping, and mani
festing in Himself all the other properties of our hu
manity, what else was He signifying to us, but that
He Himself was GOD and Man ? But even now also in
His Intercession for us, showing daily His Body with
the wounds, in the presence of the FATHER, He signi
fies that He was born for us, suffered and rose from the
dead, and ascended into heaven. The Divine Obla
tion, also, may, without danger to our faith, be con
sidered to signify these same things."
who is defend- In the context, which is too long to quote, Guit-
thfeSa tinsT" mundus is meeting the contention of Berengarius and
Berengarius his followers that S. Augustine * teaches that the food
of the lyORD's altar is only a sign and figure of the
Body of CHRIST. Guitmundus first points out that no
such statement is to be found in S. Augustine ; that in
the passage referred to S. Augustine says, not that the
food of the IBRD'S altar is a sign and figure of His
Body, but that " the celebration of the Body and Blood
of the lyORD is a sign of the Passion of CHRIST."
m regard to his Guitmundus then goes on to discuss several other
use of the word passages from S. Augustine, showing in what sense he
sign."
uses the word <( sign," and that the sign and the thing
signified may be identical, since CHRIST speaks of Him
self as a sign of GOD'S power manifested in His Resur
rection, t but He was GOD, and also said, " I am the
Resurrection ; " J and Simeon also refers to Him as
11 a Sign which shall be spoken against." §
After this we find the passage in question, from
which Thalhofer deduces such an unwarranted conclu-
* S. Aug., De Doctr. Christ., 1. iii., c. ix.
f S. L/tike xi. 30.
J S. John xi. 25. g S. Luke ii. 34.
ME DIM VAL A ND POS T-MEDIsE VA L WRI TER 5. 2 79
si on. All that Guitmundus says is that as our
life on earth was a sign of His true Humanity; and
as His Intercession in heaven, and presentation there
of His Body still bearing the marks of the wounds, is a
sign that for us He was born, suffered, rose again,
and ascended into heaven (since it is the presentation
of that same Body in which these acts were performed) ;
so also may it be asserted without danger to our faith,
that the Eucharist signifies these same things, since in
the Kucharist the same Body is offered.
His reference to the wounds in our LORD'S Body
merely recalls Rev. v. 6, where our LORD is described
as " a Lamb as it had been slaughtered." But the in
ference which he draws is not what Thalhofer implies,
that our LORD is substantially renewing a sacrificial
act in heaven, but rather that by the presence of His
Body in heaven He is showing that He was born,
suffered, rose again, and ascended into heaven for us,
and that in the Kucharist without danger to our faith
we may say that the same is signified. What ' ' same ' ' ?
That He was born, suffered, rose again, and ascended
into heaven for us; in other words, that the Kucharist
is an extension of the Incarnation, a memorial of the
Passion, and commemorates our LORD'S " mighty
Resurrection and glorious Ascension ' ' by the fact that
His glorified Body is there present, and that in it we Nothing in
are united to the worship of the Church in heaven. Guitmundus
. supports Thai-
There is certainly nothing in Guitmundus which sup- hofer's views.
ports Thalhofer's view.
Again, Thalhofer quotes from B. Odo of Cambrai 3. Thalhofer
(ob. 1116): " Wherefore we pray that as CHRIST, when
He was about to send the gift of the HOLY GHOST,
was translated from earth to heaven in the presence of
His disciples, and became invisible to earthly sight, so
280
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
He is discuss-
The full con
text.
this Host may be carried from the earthly altar on
which It is immolated, to the altar on high, in the
sight of GOD, that from thence we may be filled with
all spiritual benediction and grace, so that what is vis
ibly performed on earth may be invisibly done in
heaven." *
This passage is taken from Odo's comment on the
Supplices Te, and is, indeed, nothing more than a
paraphrase of that prayer. In order that we may
understand Odo's view, it will be well to examine the
context. He says : " Here it is difficult to under
stand how we pray that the Body and Blood of our
L,ORD may be carried into the presence of GOD, when
it is written that CHRIST always stands before the face
of the FATHER, interceding with GOD for us, and we
read that CHRIST when He ascended into heaven was
exalted over all, sitting at the Right Hand of the
FATHER. How, then, do we pray that CHRIST may
be carried to a place where He always is ? Before this,
however, we prayed that GOD'S face might be made
propitious and favourable towards the Sacrifice of His
SON, not as though the FATHER could be unpropitious
to His SON, but that in the mention of the SON as pro
pitiating the FATHER we are including ourselves [that
is, we are praying], that for love of the SON He will
have mercy on us, and intimating that if for His sake
He does not receive us, He is slighting the SON. So
in this prayer also we ask that the SON may be carried
to the FATHER (although on our behalf He always is
with the FATHER), in order that our prayers and devo
tions may come to the FATHER through the SON, and
that by the virtue of so great a Sacrifice our prayers
* Odo Cam., Expos, in Can. Miss., dist. iii. ; Migne, P. L.,
torn. cxl.
MEDIAE VA L A MD POS T-MEDIsE VA L WRI TER S. 2 8 1
may be carried into the presence of GOD. For if our
prayers do not make their way thither, it would be as
though the SON had not ascended to the FATHER."
Then follows the passage quoted by Thalhofer :
" Wherefore we pray that as CHRIST, when He was
about to send the gift of the HOLY GHOST, was trans
lated from earth to heaven in the presence of His dis
ciples, and became invisible to earthly sight, so this
Host may be carried from the earthly altar on which It
is immolated, to the altar on high, in the sight of GOD,
that from thence we may be filled with all spiritual
benediction and grace, so that what is visibly performed
on earth may be invisibly done in heaven."
Odo continues : " Here the Sacrifice is offered, there
it is accepted, not by change of place, nor by succes
sion of time ; not that the translation as a movement
begun in this place is afterwards completed in another
place, but in the same place that which was bread be
comes the Flesh of the Word. There is no translation
of place, that from bread it may become Flesh, but it
is translated from the altar to heaven because it is
translated from bread to GOD. But since GOD is
everywhere, it is not by change of place that the Flesh
made from bread is joined to GOD. In an unseen
manner it is translated inwardly to GOD ; outwardly it
does not move visibly from the altar. The Sacrifice
offered on the altar by the devotion of man is accepted
in heaven by the propitiation of GOD. For it is then
in a certain sense accepted by GOD when GOD is made
propitious to us, and a heavenly benediction is sent from
Him to us. But CHRIST needed not the help of angels
when by His own power He ascended into heaven.
Why, then, do we ask that this Sacrifice may be carried
by the hands of an angel into the presence of GOD,
282
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The passage
cited only a
paraphrase of
the prayer.
Its real pur
port.
Another pas
sage from Odo.
since the offices of angels are unnecessary to this trans
lation ? But what is said is this : that by the transla
tion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST we ask that our
pra}^ers may be carried [to the throne of grace]. There
are, however, angels appointed for us, who daily offer
our prayers to GOD, whence it is written that ' their
angels do always behold the face of the FATHER.' *
So in mentioning CHRIST we ask that our prayers may
be carried by the hands of an angel, that, under the
plea of so great a Sacrifice, good angels may bear our
prayers to the throne of grace. ' '
This is perhaps a good place at which to call atten
tion to the unsatisfactory character of some of Thalho-
fer's quotations. Because he finds the phrase, "We
pray that this Host may be carried from the earthly
altar to the altar on high, in the sight of GOD," he
quotes Odo as believing in a heavenly sacrifice, whereas
the context clearly shows two things : First, that in
these words Odo is simply paraphrasing the prayer on
which he is commenting, and that he understands this
prayer only in a mystical sense, and as equivalent to
a petition that in union with the Sacrifice of the Eu
charist our prayers may ascend to GOD, and that the
Sacrifice has a propitiatory character. Secondly, that
Odo believed that " here the Sacrifice is offered, there
it is accepted," that "it is immolated on the earthly
altar and carried to the altar on high."
Odo, however, continues his commentary on this
prayer as follows : " We pray Thee . . . that
those things which Thou dost behold with propitious
and favourable regard may also be borne to Thine
invisible and sublime [places], and that Thou wouldest
admit them to the presence of Thy Majesty. Herein
* S. Matt, xviii. 10.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 283
is need of humiliation, herein of supplication ; herein
the consummation of all our labour is, that this Sacri
fice may be borne to Thine altar on high in the sight
of Thy Divine Majesty. But what does this mean ?
What is it to carry the Sacrifice to the altar on high,
unless it be to place the sheep upon the shoulders of
the Shepherd ? And what does this placing of the
sheep on His shoulders mean, except that man was as
sumed by the Word ? And what is more exalted than
the Word of GOD ? Daily the Word of GOD takes into
Himself the faithful in the participation of this Sacri
fice. The Word of GOD, then, is the altar on high, to
which we pray that the Sacrifice may be carried into
the presence of GOD, and that we may be presented by
Him. The presence of GOD is the Word of the FATHER,
in Whom He sees all that He has done. For every
thing that the FATHKR does is in His SON ; for ' that
which was made in Him was life; ' * and ' in the be
ginning GOD created the heavens and the earth,' f that
is, in the Word ; and ' by the Word of GOD were the
heavens made ; ' \ and ' in Wisdom hath He made all
things.' § What is more properly called the presence
of GOD than His Wisdom, in which He sees all that
He does ? What, then, does it mean that the Sacrifice
is carried to the altar on high in the sight of GOD, but
that our Oblation is joined to the Word, is united to
the Word, becomes GOD, and through it wre are taken
into GOD, and our prayers accepted ? "
The interpretation of this passage is somewhat diffi- its interprets
cult, but it seems best to interpret it as referring to our- *
selves, so that the expression "our Oblation is joined to
the Word, is united to the Word, becomes GOD," means
* S. John i. 4 (the ancient reading). J Ps. xxxiii. 6.
t Gen. i. i. \ Ps. civ. 24.
284 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
that we ourselves, through our Oblation, are joined
and united to the Word, and so in a sense are deified,
and almost taken into GOD, and in this way our devo
tions are accepted. For Odo is speaking of a Sacrifice
which is already the Body and Blood of the Incarnate
Word subsisting under the species, which therefore is
rightly said to be the Incarnate Word Himself. But
how can the Incarnate Word be "joined to the Word,
united to the Word," how can He be conceived of as
" becoming GOD " ? Besides, whatever interpretation
of these words we choose, it is evident that there is no
reference whatever to a celestial altar properly so
called, to which can be referred a heavenly sacrifice
properly so called.
And further, it is evident that Odo at least does not
agree with those who consider that the altar on high is
CHRIST Himself in His Human Nature, since in this
place the altar on high is clearly interpreted of the
Word Himself as He is GOD the Word, not as He is
the Word Incarnate.
Athirdpassage Finally, Odo, commenting on the words, ' ' That as
from odo. many of us as by the participation of this altar shall
have received the most holy Body and Blood of Thy
SON may be filled with all spiritual benediction and
grace," says : " The Church has a visible altar on
earth. There is also an invisible altar in heaven with
GOD. The Sacrifice which we offer on our altar is
joined to GOD and becomes GOD. In this Sacrifice
earthly things are joined with heavenly, the creature
is united to GOD; since on this altar we receive His
creature, we receive GOD from on high. Since here we
receive the Body and Blood of CHRIST, we receive GOD
from heaven, in Whom we are filled with all spiritual
benediction and grace. We receive here visibly the
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 285
Body and Blood of CHRIST ; invisibly we receive from
heaven, from whence they are sent, the benediction
and grace of GOD."
Stentrup * observes that the meaning of this passage stentrup's
is made clear by what Odo has already said, so
that, when Odo writes that the Church has a visible
altar on earth, and that there is an invisible altar in the
heavens, he does not distinguish two altars properly so
called, separated in place, but signifies the character of
the Sacrifice which is immolated on our altar, which by
the change of the bread becomes the Flesh of GOD the
Word, and therefore is not moved outwardly or visibly
from the altar, but inwardly and invisibly by change of
substance is translated into the substance of the Word
of GOD.
For we must remember that in Odo's time the term
" transubstantiation " had already been coined, and
that the doctrine which it represented was keenly dis
cussed. Wherefore you have in the Eucharistic Sacri
fice earthly things joined with heavenly, that is, an
earthly altar with a heavenly altar, earthly accidents
with heavenly substance ; the creature, therefore,
with GOD. Whence if we receive from our visible altar
the Body and Blood of CHRIST under the species of
bread and wine, we receive GOD, since these are His
Body and Blood. But in GOD we are filled with all
benediction and grace. Here, indeed, we receive visibly
the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; but
invisibly from heaven, whither they are carried, we re
ceive the benediction and grace of GOD.
From these passages we are justified in asserting not odo gives no
only that Odo of Cambrai gives no support to the idea suPP°rtt°
, Thalhofer's
of a heavenly sacrifice as distinct from the Eucharist, theory.
* Stentrup, Soteriologia, torn. 2, pp. 324, 325.
286
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
4. Mr. Bright-
man refers to
5. IvoofChar-
tres and Hilde-
bert of Tours.
Mr. Bright-
man's state
ments both
misleading
and inaccurate.
S. Ivo's work
on the S. S. of
the Old and
New Testa
ments.
but that his explanation of the Siipplices Te is incon
sistent with any such view.
Mr. Brightman (not Thalhofer) next cites S. Ivo of
Chartres (ob. 1113). He says that the interpretation
of Paschasius " is identical with that suggested by some
mystical exponents in the Middle Ages — like S. Ivo of
Chartres and S. Hildebert of Tours — who expound the
liturgy by putting it in parallel with the Levitical
sacrifice of the Day of Atonement and with our LORD'S
work, as expounded in the Epistle to the Hebrews —
and in this parallel the Consecration and Sacrifice of the
Kucharist are made to correspond, not to the slaying of
the victim and the act of the Cross, but to the sprinkl
ing of the blood within the Holiest, and to our LORD'S
continuous propitiatory work on the Throne of the
FATHER." *
In this passage we have to deal both with facts and
inferences. Let us take S. Ivo of Chartres first :
Mr. Brightman here makes certain definite state
ments in regard to S. Ivo of Chartres, which seem to us
both misleading and singularly inaccurate, and which
must therefore be investigated with the greatest care.
He gives no references, but is of course referring to the
Fifth Sermon of S. Ivo, otherwise known as his Opus-
culum de convenientia veteris et novi Sacrificii. This
opusculum is longer than S. Ivo's other sermons. It
is a most interesting treatise on the points of agreement
between the sacrifices of the Old and New Testaments;
that is, a comparison of some of the most striking types
in the Jewish sacrifices with their fulfilment in the
sacrificial work of our BLESSED LORD. In Migne's
edition f it occupies rather more than twenty-seven
* Brightman, p. 15.
t S. Ivo Cam., Migne, P. L., torn, clxii., col. 535-562.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 287
columns, of which less than one-half are devoted to
those types which are fulfilled in the liturgy.
As S. Ivo's sermon is a good example of that mysti- Agoodexam-
cal treatment of the liturgy so prevalent in the twelfth ^[^tme^t
century (of which Amalarius in the ninth century may of the liturgy.
be considered the author), and as he is one of the
earliest, if not the earliest, writer in whom we find the
conception of our LORD'S Intercession in heaven as a
pleading of His Passion, we shall give a full account
of this work with a translation of those parts to which
Mr. Brightman refers.
S. Ivo divides the liturgy into two parts. The first, He divides it
the Missa Catechumenorum, from the Introit to the ^to two parts :
the first is inter-
Offertory, he interprets by our LORD'S first Advent, and preted by our
by those sacrifices which the Jewish priests offered ^°RD>s first
... • , • . i -i-i r -i , Advent and by
without the veil, within sight and hearing of the people. the sacrifices
The second, the Missa Fidelium, from the Offertory to offered without
the end, he interprets by our LORD'S Passion on earth second by our
and Intercession in heaven, and by the action of the LORD'S Pas-
Jewish priest on the Day of Atonement not only within
the veil, but in sending the scapegoat into the wilder- the priest's ac-
ness, in washing his garments, and in the other ritual ^^^^
acts which took place after he had returned to the peo- his return to
pie from the Holy of holies. the Pe°Ple-
S. Ivo is the first, so far as we know, who attempted s. ivo the first
to put the liturgy in parallel with the ritual of the Day
of Atonement. That he has accomplished this with
great ingenuity and in a most striking manner, we
gladly concede; but we have already called attention*
to the fact that while the ritual of the Day of Atone
ment typifies our LORD'S Intercession in heaven, as the
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches us, it has
no essential relation to the Holy Eucharist. Certain
* Cf. p. 140.
288
THE EUCHARIST2C SACRIFICE.
Its difficulties
avoided by S.
Ivo.
Mr. Bright-
man's state
ment about S.
Ivo's teaching
is entirely un
founded.
analogies may be traced between the two, but this is
only to be expected, since both are related to the Sacri
fice of our LORD ; the one as a typical, the other as a
commemorative sacrifice. While, however, this ac
counts for certain points of resemblance, it does not
constitute type and anti-type, in the Biblical sense of
the terms.
The analogies which mystical writers discover in
Holy Scripture are often edifying, but they seldom
afford a good foundation upon which to build a doctrinal
position. Of this we have a very striking illustration
in this work of S. Ivo of Chartres, for we shall notice
that in applying the ritual of the Day of Atonement to
our lyORD's Intercession in heaven and to the Eucharist
on earth, he has to be constantly on his guard against
falling into the very doctrinal errors which Mr. Bright-
man ascribes to him. S. Ivo most skilfully avoids
them, as we shall show, but in doing so more or less
sacrifices the consistent application of his type. Mr.
Brightman apparently has overlooked this.
It will facilitate our investigation of S. Ivo's treatise
if we put clearly before us what Mr. Brightman tells us
we shall find there. He says that S. Ivo expounds
" the liturgy by putting it in parallel with the Leviti-
cal sacrifices of the Day of Atonement, and with our
LORD'S work as expounded in the Kpistle to the
Hebrews ; ' ' and so far he is correct. He goes on to
assert that "in this parallel the Consecration and Sacri
fice of the Eucharist is made to correspond, not to the
slaying of the victim and the act of the Cross, but to
the sprinkling of the Blood within the Holiest, and to
our LORD'S continuous propitiatory work on the Throne
of the FATHER." This statement we believe to be
entirely unfounded.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 289
We now turn to S. Ivo, and we find that after dis- s. ivo's intro-
cussing various sacrificial rites of the Jews, he intro- ductiontohis
treatment of
duces his treatment of the liturgy with these words : the liturgy.
" The sacrifices of which we have spoken, and others
which the law commanded to be offered on divers occas
ions, prefiguring the Priesthood of CHRIST and the
events of His Life, of which indeed they were types, the
Church renews in a brief representation, when she sol
emnizes the mysteries of the Mass in her daily celebra
tion throughout the world."
S. Ivo begins with the Introit and Litany, which he i. Theintroit
says represent the devotion and expectation of those and Litany,
who, like Simeon, Anna and others, were longing
for the advent of CHRIST. He takes the approach of
the priest to the right side of the altar as teaching that
our LORD was sent only to " the lost sheep of the
House of Israel." After the Introit, he says, follows
the Angelic Hymn (the Gloria in Excelsis), which re- The "Gioriain
minds us of our LORD'S Nativity in time. Then fol- ^xcelsis-"
lows the Collect, which tells of our LORD on the Mount The collect,
teaching the LORD'S Prayer, and so instituting a form
of prayer. The Kpistle comes next, representing the Epistle,
preaching of those disciples whom our LORD " sent
two and two before His face into every city and place
whither He Himself would come." Then the Gospel, Gospel,
when the priest passes to the left side of the altar, sig
nifies that the Apostles offered the Gospel first to
the Jews, and, when they rejected it, turned to the
Gentiles.
After the Gospel comes the Creed, then the offering creed,
of the bread and wine, and the general offerings of the and offertory-
people, which latter S. Ivo refers to the offerings at the
dedication of Solomon's Temple, the former being con
nected with the bread and wine which Melchisedec
19
290
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
S. Ivo's intro
duction to the
Canon.
ii. From the
Offertory to the
end of the
Canon.
The three
secrets corre
spond with the
prayers in
Gethsemane,
and with the
three sacrifices
of the bullock,
ram, and goat.
The "Sursum
Corda ' ' and
the exhorta
tion to "Watch
and pray."
The Preface,
the ministry of
angels, and the
cherubim.
The Canon.
brought forth to Abraham. Many other illustrations
from the different Jewish sacrifices follow here.
S. Ivo says that " we must notice that all the things
which are commemorated from the Introit to the Offer
tory are properly compared with those sacrifices which
the priests offer in the outer tabernacle," since as they
were offered in the sight of the people, so the first part
of the liturgy is open to catechumens and to those who
are not communicants. " Now," he says, " it remains
that we show, as GOD shall give us grace, in what way
those things which our priests do in the prayers or
services of the Mysteries agree with those which the
Jewish high priests did within the Holy of holies." *
S. Ivo then from this point compares the things done
within the veil in the type, with the liturgy, and with
our LORD'S High-Priestly work. First, he says, the
secret prayers which the priest makes after the Offer
tory correspond with our LORD'S threefold prayer in
the Garden of Gethsemane, by which He consecrated
Himself as the Lamb for the burnt offering. This three
fold prayer of our LORD also corresponds to the offering
of the bullock, the ram, and the goat upon which the
lot fell, each of which typified our LORD as the Sacrifice
under a different aspect. The Sursum Corda he takes
as reminding us of our LORD'S injunction to His dis
ciples in Gethsemane to watch and pray ; for he says
it is only by watching that we can be worthy to join
with angels and archangels in praising and adoring
GOD. With the Preface and Sanctus he also associates
the cherubim above the mercy-seat in the Holy of holies.
Then begins the Canon of the Mass ; and here it will
be best for us to give S. Ivo's words more fully. f He
* S. Ivo Cam., Serm. v. ; Migne, P. L., clxii., col. 551 et 553.
f S. Ivo Cam., Ibid., col. 554.
MEDIAL VAL A ND POST-MEDIAE VA L WRI TERS. 29 1
says: " The priest prays GOD the FATHKR that
through our Mediator, to Whom is given all power
in heaven and earth, the sacramental offerings may
be blessed ; that is, may be translated into that truth
which was foreshadowed by the sacrifices offered on the
Day of Atonement ; for these were three : a bullock, a
ram, and two goats, and these are commemorated under
the three terms, ' hcec dona^ ' hcec muneraj ' h<zc sancta
sacrificial although," he remarks, " they represent
only the one mystery of the L,ORD'S Passion, by which
He reconciled things human and divine. The two The two goats
goats signify the two Natures in CHRIST. The Human CHESTS two
Nature, in which He suffered for our redemption, is Natures: the
typified by the goat slain for sin, and the Divine Nature goat slain' His
Human Na-
by the scapegoat, which was sent by the hand of a fit ture ; the
man,' that is, by Himself, into that wilderness in which, scapegoat,
having left the ninety-aud-nine sheep, the Good Shep- Nature,
herd came to seek the one that was lost. With \cuni\
the blood of these animals, that is, of the bullock and
the goat, the high priest entered the Holy of holies ;
and our LORD JKSUS through [per] His own Blood,
which was prefigured by the blood of the aforesaid
animals, entered into the Holy of holies, having ob
tained eternal redemption. Our priest also enters for
the purpose of celebrating the Holy Mysteries with
\cum\ the Blood of CHRIST, that is, with the memorial The"Memen-
of the Lows Passion. The Levitical priest, as he is JJ° ^^VhT
entering the tabernacle of the testimony, prays for him- tercessioVof
self and for his family. CHRIST, when He is about to thf ^eviticai
ascend into heaven [ascensurus], prays for Himself, say- cHRrsTon°
ing, ' FATHER, glorify Thy SON, that Thy SON also earth,
may glorify Thee.' * He prays also for His family,
saying, ' Keep through Thine own Name those whom
* S.John xvii. i.
2Q 2 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Thou hast given Me.' * Our priest also, when he
begins to perform the Sacred Mysteries, prays for the
chief Pontiff and for the Holy Church of GOD, and for
those in bliss, according to the Apostle, * that we may
lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty.' " f
The incense of "The L,evitical priest carries with him into the
tAh,^Dayof. . sanctuary coals from the altar on which is burnt the
AtoncniciiL is
connected with flesh of animals, filling thence his censer. Our High
the fragrance priest asceil(is into the tabernacle not made with
of our CORD'S
Humanity, hands, carrying with Him a Body redolent with the
fragrance of every virtue, which as living coals from
the altar His Humanity takes from the fire of the HOLY
and with the SPIRIT, that burns up the flesh of evil desire. Our
tioTof the0" P"est a^so carries with him coals taken from the same
Apostles and altar, when he commemorates the Apostles and certain
Martyrs. Martyrs, who, quickened from the dead by the love of
the SPIRIT, themselves also burn in themselves with
divine love, and strive by their example to quicken
others from the dead."
Thesignifi- S. Ivo points out that this memorial was typified by
breas^ia'te6 the breastPlate of tne Aaronic high priest, on the
noted. stones of which were inscribed the names of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel ; and he says that ' ' this signifies that,
besides faith in the Holy Trinity and evangelical doc
trine, the priest in celebrating ought to make a memorial
of our forefathers. ' '
The incense in He then says: " In the Apocalypse also we read of
the Apocalypse Qur Hi h prjest who was the Angel of Great Counsel,
taken of the
that when He fills the censer from the fire of the altar,
that is, from the Omnipotent Divinity dwelling in the
Body of CHRIST, so great a cloud of virtues goes forth
from Him that it surpasses all human understanding.
* S. John xvii. 2. f * S. Tim- "• 2-
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 293
' For GOD giveth not the SPIRIT by measure unto
Him.' * And when our priest celebrates the Mysteries
of the New Testament and prays, the subtlety of the
prayer [of the liturgy] is as great as that of the smoke
of incense directed to GOD ; which prayer also sur
passes human reason and all understanding. For the
priest prays that our LORD may make the oblation
placed upon the altar ' blessed, approved, ratified,
reasonable, and acceptable,' " each of which terms S.
Ivo explains in the usual manner.
Then we read : ' ' After these general expressions the its spiritual
priest spiritually indicates what he is asking for, that
is, that these bodily materials [the bread and wine] may
become to us the Body and Blood of CHRIST. This
prayer covers the mercy-seat with the smoke of the
most subtle perfumes, and asks that the earthly and
corruptible matter may be incorporated with His
heavenly and incorruptible Body. But faith alone is
used for this depth of the Divine Counsel, and goes
forth to things within the veil, into which faith could
have no entrance if it strove to prove by the arguments
of human reason the mysteries which are there con
tained."
" The priest, who serves the shadow, turning to the The sprinkling
east, sprinkles the mercy-seat, the sanctuary, and the
tabernacle with the blood of the bullock, and, with the blood
same rite, with the blood of the goat which had been
sacrificed (immolati) ; for the same CHRIST Who was
prefigured by the bullock, and was signified by the goat
offered for sin (even CHRIST ascending to the east, that typifies
is, to the FATHER from Whom He came forth), sprinkles ^
(aspergit^ Him, that is, the FATHER, Whom by the work
sprinkling of His Blood He had made (fecit) propitious in heaveil)
* S. John iii. 34.
294
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and the sign of
the Cross made
over the ele
ments before
and after the
Consecration.
The act of Con
secration is
referred solely
to the Death
on the Cross.
to us. He sprinkles also the sanctuary and the taber
nacle, for, entering into the sanctuary by His own
Blood, He reconciled things human and divine, as the
Apostle says : ' It pleased the FATHER ... by Him
to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say,
whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.' *
That is, the Church, which on earth, on account of the
disobedience of our first parents, was lost, but in heaven,
through the fall of the rebel angels, was diminished.
Our priest in the sacred ministry, as within the veil,
copies this sprinkling (lianc aspersionem) \ of the Blood
of CHRIST as often as, turning to the east from whence
the SAVIOUR came to us, when naming the Mysteries
themselves by their typical or proper names, he signs
the same with the sign of the Cross"
We must notice that S. Ivo is here interpreting only
the prayer Quam oblationem, which precedes the Con
secration.
He continues : " For what does it mean, in the
Mysteries themselves, to sign the sign of the Cross
over the things which have been or are to be conse
crated, unless it be to commemorate the Death of the
LORD ? Whence also the LORD, when delivering the
form of Consecration of His Body and Blood, says, ' Do
this in remembrance of Me ' — ' As often as ye do this,
ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He come.' The
sprinkling of the Blood of CHRIST having been com
memorated in the LORD'S words, the words of the
Mysteries follow, commemorating the same sprinkling
* Col. i. 19, 20.
f " Ifanc aspersionem," that is, the last-mentioned sprink
ling, by which CHRIST had made the FATHER propitious to us;
the tense of ' 'fecit" shows this to have been the blood-shedding
upon the Cross, not the sprinkling in heaven, which is indicated
by the present tense " aspergit."
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 29$
of the Blood [on the Cross] by the voice of the priest
addressing his prayer to the FATHKR : ' Wherefore, O inthe"unde
LORD, we Thy servants, as also Thy holy people, call- ^eMse™°res "
ing to mind the blessed Passion, Resurrection, and As- offered,
cension of Thy SON, offer to Thy Majesty,' etc. That
is, we commemorate through these Thy visible gifts,
the Sacrifice offered to Thee, a pure Sacrifice, a holy
Sacrifice, an unspotted Sacrifice ; pure, that is, without
the leaven of malice ; holy, that is, consecrated to
Thee ; unspotted, that is, such as was signified by
those animals without spot which were sought for
sacrifice. And the priest thus prays, that this com- and in the
memoration of the true Sacrifice may be accepted by ^"^jf^'
GOD the FATHER, as were accepted the gifts of Abel, prays that it
of Abraham, of Melchisedec, in whose offerings the may bed
Sacraments of the new priesthood were typically begun.
For what is figured by Abel but CHRIST, who though
innocent was slain by the wicked ? What by Abraham,
but the obedience by which He wras obedient to the
FATHER, even unto death ? What, again, by Mel
chisedec, but that the same CHRIST changes bread
and wine into His Body, and entrusts to His disciples
this rite of the new priesthood ? ' '
S. Ivo goes on to point out * that after the offering of s. ivo then
incense and the sprinkling of the sanctuary and taber- *akesthe
nacle and altar with the blood of the bullock and the Te"ofthe
goat, the sons of Aaron laid their hands on the head scapegoat, and
of the scapegoat, and when they had imprecated upon priest return
it the sins of the Children of Israel, sent it living into to the camp as
the wilderness. Then the high priest returned into the ^ORD'^AS^
camp, praying for his household and for all the con- cension and
gregation of the people of Israel. He interprets this Intercession-
of the Jews, who in our LORD'S Passion laid their
* S. Ivo Cam., Ibid., col. 557.
296 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
hands upon Him, and imprecated upon themselves
His Blood when they cried, " His Blood be on us and
on our children." * Then he says : " They sent our
LORD living into the wilderness, for they could not
touch His Divinity. They sent Him away to ascend,
freed by the death of the flesh, to that solitary glory
which He had with the FATHER ; ' by a fit man,' that
is, by Himself ; ' carrying the sins of the Children of
Israel,' that is, taking away the sins of the world, not
retaining them. This our priest commemorates by say
ing to GOD the FATHER : ' Command these gifts to be
carried by the hands of Thine Holy Angel on to Thine
altar on high.' Who is this Angel, but the Angel of
Great Counsel, Who with His own Hands, that is, by
works endued with peculiar dignity, merited to ascend
the heavens and to raise Himself upon the altar on
high, that is, to intercede for us at the Right Hand of
the FATHER ? The high priest then returned into the
camp ; and our LORD said to His disciples, telling them
of His Ascension, ' I am with you always, unto the end
of the world." 'f
" Both these acts the priest imitates, first, by his
prayers, raising the Body of CHRIST above all the
height of heavenly things; then, as if returning to
the camp, he prays ' that as many as by the participa
tion of this altar shall have received the holy Body and
The mystery of Blood of Thy most dearly beloved SON, may be fulfilled
prLencT'3 with a11 ^eavenly benediction.' Behold, the words of
in the H. E. the blessed Apostle Andrew come to mind, in which he
while stm in asserts both that the Body of our LORD is in heaven
heaven must
be appre- and that the Body of the LORD can be received from the
bended by ajtar . \vhose Flesh, he says, although it be eaten and
His Blood drunk by the people on earth, nevertheless
* S. Matt, xxvii. 25. f S. Matt, xxviii. 20.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 297
He Himself continues whole and living in heaven
at the Right Hand of the FATHER until the time of
restitution of all things. If you seek how this can be,
I shall briefly answer that the mystery is of faith ; that
it is possible to inquire into it with advantage, but that
it cannot be inquired into without danger."
Then, after alluding to the disciples who left our s. Augustine
L,ORD because they stumbled at His words, " Except <iuoted-
ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His
Blood, ye have no life in you," * he quotes S. Augus
tine's Exposition of the Fifty-fourth Psalm : f " Until
the age is finished the L,ORD is above ; but nevertheless
it is true that the LORD is here with us. Behold, we
have CHRIST whole in heaven, through the exhibition
of the Flesh interceding with the FATHER for us. We
have also His Body whole in the Sacrament of the
altar."
" In the heavens the prayer of the SON is : ' FATHER,
I will that where I am, there may also My servant
be.' \ This prayer is for His family, for His members,
and signifies that the high priest, when he has returned
into the camp, washes his garments. For CHRIST in The washing
the camp, that is. in the Church, washes His srarments of thehl»h
0 priest's gar-
when through Baptism or through Confession He ments taken of
cleanses our sins ; for we are His garment, as the BaPtlsn
prophet says, ' Thou shalt be clothed with all these as
with a garment.' The priest also washes his garments
when, descending from the height of the Mysteries to
the care of lower things, he mourns for the sins of the
people who cling to him, and strives to reconcile them
* S. John vi. 53.
f S. Aug., Ennar. in Psalm,) liv,, n. 3 (a paraphrase rather
than a quotation).
J S. John xvii. 24, xii. 26.
298
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and of our
LORD'S work
of reconcilia
tion.
The mention
of the Apostles
and Saints con
nected with the
high priest's
breastplate
and ephod.
Commemora
tion of the
Saints
and of their
merits.
to GOD by his prayers, saying with the prophet, ' Who
shall give water to Mine Head, and fountains of tears
to Mine Eyes, that I may mourn the slain of my
people.' * The following prayers, which make men
tion both of the dead and of the living, contain these
things. But we must note that among these prayers
the suffrages of the Saints, of the Apostles, and of the
Martyrs are employed, by whose example the present
Church asks to be moulded, and that she may be forti
fied by their merits. But this commemoration of the
Fathers who have gone before agrees with the ancient
priesthood. For the high priest entering into the
sanctuary carried upon two of his vestments the names
of the patriarchs, that is, on the breastplate and on the
ephod, which were bound together, the HOLY SPIRIT
signifying that the priest of CHRIST should strive to
put in operation that righteousness and truth which he
has in his heart ; for the place for carrying the burden
is the shoulder."
' ' Corresponding with this in our sacraments a twofold
commemoration of the Saints is made, in order that our
priests may both meditate upon in heart and imitate
in act, the deeds of the Saints. After this commemora
tion of the Saints, the priest, presuming nothing on
his own merits, prays that by the merits of the Saints
we may attain to that which we cannot by our own
merits gain, and this only through the Mediator, Who
for us was made a propitiation, redemption, and sancti-
fication, by Whom these sacraments were instituted for
us, as a medicine for our wounds." And then follows:
"Per quern h<zc omnia creas"
Here S. Ivo's treatment of the Canon ends. It is
not necessary that we should give his exposition of the
*Jer. ix. i.
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS, 299
Communion and Post-Communion, further than to call
attention to one point. He notices the fact that " on
the Day of Atonement the priest, after the flesh of the
bullock and goat had been burnt outside the camp, did
not return into the camp until he had washed his vest
ments and his flesh, which signified the cleansing of
things exterior and interior. Yet, according to the
law, although thus washed, he was considered unclean
until the evening, for those who burnt the flesh of the
victims without the camp prefigured the Passion which s. ivo again
CHRIST suffered without the city ; but our priests in the ^K^Ln
celebrations of the Mass commemorated the Passion [which memorates the
our L,ORD] suffered, which Passion [the Jewish priests] Passion-
as we have said, prefigured." *
We have now before us S. Ivo's treatment of the
liturgy, in which we are unable to discover the slightest
support of Mr. Brightman's theory. Indeed, the only Mr. Bright-
part of Mr. Brightman's statement which seems to us man's state-
warranted is that S. Ivo puts in parallel, not with the pared with s.
Holy Eucharist, but with the prayers and ceremonies Ivo's words-
of the liturgy, the ritual of the Day of Atonement, and
our LORD'S life and work on earth and in heaven. In
order to make this clear we shall draw special atten
tion to those parts of S. Ivo's treatise which throw
light upon Mr. Brightman's statement.
i. S. Ivo distinguishes between what was done on i. TheuAna-
the Day of Atonement in the presence of the people, Phora."the
and what took place within the veil. This he parallels
in the liturgy with the Pro Anaphora and Anaphora, the
Misses Catechumenorum and the Missce Fidelium, the earth"3
Ordinary of the Mass and the Mysteries or Canon.
The first corresponds to our LORD'S public life.
The second, within the veil, the Mysteries, corresponds
* S. Ivo Cam., Ibid., col. 560, 561.
300
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ii. The three
sacrifices re
present only
the Passion.
iii. The in
cense the fra
grance of our
LORD'S glori
fied Body
with His Passion, which took place on earth, not in
heaven; for he says of the three Secrets, the prayers
immediately after the Offertory, that they accord with
our LORD'S prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane ;
while he connects the Sursum Corda with the injunc
tion to the disciples to watch and pray, and the angelic
Preface and Sandus with the ministry of angels and
with the cherubim over the mercy-seat.
He tells us that the sign of the Cross made in the
Mysteries themselves over the unconsecrated as well
as the consecrated elements, commemorates the Death of
the LORD. S. Ivo also puts into this part of his parallel
the prayers which our LORD made before His Ascen
sion. " FATHER, glorify Thy SON, that Thy SON also
may glorify Thee ; " and " Keep through Thine own
Name those whom Thou hast given Me." Thus far,
therefore, we may observe that the things within the
veil correspond at least to many things which occurred
before our LORD'S Ascension, and not to His Interces
sion in heaven only.
ii. S. Ivo says that three sacrifices were offered on the
Day of Atonement, "a bullock, a ram, and two goats,"
and that <( these are commemorated under the three
terms hczc dona, hczc munera, h<zc sancta sacrifida, al
though they represent only the one mystery of the
LORD'S Passion, by which He reconciled things human
and divine." Here, then, we are. told that the terms
in the Te Igitur commemorate on the one hand the
sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, and on the
other only the one mystery of the LOR&S Passion, not His
Intercession.
iii. The incense which the high priest carried into
the Holy of holies, S. Ivo tells us, represents our LORD'S
Body fragrant with every virtue, and this corresponds
MEDIM VAL A ND POS T-MEDI^E VA L WRITER S. 301
in the liturgy with the commemoration of the Apostles,
Martyrs, and others. The breastplate worn by the
Aaron ic high priest, on the stones of which were
inscribed the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel,
typifies our L,ORD'S Intercession in heaven, which is
not the utterance of prayer, but the presence of His
Humanity, in which is comprehended His mystical
Body the Church ; and the incense represents, as we
have seen, the fragrance of our CORD'S glorified Body,
of a Sacrifice, that is, which had been offered on which hadbeen
earth, and the sweet savour of which had ascended to offered on
earth.
heaven.
iv. We now reach the crucial point. Is Mr. Bright- iv. The crucial
man correct in saying that S. Ivo makes " the act of P°jfttheact
ot Consecra-
Consecration and Sacrifice of the Eucharist . . . tion.
correspond not to the slaying of the Victim and the act
of the Cross, but to the sprinkling of the Blood within
the holiest, and to our LORD'S propitiatory work on
the Throne of the FATHER ? " To answer it we must
examine S. Ivo's words with care, and translate them
accurately.
S. Ivo says : " The priest who serves the shadow, Themercy-seat
turning to the east, sprinkles the mercy-seat, the sPrinkled with
. the blood of a
sanctuary, and the tabernacle with the blood of the s. which had
bullock, and, with the same rite, with the blood of been offered,
the goat which had been sacrificed (immolatt)." S. Ivo
uses the word immolati^ and by this shows that in his
opinion the sacrifice had been made, and that it was
therefore the blood of a finished sacrifice which was
carried into the Holy of holies to be sprinkled or applied
to the mercy-seat. If he had held Mr. Brightman's
view, he would have used the word immolandi, the
goat that was going to be sacrificed ; or, mactati or
i^ the goat which had been slain as the initial act of
302 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
a sacrifice ; but in using the word immolati he employs
a term which, while it does not necessarily convey any
idea of slaughter, does imply that the sacrificial action
had been performed.
We must carefully bear this in mind as we proceed
to examine S. Ivo's application of it to our LORD'S
fulfilment of the type. He says : ' ' For the same
CHRIST Who was prefigured by the bullock, and was
signified by the goat offered for sin (even CHRIST as
cending to the east, that is, to the FATHER from
Whom He came forth), sprinkles (aspergif) Him, that
is, the FATHER, Whom by the sprinkling of His Blood
He had made (fecif) propitious to us."
We cannot but be struck with the care with which
S. Ivo avoids saying what Mr. Brightman appears to
think he says ; for as he employed the past participle
immolati to show that the blood carried within the
Holy of holies was the blood of a finished sacrifice, so
The sprinkling in applying the type he says that our LORD, ascending
in heaven of ^Q heaveri) sprinkles the FATHER (aspergit, the present
had made the tense), Whom by the sprinkling of His Blood He had
FATHER pro- made ( fecit, perfect tense) propitious to us. Here the
pitious. , _> ., . .
The force of sprinkling by which the FATHER was made propitious
"fecit." t0 us js nof the sprinkling which took place on our LOR&S
Ascension into heaven, but the sprinkling which had
been made on the Cross.
There is no other way to explain the contrast be
tween the present aspergit and the perfect fecit; and
if it be asked, What then does S. Ivo mean by sprink
ling the FATHER in heaven ? the answer is clear. He
means our LORD'S Intercession, which with all theo
logians of his day he conceived to be the application
of a finished sacrifice.
This expression, " the sprinkling of the FATHER," so
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 303
far as we know, originated with S. Ivo, but it is often s. ivo the au-
met with in later writers of the twelfth century. It re- p^°^°onhe ex~
appears in the works of Hildebert of L,e Mans or Tours, "sprinkling
a younger contemporary of S. Ivo, whose mystical theFATH3R-"
verses, De Mysterio Missa, are little more than a com
mentary in verse on S. Ivo's sermon. Hildebert, how- ven. mide-
ever, makes clear what we have said, namely, that ' ' the bert>s exPllca-
. . . . . tion of S. Ivo's
sprinkling in heaven " is nothing more than a com- words,
memoration or mention of the blood-shedding on the
Cross, for he says :* "The priest [in heaven] there
fore then sprinkles the FATHER when the mention of
the Blood once for all sprinkled appeases Him."
" Tune ergo Sacrifex aspergit sanguine Patrem,
Quum semel aspersi mentio placat eum"
Again, we must observe accurately in what way S. s. ivo's appii-
Ivo applies this type to the Eucharist. He says : ff10f ^^
J ** ^ DlOOQ-SnCQClIIlCf
' This last (Jianc) sprinkling of the Blood of CHRIST to the liturgy,
[that is, the blood-shedding on the Cross by which the
FATHER had been propitiated] our priest imitates in
the sacred Mysteries, as if within the veil, as often as,
turning to the east, from whence the SAVIOUR came to
us, and naming the Mysteries themselves by their typi
cal or proper names, he signs the same with the sign
of the Cross. For what does it mean in the Mysteries
themselves, to sign the sign of the Cross over the
things which have been, or are to be, consecrated,
unless it be to commemorate the Death of the LORD?
Whence also, the LORD, when delivering the form of
Consecration of His Body and Blood, says, * Do this in
remembrance of Me ' — ' As often as ye do this, ye do
shew the LORD'S Death till He come.' The sprinkling
of the, Blood of CHRIST having then been commemo-
* Ven. Hildebert Cenoman, De Mysterio Misses ; Migne, P.
Iv., torn, clxxi., col. 1188.
304
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The force
of "hanc
aspersionem "
connects the
action of the
liturgy with
that of the
Cross.
The act of Con
secration com
memorates the
Death on the
Cross,
and not our
LORD'S action
in heaven.
rated in the LORD'S words, the words of the Mysteries
follow, commemorating the same sprinkling of the
Blood by the voice of the priest addressing his prayer
to the FATHER : ' Unde et memores ' ' — etc.
Once more we notice how carefully S. Ivo by the
very words he uses guards against Mr. Brightman's
error, for he says, " Hanc aspersionem" this last
sprinkling of the Blood of CHRIST, that is, the last
one he has spoken of, by which the FATHER was made
propitious, the blood-shedding of the Cross. This
sprinkling our priest imitates in the sacred Mysteries
as often as, naming the Mysteries themselves by their
typical or proper names (Jiac dona, hcec munera, hcec
sancta sacrificia, etc.), he signs the same with the sign
of the Cross. We may observe, too, that these signs
of the Cross occur in the prayer Te Igitur, which pre
cedes the Consecration, and therefore is neither the act
of Consecration nor the Sacrifice; and that S. Ivo says,
" This commemorates not our LORD'S work in heaven,
but the Death of the LORD."
Then passing to the words of Consecration, the essen
tially sacrificial act, he adds : " Whence also the LORD
when delivering the form of Consecration of His Body
and Blood says, ' Do this in remembrance of Me ' —
' As often as ye do this, ye do shew the LORD'S Death
till He come.' ' Here is no intimation that S. Ivo con
siders the act of Consecration to refer to our LORD'S
Intercession in heaven, but an assertion that it com
memorates the Death of the LORD, since the sentence
which immediately precedes the word " whence" is,
11 For what does it mean in the Mysteries themselves
to sign the sign of the Cross over the things which
have been, or are to be, consecrated, unless it be to
commemorate the Death of the LORD ? "
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 305
He continues: "The sprinkling of the Blood of
CHRIST [upon the Cross] having been commemorated
in the LORD'S words, the words of the Mysteries follow
commemorating the same sprinkling of the Blood by
the voice of the priest addressing his prayer to the
FATHER."
It is clear, therefore, that S. Ivo traces no connec
tion between what is, strictly speaking, the act of
Consecration, and our LORD'S action in heaven, but
distinctly makes it correspond to the Death upon the
Cross.
v. After the Unde et Memores S. Ivo interprets the v. The"sup-
Supplices Te, and this he takes not of the sacrifice on P^esTe"cor-
^ responds with
the Day of Atonement, but of the scapegoat which the scapegoat
was sent into the wilderness by the hands of "a fit and with the
man ' ' after the sins of the people had been impre
cated upon it. And he refers this to our LORD'S Ascen
sion. For he says that " the Jews who laid their
hands upon our LORD in His Passion imprecated upon
themselves His Blood, and then sent Him living into
the wilderness freed by the death of the flesh, sent Him
away to ascend to that solitary glory which He had
with the FATHER, ' by a fit man; ' that is, by Himself,
carrying the sins of the Children of Israel ; that is,
taking away the sins of the world, not retaining
them." This he tells us the priest at the altar com
memorates in the prayer, ' ' Command these gifts to be
carried by the hands of Thine Holy Angel on to Thine
altar on high." This is the first prayer of the liturgy
which is referred to our LORD'S action in heaven,
and this prayer comes after the act of Consecration. Duchesnecon-
Duchesne points out, as we have already noticed,* SSUJ5!8 ^
that it corresponds with the Greek Kpiklesis. Some
* Pp. 169, 170.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
neither the act
of Consecra
tion nor the
sacrificial act,
and has no
place in the
English
liturgy.
Our CORD'S
Intercession
corresponds
with the high
priest's prayer
and washing,
and with Bap
tism and Pen
ance in the
Church.
The "Memen
to " and the
"Nobis
qucque " con
nected with
the breastplate
and ephod.
Mr. Bright-
man's state
ment contrary
to facts.
theologians of the Greek Church and a few in the
English Church (of whom we believe Mr. Brigktman
is one), teach that the Consecration is not validly ac
complished until the Epiklesis has been said. But
Bessarion, speaking for the Greeks at the Council at
Florence, pointed out that this was not the teaching of S.
Chrysostom and the ancient Greek Fathers.* As there
is no invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT in the English lit
urgy, it is a little difficult to see how an English priest
can hold that it is essential to the Consecration. This,
however, is outside our argument, and we have only to
draw attention to the fact that our LORD'S Ascension is
connected by S. Ivo with the Supplices Te, which is
found after the act of Consecration.
Our LORD'S Intercession is made to correspond with
the prayer of the high priest for his family and with the
washing of his garments after his return to the camp.
This S. Ivo refers to our LORD'S ministry in His
Church, through Baptism and Confession, by which He
cleanses us from our sins ; for we are His garments.
He also says that the following prayers, that is, the
Memento etiam Domine and Nobis quoque peccatoribus,
in which mention is made of the dead and of the living,
contain these things and correspond to the breastplate
and ephod of the high priest upon which were written
the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
We have devoted much space to the discussion of S.
Ivo's work, partly on account of its intrinsic interest,
but chiefly because Mr. Brightman makes a statement
about S. Ivo which seems to us absolutely contrary to
facts, and in order to prove this a very full examination
* Baronius (Raynaldus), torn, xxviii., p. 281 ; cf. also
Mansi, torn, xxxi., p. 1006; and Bessarion, De Eucharistia.
torn, xxvi., p. 796.
MEDIAE VAL A ND POS T-MEDI& VA L WRI TER S. 307
was necessary of that part of S. Ivo's treatise to which
Mr. Brightman refers.
Our readers will see that S. Ivo does not make the act s. ivo's teach-
of Consecration in the Holy Eucharist correspond with jnssummed
our LORD'S action in heaven, but with our LORD'S Death
upon the Cross. His action in heaven is connected with
the Supplices Te, the Memento etiam Domine, and the
Nobis quoque peccatoribus ; three prayers which come
after the act of Consecration, and which S. Ivo refers,
not to the sprinkling of the blood in the Holy of holies,
but to the sending of the scapegoat into the wilderness,
the washing of the priest's garments, and the wearing
of the breastplate. It is inconceivable how anyone
who had read S. Ivo's treatise could have so misrepre
sented his teaching.
Both Thalhofer and Mr. Brightman quote the Ven.* 5- Mr. B. and
Hildebert of Le Mans or Tours (ob. 1 134) as favourable
to their view, because they say that he speaks of a Tours,
sprinkling of our LORD'S Blood in heaven, from which
they infer a heavenly sacrifice.
The work which they cite is Hildebert' s verses, De
Mysterio Misscz. In the following lines (to a part of
which we have already referred), Hildebert treats of
the prayer Supplices Te :
"Tune ergo sacrifex aspergit sanguine Patrem.
Quum semel aspersi mentio placat eum.
Tune idem ccetus aspergit coelicolarum,
^ His verses on
Quum semel aspersi mentio supplet eos. the « Supplices
Tune aspergit et hos, quos abluit unda salutis, Te."
* Mr. Brightman calls this writer Saint Hildebert ; he was,
however, never canonized, though very generally entitled
"Blessed" or "Venerable." Cf. Histoire de L' Eglise du
Mans, tome iii., pp. 431-628, and Histoire Litteraire de la
France (by the Benedictines), tome xi., pp. 250-412.
308 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Quum semel aspersi mentio purgat eos.
Presbyter haec satagens, sumpta sibi supplici forma,
In sublime geri mystica dona rogat.
Addit et erectus, ut participatio rnensse,
Quotquot earn sument, prosit et intus alat."
Here, by the sprinkling of our LORD'S Precious
Blood, Hildebert evidently understands the application
of the Blood shed upon the Cross in His Intercession in
heaven, in the Bucharistic Sacrifice on earth, and in
the administration of the Sacraments. For he ex
plicitly states that the High Priest in heaven sprinkles
the FATHER with Blood when by the mention of the
Blood shed once for all upon the Cross He makes Him
propitious, and that those on earth are sprinkled with
this Blood when the mention of it is applied to the
washing away of the sins (in Penance) of the baptized,
and the faithful are filled with spiritual benediction and
grace by participation in the Holy Communion. For
Hildebert says that as often as the Blood is sprinkled,
so often is a commemoration made of the Blood once for
all sprinkled, or shed.
We see this still more clearly in Hildebert' s exposi
tion of the prayer Te Igitur, Clementissime Pater :
On the " Te " Intrabat prsesul vitulorum sanguine sacrum,
Igitur." Intravit proprio Christus et ipse polum.
Intrat agens sacrifex in sanguine semper ad aram,
Kffusi semper sanguinis ipse memor.
Nam quoties fusum verbo, cruce, meute retractat,
Hunc specie toties in sacrosancta gerit.
Quippe velut quidam cruor est meminisse crnoris,
Hujus nos memores crux iterata facit .
Mentio mortis adest, ubicumque perennibus escis
Imprimit uncta manus mystica signa crucis:
Sic Aaron, Christumque sequens, altare frequentat
Presbyter ; hunc haustum sanguinis ipse gerit."
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 309
Hildebert, however, did not write all his theology in Some passages
verse, and we may possibly obtain a better idea of his fr°^shis prose
teaching from his book, De Expositione Misste, in which
he treats of every part of the Mass. Commenting on
the words of Consecration, he says : " He Himself also
broke the bread which He distributed to the disciples,
that He might show that the breaking of His Body and
His Passion did not happen without His consent, as He
had said before, ' I have power to lay down My life.' "
In this passage Hildebert connects the fraction at the
time of Consecration with the Passion.
Treating of the words by which the chalice is conse
crated, " For this is the chalice of My Blood of the New
and Eternal Testament," he says : " In the same way
the New Testament, that is, the Gospel, in which are
contained the promises of eternal life and of the
heavenly country, is confirmed in the Blood of the
Passion of CHRIST, which is daily celebrated in
the Church ; for every testament is confirmed in the
death of the testator. ' '
In both these passages, it would appear, Hildebert
explicitly connects the act of Consecration with our
IvORD's Passion and Death, and not with the sprinkling
of the blood in the Jewish tabernacle, nor with any
sacrifice which our L,ORD is supposed to be offering
now in heaven.
The next author quoted by Thalhofer is Hugo of S. 6. Hugo of s.
Victor (ob. 1141), who in his work, In Specula de Mys- J*^^^
teriis Ecclesice, commenting on the prayer Supplices Te, bert's thought,
not only treats it in the same manner, but in almost
precisely the same words as Hildebert. For he says : *
'The high priest, as the L,aw commanded, sprinkled
both the altar and the outward sanctuary with the
* Hugo, S. Viet., In Spec, dc Myst. Ecd., c. vii.
3io
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
appeasing blood ; and CHRIST sprinkles the FATHER
with Blood as often as He appeases Him by the Flesh
which He has assumed. He sprinkles the altar, as
long as (until) He restores the number of the angels.*
He sprinkles the outward sanctuary when He signs
men [with the Cross in Baptism] and reconciles to the
FATHER those things which are on earth. The priest
[on earth] sprinkles the same, because he propitiates
the FATHER by this Sacrifice [the Eucharist] and prays
for pardon, and so sprinkles [the Blood] upon us."
In this passage Hugo explains that by the sprinkling
of the FATHER with Blood he means propitiating Him
through the Human Nature which CHRIST has as
sumed, that is, through the Human Nature which is
now in heaven. This is in accordance with the patristic
view of our L,ORD'S Intercession and does not imply the
idea of a sacrifice in heaven, and, further, we may ob
serve that the only sacrifice of which Hugo speaks is
the Bucharistic Sacrifice, for he says that the priest on
earth sprinkles men when by the Kucharistic Sacrifice
he propitiates GOD. It is strange that anyone should
have seen in these words an indication of a sacrifice in
heaven.
The last quoted, and by far the greatest mediaeval
writer on the Eucharist, is Algerus of lyiege (ob. 1132
vel 1135). His work, De Sacramentis Corporis et San-
guinis Dominici, marks a great advance in the theo-
and his affinity logical conception of the Eucharist. In his treatment
with the Of tke Eucharist, Algerus has in some respects closer
affinities with the Greek Fathers than with those of the
Western Church. He meets the heresy of Berengarius
by a treatise on the Eucharist so thoughtful, so accur
ate, and so complete that it leaves little to be desired.
* I. e., until their places are filled by the redeemed.
7. Algerus of
I,iege :
his great au
thority,
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 311
In the fourteenth chapter* Algerus discusses the His discussion
question how our LORD'S Body can be said to be truly CHRIST^ °f
present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist whilst It is presence in
at the same time ever present at the Right Hand of then.is.and at
* the same time
GOD. From this chapter Thalhofer quotes the follow- iu heaven,
ing passage :
" Whence also the priest, in the place of CHRIST, From which
making the LORD'S Body upon the earthly altar, not,
however, attributing anything to his own merits, but sage,
all to Divine power and grace, pra}rs GOD the FATHER
in the canon, saying, ' Command these offerings to be
carried to Thee by the Hand and power of Thy SON,
of Thy Angel, who is the Angel of Great Counsel ; not
on to this Thy humble and visible altar, where now He
is, but on to Thine altar on high, that is Thy SON,
Whom Thou hast exalted to Thy Right Hand, in the
Presence of Thy Majesty ; that they may become to us
the Body and Blood of Thy beloved SON ; ' showing
that the SON Himself, by the bidding of His FATHER,
is in heaven offering the Sacrifice [of the Eucharist],
and is That upon which it is offered. For we depend
entirely on His faith and His grace that earthly bodies
[the bread and wine] are changed into CHRIST ; and
we believe that He Who sits in heaven at the Right
Hand of the FATHER intercedes for us, and in the Sac
rament of the Altar is consecrated and is present."
The whole chapter, as we have already observed, is
a discussion of the question how CHRIST can at the
same time be at the Right Hand of the FATHER in
heaven, and upon the altar on earth. Algerus is here
showing that CHRIST is at the same time in heaven,
sitting at the Right Hand of the FATHER and interced-
* Alger. Leod., De Sac. Corp. et Sang. Dom., 1. i., c. xiv. ;
Migne, P. L., torn. 180, col. 781, 786, 787.
312 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ing for us (but not offering any sacrifice in heaven),
and is also in His Sacrament. The argument which
Algerus uses, while entirely true, is not quite accurate,
in that he confuses two prayers, one of which, the
Supplices Te, comes after the Consecration, while the
other, Quam Oblationem^ precedes it. The words :
" Command these offerings to be carried to Thee by
the hand and power of Thy SON, of Thy Angel, Who is
the Angel of Great Counsel; not on to this Thy humble
and visible altar, where now He is, but on to Thine
altar on high, that is, Thy SON, Whom Thou hast
exalted to Thy Right Hand, in the presence of Thy
Majesty," are an explanatory paraphrase of the Sup
plices Te ; the rest of the passage — "that they may
become to us the Body and Blood of Thy beloved
SON, ' ' etc. — is an explanatory paraphrase of the latter
part of the Quam Oblationem.
In this passage Algerus is interpreting the words of
S. Chrysostorn,* " He Who sits at the Right Hand of
the FATHER is nevertheless at the time of the Sacrifice
[the Eucharist] contained in the hands of men," and
is showing that in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist CHRIST
Himself, Who sits at the Right Hand of the FATHER,
is at the same time the Priest who offers the Sacrifice,
and in a sense the Altar upon which it is offered, and
therefore that He is at the same moment sitting at the
Right Hand of GOD in heaven, and is present in His
Sacrament on earth.
The only heav- It is difficult to see in what way Thalhofer proves the
to Ai^rus^11 existence °f a heavenly sacrifice from this passage.
the E. s. The words on which he lays stress are, * ' that the SON
Himself, by the bidding of His FATHER, is in heaven
offering the Sacrifice [of the Eucharist], and is That
* S. Chrys., De So.cerdotio, 1. iii., c. iv.
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 313
upon which it is offered." If these words are taken
as referring to a sacrifice offered in heaven, then we
must affirm that Algerus was of opinion that the
Kucharistic Sacrifice itself is that heavenly sacrifice,
and not that it is related to it ; and his treatment of
the same prayer in another work shows clearly that
he indeed knows no other heavenly sacrifice than the
Eucharist, in which our LORD is the true Priest.
We might quote many passages from this most in
teresting work in favour of the Catholic view. We some passages
will, however, confine ourselves to two, which Thai-
hofer seems to have overlooked. They are found in
the sixteenth chapter. Commenting on a passage in
S. Chrysostom, Algerus says :
" We must therefore notice that he says our daily
Sacrifice is the very same as that in which CHRIST was
offered once for all upon the Cross, inasmuch as the
same true substance of the Body of CHRIST is here and
there. But when he says that our daily [Sacrifice] is
an example, that is, a figure or form, of that offered
once for all, he does not mean that in this or in that he
understands an essentially different CHRIST, but shows
that the same [Person] is immolated and offered once
for all upon the Cross, and in a different manner daily
upon the altar: there, in the reality of that Passion in
which He was slain for us ; here, in a figure and repre
sentation of that Passion, in which [figure] CHRIST
suffers not again in reality, but a remembrance of that
His Passion is daily made by us." The second pas
sage is as follows :
" It may therefore be regarded as certain that, al- in which Al
though the Oblation of CHRIST once for all upon the f^ cj^rly
Cross is true, while the daily Oblation on the altar is s. to that of the
figurative, yet here and there the grace of our salvation Cross-
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
His other work
on the H. K.,
" De Sac.
Missae."
His comment
on the " Te
Igitur,"
is the same, here and there is it true, sufficient, and
ever needful ; for here and there the same true CHRIST
is all-powerful."
In both these passages Algerus expresses in the
clearest and most explicit terms his opinion that the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist and that of the Cross are
the same in substance, although differing in mode.
In addition to the great work of Algerus, De Sacra-
mcntis Corporis et Sanguinis Dominici, we have a brief
treatise by him, De Sacrificio Missce, which is quite
worthy of our attention. Its opening words are as
follows:
' ' The solemn celebration of the whole Mass was in
stituted for this purpose, that it might be a memorial
of CHRIST'S coming in the Flesh, and might mystically
renew His Passion."
Algerus then divides the Mass into two parts, saying
that from the Introit to the end of the Offertory our
LORD'S first Advent and ministerial life are brought
before us ; then, that with the three secret prayers
which follow the Offertory, we have the introduction
to His Passion, in reference to which the rest of the
Mass is interpreted. There is one most interesting
passage, in which, treating of the Te Igitur, he says :
' When the priest begins the Te Igitur it is as
though entering the Holy of holies. First he offers a
general prayer for the whole Church, and by making
the sign of the Cross he sprinkles that oblation with
the Blood of CHRIST, who [the priest], as often as he
applies the sign of the Cross to the heavenly Sacrifice,
so often sprinkles with the Blood of CHRIST the obla
tion placed upon the altar." *
* " Imprimens signum crucis, et oblationem illam Christi
sanguine superfundit, qui quoties ccelesti sacrificio similitud-
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 315
What gives this passage its peculiar interest is that in which he
Algerus actually uses the phrase " heavenly sacrifice " ^words863
for which Thalhofer so industriously seeks in the theo- "heavenly
logical writings of the twelfth century. How is it, sacrifice,"
then, that Thalhofer does not quote this passage ?
Because the term "heavenly sacrifice" is applied to but of the s. on
that Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist on earth, to which earthinthe
H. xy.
the earthly priest applies the sign of the Cross, and
we are told that as often as he does this he sprinkles it
with the Blood of CHRIST. The interpretation of the The sign ofthe
sign ofthe Cross as symbolizing the sprinkling of our f
LORD'S Blood is, as we have seen, common to nearly of blood.
all the writers of the twelfth century; but here we have
one who, from a theological standpoint, is the most
important writer of his day, actually applying the term
"heavenly sacrifice," on which Thalhofer and the
Modern school have built up so much of their theory,
to the unconsecrated oblations over which the priest
makes the sign ofthe Cross in the prayer Te Igitur.
We may also observe that Algerus in this treatise He also treats
explains the Supplices Te by saying that here the priest ofthe "SI;P-
prays the LORD to command these gifts to be borne by
the hands of His Holy Angel on to His altar on high,
" that in that hour the mystery may be made plain
that that bread is united to the LORD'S Body, and by
the communication of the one substance is joined to
It." This brief expression of Algerus' opinion makes and makes
clear his meaning in his interpretation of the same clearhis
. former state-
paSSage in the prayer which we have already discussed, ment.
namely, that for him the heavenly sacrifice is the Holy
Eucharist.
How Thalhofer, after reading these passages, could
inem crucis Christi sanguine superaspergit" — Alger., De Sac-
rificio Misses ; Migne, P. Iy., torn. 180, col. 855.
316
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
NO support for
foun^HnMedi
aval writers,
n. Gaiiican
writers of cent.
De Be>uiie,
omtor
de Condren,
the theologian
claim that Algerus makes the Sacrifice of the Eucharist
depend upon a sacrifice which is supposed to be offered
in heaven, entirely passes our understanding. It would
seem as though, when looking for passages treating of
the Supplices Te, upon finding such he carefully ab
stained from reading any farther in the author's works,
lest he should come across a passage which entirely
disproved his interpretation of the author's meaning.
In taking our leave of the writers of the Mediaeval
Pe"od we may assert that, having examined every
passage cited in favour of the Modern view, we have
not found one which gives it the slightest support ;
and on the other hand, we have found many in the
writings of the authors cited, often in the same chapter,
sometimes in the very context of a passage quoted,
which absolutely refute the claim that the author in
question favours this view.
II. Our next task must be to examine the works of
a mos^ interesting group of Gaiiican writers who lived
in the seventeenth century. A wonderful revival of
spiritual life, especially among the Clergy, at that
time had swept over France. With its earliest stages
the names of Cardinals du Perron (ob. 1618) and de
Berulle (ob. 1629) are associated. The latter in the
year l611 founded the Congregation of the Oratory in
France, and in 1617 Charles de Condren (ob. 1641),
who in a sense may be said to have been the theolo
gian of the movement, joined the Congregation.
While de Condren was well read in theology gen-
erally, he was especially attracted to the doctrine of
our ^ORD'S Resurrection and its fruits both in the
Church on earth and in our LORD'S life of glory in
heaven ; so that he has been termed " the theologian
of the Resurrection." To the study of this doctrine
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 317
he devoted himself with great assiduity, and in his
writings one sees that it was what one may call his
" special devotion," although his excellent theological
training preserved him from the exaggerations which
so often attach to a special devotion.
Those who are familiar with the life of de Condren
know how deep was the influence which he exercised
on the great souls who came within his reach.
We need only speak of two, Jean Jacques Olier (ob. oiler, founder
1657), founder of S. Sulpice, and Louis Thomassin (ob. of s- SulPice;
Thomassin.
1697), the great theological writer. In 1629, on the
death of Cardinal de Berulle, de Condren was elected
Superior General of the Oratory in France. Three Theology of
years later Louis Thomassin entered the Congregation the latter two
J . ' influenced by
of the Oratory, and so came under the influence of de de Condren.
Condren.
After teaching philosophy at Lyons, and theology
at Saumur and in the Seminary of S. Magloire in Paris,
Thomassin devoted the last thirty years of his life to
theological study and the production of theological
works, among which we may notice his Dogmata
Theologica in seven volumes, a complete system of
dogmatic theology. In his treatise De Incarnatione
Verbi Dei we find (especially in the tenth book) evid
ences of de Condren' s theological views.
Some members of the modern school, who seem AH three, but
to have read only parts of this treatise superficially, esPecially
Thomassin,
claim Thomassin as perhaps their greatest supporter, claimed by
and his treatise, De Incarnatione, as the storehouse from modern school.
which to draw patristic authority for their view.
Thomassin is indeed a storehouse of patristic lore.
It is both interesting and remarkable, in reading the
works of the writers of later times and different nation
alities, to observe how largely they have all drawn
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
De Condren's
and Oiler's
writings
chiefly on
ascetics.
i. Thomassin'j
great work on
dogmatics.
Restatement
of the charac
teristics of the
Modern view,
from Thomassin, using his arguments, but especially
quoting his authorities, and even reproducing the
typograpical errors in his references. While we must
touch upon de Condren and Olier as well as Thomas-
sin, since all three are claimed more or less as favouring
the Modern view, it will be best to examine Thomassin
most fully, for, although he was not the source of the
special treatment of our L/ORD'S Resurrection, we find it
discussed in his works with far greater fulness and
theological acumen than in the writings of either of
the others.
Both de Condren and Olier devoted themselves chiefly
to ascetic subjects, and but few of their works have come
down to us. The only work, in fact, bearing de Con
dren's name which treats of this subject is L* Id£e du
Sacerdoce et du Sacrifice de Jesus- Christ \ and it is more
than doubtful whether this is an authentic work. Per
haps the most that can be said is that it contains the
views of de Condren, although the language in which
they are clothed is largely the work of another. We
have many works of M. Olier, among them La Journee
Chretienne, Le Catechisme Chretien pour la Vie Interi-
eure, L' 'Introduction a la Vie au% Vertus Chr£tiennes>
Lettres Spirituelles, and L* Explication des Ceremonies
de la grand ' Messe de Paroisse. In the last work we
find his views on the Eucharist fully set forth.
All these writings, however, fall into insignificance
in comparison with the great work of Thomassin, to
which we shall now turn our attention. We have said
that some who seem only to have read his work super
ficially claim his support for the Modern view. Before
we investigate the validity of these claims, it will be
useful if we once more put before ourselves the main
characteristics of the Modern view. They are :
MEDIAE VAL AND POST-MEDIAE VAL WRITERS. 3 1 9
1. That the essential act of our LORD'S Sacrifice, the
presentation of the Blood, took place, not upon the
Cross, but after His Ascension into heaven.
2. That our LORD is now offering in heaven a
proper Sacrifice, upon which the Eucharistic Sacrifice
depends.
3. That the Eucharist is therefore only indirectly re
lated to the Sacrifice of the Cross, that is, related to it
through a Sacrifice which our LORD is now supposed
to be offering in heaven.
Let us see what support can be found in Thomassin that we may
for these three propositions. see what SUP-
port can be
To a superficial reader it would certainly seem that found for it in
the opinion that our LORD is offering a Sacrifice in Tnoaiassin.
heaven was held by Thomassiu, and therefore that his
support could be claimed for the second proposition.
For in the edition of his works published by Vives at The headings
Paris in 1868, the headings of the chapters and the ^. his chapters
misleading.
marginal analyses quite suggest this view.
For example, the heading of chapter xiii. is, "It is
again shown that CHRIST in heaven is Priest and Victim,
the Sacrifice of the Cross being in a certain sense perpet
uated ; " that of chapter xiv. is, "CHRIST after His
Resurrection is then specially a Priest, and the very
Church of the Blessed, raised from the dead, is His
burnt offering ; " chapter xvi., " CHRIST is a Priest
after the Order of Melchisedec, principally through the
Sacrifice of the Eucharist, which therefore is none
other than that of the Cross and of heaven ; " chapter
xxiv., " The Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Love and of
Thanksgiving, and is the same as the Sacrifice of
heaven; " chapter xxv., " Again, the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist is the same as that of heaven."
We must, however, carefully inquire what sort of a He speaks of a
320
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
heavenly S.,
but explains
his meaning,
aud does not
support the
Modern view.
He connects
this S. with
the Resurrec
tion, not with
the Ascension;
with the "cre
mation," not
with the
" sprinkling of
blood."
His exposition
of this: 1. x.,
c. xi.
The "crema
tion " has no
place on the
Day of Atone
ment.
sacrifice Thomassin thinks that our LORD is offering
in heaven. The Modern school teaches that our LORD
is offering a sacrifice in heaven which is practically the
presentation of His Blood, and which they especially
associate with a sacrificial act, represented as taking
place, not upon the Cross, but after our LORD'S Ascen
sion. Attention must be drawn to the fact that Tho
massin does not connect the Sacrifice in any way with
our LORD'S Ascension. Imbued with the spirit of de
Condren, he associates our LORD'S heavenly life with
the Resurrection, not with the Ascension, and he makes
our LORD'S mystical immolation of Himself in heaven
to consist, not in the fulfilment of the typical act of
the high priest on the Day of Atonement, — the pre
sentation of the blood, — which is the very keystone and
foundation of the Modern view, but in the fulfilment
of a rite which he expressly observes does not take place
at all in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the cre
mation of the burnt offering.
We may illustrate this from book x., chapter xi.,
section 8 : " Hence you regard the Sacrifice of the
Cross and that of heaven as one and the same. For
the High Priest enters once each year into the sanctu
ary for the purpose of performing the sacred rites, that
is, not without blood, since the blood of the victim slain
without is carried in thither. There, indeed, is, as it
were, the perfecting of the sacrifice begun outside,
through the offering of the blood, or through the offer
ing of the victim as if slain. For other victims were
consumed, at least in part, by fire ; but here there
is no mention of fire, no room for it, but in its place
the blood is carried into the sanctuary, and there the
sacrifice is completed.
" The Sacrifice, therefore, of heaven is none other
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. $21
than the Sacrifice of the Cross. But here the victim He does not
is slain once for all; there through the veil, that is, ^
through His Flesh, He is carried into the inner sane- is carried with-
tuary, that is, into the inmost Deity. There He is « the veil to be
presented, but
consumed and eternally fed upon by the Deity as by that His Body
a fire intensely subtle and fervent ; whence S. Paul is carried there
says of CHRIST, ' Who through the Eternal Spirit inthe°firesof
offered Himself without spot to GOD;'* and S. the Deity.
Chrysostom says, * For he means by this, through the
HOLY SPIRIT, not through fire, not through any other
things.' f The slaughtered victims remain in order
that part of them at least, placed upon the altar, may be
consumed by its fires, and thus they are wafted to GOD,
Who receives them, as Holy Scripture tells us, as an
odour of sweetness. Moreover, the victim of a holo
caust, slaughtered once for all, was wholly consumed
by fire, and so wholly given to GOD, Who either con
sumed it through fire — for ' GOD is a consuming fire ' J
— or received it as an odour of sweetness. CHRIST,
therefore, in the same way, slain once for all, is incor-
ruptibly consumed, not by typical fire, but by true fire,
by GOD, I say ; and through His Resurrection and
Immortality, His Human Nature is absorbed into the
Deity and, as it were, consumed by the Deity." §
In this passage Thomassin distinctly states his view
with respect to two points : first, the relation which
exists between the Sacrifice of the Cross and that
which he calls the Sacrifice of heaven ; second, the
significance of the action of the high priest on the Day
of Atonement as interpreted by our L,ORD'S entrance
* Heb. ix. 14.
f S. Chrys., Horn., xv. 2 ; Gaume, t. 12, p. 218.
J Heb. xii. 29.
$ Thomassin., De Incarn. Verbi, 1. x., c. xi., 8, pp. 333, 334.
322 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
into heaven. In regard to the first point he says that
the Sacrifice in heaven is precisely identical with that
on the Cross, and this he explains elsewhere.* Con
cerning the second, which is for us the more important,
he not only does not say that the Blood is presented in
heaven, but he most explicitly affirms that this par
ticular part of the rite is fulfilled by the fact that in
heaven our LORD'S glorified Humanity is taken into
the fires of the Deity and there [like the bush of Moses]
eternally burns, yet is never destroyed. He further
points out that on the Day of Atonement the place of
the fire was supplied by the blood, which was carried
into the sanctuary because in the Holy of holies there
was no opportunity for the introduction of the typical
fire ; so that he most carefully avoids the very view
which the modern school teaches. And we may
further observe that the cremation of the victim upon
the altar, while pertaining to the perfection of the rite,
was not the essentially sacrificial act, since it was absent
entirely on the Day of Atonement. We may also sug
gest that the meaning of the typical burning of the
victim seems to have been that, although the sacrificial
act was completed by the presentation of the blood, the
smoke of the victim ascending to heaven signified that
the effects of the sacrifice lasted on.
This view mys- This doctrine of Thomassin is unobjectionable, and,
indeed, ^s only a mystical statement of that which, as
we have seen, so many of the Fathers set forth as their
exposition of our LORD'S great Intercession, namely,
that our LORD'S very Human Nature in the midst of
the Throne, or, as Thomassin would say, in the midst
of the fires of the Deity, pleads for us.
Thomassin 's view is more fully set forth in his four-
* Thomassin, De Incarn. Verbi^ 1. x., c. xii. et xiii.
MEDIM VA L A ND POS T-MEDI^E VA L WRI TER S. 323
teenth chapter, from which we shall give some extracts, more fully set
This chapter has for its thesis, " That CHRIST after forth in c< xiv'
His Resurrection is then especially a Priest, and that
the very Church of the Blessed, raised from the dead,
is His burnt offering." The chapter begins as follows:
"The Church of the saints, of the angels, and of
men, offers to GOD in the bliss of heaven an eternal
holocaust, continually fed upon and imperishably to
be fed upon by the fire of love. CHRIST is the eternal His treatment
Priest of this holocaust, and since He is also the Vic- ^°el[l^as
tim, He therefore burns in the same fire. But when holocaust.
all the elect have risen, the Catholic and Immortal
Body of CHRIST will then be wanting in no one of its
members, for then indeed it will be the most precious
victim of an eternal burnt offering; for CHRIST whole
and entire [that is, comprehending all the members of
His mystical Body] will be at once both the Priest and
the Victim."
Thomassin then quotes with great fulness S. Au
gustine's commentary on Psalm Ixv. 13,* "I will
go into Thine House with burnt offerings, and will His quotations
pay Thee my vows," and from S. Gregory's com- J^J^^'
mentary on Ezekiel. f The latter says: "The holy Gregory Mag.
Church has two lives : one which she lives now in
time, the other in eternity. In both of these lives she
offers a sacrifice : here the sacrifice of compunction,
there the sacrifice of praise. Of the first it is said,
' The sacrifice of GOD is a broken spirit ; ' of the other
it is written, ' Then shalt Thou be pleased with the
sacrifice of righteousness, with the burnt offerings and
oblations.' In both of these sacrifices flesh is offered,
* S. Aug., Enarrat. in Psalm., Ixv. 13.
t S. Greg. Mag., Horn, in Ezek,, 1. ii., hom. x. ; Migne, P. Iy.,
torn, 76, col. 1060.
3^4
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Thomassin's
review of the
chapter.
because here the offering of the flesh is the mortifica
tion of the body; there the offering of the flesh is the
glory of the resurrection in the praise of GOD." *
This most interesting chapter should be read by all
who really desire to understand the doctrine of Thom-
assin, and, one may say, of his master de Condren.
Thomassin himself reviews the chapter as follows :
' ' L,et me now sum up the arguments by which we
have established that a princely and universal sac
rifice, and therefore a burnt offering, is to be offered
to GOD at the resurrection from the dead, and after
wards in the immortal life of eternity, (i) Certain
passages of Holy Scripture clearly teach that there
are a celestial temple, and a place within the veil,
and a Holy of holies, heavenly and apprehended by
the mind alone, and an altar on high. There ' the
Forerunner is for us entered, even JKSUS,' t Himself
both Victim and Priest. But do you object that these
things are said metaphorically ? I do not deny that
they are metaphorical, but in such sense that the fig
ure pertains to us on earth, the truth, as is fitting,
to heaven. Here first we are fed by the shadow or
image of things ; there we shall be satiated with the
very truth of the things themselves. ... (2) ...
Whither, then, are our prayers directed ? Whither
are our hearts and aspirations lifted when we sing these
Psalms of David, unless it be to that heavenly altar
where we shall offer burnt offerings to GOD, and shall
be ourselves offered ? not there in metaphor only, and
here truly, but in both truly ; in heaven, however, our
offerings will be both truer and more blessed. (3) In
Holy Scripture the term ' resurrection ' brings before
* Thomassin., 1. x., c. xiv., pp. 344-347.
t Heb. vi. 20.
MEDIAE VAL A ND POS T-MEDI^E VA L WRI TER S. $2$
us the whole idea of sacrifice, for it is often spoken of
as a regeneration. But who can be regenerated and
born again, unless the former substance has been de
stroyed in sacrifice ? He is clearly unborn (denasdtur)
who is born again ; he dies who is regenerated ; he is
sacrificed who rises again. Nor do we in resurrection
assume, as in Baptism, only a sort of initial and
preliminary regeneration, but a whole and entire
regeneration, renewing soul and body and the whole
man absolutely, and in the same manner entirely de
stroying and exterminating [sin]. (4) Kvery sacrifice
implies a change in the victim. There are two kinds
of change, the one for the worse [by destruction], the
other for the better [by production]. But which of
these changes, I ask, is more pleasing to GOD ? The
fullest change of the whole man takes place in resur
rection. But as [by death] only that is destroyed
which is destructible, so in resurrection both soul and
body are raised into a life which far surpasses their
former mode of existence. (5) Reason itself recognizes
a fitness in the customary burnt offering. For fire, as
in a sense the conqueror and destroyer of death, seems
to change into itself the victim lying slain, and in
this way sets before us the very work of GOD. For as
fire entirely consumes the burnt offering which man
offers in his own stead, so GOD in the work of justifica
tion takes man into Himself, changing and remaking
the whole man." *
Thomassin finishes the chapter with a quotation from
S. Augustine : " It follows, indeed, that the whole
redeemed city and congregation and community of the
Saints is offered as a universal sacrifice to GOD, through
the great High Priest, Who, in order that we might be
* Thomassin., pp. 347, 348.
326 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the Body of this glorious Head, offered Himself in His
Passion for us, in the form of a servant. For it was
this form He offered ; in this He was offered ; in this
form He is the Mediator ; in this He is the Priest ; in
this He is the Sacrifice." * On this passage Thomas-
sin makes the following comment : " S. Augustine
here very beautifully describes a true, proper, original,
external, corporeal sacrifice, that is, the Sacrifice of
CHRIST Himself in His Passion, of which the Euchar
ist is the commemoration and (since the same Victim is
there present) the renewal. In heaven there is a cer
tain eternal perpetuation of this Sacrifice through the
eternal offering, intercession, and appearance before
GOD of the same Victim. To which original and only
proper Sacrifice, any other sacrifice whatever is but an
addition, and a sacrifice in a less proper sense, a sacrifice
moreover in no wise separable from it, whether [we see
this sacrifice] in the fires of contemplation and of blessed
charity, or in the destruction of death and mortality
through resurrection; whether here by martyrdom, or
by any acts of virtue which have GOD as their end.
These spiritual graces indeed are sacrifices, and if they
be compared with the Mosaic sacrifices, or with any of
those other sacrifices which GOD in His goodness for a
time permitted, but at last abrogated, they seem to be
true sacrifices, and, indeed, so much truer as they are
more spiritual and acceptable to GOD ; but if they be
compared with the one true and proper Sacrifice of
CHRIST upon the Cross, in the Eucharist, and in
heaven, they are only sacrifices in an improper sense,
and are only sacrifices in so far as they form a part of
the Sacrifice of CHRIST, and derive from it whatever
sacrificial character they possess."
* S. Aug., De Civ. Dei, 1. x., c. vi.
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 327
In this long extract we have the views of Thomassin He speaks of a
expressed in his own words. He speaks of a sacrifice s. in heaven,
in heaven. He explains it to be our L,ORD'S " Inter- and explains it
cession and appearance before GOD." He says that it by°urI<°RD's
ct . . Intercession.
is one with the Cross, by which he means, it is the
fruit of the Cross, the merits of CHRIST, upon which
His Intercession depends. He also says that this He says that
heavenly sacrifice is ''metaphorical" and " figura- J^^"™"
tive." He says of it, that we ourselves are the burnt phoricai.
offering, in that we are members of CHRIST'S mystical
Body, and that its supreme oblation will not be until af
ter the resurrection, when all the members of CHRIST'S
mystical Body will be made up and all will be offered
eternally upon the altar, which is CHRIST Himself.
He says that both the Sacrifice of heaven and the Sac
rifice of the Eucharist are the same as the Sacrifice of
the Cross, and that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the
commemoration of the Passion of CHRIST. How un
like Thomassin's idea of a burnt offering in heaven is
the conception of the Modern school, that the sacrifice
is a presentation of the Blood! That, in Thomassin's
opinion, took place once for all upon the Cross,
and the blood, which of old was carried into the Holy
of holies, he tells us, is in heaven represented by
the Humanity of our LORD taken into the fires of the
Deity.
In his seventeenth chapter he shows that the Sac- in c. xvii. he
rifice of the Eucharist is the same as that of the Cross. Connects the
E. S. with that
The chapter is too long to quote in full ; we shall Of the cross
merely give the opening words : "If it be established directly and
that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as that
of the Cross, it will be proved by the same means
that in the Eucharist a most true Sacrifice is cele
brated (for no one ever questioned the Sacrifice of the
328 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Cross*), and it will also be shown that the Sacrifice of
the Cross did not differ from the rite of Melchisedec,
since the Sacrifice of the Cross is most closely bound
together with the sacrifice of bread and wine ; and,
lastly, the Sacrifice of CHRIST is one, and in its extent
embraces heaven, and earth, and all the scroll of the
ages."t
The three If we now take the three propositions in which above
propositions of we stated the Modern view,— (i) that the essential act
the Modern
view find no of our LORD'S Sacrifice, the presentation of the Blood,
support in took place, not upon the Cross, but after His Ascension
Thomassin. . , N , _ ,.,,..
into heaven ; (2) that our LORD is now oner ing in
heaven a proper sacrifice, upon which the Bucharistic
Sacrifice depends; and (3) that the Eucharist therefore
is only indirectly related to the Sacrifice of the Cross,
that is, related to it through a sacrifice which our
LORD is now offering in heaven, — we may certainly
affirm of the first and the third, not only that they find
no support in Thomassin, but that he explicitly repu
diates them. The only sacrificial act which he recog
nizes — and he says so over and over again — is the act
by which our LORD offered Himself upon the Cross.
There is no suggestion of our LORD'S completing His
Sacrifice by offering His Blood after His Ascension.
For Thomassin, that Blood was offered on the Cross,
and the sprinkling of blood on the Day of Atonement
finds its fulfilment in heaven only in our LORD'S Inter
cession, which, he tells us, is the taking of the Hu
manity into the Deity, in the mystical fires of which it
ever burns. Thomassin devotes a whole chapter, of
which we have quoted only the opening sentences, to
* Thomassin had not the advantage of an acquaintance with
the theology of Dr. Milligan and the modern school.
f Thomassin., c. xvii., p. 363.
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIAEVAL WRITERS. 329
proving that the Eucharist is the same as the Sacrifice
of the Cross.
If at first sight he seems to give some countenance to
the second proposition, by saying that there is a sacri
fice in heaven, he takes very great care to explain in
what sense he means it, — that it is the holocaust of our
L,ORD'S mystical Body which He is offering, His Body
the Church, represented by its first-fruits, His Human
Nature, taken into the fires of the Deity, and there
ever burning but never destroyed. This sacrifice, he
tells us, will not be absolutely complete until the gen
eral resurrection of the dead, when the Body of CHRIST
will be lacking in no member, and the supreme holo
caust will be offered through eternity. Here there is
no trace of a sacrificial act, no trace of a presentation
of our LORD'S Blood, nothing which in any wise cor
responds to the "heavenly sacrifice" of Thalhofer
and the modern school.
We have devoted so much space to the view which
Thomassin sets forth in regard to the heaventy sacri
fice, that we shall do no more than quote a passage
from de Condren and one from M. Olier to show that
their view was precisely similar.
De Condren says : " After the Sacrifice of that Body 2.
immolated on the Cross, after the destruction of His dren'sview
human life, it was still needful that all that remained
there of the traces of His mortality in the wounds
which He had received, all that He still retained of dis
figurement, of meanness, and of earthiness, all the
likeness to the flesh of sin and to the infirmity of the
children of Adam, should be entirely destroyed, effaced,
and consumed in glory. The consumption and burn
ing of the Body of JKSUS CHRIST as the Victim is,
therefore, accomplished in His Resurrection. He * was
330 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
raised up from the dead by the glory of the FATHEE. ' *
He has been raised to life by this Divine Fire of the
glory of His FATHER, which has consumed all that
was not worthy of the Body of a GOD in the Body of
JESUS CHRIST dead on the Cross. For the burning, as
has been said, took place for this reason, that the Vic
tim might be as it were changed and transformed into
GOD. There was nothing in nature which was better
able to represent this in the sacrifices of the Law than
the fire, which was the symbol of GOD. But the burn
ing of the Sacrifice in the New Law, which is without
comparison more perfect, and is no longer in figure but
in truth, is so effected that the Victim has not only been
changed into the type of GOD, but has been as it were
transformed into the glory of GOD Himself, nevertheless
without losing anything of the reality of His Human
Nature. For it is by the Resurrection that this sacred
Victim has been freed from all which was of earth and
mean ; that He has been entirely reclothed and pene
trated with such glory as becomes the only SON of the
FATHER; that He no longer lives but for GovfavitDeo) ;
that He has been laid in the Bosom of GOD Himself; and
that He has entered into a state altogether Divine."f
3. and oiler's The following passage is from M. Olier : " On the
day of the Resurrection, finding His SON immolated in
the tomb, the FATHER came in the glorious light of His
Divinity, to complete in Him the Sacrifice, not leaving
in Him any remains of His weakness and of His former
state, of His state of flesh, dense, passible, mortal ; so
that, consuming it entirely, He causes it to pass into a
Divine state, as iron passes into the very state of fire." J
* Rom. vi. 4.
t De Condren, L'Id£e du Saccrdoce, Part II., chap. iv.
| Olier, Explic. des Cerem., 1. vii , c. ii.
MEDIAL VAL A ND POS T- MEDIA? VA L WRI TER S. 331
These two passages show how faithfully both Thorn- Both areiden-
assin and Olier have reproduced the teaching of their tical with that
ofThomassin.
master.
A century later we find probably a trace of this 4. Tracesofthe
same idea in
Benedict XIV.
teaching in Benedict XIV. (ob. 1758), who, in his work sameidea in
De Sacrifido Misses, writes : ' ' In the Jewish sacrifices
the victim was burned upon the altar of burnt offering,
so that whatever there was in it of imperfection might
be consumed in the flames, and the smoke might rise
to heaven as an odour of sweetness, as Holy Scripture
says. In the New L,aw the Victim was consumed in
the Resurrection and Ascension of CHRIST ; for in the
Resurrection all that in CHRIST belonged only to this
mortal life was consumed, as S. Paul says, ' For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality; ' * and in the Ascension the
Victim, received by GOD as an odour of sweetness, was
placed at His Right Hand." f
Bossuet (ob. 1704) also, while most accurately defin- 5. andin Bos-
ing the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as depending entirely suet*
upon its relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross, as we
have seen, J speaks of it as related to what our I/)RD is
now doing in heaven in His great Intercession. His
words are : " JESUS CHRIST having said that He sanc
tified Himself for us,§ that is, that He offered and de
voted Himself in order that we might become saints,
let us not be afraid to say that this sanctification and
this offering of JESUS CHRIST still continues on our
altars, and that it consists essentially in the Consecra
tion. And it is easy to understand it, since the plac
ing before GOD the Body and Blood, into which the
* i Cor. xv. 53.
f Benedict XIV., De Sacrifido Misses, 1. ii., c. xi., n. 5 ;
Opera, torn. 8, p. 71. \ P. 76. \ S. John xvii. 19.
332
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
III. The wit
ness of two
Eastern
writers.
i. Cabasilas,
cent. XIV.,
the first to at
tempt to form
ulate a
theory of the
E.S.
The value of
his testimony
bread and wine were changed, was in effect to offer it
to Him. It was to imitate on earth what JESUS
CHRIST does in heaven when He prays for us in the
presence of His FATHER. ' ' *
While many of the theologians of this age and school
speak of a sacrifice being offered in heaven, they ex
plain, as we have seen, the sense in which they use
this expression, and thus show that they have no real
affinity with the Modern view, f
III. Before we close this chapter we would call at
tention to some extracts from the writings of two theo
logians of the Eastern Church, to whom reference has
already been made in Chapter VII.
In the middle of the fourteenth century Nicholas
Cabasilas, Bishop of Thessalonica, wrote a treatise on
the liturgy, f which was the first systematic work on
that subject produced by the Greek Church. Mr.
Brightman alludes to this treatise as " the first formal
attempt" " to formulate the doctrine of the Euchar-
istic Sacrifice." It will therefore be interesting and
very much to our purpose to inquire what view of the
subject is set forth in it. The testimony of the Greek
Church has always a special value on account of the
* Bossuet, Explication de quelques Difficultes sur les Prieres
de la Messe, No. 8, torn. 5, p. 685.
f We would here again call attention to a very striking and
thoughtful treatise by M. 1'abbe Lepiu, entitled, L' Idee du Sac
rifice dans la Religion Chretienne, principalement d'apres le
Pere de Condren et M. Olier. In this work the views of the
French theologians of the seventeenth century are most bril
liantly elaborated. In a letter to the author (cf. Appendix F),
M. Lepin clearly shows where he parts company with the Mod
ern view.
\ Nich. Cabas., Sacrcz Liturgies Interpretation Migne, P. G.,
torn. 150.
MEDIAL VA Z A ND POS T-MEDI^E VA L WRI TER S. 333
tenacity with which its theologians have clung to the to the views of
views of the early Greek Fathers. Indeed, it has some- the Greek
. J Fathers.
times been said that they have made no advance in
dogmatic theology since the time of S. John of
Damascus.
In Nicholas Cabasilas, therefore, we may expect to cabasiias is
find an authoritative presentation of the mind of the
Greek Fathers, The fact that he wrote shortly after
the Council of Florence, and was strongly opposed to
the L^atins and to the views expressed by them in that
Council, would almost certainly ensure his bringing for
ward such a doctrine of the Bucharistic Sacrifice as the
Modern school claims to discover in the Greek Fathers,
—that is, of course, if he had ever heard of such a view.
And the fact that he does not is in itself no inconsider
able evidence that the Greek Fathers never held any
such doctrine.
There are two passages in Cabasilas's work on the TWO passages
liturgy which unmistakably meet two of the main argu- m Cabasilas
. which refute
meuts in Mr. Brightman's paper. First, Mr. Bright- Mr. Bright-
man holds that because we find in the liturgies a man'sarffu-
commemoration of our IBRD'S Resurrection and Ascen
sion, and sometimes of His Incarnation, as well as of
His Passion, therefore the words of the Institution,
" Do this in remembrance of Me," do not " suggest a
special reference to our CORD'S Death," but " suggest
rather the thought of His whole work, of His Person
in the fulness of Its significance as perfected in that
work."*
In chapter xvi. f Cabasilas says incidentally that incidentally he
"the Sacrifice shows the Death and the Resurrection seesintheH.1}.
A . a commetn-
and Ascension of our Blessed I^ORD, since the precious oration of the
* Brightman, p. i.
f Migne, P. G., torn. 150, col. 404.
334 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Resurrection gifts are changed into our LORD'S very Body, which
and Ascension. roge again and ascended into heaven." But he de
votes one whole chapter to a discussion of the meaning
He devotes a of the word " remembrance," — chapter vii.,* Ti effrt
sf^ificatio^of T°^ XVP'''OV avajavr/Gig. In it Cabasilas says :
"DO this in re- " CHRIST says, * Do this in remembrance of Me,' and
°f He says tllis not only °f tlie bread> kut of tne whole
Mystery which is celebrated, as here beginning to offer
sacrifice. For after the LORD had performed the whole
Mystery, He added these words, ' Do this in remem
brance of Me.' But what is this remembrance, and in
what way do we remember the LORD in the celebration
of the sacred act ? What do we remember Him as
doing ? In. what situation ? But again I ask, think
ing what about Him ? Relating what ? That He
raised the dead ? That He gave sight to the blind ?
That He rebuked the winds, and from a few loaves of
bread satisfied thousands ? Things which showed Him
both to be GOD and to be Omnipotent ? By no means,
but rather the things which signified weakness :\ the
Cross, the Passion, Death ; in these He commands us
to make a memorial of Him. And from whence can
we prove this ? S. Paul so understood it, who clearly
apprehended the things of CHRIST. For writing about
this Mystery to the Corinthians, after relating that the
LORD said, 'Do this in remembrance of Me,' he added,
1 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do shew the LORD'S Death.' This also the LORD
Himself showed in the Institution of the Mystery.
For when He said, ' This is My Body,' ' This is My
Blood,' He did not add miraculous things to these,
* Migne, P. G., torn. 150, col. 381-384.
f By no possible interpretation can the Resurrection and As
cension be taken as "the things which signified weakness."
MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 335
saying that He had raised the dead, that He had
cleansed lepers, but what ? Only His Passion and
Death, — ' which is broken for you,' ' which is shed for
you.' And what is the reason ? That He calls to our
mind not His miracles, but His Passion; that these suf
ferings are so much more needful than those miracles;
that these sufferings are indeed the efficacious cause of
our salvation, and that without them man cannot rise."
In justice to Mr. Brightman it should be noted that in which he
while he refers to Nicholas Cabasilas, he does not claim explicitly re-
.... pudiatesMr.
him as supporting his view. It is also true that he
does not point out how emphatically Cabasilas repudi
ates that view. For while, with all Catholic writers,
Cabasilas recognizes the commemoration of the Resur
rection and Ascension, as well as of the Passion, in
the Eucharist, yet in his exposition of the sacrificial
words " Do this in remembrance of Me " he asks, " Do
we here commemorate our LORD'S works ? ' ' and replies,
" By no means, but rather the things which signified
weakness." We commemorate "only His Passion and
Death." If Cabasilas had been answering Mr. Bright
man's paper he could scarcely have met his argument
more completely.
Secondly, Mr. Brightman teaches that the Eucharist
is related to our LORD'S perfected and glorified Person,
and that hence, " if its relation to the unique act of the
Cross is only through His Person ( as He is,' if, that
is, it is related to the Cross as the eternal act of our
High Priest in heaven is related to the Cross — then it
is a simple inference, it seems to lie in its nature, that
it is an action parallel to our LORD'S present work in
heaven, where, because He is a High Priest, ' He must
needs have somewhat to offer ' (Heb. viii. 3)." * And
* Briglitman, pp. 12, 13.
336
THE EUCHARIST1C SACRIFICE.
Also a chapter
on the nature
of the K. S.
He finds the
sacrificial act
in the Conse
cration ,
again, Mr. Brightinan interprets " the Kucharistic Sac
rifice as the reproduction on earth, not of the moment
of the Cross, but of our LORD'S perpetual action in
heaven, as the Minister of the True Tabernacle." *
In chapter xxxii. Cabasilas treats of the nature of
the Kucharistic Sacrifice itself. He says : " It is worth
while to inquire into the Sacrifice itself. For it is not
a figure of a sacrifice, nor an image of blood, but it is
truly a mactation and sacrifice. Let us, then, inquire
what is sacrificed, bread or the Body of the LORD ?
That is, when are the gifts sacrificed, before they are
consecrated, or after ? And if, indeed, it is bread that
is sacrificed, first, what, pray, might the sacrifice of
bread be ? Then again, the Mystery we are consider
ing is not to see bread sacrificed, but the Lamb of GOD,
which taketh away the sin of the world. But if the
very Body of the LORD is sacrificed, this surely is im
possible. For that Body can no more be smitten or
slain, for It is now incorruptible and immortal. But
if It could still suffer any such thing, there ought to
be the executioners who crucified Him, and all the
other tilings ought to be present which effected that
Sacrifice, since it is understood that it is not a figure
of mactation, but a true mactation. Then in what man
ner did CHRIST once for all die, and rise again, and
' dieth no more,' and suffered ' once for all in the end of
the world, ' f ? and how is He said to have been ' once for
all offered to bear the sins of many ' \ ? For if in each
celebration of the Mystery He Himself is sacrificed,
He dies in each celebration. What, then, can we
reply to this ? That the Sacrifice takes place neither
before the bread is consecrated nor after it is conse-
* Brightman, p. 2 (italics ours),
t Heb. ix. 26.
J Heb. ix. 28.
MEDIAEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS. 337
crated, but at the very moment in which it is conse
crated. For thus it is necessary that every word of
GOD should be observed, and that nothing should fall
to the ground. But what, I ask, should be observed ?
That this Sacrifice is not an image and a figure of a
sacrifice, but a true sacrifice; that it is not bread which
is sacrificed, but the very Body of CHRIST. And more- and relates the
over, that the sacrifice of the Lamb [in the Eucharist]
and that Sacrifice which was once for all made [upon
the Cross] are one Sacrifice. ' '
Here we may first observe that Cabasilas makes the The state-
sacrificial act to consist precisely in the Consecration mentsof
Cabasilas and
itself. Secondly, that the conclusion of his whole
argument is that the Eucharist is a sacrifice because comPared-
it is one with the Sacrifice of the Cross. There is not
in the chapter, nor, so far as we know, in the whole
work, the slightest trace of any theory which connects
the sacrificial character of the Eucharist with what our
LORD is doing now in heaven. Indeed, Cabasilas
could not more completely repudiate Mr. Brightman's
position that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is " the repro
duction on earth, not of the moment of the Cross, but
of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven ; " for at the
end of a long argument, he says that the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it is one and the
same as the Sacrifice of the Cross.
The other Eastern theologian from whom we shall 2. The other
quote is Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza and Rector of Eastern writer,
•*• Macarius.
the Seminary at S. Petersburg. In his work entitled cent.xix.
Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, he treats of the Eu
charist as a sacrifice. He says :
" In believing and professing that the Holy Eu- He teaches
charist is a true sacrament, the Orthodox Church
also believes and professes, in spite of the errors of
338
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and that it is
related solely
to the Cross.
No trace,
therefore, of
the Modern
view in the
Eastern
Church.
Conclusion
adverse to the
claims of the
Modern
school.
Protestants, that the Eucharist is at the same time a
true and real sacrifice, that is, that in the Eucharist
the Body and Blood of the Saviour, which are offered
to us as food, are offered also to GOD as a sacrifice for
man." *
Under the heading, " The relation of this Sacrifice
with the Sacrifice of the Cross," he says : " The Sacri
fice offered to GOD in the Eucharist is in its character
precisely the same as that of the Cross. For to-day we
still offer on the altars of the Church the same L,amb
of GOD Who offered Himself of old on the Cross for the
sins of the world; the same Flesh, infinitely pure, which
suffered there ; the same Blood, infinitely precious,
which was then shed. To-day this mysterious Obla
tion is still invisibly accomplished by the same Royal
and Eternal High Priest who offered Himself on the
Cross, "f
There can be no question but that Macarius re
lates the Sacrifice of the Altar to the Sacrifice of the
Cross, and finds its sacrificial character only in that
relation.
We bring this long chapter to a close by repeating
that among the writers of the Middle Ages and those
of the seventeenth century, and throughout the Greek
Church, we find not only no support for the Modern
view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but, on the contrary,
much in their writings which is absolutely inconsistent
with it ; that, after examining every passage cited in
its favour, we find not one which, when fairly consid
ered in its context, and taken together with the
author's views elsewhere expressed, sustains the Mod
ern view.
* Macaire, T/i£ol. Dogmat. Orth.> torn. 2, p, 492.
f Ibid., p. 498.
CHAPTER X.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINKS.
IN Chapter VII. we briefly sketched the outline of the introductory
history of the sacrificial conception of the Eucha
rist from sub-apostolic times to our own day, and
in the two chapters which followed we carefully com
pared the treatment of this subject in the writings of
the principal Fathers and theologians with the funda
mental positions of the Catholic and of the Modern
view. In doing this, however, all reference to Angli
can writers of the post-Reformation period was pur
posely omitted, these being reserved for a separate
examination, to which we shall now proceed.
Mr. Brightman says : " What is more characteristic Mr.
among our theologians is the theory which is remark-
able by its general absence in the Roman writers— the
interpretation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the repro-
duction on earth, not of the moment of the Cross, but
of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven, as the Min
ister of the True Tabernacle. I do not mean that this
interpretation is confined to Anglican theologians, or
that it is the only interpretation current among us —
but that, while it is extraordinary how far it is ignored
by both Protestant and Roman writers, it is the inter
pretation to which Anglicans tend to gravitate."*
* Brightman, p. 2.
339
340 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
. . . " I have already said that this type of inter
pretation is characteristic of Anglican writers. This
may easily be verified by looking through Dr. Pusey's
catena from the Anglican divines in No. 81 of Tracts
for the Times. ' ' *
and gives as Mr. Brightman, in making the assertion that it is
his authority characteristic of Anglican writers to interpret "the
the catena in . t
Tract 81. Euchanstic Sacrifice as the reproduction on earth, not
of the moment of the Cross, but of our L,ORD'S perpetual
action in heaven," gives us his authority for this state
ment, namely, Dr. Pusey's catena of Anglican divines
in No. 8 1 of Tracts for the Times. It will therefore be
very easy, as he says, to verify, or as we should say,
to refute, his statement by an examination of the pas
sages to which we are referred.
i. Before exam- I. It will help us to reach a fair judgment ^in the
tho^fties6 cer matter *£ before taking up the passages themselves,
tain facts to be we draw attention to a few points which must be kept
noticed. carefully before us in order that we may really appre
hend the mind of each writer.
i. The purpose i. The purpose of the writer of Tract No. 81 was
of Tract si was t t formulate or support any theory of the Eucha-
not to support
any theory of ristic Sacrifice, but to show that there was a consensus
then. s.,oniy amoilor a large number of Anglican writers in regard to
to show a con
sensus of Aug- the fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. We there-
divines f ore gn(j that in the passages selected the various writers
as to the fact of i * , 1 T* i • *. •£ -j ^ n
thes. speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, some incidentally
showing with more or less fulness the sense in which
they regard it, while others, indeed no less than twelve,
give no indication of their opinion concerning the
manner in which it is a sacrifice, but merely state
the fact.
2. The writers themselves by education and environ-
* Brightman, p. 15.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 341
ment were deeply prejudiced against everything Ro- 2. The writers
man, and this was especially the case in regard to the werePreJu-
- __,_.,. T, diced against
doctrine of the Holy Kuchanst. However true the everything
position of a Roman theologian might be, an Anglican
divine of post-Reformation times would always look
askance at it. This led, moreover, to another incon- and so avoided
venience, — that Roman terminology was largely repudi- the termino1-
, , . . ogyofRome.
ated, and as there was then no other theological termin
ology to take its place, new words were introduced,
some writers using a word in a loose, others in a strict
sense, so that we are compelled to investigate the
meaning of the terms used by each writer.
3. From this last circumstance it follows that where 3. Hence it is
we find what seems to be an unusual view expressed, often dlfficult
1 to determine
we must compare it with other statements of the same the force of
writer before reaching a conclusion as to the author's their state-
ments.
real opinion on the subject.
4. About one matter there is no room for doubt, — that 4. They cer-
all the great Anglican writers appealed to the Fathers
as their authority, and, whether they did so or not, Fathers
sincerely believed that they were setting forth the
patristic view of the Eucharist. As we have shown in hence little
Chapter VII., we find in the Fathers no attempt to for- traceofany
clear theory of
mulate any theory in regard to the mode of the Eucha- the mode of
ristic Sacrifice, although we find abundant witness to the s. is found
- - . in their writ-
tne jact, and to its essential relation to our LORD s jngSt
Death on the Cross, and further that they regarded the
Eucharist as the bond of union between the worship of
the Church on earth and in heaven.
The Tract which we are to examine extends to 424 The Tract con-
octavo pages, and contains extracts from the writings ^J^^^*8
of sixty-three authors, not including the compilers of the three writers,
Scotch and American Prayer Books. Of these, twelve, of ^hom
' twelve make
while speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, express no allusion to
342
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the mode of
the vS.
Of the 51 left,
4, Overall, Tay
lor, Johnson,
and Philpotts,
favour in some
measure the
Modern view.
Five others,
Mede, Ham
mond, Thorn-
dike, Fell, and
Scandret, are
claimed on in
sufficient
grounds as on
the same side.
Forty-two,
however,
clearly witness
to the Catholic
The method
pursued in
selecting ex
tracts.
no opinion as to the manner of the sacrifice. They are
Hooker, Duppa, Nicholson, Barlow, Bancroft, Smith,
Hooper, Dodwell, Collier, Bennet, Jones, and Horsley.
We therefore have remaining fifty-one writers, — who
are certainly representative Anglican divines, — and a
careful examination of the passages quoted from their
writings seems to show that four, the Pseudo-Overall,
Taylor, Johnson, and Philpotts, may fairly be claimed
as favourable to the Modern view, at least so far as
to relate the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to our IBRD'S
work in heaven rather than to the Sacrifice of the
Cross, since statements can be found in their works
which may bear this interpretation, although from
other parts of their writings we should gather that
they held the Catholic view.
Five others — Mede, Hammond, Thorndike, Fell,
and Scandret — use expressions which, taken by them
selves, might seem to favour the Modern view, but
in other passages (quoted in the Tract) they make
statements which are quite inconsistent with such an
interpretation. This leaves forty-two writers whose
treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is unmistakably
Catholic. In this majority we find the names of Jewell,
Bilson, Andrews, Laud, Forbes, Bramhall, Brevint,
Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Wake, Wilson, Grabe, Brett,
Law, and Wheatly ; so that the majority is not merely
one of numbers, but of overwhelming authority.
To facilitate the examination of these authors, all
the passages in which are found a distinct statement of
the relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the
Cross, or to our LORD'S action now in heaven, have
been carefully marked, and are here given.* Where,
* In this the author has had the kind assistance of a distin
guished Professor of theology, who favours a very modified
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 343
as is often the case (especially in regard to the Sacrifice
of the Cross), there are many such passages, the most
explicit have been chosen, but in no case is any pas
sage omitted which would tend to modify the writer's
opinion, and it is scarcely necessary to add that no
passage has been intentionally omitted which would
give any support to the Modern view.
As the author of the Tract points out, these sixty- The Tract does
three names do not include every writer of repute dur- £ot';0™p.re~ ..
•* A nend all Angli-
ing the three centuries which followed the Reformation, can writers,
but they do cover the representative Anglican theo- butrePre-
J sents the best.
logians who in their works have treated of the Eucha-
ristic Sacrifice.
II. Let us now proceed to an examination of the ex- n. we begin
tracts which have been selected. We shall begin with £%£?£**"
those which seem to favour the Modern view, and Modern view,
first, with the four in which this view is most clearly
expressed.
John Overall, Bishop of Norwich (ob. 1619) : i. overall
' ' Therefore this is no new Sacrifice, but the same quotes from
which was once offered, and which is every day offered Cassander-
to GOD by CHRIST in heaven, and continueth here
still on earth, by a mystical representation of it in the
Eucharist. And the Church intends not to have any
new propitiation, or new remission of sins obtained,
but to make that effectual, and in act applied unto us,
which was once obtained by the Sacrifice of CHRIST
upon the Cross. Neither is the Sacrifice of the Cross,
as it was once offered up there, modo cruento, so much
remembered in the Eucharist, though it be commem-
form of the Modern view. All the passages cited by him are
here given, although as several do not seem to the author justly
capable of this interpretation, they are not included in the
first or second class.
344
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The authen
ticity of the
passage dis
proved.
orated, as regard is had to the perpetual and daily
offering of it by CHRIST now in heaven in His everlast
ing Priesthood, and thereupon was, and should be still
the juge Sacrifidzim observed here on earth as it is in
heaven, the reason which the ancient Fathers had for
their daily Sacrifice. ' ' *
" This word refers to the Sacrifice mentioned before,
for we still continue and commemorate that Sacrifice
which CHRIST once made upon the Cross : and this
Sacrifice which the Church makes, as a Sacrifice is
taken pro mactatione et occisione victimcz, is only com
memorative and sacramental." f
11 ' That by the merits and death of Thy SON JKSUS
CHRIST, and through faith in His Blood, we and all
Thy whole Church,' etc. This is a plain Oblation of
CHRIST'S Death once offered, and a representative Sac
rifice of it." J
In the first passage the author distinctly says that
the Sacrifice of the Cross is not ( ' so much remembered
in the Eucharist, though it be commemorated, as re
gard is had to the perpetual and daily offering of it by
CHRIST now in heaven in His everlasting Priest
hood " ; and although in the other two passages quoted
he speaks of the Eucharist as commemorating the Cross,
yet the explicit statement in the first extract must be
considered fairly to outweigh the less definite expres
sions in other places. The first passage is undoubtedly
taken from Cassander's Consultatio.%
We must, however, at this point call attention to
some facts which greatly weaken, if they do not en
tirely destroy, any authority these passages derive from
* Tracts for the Times, No. 81, pp. 71, 72.
f Ibid., pp. 70, 71.
J Ibid., pp. 73, 74. § See page 400.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 345
their association with the great names of Overall and
of Cosin.
These extracts are taken from an interleaved folio
Prayer Book, in Bishop Cosin' s library at Durham, the
MS. notes of which, on the authority of Dr. Barrow,
editor of Cosin's Works in the Anglo-Catholic Library,*
have been said to be in the handwriting of Bishop Cosin
himself, and to represent his recollections of the teach
ing of Bishop Overall, with whom, when a young man,
he lived as secretary. On this testimony Dr. Pusey in
Tract 8 1 ascribes these passages to Overall. It will be
evident that, even if Dr. Barrow's theory about these
notes is correct, they at best represent only a second
hand report of Overall's views, and one not written till
after his death, for he died in May, 1619, the year in
which the Prayer Book was published.
Further investigations have, however, demonstrated
that neither Bishop Overall nor Bishop Cosin can be
held responsible for the notes in this book. For, first,
it has been discovered that the handwriting of the
notes is not in the least like that of Bishop Cosin ; and,
secondly, in a small quarto volume in the Bodleian
Library (in the Sancroft Collection), which consists of
a series of notes upon the Prayer Book, entirely in MS.,
and in Sancroft' s handwriting, we find that a large
number of the extracts are identical with those in
Cosin's book (i. e., the interleaved Prayer Book of
1619), and on the top of the first page is an explana
tory note in Archbishop Sancroft's handwriting :
11 Many of these discourses and some of ye marginal
notes in my great Service Book I transcribed out of
Mr. Haywood's Book of Coton, which was partly his
* See Dr. Barrow's Preface to vol. v. of Cosin's Works in the
Anglo-Catholic L/ibrary.
346 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
own collection, and partly taken out of Bishop An-
drewes his own Service Book," etc.
This is incidental but positive testimony that the
passages quoted above are the work of neither Overall
nor Cosin, but of an obscure person named Haywood,
a nephew of Overall's ; and further, the notes them
selves are largely extracts from well known authors,
the passage in question being taken from Cassander ;
and its appearance in a note-book in no way implies
that it represents the views even of the compiler. For,
as Canon Meyrick has well observed : " There are few
students whose orthodoxy would pass muster, if all the
passages they have copied into their text- books from
various quarters were taken as representing their state
ments." *
The only evidential value, therefore, of this passage
is such as attaches to a passage of Cassander found
copied into the note-book of an obscure clergyman.
2. jeremy Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down and Connor (ob.
Taylor- 1667):
' ' First : for whatsoever CHRIST did at the Institu
tion, the same He commanded the Church to do, in
remembrance and repeated rites ; and Himself also does
the same thing in heaven for us, making perpetual in
tercession for His Church, the body of His redeemed
ones, by representing to the FATHER His Death and
Sacrifice. There He sits, a High Priest continually,
and offers still the same one perfect Sacrifice : that is,
still represents it as having been once finished and
consummate in order to perpetual and never-failing
events. And this also His ministers do on earth ;
* Cf. Correspondence in the Guardian (September 26, October
3, and October 10, 1900) between the Bishop of Edinburgh,
Canon Meyrick, and Mr. Cawley, all of whom favour this view.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 347
they offer up the same Sacrifice to GOD, the Sacrifice of
the Cross, by prayers, and a commemorating rite and
representment, according to His holy institution." *
' ' As CHRIST is a Priest in heaven for ever, and yet
does not sacrifice Himself afresh, — nor yet without a
Sacrifice could He be a Priest, — but, by a daily minis
tration and intercession, represents His Sacrifice to
GOD, and offers Himself as sacrificed ; so He does upon
earth, by the ministry of His servants : He is offered
to GOD, that is, He is, by prayers and the Sacrament,
represented or ' offered up to GOD, as sacrificed ; '
which, in effect, is a celebration of His Death, and the
applying it to the present and future necessities of the
Church, as we are capable, by a ministry like to His
in heaven." f
" To this end CHRIST was made a Priest for ever ;
He was initiated or consecrated on the Cross, and there
began His Priesthood, which was to last till His coming
to judgment. It began on earth, but was to last and
be officiated in heaven, where He sits perpetually re
presenting and exhibiting to the FATHER that great
effective Sacrifice which He offered on the Cross, to
eternal and never- failing purposes." \
•" As CHRIST is pleased to represent to His FATHER
that great Sacrifice as a means of atonement and ex
piation for all mankind, and with special purposes and
intendment for all the elect, all that serve Him in holi
ness ; so He hath appointed, that the same ministry
shall be done upon earth too, in our manner, and
according to our proportion ; and therefore hath con
stituted and separated an order of men, who, by
* shewing forth the LORD'S Death ' by sacramental
* Tracts for the Times, No. Si, pp. 180, 181.
t Ibid., p. 181. J Ibid., p. 183.
348 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
representation, may pray unto GOD after the same
manner that our LORD and High Priest does." *
" When I said that the Sacrifice of the Cross, which
CHRIST offered for all the sins and all the needs of the
world, is represented to GOD by the minister in the
Sacrament, and offered up in prayer and sacramental
memory, after the manner that CHRIST Himself inter
cedes for us in heaven (so far as His glorious Priesthood
is imitable by His ministers on earth), I must of neces
sity also mean, that all the benefits of that Sacrifice are
then conveyed to all that communicate worthily." f
" That He is a Priest in heaven, appears in the
large discourses and direct affirmatives of S. Paul.
That there is no other Sacrifice to be offered, but that
on the Cross, it is evident, because ' He hath but once
appeared, in the end of the world, to put away sin by
the Sacrifice of Himself ; ' and, therefore, since it is
necessary that He hath [have] something to offer, so
long as He is a Priest, and there is no other Sacrifice but
that of Himself, offered upon the Cross, — it follows that
CHRIST, in heaven, perpetually offers and represents
that Sacrifice to His heavenly FATHER, and, in virtue
of that, obtains all good things for His Church. ' ' J
" Having received my dearest LORD into my soul, I
humbly represent to Thy Divine Majesty the glorious
Sacrifice, which our dearest JKSUS made of Himself
upon the Cross, and, by a never-ceasing intercession,
now exhibits to Thee in heaven, in the office of an
eternal Priesthood." §
These seven passages from Bishop Taylor show
without doubt that he regarded the Eucharist as
chiefly related to our LORD'S action in heaven. It
* Tracts for the Times, No. 8 1, pp. 183, 184.
f Ibid., p. 185. \ Ibid., p. 189. g Ibid., p. 192.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 349
will be interesting to examine, later on, the source from
which he probably drew this view.
John Johnson (ob. 1725), author of The Unbloody 3. Johnson.
Sacrifice :
" If the Eucharistical elements be considered not
only as an oblation, but as symbols and figures of
CHRIST'S crucified Body and effused Blood, it will
from thence appear, that they are a propitiatory offer
ing. That by them ' we shew forth CHRIST'S Death '
(i Cor. xi. 26), the Apostle affirms ; and if they are an
oblation, as has been proved, then this oblation is di
rected to GOD, and shows forth CHRIST'S Death to
Him, as well as to the communicants ; and if the Holy
Eucharist be an oblation, in which we show forth
CHRIST'S Death to GOD, then, I think, no more need
be said to show that it is a propitiatory oblation." *
" They were instituted by CHRIST, not only to call
Him and His sufferings to remembrance, but to be to
us all that His natural Body and Blood, crucified and
poured out for us, could be, if we had them actually
lying on our altars." f
" CHRIST cannot be represented as actually dead,
but He must be represented as actually sacrificed. He
was not sacrificed whilst alive ; that is inconsistent ;
but when His Blood was poured out, then the Sacrifice
was offered ; for it was the blood of sacrifices with
which the atonement was made. . . . Therefore
the bread and wine represent CHRIST as just now dead,
and fit to be offered. And it is scarce to be conceived
how our SAVIOUR could have expressed Himself more
clearly, when He says, ' This is My Body given '
(didojAsvov\ just now given 'for you.' By this repre-
* Tracts for the Times, No. 81, pp. 315, 316.
t Ibid., p. 316.
350 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
sentation, our SAVIOUR offered Himself in effigy, as I
may say, before He offered Himself on the Cross ; and
by this representation, what passed near one thousand
seven hundred years ago, is set forth and exhibited to
us, as if it were but now done. ' ' *
" A perfect representation of His Sacrifice, and, to
all intents and purposes, as effectual to our good as if
JESUS CHRIST had been crucified before our eyes, and
as if we had His very Body and Blood to present to the
FATHER, in order to avert His indignation against our
sins, and to atone for them." f
" The sense of what these Fathers teach us is, that
CHRIST entered upon His Priestly office in the Eucha
rist ; that there He began the one oblation ; there He
offered Himself in a spiritual mystical manner, as He
afterwards did corporally upon the Cross. . . .
These two parts of the oblation were but one continued
solemnity; nay, we add, that the Ascension of CHRIST
into heaven many days after, was but the finishing of
this one oblation. The distinguishing the oblation in
the Eucharist from that on the Cross, and that after
wards performed in heaven, is really a confounding or
obscuring the whole mystery, and rendering it per
plexed and intricate. We ought no more to reckon
them two or three several oblations, than we would
say an animal was three several sacrifices because it
was first immolated, then slain, afterwards burned, and
the blood of it ritually sprinkled. Any one of these
actions may be called an oblation ; and the animal, by
having any one of these actions passed upon it, was
rightly called a sacrifice ; and yet the whole process
was really but one and the same sacrifice." J
* Tracts for the Times, No. 81, p. 319.
f Ibid., p. 329. \ Ibid., pp. 333, 334.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 351
' ' It seems clear to me, that the one personal oblation
performed by our SAVIOUR Himself, is not to be con
fined to any one instant of time ; but commenced with
the Paschal solemnity, and was finished at His Ascen
sion into heaven there to appear in the Presence of
GOD for us. And if our adversaries will restrain the
oblation to the Cross alone, then they must exclude
CHRIST'S sacerdotal entry into heaven, as the Holy of
holies, and say that the oblation was finished before
the blood of the sacrifice was brought into the Most
Holy place and there offered ; contrary to what the
Apostle teaches us, Heb. ix. 7 ; and, therefore, few, I
suppose, will presume thus far. And if it was consist
ent with the one oblation to be made in the Holy of
holies, as well as on the altar; in heaven, as well as on
the Cross ; then I cannot conceive why the oblation
made in the Eucharist should make the oblation cease
to be one, any more than the double offering it, on the
Cross and in the Holy of holies, already mentioned." *
Of these six passages, the first four represent the
Eucharist as the memorial of the Cross, while the last
two favour the Modern view, not so much in referring
the Eucharistic Sacrifice to our LORD'S action in
heaven, as in teaching that the presentation of the
Blood, and therefore the essential act of our LORD'S
Sacrifice, took place, not upon the Cross, but after His
Ascension into heaven.
The Unbloody Sacrifice is severely criticised by
Water-land in his appendix to The Christian Sacrifice
Explained, f While Waterland attacks it from the
Protestant standpoint, he also points out the inac
curate and confused statements which Johnson makes.
* Tracts for the Times, No. 81, p. 336.
tWaterland's Works, vol. viii., pp. 180-223.
352
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
His unortho
dox views de
tract from his
authority.
That we may estimate the value of Johnson's opinion
on this matter, attention is drawn to three statements
found in the passages quoted from him in Tract 81.
(1) " That not the Divinity and Human Soul of
CHRIST JESUS, but His Body and Blood only, are
offered in the Eucharist." *
(2) " That not His substantial, but sacramental Body
and Blood are there offered. ' ' f
These two propositions are distinctly set forth as
theses to be defended in his discourse. The first in
volves a separation between CHRIST'S Body and Blood
and His Divinity and Human Soul, which is inconsist
ent with the Hypostatic Union, since even in the tri-
duum, after His Death, His Body and Blood were never
for a moment separated from His Divinity, though
they were separated from His Human Soul. The
second proposition shows that Johnson held that our
IvORD had two distinct Bodies, a substantial and a sac
ramental Body, which is, of course, the rankest heresy.
(3) He says : " I have already declared against the
personal presence or Sacrifice of CHRIST in the Eucha-
ristical elements. Nor do I suppose that the bread and
wine represent His whole Person, as He is GOD and
Man, but only His sacrificed Body and His effused
Blood. His Soul was separated from the Body before
the Sacrifice was consummated. We have in the Sac
rament His Body and Blood consecrated and adminis
tered apart, which is a demonstration that we have not
there His entire living Person." J
Here Johnson declares against " the personal pre
sence of CHRIST in the Eucharistical elements," and in
saying, " His Soul was separated from the Body before
the Sacrifice was consummated," implies probably the
* Tract No. 81, p. 311. f Ibid., p. 311. \ Ibid., p. 317.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 353
Socinian view of our LORD'S Sacrifice. As he thus
held erroneous and indeed heretical views of our
LORD'S Incarnation and Atonement, his opinion in
regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice can scarcely be con
sidered of much value.
Henry Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter (ob. 1869) : 4. pwipotts.
". . . The commemorative Sacrifice of the Body
and Blood of CHRIST ; in which the action and suffering
of our great High Priest are represented and offered
to GOD on earth, as they are continually by the same
High Priest Himself in heaven ; the Church on earth
doing, after its measure, the same thing as its Head in
heaven ; CHRIST in heaven presenting the Sacrifice,
and applying it to its purposed end, properly and
gloriously; the Church on earth commemoratively and
humbly, yet really and effectually, by praying to GOD
(with thanksgiving) in the virtue and merit of that
Sacrifice which it thus exhibits." *
There are other passages in Bishop Philpotts' s writ- other passages
ings (which we shall notice later) which considerably from his writ'
J ings greatly
modify this statement. This, however, is the only ex- modify this
tract given in Tract 81, and we therefore in this place statement,
confine ourselves to it. We may point out that Bishop
Philpotts, who died in 1869, is too late in date to be
numbered among those whom we ordinarily understand
by " the great Anglican divines," and, while in some
ways in sympathy with the Tractarian movement, he
can certainly not be claimed as belonging to it. We
grant, however, that he does connect the Eucharist
with our LORD'S action in heaven in less guarded
language than was used, as we shall show, by the
Tractarians.
III. We shall now pass to a consideration of the five in. The five
* Tract No. 81, p. 423. writers who
23
354 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
are claimed by writers who have been claimed as favouring the Modern
the modern view because some expressions are found in their writ-
school, Diit
without suffi- ings which, taken by themselves, seem to support it.
cient ground. We shall show that there are other passages (quoted
in the Tract) which, in our opinion, are inconsistent
with this conclusion.
i. Mede. Joseph Mede (ob. 1638) : " So that this Sacrifice, as
you see, hath a double object or matter : first, praise
and prayer, which you may call Sacrificium quod ;
secondly, the commemoration of CHRIST'S Sacrifice
upon the Cross, which is Sacrificium quo, the Sacrifice
whereby the other is accepted." *
" The mystery of which rite thcj^ took to be this :
that as CHRIST, by presenting His Death and Satisfac
tion to His FATHER, continually intercedes for us in
heaven ; so the Church on earth semblably approaches
the Throne of Grace, by representing CHRIST unto His
FATHER -in these Holy Mysteries of His Death and
Passion. ' Veteres enim [saith Cassander] in hoc mystico
SacrificioJ etc. . . . * The ancients did not, in this
mystical Sacrifice, so much consider and respect the
Oblation once made upon the Cross (the memory
whereof is here celebrated), as the everlasting Priest
hood of CHRIST, and the perpetual Sacrifice which
He, our High Priest for ever, doth continually offer
in heaven ; the resemblance whereof is here on
earth expressed by the solemn prayers of GOD'S
ministers.' " f
' There may be a sacrifice which is a representation
of another sacrifice and yet a sacrifice too. And such
a Sacrifice is this of the New Testament ; a Sacrifice
wherein another Sacrifice, that of CHRIST'S Death
upon the Cross, is commemorated." {
* Tract No. 81, p. in. f Ibid., p. 116. \ Ibid., p. 118.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 355
" Though the Eucharist be a Sacrifice (that is, an
oblation wherein the offerer banquets with his GOD),
yet is CHRIST in this Sacrifice no otherwise offered,
than by way of commemoration only of His Sacrifice
once offered upon the Cross, as a learned Prelate of
ours [Bishop Morton] hath lately written, objective only,
not subjective. ' ' *
" In a word, the Sacrifice of Christians is nothing
but that one Sacrifice of CHRIST once offered upon the
Cross, again and again commemorated." f
In these five passages, four refer the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist only to the Sacrifice of the Cross. One,
the second, has been claimed as countenancing the
Modern view. We must notice, however, that all that
Mede says is, " that as CHRIST, by presenting His
Death and Satisfaction to His FATHER, continually
intercedes for us in heaven, so the Church on earth
semblably approaches the Throne of Grace by represent
ing CHRIST unto His FATHER in these Holy Mysteries
of His Death and Passion." In this statement Mede
does not relate the Eucharist in any way to what is
going on in heaven. He only says that as CHRIST is
interceding for us in heaven, so is the Church on earth,
in the Holy Eucharist, representing CHRIST unto His
FATHER. Then follows a passage from Cassander, on
which Mede makes no comment whatever. It begins
thus : " ' Veteres enim [saith Cassander] in hoc mystico
Sacrificio, ' ' ' where the ' ' enim " is a part of the passage
from Cassander. Mede does not close his statement
with the words, " For Cassander says," but simply
adds the passage from Cassander ; and certainly Mede's
opinion is to be gathered from his own words rather
than from Cassander' s, especially as in the other four
* Tract No. 81, p. 122. f Ibid., p. 125.
356 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
passages he unhesitatingly speaks of the Eucharist as
related to the Sacrifice of the Cross.
2. Hammond. Henry Hammond, Chaplain to Charles I. (ob. 1660) :
11 Thirdly, a specifying of the end to which this was
designed, a commemoration of the Death of CHRIST,
a representing His Passion to GOD, and a coming
before Him in His Name, first, to offer our sacrifices
of supplications and praises, in the Name of the cruci
fied JKSUS, (as of old, both among Jews and heathens
all their sacrifices were rites in and by which they
supplicated GOD, see i Sam. xiii. 12) ; and, secondly,
to commemorate that His daily continual Sacrifice or
Intercession for us at the Right Hand of His FATHKR
now in heaven." *
11 This commemoration hath two branches, one of
praise and thanksgiving to Him for this mercy, the
other of annunciation or showing forth, not only first
to men, but secondly, and especially, to GOD, this
Sacrifice of CHRIST'S offering up His Body upon the
Cross for us. That which respecteth or looks towards
men, is a professing of our faith in the Death of
CHRIST ; that which looks towards GOD, is our plead
ing before Him that Sacrifice of His own SON." f
" The end of CHRIST'S instituting this Sacrament
was on purpose that we might, at set times, frequently
and constantly returning (for that is the meaning of
' continual,' parallel to the use of ' without ceasing '
applied to the sacrifice among the Jews, and the duty
of prayer among Christians), remember and commemo
rate before GOD and man this Sacrifice of the Death of
CHRIST." %
In the first of these passages Hammond tells us that
the end for which the Eucharist was designed was " a
* Tract No. 81, p. 160. f Ibid., p. 162. J Ibid., p. 163.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 357
commemoration of the Death of CHRIST as representing
His Passion to GOD," and secondly " to commemorate
His daily continual Sacrifice, or Intercession for us."
We may observe here that he puts the Sacrifice of the
Cross first, and that while he associates the Eucharist
with it as a commemoration of our LORD'S Intercession,
it is only as a secondary relation. And in the last
passage, where he is again defining the end for which
the Sacrament was instituted by CHRIST, he leaves out
this secondary relation altogether, as he does also in the
second of the passages. He cannot, therefore, be con
sidered as holding that the Eucharist was essentially
related in its sacrificial character with our LORD'S
action in heaven.
Herbert Thorndike (ob. 1672) : " For, seeing the
Eucharist not only tendereth the Flesh and Blood of
CHRIST, but separated one from the other, under and
by several elements, as His Blood was parted from His
Body by the violence of the Cross; it must of necessity
be as well the Sacrifice as the Sacrament of CHRIST
upon the Cross." *
" And why should the commemoration and repre
sentation (in that sense of this word l representation '
which I determined afore) of that one Sacrifice of
CHRIST upon the Cross, which mankind was redeemed
with, be less properly a Sacrifice, in dependence upon f
and denomination from that one which the name of
Sacrifice upon the Cross was first used to signify ? For
all conceit of legal sacrifice is quite shut out, by sup
posing the Sacrifice past, which the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist represents and commemorates." |
" Seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded
us the accomplishment of that figure, in the offering of
* Tract No. 81, p. 166. f Italics ours. J Ibid., p. 167.
358 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross to the FATHER
in the highest heavens, to obtain the benefits of His
Passion for us ; and that the Eucharist is nothing else
but the representation here upon earth of that which is
done there." *
' ' I stick not to yield and maintain, that the Conse
cration of the Kucharist, in order to the participation
of it, is indeed a Sacrifice, whereby GOD is rendered
propitious to, and the benefits of CHRIST'S Death ob
tained for, them that worthily receive it. " f
"It is therefore enough, that the Eucharist is the
Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, as the Sacrifice of
CHRIST upon the Cross is represented, renewed, re
vived, and restored by it, and as every representation
is said to be the same thing with that which it re-
presenteth ; taking ' representing ' here not for barely
signifying, but for tendering and exhibiting thereby
that which it signifieth." \
" I say, then, that having proved the Consecration
of the Eucharist to be the production of the Body and
Blood of CHRIST crucified, or the causing them to be
mystically present in the elements thereof, as in a Sac
rament representing them separated by the crucifying
of CHRIST ; and the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross
being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both ; it
cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist,
inasmuch as it is the same Sacrifice of CHRIST upon
the Cross (as that which representeth is truly said to
be the thing which it representeth), is also both pro
pitiator}' and impetratory by virtue of the Consecration
of it, whereby it becometh the Sacrifice of CHRIST
upon the Cross." §
* Tract No. Si, p. 169. J Ibid., p. 171.
f Ibid., p. 170. § Ibid., pp. 171, 172.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 359
" If the consecrated elements be the Flesh and Blood
of CHRIST, then are they the Sacrifice of CHRIST cruci
fied upon the Cross. For they are not the Flesh and
Blood of CHRIST as in His Body, while it was whole,
but as separated by the Passion of His Cross. Not
that CHRIST can be sacrificed again ; for a sacrifice,
being an action done in succession of time, cannot be
done the second time being once done, because then it
should not have been done before ; but because the
Sacrifice of CHRIST crucified is represented, commemo
rated, and applied, by celebrating and receiving the
Sacrament, which is that Sacrifice." *
' ' How can Christians think their prayers so effectual
with GOD, as when they are presented at the com
memoration of the Sacrifice of CHRIST crucified, the
representation whereof to GOD, in heaven, makes His
Intercession there so acceptable? . . . However,
the ancient Church manifestly signifieth that they did
offer their oblations, out of which the Eucharist was
consecrated, with an intent to intercede with GOD for
public or private necessities: and that, out of an opinion
that they would be effectual, alleging the Sacrifice of
CHRIST crucified then present, which renders CHRIST'S
Intercession effectual for us. And this is the true
ground why they attributed so much to this com
memoration of the Sacrifice. ' ' f
In these eight passages from the writings of Thorn-
dike we have his views on the Eucharistic Sacrifice
very definitely expressed. In seven of them he refers
it in unmistakable words to the Sacrifice of the Cross.
In one passage alone does he use language which
seems to favour the Modern view. It is as follows :
" Seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded
* Tract No. 81., p. 179. f Ibid., p. 179.
360 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
us the accomplishment of that figure, in the offering of
the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross to the FATHER
in the highest heavens, to obtain the benefits of His
Passion for us ; and that the Eucharist is nothing else
but the representation here upon earth of that which
is done there." If this passage be examined closely
we shall see that Thorndike says no more than that the
Eucharist is the representation here upon earth of that
which is done in heaven, namely, the offering of the
Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross to the FATHER.
He does not make the Eucharist depend for its sacrifi
cial character upon what is done in heaven even in this
passage; and in the other seven he distinctly connects
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist with that of the Cross,
and in the second says that it depends upon that of the
Cross.
4. Feiu?). John Fell, Bishop of Oxford (ob. 1686) : " His Mel-
chisedeckial or eternal Priesthood, joined with King
ship, was consummated in His Resurrection, and is
now continued in His service in the heavenly sanctuary.
In which heavenly sanctuary, He perpetually offers His
Blood and Passion to GOD ; and, as Man, makes per
petual prayers and intercessions for us. ... As
also He hath instituted the same oblation of His holy
Body and Blood, and commemoration of His Passion,
to be made in the Holy Eucharist to GOD the FATHER
by His ministers here on earth, for the same ends,
viz., the application of all the benefits of His sole
meritorious Death and Sacrifice on the Cross, till His
second return out of this heavenly sanctuary. ' ' * This
passage attributed to Bishop Fell is from the Oxford
Commentary on the Epistles of S. Paul, page 365, edited
by Jacobson. It is incorrectly assigned to Bishop
* Tract No. Si., pp. 206, 207.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 361
Fell. We, however, give the passage as quoted in
Tract 81.
In saying that our LORD in the heavenly sanctuary
perpetually offers His Blood and Passion to GOD, the
writer seems to favour the gross view held by Alford
and Bengel, Dean Jackson, and, perhaps, Sadler.
But, objectionable as this may be, he does not make
the Eucharist depend upon what our LORD is doing in
heaven. All that he says is, that CHRIST has insti
tuted the same oblation, that is, of His Body and Blood,
in remembrance of His Passion, to be made in the Holy
Eucharist to GOD the FATHKR by His ministers here
on earth, for the same ends, that is, the application of
all the benefits of His sole meritorious Death and Sac
rifice on the Cross. And further, this passage can
scarcely be claimed as a witness to the Modern theory,
unless we are prepared to identify that theory with the
appalling view of the offering of the Blood in heaven,
which is rejected by practically all the modern
school.
As this passage is from the Oxford Commentary, and
not from Bishop Fell's writings, we must leave the
question of his view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice
open.
J. Scandret (ob. (?) ) : " These creatures being of- 5. scandret.
fered before GOD, by being brought to His altar, and
by the manual ceremonies appointed in the rubrick of
His Service, the Priest holding them to and before
GOD, breaking the bread to make a memorial to GOD
of CHRIST'S Body torn with nails upon the Cross, lift
ing up the wine as a memorial of His Blood shed for
us, laying his hands on both, to signify that on Him
was laid the sins of the world, as having undertaken
them in the covenant of grace ; this is the outward
362
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Review of the
opinions of
these five
writers.
visible part or thing in GOD'S great worship, the Chris
tian Sacrifice in the Christian Church." *
11 But I cannot but believe that the great Christian
Sacrifice is, and must be, performed by a representation
of CHRIST'S obedience to Death ; by a representation
of the worship of our heavenly Priest made in heaven,
by appearing for us there, with His crucified Body and
His Blood ; — a representation, I say, not only of what
He did on the Cross, but also of His now and ever In
tercession in heaven ; whence the Blessed Apostle,
when he speaks of the exercise of CHRIST'S Priesthood,
does chiefly refer to CHRIST'S appearance for us there.
* For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest ; '
which priests ' serve to the example and shadow of
heavenly things.' And again, ' CHRIST is not entered
into the holy places made with hands, which are the
figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to ap
pear in the Presence of GOD for us.' " f
The first passage is entirely in accord with the Catho
lic view. In the second, Scandret teaches that the
Bucharist is not only a representation of the Death of
CHRIST, but also of His Intercession in heaven. This,
however, while entirely lacking the authority, either
of Holy Scripture or of the Fathers, is altogether dif
ferent from the Modern view, since he does not in any
way make the Kucharist to depend for its sacrificial
character on that Intercession.
Of the five writers comprised in this group, we do
not think that any one clearly supports the modern
contention. The fact that in each one passage only
can be found associating the Bucharist with our LORD'S
Intercession in heaven, indicates that no more should
be inferred than that (like the Gallican theologians of
* Tract No. 81, p. 297. f Ibid., pp. 298, 299.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 363
the seventeenth century, and M. Lepin in our own
day) they see an accidental relation between the
Eucharist and our LORD'S action in heaven. Its
essentially sacrificial character they seern to have
related only to the offering on the Cross.
IV. We shall now give the extracts from the forty- iv. The forty-
two writers whose teaching is in entire accord with ^ Tnte,r£L
who teach the
the Catholic view. catholic view.
John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury (ob. 1571) : " The i. jeweii.
Sacrifice [after the order of Melchisedec] which is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world, is only
JESUS CHRIST the SON of GOD upon the Cross. And
the ministration of the Holy Mysteries, in a phrase or
manner of speech, is also the same Sacrifice, because it
layeth forth the Death and Blood of CHRIST so plainly
and so evidently before our eyes." *
" Certainly our Sacrifice is the very Body of CHRIST,
and that for ever, according to the order of Melchisedec,
evermore standing in GOD'S Presence, and evermore
obtaining pardon for us : not offered up by us, but
offering us up unto GOD the FATHER." t
In the second passage Bishop Jewell seems to asso
ciate our Sacrifice with our LORD'S Intercession in
heaven. But it must be observed that he does this
only in that passive sense of the word " sacrifice"
which the Fathers use so often. He says, " It is the
very Body of CHRIST, evermore standing in GOD'S
Presence." He does not refer to our LORD as offering
anything in heaven, unless, indeed, it be His Church
on earth, when he says, " offering us up unto GOD the
FATHKR."
Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester (ob. 1616) : 2. Biison.
' The very Supper itself is a public memorial of that
* Tract No. 81, p. 44. f Ibid., p. 63.
364 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
great and dreadful Sacrifice, I mean, of the Death and
Blood-shedding of our SAVIOUR. . . . The visible
Sacrifice of bread and wine, representing the LORD'S
Death."*
" Mark well the words of Cyprian, * The Passion of
the LORD is the Sacrifice which we offer : ' — of Am
brose, ' Our High Priest is He that offered (on the
Cross) a Sacrifice to cleanse us ; the very same we
offer now ; which being then offered cannot be con
sumed, this Sacrifice is a sampler of that, we offer that
very Sacrifice for ever : ' . . . of Austin, < We
sacrifice to GOD in that only manner in which He com
manded we should offer to Him at the revealing of the
New Testament : the Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice
was yielded in very truth when CHRIST was put to
death : after His Ascension it is now solemnized by a
Sacrament of memory.'' " f
' The LORD'S Death is figured, and proposed to the
communicants, and they, for their parts, no less peo
ple than priests, do present CHRIST hanging on the
Cross to GOD the FATHKR, with a lively faith, inward
devotion, and humble prayer, as a most sufficient and
everlasting Sacrifice for the full remission of their sins,
and assured fruition of His mercies. Other actual and
propitiatory sacrifice than this the Church of CHRIST
never had, never taught." J
' Peter Lombard, in his 4th Book and i2th Distinc
tion [says] ' I demand whether that which the priest
doth, be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation, and
whether CHRIST be daily offered, or else were offered
only once. To this our answer is brief : that which
is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a
sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and
* Tract No. Si, p. 64. f Ibid., p. 66. J Ibid., p. 67.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 365
representation of the true Sacrifice and holy oblation
made on the altar of the Cross. Also CHRIST died
once on the Cross, and there was He offered Himself,
but He is offered daily in a Sacrament, because in the
Sacrament there is a remembrance of that which was
done once.' " *
In the majority of these extracts Bishop Bilson ex
presses his opinion in the words of the Fathers, whose
views he makes his own. We would especially call
attention to the last sentence of the second extract,
where, quoting from S. Augustine, the Bishop says :
" The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was yielded in
very truth when CHRIST was put to death. After
His Ascension it is now solemnized by a sacrament of
memory." S. Augustine and Bishop Bilson apparently
had no knowledge of any other sacrifice which our
lyORD was offering after His Ascension than that of
the Eucharist. They neither recognized a presentation
of Blood after His Ascension as a completion of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, nor a sacrifice now offered in
heaven.
Richard Field, Dean of Gloucester (ob. 1616) : " In 3. Field,
this sort CHRIST offereth Himself and His Body once
crucified daily in heaven : Who intercedeth for us, not
as giving it in the nature of a gift, or present, for
He gave Himself to GOD once, to be holy unto Him
for ever ; not in the nature of a sacrifice, for He died
once for sin, and rose again, never to die any more ;
but in that He setteth it before the eyes of GOD His
FATHER, representing it unto Him, and so offering it
to His view, to obtain grace and mercy for us. And
in this sort we also offer Him daily on the altar, in that
commemorating His death, and lively representing His
* Tract No. 81, p. 68.
366 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
bitter Passion, endured in His Body upon the Cross,
we offer Him that was once crucified, and sacrificed for
us on the Cross, and all His sufferings, to the view
and gracious consideration of the Almighty, earnestly
desiring, and assuredly hoping, that He will incline to
pity us, and show mercy unto us, for this His dearest
SON'S sake, Who, in our nature, for us, to satisfy His
displeasure, and to procure us acceptation, endured
such and so grievous things." *
" In that, therefore, the Church doth offer the true
Body and Blood of CHRIST to GOD the FATHER, it is
merety a representative Sacrifice, and all that is done
is but the commemorating and representing of that
Sacrifice which was once offered on the Cross." f
In the first passage Dean Field says of our LORD'S
Intercession that it is " not in the nature of a sacri
fice," but in the setting before the eyes of GOD the
FATHER His Body once crucified, and so offering it to
His view to obtain grace and mercy for us. Like
Bishop Bilson, Field seems to repudiate any possibility
of a Sacrifice in heaven.
4. Buckeridge. John Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester and Ely (ob.
1631) : " And CHRIST our High Priest, that sitteth at
the Right Hand of GOD, doth at that instant execute
His office, and maketh intercession for us, by repre
senting His wounds and scars to His FATHER." J
li But this Sacrament of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST, as a more ample and perfect image, doth more
fully represent CHRIST'S Death, and by way of me
morial offer it to GOD, as being instituted and com
manded for a representation and commemoration
thereof." §
* Tract No. 81, p. 78. $ Ibid., p. 86.
f Ibid., p. 80. \ Ibid., p. 86.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 367
Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham (ob. 1659) : "It 5. Morton,
is ... to signify a sacrifice in the Eucharist,
. the commemorative representation of the Sac
rifice of CHRIST'S Body crucified upon the Cross." *
" . . . His Sacrifice once offered upon the Cross,
to be the all and only sufficient sacrifice for the remis
sion of sins ; which, by an Eucharistical and thankful
commemoration, . . . they present unto GOD as
an effectual propitiation both for the quick and the
dead."f
Launcelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester (ob. 6. Andrewes.
1626): " For they ' believe that the Eucharist was in
stituted by our LORD ' for the commemoration of Him ;
even of His Sacrifice ; or, if we may so speak (si ita
loqui liceaf), for a commemorative sacrifice : and not
only for a ( sacrament,' or * spiritual food.' " J
' ' But do ye [Romanists] take away from the Mass
your Transubstantiation, and there will not be long
any controversy with us concerning the Sacrifice." §
' ' Two things CHRIST there gave us in charge, ' re
membering ' and 'receiving.' . . . The first in
remembrance of Him, CHRIST: what of Him ? mortem
Domini, His Death (saith S. Paul) : to ' show forth the
LORD'S Death.' " ||
;< Will ye mark one thing more : that epulemur doth
here refer to immolatus ? To CHRIST, not every way
considered, but as when He was offered. CHRIST'S
Body that now is ; true : but not CHRIST'S Body as
now it is, but as then it was, which was offered, rent,
and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as now He is
glorified ; for so, He is not, so He cannot be immolatus ;
* Tract No. 81, p, 92.
t Ibid., p. 93. § Ibid., p. 95.
J Ibid., p. 94. 1 Ibid., p. 96.
368 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
for He is immortal, and impassible. But as then He
was, when He suffered death (that is) passible and
mortal. Then, in His passible estate, did He institute
this of ours, to be a memorial of His passibile, and
passio, both. And we are, in this action, not only
carried up to CHRIST (sursum cordd}, but we are also
carried back to CHRIST ; as He was at the very instant,
and in the very act of His offering. So, and no other
wise, doth this text teach. So, and no otherwise, do
we represent Him." *
" In a word, we hold with S. Augustine, in the very
same chapter which the Cardinal citeth, Quod hujus
Sacrifitii caro et sanguis, ante adventum Christi, per victi-
mas, similitudinum promittebatur ; in passione Christi,
per ipsam veritatem reddebalur ; post adventum Christi ,
per Sacramentum memories celebmtur" f
The great authority of Bishop Andrewes as a theolo
gian, and the fact that his controversy with Bellarmine
shows that he was thoroughly familiar with the Roman
position in regard to the doctrine of the Kucharistic
Sacrifice, gives special weight to his statement, " Do
ye take away from the Mass your Transubstantiation,
and there will not be long any controversy with us
concerning the Sacrifice." This does not, of course,
imply that Andrewes was prepared to accept all the
Roman theories which had gathered around this doc
trine, but it does show that he was at one with them in
the main contention that the Sacrifice of the Kucharist
renews the Sacrifice of the Cross, to which it is essen
tially related. There is abundant evidence of this in
the other four extracts, not one of which shows any
leaning to the modern theory, while in the last two it
is explicitly excluded ; for he says, " not CHRIST'S
* Tract No. 81, pp. 97, 98. f Ibid., pp. 98, 99 ; cf. also p. 509.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 369
Body ... as now He is glorified; for so, He is not,
so He cannot be immolatus / . . . But as then He
was when He suffered death. ' ' And again : ' ' We hold
with S. Augustine . . . Quod hujus Sacrificii caro
et sanguis, ante adventum Christi, per victimas, similitudi-
num promiltebatur ; in passione Christi, per ipsam verita-
tem reddebatur; post adventum Christi, per Sacramentum
memories celebratur. " It is inconceivable that Bishop
Andre wes could have written the last clause if he had
recognized a sacrifice of our L,ORD in heaven.
Francis Mason, Archdeacon of Norfolk (ob. 1621) : 7. Mason.
" For, first, though the L,ORD'S Supper be called a
sacrifice, by S. Cyprian, as well as the rest of the
Fathers, yet it is not so called properly, but only be
cause it is a memorial and representation of that one
sacrifice which was made upon the altar of the
Cross."*
1 ' The representative was made in the Eucharist, the
real upon the Cross. In the first celebration, the re
presentative was before the real : in all the rest, the
real is before the representative. Neither can you con
clude that there is a real Sacrifice properly in the
Eucharist because there was a representative one." f
Francis White, Bishop of Ely (ob. 1637): " And the s. white.
Fathers term the Holy Eucharist an unbloody Sacrifice,
not because CHRIST is properly and in His substance
offered therein, but because His bloody Sacrifice upon
the Cross is by this unbloody commemoration repre
sented, called to remembrance, and applied." J
William L,aud, Archbishop of Canterbury (ob. 1645): 9. i,aud.
' ' For as CHRIST offered up Himself once for all, a full
and all-sufficient Sacrifice for the sin of the whole
world, so did He institute and command a memory of
* Tract No. 81, p. 101. f Ibid., p. 101. % Ibid., p. 101.
24
37O THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
this Sacrifice in a Sacrament, even till His coming
again." *
1 ' We say, that forasmuch as our priests have author
ity to minister the Sacraments, and, consequently, the
Eucharist, which is a representation of the Sacrifice of
CHRIST ; therefore they may be said to offer CHRIST in
a mystery, and to sacrifice Him by way of commemora
tion." f
' ' Nor doth any man of learning question it, that I
know, but that, according to our SAVIOUR'S own com
mand, we are to do whatsoever is done in this office, as
a memorial of His Body and Blood offered up and shed
for us (Luke xxii.)." |
" And if Bellarmine do call the Oblation of the Body
and the Blood of CHRIST a Sacrifice for praise, sure he
doth well in it ; (for so it is) if Bellarmine mean no
more by the Oblation of the Body and the Blood of
CHRIST than a commemoration and a representation
of that great Sacrifice offered up by CHRIST Himself." §
10. Hail. Joseph Hall, Bishop of Norwich (ob. 1656) : " That
in the sacred Supper there is a sacrifice (in that sense
wherein the Fathers spoke) none of us ever doubted ;
but that is there, either Latreutical (as Bellarmine dis
tinguishes it not ill) or Kucharistical : that is here (as
Chrysostom speaks), a remembrance of a sacrifice; that
is, as Augustine interprets it, a memorial of CHRIST'S
Passion, celebrated in the Church." ||
11. Mountagne. Richard Mountague, Bishop of Norwich (ob. 1641) :
" [' Neither do we celebrate the LORD'S Sacrifice with
a lawful hallowing, except our Oblation and Sacrifice
answer to the Passion : '] and that cannot be without
* Tract No. 81, p. 102.
f Ibid., p. 104. § Ibid., p. 106.
\ Ibid., p. 105. || Ibid., p. 106.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 3/1
pouring out of wine, that representeth the shedding of
His Blood. "*
" * For if JESUS CHRIST, our I/DRD and GOD, be Him
self the High Priest of GOD the FATHER, and first
offered Himself a Sacrifice to the FATHER, and com
manded that this should be done for the commemora
tion of Him, then verily that priest doth truly fulfil
his office in CHRIST'S stead, who copieth that which
CHRIST did ; and doth then offer in the Church to GOD
the FATHER a true and full Sacrifice, if he so begin to
offer, even as he seeth CHRIST Himself did offer.' " f
Both these passages are quoted by Bishop Mountague
from S. Cyprian, but, of course, as expressing the
Bishop's own opinion.
William Forbes, Bishop of Edinburgh (ob. 1634) : 12. Forbes of
" The holy Fathers, also, very often say that the very Edinburgh.
Body of CHRIST is offered and sacrificed in the Eucha
rist, as is clear from almost innumerable passages, but
not properly and really, with all the properties of a
sacrifice preserved, but by a commemoration and repre
sentation of that which was once accomplished in that
one Sacrifice of the Cross, whereby CHRIST, our High
Priest, consummated all other sacrifices ; and by pious
supplication, whereby the ministers of the Church, for
the sake of the eternal Victim of that one Sacrifice,
Which sitteth in heaven at the Right Hand of the
FATHER, and is present in the holy table in an un
speakable manner, humbly beseech GOD the FATHER
that He would grant that the virtue and grace of this
eternal Victim may be effectual and salutary to His
Church, for all the necessities of body and soul." \
John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh (ob. 1663) : 13. Bramhaii.
" If the Sacrifice of the Mass be the same with the
* Tract No. Si, p. 107. f Ibid., p. 108. % Ibid., p. 109.
3/2 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Sacrifice of the Cross, we attribute more unto it than
yourselves : we place our whole hope of salvation in
it."*
' We do readily acknowledge an Bucharistical Sac
rifice of prayers and praises ; we profess a commemora
tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and, in the language
of Holy Church, things commemorated are related as
if they were then acted." f
!< He who saith, * Take thou authority to exercise
the office of a Priest in the Church of GOD ' (as the
Protestant consecrators do), doth intend all things re
quisite to the priestly function, and among the rest, to
offer a representative Sacrifice, to commemorate and
to apply the Sacrifice which CHRIST made upon the
Cross. . . ." t
14. Cosin. John Cosin, Bishop of Durham (ob. 1672): " Al
mighty lyORD, Who hast of Thine infinite mercy
vouchsafed to ordain this dreadful Sacrament for a
perpetual memory of that blessed Sacrifice which once
Thou madest for us upon the Cross. . . ." §
" Regard, we beseech Thee, the devotion of Thy
humble servants, who do now celebrate the memorial
which Th}^ SON our SAVIOUR hath commanded to be
made in remembrance of His most blessed Passion and
Sacrifice, that by the merits and power thereof, now
represented before Thy Divine Majesty, we and all
Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins." ||
(< It is peculiar to this celebration, that the Death of
the lyORD is commemorated therein, not by bare words,
as in other prayers, but also by certain sacred symbols,
signs, and sacraments." If
* Tract No. 81, p. 130. § Ibid., p. 134.
f Ibid., p. 131. || Ibid., p. 134.
J Ibid., p. 132. fl Ibid., p. 135.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 373
" Nor do we say, it is so made a Sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving, but that by our prayers, also added,
we offer and present the Death of CHRIST to GOD, that
for His Death's sake we may find mercy ; in which re
spect we deny not this commemorative Sacrifice to be
propitiatory." *
" In the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucha
rist, GOD'S SON and His SON'S Death (which is the
most true Sacrifice) is represented by us to GOD the
FATHER, and by the same representation, commemora
tion, and obtestation, is * offered; ' and that (as will
appear from what will be afterwards said) for the living
and for the dead, i. e., for the whole Church : for, as
CHRIST Himself, now He is in heaven, does appear in
the Presence of GOD for us, making intercession for us
(Heb. ix. 20, Rom. viii. 34), and does present and offer
Himself and His Death to GOD ; so also the Church
upon earth, which is His Body, when it beseeches GOD
for His sake and His Death, does also represent and
offer Him, and His Death, and consequently that Sac
rifice which was performed on the Cross." f
" But nothing hinders, but that the Eucharist may
be accounted and called the commemorative Sacrifice
of the proper Sacrifice of the Death of CHRIST." J
Peter Heylyn (ob. 1662): "The Passion of our 15. Heyiyn.
SAVIOUR, as, by the L,ORD'S own ordinance, it was
prefigured to the Jews in the legal sacrifices a parte
ante ; so by CHRIST'S institution, it is to be commemo
rated by us Christians in the holy Supper a parte post.
A Sacrifice it was in figure, a Sacrifice in fact, and so,
by consequence, a Sacrifice in the commemorations, or
upon the post-fact. ' ' §
* Tract No. 81, p. 136. J Ibid., p. 138.
t Ibid., pp. 137, 138. I Ibid., p. 141.
374 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
" ' Who the same night in which He was betrayed,
took bread, etc. . . . Do this, as often as you drink
it, in remembrance of Me. ' Which words, if they ex
press not plain enough the nature of the Sacrifice to be
commemorative, we may take those that follow by way
of commentary ; * for as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He
come.'"*
:< The memory or commemoration of CHRIST'S Death
thus celebrated, is called (Prayer after the Communion)
a Sacrifice, a ' Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving ; ' a
Sacrifice representative of that one and only expiatory
Sacrifice which CHRIST once offered for us all." f
" So that we may behold the Kucharist or the LORD'S
Supper, first, as it is a sacrifice, or the commemoration
of that Sacrifice offered to GOD ; by which both we and
the whole Church do obtain remission of our sins, and
all other benefits of CHRIST'S Passion." |
16. sparrow. Anthony Sparrow, Bishop of Kxeter (ob. 1685) :
<( For, the Holy Eucharist being considered as a sac
rifice, in the representation of the breaking of the
bread, and pouring forth the cup, doing that to the
holy symbols which was done to CHRIST'S Body and
Blood, and so showing forth and commemorating the
LORD'S Death, and offering upon it the same Sacrifice
that was offered upon the Cross, or rather the com
memoration of that Sacrifice." §
" But besides these spiritual sacrifices mentioned, the
ministers of the Gospel have another sacrifice to offer,
viz., the unbloody Sacrifice, as it was anciently called,
the commemorative Sacrifice of the Death of CHRIST,
which does as really and truly ' show forth the Death
* Tract No. 81, p. 141. J Ibid., p. 147.
f Ibid., p. 144. § Ibid., p. 151.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 375
of CHRIST ' as those sacrifices under the Law did fore
show it."*
Henry Ferae, Bishop of Chester (ob. 1660): " The 17. Feme.
Fathers usually expressed the celebration or work of
the Eucharist by the words of Sacrifice, or offering up
the Body of CHRIST, for themselves and others, because
there was a representing of the real Sacrifice of the
Cross, and a presenting (as we may say) of it again to
GOD, for the impetration or obtaining of the benefits
thereof, "f
" This we know, that CHRIST, our High Priest (ac
cording to the Apostle, Heb. vii. 25 and ix. 24), is in
heaven, at GOD'S Right Hand, executing His eternal
Priesthood, by interceding for us, and in that represent
ing still what He hath done and suffered for us. And
we know, and we have warrant and His appointment
to do the like sacramentally here below, i. e., in the
celebration of the Eucharist, to remember His Death
and Passion, and represent His own Oblation upon the
Cross, and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the
Church stands in need of. " J
In the first passage Bishop Ferae is quoting with
approval the words of Peter Lombard. In the second,
while speaking of our LORD'S Intercession, it is to be
observed that he does not connect the Eucharist with
that Intercession, but with the Death and Passion, the
Oblation upon the Cross.
Daniel Brevint, Dean of Lincoln (ob. 1695): " Never- 18. Brevint.
theless this Sacrifice, which by a real Oblation was not
to be offered more than once, is by an Eucharistical and
devout commemoration to be offered up every day.
That is what the Apostle calls, to ' set forth the Death
of the LORD,'— to set it forth, I say, as well before the
* Tract No. 81, p. 153. f Ibid., p. 157. \ Ibid., p. 158.
3/6 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
eyes of GOD His FATHER, as before the eyes of all
men." *
" Lastly, JESUS, our eternal Priest, being from the
Cross, where He suffered without the gate, gone up
into the true sanctuary which is in heaven, there above
doth continually present both His Body in true reality,
and us as Aaron did the Twelve Tribes of Israel, in a
memorial (Exod. xxviii. 29). And, on the other side,
we, beneath in the Church, present to GOD His Body
and Blood in a memorial, that, under this shadow of
His Cross, and image of His Sacrifice, we may present
ourselves before Him in very deed and reality." f
' The other time most favourable and proper, next
to that of His real Passion, is that of the Holy Com
munion ; which, as it hath been explained, is a Sacra
mental Passion, where, though the Body be broken
and the Blood shed but by way of representative mys
tery, yet both are as effectually and as truly offered for
our own use, if we go to it worthily, as when that Holy
and Divine Lamb did offer Himself the first time." J
( The first [the Sacramental and commemorative
Sacrifice of CHRIST], as representing the Sacrifice of
fered on the Cross, is the ground of the three others. ' ' §
;< We must also celebrate, and in a manner offer to
GOD, and expose and lay before Him the holy me
morials of that great Sacrifice on the Cross, the only
foundation of GOD'S mercies and of our hopes." ||
In the second quotation Dean Brevint very accurately
describes our LORD'S Intercession, but he does not
imply that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is in any way
dependent upon it.
* Tract No. Si, p. 193.
f Ibid., p. 195. § Ibid., p. 199.
t Ibid., p. 198 || Ibid., p. 201.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 377
Matthew Scrivener (ob. 1688) : ." First, because here 19. scrivener.
we call to remembrance CHRIST'S Sacrifice upon the
Cross, according as He instituted and required that at
our hands, saying, ' Do this in remembrance of Me.'
Secondly, as it is a Sacrifice rememorative, so it is a
Sacrifice representative, insinuating and signifying
unto us the Death and Passion of CHRIST." *
" In like manner, and much more effectually, may
we say that the action of the Eucharist presents to
GOD the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Death, and mediation
made by Him for mankind, especially those that are
immediately concerned in that Sacrament; from which
metonymical Sacrifice what great and rich benefits may
we not expect ? Thus is the Host a Sacrifice, but not
essentially, as the sacrifices of the L,aw, or CHRIST'S
offering Himself ; but analogically and metonymically,
by virtue of the Sacrifice of CHRIST." f
Simon Patrick, Bishop of Ely (ob. 1707) : " We do 20. Patrick.
show forth the LORD'S Death unto GOD, and commem
orate before Him the great things He hath done for us.
We keep it (as it were) in His memory and plead be
fore Him the Sacrifice of His SON, which we show unto
" It will not be unprofitable to add, that this was
one reason why the ancients called this action a Sacri
fice (which the Romanists now so much urge), because
it doth represent the Sacrifice which CHRIST once
offered." §
" When we take the bread into our hands, it is a
seasonable time to do that act which I told you was one
end of that Sacrament, viz., ' commemorate, and show
forth, or declare the Death of CHRIST unto GOD the
* Tract No. 81, p. 205. J Ibid., p. 209.
f Ibid., p. 206. § Ibid., p. 210.
378
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
21. Towerson.
22. Bull.
23. Stilling-
fleet.
FATHKR.' L,et us represent before Him the Sacrifice
of atonement that CHRIST hath made; let us commem
orate the pains which He endured, let us entreat Him
that we may enjoy all the purchase of His Blood, that
all people may reap the fruit of His Passion, and that,
for the sake of His Bloody Sacrifice, He will turn away
all His anger and displeasure, and be reconciled unto
us."*
Gabriel Towerson (ob. 1697) : " It is evident, from
Mr. Mede, that the ancients meant no more by that
Oblation or Sacrifice than a commemorative one, by
that sacred rite of bread and wine representing to GOD
and the FATHER the expiatory Sacrifice of His SON
upon the Cross, and, as it were, putting Him in mind
of it, that so be He would, for the sake of that SON, and
the valuableness of His Sacrifice, be propitious to them,
and to all those whom they recommended to His grace
and favour." f
George Bull, Bishop of S. David's (ob. 1710): "In
the Holy Eucharist, therefore, we set before GOD the
bread and wine, as ' figures or images of the Precious
Blood of CHRIST shed for us, and of His Precious
Body ' (they are the very words of the Clementine
Liturgy), and plead to GOD the merit of His SON'S
Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for us sinners, and
in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him, for the
sake thereof, to bestow His heavenly blessings on us." J
Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester (ob. 1699),
in his Conferences Concerning the Idolatry of the Church
of Rome, making Thorndike's words his own, says :
" ' It is, therefore, enough, that the Eucharist is the
Sacrifice of CHRIST on the Cross, as the Sacrifice of
* Tract No. 81, p. 216.
f Ibid., pp. 221, 222.
\ Ibid., pp. 227, 228.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 379
CHRIST on the Cross is represented, renewed, revived,
and restored by it, and as every representation is
said to be the same thing with that which it repre-
senteth.' " *
William Beveridge, Bishop of S. Asaph (ob. 1708) : 24. Beveridge.
" So is the LORD'S Supper the memorial of our redemp
tion from the slavery of sin, and assertion into Christian
liberty ; or, rather, it is a solemn and lively represent
ation of the Death of CHRIST, and offering it again to
GOD, as an atonement for sin, and reconciliation to His
favour." f
11 In which words we may first observe, that every
time that the Sacrament of the LORD'S Supper is ad
ministered, His Death is thereby shown and declared
to all that are there present." J
" When we eat the bread, and drink the cup, accord
ing to CHRIST'S institution, we thereby declare the
reasons of it, though not by words, yet by the very act
itself, and the several circumstances of it. By the
breaking of the bread, we declare CHRIST'S Body to
be broken and wounded to death ; by the cup we de
clare His Blood to be shed, or poured out for the sins
of the world." §
' ' For men first offer to GOD bread and wine, which
creatures, offered to Him and consecrated to be symbols
of the great Sacrifice accomplished by CHRIST, GOD
imparts again to men : by which means they by faith
in very deed partake of the great Sacrifice of CHRIST. " 1 1
George Hickes, titular Bishop of Thetford, Non- 25. Hickes.
juror (ob. 1715) : " For if they could not eat of the
sacrifices of atonement and expiation, which prefigured
* Tract No. 81, p. 230.
f Ibid., pp. 231, 232. § Ibid., p. 232.
t Ibid., p. 232. || Ibid., p. 240.
380 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, how could they
partake at the Christian altar of the Christian Sacrifice,
which was the mystical Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, by
which the Sacrifice of Himself upon the Cross was re
presented according to His own institution, under the
new L,aw, as it was under the old by the sacrifices of
expiation ? " *
t( To speak more properly of it, it is a Christian Sac
rament or mystery, as a federal commemorative Sacri
fice, in which as CHRIST represents unto GOD His
Passion and the merits of it, as our High Priest in
heaven, so, in this Sacrifice, the priests upon earth, in
conjunction with it, present and commemorate the same
unto Him, by setting before Him the symbols of His
dead Body and Blood effused for our sins." f
' Those moral effects are the solemn and comfortable
commemoration of His all-sufficient Sacrifice upon the
Cross, and representing it before GOD on earth as He
represents it before Him in heaven." J
" The ancient notion of this Holy Sacrament's being
a commemorative Sacrifice, in which we represent be
fore GOD the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, per
fectly secures the Holy Mystery from that corrupt and
absurd notion." §
" Another respect in which the Eucharist is called a
Sacrifice, is because it is a commemoration, and repre
sentation to GOD, of the Sacrifice that CHRIST offered
for us upon the Cross. Upon these accounts we do
not deny but that the Eucharist may be well called a
Sacrifice." ||
' ' The other are dedicated and offered for the service
of GOD in the Holy Eucharist, and to that end to be
* Tract No. 81, pp. 255, 256. f Ibid., pp. 259, 260.
J Ibid., p. 272. § Ibid., pp. 273, 274. || Ibid., p. 275.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 381
consecrated unto a memorial of the sufferings and Sac
rifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, in remembrance of
His Death and Passion, and thereby become in the
mystery, or Sacrament, the Body and Blood of CHRIST
to the faithful receivers." *
" Were I to define the Eucharistical Sacrifice, it
should be in these forms : The Eucharistical Sacrifice
is an Oblation of bread and wine, instituted by JESUS
CHRIST, to represent and commemorate His Sacrifice
upon the Cross. ' ' f
John Sharp, Archbishop of York (ob. 1714) : " To 26. sharp,
complete the Christian Sacrifice, we offer up both the
aforesaid oblations or sacrifices with a particular regard
to that one Sacrifice of CHRIST which He offered upon
the Cross, and which is now lively represented before
our eyes in the symbols of bread and wine." J
Thomas Comber, Dean of Durham (ob. 1699): "And 27. comber,
for a perpetual memorial thereof, we are not only taught
to mention His Name in our daily prayers (John xiv.
13 and xv. 16) but are also commanded by visible signs
to commemorate and set forth His Passion in the
LORD'S Supper (i Cor. xi. 26) wherein, by a more
forcible rite of intercession, we beg the Divine accept
ance. That which is more compendiously expressed in
the conclusion of our prayers, ' through JESUS CHRIST
our LORD/ is more fully and more vigorously set out
in this most Holy Sacrament ; wherein we intercede on
earth in imitation of and conjunction with the great
Intercession of our High Priest in heaven ; pleading
here in the virtue and merits of the same Sacrifice
which He doth urge there for us." §
" Besides, when can we more effectually intercede
* Tract No. Si, p, 281, J Ibid., p. 287.
f Ibid., p. 286. § Ibid., pp. 288, 289.
382 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
with GOD for the whole Church than when we repre
sent and show forth that most meritorious Passion oil
earth, by the virtue whereof our great High Priest did
once redeem, and doth ever plead for His whole Church
even now that He is in heaven ? This Sacrament,
therefore, hath been accounted the ' great interces
sion ; * and accordingly all the ancient liturgies did
use such universal intercessions and supplications while
this mystery was in hand." *
11 GOD hath provided His own dear SON, whose
Blood, being already spilt, is so efficacious and all-
sufficient that there is now no need of any other but
this unbloody Sacrifice to be offered, and that in
memorial of that great sin-offering which taketh away
the sins of the world (i Pet. ii. 5)," f
In the first passage Dean Comber speaks of our inter
cession of the Bucharist being in imitation of and con
junction with the great Intercession of our High Priest
in heaven. But he does not make the Kucharist de
pend on this Intercession. On the contrary, he says
that we plead here " the virtue and merits of the same
Sacrifice [that of the Cross] which He doth urge there
for us ; " and in the other passages he refers the Kucha
rist only to the Sacrifice of the Cross.
28. Leslie. Charles Leslie (ob. 1722): "Will any say, that
the Death of CHRIST and the shedding of His Blood
is not more lively expressed, and better understood, in
the Christian Sacrifice than in the Jewish ; in the
breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine with
us, than in the death of a beast and shedding its blood
among the Jews ? " J
* ' I/et it increase the knowledge and stir up the zeal
* Tract No. Si, pp. 289, 290,
f Ibid., pp.29i, 292. \ Ibid., p. 293.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 383
of the devout, who come to the great Christian Sacri
fice in full faith, beholding CHRIST our High Priest
offering up the same Sacrifice of Himself to GOD in
heaven, which His priests, representing His Person,
offer up on earth in the sacred symbols which He has
commanded, and dignified with the name of His own
Body and Blood."*
In the latter passage Leslie speaks of our LORD as
offering up the same Sacrifice of Himself to GOD in
heaven (that is, the Sacrifice of the Cross) as His
priests do in the Holy Eucharist. He does not, how
ever, make the Bucharist dependent on our LORD'S
heavenly action, and in the former passage he speaks
of it as expressing the Death of CHRIST and the shed
ding of His Blood.
Robert Nelson (ob. 1717) : "So were all Christians 29. Nelson
hereby engaged to receive from them and their succes
sors these symbols of CHRIST'S Body and Blood. By
this precept, therefore, the Communion of CHRIST'S
Body and Blood, as represented by bread and wine in
the Holy Sacrament, is made the standing memorial
of His Death and sufferings in all Christian assemblies
to the end of the world." f
". . . the principal act whereby we partake of the
Sacrifice of CHRIST made upon the Cross, and without
which our public service wants its due perfection." J
1 ' What surer method have we to procure our pardon
from GOD than by showing forth the LORD'S Death,
by representing His bitter Passion to the FATHER, that
so He would, for His sake, according to the tenour of
His covenant in Him, be favourable and propitious to
us miserable sinners ? " §
* Tract No. 81, p. 293. J Ibid., p. 300.
f Ibid., p. 299. § Ibid., pp. 300, 301.
384 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
1 ' We thereby represent to GOD the FATHER the Pas
sion of His SON, to the end that He may, for His sake,
according to the tenour of His covenant in Him, be
favourable and propitious to us miserable sinners ; that,
as CHRIST intercedes continually for us in heaven, by
presenting His Death and satisfaction to His FATHER,
so the Church on earth, in like manner, may approach
the throne of Grace, by representing CHRIST unto His
FATHER in these Holy Mysteries of His Death and
Passion." *
u It was also established as a sacred rite to supplicate
GOD the FATHER by the merits of our SAVIOUR'S Pas
sion, representing to Him the images of His Body and
Blood, that thereby He may become favourable and
propitious to us." f
30. wake. William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury (ob.
1737) : " In like manner, our Blessed SAVIOUR being
now about to work out a much greater deliverance for
us, by offering up Himself upon the Cross for our re
demption, He designed by this Sacrament to continue
the memory of this blessing ; that ' as often as we eat
of this bread and drink of this cup, we might shew
forth the LORD'S Death till His coming.' " J
" Monsieur de Meaux has represented it to us with
so much tenderness that, except, perhaps it be his
foundation of the corporeal presence, on which he
builds, and his consequence, that this service is a true
and real propitiatory Sacrifice, which his manner of ex
pounding it we are persuaded will never bear, there is
little in it besides but what we could readily assent to."§
" This Consecration, being separately made, of His
Body broken, His Blood spilt for our redemption, we
* Tract No. 81, p. 302, $ Ibid., p. 306.
f Ibid., p. 304. § Ibid., p. 308.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 385
suppose represents to us our Blessed LORD in the figure
of His Death, which these holy symbols were instituted
to continue the memory of. And whilst thus with faith
we represent to GOD the Death of His SON, for the
pardon of our sins, we are persuaded that we incline
His mercy the more readily to forgive them." *
Thomas Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man (ob. 31. wiison.
I753) : " After this, the bread and wine are conse
crated, the bread is broken, and the wine poured out,
to represent the Death of CHRIST, whose Body was
broken, and whose Blood was shed for us." f
" When he sees that done before his eyes that JKSUS
CHRIST Himself did ; Who the same night in which He
was betrayed, having devoted Himself an Offering and
a Sacrifice to GOD for the sins of the whole world, did
institute this Holy Sacrament, by taking bread and
wine, and blessing them, and making them, by that
blessing, the true representatives of His Body and
Blood, in virtue and power, as well as in name." \
" He then offered, as a Priest, Himself under the
symbols of bread and wine, and this is the Sacrifice
which His priests do still offer. ' ' §
11 For all this is done to represent the Death of JKSUS
CHRIST, and the mercies which He has obtained for
us ; to represent it not only to ourselves, but unto GOD
the FATHKR." ||
William Sherlock (ob. 1707) : " It is a commemo- 32. Sherlock,
ration of the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, ' a
showing forth the LORD'S Death until He come ; ' and
therefore is a mysterious rite of worship, as all sacri
fices were under the Law. ' ' ^J
* Tract No. 81, p. 308. § Ibid., p. 366.
f Ibid., p. 362. || Ibid., p. 367.
J Ibid., pp. 365, 366. fl Ibid., p. 370.
25
386 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
1 Thus, when we offer up to GOD the memorials of
CHRIST'S Death and Passion, it is a visible Sacrifice
of praise, and speaks such kind of language as this :
* Behold, LORD, here is the token of Thy love to us,
Thy own SON bleeding and dying for our sins ; Thy
eternal SON, the SON of Thy love, in whom Thy soul
is well pleased, dying upon the Cross, a shameful, ac
cursed, lingering, tormenting death ; scorned and re
proached of men, and forsaken of GOD. We will never
forget such love as this ; we will perpetually celebrate
this holy Feast, and offer up the memorials of a cruci
fied JESUS, as a Sacrifice of praise to His FATHKR, to
His GOD, and to our GOD.' " *
" Now under the Gospel, GOD has sent His own SON
into the world, to be both our Priest and our Sacrifice ;
the acceptation of our prayers depends upon the power
of His Intercession ; and the power of His Intercession
upon the merit of His Blood : for ' with His own Blood
He entered once into the Holy Place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us.' We must now go to GOD
in His Name, and plead the merits of His Blood, if we
expect a gracious answer to our prayers. Now for
this end was the LORD'S Supper instituted, to be a ' re
membrance ' of CHRIST, or of the Sacrifice of the Cross,
to ' shew forth the LORD'S Death till He come ; '
which, as it respects GOD, is to put Him in remem
brance of CHRIST'S Death, and to plead the virtue and
merit of it for our pardon and acceptance." f
33. Grabe. John Ernest Grabe (ob. 1711) : " But, in truth, in
the Sacrifices of these [christians] there was yet another
general end regarded, namely, a representation of the
Oblation of CHRIST upon the Cross, through which all
other oblations are accepted of GOD, whereas, without
* Tract No. Si, pp. 370, 371. f Ibid., p. 371.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 317
respect to that, they are hateful, or, at all events,
useless." *
" This point, namely, (to pass by the refinements of
others,) was disputed ; whether, in the Eucharist, the
bread and wine, and after the mystical Consecration,
the Flesh and Blood of the LORD, are offered upon the
holy table, as upon an altar, to GOD, for the testifying
of His supreme dominion, and the commemoration or
representation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST finished on
the Cross." f
" Now the oblation of bread and wine to GOD the
FATHER, partly to agnize Him as the Creator and
supreme LORD of all the world, partly to represent
before Him the oblation of CHRIST'S Body and Blood
on the Cross, to the intent that He might be propitious
to them that offered, and for whom it was offered, and
make them partakers of all the benefits of CHRIST'S
Passion." \
Thomas Brett, Nonjuror (ob. 1742) : " Proving, by 34. Brett,
all the arguments the thing is capable of, that our
Blessed SAVIOUR did leave His own Supper as a com
memorative, Eucharistical, material Sacrifice, a Sacri
fice of impetration, as well as gratulatory, showing
forth our SAVIOUR'S Death, presenting it before GOD
as our all-sufficient propitiation, and so being an espe
cial means of obtaining the benefits of it for us ; and,
in a word, that it is propitiatory." §
" The bread and wine, therefore, representing
CHRIST'S Body as broken, and His Blood as shed and
poured out from it, can by no means represent, much
less really be, the very individual glorified Body of
CHRIST now in heaven, and personally united, not
* Tract No. 81, p. 373. J Ibid., p. 382.
f Ibid., p. 374. § Ibid., pp. 383, 384.
388 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE,
only to the Human Soul, but also to the Divine Na
ture. But it plainly represents CHRIST'S Body as
given, that is, offered or sacrificed for us, for so our
LORD Himself appointed it to do, saying, ' This is My
Body which is given,' or offered, * for you.' " *
' ' The consequence of all this is, that the bread and
wine, in the Holy Eucharist, do by the very institution
represent the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Body broken, and
His Blood shed ; and that if we do not know and under
stand this, we cannot rightly ' discern the LORD'S
Body.' " f
" This doctrine, therefore, of a true and proper Sacri
fice in the Eucharist, representing the one great and
truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST. ' ' J
" Wherein we set before GOD the bread and wine as
figures or images of the precious Blood of CHRIST
shed for us, and of His precious Body ; an unbloody
Sacrifice instituted by GOD, instead of the many bloody
sacrifices of the Law. ' ' §
" If the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice which, by our
SAVIOUR'S institution, fully and perfectly represents
the one great and meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST upon
the Cross." ||
" Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice per
fectly representing, by virtue of its institution, that
great and truly meritorious Sacrifice of CHRIST Him
self, so that the bread and wine which we offer is
accepted in the sight of GOD, as the very Body and
Blood of His only-begotten SON, and as such is
communicated to us ; then, whensoever we rightly
and duly make this oblation, we set before GOD the
* Tract No. 81, p. 385.
f Ibid., p. 386. § Ibid., p. 387.
% Ibid., p. 386. || Ibid., p. 388.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 389
memorial of His SON'S Death, put Him in mind of
that meritorious Sacrifice which has made a full, per
fect, and complete satisfaction for the sins of the whole
world."*
" But if there be a particular memorial offered to
GOD in the Holy Eucharist, a memorial of CHRIST'S
all-sufficient and most meritorious Sacrifice, as un
doubtedly there is, and that JESUS CHRIST is there
* evidently set forth, crucified amongst us ; ' and if
evidently set forth as crucified, then evidently set forth
as offered for us; it plainly follows, that when such a
memorial is made to GOD, to put Him in mind of all
that His SON has done or purchased for us thereby to
induce Him to confer on us all the mercies and graces
obtained for us by CHRIST'S Death." f
" The essence of this Sacrifice, therefore, consists
not, as he pretends it does, barely in the remembrance
of CHRIST, and expressing that remembrance by par
taking of bread and wine as memorials of His Body
and Blood, but likewise in the doing or offering them
in the same manner He did" \
" He offered bread and wine as representatives of
His Body and Blood, in order that He might suffer
and bear our sins in His Body on the Cross : wre offer
the same in remembrance that He did suffer and bear
our sins there." §
John Potter, Archbishop of Canterbu^ (ob. 1747) : 35. Potter.
" So that it is plain, both from the design and nature
of the I^ORD'S Supper, and from the concurrent testi
mony of the most primitive Fathers, who conversed
with the Apostles or their disciples, that it was reck
oned through the whole world to be a commemorative
* Tract No. 81, pp. 391, 392. J Ibid., p. 396.
t Ibid., p. 393. § Ibid., p. 397.
390
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Sacrifice, or a memorial of our L,ORD offered upon the
Cross."*
36. Hughes. John Hughes (ob. (?)): "It was our Blessed
SAVIOUR'S will, that the commemoration of His bloody
Passion should have the chief place in the public offices;
and that it should have the nature of a commemorative
Sacrifice." f
37. Laurence. Richard Laurence, Archbishop of Cashel (ob. 1838):
(< If by ' proper sacrifice ' your lordship means some
thing material offered to GOD, and, by Divine institu
tion, appointed to represent to Him the one only proper
meritorious Sacrifice of the Death of His SON ; — if your
lordship designs such a Sacrifice as is representative
of the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Death, and calls this a
' proper sacrifice,' then, my lord, it is acknowledged
that such a ' proper sacrifice,' in this secondary sense,
has been taught, and not only warmly asserted, but
firmly proved to be offered to GOD in the Sacrament of
CHRIST'S Body and Blood." \
' ' The Christian sacrifice of bread and wine has no real
intrinsic worth or excellency in itself ; that it is only a
Sacrifice representative of CHRIST'S one meritorious
Sacrifice of Himself, as the Jewish sacrifices were only
types thereof, and not proper satisfaction in themselves
to propitiate the Divine nature ; that its whole worth
and value is owing only to Divine institution, as that
of the Jewish sacrifices was ; and that it was only a
Sacrifice, or offering, made to GOD to put Him in mind
(as it were) of the all-sufficient Sacrifice of His SON ;
to beseech Him for the sake thereof, and of that only,
to be propitious and merciful to us ; and to express our
unfeigned thankfulness and gratitude for the infinite
* Tract No. 81, p. 405.
flbid., p. 407.
Ibid., p. 408.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 391
benefit of our redemption, purchased by the Sacrifice
of the Death of CHRIST." #
William Law (ob. 1761): " The reason why this 38. i*w.
Sacrament is said in one respect to be a ' propitiatory '
or ' commemorative ' Sacrifice, is only this : because
you there offer, present, and plead before GOD such
things as are, by CHRIST Himself, said to be His
' Body ' and ' Blood given for you : ' but if that which
is thus offered, presented, and pleaded before GOD,
is offered, presented, and pleaded before Him only
for this reason, because it signifies and represents,
both to GOD, and angels, and men, the great Sacrifice
for all the world, is there not sufficient reason to con
sider this service as truly a Sacrifice ? " f
Charles Wheatly (ob. 1742) : " Nor can we at any 39. wheatiy.
time hope to intercede more effectually for the whole
Church of GOD, than just wrhen we are about to repre
sent and show forth to the Divine Majesty that merit
orious Sacrifice, by virtue whereof our great High
Priest did once redeem us, and forever continues to
intercede for us in heaven." J
" For during the repetition of these wrords, the Priest
performs to GOD the representative Sacrifice of the
Death and Passion of His SON. By taking the bread
into his hands, and breaking it, he makes a memorial
to Him of our SAVIOUR'S Body broken upon the Cross ;
and by exhibiting the wine, he reminds Him of His
Blood there shed for the sins of the world." §
Gloucester Ridley (ob. 1774) : " For this reason 40. Ridley,
types were instituted to prefigure the Sacrifice of
CHRIST before He suffered; and for the same reason
a memorial instituted to commemorate it after He
* Tract No. 81, pp. 409, 410. \ Ibid., p. 413.
f Ibid., p. 412. § Ibid., p. 414.
392 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
suffered; both of them appointed for the same purpose,
to represent the Death of CHRIST : they are equally
memorials, and equally sacrifices, differing from one
another only as the morning and evening shadow." *
41. Daubeny. Charles Datibenv (ob. 1827) : " The Holy Eucharist
is a commemorative Sacrifice, offered up to GOD, by
way of memorial, or bringing to remembrance that
grand Sacrifice, once offered on the Cross, and for the
purpose of applying the merits of it to the parties who,
in faith, offer it up." f
" They consider it to be a commemorative Sacrifice
and typical representation, by way of memorial, of the
grand Sacrifice that had been offered upon the Cross
by JESUS CHRIST." J
42. joiiy. Alexander Jolly, Bishop of Moray (ob. 1838): "Our
resort, therefore, must ever be to the Sacrifice of the
Death of CHRIST, which was prefigured, for the support
of man's hope, by instituted typical sacrifices from the
beginning, as we see in Adam's family ; looking for
ward to it before its actual accomplishment, and now
perpetuating the sacrificial remembrance of it, in that
Divine institution, which He Himself ordained, to show
it forth before GOD, and plead its merit, till He shall
come again to judge the quick and the dead." §
" In the highest heavens, He presents the substance
of His Body and Blood, once offered and slain upon
earth, and which must in heaven remain until the times
of the restitution of all things ; and His Church upon
earth, by the hands of those whom He commissioned,
and promised to be with them, in succession from His
Apostles, to the end of the world, offers the instituted
representations of them, in commemorative Sacrifice,
* Tract No. Si, p, 417. \ Ibid., p. 421.
f Ibid., p. 420. § Ibid., p. 422.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 393
to plead the merit, and pray for all the benefits of His
Death and Passion, pardon of sins, increase of grace,
and pledge of glory." *
We have now before us every passage in Tract 81 summary of
which bears directly upon the nature of the Eucharistic ^^thefe"
Sacrifice, and we are therefore in a position to state the passages,
results of an examination of these one hundred and
fifty-one passages from fifty-one representative Angli
can divines.
We find in four writers, the Pseudo-Overall, Tay- in four writers
lor, Johnson, and Philpotts, passages in which the *
Bucharistic Sacrifice is more or less distinctly related E. to our
" to the perpetual and dailv offering of it [the Sac- *<oRD's
" L . Intercession.
rifice of the Cross by CHRIST] now in heaven in His
everlasting Priesthood." f It should, however, be only one, how-
noticed that only one of these authors, Johnson, ^at'tnToHa-
teaches that the Oblation was not ' ' finished before tion was not
the Blood of the Sacrifice was brought into the most "finisfced"
upon the
Holy place and there offered." J The Pseudo-Over- cross.
all neither says nor implies this ; indeed he explicitly
states that what is offered in heaven is the same Sacri
fice as was once offered, and that " the Church intends
. . . to make that effectual . . . which was
once obtained by the Sacrifice of CHRIST up'on the
Cross." Taylor even more definitely states, in the
first passage quoted from his writings, that our great
High Priest, in offering still the same one perfect Sac
rifice, ' ' represents it as having been once finished and
consummate" In the third passage he says that in
heaven our LORD " sits perpetually representing and
exhibiting to the FATHER that great effective Sacrifice
which He offered on the Cross." In the sixth passage
he says : ' ' That there is no other Sacrifice to be offered,
* Tract No. 81, p. 422. f The Pseudo-Overall. \ P. 351.
394
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Five passages
in the other
forty-seven
writers which
seem to relate
the H. K. to
our LORD'S
action in
heaven, but
which are ex
plained by
other passages
in their writ
ings.
In forty-two
writers clear
but that on the Cross, it is evident ; " and again :
;< There is no other Sacrifice but that of Himself offered
upon the Cross." And in the seventh passage : " I
humbly represent to Thy Divine Majesty the glorious
Sacrifice which our dearest JESUS made of Himself
upon the Cross." The extract from Bishop Philpotts
contains no statement from which it might be inferred
that he held the Modern view that the presentation of
the Blood, and therefore the completion of the Sacri
fice, did not take place until after the Ascension. And,
in a passage in his pastoral letter of 1851, he leaves us
in no doubt what was his mind on this question, for he
says : " Whether we regard them [the consecrated ele
ments] in correspondence with the meat offerings and
drink offerings of the Old Testament, as a memorial
of the one great Sacrifice, and so, in union with that
Sacrifice, by virtue of CHRIST'S appointment, repre
senting and pleading to the FATHER the Atonement
finished on the Cross. ' ' Hence we find that Johnson
is the only one who gives any support to the view that
the sacrificial act in our LORD'S Oblation took place,
not on the Cross, but in heaven.
In five other wrriters five passages are found which
have been thought by some of the modern school to
have some affinity with their view. This affinity,
however, is very doubtful, and certainly does not ex
tend to that which is the main contention of the
Modern view, namely that the sacrificial act in our
LORD'S Oblation is to be found, not on the Cross, but
after His Ascension into heaven ; since in fifteen other
passages these authors connect the Kucharistic Sacrifice
directly and solely with that of the Cross.
In the forty-two authors who remain we find in one
hundred and sixteen passages clear and unmistakable
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 395
reference of the Holy Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the reference of
Cross, and to that of the Cross only. We are therefore tje H- ^ to
theS. of the
certainly j ustified in affirming that the view put forth by cross.
Mr. Brightman — namely, "the interpretation of the wearethere-
. . _ fore justified in
Euchanstic Sacrifice as the reproduction on earth, not affirming that
of the moment of the Cross, but of our LORD'S per- Mr.
petual action in heaven," and further, that only the
initial act in our LORD'S Sacrifice was fulfilled once for Anglican au-
all when He died upon the Cross, the other acts of His JJ^StbT*
Sacrifice taking place in heaven — is not the teaching the facts,
of representative Anglican divines. He tells us that
his statement " may easily be verified by looking
through Dr. Pusey's catena from the Anglican divines
in No. 8 1 of Tracts for the Times." We have looked
carefully through it, and we find no traces whatever of
this view in the passages cited from such representative
Anglican divines as Bilson, Andrews, Laud, Sparrow,
Brevint, Patrick, Bull, Beveridge, Nelson, Wake,
Wilson, Grabe, etc. ; while of the four, the Pseudo-
Overall, Taylor, Johnson, and Philpotts, who refer the
Eucharistic Sacrifice directly to our LORD'S action in
heaven, Johnson and Philpotts are certainly not repre
sentative Anglican divines, the latter being too near
our own times, and the former apparently denying the
hypostatic union in our LORD'S Incarnation, and hold
ing Socinian views in regard to the Atonement ; while
the passage from Overall is admittedly quoted at second
hand and is almost certainly the work of another.
We may therefore say that, of the sixty-three authors since of sixty-
quoted in Dr. Pusey's catena, only one really repre- Jj^^jf^
sentative Anglican divine, Taylor, at all explicitly representative
connects the Eucharist with our LORD'S offering in An&licandi-
, , - vine explicitly
heaven, and he uses language which proves that he connects the
believed that our LORD'S one Oblation of Himself H- 3- with our
396 THE EUCHARIST1C SACRIFICE.
took place and was completed upon the Cross ; and he
in^ S he*ven> therefore cannot be claimed as in any sense favouring
and they do / . .
not favour that that extreme form of the Modern view which sees in
view which tjie cross only the initial stage of our LORD'S Sacri-
crossoniy fice. Only one, Johnson, definitely teaches this the-
the initial orv . possibly the Oxford Commentary attributed to
^Q^eD°s0gr Fell may imply it. The other sixty-one show no trace
of it.
The expian- When the indefinite character of most of the passages
ationofthe claimed as favourable to the Modern view is pointed
indefinite char
acter of pas- out, we are often met with the statement that the full
sages put forth theory was not clearly before the writers. If this be
by the modern ....,, ... - ..
school, consid- so> ^ is in itself a complete admission that the theory
eredand is entirely modern. But it is not the case, since the
works of Jeremy Taylor, in which the relation of the
Eucharist to our LORD'S action in heaven is most
frequently set forth, were probably well known to all
subsequent writers ; and although the single passage
quoted from the Pseudo-Overall may well have escaped
the notice of the majority, yet almost all these writers
were probably familiar with the works of George Cas-
sander, in which the view attributed to Overall is
taught in its most extreme form ; and the fact that
they did not adopt it implies that they rejected it.
"Tract si" We think we have proved that there are no grounds
proves that for caujng the Modern view " the Anglican position,"
there are no . .
grounds for since it is not found in the very great majority of the
claiming that passages to which we are referred in Tract 81, and ob-
the Modern ... ,,,.,, ,. . ,-ir
view is "the tains in its most definite form only in writers outside of
Anglican posi- our Communion, such as Cassauder and Thalhofer,
who were Romans, and Milligan, who was a Presby
terian.
it remains to A most important and interesting task still remains :
trace to their ^o trace, so far as we are able, these new currents in
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 397
Anglican theology to their source. We have already source the two
pointed out that, in the few writers who seem more or newcurrents
in Anglican
less favourable to the Modern view, we have to dis- theology,
tinguish two very different currents, though in the
modern school both combine and flow on together.
L,et us see how far we can follow up each to its fountain-
head.
i. First, we have those who, like the Pseudo-Overall, i. The view-
Taylor, and Philpotts, relate the Holy Eucharist in its ^^Iatt0es
sacrificial aspect to our LORD'S present work in heaven, our LORD'S
and yet who fully believe our LORD'S Sacrifice to have
been completed on the Cross, and therefore that the
merits of that Sacrifice only are now pleaded in heaven, overall, Tay-
TTTI -1 ^1 • 1 • .1 -± r ,1 lor, Philpotts,
While this view can claim no authority from the and others,
Fathers, nor indeed directly from any writers earlier can claim no
than the sixteenth century, it does not conflict with
any Catholic dogma. And if it be understood in the nor from any
sense in which Bishop Forbes of Brechin explains it,— JJJJJ^^11"*
as implying no more than that in heaven our LORD is xvi., but does
in a passive sense the Sacrifice, and that, in that pre- notconfiict
r with Catholic
sentation of His Humanity before the FATHER which dogma,
is His Intercession, while there is no sacrificial act, the
marks of the wounds tell of the merits of the Passion,
— there is nothing in this inconsistent with the Catholic
view.
But what is its source ? This is not a difficult quest- its source, so
ion to answer, at least so far as Anglican writers are far as Anglican
concerned, since two of them, Mede and William concerned, is
Forbes of Edinburgh, distinctly refer it to Cassander, cassander.
and in its earliest form as found in the Pseudo-Overall
we recognize the very terms used by Cassander.
George Cassander was born in 1515, and taught cassander's
classical literature, canon law, and theology in the hlstor>r-
Catholic universities at Bruges and Ghent, but after-
398
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The passage in
his "Consul-
tatio" in
which this
view is stated.
wards retired to Cologne and devoted himself exclu
sively to theological literature. His great object was
to effect a reconciliation between the Roman Church
and the Reformers. With this in view he wrote many
works, e. .g., his work against the Anabaptists, De
Officio Pii Viri ; and at the very end of his life, having
been summoned to Vienna by Ferdinand I., he wrote
what was intended to be his great eirenicon, the Consul-
tatio de Articulis Religionis inter Catholicos et Protestantes
controvcrsis. This was published in 1566, the year in
which he died.
Cassander effected little upon the Continent, except
to offend the theologians of his own Communion, with
out gaining the confidence of the Protestants. His
work, however, became popular in Kngland as supply
ing a sort of via media between Romanism and Protest
antism.
In the Consultatio he devotes a chapter to the treat
ment of the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of CHRIST,
from which we quote the following passage :
" There remains still another controversy in regard
to the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of CHRIST,
which is said to be offered in the Celebration of the
Mass. For which controversy there would be no room,
I think, if that ancient custom amongst the majority,
of celebrating and distributing the Kucharist, had been
retained ; which if it were resumed would, I believe,
take away the greater part of this controversy. For
Protestants admit that the ancient Church used the
names ' sacrifice ' and * oblation,' but by them under
stood the whole action, — prayer, reception, remem
brance, faith, confession, and thanksgiving. This
indeed is in some measure true, for the ancients in this
sacred action understood a certain unique manner of
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 399
sacrifice and oblation, which CHRIST had instituted
and commanded when He said, ' Do this in remem
brance of Me ; ' which mode of sacrificing was per
formed by the ministry of those alone who in the place
of the Apostles presided over the Church.
" We must, therefore, admit that by the names ' obla
tion ' and ' sacrifice ' the ancients sometimes understood
this whole mystical action, which consisted in the obla
tion of the consecrated symbols, the Consecration of the
oblations, the commemoration of the LORD'S Death,
the thanksgiving, the prayer for the general salvation
of all men, and also in the distribution and participa
tion of the Sacrament. All these things certainly the
Greeks seem to have signified by the names X.£irovp-
yioc.) {epovpyicfy Ovffia avai^aKi^ \oyixrj, \arpzia.
" But the Protestants cannot tolerate this, that the
Body of CHRIST is here said to be offered, and a Sacri
fice indeed to be made for quick and dead and for the
common salvation of the whole world, since (if the au
thority of the ancient Church is worth anything) that
ancient Church did not always admit this. Indeed,
it is evident that the ancient Church always con
sidered that the Body and Blood of CHRIST once for
all offered upon the Cross was a perpetual Victim for
the salvation of the whole world, which, once offered,
cannot be consumed, but remains efficacious for the
remission of daily transgressions.
"So also CHRIST in heaven, having a perpetual Priest
hood, daily, in a certain sense, offers this eternal Victim
for us when He intercedes with the FATHER for us.
So the Ministers of the Church by His own command
daily offer that same Body of CHRIST through a mys
tical representation and commemoration of the Sacri
fice once for all accomplished, the perpetual Victim of
400
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The Pseudo-
Overall's
words com
pared with
Cassander's.
which Sacrifice, standing at the Right Hand of the
FATHKR in the heavens, they have present on the
sacred table ; through whom they supplicate GOD the
FATHER to grant that the virtue and grace of this
eternal Victim of His Church may be efficacious and
saving for all the necessities of body and soul.
<( And because the virtue of this Sacrifice pertains
equally to the living and the dead, the Sacrifice is said
to be offered for these also, for whom we pray that the
virtue of this Sacrifice may be efficacious. There is,
therefore, here no new Sacrifice, for there is here the
same Victim which was offered upon the Cross, and
there is a commemoration in mystery of that Sacrifice
accomplished upon the Cross ; and a representation in
image of the uninterrupted Priesthood in heaven and
of the Sacrifice of CHRIST is continued, by which no
new propitiation and remission of sins is effected ; but
we ask that that which once for all was fully made
upon the Cross may be efficacious also for us.
" So the ancients related this mystical Sacrifice not so
much to this Oblation once for all made upon the Cross (of
which, however, a remembrance is here made), as to
the perpetual Priesthood and continual Sacrifice which
the eternal Priest offers daily in the heavens, the image
of which is here set forth by the solemn prayers of the
ministers. Wherefore this Sacrifice is said to be offered
for the general salvation of all men, but, as Tertullian
says, an unbloody Sacrifice by prayer alone \_pura
prece\."*
If we now compare with this the extract from the
Pseudo-Overall we shall see that it is clearly taken
from this passage. And this is the more evident if we
have the Latin before us, the phrase juge Sacrifidum
* Opera Cassandri, Considtatio, De Sacrificio, pp. 998, 999.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 401
(continual Sacrifice) in the Pseudo-Overall being the
very expression used by Cassander. The former says:
" Therefore this is no new Sacrifice, but the same
which was once offered, and which is every day offered
to GOD by CHRIST in heaven, and continueth here still
on earth, by a mystical representation of it in the
Eucharist. And the Church intends not to have any
new propitiation, or new remission of sins obtained,
but to make that effectual, and in act applied unto us,
which was once obtained by the Sacrifice of CHRIST
upon the Cross. Neither is the Sacrifice of the Cross,
as it was once offered up there, modo cruento, so much
remembered in the Kucharist, though it be commemo
rated, as regard is had to the perpetual and daily offer
ing of it by CHRIST now in heaven in His everlasting
Priesthood, and thereupon was and should be still the
juge Sacrificiiim observed here on earth as it is in
heaven, the reason which the ancient Fathers had for
their daily Sacrifice."
Overall was born in 1560 and died in 1619. Cas
sander 's Consultatio^ as we have observed, was first
published in 1566, and we may assume not only that
Cassander is the source of this view, so far as English cassanderthe
writers are concerned, but that he is the first theologi- un*>ubted
source of this
cal writer in whose works this theory appears, although, view, so far as
as we have pointed out, the germ from which it was Anglicans are
developed is found in the mystical writings of S. Ivo of
Chartres. The statement that the Eucharist is not so
much to be referred to the Sacrifice of the Cross as to
" the perpetual and daily offering of it by CHRIST now
in heaven," which the Pseudo-Overall seems to have
taken from Cassander, is unwarranted, and absolutely
contrary to all Catholic theology. In tracing it to Cas
sander we have, we believe, reached the undoubted
26
4O2
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Its attraction
as a " via
media."
Only one An
glican, how
ever, follows
Cassander in
the objection
able feature of
his theory; all
others avoid,
and therefore
reject, it.
A passage in
Watson ^"Ser
mons" claims
our notice at
this point.
Watson's his
tory.
fountainhead of the Modern view, so far as it teaches
that the Eucharist is related to the Sacrifice of the
Cross only indirectly and through our LORD'S action in
heaven. That is, we have traced it to a theologian
discredited in his own Communion, distrusted by Pro
testants, and taken up by certain Anglican divines be
cause he seemed to offer, as a via media , a compromise
between Rome and Protestantism.
The fact, however, to which we would especially call
attention is that only one Anglican writer follows Cas
sander in this objectionable feature of his teaching. All
the others, though probably having his works before
them, carefully avoid that particular statement, doubtless
because they recognized that it was an unwarranted in
novation. And in justice to the Pseudo-Overall (Hay-
wood) it must be remembered that Cassander s words
are merely transcribed into his note-book.
Before we pass from this first and more moderate
division of the modern school, there is one who claims
our attention as being apparently the earliest English
writer in whom is found a special relation of the Eu
charist to our LORD'S Intercession in heaven ; though
he gives no support to Cassander 's view that the Eu-
charistic Sacrifice is to be " related not so much to the
Oblation once for all made upon the Cross as to the
continual Sacrifice which the eternal Priest offers daily
in the heavens."
Thomas Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, was consecrated
on August 15, 1557, by Archbishop Heath of York,
Bishop Thirlby of Ely, and Bishop Glyn of Bangor.
He was deposed by Elizabeth on June 25, 1559. In
1558 he published a volume of sermons from the press
of Robert Caly, London. These sermons were repub-
lished by Burns and Oates, under the editorship of
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES, 403
Father Bridget, C.SS.R., in 1876. The book was en
titled Holsome and Catholyke Doctryne concerninge the
Seven Sacramentes of Chrystes Church, expedient to be
knowen of all men, set forth in maner of shorte Sermons
to bee made to the People ; and the twelfth sermon is
" Of the Sacrifice of the Newe Testament, which is
called the Masse." * In Folio 71 we have the following
passage :
" . . . So that CHRIST in heaven and al we Hys His view of our
misticall body in earth do both but one thing. For ^^^of"
CHRIST being a Priest for evermore, after His Passion its relation to
and Resurrection, entred into heaven, and there ap- theH-^-
peareth now to the countenance of GOD for us, offering
Himselfe for us, to pacify the anger of GOD with us,
and representing His Passion and all that He suffered
for us, that we might be reconciled to GOD by Him :
Even so the Church our mother being carefull for all
us her children that have offended our FATHER in
heaven, useth continually by her publike minister to
praye and to offer unto GOD the Body and Bloude of
her husband CHRISTK, representing and renewynge
Hys Passion and Death before GOD, that wee thereby
might be renewed in grace, and receive lyfe, perfection,
and salvation. And after the same sorte the holye
angels of GOD, in the tyme of this oure Sacrifice do
assist the Priest and stand about the hoste, thynking
than [i. e., then] the meetest tyme to she we their
* The author is indebted to Father Puller, S.S J.B., for having
the following passages transcribed from the Bodleian copy of
Bishop Watson's works. They are taken from folios 70-74,
and will be found in the Burns and Gates reprint on pp. 124-
136. They are quoted by Dean Richard Field, of Gloucester,
in his Book of the Church, and two of them by Scudarnore in
his Notitia Eucharistica.
404 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
charitie towards us, and therfore holding forth the
Body of CHRIST pray for mankynde as saying thus :
LORD, we pray for them whom Thou hast so loved,
that for theyr salvation, Thou haste suffred death, and
spent Thy lyfe upon the Crosse ; we make supplication
for them, for whom Thou hast shed this Thy Bloode,
we praye for them, for whom Thou hast offred this
same Thy very Body." *
He is the earii- In this passage we observe, first, that the action in
es*writ";m the Eucharist is spoken of as one with our LORD'S
whom this
teaching is action in heaven, where Bishop Watson says our LORD
found. represents His Passion " to pacify the anger of GOD
with us," and " that we might be reconciled to GOD
by Him.". Second, that in the Eucharist our LORD'S
Passion and Death are represented and renewed before
GOD, " that we thereby may be renewed in grace, and
receive life, perfection, and salvation."
The first statement, that our LORD pleads His Pas
sion in heaven, is not found in the writings of any
Father, though, as we have observed, it is not contrary
to any Catholic dogma, if it be not so taught as to take
away from the completeness of our LORD'S Sacrifice on
it is, however, the Cross. And in Bishop Watson's case there is not
balanced by an Qnl no trace of this objectionable feature, but from
accurate ex- •*
position of the other parts of the same Sermon we gather that he held
s. of the cross. {he orthodox view that the Eucharist was essentially
the memorial of the Passion. For he says :
" Which thing the Churche most faythfullye and
obedientlye observeth and useth, not by presump
tion, taking upon itself to offer that Sacrifice of our
SAVIOUR, . . . that is to saye, to represent to the
FATHER, the Bodye and Bloode of CHRISTK, whyche
Hys omnipotent woorde hath there made present, and
* Watson, Holsome and Catholyke Doctryne, folio 71.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 405
thereby to renew Hys Passion, not by sufferyng of
deathe againe, but after an unbloody maner, . . .
that we shoulde by oure fayth, devotion, and thys re
presentation of Hys Passion, obtayne the remyssion
and grace alreadye deserved by Hys Passion, to bee
nowe applyed unto oure profytte and salvation, not
that the Passion of CHRYSTE is unperfytte," etc.*
Again : "So that the Host or the thing that is
offered both in the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Crosse,
and in the Sacrifice of the Churche uppon the aultare,
is all one in substaunce, beynge the naturall Bodye of
CHRIST our Hye Priest and the price or raunsome of
our redemption, but the maner and the effectes of these
two offrynges be dyvers, the one is by shedding of
CHRISTK'S Bloud, extendyng to the Death of CHRISTE
the Offerer, for the redemption of all mankynde : the
other is without shedding of Hys Bloude, onelye repre-
sentynge Hys Deathe, whereby the faythfull and de-
voute people are made partakers of the merites of
CHRISTK'S Passion and divinitie." f
Again: " O L,ORD what earnest desyre shoulde we
have to be present, and to associate our selves in the
oblation of thys our Sacrifice, whyche we knowe
CHRISTE Himselfe alwayes to doo, and also Hys holy
Angels and Archangels, and is so acceptable a thing to
GOD the FATHER, for all our synnes and ignoraunces.
For in that houre when CHRISTE'S Death is renewed in
misterye, and Hys moste fearefull and acceptable Sac
rifice is represented to the syght of GOD, than [i. e.,
then] sitteth the King upon Hys mercye seat, inclined
to geve and forgeve what so ever is demaunded and
asked of Him in humble maner. ' ' \
* Watson, Holsome and Catholyke Doctryne, folio 70.
t Ibid., folio 70. \ Ibid., folio 72.
406 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Again : " By resorting to thys Sacrifice of the Masse
we evidentlye declare and protest before GOD and the
holle worlde, that we put oure singular and onely trust
of grace and salvation in CHRIST oure LORDE, for the
merytes of His Deathe and Passion, and not for the
worthynes of any good woorke that we have done or
can doo. And that wee make Hys Passion oure onelye
refuge." *
Again : " Our refuge is to CHRISTY'S Passion, than
[i. e., then] we turn (as the prophet saith) to the cup
of our SAVIOUR, and call upon the Name of our
LORDK, that is to say, we take His Passion, and offer
to GOD the FATHER in misterie, the woorke of our re
demption, that by this memorie and commemoration
of it, it woulde please Hys mercifull goodnesse to in
novate Hys grace in us, and to replenish us with the
fruyt of His SONNE'S Passion and Death." f
Again : " Then [i. e., there] whiles we celebrate the
memorie of His Passion, we acknowledge and confesse
our shines," etc. . . . " His Passion, which . . .
wee renewe and represent before Him, . . . which
Passion the Churche now dayly to the worlde's ende
dothe renewe in misterye, and doth represent before
GOD in the Holy Masse," etc. \
Bishop Watson's book antedated Cassander'sby eight
years, and his teaching must be carefully distinguished
from Cassander's ; for in the passages before us there
are abundant proofs that he considered the Eucharist
in its sacrificial aspect as essentially related to our
LORD'S Passion and Death upon the Cross. Indeed,
he only associates it with our LORD'S offering in
heaven in so far as he considers that, too, a pleading
* Watson, Holsome and Catholyke Doctryne, folio 72.
f Ibid., folio 72. \ Ibid., folios 72, 73.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 407
of the Passion. And he certainly does not give any
countenance to Cassander's assertion (repeated by
the Pseudo-Overall) that the Eucharist depends not so
much on the offering upon the Cross as on that per
petual Sacrifice which the Eternal High Priest offers
daily in heaven. So that we may still consider Cas-
sander as the responsible authority for this latter un
warranted and uncatholic statement.
2. We have yet to trace to its source that more radi- 2. The source
cal form of the Modern view which teaches that only ££e<JJJ£tl
"the initial act" "in our LORD'S Sacrifice was ful- Modern view,
filled when He died once for all upon the Cross," and ^ich holds
that the Cross
that " He has passed into the heavens ... to was only the
fulfil perpetually the other acts of His Sacrifice, which initial act of
the slaying of the Victim made possible." *
Most of those who hold this view, in deference to Most of its
Catholic tradition, teach that when this initial act, the English adher-
. ents admit that
slaying of the Victim, took place upon the Cross, our our LORD was
LORD was a Priest ; although this is by no means uni- then a Priest.
versally admitted, since under the Jewish Law the vic
tim was often slain by a layman.
Dr. Milligan says: " The question is one which since Dr.
the days of Grotius has engaged the attention of not a P°intsout that
. ., . this has a vital
few of the most eminent theologians and commentators, bearing on the
It has justly done so, for, as may afterwards appear, the Atonement.
answer to be given it has a vital bearing on our consid
eration of dogmatic theology, and particularly on our
conception of the great Doctrine of the Atonement." f
We agree with Dr. Milligan that the answer to this
question has a vital bearing on our conception of the
Atonement. It is, however, misleading to trace this He attributes
teaching only to the days of Grotius, who died in 1645. the viewto
* Brightman, pp. 4, 5.
| Milligan, The Ascension , etc., p. 72.
408 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Grotius; we Its real source is found nearly a century earlier, and its
may trace it, author is undoubtedly Lselius Socinus, the founder of
a century ear- .
lier, to Socinus, modern Unitananism. *
We have already pointed outf that the theory
which, in our LORD'S offering of Himself, places the
essentially sacrificial act after His Ascension and en
trance into heaven, thus making the Cross only the
initial act, as Mr. Brightman says, in our LORD'S Sac
rifice, was an essential feature of the Socinian system.
who seems to That Faustus Socinus (or more probably his uncle
SurceoTthe L^elius) was the author of this theory may be gathered
theory, as f rom the following considerations :
shownbythree (,\ jt js set foTfa ju the writings of Faustus Socinus
arguments. .
as the very essence of his Chnstology.
(2) He cites authorities for his interpretation of
Holy Scripture, apparently wherever he can find such
support (e. g., Beza) ; but he refers to no author as
supporting this peculiar interpretation of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which in itself implies that he knew of
no earlier writer who took this view.
(3) No trace of this view — that the essentially sacri
ficial act by which our LORD redeemed man took place,
not upon the Cross, but after His Ascension into heaven,
—is found, so far as we know, in any writer earlier than
Socinus ; and a reference of this question to several
eminent theologians in France, Germany, and Eng
land has elicited from all the same reply, — that they
know of no writer before the sixteenth century in
whose works such an interpretation of the Epistle to
the Hebrews appears.
As Dr. Milligan is responsible to no small extent for
the erroneous views of our LORD'S heavenly Priesthood
and Sacrifice which have been so widely spread in our
* See Appendix B. f Pp. 57. 58.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 409
own day, it may be worth while at this point to
examine his reference to Grotius (in the passage which
we have just quoted), in order that we may estimate
the general value and accuracy of his statements. He
says : " The question is one which since the days of
Grotius has engaged the attention of not a few of the
most eminent theologians and commentators."
This paragraph leads the reader to infer that the
question was first raised in the days of Grotius (ob.
1645), and that in fact he was the author of the view
which limited our LORD'S Sacrifice and Priesthood to
heaven. Both these inferences, however, are entirely
contrary to the facts.
From some expressions in the writings of Grotius,
Bossuet accused him of Socinianism, and the popular
ity of Bossuet's works led to the charge being largely
disseminated. But Burigny, the French historian (ob.
1785), in his Vie de Grotius (published in 1750), en
tirely clears him from this accusation, which, he points
out, Grotius himself denies. Besides this, Grotius'
work, Defensio Fidei Catholicce de Satisfactione Christi
adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem (published in
1617), is an admirable refutation of the main features
of the Socinian heresy, and especially of its theory of
the heavenly Sacrifice.
Dr. Milligan probably knew that Grotius had been
accused of Socinianism, had heard that the work, De
Satisfactione Christi, contained a discussion of the theory
of a heavenly Sacrifice based upon the opinion that our
LORD'S Priesthood was limited to heaven, and therefore
took it for granted that Grotius originated this theory.
He, however, had probably never verified his as
sumption and did not know that this work of Grotius
was a masterly refutation of this very theory, as set
410 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
forth by Faustus Socinus in his treatise against Cove-
tus, De Jesu Servatore (published in 1594), in which
he probably only states and interprets the views of
his uncle Laelius Socinus (ob. 1562), the real founder
of Socinianism.
In order that the reader may judge how far Grotius
is to be associated with the Socinian doctrine (and also
for its own intrinsic worth), we give a translation of
the last page of the work, De Satisfactione Christi.
Refuting the interpretation of Heb. ix. 12 and Heb.
i. 3 given by Socinus, Grotius writes as follows: " In
which passages the words in the past tense show that
the redemption and expiation were made before CHRIST
entered His heavenly kingdom ; for although CHRIST is
an High Priest of an order which does not remain on
earth like the Levitical priests (Heb. viii. 4), but, enter
ing heaven, must ascend higher than heaven itself
(Heb. iv. 14 and Heb. vii. 26), since His Priesthood is
to be eternal and perpetual (Heb. vii. 24), neverthe
less He was a true Priest and true Victim at the time
when on earth He delivered Himself up to death.
" Therefore is He said to have come into the world
(Heb. x. 5) to do the will of GOD (vv. 7, 9) ; that is,
to offer to GOD (v. 10) for sins (vv. 8, 12) His Body
which had been prepared by GOD, that is, sanctified
(v. 5).
" In which passage we must at the same time notice
that we are said to be sanctified by His Oblation once
for all (ecpaTtag). Since CHRIST intercedes for us as
often as we are in need, in this place we are to under
stand not His Intercession, but His mactation. There
is on this account a twofold Oblation (both of certain
legal victims and of CHRIST), first the Oblation of
mactation, then that of presentation.
THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES. 411
" In the case of the legal victims the first took place
in the temple, the second in the sanctuary itself. In
CHRIST'S Oblation of Himself, the first was on earth,
the second in heaven. Nevertheless that first Oblation
was not the preparation of the Sacrifice (sacrificii prcepar-
atio\ but the Sacrifice ; the latter not so much a sacri
fice, as the commemoration of a sacrifice which had
been made. Wherefore since the appearance and in
tercession [in heaven] are not properly priestly acts,
excepting in so far as they depend (nituntur) on the
virtue of a finished (^peracti) sacrifice, he who takes
away that sacrifice does not even leave CHRIST a true
Priesthood, contrary to the plain teaching of the Script
ure, which assigns to CHRIST the high-priestly dignity
as distinct from that of the prophetical and regal offices;
a term used not figuratively, but in a most real sense,
for His Priesthood is contrasted with the lyevitical
priesthood (which was a true priesthood) as in the
same genus a more perfect species is contrasted with
one which is less perfect.
" Nor can it be rightly inferred that CHRIST should
have somewhat to offer (Heb. viii. 3) unless in the
truth of that Priesthood in which He was established
(Heb. i. 3). But indeed it is not to be wondered at
that those should have taken away from CHRIST the
natural glory of His true name, I mean His Deity,
who also diminish His offices and refuse to acknow
ledge His special benefits (beneficid].
' To Thee O LORD JESU as true GOD, as true Re
deemer, as true Priest, as true Victim for sins, with
the FATHER and SPIRIT, together with Thee one GOD,
be honour and glory." *
It is much to be desired that the Modern school
* Grotius, De Satisf actions Christi, Opera, torn, iv., p. 338.
412 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
would read this treatise of Grotius, instead of quoting
him as the author of the Socinian theory of our LORD'S
heavenly Priesthood and Sacrifice.
Reasons why In closing this lengthy but important chapter, we
the views of remark first that the doctrine of Cassander, that the
Cassander and ' . 3
Johnson Eucharist is related in its sacrificial character ' ' ?wt so
should be re- m<uch to the Oblation once for all made upon the Cross
jected by mem
bers of the Ang- • • • as to the perpetual Priesthood and continual
lican.church. Sacrifice which the eternal Priest offers daily in the
heavens," has no Catholic or Anglican authority, in
that it is only followed by the Pseudo- Overall, and is
carefully avoided by all other Anglican writers.
Second, that the teaching of Johnson that our LORD'S
" Soul was separated from the Body before the Sacrifice
was consummated," * and " that the Ascension of
CHRIST into heaven many days after was but the finish
ing of this one Oblation," f which was therefore not
finished on the Cross, is found in no reputable Angli
can divine, and should be most earnestly repudiated by
all members of the Anglican Church for the following
reasons:
(1) It is perilously near to the doctrine of Socinus ;
(2) It is inconsistent with the scriptural doctrine of
the Atonement ;
(3) It is unknown to any Catholic writer; and
(4) It is absolutely contrary to the express declara
tion of the Prayer Book that upon the Cross our LORD
"made . . . by His one Oblation of Himself once
offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice, Obla
tion, and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."
* Tract No. 81, p. 317. f Ibid., p. 334.
CHAPTER XI.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS.
still remains for our examination the introductory:
evidence of one school of writers, the Tractar- T
M. lans the lead-
lans, the leaders of the Catholic Revival in the ersofthe
Church of England. catholic Re-
No words can be too strong to express the debt of The great debt
gratitude which the Church of England owes them ; no the church
language too glowing to tell of the wondering admir
ation with which their lives and works inspire every Their wonder-
thoughtful English Churchman. fullives-
When we take into consideration the opposition some difficuit-
which they had to meet from those in authority in the j^°ftheir
Church itself ; the prejudices they had to overcome,
not only in their own early education, but in their
whole environment ; the difficulties which ensued from
the entire absence, for a century past, of any English
theological literature upon which they could draw ; —
it fills us with amazement that they were able to grasp
and teach the Catholic Faith as they did. Their great
learning, their patient industry, that indomitable
courage born of absolute trust in GOD and faith in
His Church, which enabled them to accomplish such
wonderful results, must command at once our deepest
respect and our most profound gratitude.
Among the difficulties which somewhat hindered especially from
413
414
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
two assump
tions, in part
true but liable
to bias the
judgment.
1. That Roman
teaching was
necessarily
wrong.
2. That a "via
media " be
tween Roman
ism and Pro
testantism
could be found
in the Fathers.
The true " via
media," the
touchstone of
truth, consid
ered.
their early investigations of truth were two assump
tions, in part true, and yet liable to warp the judgment
where it most needed to be kept free from bias. The
first was, that certain unpopular Roman doctrines were
necessarily wrong, and, indeed, that all doctrines as
stated by the Roman Church probably needed modifica
tion. The second, for which Newman was largely re
sponsible, was that there could be found in the Fathers
a certain via media between Romanism and Protestant
ism, and that this via media was the real teaching of the
English Church.
That the true via media, as set forth by Aristotle in
his treatment of the Virtues, is the touchstone of per
fect truth must be recognized by all as incontrovertible.
But this via media in theology will be discovered, not
by finding a middle term between Romanism and Pro
testantism, but by testing each doctrine separately to
see whether it errs by excess or defect.
This testing, as we have already indicated, can only
be accomplished by fitting the doctrine in question into
its place in the great body of Catholic truth. If it will
fit in with all other revealed or defined dogmas we may
assume that it satisfies the true via media. If it con
flicts with any one, either by exaggeration or under
statement, the excess or defect must be corrected.
It is, however, evident that such a via media will in
clude truths held by the extreme parties of both sides,
and, indeed, will often consist in the combination of the
affirmative statements of both these parties, corrected,
of course, as we have said, by comparison with the only
absolute standard, the Catholic Faith.
While, therefore, these two fundamental principles
with which the early Tractarians began their work
contained an element of truth, which, in the light, or
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 415
rather the darkness, of the first half of this century,
doubtless seemed greater than it does in our times, yet
both alike had a tendency to prejudice their minds in
the difficult search for truth, rather than to produce in
them that judicial sense which was so much needed
in their day to correct the influences of adverse educa
tion and environment.
I. In spite, however, of these and other hindrances, i. itiswonder-
they seem, from the beginning, to have grasped Catho- [^e^vc[^ns
lie doctrine to a very remarkable extent. There can grasped the
be little doubt that this was the result of their diligent Catholic Faith,
study of the Fathers, of the care with which they
traced the stream of " tradition " to its fountainhead.
And yet a student of the movement observes distinct i. A progress
progress in the theological position of its leaders. In- ^^r^din
deed, they recognize it themselves, and, to cite only one the views of
as an example, this is evident from Dr. Pusey's letter theleaders>
to the Rev. B. Harrison :
" It will be disappointing to you that I can do no- i. asisevid-
thing to reassure people in the way you speak of. I S^of Pusey
am afraid lest I fight against GOD. From much read- to Rev. B.
ing of Roman books, I am so much impressed with the Harnson>
superiority of their teaching ; and again, in some
respects I see things in Antiquity which I did not
(especially I cannot deny some purifying system in the
Intermediate State, nor the lawfulness of some Invoc
ation of Saints), that I dare not speak against things.
I can only remain in a state of abeyance, holding what
I see and not denying what I do not see. I should say
that wherein I have changed, it has been through
Antiquity." *
And again, in a letter to the Bishop-elect of Ox- ii. and in a let-
ford, Dr. Wilberforce : " It is in this way that I have
* lyiddou's Life of Pusey, vol. ii., p. 457.
416 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
received everything which I have received. Whatever
I have received, I received on the authority of the An
cient Church. I may say, too, I received some things
against my will. My bias was to keep the position
which those in our Church had usually held. I have
mentioned the change in myself to very few ; because
what I had at heart was simply the revival of holiness
and true faith among ourselves, and I trusted that GOD
in His mercy giving us this ' would provide ' for the
rest. Practically, when people come to me for guid
ance, I endeavour to withhold them from what lies be
yond our Church, although, if asked on the other side,
I could not deny that such and such things seem to me
admissible.
" If I may explain my meaning, the remarkable Acts
of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas, which were beyond
question genuine, contains a very solemn vision,
which involves the doctrine of process of purification
after death by suffering, to shorten which prayer
was available. I came upon it while reading the
Acts for another purpose : it was great pain to me.
The ground was taken from under me. I had inter
preted passages (as of S. Basil), as I saw, wrongly,
under a bias the other way ; solemn as it was I could
not, taking all together, refuse my belief to an inter
mediate state of cleansing, in some cases through pain.
The history was a revelation, at a very solemn time, to a
martyr ; falling in with much which might be the mean
ing of Holy Scripture and very much in the Fathers,
and stamping it upon my mind. I could not escape it.
The effect has been that I have since been wholly silent
about Purgatory (before I used to speak against it). I
have not said so much as this except to two or three
friends. Some of my nearest friends do not know it.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 417
' ' In like manner, I found that some Invocation of
Saints was much more frequent in the early Church
than I had been taught to think, that it has very
high authority, and is nowhere blamed. This is
wholly distinct from the whole system as to S. Mary,
as what I before said is from the popular system as to
Purgatory. In this way, then, and partly from the
internal structure of the Article XXII., I came to
think that our Article did not condemn all ' doctrine
of Purgatory ' or Invocation of Saints, but only a cert
ain practical system ; and then I came afterwards to
see that the actual Roman formularies did not assert
more on these subjects (as apart from the popular sys
tem or ' Popery ') than was in the Ancient Church." *
We have already observed that the theological litera- 2. The absence
ture of the English Church for a century previous had ofa contemp
orary theo-
not been of a character to help the Tractanans in their logical litera-
search for truth. They looked askance at the treatises ture threw the
of Roman theologians, and therefore fell back upon the back on the
Fathers and the Anglican divines of the seventeenth Fathers and
century, but chiefly upon the Fathers. As a result of divL^
this, the Tractarians endeavour to present the various
doctrines which they treat, in the form in which they
find them in the Fathers.
We have seen in the history of the sacrificial concep- Hence their
tion of the Eucharist, f that the Fathers, while unan- vie^°ftheK.
S. is that of the
unously teaching that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, Fathers, coi-
never approach the question of the mode of that Sacri- oured by An~
fice, and therefore set forth no definite theory of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. They treat the Eucharist syn
thetically, not analytically ; they regard it as a great
whole. For them the mystic action is the Church's
Sacrifice, in which our LORD'S Death is shown forth,
* Liddon's Life of Pusey, vol. iii., p. 44. f Chapter VII.
27
4i8
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
They formul
ate no definite
theory in re
gard to it,
and if we find
traces of mod
ern influence,
this is more
than counter
balanced by
their explicit
recognition of
its relation to
the S. of the
Cross.
II. This will be
evident from an
our LORD'S Passion renewed. The Fathers, too, asso
ciate the Holy Eucharist, as the great act of Christian
worship, with the worship of heaven. As S. Gregory
says, " Heaven opens at the voice of the Priest, to unite
itself with the Church on earth." * It is the Church's
Sacrifice, which the Church's Head and Great High
Priest presents, with His mystical Body complete in
all its members, to the Eternal FATHER. In it CHRIST
is the Priest, the Sacrifice, and the heavenly Altar.
As we should expect, the Tractarians in their teach
ing concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice follow closely
in the steps of the Fathers. They put forth no theory
in regard to it. For them it is the Church's Sacrifice,
the memorial of our LORD'S Death and Passion. It is
the Church's greatest act of worship, in which she
unites herself to the worship of heaven. In it our
LORD is the principal Priest, the Victim, and the
heavenly Altar.
If we find in some passages that their doctrine of
the Eucharist is coloured by something of the teach
ing of certain Anglican divines, such as Jeremy Taylor,
in regard to the heavenly altar, we need not be sur
prised, when we consider (i) how prominent a place
the Anglican divines occupied in their reading, and (2)
that such teaching is no part of an attempt to formulate
a theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. We shall also
show that such teaching is more than counterbalanced
by the most explicit statements that the Eucharist in
its sacrificial aspect is related to that Sacrifice of our
Blessed LORD which was offered once for all and was
finished upon the Cross of Calvary.
II. That this view is correct is evident from an
examination of Tract 81, the only work in which Dr.
* S. Greg. Mag., Dialog., 1. iv., c. xlviii.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 419
Pusey treats directly of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. He examination of
gathers extracts, as we have shown in the last chapter, their PrinciPal
writings on the
from the writings of sixty-three Anglican divines, all subject,
of whom speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice; twelve,
however, give no hint in regard to their view of the
character of the sacrifice, while the other fifty-one differ
somewhat in the way in which they treat this point.
Dr. Pusey in his introduction makes no allusion to this
difference, although he does state what he considers to
be the teaching of the Fathers ; but in his great work
on the Real Presence we find no treatment of the
doctrine of the Sacrifice.
Mr. Keble, too, wrote on the Eucharist in his treatise
on Eucharisiical Adoration; in this there is only a
passing reference to this question, which, however, re
ceives vSomewhat fuller treatment in his Considerations.
And Bishop Forbes, while discussing the Eucharistic
Sacrifice in his work on the Thirty-Nine Articles, is
more occupied with the attempt to show that it is a
Sacrifice than with the question in regard to the mode
in which it is a Sacrifice. We find his views on this
subject most fully expressed in his Theological Defence.
As it- is not necessary to our purpose to go through This examina-
the incidental writings of all the Tractarians, and as Jionwiiibe
limited to the
we believe only these three wrote anything definite works of
on the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, it will be sufficient Puse>r' Keble-
and Forbes.
if we confine ourselves to them. Dr. Pusey, Mr.
Keble, and Bishop Forbes were undoubtedly the most
representative of their school, and, as we shall see, had
occasion to treat the subject with more or less fulness.
To begin with Dr. Pusey, we find the most com- i. Dr. Pusey's
plete statement of his view in Tract 81. He is en- *™** in
deavouring to state briefly what he understands to
have been the teaching of the Fathers. He says :
420 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
i. The passage " The doctrine then of the early Church was this :
quoted. ^at ' in the Eucharist an oblation or sacrifice was
made by the Church to GOD, under the form of His
creatures of bread and wine, according to our Blessed
LORD'S holy institution, in memory of His Cross and
Passion ; ' and this they believed to be the ' pure offer
ing ' or sacrifice which the Prophet Malachi foretold
that the Gentiles should offer ; and that it was enjoined
by our LORD in the words ' Do this for a memorial of
Me ; ' that it was alluded to when our LORD or S. Paul
spake of a Christian ' altar ' (S. Matt. v. 23, Heb. xiii.
10), and was typified by the Passover, which was both
a sacrifice and a feast upon a sacrifice.
' ' For the first Passover had been a vicarious sacrifice,
the appointed means of saving life, when the first-born
of the Egyptians were slain; and like all other vicari
ous sacrifices, it shadowed out that of our LORD on the
Cross ; the subsequent Passovers were sacrifices com
memorative of that first sacrifice, and so typical of the
Eucharist, as commemorating and showing forth our
LORD'S Sacrifice on the Cross. Not that they reasoned
so, but they knew it to be thus, because they had been
taught it, and incidentally mentioned these circum
stances, which people would now call evidence or
grounds and reasons.
"This commemorative oblation or sacrifice they
doubted not to be acceptable to GOD Who had ap
pointed it ; and so to be also a means of bringing
down GOD'S favour upon the whole Church. And, if
we were to analyze their feelings in our way, how
should it be otherwise, when they presented to the
Almighty FATHER the symbols and memorials of the
meritorious Death and Passion of His Only-Begotten
and Well-Beloved SON, and besought Him by that
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 421
precious Sacrifice to look graciously upon the Church
which He had purchased with His own Blood — offering
the memorials of that same Sacrifice which He, our
great High Priest, made once for all, and now being
entered within the veil, unceasingly presents before
the FATHER, and the representation of which He has
commanded us to make ?
* ' It is, then, to use our technical phraseology, ' a com
memorative, impetratory sacrifice,' which is all one
with saying that it is well-pleasing to GOD ; for what
is well-pleasing to Him, how should it not bring down
blessings upon us ? They preferred to speak of it in
language which, while it guarded against the errors of
their days, the confusion with the sacrifices of Jew or
Pagan, expressed their reverence for the memorials of
their SAVIOUR'S Body and Blood, and named it ' the
awful and unbloody Sacrifice,' or the like, as men
would, with a sense of the unfathomable mystery of
GOD'S goodness connected therewith.
" This pleading of our SAVIOUR'S merits, by a sacri
fice instituted by Himself, was (they doubted not)
regarded graciously by GOD, for the remission of
sins ; as indeed our LORD had said, ' This is My Blood
which is shed for you and for many for the remission
of sins.' The Eucharist, then, according to them, con
sisted of two parts, a ' commemorative Sacrifice ' and a
' Communion ' or Communication ; the former obtain
ing remission of sins for the Church ; the Communion
the strengthening and refreshing of the soul,' al
though, inasmuch as it united the believer with
CHRIST, it indirectly conveyed remission of sins too.
' The Communion was (to use a modern phrase) the
feast upon the Sacrifice thus offered. They first
offered to GOD His gifts in commemoration of that His
422
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Dr. Pusey first
states the doc
trine as he
finds it in the
Fathers, and
then analyzes
it.
inestimable Gift, and placed them upon His altar here,
to be received and presented on the heavenly altar by
Him, our High Priest ; and then trusted to receive
them back, conveying to them the life-giving Body
and Blood.
<( As being, moreover, appointed by their LORD, they
believed that the continual oblation of this Sacrifice
(like the daily sacrifice appointed in the elder Church)
was a benefit to the whole Church, independently
and over and above the benefit to the individual com
municants — that the sacrifices in each branch of the
Christian Church were mutually of benefit to every
other branch, each to all and all to each : and so also
this common interest in the Sacrifice of the memorials
of their SAVIOUR'S Passion was one visible, yea, and
(since GOD for its sake diffused unseen and inestimable
blessings through the whole mystical Body of His SON)
an invisible spiritual bond of the Communion of Saints
throughout the whole Body." *
Tract 8 i was written by Dr. Pusey in the year 1838,
and therefore represents his views in the early period
of his work ; — not that we have any reason to suppose
that in regard to this subject they were materially
changed later. In the passage which we have quoted
in full Dr. Pusey with characteristic accuracy first states
the doctrine of the Kucharistic Sacrifice as he finds it in
the Fathers, and then proceeds, as he says, to analyze
it and put it into the form of a theory. Let us examine
each.
In his statement he says that " the doctrine of the
early Church was this : that * in the Eucharist an obla
tion or sacrifice was made by the Church to GOD,
. . . according to our Blessed LORD'S holy institu-
* Tract No. Si, pp. 4-6.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 423
tion, in memory of His Cross and Passion ; ' ' that this
' ' was typified by the Passover which was both a sacri
fice and a feast upon a sacrifice. For the first Passover
had been a vicarious sacrifice, . . . and, like all
other vicarious sacrifices, it shadowed out that of our
LORD on the Cross ; the subsequent Passovers were
sacrifices, commemorative of that first sacrifice, and so
typical of the Eucharist, as commemorating and show
ing forth our LORD'S Sacrifice on the Cross."
Here it is evident that no theory of the nature of the NO theory is
Kucharistic Sacrifice is set forth, merely the statement formulated-
found in the Fathers that it is a sacrifice made in TheH.E;. is a
memory of our IBRD'S Cross and Passion, and that, as s-madein
memory of the
the yearly Passover was a sacrifice in that it commemor- cross, there-
ated the first Passover, so was the Eucharist a sacrifice fore a com~
, i r i ~r •, memorative S.
in that it commemorated and showed forth our LORD s
Sacrifice on the Cross. Nothing can be clearer or more
in accordance with Catholic teaching.
Dr. Pusey then says that " if we were to analyze the
feelings of the Fathers in our way," we should put it
somewhat thus: "They presented to the Almighty
FATHER the symbols and memorials of the meritorious
Death and Passion of His Only-Begotten and Well-
Beloved SON, . . . offering the memorials of that
same Sacrifice which He, our great High Priest, made
once for all, and now being entered within the veil,
unceasingly presents before the FATHER, and the re
presentation of which He has commanded us to make."
In this passage Dr. Pusey again makes the Sacrifice
of the Eucharist to consist exclusively in the memorial
of the meritorious Death and Passion of our LORD.
He states that it is the memorial of the same Sacrifice
which our great High Priest made once for all (i. e.,
upon the Cross), He also states that now, being
424
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The S. was
completed on
the Cross, its
merits pre
sented in
heaven.
His reference
to a heavenly
altar.
entered within the veil, He unceasingly presents this
Sacrifice before the FATHER.
From other passages, which we shall quote presently,
we learn that in Dr. Pusey's opinion the Sacrifice was
absolutely finished upon the Cross, and that the offering
which was presented in heaven was the merits or effects
of the Sacrifice as exhibited in our LORD'S glorified
Human Nature. While the view that our LORD in His
great Intercession is pleading His Passion in heaven
is not found in the Fathers, but is of later date, there
is nothing in it, as we have already remarked more
than once, which in any way conflicts with Catholic
dogma.
Dr. Pusey further says : " They first offered to GOD
His gifts in commemoration of that His inestimable
Gift, and placed them upon His altar here, to be re
ceived and presented on the heavenly altar by Him,
our High Priest ; and then trusted to receive them
back, conveying to them the life-giving Body and
Blood." Here he probably has in mind the reference
to a heavenly altar, which we find in so many of the
Fathers,* and which most of them explain as our
LORD'S glorified Human Nature interceding for us in
heaven, through which Intercession our Sacrifice is
accepted, and we in Communion are filled with all
spiritual benediction and grace." There is nothing,
therefore, in Dr. Pusey's statement of the doctrine of
the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is inconsistent with the
Catholic view. He explicitly relates it to the Sacrifice
of the Cross, and not to a sacrifice which our LORD is
now supposed to be offering in heaven.
In Sermon IV. of a volume of sermons preached be-
* E. g., S. Greg. Naz., Oratio xxvi., 11. 16 ; S. Epipb., Hcer.,
lv., n. 4.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIAXS. 425
fore the University of Oxford between the years 1859 a. Three pas-
and 1872, and published in 1872, we have very dis- <*&* from his
' f ' J sermon on our
tinctly set forth Dr. Pusey's view of the relation of our LORD'S inter-
LORD'S Intercession in heaven with the Sacrifice which cession-
He offered once for all upon the Cross. The title 01
the sermon is ' ' The Prophecy of CHRIST our Atoner
and Intercessor in Isaiah, chapter liii.," the text, "And
He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors. " * In the earlier part of the sermon Dr.
Pusey treats of the Sacrifice upon the Cross, and then
goes on to speak of its relation to our LORD'S Media
torial work in heaven. He says :
" These acts also of sacrifice for sin, and the priestly
office which follows, GOD has, in this prophecy, so
distinguished, that the Atoning Death, wrhich wras once
for all, He speaks of under those many wrords, almost
throughout, as past ; the High Priest's office, which
was to abide continually, He speaks of as future. It
seems as though GOD had exhibited before the Pro
phet's soul the events of the Passion and taught him
so to relate them, as he saw them. And so up to Hir,
Death and Burial, Isaiah speaks in the well-known
prophetic past, ' seeming,' in S. Jerome's words, f ' to
compose, not a prophecy but a Gospel,' so minutely
does the account correspond with our LORD'S Passion.
" In twro places only he intermingles futures, ' when
Thou shalt make His soul a sin offering ; ' ' their ini
quities He shall bear ; ' lest his hearers or we should
think that he was speaking of a real past. Beyond it,
he speaks of our LORD'S continual Mediatorial office
for us with the FATHER, and from the FATHER towards
us, as a continued future. What was once for all
finished on the Cross, what our LORD embraced in His
* Isa. liii. 12. f S.Jerome, Ep. liii., Ad Paulin., n. 7.
426 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
word, * It is finished,' * Isaiah mostly speaks of as
past : what He still continueth to do, he speaks of as
future. Yet he so blends both, that he does not stop
short in the Atonement, without speaking of the abid
ing office in which it was to issue ; nor of our LORD'S
present office, justifying, cleansing, interceding for us,
as separate from the Atonement, by whose meritorious
virtue He justifies, cleanses, availingly intercedes for
us." f
Again he says : " In the same way also, in which
Isaiah unites the Atonement once made and the con
tinual Intercession at the Right Hand of GOD, ' He it
was who bare the sins of many, and shall intercede for
the transgressors,' in that same way do S. Paul and S.
John. The Atonement, although ended as an Act, is
not a mere past act. It lives on in effect in our
LORD'S abiding Intercession." J
Again: " ' We have an Advocate, JKSUS CHRIST the
Righteous, and He is the Propitiation for our sins.'
He is our Advocate, because He is our Propitiation ;
He is our Propitiation, § in the present, and not in the
past only, because that Propitiation, although in itself
perfected when He bare our sins on the Cross, \\ is ever
present with GOD, ever makes Him propitious to us
sinners." ^[
Dr. P. distin- In these three passages Dr. Pusey " distinguishes"
between " the Atoning Death, which was once for all,"
Atonement and " the High Priest's office, which was to abide con-
nnishedonthe tinually." He says that the Atonement " was once for
effects abiding a^ finished on the Cross ; ' ' that it was ' ' ended as an
\ Pusey, University Sermons, pp. 95, 96.
\ Pusey, Ibid., p. 98. || Italics are ours.
I6n. 1[ Pusey, Ibid., p. 09.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 427
act; " that its effects live on in our LORD'S abiding in our LORD'S
Intercession. From this we may see that Dr. Pusey Intercession-
... aud so gives no
gives no countenance to the idea that only the initial support to the
act of our LORD'S Sacrifice was performed on the Cross, Modern view-
and that the essentially sacrificial act, the presentation
of the Blood, took place in heaven. He says that as
an act it was finished and ended on the Cross, and that
it is only the effects which live on in the Intercession.
While the effects may be, and are, closely related to
the cause, and issue from it, they are not the cause,
and, as Dr. Pusey says, are to be distinguished from
it. He tells us that although CHRIST ' ' is our Pro
pitiation in the present ; " . . . " that Propitia
tion " was " itself perfected when He bare our sins on
the Cross."
If Dr. Pusey says, in speaking of our LORD'S Obla- He uses the
tion of Himself in heaven, that " our great High ™^ "slacri-
' & fice" only in a
Priest unceasingly presents before the FATHER that passive sense,
same Sacrifice which He made once for all," he uses quotingfrom
.LI. •£ i> 1 • • ^ S. Epiphanius.
the word sacrifice only in a passive sense, as the
Fathers use the expression. For in the same sermon
he quotes from S. Epiphanius: " He is the Victim, He,
the Sacrifice ; He, the Priest ; He, the Altar ; He,
GOD ; He, Man ; He, King ; He, High Priest ; He, the
Sheep ; He, the Lamb ; He, for our sakes, became all
things in all, that in every way He might become life
to us." * That this is the sense in which he regards
the Sacrifice in heaven is evident not only from a con
sideration of the use of the term in the others, but from
the explanation given by Bishop Forbes in a passage f
to which we shall refer later, and which, as we learn
from Dr. Pusey 's Life, received his approval.
* S. Epiph., H<zr., lv., n. 4.
t Forbes, XXXIX. Articles, pp. 617, 618.
428
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
2. Mr. Keble's
view:
i. It is ex
pressed in pas
sages from his
sermon on
"The Un
changeable
Priesthood of
CHRIST;"
We now pass to Mr. Keble, Sermon XXXIX. of
his Sermons for the Christian Year is entitled "The
Unchangeable Priesthood of CHRIST." Its text is:
" He is able also to save them to the uttermost that
come unto GOD by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them." * In this sermon we find many
passages which set forth Mr. Keble's view on this sub
ject, and we subjoin the following :
11 We are not to think of our LORD'S Sacrifice as of
a thing past and done, in such sense that we sinners
may have the blessing and benefit of it, without any
thing clone on our part, and without any more merciful
interference on His. True ; He died once for all ; the
day of Calvary can never come again : CHRIST hanging
on the Cross was * a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacri
fice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole
world.' . . . But He lives again, lives for ever,
to communicate the benefits of His Death to the
Church which is His Body, and to each Christian in
particular." f
Again : " The Son of Man, our High Priest and
SAVIOUR, obtained eternal Redemption for us by what
He endured upon the Cross : but for you and me and
each of us to reap finally the fruit of that Redemption,
we must be partakers of that which He is now doing
for us in heaven. . . . How does He apply to you
and me and the whole Church the blessed infallible
medicine which He provided for us by His Death and
Passion ? How does He bring home His Salvation to
each one of our souls ? First, you know, He is our
King in heaven ; He sitteth there at the Right Hand of
* Heb. vii. 25.
f Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year, vol. iv., pp. 389,
390-
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 429
GOD. . . . And most especially He, as our King,
sends down His royal Gift, the HoiyY SPIRIT of the
FATHER and the SON, to dwell in our hearts, to unite
us to Him, to sanctify and prepare us for joy and
glory.
' ' But that is not all. . . . He is not only our
King but our Priest. This is what S. Paul speaks
of, ' He ever liveth to make intercession for us.' To
make intercession, i.e., to intercede. . . . So our
LORD, riot exactly as one praying, at least Holy Script
ure does not say so, but as a Priest offering a sacrifice
and pleading for another, appears before GOD for us.
If He appears as a Priest, He must have some sacrifice
to present. . . . What is the Sacrifice which our
LORD offers in heaven ? The very same which He
once for all offered on earth : the Body which was
broken, and the Blood which was shed on the Cross.
That Body and Blood which He took of the Virgin
Mary, which He offered once for all with pain, suffer
ing, and death, on Good Friday, but which on Easter
Day He united again, and on Ascension Day carried
both Body and Soul into heaven, there to appear night
and day in the Presence of the FATHER for us : not
without Blood, His own Blood whereby He continually
pleads for His Church and each one of His servants on
earth, and is our Advocate with the FATHER, through
that same love which caused Him to make Himself
here a Bloody Sacrifice, a Propitiation, i. e., a reconcil
ing gift, for our sins.
" Thus He pleads and intercedes in heaven, stand
ing before the FATHER as a Lamb that had been
slain. . . . And as if this was not love enough,
behold what He has done besides for us ; according
to the delight which He has in being with the
430 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
sons of men and doing them good. Though He has
taken up His Blessed Body and Blood in its outward
and visible form unto heaven, there to remain until
His second coming, He has nevertheless in a Sacramen
tal manner left us that same Blessed Body and Blood
on earth, to be set before His FATHER, in the way
you know of, by the appointed use of bread and wine,
and so to be pleaded on our own altars for a memorial
of His precious Death. And observe, this memorial
on earth, as well as the memorial in heaven, is made
by CHRIST Himself. ... He pleads for us on
earth by that bread and wine which is His Body and
Blood, as surely as He pleads in heaven by His natural
Body, with its visible wounds, in the very form which
He has shown to a few of His saints. ... So you
see, my brethren, the offering in the Holy Communion
is the same remembrance of our LORD'S Sacrifice on the
Cross which He offers to the FATHER continually in
heaven : and it is the same CHRIST Who pleads and
offers it : here in an image and under a veil, there
openly in His own Human Form, in the sight of the
Angels."*
ii. in his treat- In Mr. Keble's treatise On Eucharistical Adoration
ise " On Bu- fi d th following passage :
charistical _ & r
Adoration," ' This memorial CHRIST offers in heaven, night
and day, to GOD the FATHER: His glorified Body,
with all its wounds, His Blood which He poured out
upon the Cross, but on His Resurrection took again to
Himself, and with it ascended into heaven. With that
Body and Blood He appears continually before the
Throne, by It making intercession for us ; by It remind
ing GOD the FATHER of His one Oblation of Himself,
once offered upon the Cross, as S. John writes, ' We
* Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year, vol. iv., pp. 390-394.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 431
have an Advocate,' one to plead for us ' with the
FATHER, and He is the Propitiation for our sins.'
Thus He is our Aaron first, and then our Melchisedec,
the virtue of His perpetual Advocacy depending on
His former propitiation." *
The most important work of Mr. Keble on this sub- m. and in MS
ject is his Considerations Suggested by the Pastoral Letter
of the Six Scotch Bishops on the Doctrine of the Most Holy
Eucharist.\ The second "Instruction" of the Pas
toral Letter related to the Sacrifice of the Altar, and
Keble, in answering the arguments of the letter, deals
first with our LORD'S sole Priesthood, that is to say,
with the fact that He is the principal Priest in every
Eucharist, which the untheological language of the
Bishops seemed to deny ; and secondly, with the rela
tion of the Eucharist on earth to our LORD'S continual
Intercession in heaven. It is with this second point
that we have to do. He quotes many of the Fathers,
amongst others the passages from Thoedoret and from
S. Ambrose which we have cited in Chapter VIII. J
Mr. Keble then goes on to speak of the identity of
each one of our Eucharists with that which our LORD
Himself celebrated in the beginning. Referring to
the language of S. Ambrose, who uses the words
" shadow," " image," and " truth " as mystically re
presenting the Jewish Law, the Gospel or the Church
on earth, and the Church in heaven, he exemplifies
these three in the matter of sacrifice, the " shadow"
being taken for the Levitical Priest entering the Holy
of holies ; the " very image," for the commemoration
* Quoted by Sadler, One Offering, p. 183. Keble, On Eu-
charistical Adoration, p. 74.
t For an account of the occasion of this Pastoral, see p. 434.
J See pp. 261, 262, and 249-255.
432
THE EU CHART STIC SACRIFICE.
It differs but
slightly from
Dr. Pusey's
view ;
it is less Pa
tristic,
of our LORD'S Passion in the Eucharist ; and our
LORD'S Intercession as the " truth," the " good thing
to come." Hi then quotes the passages from Bishop
Taylor which we gave in the last chapter, and says
that the Holy Eucharist is the " very image " of the
perpetual Sacrifice in heaven.*
In these various passages we have Mr. Keble's view
set forth very fully, and it differs but little from that
which we have already noticed in Dr. Pusey's works.
He holds that upon the Cross our LORD made a full,
perfect, and sufficient Offering once for all ; that in
some sense, in His great Intercession in heaven, He
pleads that Offering once made ; by which he means,
of course, that He pleads the merits of it. He says
that our LORD " on Ascension Day carried both Body
and Soul into heaven, there to appear night and day in
the Presence of the FATHER for us : not without Blood,
His own Blood whereby He continually pleads for His
Church."
This theory, of course, is not found in the Fathers,
but it is not contrary to any Catholic dogma, and
of late years has gained acceptance with many theo
logians. It should be noticed that while Mr. Keble
in his Considerations quotes a very large number of
passages from the Fathers, not one of them bears out
this statement ; and we may be pardoned for again say
ing that no commentator on the Epistle to the Hebrews
before the sixteenth century takes this view, although
we have traced its germ in the mystical writings of S.
Ivo of Chartres in the twelfth.
Bishop Westcott in his Commentary says : " The
modern conception of CHRIST'S pleading in heaven
His Passion, * offering His Blood,' on behalf of man,
* Keble, Considerations, pp. 250-265.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 433
has no foundation in the Epistle. His glorified Human
ity is the eternal pledge of the absolute efficacy of His
accomplished work. He pleads, as older writers truly
express the thought, by His presence on the FATHER'S
Throne."*
While Mr. Keble undoubtedly associates the Euchar- and coloured
ist with our LORD'S Intercession in heaven, he does ^f Cassander's
theory, though
not teach that our LORD'S Offering upon the Cross was without its ot>-
imperfect, nor that the presentation of the Blood did
not take place until after the Ascension. We acknow- but it set's
ledge that he gives too much weight to the opinion forth the fin-
i 1 i 1 -r ™ 1 i ^i • i ^ ished S. of the
held by Jeremy Taylor and others in regard to our Cross
LORD'S Intercession, but we do not believe that his
view has much real affinity with the Modern view as
stated by Mr. Brightman.
By far the most important witness to the precise 3. The most
views of the Eucharistic Sacrifice held by the Tract- imP°rtaf wit-
J ness to the
arians is to be found in the writings of the Right Rev. Tractarian
A. P. Forbes, Bishop of Brechin. Their importance view is the BP.
. of Brechin.
consists not only in the fulness with which the subject
is discussed, but in the fact that the bishop's Theologi- i. The "Theo-
cal Defence, in which it is most exhaustively treated, j-^f!,1*
was practically the joint work of Keble, Pusey, and the joint work
Bishop Forbes. Before we proceed to quote from these of Keble>
Pusey, and Bp.
documents, it will be well to remind our readers of the Forbes.
circumstances under which they were put forth.
The Rev. A. P. Forbes, f while Vicar of S. Saviour's, Thecircum-
Leeds, was chosen to be Bishop of the Diocese of stancesofthe
trial.
* Westcott, On Hebrews, p. 230. Bishop Westcott in a private
letter also says the thought "of CHRIST'S pleading His Passion
in heaven is, as far as I know, not found in the Fathers." See
Appendix G.
t This account of the Brechin controversy is taken from Lid-
don's Life of Pusey, vol. iii., pp. 448-459, and Coleridge's Life
of Keble, vol. ii., chap, xviii.
28
434 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Brechin. His Primary Charge, delivered on August 5,
1857, was devoted to an exposition of the doctrine of
the Holy Eucharist. At the Synod held in Edinburgh
in December, 1857, it was proposed to issue a declara
tion on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist in opposition
to the statements of the Bishop of Brechin. The mo
tion was lost, but the Bishops of Edinburgh, Argyle,
and Glasgow signed a document which, if not identical
with that proposed, was to the same purport. This
declaration from the three bishops was followed by
others from the Clergy. Keble, who had sent his
book, On Eucharistical Adoration, then just published,
to the Scottish Bishops, considered the episcopal declar
ation a condemnation of his own book as well as of the
Bishop's Charge, and addressed to the Bishop of Edin
burgh a letter on the subject,* Pusey had spent the
winter of 1857-58 in the neighbourhood of Paris.
During his previous illness and his absence in Paris he
had heard nothing of the Scottish controversy. On
his return to England, however, he entered into corre
spondence with some of the Scottish Bishops with
whom he was acquainted, especially with Bishop
Trower of Glasgow and Galloway, but with ill success,
for at the Synod which met in Edinburgh six Scottish
Bishops determined to issue a Pastoral Letter, which
they did on May 27, 1858. In this letter the Bishop
of Brechin' $> Primary Charge is considered seriatim and
condemned.
Kebie's"con- Keble, as Honorary Canon of Cumbrae, and there-
siderations." fore as having a recognized place among the Scottish
Clergy, reviewed this Pastoral in the work to which
we have already referred, his Considerations^ etc.
* This letter is given at length by the Rev. D. J. Mackay,
Life of Bishop Forbes, pp. 101, sqq.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 435
The matter, however, was not allowed to rest here, The Bishop's
for on October 3, 1859, Bishop Forbes was formally Pres^tation.
presented before the Episcopal Synod of the Scottish
Church on a charge of holding, maintaining, and
teaching in his Primary Charge doctrines contrary to
the Articles of Religion, the Word of GOD, the formul
aries of public worship, and the Scottish Communion
Office. The Bishop's Defence in answer to the present
ment is the work in which the mind of the Tractarians
is most fully expressed in regard to the Eucharistic
Sacrifice.
We are told * that Pusey spent much labour in help
ing him to prepare it. It forms an octavo volume
of 230 pages, and when the Synod met on February 7,
1860, two days were occupied in hearing the Bishop
read it. We may consider, then, that in the Bishop of
Brechin's Primary Charge and in his Theological De
fence of that Charge we have the fullest exposition
of the mind of the Tractarians on the Eucharistic
Sacrifice.
We quote from the Charge in its emended form, the u. Extracts
Bishop having added some explanatory matter before ffon^ hls
his trial. Charge."
" Moreover, the ancient doctors teach that the Eu
charistic Sacrifice is the same substantially with that of
the Cross. . . . The word ' Sacrifice ' may be taken
actively and passively: actively it is the rite, passively
it is the Victim, — just as it is with the word ' Pass
over.' Thus the Apostle says, ' CHRIST our Passover
is sacrificed for us ; therefore let us keep the feast.'
Now in the sense that the Sacrifice is the Victim, it is
evident, as a consequence of the Real Presence, that
that of the Holy Eucharist and of the Cross are
* Liddon's Life of Pusey ', vol. iii., p. 456.
436 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
substantially one. CHRIST was offered on the Cross ;
the same CHRIST is commemorated and pleaded in the
Holy Mysteries. . . . Our lyORD said, This is My
Body ; and no words of man can strengthen the tre
mendous and absolute identity of the two Sacrifices —
or rather, as I should prefer to say, of the one Sacrifice
in its two aspects. Unless you hold that in some tran
scendental sense the Sacrifice of the Cross and the
Sacrifice of the Altar are identical, you contradict the
Apostle, who says there is no more sacrifice for sin.
You must admit a true, proper Eucharistic Sacrifice,
compelled to do so by the unanimous testimony of
antiquity ; but if it be a true and proper Sacrifice, it
must be either one with the Cross or supplementary to it*
" I believe that the non-recognition of this identity
has been the main cause of the non-acceptance of the
doctrine of an Kucharistic Sacrifice by many earnest
minds. Say as you will, if you disjoin the Sacrifice of
the Cross from the Sacrifice of the Altar, you make
the former incomplete. Hither there is no such thing
as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which case the
Church has erred from the very beginning, or in some
mysterious way it is, in a sense, one with the offering
on Calvary." f
Again: " On the other hand, taking the word c sacri
fice ' actively, you corne to find a sense in which it is
not the same as the Sacrifice of the Cross. It is the
avrr) rj ehtcov — the very image, not only of that, but
of the everlasting Eucharist, which is ever going on in
heaven. It is the commemoration of all the divine
acts of the SON of GOD wrought for the redemption of
* That it is supplementary is denied, therefore here its iden
tity is affirmed.
f Bishop Forbes, Primary Charge ', pp. 40, 41.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 437
the human race. ... So that, to conclude, pas
sively the Holy Eucharist is the Ouffia ; actively it is
the avajuvjyffig Trjg Ovffiag." *
Again : "In the first place we must inquire what is
the One Sacrifice of CHRIST ? Is it confined to the few
hours during which that Holy Victim hung upon the
Tree of Shame upon Mount Calvary, or was it ex
tended beyond that ? In one sense, it was * finished '
then. ' Finished ' was His work of obedience ;
' finished ' were His atoning sufferings ; ' finished was
the transgression,' and ' an end made for sin.' That
mysterious act stands alone throughout all time in all
eternity. Not the Godhead, but GOD died. He Who
was, and is GOD, and, as GOD, lives unchangeably —
He, as Man, died. And as that act of GOD'S mercy
was one and alone, so the effects of that act stand
alone. CHRIST Himself, our LORD GOD, in His
Human Nature, ' ever liveth to make intercession for
us.' GOD Himself intercedes with GOD. Yet He hath
pleased so to limit Himself, that He Himself doth not
merit anything more for us now. There, on that
Cross of Shame, ' He made that full, perfect, and suffi
cient Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins
of the whole world.' That Sacrifice to which all faith
looked on, representing and pleading it to GOD, before
CHRIST came; which our LORD pleads now ; to which
all Eucharists and all prayers to GOD now look back
and plead, was, as an Atonement, complete in Itself.
It alone was an Atonement ; It alone was a Satisfac
tion for sin ; It alone (we may dare to say, for it is the
language of the Church) was meritorious.
" Our dear LORD, in the bright Majesty of His Medi
atorial Throne, invested with all power in heaven and
* Bishop Forbes, Primary Charge, p. 41.
438 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
in earth, adored by the Cherubim and Seraphim and
by all the company of heaven, clothed with that Body
which was pierced for us, and ever exhibiting, for us
sinners, to His FATHER, those wounded Hands and
Feet and Side, has vouchsafed to limit Himself; He
adds nothing now to that One Sacrifice which He made
when He died upon the Cross, inasmuch as nothing
could be added. For — It was ' finished,' perfect, in
finite, superabundant, sufficient to redeem a thousand
worlds. Yet, although the Atoning Act was one, and
nothing could be added to its value (for nothing can
be added to that which is infinite), still in purpose and
will and representation (as at that first Eucharist that
Sacrifice was presented to the FATHER before it was
made), It can be and is pleaded for us to the FATHER
now.
"And are not we gainers beyond all thought, in that
our Great High Priest ' ever liveth to make inter
cession for us ? ' The Apostle speaks as though the
object and end of His present Life in Glory were ' to
make intercession for us.' And yet, although He
gains everything for us by that Almighty Intercession,
yet He gains all for us by the merits of that One All-
sufficient Atonement on the Cross. That Sacrifice was
perfected there, as an Act of Atonement, Satisfaction,
Merit.
" It was applied beforehand to the forgiveness and
acceptance of those who in faith (as Abraham, David,
and all Prophets and holy men of old), before CHRIST
came, pleaded it and were accepted : It has been,
and is, and shall be applied, until CHRIST shall come
again to judgment, to the pardon, grace, and accept
ance of those who are His. For in another sense, the
Christian Church, after S. Paul, has always held that
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTAKIANS. 439
our LORD'S was 6v0ia eiz to dirjvexeg (Heb. x. 12),
juge Sacrifidum, — a continual Sacrifice, — commenc
ing at the first moment of His Conception, continued
during every day of His holy Life, offered on the night
before His salutary Passion, consummated and slain
upon the Altar of the Cross, and now carried by Him
self, as the Melchisedecan Priest, within the veil, and
perpetually pleaded and presented by Him there to the
Eternal FATHKR, and in image by the Church on earth
in the Holy Sacrament." *
If we now turn to the Theological Defence, we find m. Passages
the following explanation of the term " sacrifice : " ff°?h!s .
''Theological
' We have now to go on to consider the sense in Defence."
which the word ' sacrifice ' is used in the passage
which has been presented. I must beg the Court to
bear very strongly in mind what I have said with refer
ence to the word * sacrifice ' as it is taken actively or
passively — a distinction, indeed, which runs through
all our language. I believe that the misunderstanding
of my meaning has arisen entirely in this, that whereas
I used the word * sacrifice ' passively f of that which is
offered, those who objected to my doctrine understood
what I said ' actively,' i. e., of the act of Sacrifice or
Offering. . . . For the passages from the XXXIst
Article and the Liturgy, which they accuse me of hav
ing 'contradicted and depraved,' relate solely to our
Blessed LORD'S act of offering Himself upon the Cross ;
while in my teaching, which they charge with having
depraved them, the word ' sacrifice ' is used ' passively '
for that which is * offered.' " J
Again : ' ' It were a grave offence to teach any error,
* Bishop Forbes, Primary Charge, pp. 48-50.
t Italics ours.
J Idem, Theological Defence, p. 13.
440 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
on matters of faith ; but that I should have been sup
posed to contravene these simple and fundamental
truths of the Gospel — on which our only hope of Sal
vation depends — which I have ever taught — and for
which — with my last breath — I hope to bless my GOD
— this is, indeed, passing strange. Need I assert,
then, that I do, from the bottom of my heart, hold and
believe that 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 that there is none other satisfaction for sin
but that alone ? I believe and confess that GOD did
give His only SON JKSUS CHRIST to suffer death upon
the Cross for our Redemption, Who, by His own obla
tion of Himself once offered, made a full, perfect, suffi
cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of
the whole world, and did institute, and in His holy
Gospel command us to continue a perpetual memorial
of that His precious Death and Sacrifice till His coming
again.
" I believe that He, by this single oblation on the
Cross, consummated, or made a consummate obla
tion, paid a consummate and perfect price for our re
demption and satisfaction, whereby, as by a boundless
and inexhaustible fountain, to be effectual always, and
even to the end of the world, yea, to all eternity, He
should perfect those who are sanctified ; so that though
an infinite number of men should be born, and commit
an infinite number of sins, no other oblation should be
needed for their redemption and sanctification, but for
that end this single oblation on the Cross should suf
fice, by the application of which all should be com
pletely justified.
"This single Sacrifice on the Cross is universal
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 44!
and all-powerful. This alone is meritorious. To it
CHRIST Himself in His Eternal Intercession addeth
nothing. . . . Briefly, then, I hold and confess,
that the Holy Communion is actively the commem
oration of the most precious Death and Sacrifice of
JESUS CHRIST ; but all this is perfectly compatible
with the belief that passively the Sacrifice, i. e., that
which is offered and presented to Almighty GOD, is the
Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST, and therefore, in
virtue of the hypostatic union, JESUS CHRIST Him
self." *
In treating of our LORD'S Mediatorial work in
heaven, in regard to which the Bishop quotes passages
from Jeremy Taylor given in the last chapter, we find
the following :
1 ' The question . . . will then be, whether it is
erroneous to say that the sacrifice in heaven is the same
substantially with the Sacrifice of the Cross. I need
not say that I here use sacrifice in the passive sense.
Is there then a sacrifice in this sense at this moment
in heaven ? " f
The Bishop then refers to the ritual of the Day of
Atonement, and says :
" Of the first of these functions [the slaying of the
victim outside the Tabernacle, which is called making
* an atonement ' (Lev. xvi. 6)], the sacrificial action
wrought upon the Cross is confessedly the Antitype.
Of the latter [the sprinkling of the blood within the
Holy of holies] the Antitype is distinctly described
in the Epistle to the Hebrews to be the appearing
(s^cpaviGdrfvai) of our LORD before His FATHER in
the heavenly Sanctuary. Now, if the presentation of
* Bishop Forbes, Theological Defence^ pp. 15, 16.
t Ibid., pp. 64, 65.
442 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the victim's blood within the Holy of holies can be
called an act of oblation and sacrifice, the same term
must of necessity apply to the antitypical act, viz., our
LORD'S entering into heaven once for all, at once the
High Priest and the Victim.
" But it is certain that the typical act in this case
is spoken of in Scripture not only as an act of offer
ing (o npofftpepei, Heb. ix. 7), but also as, we per
ceive, 'making an atonement,' — that our Blessed
LORD, then, does not 'make a propitiation,' but ' is
the Propitiation for our sins,' that He is that Pro
pitiation by virtue of that Body which He once of
fered for the sins of the whole world upon the Cross ;
that that Body, wounded for our transgressions, does
and 'must,' by its very presence, 'plead' with the
FATHER ; its Being ' pleads ; ' the sight of the Lamb
which was slain ' pleads.'
"It is therefore certain even thus far that our
LORD'S present Being in heaven has a sacrificial,
nay, a propitiatory character, not as making a pro
pitiation, but as propitiating the FATHER, in that He
continually, as our High Priest, presents and pleads
that active Sacrifice once made ; in other words,
that He is present in heaven as the Propitiation for
our sins, i. e., as the Sacrifice in the passive sense,
in that He causes the FATHER to be at one with us
severally, one by one, generation after generation, by
virtue of that Sacrifice which He continually pleads.
His Death upon the Cross atoned for the sins of the
whole world. The sins of the whole world were laid
upon Him then. But the merits of that One Atoning
Death are applied continually, and pleaded, and made
available to all who shall be saved, through His con
tinual Intercession. Who would sav that he should
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 443
have been saved by that Atoning Death, apart from,
the continual Presence of our LORD at the right hand
of GOD to intercede for him ? It were plain blasphemy.
For it would be to say that that Intercession was some
thing superfluous and unnecessary.
" It will be obvious that in Leviticus atonement
is predicated of the sprinkling of blood in this sense,
that it was the presentation before GOD of the sat
isfactory virtue of the action performed outside the
veil;* so that then it was one work 'under two
aspects,' which partook of a deep mysterious 'iden
tity.' The mactation of the victim was not repeated
within the Holy of holies, but it was applied and
made effectual for those in whose behalf it was of
fered. ... In Heb. viii. 3, we are told that
He, whose present action as High Priest has in the im
mediate context been set forth, must necessarily have
something also to offer. I must call attention to the
emphatic word ' offer.' If the word ' intercede ' had
stood alone in Holy Scripture, it might have been
misunderstood. Our LORD'S Intercession is an act not
of mere prayer, but of oblation. And what has He to
offer ? Surely His Body and Blood — His sacred
humanity — that is, by virtue of the hypostatic union,
Himself, really present under natural conditions at the
FATHER'S Right Hand." f
The Bishop also refers to a passage in a sermon of
his on Manasseh, from which we cite the following iv. A passage
extract : from his
" The adorable and Blessed SON of GOD and Man,
. has entered into the heaven of heavens, there
to appear in the Presence of GOD for us. There, upon
* Italics ours.
f Bishop Forbes, Theological Defence, pp. 64-66.
444
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
v. A review of
the Bishop's
teaching :
(i) That the S.
of the Cross is
complete ;
(2) that the K.
S. is substan
tially the same
as that of the
Cross;
(3) that our
LORD'S whole
life has a sacri
ficial charac-
ter;
the celestial altar, He is presented as the Lamb that
was slain — our Propitiation ; and yet at the same mo
ment He is presenting His Passion and our prayers to
the FATHER — our Advocate. ... A door is opened
in heaven, and within the Holy of holies, by the celes
tial altar, JESUS, the High Priest of the New Law,
and the Victim of Eternal Propitiation, pleads His Pas
sion before the King of kings, offers the devotions of
an adoring universe, and obtains eternal Redemption
for us. " *
We have now before us the fullest exposition of the
Tractarian view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. And we
may note :
(1) That in regard to the Sacrifice of the Cross no
language can be clearer than that which the Bishop
uses to express his belief that it was absolutely com
plete, a perfect and finished Sacrifice. Here, there
fore, there is no support for Mr. Brightman's view
that only the initial act of the Sacrifice took place
upon the Cross.
(2) That the Eucharist, as a Sacrifice, is connected
directly with the Sacrifice of the Cross, so that, as the
Bishop says, it is substantially the same Sacrifice in a
passive sense ; actively it is the dva^vrfffiz TIJS BvfftaS,
the memorial of that Sacrifice. This, therefore, ill ac
cords with the theory that in the Eucharist we have
" the reproduction on earth, not of the moment of the
Cross, but of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven."
(3) While insisting in the strongest language that
the Sacrifice was finished and the Atonement complete
in itself upon the Cross, the Bishop adds that our
LORD'S whole life was " a continual sacrifice, com
mencing at the first moment of His Conception, . . .
* Bishop Forbes, Theological Defence., pp. 67, 68.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 445
consummated and slain upon the altar of the Cross,
and now carried by Himself, as the Melchizedecan
Priest, within the veil, and perpetually pleaded and
presented by Him there to the Eternal FATHER, and
in image by the Church on earth in the Holy Sacra
ment." *
From the use of the term/a^ Sacrificium, the Bishop (4) But that the
is evidently here quoting from the Pseudo-Overall and exPression
J ''celestials."
Cassander, and is setting forth an aspect of our LORD'S is only used in
Intercession which was certainly held by the Tractari- a passive
ans, but which, as we have said, they drew, not from the
Fathers, but from some few of the Anglican divines,
and this at most can only claim mediaeval authority.
The Bishop, however, is most careful to point out that
in speaking of this celestial sacrifice he is using the
word only in the passive sense. He says: " The quest
ion . . . will then be, whether it is erroneous to
say that the sacrifice of heaven is the same substan
tially with the Sacrifice of the Cross. I need not
say that I here use sacrifice in the passive sense. Is
there then a sacrifice in this sense at this moment in
heaven ? "f
No one ever doubted that there was a sacrifice in
heaven in this sense. As the Bishop of Brechin points
out, it is what S. John affirms when he says of our
LORD that " He is the Propitiation for our sins." He
is in heaven what He was on the Cross, the Lamb of
GOD which taketh away the sins of the world, the
Eternal Victim. This, however, is very different from
the modern contention that our LORD in an active
sense is offering sacrifice in heaven, and that the Eu
charist is a sacrificial act, not because it is identical
* Bishop Forbes, Primary Charge, p. 50.
f Idem, Theological Defence, pp. 64, 65.
446 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
with that of the Cross, but because of its reproduction
of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven.*
The affinity of The Bishop of Brechin's views on this point seem to
kave some affinity with those expressed by John John-
son in The Unbloody Sacrifice. We have called atten
tion to the heretical character of some of the statements
of this writer, and it should be noted that in three
but the Bp. in places in his Defence the Bishop of Brechin uses expres-
three places sions which show that he does not desire to identify
seems to dis- .,-.,,
own Johnson's himself with Johnson s views. After quoting a passage
views. from Johnson, in which the force of the word " me
morial," or ardfiivr/ffig, is discussed, he says : " Now
let me be understood here to claim Johnson simply for
that for which I allege him, as an exponent of the
word ' memorial,' or avdjAvriaig." f Again, after
saying that he finds some statements from writers of
very different schools put together ready to his hands
by Johnson in The Unbloody Sacrifice, he adds : " I
would only premise, that I here simply take the collec
tion, as it stands, of ancient writers, without any sanc
tion from Johnson's work." J And, treating of the
Nonjurors, the Bishop of Brechin says : " I am not the
person to undervalue their testimony to truth and
honesty. . . . On the contrary, every feeling of
early veneration has been enlisted on their side, but it
is no true kindness to their memory to place their testi
mony in an unduly prominent position. They are but
* In treating of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in his work on the
XXXIX. Articles, issued seven years later, Bishop Forbes
makes the same distinction, and this work is well known to
have received the approval of Dr. Pusey. (Forbes, XXXIX.
Articles, pp. 617, 618.)
f Bishop Forbes, Theological Defence, p. 21.
J Ibid., p. 57.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 447
one school of opinion within the Anglican Church,
though a school that deserves much consideration from
the piety, learning, and self-sacrifice of its adherents.
If we consider the circumstances of the time,
as well as its theological literature, we shall come to
find that there were among the Nonjurors two lines
of theological thought upon the subject of the Holy
Eucharist ; that there existed in the school synchron
istically, and sometimes even in the same minds, at the
same time, two currents of belief on these most mysteri
ous subjects.
"There was first the continuation of the school
of Laud, Overall, and Andrews, which, through San-
croft, was still naturally represented in a body, that
was the legitimate successor of the school of High
Church divines, which had sprung up in reaction
against the Calvinistic school of Abbott. This school
held, with more or less distinctness, that the Holy
Eucharist consisted of two parts, a signum and a signa-
tum [significatum], — that the signum was bread, the
significatum the Body of CHRIST, and therefore CHRIST
Himself.
" The other school owed its existence to one man of
great genius, John Johnson, the Vicar of Cranbrook, in
Kent. His theory was that the Body of our LORD,
which had been conceived by the HOLY GHOST, and
born of the Virgin Mary, had ascended into heaven,
there to remain till the restitution of all things ; but
that, in the divine mysteries, on Consecration, the
HOLY GHOST descended upon the gifts of bread and
wine which had been offered in sacrifice to GOD,
and, joining Himself with them, made them the Body
and Blood of CHRIST in power and efficacy. Johnson's
ability immediately formed a great school, among which
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Bp. Forbes
makes two ad
missions in
regard to John
son's view
which are its
condemnation.
Conclusion :
An examin
ation of the
Tractarian
writings dis
closes a recog
nition of a rela
tion between
the H. E. and
our CORD'S
Intercession,
but the K. S.
is explicitly
and directly
connected
with that
of the Cross.
The Tracta-
rians would
therefore have
repudiated the
more extreme
form of the
Modern view.
he numbered Bishop Hickes. From this time we find
those peculiar expressions of authoritative representa
tives, etc., which hitherto are, I believe, to be sought
for in vain among the earlier divines." *
In this passage Bishop Forbes makes two most im
portant admissions : first, that the school of Johnson
did not represent the teaching of the school of Laud,
Overall, and Andrews, but owed its existence to the
genius of one man, Johnson himself ; and, second, that
its peculiar views " are to be sought in vain among the
earlier divines."
And this is its condemnation, for Churchmen surely
cannot accept a view which owes its existence to the
genius of one man, whether he be Socinus, Johnson, or
one of their more reecnt representatives.
As a result of our examination of the Tractarian
position, we believe we are justified in saying that
while there is found in their writings an undoubted
recognition of a relation between the Holy Bucharist
and our LORD'S Mediatorial work, which is regarded
by them as in a sense sacrificial, yet the sacrificial as
pect of the Eucharist is in no way made to depend on
this. On the contrary, it is explicitly connected
directly with the Offering on the Cross, and that not
merely through its relation with the Intercession in
heaven.
We further believe that the teaching of the modern
school, implying as it does an incomplete Sacrifice on
Calvary (which is virtually calling in question the
Doctrine of the Atonement upon the Cross), would
have been repudiated by the Tractarians as emphatic
ally as their disciple and representative, Dr. L,iddon,
repudiated the teachings of a section of that school in
* Bishop Forbes, Theological Defence, pp. 112, 113.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS. 449
regard to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and as
others* have repudiated its view of the Kenosis as
impugning our L,ORD'S Incarnation.
* Among whom Dr. Liddon would have certainly been found
had he lived a year longer.
29
CHAPTER XII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
introductory: T ~T Tjj have now before us evidence gathered from
Y Y all the different fields in which testimony to
the Eucharistic Sacrifice is found, and we are
therefore in a position to draw some conclusions from
our investigations.
i. Three points I. There are three points which we may consider as
established: established beyond doubt by the consensus of the teach
ing of the whole Church at all times and everywhere :
d) The E. is a (i) The fact that the Eucharist is a sacrifice; (2) that it
s>> depends for its sacrificial character on its relation to
(2) whose char
acter depends our LORD'S Sacrifice upon the Cross ; (3) and that no
on the s. ofthe theory which attempts to explain the mode in which
(s) no'theory the Eucharist is a sacrifice can claim to be in any sense
of the mode rfc fide,
summary of ^or, to sum UP tne results of our investigation of
the results of Holy Scripture, the liturgies, the Fathers, mediaeval
tion"1" ' lga" writers, Anglican divines, and Tractarians :
1. of Holy i. From Holy Scripture we learn that the Holy
cnoture, Eucharist is a sacrifice in that it is the showing forth
of our LORD'S Death. Moreover, there is no passage
in Holy Scripture which directly or indirectly connects
the Eucharistic Sacrifice with our LORD'S action in
heaven.
2. of the lit- 2. The liturgies bear evidence to the sacrificial char-
urgies,
450
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 451
acter of the Holy Eucharist, but while they speak of a
heavenly altar, the adjectives they use to qualify it
show that they use this term in a figurative, not in a
literal sense.
3. The Fathers distinctly teach that the Holy Kuchar- 3. of the
ist is a sacrifice, but they formulate no theory in re- I
gard to the nature of the sacrificial act. They relate
the Eucharist exclusively to the Passion and Death of
our LORD upon the Cross, and never associate it with
our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven. This work
they regard not as an offering of His Passion in heaven,
but as the presence of His glorified Humanity, — His
Humanity itself pleading with GOD for us. They
speak of our LORD in heaven as the Victim or Sacrifice
in the passive sense of the word, but never of Him
as offering sacrifice there. Indeed S. Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and Euthymius explicitly disclaim this
idea. They speak of our LORD'S sacred Humanity as
an altar from which rise up the prayers and offerings
of the whole Church.
4. The mediaeval writers, while carefully relating the 4 of medieval
sacrificial act in the Holy Eucharist to the Sacrifice on wntsrs'
the Cross, introduce the conception of our LORD'S
Mediatorial work as a pleading of His Passion in
heaven, and mystically interpret, not the Eucharistic
Sacrifice, but the prayers and ceremonies of the liturgy
by the ritual of the Day of Atonement, and take them
as representing our LORD'S life on earth and His In
tercession in heaven ; they do not, however, make the
sacrificial character of the Eucharist in any way to
depend upon this.
5. The Anglican divines, with few exceptions, re- 5. of Anglican
gard the Eucharistic Sacrifice as commemorating and dmnes>
renewing the Death of our LORD on the Cross. The
45:
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Pseudo-Overall is the first to relate the Eucharist to the
Oblation in heaven, rather than to the Sacrifice of the
Cross, and the words he uses show that he is quoting
almost verbatim from Cassander, the earliest writer in
whom this conception is found, and probably its author.
This view is also set forth by Jeremy Taylor, although
he is more guarded in his statements. He does not in
any place say that the Eucharist is to be related rather to
the Intercession than to the Sacrifice of the Cross, and
in many passages speaks of the Church on earth offer
ing to GOD in the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Cross.
William Johnson, the author of The Unbloody Sacri
fice, is responsible for certain Nestorian and Socinian
theories in regard to the Eucharist, which have been
followed by some clergy in our own day. These Nes
torian tendencies are well exposed by Keble in his
Consider a tions. *
6. The Tractarian writers for the most part followed
the teaching of the Fathers, and taught the identity
(quoad substantiam) of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist
and of the Cross, using the term "sacrifice" in its
passive sense. In this sense also, like the Fathers,
they speak of our L,ORD as a perpetual Victim or
Sacrifice in heaven.
As we have said, the historical treatment of the sub-
that no theory • t s^ows tkat no theory in regard to the mode of the
of the mode of J J ,
the3.s.is"de Eucharistic Sacrifice can claim to be de fiae ; so that
while the view so well expressed by Bossuet, that the
sacrifice consists precisely in the Consecration, would
be accepted by the theologians of the East, such as
Cabasilas and Macarius, and in the West by Ro
man theologians and by most of those in the Church
of England who recognize that the Eucharist is in any
* Keble, Considerations •, pp. 222-247.
6. of Tracta
rian writers.
History shows
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 453
sense a sacrifice ; yet we must remember that even this
is only a theological opinion, whose weight depends
upon the practical consensus of every part of the Catho
lic world, but which cannot claim the authority of
antiquity.
While fully admitting that no theory on the sub- some theories,
ject is defide, we must also assert that some theories however, are
control
may be contra fidem , in that they conflict with the ac-
cepted dogmas of the Catholic Faith. Of this we have
an example in the more extreme view of the modern
school as set forth by Mr. Brightman, which conflicts for they con-
not merely with some theories of the Atonement, but flictwith*he
doctrine of the
with the very foundation of the doctrine of the Atone- Atonement.
ment itself, namely, that upon the Cross our LORD
offered the full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice by
which the world was redeemed.
We must, however, recognize that there are many The modem
who, while inclining to that part of the Modern view
which associates the Bucharistic Sacrifice with our
LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven, entirely reject the
dangerous and objectionable features of the theory.
Indeed we may trace no less than four different divis
ions of the Modern school, three of which recognize three of which
the Sacrifice of the Cross as perfect in itself. are entirely
orthodox.
There is the view with which Overall's name is un- The school of
warrantably associated : that the Sacrifice of the Cross Cassacder«
is not so much remembered in the Eucharist, though
it is commemorated, as regard is had to the perpetual
and daily offering of it by CHRIST now in heaven in
His everlasting Priesthood.* While this view in no
way conflicts with the Atonement, it can claim ab
solutely no support either from Holy Scripture, the
Fathers, or theologians, and it seems to depend solely
* Cf. pp. 343, 344-
454
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
of I^epin,
of Drs.
Scheeben and
Schanz.
These differ
not only in
degree but in
kind from the
extreme Mod
ern view.
on the authority of Cassander. Certainly no one be
fore his day taught that in the Kucharist a remembrance
was not so much made of the Sacrifice of the Cross as of
our LORD'S offering in heaven. Nor can any proof be
adduced for this opinion.
Then there is the very beautiful theory of Dr. Lepin,
who, regarding our LORD'S whole life on earth and in
heaven as one perpetual sacrifice, sees in the Kucharist
an accidental relation to our LORD'S offering in heaven,
although he carefully teaches that its essential relation
is to the Sacrifice of the Cross alone, and that on this
its sacrificial character depends, and explicitly rejects
the extreme Modern view of Mr. Brightman.*
Again, there is the view of Dr. Scheeben and Dr.
Schanz, who recognize in our LORD'S Mediatorial work
a virtual though not an actual sacrifice with which they
associate the Kucharist. These last two theories, while
lacking antiquity, are entirely within the limits of
sound theological opinion ; but they all differ not only
in degree but in kind from Mr. Brightman's view, in
that they all fully recognize that on the Cross our LORD
offered the full and perfect Sacrifice by which man's
salvation was secured, and that to that Sacrifice nothing
can be added. The objection is frequently made that
the Death of CHRIST has been too entirely isolated
from His life, and regarded as though it alone were the
Atonement ; whereas the obedience of our LORD'S
whole life must be included in His Atoning work.
There is doubtless much truth in this criticism, but
we must beware lest it carry us too far ; for although
we may admit that, from the moment of His Concep
tion to the day of His Death our LORD'S whole life was
sacrificial, in that it was the continuous offering to
* Cf. p.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 455
His FATHER of a perfect obedience, of an entire con
formity of His human Will to GOD'S Will, and His
whole life therefore being meritorious, yet we must
hold that this interior sacrifice of our LORD'S Will
culminated and found its full expression in the Sacrifice
of the Cross, which, as a definite and external act,
completed in time, was a full, perfect, and sufficient
Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
That which followed, the Resurrection, the Ascen
sion, the life of glory, added nothing to this Sacrifice,
and our LORD'S Intercession at the Right Hand of the
FATHER is not meritorious but is rather the fruit of
His Sacrifice, the application of His merits. So that it
is quite possible to regard our LORD'S whole life and
work as included in His Atonement, and summed up
and finished on the Cross, without accepting the Socin-
ian doctrine that the sacrifice was not offered on the
Cross but in heaven after the Ascension.
II. The purpose of this work is not to put forth or to n. There are
defend any theory in regard to the mode of the Huchar- three poison
. . , . which we shall
istic Sacrifice, but rather to gather together material express an
from which each for himself may be able to form an option :
opinion upon three points :
1. What views must be denied as conflicting with i. what views
dogmas which form an essential part of that great body ^t be denied
of truth which we call the Catholic Faith. fidem;»
2. What views may be held, which, while lacking 2. what may
antiquity, are not inconsistent with Catholic truth, beheldas
j not contra
and have the authority of many names of great
weight.
3. What views must be affirmed as necessarily com- 3. what must
prised in the Catholic Faith and clearly set forth in the
formularies of the Church of England.
It will perhaps facilitate the use of this chapter for
456 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
purposes of reference if we express these points in a
series of concise theological propositions under the
three heads which we have indicated, and then add
some remarks upon the general subject.
i. propositions i. Propositions which must be denied as conflicting
"contra with some doctrine of the Catholic Faith :
i. That the s. i- It must be denied that in any sense the Sacrifice
of the cross of the Cross was imperfect or unfinished, or that by
orun'finihed ; anything our lyORD does now in His Mediatorial office
He adds anything to the fulness and sufficiency of the
Sacrifice which He offered once for all and finished
upon the Cross.
ii. that the s. of ii. It must be denied that the Sacrifice of the Altar
the Altaruc™- consists in aught else than the " doing " of that which
else than doing our LORD Himself did, and commanded His Apostles
what our ^ to continue, namely, the taking of bread, and the con-
consecrating6 ' secrating it into His Body, the taking of wine in the
bread into His cup, and the consecrating it into His Blood. Hence it
a^msBioodt must be denied that this Consecration of the Body and
and that in our Blood of the lyORD under diverse species, as severed
*<ORD'S Inter- by death, has any counterpart in our LORD'S Media-
cession there is J ...
any counter- torial work in heaven ; and it likewise must be denied
part to this ^at it finds its counterpart anywhere save in His
Consecration ;
Sacrifice on the Cross.
in. that the iii. It must be denied that the mere presence of a
mere presence once sacrificed Victim is a proper sacrifice, — that is, in
of a once sac-
rificed victim the active sense of the word. Our L,ORD s glorified
isa "proper" Humanity, sitting at the Right Hand of the FATHKR
and now appearing in the Presence of GOD for us, is
analogous to His Presence in the Reserved Sacrament,
but not to the act of Consecration, which is the act of
sacrifice.
iv. that our iv. It must therefore be denied that in the proper
I'ORD sense our LORD offers any sacrifice in heaven, or that
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.
457
He there exercises that function of His Priesthood.*
For revelation assures us that He has committed to the
priesthood on earth the ministry of reconciliation, f
through which priesthood, in the Church on earth
alone, He actively offers sacrifice. \
2. Propositions which may be admitted as entirely
consistent with the Catholic Faith :
i. It may be admitted that in a mystical and very
true sense there is an altar in heaven, from which rise
up before the Almighty TRINITY all the prayers, alms,
and sacrifices of the whole Church, Militant, Expect
ant, and Triumphant. Most of the Fathers consider
this altar to be our LORD'S Sacred Humanity.
ii. It may be admitted that, since the presence of the
Sacred Humanity always pleads for us with the Divine
Majesty, our LORD may be properly in mystery styled
a perpetual Oblation, and that in this sense there is in
heaven now a perpetual Oblation.
iii. It may be admitted, too, that our LORD is a Sac
rifice in heaven, since He is the Lamb which was once
offered in sacrifice for us. And in this sense, using the
word "sacrifice" as the equivalent of "victim," it
must be admitted that there is now, and that there will
be to all eternity, a Sacrifice in heaven.
3. Propositions which must be affirmed as necessarily
comprised in the Catholic Faith and clearly set forth in
the formularies of the Church of England :
i. It must be affirmed that on the Cross our LORD
offered, once for all, a full, perfect, and sufficient
* S. Chrys., In Heb., horn, xiii., 3 ; Euthym. Zig., In Heb.t
c. vii., v. 27. For these passages, see pp. 261, 262.
f 2 Cor. v. 18-20.
t Theodoret, In Psalm., cix., 4 ; for the passage see pp. 261,
262.
' ' offers ' ' any
S. in heaven.
2. Propositions
not "contra
fidem : ' '
i. That there is
an altar in
heaven on
which are
offered the
oblations of
the Church ;
ii. that our
LORD may be
in mystery
styled a "per
petual Obla
tion ' ' in
heaven ;
iii. that our
LORD "is"
a Sacrifice in
heaven.
3. Propositions
necessarily
"defide:"
i. That our
LORD offered
458 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
upon the Cross Saciifice for the sins of the whole world, and that to this
L^sufficfent Sacrifice nothing can ever be added, by Him or by any-
s.; one else. And further, that this Sacrifice was sufficient
and superabundant as a satisfaction for all the sins of
men, both original and actual.
ii. that the E. ii. It must be affirmed that the Sacrifice of the Altar
frue iSUnotaan is a true' Pr°Per> and propitiatory Sacrifice, not absol-
absoiutes.,but ute, nor possessing any power in itself alone, but de-
efficacyon the rivillg a11 its efficacy from its relation to the Sacrifice
s. of the cross; of the Cross, of which it is the perpetual memorial
(avdpvriGis) and application.
m. that the iii. It m ust be affirmed that while in connection with
ofThTmyT06 tlle offering of this Sacrifice a grateful memory is made
teriesofour of all the mysteries of the LORD'S life ; and, in a sym-
andRtheSobte.' bolical wa>r' gifts like those of Abel and Melchisedec
tions and inter- are offered and presented, and intercessions are made
cessions, are jn uujon with our lyORD's great Mediatorial work : yet
not essential . ' ' J
parts of the E. a^ these are mere accidental accompaniments of the
s., which con- Divine Sacrifice, and not its essential part, which con
sists only in . t - .,.,....
doing what our slsts» as we have said, only in doing that which the
LORD did and LORD did, and which He commanded us to do when
comman s Re instituted thig Sacrament.
These state- In making these affirmations and denials, we believe
^cu^toan tliat we are not followin§ any particular school, nor
school, but be- accepting the opinions of any individual teachers,
long alike to whether ancient or modern; but that we are simply
the teaching of r J
every part of following the express words of Divine revelation as in-
the church. terpreted by the Church in all ages, alike by its litur
gies, its Fathers, and its theologians. And therefore
we affirm that this is the only doctrine which can be
held by us with loyalty to the principles of the Church
of Kngland.
An expiana- In the ten foregoing propositions we have summed
up in a concise form the dogmatic conclusions which
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 459
seem warranted by the evidence collected in the various port of the
fields of investigation which we have explored in this p° opg0°sitkms in
work. At the risk, however, of some repetition, and their relation
to moder
theories.
to avoid misunderstanding, it seems expedient again to *
go over these propositions, with a view to explaining
their purport more fully.
The first four are purely negative, and are intended
to meet certain modern views which involve a virtual
denial of the doctrine of the Atonement as the Catholic
Church has always received the same. We refer, of
course, to that theory of our LORD'S Sacrifice which
sees in His Death upon the Cross " only the initial act
of the Sacrifice the other acts of which our LORD is
perpetually fulfilling in heaven."
This theory, as we have many times shown, is based
upon an interpretation of the typical acts of the Jewish
high priest on the Day of Atonement, absolutely un
known to the Fathers and mediaeval theologians, and
invented by Socinus as the keystone of his system of
Christology. Certain modern theologians, mostly be
longing to schismatical communions, probably quite
ignorant of the true authorship of this theory, and in
one instance apparently assigning it to Grotius,* have
elaborated it and presented it in an attractive form, in
which it has been unwittingly adopted by some mem
bers of our own Communion.
This theory, tested by the appeal to antiquity, falls
at once. Tested by the doctrine of the Atonement,
as taught in Holy Scripture, by the theologians of the
Catholic Church, in the Articles of Religion, and in
the Consecration Prayer of our own Church, it must be
condemned as absolutely inconsistent with the Catholic
Faith. Traced to its source, it is associated with the
* Milligan, The Ascension, etc., p. 72.
460 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
most dangerous heresy which has attacked the Church
since the Reformation.
If it be urged as against this, that the supporters of
this theory think they find it in the Kpistle to the He
brews, surely it is sufficient to reply that it is found in
no commentary on the Bpistle to the Hebrews before
the sixteenth century, in no interpretation of it by any
Father or writer, and that it is explicitly rejected by
the best commentators of the present day. The only
noteworthy exception is Alford, who adopts the novel
opinion of Bengal, a novelty so startling as to be gen
erally repudiated even by the most advanced exponents
of the Modern view.
i. If the first four negative propositions be read in
the light of this explanation, their purport and import
ance will be evident.
i. We must deny that in any sense the Sacrifice of
the Cross was imperfect or unfinished ; for if our LORD
did not there perform the essentially sacrificial act,
which was typified in the Jewish Law by the presenta
tion of the blood,* the Death upon the Cross was not
only an incomplete and unfinished Sacrifice, but, as
Socinus justly points out, was no sacrifice at all.
ii. We must deny that the Sacrifice of the Altar con
sists in aught else than the doing of that which our
LORD Himself did and commanded His Apostles to
continue, namely, the Consecration of bread and wine
into His Body and Blood. This Consecration of the
Body and Blood of the LORD (under separate species,
and therefore as severed by death), which is the essen
tially sacrificial act, certainly has no counterpart in any-
* This must not be confounded with the application of the
blood of a finished sacrifice to certain things and places. Cf.
. xxix. 36, 37 ; I,evit. xvi. 33 ; Heb. ix. 21, 22.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 461
thing which revelation teaches us that our LORD is
doing in His Mediatorial work in heaven. It finds its
counterpart, as S. Paul tells us, and as the Fathers and
the Church have always testified, solely in that which
our LORD did, when He shed His Blood for us upon the
Cross.
Those followers of the modern school, therefore,
who teach that the Eucharist is a sacrifice because
it reproduces on earth, " not the moment of the Cross,
but our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven," are con
tradicting the teaching of every part of the Church,
and can cite no earlier authority than Cassander, a
discredited Roman divine.
iii. We must deny that the mere presence of a once
sacrificed victim is a proper sacrifice, — that is, in the
active sense of the word. For if we seek an analogy
between our LORD'S glorified Humanity, sitting at the
Right Hand of the FATHER and now appearing in the
Presence of GOD for us, and His Sacramental Presence
in the Holy Eucharist, we shall certainly find that
analogy, not in the sacrificial act of Consecration, but
in His Presence in the Reserved Sacrament. Hence,
for those who hold this extraordinary view, that the
presence of a once-sacrificed victim is a sacrifice, there
can be no necessity for frequent celebrations of the Holy
Eucharist, since the Reserved Sacrament would supply
all their needs, not only for Communion, but, according
to their theory, for Sacrifice.
iv. We must deny that our LORD in any proper
sense, that is, in any active sense, offers sacrifice in
heaven, or that He there exercises that particular func
tion of His Priesthood. This function, the Fathers tell
us, He exercises through His Church on earth in
offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and in reconciling
462 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
sinners to GOD in the Sacraments of Baptism and Pen
ance.
We have already pointed out* that on the Day
of Atonement the purpose for which the high priest
entered the Holy of holies was not to offer sacrifice, for
sacrifices were offered outside, in the tabernacle of the
congregation, the blood being sprinkled, in the Holy
place, before the veil of the Sanctuary, some of it put
upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense, which
was also in the tabernacle of the congregation, and
then all the blood poured out at the bottom of the
altar of burnt offering, which was at the door of the
tabernacle of the congregation, f
The normal place, therefore, for the offering of sac
rifice was the tabernacle of the congregation, which
represented, not heaven, but the Church on earth.
When the high priest went into the Holy of holies
once a year, he offered the sacrifice as usual without
the Sanctuary, even putting the blood of the bullock
and of the goat upon the horns of the altar round
about, and as usual sprinkling the blood with his
finger seven times. J It is true that in addition to this
he carried some of the blood into the Holy of holies and
sprinkled it before the Mercy-Seat, as the Kpistle to
the Hebrews tells us, thereby signifying that it was
only through blood that access could be had to GOD.
But the purpose of his entering the Holy of holies was
not to offer sacrifice, but to appear in the presence of
GOD for the people, to typify our LORD'S Mediatorial
work, which was not an offering of blood, but an in
tercession. And this intercession was typified by the
breastplate of the high priest, on which were engraved
the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. For his
* Pp. 124, 125. f Lev. iv. 5-8. % Lev. xvi. 18, 19.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 463
presence in the Holy of holies with the names of the
people upon his heart (not the sprinkling of the
blood) was the type of our LORD'S Intercession.
2. The next three propositions deal with doctrines
which are admittedly and entirely consistent with the
Catholic Faith.
i. We do not deny that in a mystical and very
true sense there is an altar in heaven, from which
rise up before the Almighty TRINITY all the prayers,
alms, and sacrifices of the whole Church, Militant,
Expectant, and Triumphant. But we, with the
Fathers, theologians, and Tractarians,* consider this
altar to be our LORD'S Sacred Humanity. He is the
Head of the Church ; in Him is summed up and offered
all that the Church offers. This does not imply any
literal altar in heaven ; any other altar, indeed, than
our LORD'S Humanity. As the Fathers so often say,
He is the Priest, He is the Victim, He is the Altar.
The distinction is only in thought. It is simply our
LORD Himself regarded from three different points of
view.
ii. We do not deny that, since the Presence of the
Sacred Humanity always pleads for us with the Divine
Majesty, our LORD may be properly in mystery styled
a perpetual Oblation, and that in this sense there is in
heaven now a perpetual Oblation. This pleading, or
intercession, as the Fathers so often point out, is not
so much an utterance of words as the presence of our
LORD'S glorified Human Nature. Once again, to quote
Kuthymius, " His very Humanity pleads with the
FATHER for us." But this does not imply a pleading
of His Passion in any sense of representing His wounds.
Such a thought is entirely unknown to the Fathers. f
* P. 427. | See Bishop Westcott's statement, p. 552.
464 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
It appears in some Anglican writers, and even in Mr.
Keble's Sermons* but in the many passages from the
Fathers referring to the Kucharistic Sacrifice, adduced
by Mr. Keble in his Considerations, and by the Bishop
of Brechin in his Theological Defence ', not one contains
any such statement, and we may be sure that if such a
passage had been known to them it would have been
quoted.
iii. We do not deny that our LORD is a Sacrifice in
heaven, since He is the Lamb which was once offered
in Sacrifice for us, and in this sense, using the word
" sacrifice " as the equivalent of " victim," we admit
that there is now, and that there will be to all eternity,
a Sacrifice in heaven. This was the teaching of the
Fathers and the Tractarians, but it does not seem to be
the doctrine of the modern school, for they seek to find
some sacrificial act, by which our LORD actively offers
sacrifice, and generally claim to find it in the marks of
the wounds in His glorified Body.f
The fallacy of this we have already exposed. J For
our LORD is the Sacrifice, the Victim, only in the same
sense in which He will be the Victim to all eternity.
When time is no more, and all things have been brought
into subjection unto GOD, our LORD will still be " the
Lamb as it had been slain," whereas there will be no
more occasion for Him to plead for those who are
reigning with Him.
3. The last three propositions are affirmations, all of
which seem to us required by the clear teaching of the
Church Catholic.
i. We must affirm that on the Cross our LORD offered,
once for all, a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice for
the sins of the whole world, and that to this Sacrifice
* See p. 430. t See pp. 142, 143. % See pp. 143, 144.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 465
nothing can ever be added. And further, that this
Sacrifice was sufficient and superabundant for all the
sins of men, both original and actual.
This may seem to be merely identical (though put in
the affirmative) with the first negative proposition. It
is intended, however, to include more, and to meet in a
positive form the modern teaching that our LORD is now
offering a propitiatory Sacrifice for us in heaven, in the
sense that " He is fulfilling perpetually the other acts
of His Sacrifice, which were made possible by the initial
act of slaying the Victim."
We must repeat that there is no middle view possible
between the alternatives that our LORD offered a full,
perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice and Propitiation upon
the Cross, and that His Sacrifice and Propitiation there
were insufficient. The first is, of course, the Catholic
view, and is clearly expressed in our Prayer Book.
The view that our LORD after His Ascension into
heaven fulfils perpetually the other acts of His Sacrifice,
which were made possible by the initial act of slaying
the Victim must mean, if it means anything, that those
acts were not fulfilled upon the Cross.
And inasmuch as we have seen that those acts in
cluded the essentially sacrificial action typified by the
presentation of the blood, and that the slaying of the
victim was not even a necessarily priestly act, there
seems no escape from the conclusion that the Modern
view, as stated by Mr. Brightman, takes from our
LORD'S work on the Cross and adds to His work in
heaven, not merely the fulfilment of an unimportant
detail, but the essentially sacrificial action, the pre
sentation of the Blood, by which man was redeemed.
S. John tells us that our LORD is the Propitiation for
our sins. We understand by this that He made that
3°
466 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Propitiation once for all upon the Cross, and therefore,
in a passive sense, is now the Propitiation for our sins,
the application of this Propitiation to the individual
being ordinarily made through the ministries of His
Church on earth.
ii. We must affirm that the Sacrifice of the Altar is
a true, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice, not absolute
nor possessing any power in itself alone, but deriving
all its efficacy from its relation to the Sacrifice of the
Cross, of which it is the perpetual memorial and appli
cation. Here again, in positive form, we refute the
doctrines (i) that the Sacrifice of the Altar is in any
sense an absolute Sacrifice ; * (2) that it derives its
efficacy from its relation to our LORD'S work in
heaven ; f and (3) that it is not so much a commemora
tion of our LORD'S Death as that it rather suggests the
thought of His whole work. \
iii. We must affirm that, while in connection with
the offering of this Sacrifice a grateful memory is made
of all the mysteries of the LORD'S Life, and, in a sym
bolical way, gifts like those of Abel and Melchisedec
are offered and presented, and intercessions are made
in union with our LORD'S great Mediatorial work, yet
all these are mere accidental accompaniments of the
Divine Sacrifice, and not its essential part, which con
sists, as we have said, only in doing that which the
LORD did, and which He commanded us to do, when
He instituted this Sacrament.
This last proposition merely affirms that while mys
tical language may be used of the accidental relation
between the Kucharistic Sacrifice and our LORD'S Inter
cession, we have no authority either in revelation or in
the teaching of the Church for placing the sacrificial
* See pp. 89-91. f Brightmau, pp. 12, 13. \ Ibid., p. 5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 467
character of the Eucharist in anything but in that
which our LORD commanded us to do, consecrating
bread and wine into His Body and Blood, by which we
" shew the LORD'S Death till He come."
III. As we began this book by pointing out the tend- m. Catholic
ency of human thought to swing from one extreme to j^f^g,S^dea
another, and the danger of exaggerated reaction in of truth,
theology as in all other departments of truth, so we end
with a warning to learn by the experience of the past,
and with an appeal to hold fast all truth.
It was a favourite maxim of an ancient writer that in
any dogma Catholic truth was to be found in the op
posite extremes. This is paradoxical, but, like many
paradoxes, it is quite compatible with fact. The very
term ' ' Catholic ' ' implies this, for we do not reach Cath
olic truth by developing a doctrine to its extreme on
one side, and then abandoning that and swinging to
the opposite pole, but by holding fast what is true on
both sides.
At the Reformation the doctrine of the Atonement Theexaggera-
was so exaggerated that it overshadowed other doc- *lonatthe Re-
formation, of
tnnes, and indeed one might say that the whole system the doctrine of
of Christianity was rearranged around this doctrine as theAtone-
, ment, which
a centre, so that almost every dogma was more or less was then made
coloured or modified by its supposed relation to our the foundation
T , 1 r -r> j i« and centre of
LORD s work of Redemption. an theology.
The Catholic revival was a recognition that this was
a great mistake, and that not the Atonement but the
Incarnation was the foundation doctrine on which the
Christian faith was based ; although the great leaders in correcting
of that revival in developing the dogmas of the Incarn- this- and sup"
plying what
ation never tor one moment lost their hold on the was lacking,
importance of the Atonement. In teaching the Incarn- we must not
ation as the foundation of Christianity they recognized
468
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the Tractari-
ans acted on
this principle.
In our day a
danger of giv
ing up truth in
response to a
popular
clamour,
which repre
sents the
' ' irreligious
conscience."
The attack not
limited to the
Atonement ;
the Incarna
tion also
assailed.
that the Atonement had its place, and while supplying
what was lacking they did not abandon what was true.
Indeed they saw underlying all the exaggerated teach
ing of the Reformation a great and saving truth, and
with real wisdom and justice they preserved the true
balance between these two doctrines.
In our own day, alas! the Atonement has been ob
scured; given up by many on the plea that it conflicts
with man's moral sense, with his sense of justice. The
answer to this of course is that it is not the Atonement,
but certain Protestant theories of the Atonement, which
are contrary to man's sense of justice. But this an
swer is often overlooked, and the trend of religious
thought now is to make little of what was once regarded
as the most important doctrine of Christianity.
And with the doctrine of the Atonement goes all that
severer side of Christianity which is so unpopular in
our own luxurious age, and the belief in eternal punish
ment. For indeed a belief in any real punishment of
sin offends what might be called the irreligious con
science ; ' ' the moral sense, ' ' that is, of those whose
standard of morality is not GOD'S revelation, but their
own inclinations and desires.
It is not, however, only the dogmas of the Atone
ment and of sin and its punishment which we find are
unpalatable to the world of to-day, but we see that the
Incarnation, while proclaimed as the basis of a reor
ganized Christianity, is emptied of its true meaning,
and for it is substituted a humanitarianism which, in
insisting on our LORD'S perfect Manhood, robs Him of
any real Godhead. For the theory that at the Incarn
ation our LORD, in order to become true man, parted
with certain attributes of His Godhead which were
supposed to be inconsistent with His Manhood (such as
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 469
Omnipotence and Omniscience) gives us an Incarnation
which is not a taking of the Manhood into GOD, but
the taking of part of the Godhead into man.
Alongside of this theological tendency is another — At the same
to develop, as the antithesis of the exaggerated doctrine tendenc^to a
of the Atonement, a view of our LORD'S life in glory, develop a view
which in its turn is made the centre of a theological °f our LORD'S
life in glory,
system, in relation to which the other dogmas of the which is made
faith are readjusted. In place of Christus pattern, it is the centre of a
^7 • i i TT , i • ir -,i new theology.
Lfinstus regnans ! Yet here, instead oi an antithesis,
we should see rather the complement, the fulfilment,
the perfection, of the entire CHRIST.
There is little doubt that the great truth, the life of
glory, has been obscured ; that in the early Church
Christians lived more in the realization of that heav
enly citizenship which is not a mere future reward, but
a present possession. It is very evident that such a Much that is
grasp of our communion and fellowship with the ^^^^^°^
Church Triumphant in the mystical Body of CHRIST allowed to con-
must be of immense help to us not only in bearing flict with other
the toil and sorrow of our exile here, but in imparting
to our prayers, devotions, and especially to our acts of
public worship, an intense reality and uplifting power.
It is also certain that the true doctrine of the
Kucharist implies this ; as S. Gregory says, " What
faithful soul can have a doubt but that at the
very moment of the immolation, at the voice of the
priest, the heavens are opened, in that n^stery of
JESUS CHRIST the choirs of angels are present, the
lowest are united with the highest, earthly things are
joined with heavenly, and things visible and invisible
become one ' ' ?
Let us, then, join with our brethren of the modern The value of a
school in teaching the helpfulness of the realization realization cf
4/o
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
our privileges
as fellow-citi
zens with the
Saints,
but this is not
the centre of
Christian
theology.
The Incarna
tion the centre;
its relation to
the Atonement
and to the
H. E.
The attraction
of the life of
glory,
but first must
come the life of
suffering.
(especially in our Kucharistic worship) of our privileges
as members of the mystical Body of CHRIST ; as fellow-
citizens of the Saints ; as partakers of a heavenly altar.
But in this teaching it is not necessary to readjust
the dogmas of the Christian faith to the demands of
nineteenth-century thought. While heaven is the goal,
and is in a sense our present possession, it is not the
centre around which the teachings of Christianity are
arranged. This centre is the Incarnation, of which
the Eucharist is an extension, and the Atonement a
fact rendered necessary by man's sin.
And again, let us recollect that our hearts are drawn
not only heavenward but that they are also drawn to
the Cross. When wre say with the Psalmist, " I will
lift up mine eyes unto the hills from whence cometh my
help," we raise our eyes to the hill of Sion, to the
throne of glory, where our great High Priest ever
liveth to make intercession for us ; and ever applies the
fruits of His one Sacrifice as the propitiation for our
sins. But we need to remember that there is another
hill to which we must also lift up our eyes ; not the
lofty hill of Sion, but the little hill of Calvary. Not to
the throne of glory only, but to our LORD, King and
Priest, reigning from the Tree, reigning from the
throne of shame.
We must lift our eyes to Calvary and learn what it
cost to redeem us, we must gaze upon the Sacrifice
offered once for all there, in which our LORD gave
Himself for us.
He said, " If I be lifted up out of the earth I will
draw all men unto Me. ' ' The words may be mystically
applied to the Ascension, but our LORD spoke them
literall}7 of the Passion. In our Kucharists, therefore,
as we lift up our hearts to heaven, we need to remember
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 471
that the Sacrifice of the Altar is not the commemor
ation of our LORD'S Intercession, however closely it
may be associated with Him in glory, but that it is the
re-presentation and renewal of His Sacrifice upon the
Cross; for when He instituted the Eucharist He said,
" Do this in remembrance of Me," and the inspired
words of Holy Scripture explain this act of remem
brance by adding, " As often as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He
come." In praying our Heavenly FATHER to accept
this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, we be
seech Him to grant that we and all the whole Church
may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits
of His Passion.
What has that Passion been to the struggling sinner ? The remem-
It is not the thought of our LORD'S life of glory which praas^0en0fs^e
draws the sinner to penitence. It is the thought of the force in our
arms outstretched upon the Tree of shame, the act of llves'
love by which He laid down His life for us ; for
" greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friend."
The Saints on earth lived in the contemplation of the and in the
life of glory, yet they never forgot the life of suffering ; °f the
they lived in the fellowship of the Saints around the
throne, and yet lived in the very presence of CHRIST
upon the Cross. What does the Crucifix mean to the
Christian Saint ? It is the mirror in which he sees
what his life on earth should be, the life of crucifixion ;
it is the narrow gate through which alone he can pass
into the wide realms of the kingdom beyond. What
was it that S. Paul declared he would preach and
preach alone ? CHRIST crucified. To what did he de
termine to confine his knowledge among the Cor
inthians ? To JESUS CHRIST and Him crucified.
472
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Let us, then, be Catholic in holding all sides of the
truth, and while not allowing the doctrine of the Atone-
Conclusion:
To be Catholic
we must hold
all sides of the meiit to obscure that of the Incarnation, or of the life
truth. jn glory, let us not keep changing from one to the
other, but let us hold the fulness of the faith ; for if,
like S. Paul, we glory only in the Cross of CHRIST, we
shall pass to the glory which is revealed through the
Cross of CHRIST.
The Incarnation is the foundation doctrine of Christ
ianity, the Atonement its consequence in the work of
redeeming fallen humanity in time, the life of glory its
consequence in the work of manifesting the possibilities
of redeemed humanity in eternity.
All are necessary articles of the Catholic faith, and
all are summed up in the Holy Eucharist, which is the
extension of the Incarnation, the memorial of the Pas
sion, and the means by which we are united with the
whole mystical Body of CHRIST in the heavenly wor
ship of the Church Triumphant.
APPENDIX A.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE SACRIFICIAL TERMS USED
IN LATIN, GREEK, AND HEBREW.
IN Latin the more common sacrificial terms are: i,atin sacrifi-
" sacrificare," "sacrificium facere," "rem divinam cialterms:
facere," "rem sacram facere," "victimas immo
lare," "hostias immolare," " csedere," and "immolare
quid" (Cic.); "hostiis rem divinam facere" and "hostiis
sacrificare" (Liv.); "mactare" (Suet); "sacra curare,"
" sacris operari," "res divinas peragere," "litare,"
" offerre." Of these the only words which need ex
amination are " sacrificare," " mactare," " litare," and
" immolare."
"Sacrificare," of course, explains itself: " aliquid "sacrificare.
sacrum facere offerendo."
" Mactare," which we have come to use so freely, in " Mactare."
the term ' ' mactation, ' ' for the slaughtering of victims,
has originally no such meaning. It is generally de
rived from " magis augere," as if " magis auctare,"
and its signification is, to magnify, extol, glorify,
honour, a deity with sacrifices ; to \vorship him. Later
it came to be employed as an euphemism for " occid-
ere," and hence our use of " mactation " for " slaugh
ter." AsPitisco says : " Olim eniin hostise immolatae
dicebantur mola salsa tactae : cum vero ictae, et ali
quid ex illis in aram datum, mactatse dicebantur per
473
474
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
laudationem, per ominis bonae significationem. Mact-
are est proprie magis augere. Prisca superstitione scaeva
proferre verba, ne vitiarentur facta, nefas erat. Kt hinc
mactare pro occidere." *
Utare." The derivation of " litare " (which, of course has no
connection with Us, litis, in Latin, or with \eirovpy 6$ in
Greek) becomes evident in its old spelling, " lutare,"
found in Plautus (Pcen., ii., 42) :
"Turn mejuppiter
Facial, ut semper sacrificem, nee umquam lutem ; "
and in Varro (Non., ii., 482): " Habes qui, etcujus rei
causa, facerem hecatombam ; in quo ego, ut puto,
quoniam est lucre, solvere, lutavi." " Lutare " is con
sidered a frequentative form of " lucre," and signifies,
to pay a debt due to the gods. It differs from " sacri-
ficare " in that ' ' sacrificare " is to seek for pardon;
" lutare " is to propitiate and perform a vow.f
immoiare." "Immolare," as its derivation signifies, is, to sprinkle
the victim with sacrificial meal. It is not used of the
" popa " or " victimarius," the inferior priest who
brought the victim to the altar and felled it with an axe,
but only of the priest who really offered the sacrifice.
Hence we see that, so far as Latin sacrificial terms
are concerned, none of them have in their intrinsic sig
nification any reference to slaughter, with the single
exception of " victimas caedere," which, however, is
not a common sacrificial expression, and conveys its
own meaning.
* Pitisco, Lexicon Antiquit. Rom., torn, ii., p. 510.
f "Sacrificare est veniam petere ; lutare est propitiare et
votum impetrare." — Pitisco, ibid., torn, ii., p. 470; also Vergil:
"Tu modo posce deos veniam, sacrisque litatis [i. e., impe-
tratis]." — Vergil, ^En., iv., 50.
EXAMINATION OF SACRIFICIAL TERMS. 475
The principal words which we have to consider in Greek sacrifi-
Greek are, Suaia, acpa&iv, nohiv and Ipdeiv, cialterms:
Ttpoffcpspeir and avcxcpzpeiv, heir ovpy sir, and Xar-
psveiv.
©vffia is, literally, the act of sacrificing or offering, "®wia."
and, hence, the sacrifice itself. Its root, Oveir, has as
its primary meaning, to sacrifice by burning. Aris-
tarchus observes that in Homer the word is only used
in the sense of offering or burning, and never of sacri
ficing.* In classical Greek a sacrifice is a tribute due
to the gods, in most cases something paid for gifts re
ceived or prayed for, compensation or amends for crimes
committed or duties neglected. Even the sin-offering
is, with the Greek writers, generally a simple act of
homage on man's part, which, like every other Soopov
or yspag, he accompanies with a prayer, or prayerful
statement of what he wishes to obtain from the divinity
in return for his gift. Svaicx, however, later comes to
represent the victim or offering itself, f and to be used
of the act of slaying a victim, J and so of slaughter. §
2cpa£,eiv. Here the meaning is distinctly " slaugh- "2<j>a£eu>.»
ter," properly, to slay by cutting the throat (I/at.
jugulare), used from Homer downwards, especially to
slaughter victims for sacrifice.
Holsiv and spdeiv, like facere in Latin, are simply u noiW,
general terms for " sacrifice." 6>6et"-"
n poo cps psiv and avacpepsiv. These two words
(like the Latin offerre) have, of course, as their root
meaning, simply the idea of offering, though applied
to sacrifices of all kinds. Their difference would seem
* Homer, Iliad, 1. ix., 219; Odyss., 1. xiv., 446.
f Luc., Sacrif., xii. ; Plut., Vitcs Parall., ii., 184 B.
\ Herodot., 1. i., 216; Pindar. Od. xiii., 96.
§ Herodot., 1. i., 126.
476 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
to be that in aracpzpeiv we have mainly the idea of an
offering made to GOD and placed upon His altar ; in
7tpo0(pepeivy that of an offering brought to GOD. In
the former, the thought of the destination of the offer
ing prevails; in the latter, that of the offerer in his rela
tion to GOD. 'Aracptpsiv, therefore, properly describes
the ministerial action of the priest, and TtpoffcpspSLV
the action of the offerer, although the distinction is not
observed universally.*
AziTovpyeiv has as its underlying conception " a
public work," from spy GO and the unused Aezros'. At
Athens it signified, to serve an expensive public office
at one's own cost, and generally, to perform public
duties ; sometimes, to serve a master ; and in late ec
clesiastical Greek, to minister as a priest, though in the
New Testament use of the word it is applied to services
rendered to GOD and to man, and that in the widest re
lations of social life. Thus, the officers of civil govern
ment are spoken of as \eirovpyol Qsov (Rom. xiii. 6).
S. Paul describes himself as \sirovpyos Xpiffrov tyffov
eig TOL e6v?i (Rom. xv. 16), in the discharge of his debt
to mankind and by virtue of his commission to proclaim
the Gospel (Rom. i. 5, 14). The priestly office of
Zacharias was a \eirovpyia (S. Luke i. 23). Prophets
and teachers performed a public service of the Church
to the LORD : \8irovpyovvToov avroor TGO Kvpicp
(Acts xiii. 2). In the widest sense, the whole life of a
Christian society becomes a sacrifice and ministry of
faith: si uca ffTtzvSof-iai eni rrf QvGict noii Xeirovpyinc
rrjz TtiffTSGoz v^v (Phil. ii. 17) ; to which the life-
blood of their teacher is as the accompanying libation ;
and in a narrower sense, the vessels of the Tabernacle
were " vessels of the ministry : " ra ffKSVtj rffi Xei-
* Cf. Westcott, Heb., vii., 27.
EXAMINATION OF SACRIFICIAL TERMS. 477
TOV pyiag (Heb. ix.2i). TheLevitical priests "served: "
\eirovpysiv (Heb. x. n); and CHRIST has obtained a
more excellent ministry: diacpopoorepas rtrvxsv \£ir-
ovpyiag (Heb. viii. 6), being a Minister of the Sanctuary
and of the true Tabernacle : TGOV ayicov Xeirovpyog
nal rfjz GHrfvffZ rrjt a\rj6ivrf? (Heb. viii. 2). The
\eirovpyia strictly rendered to man has an equally
broad character. The wealthy have a ministry to fulfil
towards the poor : ocpstkovffiv nal lv TOIZ aapxutoig
\£irovpyr}6ai avroig (Rom. xv. 27), the due accom
plishment of which brings wider blessings to the society :
rf diaxovia Trjz \£irovpyia$ ravrrfZ . . . loriv
Ttepiaaevovffa dia noK\(^v euxapiffTK&v TK>
(9fc5 (2 Cor. ix. 12). In the closer relations of the
Christian life a corresponding ministry has its place :
\eirovpy o$ rrfS jp«W J^ov (Phil. ii. 25); iva ava-
TtXr/pGoffy TO v}AGbv vffTspr/jua rr\£ npog ^ Xeirovpyiaz
(Phil. ii. 30). In ecclesiastical usage the word Xsirovp-
yia was used especially of the stated services of public
worship : of the Evening Service, of the Service of
Baptism, and especially of the Service of the Holy
Communion.*
Hence the \eirovpyoz did not necessarily exercise
his office by offering sacrifice. The term is of a far
wider signification, although in later ecclesiastical usage
'Xeirovpyia became the recognized title of the Holy
Eucharist.
Aarpsveiv also describes a Divine service, a service
to GOD or to gods, and the underlying idea implies
complete devotion of powers to a master, which lies in
the root of the word, harpi£7 latro, a hired servant. In
classical writers the word \arpzia is used of an absol
ute service, personal or moral. In the New Testament,
* Cf. Westcott, On Hebrews, p. 231
478
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Hebrew sacrifi
cial terms:
" Minchah."
Korban.'
1 Zebach.
as in the Septuagint, Xarpeia uniformly expresses a
Divine service, and in ecclesiastical usage expresses
that worship which can be offered to GOD alone.*
From an examination, therefore, of these sacrificial
words, we may observe that only one in its original
meaning, Gcpa^eiv, contains any notion of slaugh
ter. We must bear this carefully in mind when we
come to define the term " sacrifice."
If we now turn to the words used in reference to sacri
fice in the Old Testament, the most general appear to be :
(1) nn^p (Minchah), from the obsolete root \ njD, " to
give ; " used in Gen. xxxii. 14, 19, 21, of a gift from
Jacob to Esau ; in 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6; in i Kings v. i;
in 2 Kings xvii. 4, of a tribute from a vassal king ; in
Gen. iv. 3, 5, of a sacrifice generally; and in Lev. ii. i,
4, 5, 6, joined with the word "Korban," of an unbloody
sacrifice, or " meat-offering."
(2) J57\j5 (Korban), from the root Dip, "to approach; "
used with "minchah" in Lev. ii. i, 4, 5 ; generally
rendered in Greek by d&pov (cf. S. Mark vii. n : nop-
fiav, 6 sffri dobpav^), or npoGcpopa. The idea of a
gift is not prominent in the root. It is rather that
which is brought near or offered, corresponding to our
use of " oblation."
(3) I"OJ (Zebach), derived from the root PGT, " to
slaughter animals," especially, " to slay in sacrifice,"
refers especially to a bloody sar-ifice, one in which the
shedding of blood is the essential idea. It is thus con
trasted with " minchah " in Ps. xl. 7 (LXX. Ovaiav
nai Ttpoffcpopav'), and with " 61ah " (the "whole
* Cf. Westcott, Hebrews, note on viii. 22.
f The root does not occur elsewhere in Hebrew, but its use in
Arabic, in this sense, shows that it forms part of the common
Semitic vocabulary.
EXAMINATION- OF SACRIFICIAL TERMS. 479
burnt offering ") in Kx. x. 25, xviii. 12, etc. While
the expiatory idea of sacrifice would seem conspicuous,
the class D^rOT is wider than that of expiatory offerings,
and includes thank-offerings or peace-offerings (Lev.
iii. i, iv. 10), n^tp raj.
Distinct from these general terms, and yet often ap
pended to them, are the words denoting special kinds
of sacrifices :
(4) n^ty (Olah), from the root nby, " to ascend." It "6iah.»
symbolizes perfect consecration, and is the term for the
burnt-offering, which was wholly consumed by fire on
the altar, and the whole of which thus ascended in the
smoke to GOD.
(5) D!?$ (Shelem), from the root of the same form "to "Sheiem."
be in health, to be whole," is used to denote a "peace-
offering," or "thank-offering," which indicated that
the offerer was already reconciled to, and in covenant
with, GOD. Its ceremonial is described in Lev. iii.
(6) nNt^n (Chattath), from SDH, which signifies << chattath.
" to miss," or "to fail," " to err from a way," " to
sin." This root has the sense of "to sin" in the
parent Assyrian tongue.
(7) Dt^'S (Asham), " guilt or trespass offering," from
the root D$K, which is properly " to be guilty," hav
ing for its primary idea " obligation contracted through
wrong-doing."
Here again, in Hebrew, we find only one term the
primary idea of which is " slaughter," namely rcj.
And further, the slaying of the victim in itself was
necessarily a priestly act. It seems to have been norm
ally performed by the offerer (Lev. i. 5, iii. 2, 8, iv.
4, 24, 29, 33, etc.). When the priest stood in a repre
sentative position toward the congregation or offered for
himself or his order, he of course slew the victim.
APPENDIX B.
FAUSTUS SOCINUS:
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOUR."
PART II., CHAPTER XV.
" T N connection with the explanation of the passage
Hebrews ix. 13, 14, it is taught that the expiatory
offering of CHRIST was completed in heaven : from
the same passage the explanation is concluded of the
manner in which we are for ever freed from the punish
ment for our sins through the Death of CHRIST.
' ' Moreover, we must note that these words, ' He of
fered Himself without spot to GOD,' are not to be re
ferred to the Death on the Cross alone, but also to the
entrance into the Holy of holies, i. e., into heaven itself,
where CHRIST now stands for us in GOD'S Presence for
ever. For in this whole Epistle, the author, as we
have mentioned above, understands, by the offering of
CHRIST, nothing but the presentation (so to speak) of
CHRIST Himself made to GOD in heaven for us by means
of the shedding of His own Blood. Therefore, just as
the author does not hold that He had truly attained to
His Priesthood until He had been brought into heaven
after His death, that He might appear for us before
GOD, so he states that He did not offer Himself per
fectly to GOD until He had presented Himself to GOD
in heaven.
480
' ' DISP U TA TION ON JE S US CHRIS T." 481
" For priest and offering are relative terms. And so,
where there is not yet a true priest, there can be
no true offering. But where there is a true priest,
there is also of necessity a true offering. It is clear
enough to anyone who has read the Kpistle even once,
that CHRIST is not called truly a priest by the writer
of it until after His Ascension into heaven ; and, GOD
willing, this shall we prove later on, when we treat of
CHRIST Himself as foreshadowed in the person of the
high priest. But what the author of the Kpistle under
stands by the expression, ' the offering of CHRIST,'
he explains so clearly that there is no room left for
doubt. For he writes thus in the same chapter ix.
verse 25 : ' Nor yet that He should offer Himself often,
as the high priest entereth into the Holy place every
year with blood of others.' Very aptly does he com
pare the offering of CHRIST, which He once made of
Himself, with the yearly entrance of the high priest
into the Holy place with blood of others. For the
word * offer ' corresponds to the ' entering into the
Holy place.' The words ' nor yet often,' with proper
antithesis, are contrasted with the words * every
year ; ' the words ' He Himself with the words ' with
blood of others.' In this passage, other points of
antithesis are passed over, and only this comparison
made and this difference shown, that the high priest
used to offer every year — while CHRIST offered only
once.
"Who, therefore, does not in these words clearly
grasp the idea that CHRIST offered Himself to GOD in
no other way than through the shedding of His own
blood ; or, as the same writer says, that by the shedding
of his own Blood He entered into the true Holy place,
i. e., into heaven itself, and stands there in GOD'S
482 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Presence for us ? The following words make this clear
enough. For first the writer says : * Otherwise He
must often have suffered from the beginning (or rather
from the foundation) of the world.' There would be
no point, nor any force either in those words, if to offer
Himself were the same as to suffer — and if the offering
did not definitely mean something different from death.
For what point or force could the words of the author
have, if he had said that there was no need that CHRIST
should suffer often ; for that otherwise He must have
suffered often from the foundation of the world ? For
even if there be any meaning in these words, ' from
the foundation of the world ' (as I believe that there
is), nevertheless it is not likely that he would have
spoken in that manner, or would have repeated with
out point the same words, that is, words meaning the
same things ; but that he would have written thus :
' Otherwise it would have been necessary that He
should have determined to do that, even from the
foundation of the world.' But if to offer Himself prin
cipally means to present Himself "to GOD in heaven, the
Apostle concludes with great force and point that there
is no need that CHRIST should often offer Himself, for
otherwise He must also often have suffered. CHRIST
did not and could not present Himself to GOD in
heaven except by death and the shedding of His own
Blood.
" Moreover the words which the inspired author
adds by way of antithesis make the whole matter
clear as day. For he says : ' But now once in the end
of the world hath He appeared, to put away sin by
His offering, or by the immolation of Himself.' Now
the word ' appear,' which I think that few have no
ticed, seems to mean in this place nothing else than to
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST" 483
appear before GOD. For the same author in chapter
x. u, used the single word ' stand,' for ' stand at the
altar,' as Theodorus Beza aptly and learnedly notes
in that place. But a little before, this had been said of
CHRIST, ' that He might now appear before the face
of GOD for us.' Although in the latter passage, the
expression, 'before the face of GOD,' or 'in GOD'S
presence, ' is not added : nevertheless, one is apparently
forced to admit that the Apostle was speaking about
the same act of ' appearing.'
" Now the words that follow, i. e., ' by the immol
ation of Himself,' make this clear. For no other ap
pearing of CHRIST (which might be in question here)
resulted from the immolation of Himself, except the
presentation of the same CHRIST by Himself in
heaven before GOD, after the example of the high
priest of old, who through the immolation of victims
appeared before GOD in the sanctuary. Although
these words, 'by the immolation of Himself,' might
be joined with the preceding words, i. e., ' to put
away sin ; ' yet in all the texts that I have had an
opportunity of seeing, whether Greek or Latin, texts
not of the Vulgate only but of other versions too (with
the exception of one of Seb. Castellio), a mark of punc
tuation is put between the two phrases, and 'by the im
molation of Himself ' is joined with 'appeared.' And
this punctuation can hardly be defended unless one ex
plains ' appeared ' as I have done.
" By this interpretation of mine, as we see, a very fit
ting meaning is obtained. For if we would have these
words so interpreted as to mean that CHRIST by the im
molation of Himself has been revealed to us, then there
will be in these words no relation to the foregoing
that thought and no force at all ; not to speak of the fact
484 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
in whatever sense you take it, the expression will appear
clumsy and obscure. Castellio, as I imagine, perceiv
ing this, although perhaps he did not grasp the true
meaning of cpavspoGo, rejected the punctuation, though
it existed, but without doing violence to the Greek
codices. For when the meaning is not otherwise plain,
the punctuation of the words may be boldly changed,
if only the words themselves are not changed or moved
from their positions in any way. These things, there
fore,"! have said as to the meaning of this passage,
should we be unwilling to depart at all from the com
monly received punctuation.
11 In other respects, I do not think that Castellio's in
terpretation is to be rejected. And, following him, this
passage will then be like that other in i S. John iii. 5:
'And ye know that He was manifested to take away our
sins.' And yet I should not deny that even if the us
ual punctuation were retained, the word Trecparfpcarai
might be taken, in this passage from the Hebrews, in the
same sense as that in which it was used by S. John, if by
the word dia or through we understand with, a meaning
which is found in other places of the New Testament,
as in the same epistle of the same S. John (v. 6) :
' This is He that came by water and blood, even
•JKSUS CHRIST.' *
" What I first affirmed and have now proved, namely
that the writer to the Hebrews means by the obla
tion of CHRIST, His presentation made to GOD in
*It may be observed that Sociiius is quite in error in regard
to the force of dia in the passage, "This is He that came by
(did) water and blood." It cannot possibly mean "with."
The passage may be rendered, " This is He that came [or was
shown to be the CHRIST] by water and blood," that is, through
His Baptism and Death upon the Cross.
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST" 485
heaven for us, was perceived before my time by that
man, whoever he was (and surely it is clear that he
was a scholar), who wrote the marginal notes for the
New Testament, edited by Robert Stephens in the year
1545 at Paris. For in explaining the words of this
Epistle, viii. 5, ' Who serve unto the shadow and ex
ample of heavenly things,' he writes thus : ' Who in
deed serve unto the shadow and example of those
things, which at a future time had to be done in
heaven by CHRIST. For in heaven, CHRIST offers
Himself to GOD.' Thus far he. Here one must note,
by the way, that this scholar held the same view as we
do, namely that the oblation of CHRIST is still being
made as a perpetual act. The word ' offer, ' which he
uses in the present tense, makes this perfectly clear.
Nor is it very remarkable that he should have noticed
this, since the Apostle had distinctly said a few verses
before, that CHRIST in heaven had been made a minister
of the true sanctuary, and that therefore, as all priests
have something which they offer, it is necessary that
He should have something to offer too, i. e., in the
same place [the true sanctuary], heaven.
" But CHRIST offers and offered nothing to GOD ex
cept Himself (I am speaking of that offering, which our
writer understands in this place), therefore He contin
ues in heaven the offering of Himself. And so, although
it may be conceded that the words, oBsv avaynaiov
e'xsiv T\ xal rovTor 6 npoffeveyKij, ought to be trans
lated by a past tense, thus, ' Wherefore it was necessary
that this man too should have somewhat to offer ' (a
rendering approved by some scholars), yet by no ex
planation can these words be taken as referring to the
oblation made here on earth upon the Cross before His
entrance into heaven, because in this passage there is
486 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
question of the oblation, which either is being made, or
shall be made by CHRIST, after He has sat down at the
Right Hand of the Majesty on high, as is stated with
sufficient clearness in the same passage.
1 'Nor, as perhaps someone may think, do those
words of Paul's at the beginning of chapter v. of the
Ephesians oppose my view of the oblation of CHRIST
for us : ' Walk in love, as CHRIST also hath loved
us, and hath given Himself for us, an offering and a
sacrifice to GOD for a sweet-smelling savour.' When
the love of CHRIST is here mentioned, the writer is
apparently speaking of the death of the Cross itself,
or rather of CHRIST Himself in so far as He suf
fered the death of the Cross, which was an offering
most pleasing to GOD. In the first place, my view does
not separate the Death of CHRIST from the offering
of the same CHRIST for us. Nay, I hold that it was
only through death, through death as a medial cause,
that He was able to offer Himself at all, although the
offering was not perfected until His Resurrection and
Ascension into heaven.
" For also in that yearly sacrifice, instituted under
the L,aw, in which we have said that the sacrifice of
CHRIST was most clearly foreshadowed, it was ab
solutely necessary, for the completion of the offering,
that the blood of the victims should be carried with
in the Holy of holies. For it is written in the Epistle
to the Hebrews ix. 7, that the blood was offered by
the high priest for his own offences and those of
the people, after he had entered with it into the Holy
of holies. Moreover, what I have advanced concern
ing the offering of CHRIST, as is plain from my words,
refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, in which
I maintain that the oblation of CHRIST is used only in
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST." 487
that sense, which I have above expounded ; and not to
the writings of the other inspired authors as a whole.
" Moreover Paul does not say that CHRIST has
offered Himself to GOD for us, although many (e. g.,
Beza) have believed that he does so say, especially those
who, changing the passage, sometimes add to Paul's
words the preposition fzV, reading thus, ' Who gave
Himself for us for an oblation.' If, indeed, the word
* gave,' which in Greek is Ttapedoone, ought not to
be joined with the word ffv^cpopa ? i. e., offering; as
Tigurini and Castellio have properly noted, who have
urged the distinction between the two expressions.
"Both the word nap£dcoH£ itself, which you will
never find used of offering victims, bears out this point,
and also the thought of the Apostle, who wished to ex
press the very great love of CHRIST, and to say plainly,
that CHRIST had given Himself to death for us. (Giv
ing Himself to death, he expresses by the single word
1 gave ' [tradere] , as he often does when speaking of this
very thing. For in this same chapter, v. 25, he says :
' Husbands love your wives, even as CHRIST also loved
the Church, and gave Himself for it.' And in Gala-
tiaus ii. 20, ' I live by the faith of the SON of GOD,
who loved me and gave Himself for me.' And of GOD,
Who so loved us that He gave Him [CHRIST] to death,
he says in Romans viii. 32, ' Who spared not His own
SON but delivered Him up for us all.' And CHRIST
Himself also used the word 'gave ' in the same sense, or,
to please some sticklers, the evangelist John uses it in
these words, chap. iii. 16 : ' GOD so loved the world
that He gave His only begotten SON.' Paul himself
used the same expressions in Gal. i. 4 and Titus ii. 14.
" He would not thus have expressed this idea, if he
had said that CHRIST offered Himself to GOD for us.
488 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
For this latter expression does not bring before our
minds as the former does, the Death of CHRIST. Since
a man might offer himself to GOD and yet not die.
For the same Apostle at the beginning of chap. xii. to
the Romans writes that they should present their bodies
as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to GOD. There
fore the meaning of the passage from the Ephesians,
under consideration, is that CHRIST so loved us that
He gave Himself to death for us. And then, that the
Ephesians may be the more stirred up to imitate this
wonderful deed of CHRIST, the Apostle adds, as a
parallel truth, that this marvellous love of CHRIST, this
His pre-eminent work, was an offering and sacrifice
most pleasing to GOD.
"So the question turns, not on the offering of His
body, but on the offering of a transcendently great
act. For that an act by itself may be called a sacrifice
is evident from what is written in Hebrews xiii. 16:
' But to do good and to communicate forget not, for
with such sacrifices GOD is well pleased.'
" Moreover, you have a like mode of expression,
with the same very common use of apposition, at the
end of the Epistle to the Philippians (iv. 18), where it
is written, l But I have all and abound : I am full,
having received of Epaphroditus the things which were
sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice,
acceptable, well pleasing to GOD.' See also in the
same Epistle, ii. 17. From this passage, it also appeals
that these words, ' an odour of a sweet smell,' to
which the lyXX. restored the meaning that it has in
Hebrew, ' an odour of rest,' do not contain any idea
of expiation, as we have said in commenting on them,
much less of the pacification of wrath.
" And therefor, in these words to the Ephesians,
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST" 489
there is no question of any expiatory victim, as Jerome
also in his explanation of the place seems clearly to have
recognized, although he has not grasped entirely the
meaning of the word 'gave.' For on this passage, he
left the following note : ' For as He [CHRIST] gave
Himself for us, so also he [the Christian] willingly dy
ing for those for whom he can die, will imitate Him
[CHRIST] Who gave Himself to the FATHER an offering
and sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour, and so him
self becomes an offering and sacrifice to GOD for a
sweet-smelling savour.'
11 But finally, to return to the passage in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which I have now especially singled
out for explanation, I say that the words ' He offered
Himself to GOD ' must be explained in this manner,
that He presented Himself to GOD in heaven through
His own blood. I say that they must be so explained,
and on another line of argument I have proved that so
explained they ought to be. For this is the explanation
given of what had been said before. It had been said
that CHRIST by His own Blood had entered into the
Holy of holies and had obtained eternal redemption.
Therefore, in this passage, the reason is given, why
CHRIST, when He had entered into heaven through
His own Blood, obtained this eternal redemption. And
so mention is made not of the shedding of His Blood
only, but also of His entrance into heaven.
" Through the Eternal Spirit, moreover, CHRIST is
said to have offered Himself to GOD, because now He
lives for ever, and therefore will appear for us for ever in
the Presence of GOD; and not, as many foolishly inter
pret, because the expiatory act of CHRIST'S Sacrifice is
made eternal. For in this latter case, the author of
the Epistles would have assumed exactly that which he
490 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
had intended to prove. See 2 Corinthians iii. 6. In
this passage also the spirit is understood as opposed
to the letter, which was neither eternal, nor provided
priests that continued for ever. And in these few words
the same idea is contained, which had been explained
in fuller form at the end of chapter vii., where it is
written : ' For the Law maketh men high priests which
have infirmity, but the word of the oath, which was
sworn since the Law, maketh the SON, Who is perfected
(or consecrated) for evermore.'
"The fact that He offered Himself without spot is
added, in order that, while the writer is making an apt
passing allusion to the victims which were offered in the
legal sacrifices and which had to be without spot, it
might be inferred that GOD would never deny Him
anything, and that therefore we, who are His, should
be, by His aid, for ever freed from the punishment of
our sins. Yet I do believe that another idea also un
derlies the words ' without spot,' which I shall explain
later on in another place.
" A conscience purged from dead works, i. e., from
sin, is the same thing as having no more consciousness
of sin; a mode of expression which the same Apostle
uses in the beginning of the next chapter (Heb. x. 2).
This means, as I shall show later on, that we have now
and for ever a conscience free not only from sin itself,
but also from the guilt and punishment of sin ; or from
the sense of guilt and the fear of punishment therefor.
As I have said, it is stated in these words, that through
the death of CHRIST, both these things are ours. And
since we have now seen how all these expressions imply
an everlasting freedom from the punishment of sin, let
us next prove that the}^ may also justly imply a free
dom from the sins themselves."
"DISPUTATION ON JESUS CHRIST." 491
In reading the above chapter of Socinus no one can
fail to observe that the position taken throughout is
precisely that taken by Mr. Brightman,* and that the
interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which
Socinus puts forth, as the basis of his teaching, is so
exactly similar to that of the modern school that in
reading the chapter one might suppose that it had been
written by Dr. Milligan or some representative of that
school. And yet this view is the very kernel of the
Socinian system, and in tracing it to Socinus we be
lieve we have found its fons et origo.
* Cf. pp. 84, 89, and 408.
APPENDIX C.
TERTUUJANUS "AD VERSUS JUD^OS," CHAPTER XIV.
" T EARN now (over and above the immediate
question) the clue to your error. We affirm
two characters of the CHRIST demonstrated by
the prophets, and as many advents of His forenoted :
one, in humility (of course the first), when He had to
be led ' as a sheep for a victim ; and, as a lamb voice
less before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth, '
not even in His aspect comely. For ' we have an
nounced,' says [the prophet], ' concerning Him, [He
is] as a little child, as a root in a thirsty land ; and
there was not in Him attractiveness or glory. And we
saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace ; but
His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of
the sons of men,' ' a man [set] in the plague, and know
ing how to bear infirmity : ' to wit, as having been set
by the FATHER ' for a stone of offence,' and ' made a
little lower' by Him 'than angels,' Pie pronounces
Himself ' a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man,
and [the] refuse of [the] People. ' Which evidences of
ignobility suit the FIRST ADVENT, just as those of sub
limity do the SECOND ; when He shall be made no
longer ' a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal,' but
' the highest corner-stone,' after reprobation [on earth]
taken up [into heaven] and raised sublime for the
492
TERTULLIANUS " ADVERSUS JUD&OS." 493
purpose of consummation, and that ' rock ' — so we
must admit — which is read of in Daniel as forecut from
a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of
secular kingdoms. Of which SECOND ADVENT of the
same [CHRIST] Daniel has said : ' And, behold, as it
were a SON of man, coming with the clouds of the
heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was pre
sent in His sight; and they who were standing by led
Him unto Him. And there was given Him royal
power ; and all nations of the earth, according to their
race, and all glory, shall serve Him : and His power
[is] eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His
kingdom one which shall not be corrupted.' Then,
assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a
grace not ' deficient more than the sons of men; ' for
[He will then be] ' blooming in beauty in comparison
with the sons of men.' ' Grace,' says [the Psalmist],
' hath been outpoured in Thy lips : wherefore GOD
hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy
sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom
and beauty!' while the FATHER withal afterwards,
after making Him somewhat lower than angels,
' crowned Him with glory and honour, and subjected
all [things] beneath His feet.' And then shall they
' learn to know Him Whom they pierced, and shall beat
their breasts tribe by tribe; ' of course because in days
bygone the}r did not know Him when conditioned in
the humility of human estate. Jeremiah says : ' He is
a human being, and who will learn to know Him ? '
because, ' His nativity,' says Isaiah, ' who shall de
clare ? ' So, too, in Zechariah, in His own Person,
nay, in the very mystery of His Name withal, the most
true Priest of the FATHER, His own CHRIST, is de
lineated in a twofold garb with reference to the Two
494 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ADVENTS. First, He was clad in ( sordid attire,' that
is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when
the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him — the
instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor — who even after
His baptism had tempted Him. In the next place, He
was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned
with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban
and a clean mitre, that is [with the garb] of the SECOND
ADVENT; since He is demonstrated as having attained
' glory and honour.' Nor will you be able to say that
the man [there depicted] is ' the son of Jozadak,' who
was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was
always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever
deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the ' JESUS '
there alluded to is CHRIST, the Priest of GOD the Most
High FATHER; Who at His FIRST ADVENT came in
humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the
period of His [actual] Passion; being Himself likewise
made, through all [stages of suffering], a Victim for us
all; Who after His resurrection was ' clad with a gar
ment down to the foot,' and named the Priest of GOD
the FATHER unto eternity." *
* This translation is that given in the Ante-Nicene Christian
Library, published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
APPENDIX D.
A CATKNA * OF PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS WHICH
BEAR WITNESS TO THE FACT THAT THEY REGARDED
THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE.
S. IREISLEUS (ob. 202), Adv. H<zr.> 1. iv., c. xvii., n. 5. Patristic ca-
" Instructing His disciples to offer to GOD first-fruits ten0a:T
f TT- L- it i TT IT i i l- S. Irenaeus
from His creatures, not as though He needed aught,
but that they themselves might not be unfruitful nor
ungrateful, He took that which of the creation is bread,
and gave thanks, saying, ' This is My Body.' And
likewise the Cup, which is of that our creation, He
confessed to be His Blood, and taught that it is the
new Oblation of the New Testament, which the Church,
receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the
whole world to GOD, Who giveth us sustenance, the
first-fruits of His gifts in the New Testament, of which
among the twelve Prophets, Malachi thus presignified,
etc. : ' I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of
Hosts, neither will I receive an offering at your hands.
For from the rising of the sun unto the going down
thereof, My Name shall be great among the heathen,
* This catena of seventy passages might be greatly enlarged.
Most of those here given will be found in Pusey's Doctrine of
the Real Presence, Keble's Considerations, and the Bishop of
Brechin's Theological Defence.
Every passage has been compared with the original, and,
where needed, the translation has been revised ; the references
have also been verified and in many cases changed to more
modern editions.
495
496 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
and in every place incense shall be offered unto My
Name, and a pure offering ; for My Name shall be
great among the heathen, saith the LORD of Hosts: '
most clearly signifying by these words, that the former
people indeed shall cease to offer to GOD ; but in every
place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that pure ;
and His Name shall be glorified among the heathen."
2. s. irenaeus. S. IRENES, Cont. H<zr., 1. iv., c. xviii., n. 2.
" Not Oblations as a whole were rejected ; for there
were Oblations then [among the Jews], there are Obla
tions now too ; sacrifices in the Jewish people, sacri
fices also in the Church, but the kind only has been
changed (species immutata est tantum), seeing that it is
offered, not by bondsmen but by the free. . This Obla
tion the Church alone offers pure to the Creator, offer
ing it with thanksgiving from His creation. But the
Jews do not offer ; for their hands are full of Blood ;
^^_4* for they do not receive the Word which is offered to
GOD. But neither do all the synagogues of the
heretics."
3. s. mppoiy- S. HIPPOLYTUS (fl. circa 178-236), Fragmenta in
tus- Prov., ix. i., Migne, P. G., torn, x., col. 628.
2 " She [Divine Wisdom] mingled her wine in the
cup, i. e., the SAVIOUR uniting His Own Godhead
with the flesh, as pure wine, in the Virgin, was born
of her without confusion, GOD and Man. ' And she
prepared her Table;' the Knowledge of the HOLY
TRINITY promised, and His precious and pure Body and
Blood, which daily at the Mystical and Divine 7^able are
consecrated, being Sacrifices in remembrance of that ever-
to-be-remembered and first Table of the Divine and Mys
tical Supper."
4. Tertuiiian. TERTULLiAN (ob. 245), De Oratione, c. xix., Migne,
P. L., torn, i., col. 1287.
" In like manner, also, most think that on the days
of stations they ought not to attend the prayers at the
sacrifices, because, when the Body of the LORD hath
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 497
been received, the station must be broken up. Doth,
then, the Kucharist break up a service devoted to
GOD ? Doth it not the more bind to GOD ? Will not
thy station be the more solemn, if thou standest also
at the altar of GOD ? When the Body of the LORD
hath been received and reserved, both are saved, both
the partaking of the Sacrifice and the fulfilment of the
service."
S. CYPRIAN (ob. 258), Epist. Ixiii., ad Ccecil. 5. s.cypnan.
''Some, either through ignorance or simplicity in
consecrating and administering to the people the Cup
of the LORD, do not the same as JESUS CHRIST our
LORD and GOD, the/Teacher of this Sacrifice, did and
taught. ' ' *
S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixiii., ad Ccecil. 6. s. Cyprian.
' You should know that we have been admonished
that, in offering the Cup, the tradition of the LORD be
observed, nor aught else be done by us, than what the
LORD has first done for us, that the Cup which is
offered in commemoration of Him should be offered,
mixed with wine."
S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixiii., ad Ccecil. 7. s. Cyprian.
" Who is more a Priest of the Most High GOD than
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, Who offered a Sacrifice to
GOD the FATHER, and offered that same which Mel-
chisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, namely,
His own Body and Blood? "
S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixiii., ad Ccecil. s. s. Cyprian.
" Whence it is apparent that the Blood of CHRIST is
not offered, if there is no wine in the Cup ; nor the Sac
rifice of the LORD celebrated by a legitimate Consecration,
unless our Oblation and Sacrifice corresponds with His
Passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit
of the vine with CHRIST in the Kingdom of the
FATHER, if, in the Sacrifice of GOD the FATHER and of
CHRIST, we do not offer wine, nor mingle the Cup of the
LORD according to the LORD'S Institution ? "
498
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
9. S.Cyprian. S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixiii., ad
"If in the Sacrifice which CHRIST offered, CHRIST
only is to be followed, then we ought to obey, and do
that which CHRIST did, and which He commanded
should be done."
10. S. Cyprian. S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixili., ad C<ztil.
"If it is unlawful to break even the least of the
LORD'S commandments, how much more to infringe
those so great, so weighty, so concerning the very
Sacrament of the LORD'S Passion and our redemption,
or by human tradition to change it into something else
than was divinely appointed. For, if JKSUS CHRIST,
our LORD and GOD, is Himself the great High Priest
of GOD the FATHER, and first offered Himself a Sacri
fice to the FATHER, and commanded this to be done in
commemoration of Himself, surely that priest truly
acts in CHRIST'S stead who imitates that which CHRIST
did ; and he then offers a true and full Sacrifice in the
Church to GOD the FA THER, when he begins to offer X
according as he sees CHRIST Himself offered^ ' '
11. S. Cyprian. S. CYPRIAN, Epist. Ixiii., ad C<ztil.
" And because we make mention of His Passion in
all Sacrifices (for the Passion of the LORD is the Sacrifice
which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what
^ He did. For the Scripture says£— ' For as often as ye
frt-^3 eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew the
LORD'S Death till He come.'j As often then as we
offer the Cup in commemoration of the LORD and His
Passion, do we what it is known the LORD did."
12. S.
rence.
S. LAURENCK (ob. 258), S. Ambrose, De Offic., 1. i., c.
41, n. 214.
" Whither goest thou forth, father, without thy son ?
whither hastenest thou, holy priest, without thy dea
con ? Never wert thou wont to offer sacrifice without
thy minister. How then have I displeased thee ?
Hast thou found me wanting ? Surely thou desirest to
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 499
try whether I am a fitting minister. To whom thou
hast committed the consecrated Blood of CHRIST, the
fellowship in the completion of the sacraments, dost
thou refuse to him the fellowship of thy blood ? "
Council of Nicsea (325), Canon 18. 13. councilor ,
It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Nicsea-
Synod that in certain places and cities deacons admin
ister the Eucharist to priests, although it is contrary to
the canons and to custom to have the Body of CHRIST
distributed to those who offer the Sacrifice by those who
cannot offer it. ' '
S. KPHRKM Syrus (ob. circa 373), Partznes., 74, Opera 14. s. Ephrem
Omnia Syriace et Latine, torn, iii., p. 555, Romse, Syrus<
1743-
11 Having obtained eternal Redemption Thou dost
daily renew Thy Sacrifice on the altar and thou dost
bestow the Chalice of salvation for our lips to taste."
S. OPTATUS (ob. circa 384), De Schism. Donatist., 15. s. optatus.
1. vi., c. i, Bibl. Mag. Vet. Pat., torn, iv., p. 289,
Colonise Agripp. , 1618.
" What is the altar but the Throne of the Body and
Blood of CHRIST ? . . . They [the Jews] lay their
hands on CHRIST on the Cross : by you He was smitten
on the altar. ' '
S. CYRIL of Jerusalem (ob. circa 386), Catechesis, xxiii., 16. s. cyriiof
Mystag. v., n. 7, et. 8, p. 327. Paris, 1720. Jerusalem.
" Then having sanctified ourselves with these spir- fc^^x.^ /**•*' fy
itual hymns, we call upon the merciful GOD to send
forth His HOLY SPIRIT upon the gifts lying before
Him ; that He may make the bread the Body of
CHRIST, and the wine the Blood of CHRIST ; for
whatsoever the HOLY GHOST has touched, is sanctified
and changed. Then after the Spiritual Sacrifice is
perfected, the Bloodless Service^upon that Sacrifice of
Propitiation^ we entreat GOD, for the common peace of
the Church," etc. ' A
00
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
17. s.Macarius S. MACARius of Egypt (fl. cent. IV.), De Charitate,
of Egypt g29> Migne> P G>> tom< 34j col> 932<
" Consider that these visible things are types and
shadows of the things hidden ; the visible temple, of
the temple of the heart ; the priest, of the true priest
of the grace of GOD; and so on. As, then, in this vis
ible Church, unless first the readings of psalmody, and
the rest of the prescribed order, were to precede, it
would not be in order, that the priest should celebrate
the Divine Mystery itself of the Body and Blood of
CHRIST ; or, again, although even the whole eccle
siastical canon were added, but the mystic Eucharist of
the Oblation by the priest and the communion of the
Body of CHRIST did not take place, the ecclesiastical
ordinances would not be fulfilled, and the Divine serv
ice of the Mystery would be defective; so think thou
as to the state of the Christian," etc.
is. s. Gregory S. GREGORY of Nyssa (ob. circa 395), In Christ Resur-
ofNyssa. ^ Ratjo j ^ Mignc, P. G. , torn. 46, col. 611.
" In a hidden kind of sacrifice which could not be
seen of men [the Holy Eucharist], He offers Himself
as a Sacrifice and immolates a Victim, being, at the
same time the Priest and the Lamb of GOD, Which
taketh away the sins of the world."
19. s. Ambrose. S. AMBROSE (ob. 397), Epist. xxii., Domincz sorori,
n. 13.
" Let the triumphant victims [the martyrs] enter the
place where CHRIST is the Sacrifice. But He upon the
altar, Who suffered for all ; they under the altar, who
were redeemed by His Passion. This place I had des
tined for myself. For it is meet that a priest should
rest there where he was wont to offer. But I yield up
the right side to the holy victims ; that place was due
to martyrs."
20. s. Ambrose. S. AMBROSE, Expositio in Lucam, 1. i., n. 28.
(< For thou canst not doubt that the Angel stands by,
when CHRIST standeth by, when CHRIST is immolated.
For CHRIST our Passover is immolated."
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 501
S. AMBROSE, De Virginibus, 1. i., c. xii., n. 66. 21. s. Ambrose.
" The altar ... on which CHRIST the Head of
all is daily consecrated."
S. AMBROSE, Exhortatio Virginitatis, c. xiv., n. 94. 22. s. Ambrose.
" Thee, now, O LORD, I entreat, that upon this
Thine house, upon these altars which this day are
dedicated, upon these spiritual stones, in each of which
a spiritual temple is consecrated to Thee, daily Thou
wrouldest in Thy Divine mercy look down, and receive
the prayers of Thy servants, which are poured forth in
this place. Be every sacrifice for a sweet-smelling
savour unto Thee, which in this temple is offered to
Thee, with pure faith, with pious zeal. And when
Thou lookest on that saving Sacrifice, whereby the sin of
this world is blotted out, look also on these sacrifices of
pious chastity, and defend them by Thy daily help,
that they may be to Thee sacrifices acceptable, for an
odour of sweetness, pleasing CHRIST the LORD, and
vouchsafe to ' preserve their whole spirit and soul
and body unblamable,' unto the day of Thy SON our
LORD JESUS CHRIST."
S. AMBROSE, Enarrat. in Ps. xxxviii., n. 25. 23. s. Ambrose.
:< We have seen the High Priest coming to us, we
have seen and heard Him offering for us His Blood :
we priests follow, as we can, that we may offer sacrifice
for the people : although weak in deserts, yet honour
able in sacrifice : since though CHRIST is not now seen
to offer, yet Himself is offered on earth, when the Body
of CHRIST is offered : yea Himself is plainly seen to offer
in us, Whose Word sanctifieth the Sacrifice which is
offered."
S. AMBROSE, De Ojfic., 1. i., c. xlviii., n. 248. ?4. s. Ambrose.
" Before, a lamb was offered ; a calf too was offered ;
now CHRIST is offered. But He is offered as Man, as
renewing His Passion ; and He offers Himself as Priest,
to forgive our sins ; here in image, there in verity,
502 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
where He intercedeth for us as an Advocate with the
FATHKR."
25. s. chrysos- S. CHRYSOSTOM (ob. 407), De Sacerdot., 1. iii., n. 4,
Gaume, torn, i., p. 467.
" For when thou seest the LORD sacrificed, and lying,
and the priest standing over the sacrifice, and praying
over it, and all present reddened by that precious Blood,
dost thou still think that thou art among men, and
standing upon earth, and wilt thou not be at once trans
lated to heaven, and casting forth from thy soul every
carnal thought, gaze around thee on the things that are
in heaven with a naked soul and pure mind ? Oh, the
wonder ! Oh, the love of GOD to man ! He that sitteth
on high is held in that hour in the hands of all, and He
gives Himself to those that desire to embrace and
receive Him. But all do this through the eyes of
faith."
26. s. chrysos- S. CHRYSOSTOM, De Sacerdot., 1. vi., n. 4., Gaume,
tom- torn, i., p. 519.
" When he also invocates the HOI^Y SPIRIT, and con
summates the most awful sacrifice, and touches inces
santly the common LORD of all."
27. s. chrysos- S. CHRYSOSTOM, Ad popul. Antioch., horn, xv., n. 5,
tom' Gaume, tom. ii., p. 187.
"What dost thou, O man? At the sacred table
thou exactest an oath, and where CHRIST lieth sacri
ficed, there thou sacrificest thine own brother."
28. s. chrysos- S. CHRYSOSTOM, De Ccem. et de Cruce, n. 3, Gaume,
tom. ii., p. 473.
" Since then we too shall this evening [Easter Eve]
see Him Who was nailed on the Cross, as it were a
Lamb slain and sacrificed, let us approach with trem
bling, I beseech you, and much reverence and godly
fear."
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 503
S. CHRYSOSTOM, De Ccem. et de Cruce, n. 3, Gaume, 29. s. chrysos-
torn, ii., p. 474. tom-
' When thou seest the Lamb sacrificed and made
ready, " — ' ' thou beholdest the Lamb slain ? If, the
whole night through, thou couldest look on this Sacri
fice, tell me, shouldest thou have too much of it ?
. . . Consider What it is that lieth before thee, and
what caused it. He was slain for thy sake and thou
neglectest to see Him sacrificed. . . . It is blood, the
very Blood which blotted out the handwriting of our
sins, the Blood which cleansed thy soul, which washed
away the stain, which triumphed over principalities
and powers. ' '
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Matt., horn, i., n. 3, Gaume, torn. 30. s. chrysos-
vii., p. 582. tom-
" Of His own holy Flesh He hath granted us our
fill ; He hath set before us Himself sacrificed."
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Act., horn, xxi., Gaume, tom. ix., 31. s. chrysos-
p. 1 88. tom-
;< The Sacrifice is in hand, and all things are prepared
and set forth. Angels are present, and Archangels ;
the SON of GOD is present."
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Rom., horn, viii., n. 8, Gaume, 32. s. chrysos-
tom. ix., p. 558. tom-
" Let us reverence then, let us reverence the table
of which we all partake, the CHRIST Who has been slain
for us, the Sacrifice that is laid upon it."
S. CHRYSOSTOM, De Bapt. Christi, n. 4, Gaume, tom. 33 s. chrysos-
ii., p. 441. tom-
' When one would communicate, one should not
watch for feasts, but cleanse the conscience, and so
touch that holy Sacrifice."
504
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
34. S. Chrysos-
tom.
35. S. Chrysos-
tom.
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In i Cor., horn, xxiv., n. 2, Gaume,
torn, x., p. 249.
" CHRIST even herein [in giving us His Blood] ex
hibited His care and fervent love for us. And in the
old covenant, because they were in an imperfect state,
the blood which they used to offer to idols, He Himself
submitted to receive, that He might separate them
from those idols : which very thing again was a proof
of His unspeakable affection ; but here He hath trans
ferred the sacred office to that which is far more awful
and glorious, changing the very sacrifice itself, and
instead of the slaughter of irrational creatures, com
manding to offer up Himself."
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Eph., horn, iii., n. 5, Gaume,
torn, xi., p. 26.
" It is for this reason, that they which are in sin are
first of all put forth. For just as when a master is
present at his table, it is not right that those servants
who have offended him should be present, but they are
sent out of the way, just so also here when the Sacrifice
is brought forth, and CHRIST, the LORD'S Sheep, is
sacrificed."
S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Diem Nat. Jesii Chris ti, n. 7,
Gaume, torn, ii., p. 430.
" Think with thyself, O man, what Sacrifice thou art
about to touch, what Table to approach ! I^ay to heart
that, being earth and ashes, thou partakest of the Body
and Blood of CHRIST. — GOD invites thee to His own
Table, and setteth before thee His Own SON. ' '
. s. chrysos- S. CHRYSOSTOM, In Psalm., cxl., n. 4, Gaume, torn.
v., p. 522.
' ' This [the tongue] is the member through which we
receive the awful Sacrifice (the faithful know what I
mean)."
S. JEROMK (ob. 420), Ad Damasum, Epistle xxi. (alias
cxl.), n. 26, torn, iv., col. 155.
" The fatted Calf Who is sacrificed for the salvation
36. S. Chrysos-
totn.
37
tom.
38. S. Jerome.
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 505
of the penitent, is the SAVIOUR Himself, by Whose
Flesh we are daily fed, Whose Blood we drink. This
feast is daily celebrated: daily does the FATHER receive
the SON ; always is CHRIST sacrificed for believers
(semper Christus credentibus immolatur)."
S.JEROME, Dial. adv. Pelag., 1. iii., n. 15, torn, iv., 39. s. Jerome.
col. 543.
" He so taught His Apostles, that believers should, ^ c^-i^n
^ jlir fUi ilfii i"inf that Body, venture to say, ' Our c ^
FATHER.' "
S. JEROME, Qucestt. Heb. in Gen., xiv., 18, torn, iii., col. 40. s. Jerome.
329-
" In that he says, ' Thou art a Priest for ever after
the order of Melchisedec,' our Mystery is signified
under the word ' order,' not in sacrificing irrational
animals through [the order of] Aaron, but by the offer
ing bread and wine, that is, the Body and Blood of the
LORD JESUS."
S. JEROME, Comm. in Matt., 1. iv. (c. xxvi., 26), 41. s. Jerome.
torn, iv., col. 128.
" After that the typical Passover was finished, and
He had eaten the flesh of the Lamb with the Apostles,
He takes bread, which strengtheneth the heart of man,
and passes to the true Paschal Sacrament ; that as
Melchisedec, Priest of the Most High GOD, offering
bread and wine, had done in prefiguration of Him, He
Himself might re-present [to the FATHER] in the VERITY
of His own Body and Blood."
S. JEROME, Comm. in Ezech., 1. xiii. (c. xliv., 2), torn. 42. s. Jerome.
iii., col. 1023.
" Himself is the Prince, and ' High-Priest after the
order of Melchisedec,' and Sacrifice, and Priest."
S. JEROME, Comm. in Ezech., 1. xiv. (c. xlvi., 13), torn. 43. s. Jerome.
iii., col. 1049, 1050.
He shall sacrifice a burnt-offering unto the LORD, a
Lamb ' of the first year, ' and not on certain days, but
506 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
' daily > ' nor at any hour, but ' in the morning, ' shall he
sacrifice it. Who that Lamb without spot is, Isaiah will
say more fully (Iv. 7) and Jeremiah (xi. 19) and John
Baptist (John i. 29). And let not the reader wonder
that the same is Prince and Priest, and Calf and Ram
and Lamb, since in Holy Scripture we read of Him as
LORD and GOD, and Man and Prophet, and Stem and
Root, etc., as the case requires. In the whole burnt-
offering, then, of that Lamb of the first year, without
blemish, which is always offered in the morning, the
Prince Himself will make the Sacrifice or Minchah.
And a third part of a hin of oil is offered, that it may
be mingled or sprinkled on the fine flour, a sacrifice to
GOD, continual, by a perpetual ordinance, which is no
day intermitted, but is always offered, at all times, at the
rising of the sun, that that may be fulfilled which is
put at the close of this section — ' He shall offer a Lamb
for a sacrifice, and oil every morning for a continual
burnt-offering.' "
44. s. Jerome. S. JKROMK, Comm. in Osee, 1. ii. (c. viii., 13), torn, iii.,
col. 1290.
' These [heretics] sacrifice many sacrifices and eat
them, forsaking the one Sacrifice of CHRIST, and not
eating His Flesh, Whose Flesh is the food of believers.
Whatever they do, simulating the order and rites of the
Sacrifice, or whether they give alms, GOD will accept
none of such sacrifices."
45. s. Gauden- S. GAUDENTius of Brescia (ob. circa 420), De Exodi.
tius- Lect., Serm. ii., Migne, P. L., torn. 20, col. 854,
855.
" In the shadow of that legal Passover not one lamb
was slain, but many. For one was slain in every
house, since one was not sufficient for all. But a
figure is not the reality (proprietas) of the LORD'S Pas
sion. For a figure is not the verity, but an imitation
of the verity. ... In this verity, then, in which
we are, One died for all ; and the Same in each house
of the Church, in the mystery of bread and wine, being
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 507
sacrificed (immolatus}, refresheth ; believed on, quick-
eneth ; consecrated, sanctifieth the consecrators. This
is the Flesh of the Lamb : this His Blood."
S. AUGUST-INK (ob. 430), Ep. liv. adjanuar., c. vii., u. 46. s. Augus-
9, Migne, P. L., torn. 33, col. 204. tine-
' ' But some have thought good, and that with show
of reason, that on one fixed day in the year, on which
the LORD gave the actual supper, it is lawful that the
Body and Blood of the LORD should, as though for a
more marked commemoration, be offered and received
after eating."
S. AUGUSTINE, Qu&stt. in Lev,, qu. Ivii., Migne, P. L., 47. s. Augus-
tom, 34, col. 704.
" But whereas the LORD says, ' Kxcept ye eat My
Flesh and drink My Blood, ye have no life in you ; '
why were the people so strictly forbidden the blood of .
the sacrifices which were offered for sins, if by those
sacrifices this one Sacrifice was signified, wherein is
the true remission of sins ; while yet the Blood of that
Sacrifice itself, not only is no one forbidden to receive
for nourishment, but rather all, who wish to have life,
are exhorted to drink."
S. AUGUSTINE, Enarrat. in Psalm., xxi. (Knar, i.), n. 4s. s. Augus-
28, Migne, P. L., torn. 36, col. 178. tine-
" * I will offer my vows unto the LORD, in the sight
of them that fear Him.' The Sacrifice of peace, the
Sacrifice of love, the Sacrifice of His Body the faithful
know."
S. AUGUSTINB, In Psalm., xxxiii., n. 5 et 6, Migne, 49. s. Augus-
P. L., torn. 36, col. 302, 303. tine-
c The Sacrifice of the Jews was, as ye know, accord
ing to the order of Aaron, in animal victims, and this
is a mystery ; for not as yet was the Sacrifice of the
Body and Blood of CHRIST, which the faithful know and
they who have read the Gospel, which Sacrifice is now
diffused throughout the whole world. . . . The Sac-
508 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
rifice of Aaron then was taken away, and the Sacrifice
after the order of Melchisedec began. Our L,ORD JESUS
CHRIST willed our salvation to be in His Body and
Blood. But whereby commended He His Body and
Blood ? By His humility. For were He not humble,
it could not be eaten or drunk. By Him are the
Angels filled. ' But He made Himself of no reputa
tion,' that man might eat Angels' food, and ' took
upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men : and being found in fashion as a man,
He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the Cross ; ' that so from His Cross
might be commended unto us the Body and the Blood of
the LORD, for a new Sacrifice"
50. s. Augus- S. AUGUSTINE, In Psalm., xxxix., n. 12, Migne, P. Iy.,
tine- torn. 36, col. 441.
" ' Sacrifice and burnt-offering Thou wouldest not,'
said the Psalmist to GOD. For the ancients, when as
yet that true Sacrifice which the faithful know was fore-
announced in figures, celebrated the figures of the sub
stance (rei^) which was to be. . . . Why did He
not will them ? Why did He first will them ? Because
all those things were as words of one promising ; and
promissory words, when what they promise is come,
are spoken no more. Those sacrifices then, as promis
sory words, have been taken away. What has been
given in fulfilment ? That Body which ye know ;
which ye do not all of you know ; which of you who
know It not, I pray GOD none may know It to your
condemnation. ' '
51. s. Augus- S. AUGUSTINE, De Civitate Dei, 1. x., c. 20, Migne,
P. I,., torn. 41, col. 298.
<{ He is a Priest (as well as a Sacrifice). Himself
offering, Himself also the Oblation. Of which thing
He willed the daily Sacrifice of the Church to be a
Sacrament. The Church, being that body whereof
CHRIST Himself is the Head, learns to offer herself
through Him. Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacri
fices of holy men were tokens manifold and various. "
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 509
S. AUGUSTINE, De Civitate Dei, 1. xvii., c. 20, n. 2, 52. s. Augus-
Migne, P. L., torn. 41, col. 536.
" To be made a partaker of that table is to begin to
have life ; for in Ecclesiastes, ' it is not good for a man
save that he should eat and drink, ' what can he be more
probably thought to mean, than what appertains to the
participation of this table, which the Priest Himself,
the Mediator of the New Testament, exhibits after the
order of Melchisedec, of His own Body and Blood. For
this Sacrifice succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old
Testament, which were immolated as a shadow of
That to come, of which we understand that Voice of
the same Mediator speaking, through the prophecy in
the 39th Psalm, ' Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest
not, but a Bod}7 hast Thou prepared for Me ; ' because
for all those sacrifices and oblations His Body is offered,
and is ministered to the communicants."
S. AUGUSTINE, Cont. Faust., 1. xx., c. 18, Migne, 53- s. Augus-
P. I,., torn. 42, col. 382, 383.
" The Hebrews in the sacrifices from their flocks,
which they offered to GOD, in many and various ways
(as was worthy of so great thing), solemnized the pre
diction of that future Sacrifice, which CHRIST hath
offered. Whence Christians now solemnize the memory
of that completed Sacrifice, in the sacred Oblation and
Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST"
S. AUGUSTINE, Cont. Faust., 1. xx., c. 21, Migne, P. L-, 54- s.Augus-
tom. 42, col. 385.
" Of this sacrifice the flesh and blood before the
Advent of CHRIST was promised in the typical victims,
was rendered in actual truth in CHRIST'S Passion ;
after CHRIST'S Ascension * it is celebrated by means of
a sacrament of commemoration."
* In Migne's edition the clause, "per ipsam veritatem red-
debatur post Ascensionem Christi," is omitted ; it is found in
Gaume's edition, torn, viii., col. 546, and in the Basle edition
of 1542, torn, vi., col. 376.
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
55. S. Augus
tine.
56. S. Augus
tine.
S. AUGUSTINE:, Contr. adv. Leg. etProph., 1. i., c. xviii.,
n. 37, Migne, P. L., torn. 42, col. 624, 625.
1 The whole of which the Faithful know, in the
Sacrifice of the Church : whereof all the kinds of pre
vious sacrifices were shadows. . . . That which
David offered that the people might be spared was a
shadow of that which was to come, whereby it was
signified that through one Sacrifice, of which that was
a figure, the salvation of the people is spiritually
granted. For it is CHRIST JESUS Himself, Who was de
livered, as the Apostle says, for our offences. Where
fore he also says, ' CHRIST our Passover is Sacrificed. ' '
S. AUGUSTINE, Contr. adv. Leg. et Proph., 1. i., c. xx.,
n. 39, Migne, P. L,., torn. 42, col. 626.
" The Church immolates to GOD in the Body of
CHRIST the Sacrifice of Praise. ... for this
Church is Israel after the spirit, from which is distin
guished that Israel after the flesh, which used to serve
in shadowy sacrifices, whereby the One only Sacrifice
is signified, which is now offered by Israel after the
spirit. ' '
57. s.cyrii of S. CYRIX, of Alexandria (ob. 444), In Zeph.> iii., 10,
Alexandria. Migne, P. G., torn. 71, col. ioo8.
" The word of the prophecy has its issue in truth.
Not in the Roman world alone has the Gospel been
preached. It traverses even the barbarous nations.
And moreover, everywhere are churches, pastors and
teachers, guides and teachers of the Mysteries, and
Divine altars. Spiritually the L,amb is sacrificed by
the holy priests even among the Indians and Ethio
pians."
58. s.cyrii. S. CYRIL, Explicatio xii. Capitum, Declar. xi., Migne,
P. G., torn. 76, col. 311.
" We celebrate in the. Churches the holy and life-
giving and unbloody Sacrifice, not believing that that
Body which lies to open view is the body of one of the
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 51!
men among us, and of a common man ; and in like
manner also the precious Blood, but rather receiving
it as having become the proper Body and also Blood
of the all-vivifying Word."
S. CYRII,, Homil. Div. in Mysticam Ccenam, n. 10, 59. s. Cyril.
Migne, P. G., torn. 77, col. 1017.
" CHRIST to-day receives us to a feast ; CHRIST to
day ministers to us. CHRIST Himself, the Lover of
men, warms us back into life again. What is said is
wonderful, what is done is awe-inspiring. The fatted
Calf Himself is sacrificed. The Lamb of GOD, Which
taketh away the sin of the world, is sacrificed. The
FATHER rejoices; the SON is willingly immolated."
S. PROCLUS (ob. 446), Tract, de Tradit., Migne, P. G., 60. s. procius.
torn. 65, col. 849.
" After our SAVIOUR'S Ascension into heaven, the
Apostles, before they were dispersed through the whole
world, being assembled with one accord, gave them
selves all day to prayer; and finding the mystical Sacri
fice of the LORD'S Body a comfort to them, they sang
it at very great length. For this, and the office of
teaching, they considered the most important of all
things. Much more with gladness of heart and greatest
joy did they continue steadfastly in so divine a Sacri
fice, ever mindful of the word of the LORD, ' This is
My Body,' and ' Do this in remembrance of Me,' and
' He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood
dwelleth in Me, and I in him.' "
S. PROCLUS, Oral. 14 in Sand. Pasch., n. 2, Migne, 6l. s.procius.
P. G., torn. 65, col. 796, 797.
" And indeed, of old, my beloved, the mystery of the
Passover was by the law mystically celebrated in Egypt,
but symbolically it was signified by means of the immol
ation of the lamb. But now by the Gospel we spiritu
ally celebrate the resurrection festival of the Passover.
There, indeed, a sheep from the flock was sacrificed ac
cording to the law, but here, CPIRIST Himself, the Lamb
512 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
of GOD, is offered up. There is a sheep from the fold, but
here, instead of a sheep, the Good Shepherd Who laid
down His own life for the sheep. There a sign of the
sprinkled blood of an irrational creature was the safe
guard of a whole people, but here CHRIST'S precious
Blood is poured out for the salvation of the world, that we
may receive remission of our sins."
62. Theodoret. TnEODORET (ob. circa 457), InPsalm., Ixii., 3, Migne,
P. G., torn. So, col. 1337.
;' The people which, from the Gentiles, hath believed
on Thee will ever say, ' Thus have I appeared before
Thee in Thy Sanctuary,' that is, in Thy Temple, where
Thou art sacrificed unsacrificed, and art divided un
divided, and art expended remaining unspent."
63 Theodoret. THEODORET, In Psalm., cix., 4, Migne, P. G., torn.
So, col. 1773.
" Now also CHRIST sacrifices, not offering anything
Himself, but being the Head of those who offer, for
He calls the Church His Body, and through it He, as
Man, sacrifices, — as GOD, receives the things that are
offered. But the Church offereth the symbols of His
Body and Blood, hallowing the whole lump through
the first-fruits."
64. Theodoret. THEODORET, Ou. 2j. in Exod., Migne, P. G., torn. So,
col. 252.
" He bade them take a bunch of hyssop, and, having
dipped it in the blood of the Lamb that was sacrificed,
to anoint the lintel and door-posts, that when the de
stroyer came in to smite the first-born of Egypt, he,
seeing the blood, might pass over the dwellings of the
Hebrews. Not that the Incorporeal Nature required
such signs, but that through the signs, they might
learn the care of GOD'S Providence, and that we, who
sacrifice the spotless Lamb, might know that the type
had been described beforehand.'1
PASSAGES FROM THE FATHERS. 513
S. LEO (ob. 461), Ep. Ixxx. ad Anatol., c. ii., Migne, 65. s.Leo.
P. L., torn. 54, col. 914.
" In the Church of GOD, which is the Body of
CHRIST, neither are the priestly offices valid, nor the
Sacrifices true, except the true High Priest in our own
proper nature (in nostrce proprietate natures) reconcile
us, the true Blood of the Immaculate LAMB cleanse us.
Who, though He is set at the Right Hand of the
FATHER, yet in the same Flesh which He took of the
Virgin, doth He complete the Sacrament of Propitia
tion (in eadem carne quam sumsit ex Virgine, Sacra-
mentum propitiationis exequitur), as saith the Apostle,
' CHRIST JESUS, Who died, yea rather, Who is risen,
Who is set on the Right Hand of GOD, Who also
maketh intercession for us.' '
S. LEO, Serm. v., De Natali Ipsius, c. iii. 66. s. Leo.
" For Himself is the true and eternal Bishop, Whose
office can have neither change nor end. Himself it is,
Whose likeness Melchisedec set forth, offering to GOD
not Jewish sacrifices, but immolating the Sacrifice of
that Sacrament, which our Redeemer consecrated in
His Body and Blood."
S. LEO, Serm. Iviii., De Passione, c. i., Migne, P. L-, 67.3.1^0.
torn. 54, col. 332.
" That the shadows then might give place to the
Body, and images cease under the presence of the
truth, the old observance is taken away by the new
Sacrament, sacrifice passes into Sacrifice, blood is taken
away by Blood, and the legal festivity is at once
changed and completed."
S. LEO, Serm. Iviii., De Passione, c. iii., Migne, P. L-, 68. s. i^o.
torn. 54, col. 333.
" JESUS, steadfast in His design, and unshaken in the
work appointed by the FATHER, consummated the Old
Testament, and founded the new Passover. For when
His disciples sat down with Him to eat the Mystic
33
514 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Passover, while those in the hall of Caiaphas were de
bating how CHRIST might be put to death, He, ordain
ing the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, was teaching
what sort of Sacrifice should be offered to GOD."
69. s. i,eo. S. L,E;O, Serm. tix., c. vii., Migne, P. L,., torn. 54, col.
34i.
" Now also, the variety of carnal sacrifices ceasing,
the one oblatioit of Thy Body and Blood supplies the place
of all the different kinds of victims, because Thou art the
true LAMB of GOD, that takes t away the sins of the world ;
and Thou dost in Thyself perfect all the mysteries, that
as there is one Sacrifice instead of every victim, so there
may be one kingdom formed out of every nation."
70. s.Gregory S. GREGORY the Great (ob. 604), Horn, in Evang., 1.
the Great. H<j Hom ^^vii., n. 7, Migne, P. L., torn. 76,
col. 1279.
' ' From this, therefore, let us consider what kind of
a sacrifice for us this is, which for our salvation con
tinually re-presents the Passion of the Only Begotten
Son."
APPENDIX K.
THE REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE ON
PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE AND OF THE FUI<-
HAM ' ' ROUND TABI^E ' ' CONFERENCE.
A
CONFERENCE was held at Oxford, December conference
13 and 14, 1899, at the invitation of the Rev.
Dr. Sanday, to discuss different conceptions of
priesthood and sacrifice. Dr. Sanday, in his preface to
the Report of the Conference, tells us that he aimed at
bringing together three groups : a group of high
churchmen, a group of nonconformists, and an inter
mediate group of churchmen who could not be called
high ; that in filling up a vacant place at the last
moment, this condition was not strictly observed, but
that, roughly speaking, the conference fell into three
equal groups of five.
There were present Father Puller, Dr. Moberly, it consisted of
Canon Gore, Canon Scott Holland, Rev. C. G. Lang, ^^"^
Archdeacon Wilson, Dr. Ryle, Canon E. R. Bernard, nonconform-
Rev. A. C. Headlarn, and Dr. Sanday. The noncon- ists-
formists were Dr. Fairbairn, Mr. Arnold Thomas, and
Dr. Forsyth (Congregationalists), Dr. Salmond (Pres
byterian), and Dr. Davison (Wesleyan).
A preliminary paper was circulated among the mem
bers some time before the conference, asking each to
answer certain questions bearing upon the general sub-
515
5i6
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
The question
of the E. S.
only incident
ally touched
upon.
Father Puller's
view similar to
Mr. Bright-
man's.
This view sup
ported by no
other mem
ber, but con
demned by
several in
"obiter dicta."
ject; and there were besides three meetings for discus
sion. A stenographic report of the speeches and
conversations (corrected by the speakers) has been
published under the editorship of Dr. Sanday. It is
scarcely necessary to say that it will be found of great
interest to all who are studying the questions of priest
hood and sacrifice.
In this conference the question of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice was only incidentally touched upon, but one
speaker, the Rev. Father Puller, put forth a view almost
precisely similar to that expressed in Mr. Brightman's
pamphlet, The Eucharistic Sacrifice.
While this theory was not definitely discussed, the
grounds on which it was based were condemned by cer
tain obiter dicta of various speakers. The majority,
however, passed it over in silence, and the only one
who expressed any sympathy with it was Mr. Lang ;
but his endorsement was limited to a statement which
was really inconsistent with Father Puller's theory,
namely, that while the act of death was the completion
of the Sacrifice in time, its significance and efficacy were
to be eternal. No Catholic of course doubts either that
the Sacrifice was completed in time or that the signifi
cance and efficacy of it are eternal, since the significance
and efficacy of a completed sacrifice can not be the sacri
fice itself; the basis, however, of Father Puller's and Mr.
Brightman's view is, that the Sacrifice was not con
fined to the act of death or to the Cross, and therefore
was not completed in time, and that it is not the signifi
cance and efficacy, but the act of sacrifice which is
eternal.
We shall, however, give in this Appendix Father
Puller's speeches in full and those portions of the other
speeches which show agreement or disagreement with
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 517
Father Puller's views, and then we shall conclude with
some remarks upon them.
FATHKR PUI^ER. — " The point on which I wish to Father Puller's
lay stress is the fact that in the Old Testament sacrifices speech at the
are represented to us as processes consisting of various firstdiscussion.
acts. A sacrifice is not simply the killing of a victim,
but a process of a complex nature. The victim was
first brought and presented alive by the offerer ; then
the offerer laid his hands on the head of the victim, and
in some sense constituted it as his representative. The
victim was next killed by the offerer ; and it was not
until the death had taken place, as I understand it, that
the priest's part commenced. It was his duty to catch
the blood which flowed from the victim, and then to
offer the blood on the altar, or round the base of the
altar, and in some cases on the horns of the altar;
while on the Day of Atonement the High Priest took
it within the innermost veil and sprinkled it before the
Shekinah enthroned over the Mercy-seat.
It was in that blood-sprinkling that the priestly
action in the sacrifice commenced. Then the priest
had to take either the whole body of the victim as in
the case of the burnt-offering, or, as in the case of some
other forms of sacrifice, choice portions of the victim,
and lay them upon the great altar of burnt-offering,
where they were burned in the holy fire which had
come out from GOD. To use the remarkable language
of the Old Testament, the victim became the bread or
the food of GOD. Finally, there came the feasting on
the sacrifice.
In the whole burnt-offering there could be nothing of
the victim eaten, because the peculiarity of that kind of
sacrifice consisted in the fact that the whole victim was
burnt ; but there was always offered with the burnt-
offering a meal-offering, part of which was eaten by the
priest. In the case of the peace-offering the eating was
much more emphasized. The priest had his share, and
the offerer and his family had their share. Altogether,
there seem to have been six different acts which went
518 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
to make up the great complex process of sacrifice.
The presentation alive, the laying on of hands, and
the killing — these three may be described as non-
sacerdotal acts, because they were ordinarily performed
by the offerer, who was generally a layman. When
the priest took part in these acts, he was acting, not as
a priest, but rather as an offerer, or as the representa
tive of the offerers. The priestly part in the work of
sacrifice consisted in the manipulation of the blood, and
in placing the body or part of it on the altar to be
burned. Now this may all seem at first sight unfruit
ful; but I think that it has a great bearing on the way
in which we should regard the Sacrifice of our LORD,
and sacrifice generally under the Gospel dispensation.
The question is a very vital one, and it has been an
swered in various ways — the question, I mean, whether
the Sacrifice of our LORD simply consists in His Death
on the Cross ; whether His priestly action is confined
to His death, or whether His sacrificial action goes on
after His death and in His life of glory." — Pp. 69-70.
In the next discussion Father Puller said :
Father Puller's " I will take up the line I suggested this morning in
second speech, regard to the complex character of the sacrificial act as
set forth in the Old Testament, and apply it to that
which we are now prepared to discuss — the New Testa
ment doctrine of sacrifice and of priesthood. I would
lay great stress on the thought that while our Blessed
LORD'S death on the Cross is a most essential and
fundamental element in His sacrifice, His priestly
work is especially to be connected with His life in
flory. I have pointed out that the killing of the sacri-
ce was not in the typical dispensation a sacerdotal act,
and that it was only accidentally that a priest ever
took any part in it, and that when on any occasion the
priest did kill the victim, he was not acting as a priest,
but rather as the offerer. Similarly I am accustomed
to regard our LORD, when He was dying on the Cross,
rather as the Victim than as the Priest. This, I think,
is the teaching of the Kpistle to the Hebrews. The
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 519
author of that Epistle seems always to connect our
LORD'S Priesthood with His life in the state of glory.
I would refer especially to Heb. ii. 17, v. 5-10, vi. 20,
vii. 28, viii. 2, 3 ; and I would lay stress on the fact
that Dr. A. B. Davidson, of Edinburgh, in his remark
able Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, to a
great extent bears me out. Dr. Davidson, on p.
151, says: ' It is doubtful if the Epistle anywhere re
gards the SON'S Death considered merely in itself as a
priestly act. . . . The Epistle seems to confine the
high-priestly ministry to the acts done in the sanctuary,
and to refrain from including under the priesthood,
when it is spoken of distinctively, any acts not done
there.' I would call special attention to what is said
about our LORD'S becoming a High Priest in Heb. v.
5-10. The holy writer says : ' So CHRIST also glorified
not Himself to be made a High Priest, but He that
spake unto Him, ' ' Thou art My SON, this day have I
begotten Thee." Here I note in passing that our
LORD'S elevation to the High Priesthood is by implica
tion described as a glorification of Him by the FATHER ;
and it is also implied that the FATHER was glorifying
the Incarnate SON to be High Priest, when in the
words of the Second Psalm He said, ' Thou art My
SON, this day have I begotten Thee.' But those words
are interpreted by S. Paul of our LORD'S Resurrection
(see Acts xiii. 33 and Rom. i. 4). The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews goes on to say : ' As He saith
also in another place, ' ' Thou art a Priest for ever after
the order of Melchisedek." ' And these words are
taken from Psalm ex., a psalm of our LORD'S life in
glory, a psalm which begins with the words, ' The
LORD said unto my LORD, Sit Thou at My right hand,
until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.' Thus our
LORD'S glorification to be High Priest is connected
with His Resurrection and His session in the heavenly
places. The rest of the passage, Heb. v. 7-10, will be
found to corroborate this result. Thus, it would ap
pear that, when our LORD entered the heavenly sanctu
ary and was about to present Himself to the FATHER,
He became a High Priest, and in some mysterious
52O THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
way He fulfilled what the high priest did on the Day
of Atonement, when he went within the veil and offered
the blood. Again, our LORD no doubt also fulfilled the
other priestly act of presenting His Holy Body as a
sacrifice. S. John, in the Book of the Revelation,
looking up into heaven, saw ' in the midst of the
throne and of the four living creatures, and in the
midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as though it had
been slain.' There was the sacrifice in heaven. The
lamb was the sacrificial animal par excellence, and our
LORD is described not simply as the Lamb, but as the
dpviov cog £<j<payfASvov, which last word is the usual
word in Leviticus for the mactation of sacrifices. Yet
the LORD is not now dead. He is standing, for He is
alive for evermore. Thus He is represented as a living
Sacrifice, Who has passed through death. The Jewish
sacrifices had to be offered in death with no resurrection
life in them ; while the Christian Sacrifice has passed
through death and ' is alive for evermore.' " — Pp. 100-
102.
In the third discussion Father Puller said :
Father puller's " I think that we shall all agree that our LORD is a
third speech. <• priest for ever, ' however much we may differ in our
views as to the functions of His priesthood ; but I am
afraid that we shall not all be agreed that His sacrifice
continues for ever, that it is a perpetual sacrifice. To
my mind, however, the perpetuity of our LORD'S sacri
fice is brought out with very special clearness by St.
John in the Apocalypse. In his vision he sees our
LORD in glory as the ' Lamb standing, as though it
had been slain.'
" It certainly seems probable to me that that particu
lar symbol was used with the object of expressing the
idea that our LORD continues to be a sacrifice, and
that, whatever there may or may not be on earth, there
exist at any rate in heaven not only a High Priest but
also a sacrifice. But in fact I believe that Holy Script
ure teaches that the oblation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST
is not limited to heaven, but that it takes place also on
earth in the celebration of the Eucharist. The whole
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. $21
account of our LORD'S institution of the Eucharist im
plies the sacrificial character of that rite. Every detail
is sacrificial. I notice first that our LORD taught us
to use at the eucharist bread and wine. It may be
admitted that to an ordinary Englishman of the
nineteenth century these elements may not suggest sac
rificial ideas. But it was surely otherwise with those
who were gathered around our LORD in the upper
room. The meal-offerings consisted of preparations of
fine flour. The drink-offerings consisted of wine.
Bread and wine were also largely used in the heathen
sacrifices. The very word * immolation ' is derived
from ' mola,' the sacrificial meal that was sprinkled on
the victims. Thus the bread and the wine, which
formed the basis of the eucharistic rite, were sacrificial
things. These sacrificial things our LORD blessed and
consecrated; and having consecrated them, He identi
fied them with His own precious Body and Blood. He
said : ' This is My Body,' 4 This is My Blood.' But
His Body and Blood are the sacrificial things which He
perpetually presents in heaven. He has, as our High
Priest, brought His ' Blood of sprinkling ' within the
veil, that it may ' speak better things than that of
Abel.' He appears openly before the face of GOD on
our behalf, clothed with His glorified Body, the Body
of the ' Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.'
Moreover, by the institution of the Eucharist our LORD
was inaugurating a neiv covenant. He said : ' This cup
is the new covenant in My Blood, which is being
poured out for you.' And according to the teaching
of Holy Scripture covenants are made and ratified by
sacrifice. Once more, our LORD, after instituting the
Eucharist, gave an injunction to His Church, saying :
* Do this for My memorial"1 (fzV TIJV ejjirfv avajJ.vj'jGiv'}.
The word ava^vriai^ corresponds in the LXX. to the
Hebrew rrjSJtf, which is also rendered in some passages
of the LXX! by the word jJtvrfjJLOffvrov. It normally
signified a sacrificial offering burnt on the altar. Thus
in Lev. xxiv. 7, it is written : ' Thou shalt put pure
frankincense upon each row [of the shew-bread], that
522
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
it may be on the bread/br a memorial (szV
even an offering made by fire unto the LORD.' In the
case of the meal-offerings the JTOTtf was that part of
the offering which was burnt cm the altar, the rest
being eaten by the priest. From what has been said it
seems clear that the principal words used by our LORD
at the institution of the Eucharist, and also the elements
which He appointed to be used in that rite, point in the
same direction, and indicate the sacrificial character of
the ordinance ; and it would require very explicit and
authoritative statements in the opposite direction to
induce me to give up my belief that the Holy Kucharist
was instituted by our LORD as a sacrifice, the earthly
counterpart of the sacrificial oblation which is being
carried on in the heavenly tabernacle. Had there
been time I should have gone on to point out how
from the Apostolic age onwards the Kucharist has al
ways been understood in the Church to be a sacrifice."
—Pp. 134-136.
In the " Statements and Definitions
wrote :
Father Puller
Father Puller's " CHRIST exercises His Priesthood in heaven in His
"statement." own Person. He exercises it on earth in and through
His Church. To use Dr. Milligan's words : * The
Church of CHRIST is a sacerdotal or priestly institu
tion. Sacerdotalism, priestliness, is the prime element
of her being.' "—P. 15.
Dr. Ryle's
views.
DR. RYLK, Professor of Divinity in the University of
Cambridge, in the second discussion said :
1 The work of our LORD as a Priest will include, of
course, His function of intercession, benediction, and
absolution. These belong to His eternal Priesthood.
So far as His historic work is concerned, there is no
teaching in the New Testament which would imply
either that His mediatorial office and sacrifice for sin
were otherwise than completely finished in Himself and
in His own person ; or that the duties of service are
not to be performed by all alike who were His disciples.
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. $2$
The Priesthood and Sacrifice of CHRIST * in the heaven-
lies,' in the Presence of the FATHER, seem to me matters
quite beyond the range of our conception." — P. 108.
And in the third discussion Dr. Ryle said :
" It is important that there should be no misappre
hension here. I should be very sorry if any words I
had used could be thought to derogate from the supreme
importance of the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice.
From the physical point of view the death of CHRIST
was a dying ; from the Roman point of view it was an
execution ; from the Jewish point of view we may say
it was a murder. From the Christian point of view it
was a sacrifice, and it becomes sacrificial by the de
scription of the historical fact under metaphorical
terms." — P. 144.
In the first discussion CANON SCOTT HOLLAND said :
11 And, then, about the contrast that has been so fre- canon scott
quently made between * outward ' and ' inward ' in Holland's,
sacrifice. It has been implied that the moralizing of
sacrifice lies in dropping the ' outward ' expression and
in accentuating solely the ' inward ' act of will : so that
CHRIST'S perfect sacrifice is wholly inward, ' of the
heart.' But is it not essential to sacrifice that it should
be the outward act by which the inward intention is
realized, is pledged, is sealed ? The inward self-
dedication only becomes sacrificial when it has dis
covered the appropriate offering by which it can verify
itself. Only through attaining this expression, in out
ward realization, does the language of sacrifice apply to
it. It has somewhat to offer, by which it can pledge
its loyalty of self-surrender : there is its relief, its real
ity. The process by which the sacrifice is moralized
is, not by dropping the external offering, but by raising
the moral quality of that which it expresses. This
can, for ever, be rising higher and higher; but always,
as it rises, it will need to make its external offering ;
and CHRIST completes all sacrifice because He gives
perfect outward expression to the inner motive. He
recovers for it its true realization by the offering of His
524
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Body, by which act, once done, all man's capacity of
self-dedication is sealed and crowned. He can take up
in His hands, and bring before GOD, that in which His
oblation of Himself is verified and eternalized." — Pp.
85, 86.
And in the third discussion Canon Scott Holland
said:
" As to the sacrifice of CHRIST, I want still to plead
what I have said before, that the inward motive is not,
in itself, sacrificial until it has obtained an outward
realization — until it can succeed in making an offering.
The ' IyO ! I come to do Thy will ' becomes sacrificial
when it has completed its intention in the offering of
the Body prepared for it. The will that is to be done is
that He should have a Body to present in sacrifice.
And so it is that our own offerings of spiritual thanks
and praises only gain the right to use sacrificial lan
guage through the sacrifice, present in their midst, of
the Body and Blood. It is this that constitutes them
sacrifices." — Pp. 152, 153.
DR.
in the first discussion said :
Dr. Moberiy's. ' ' As to the bearing of the Old Testament upon the
true meaning of sacrifice and priesthood, I would urge
that it is limited. The Old Testament itself is only
really understood retrospectively. Of course all that is
in the Old Testament is relevant. The New Testa
ment will interpret it all. But the Old Testament is
not determinative of the meaning of the New. What
things mean in the New Testament, is their true
meaning. It is only from that that you can go back
and find out how all the Old Testament had been
(however blindly) leading up to the different elements
of the fulness of the truth."— P. 74.
In the second discussion CANON BERNARD said :
Canon " I will only remark that I think that the teaching
Bernard's. which has been drawn from Hebrews as to our L,ORD'S
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 525
High-Priestly work in heaven has been obtained by
using the Old Testament to interpret the New, which
I do not look upon as legitimate. It has been well said
that the Old Testament explains the New Testament,
while the New Testament interprets the Old Testa
ment. The distinction between explaining and inter
preting is a very important one. But in remarks
made at the beginning of our discussion the maxim
was practically inverted." — Pp. 113, 114.
And in "Statements and Definitions," page 25,
Canon Bernard writes :
" That that Sacrifice was made once for all, and that
it was followed not by continuous presentation of the
Sacrifice, but by session at the Right Hand of GOD
(Heb. x. 12). There is, of course, much other teach
ing, but this is the point which appears relevant to the
present discussion.
" That it is a Priesthood of intercession ; and also a
mediation, in regard of our whole life towards GOD."
-P. 25.
In the second discussion CANON GORK said :
' ' I suppose that as one studies the New Testament canon Gore's,
documents more closely, nothing gets hold of one more
in regard to them than the central place held in the
earliest Church by the ideas derived from Isaiah liii.
These ideas underlie the early speeches of the Acts in
such a way as forces one to realize that from the first
beginning of the Church the conception was dominant
that CHRIST'S death was the realization of the ideal
suggested by Isaiah. And our L,ORD Himself, in all
that central spiritual labour of His life, which consisted
in habituating His disciples to the idea of glory through
death, was but recalling them to the lost conception.
' Ought not the CHRIST to have suffered ? ' was an ap
peal more especially to Isaiah liii.
" The forerunner, according to S. John, had already
prepared the way for this recall by pointing to CHRIST
as ' the L,amb of GOD Who taketh up and expiateth the
526 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
sin of the world.' Surely the idea of CHRIST the Sac
rifice is at the very centre and kernel of the New Testa
ment. These general considerations give distinction
and emphasis to the one or two special utterances of our
LORD about the sacrificial character of His own life
and death. The words, * This is My Blood which is be
ing shed ' (or ' poured out ') ' for you,' characterize His
Death as the spiritual counterpart of the sacrifice which
inaugurated the first covenant. There is also the pas
sage, ' For their sakes I consecrate Myself that they also
may be consecrated in truth ' — a phrase which identifies
priesthood and sacrifice in CHRIST, i. e., brings out the
fact that the sacrifice is essentially of the person, which
means, of course, that priest and sacrifice are identified.
. . . There is also S. Matthew xvi., where Peter
rebukes our LORD for His anticipation of His Death,
and where our LORD refers to the Cross which is to be
the instrument of His own death, adding, ' Whosoever
will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his
life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for My
sake shall find it,' etc. Here again He implies that
the Cross, the instrument of His own Sacrifice, is to be
long to the disciples as well.
" I should have thought, however, that the New
Testament as a whole required us to draw a distinc
tion between the spiritual meaning and efficacy of our
LORD'S dying or our LORD'S Sacrifice, and anything
which we, through Him, can share." — Pp. 111-113.
In the second discussion MR. LANG said :
Rev. c. G. " As to the very profound subject of the nature of
gang's. our LORD'S Sacrifice, surely it is necessary from His
own language to feel that there was more in the sacrifice
than the mere dedication and sacrifice of His own will
—that He looked forward to the death on the Cross as
the great deed that was to work some great achieve
ment ; that that achievement was to be done once ; and
that once done it was to have eternal significance and
efficacy. Whatever the act of death meant, it was at
least the completion of the sacrifice in time, but its
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 527
significance and efficacy were to be eternal. I agree
with Father Puller that in thinking of the Sacrifice of
CHRIST — of the Eternal SON — it is impossible to think
of it merely as an event past in time — something that
has come to an end." — P. 121.
And in the third discussion Mr. L,ang said :
' ' It is impossible to dissociate that conception of the
office of the living and eternal CHRIST from the Sacrifice
which He has achieved once and for all. With Father
Puller I am still feeling that that Sacrifice is not a thing
completed in the sense of being past in time, and there
fore ended. It is completed in the sense that it is perfect
— there is nothing to be added to it — it is eternal. That
is why I cannot quite agree with Professor Ryle's
words ; because I feel that in some deep, mysterious
sense — a sense which it is hardly possible to express in
language, for language is of things in space and time
— the function, so to say, of that Sacrifice is not ended,
but is eternal as itself. I can imagine nothing that
speaks to one's life's need more than the conception
of being associated with the perpetual pleading of the
eternal Sacrifice ; it is there that the importance of the
Kucharist comes in. In the Eucharist, we have the as
surance of the Divinely appointed pledge and symbol
of being identified with the eternal Sacrifice of the
L,amb of GOD. And so I cannot conceive it as being a
mere commemorative rite. It is in some mysterious
sense a real sharing of the Body and Blood of a living
CHRIST, who is the eternally perfect Sacrifice. The
symbolic act is not in itself expiatory. It is nothing
in itself apart from CHRIST, through Whom it is offered.
It is not, therefore, to my mind, expiatory, but it as
sociates us with the eternal presentment by our LORD—
our eternal High Priest — of His Sacrifice for the sins
of the world. It is an act by which we are permitted,
by Divine condescension, in some degree to share in
what CHRIST is doing." — Pp. 159, 160.
In "Statements and Definitions" DR. SANDAY
says :
528
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Dr. Sanday's.
Rev. A. C.
Headlam's.
Dr. Fair-
bairn's.
" Our LORD undoubtedly regarded His own Death
as sacrificial.
' The central passage is Mark xiv. 22-24 (Matt,
xxvi. 26-28 [Luke xxii. 19 f.]). Compare Mark x.
45 (Matt. xx. 28) ; John i. 29, 36, vi. 51.
" If His Death is sacrificial, He is Himself the High
Priest by whom it is offered (John xvii.). The fuller
teaching of the Epistles appears to have its root in
sayings of CHRIST Himself." — P. 22.
And again: "The Sacrifice of CHRIST is offered
once for all (Rom. vi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, 26-28,
x. 10, 12, 14 ; i Pet. iii. 18).
" Its effect and the Intercession of CHRIST following
upon it are eternal (Heb. vii. 15, 25, ix. 12, 14, x. 12-
14, 1 8 ; Rom. viii. 34).
' The ' feast upon the Sacrifice ' is intended to be
perpetually repeated (i Cor. xi. 25 f.)." — P. 26.
In the second discussion MR. HKADLAM said :
' The general topic has been discussed very amply,
and up to a certain point there has been a remarkable
and unanimous agreement. We all agree that the pro
pitiatory character of our LORD'S Death is something
unique, and the point at issue is, how far and in what
way the effects are shared in by us." — P. 122.
And again : " Now if we refer to the Passover we
can distinguish the following parts of the rite: the slay
ing of the victim, the sprinkling of the blood, and then,
afterwards, the sacrificial meal ; there was also the
offering of first-fruits. It seems to me that the analogy
runs thus : instead of the paschal lamb the sacrifice
to be once offered was that of our LORD on the Cross.
The effects of that Sacrifice were to be continued.
Therefore, though the death is accomplished, the com
munion in the sacrificial rite and the effect of it in the
new covenant live on ; and in that sense the Eucharist
is a Sacrifice." — Pp. 122, 123.
In "Statements and Definitions" DR. FAIRBAIRN
writes :
' ' Thus, while there is complete agreement as to the
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 529
death of CHRIST being a Sacrifice for sin, this Sacrifice
is by no means regarded by all, equally, as sacerdotal
in its character. . . . The explicit references to
CHRIST'S death as a Sacrifice bear out this view ;
' CHRIST is our Passover ' (i Cor. v. 7), the rite where
the father was the priest and the official priesthood had
no function. And Eph. v. 2 is too purely ethical to
permit a strictly sacerdotal inference.
" In Hebrews, the Sacrifice is conceived under sacer
dotal forms, but these are expressly designed to bring
out the uniqueness of both the Priesthood and the
Sacrifice. He was a priest without sin and without
successor, and His Sacrifice was spiritual, made by His
obedience and offered once for all, leaving no other
possible or necessary (Heb. ix. 26, x. 5-7, 12)."— Pp.
27, 28.
In the second discussion Dr. Fairbairn said :
" That brings us to the root of the whole matter.
What do we conceive CHRIST accomplished by His
death ? What was its purpose, its terminus ad quern, as
it were ? Is its influence exhausted in what it enables
man to do or to become ? Or does it so concern GOD
that because of it and through it He has new relations
to man ? " — P. 129.
In the second discussion DR. DAVISON said :
" McLeod Campbell dwelt unduly upon our LORD'S Dr. Davison's.
confession of man's sin as atoning, but he did not use
the term * penitence,' which does not properly describe
CHRIST'S Sacrifice at all. In that Sacrifice we cannot
share. Whatever it was, it was perfect, offered once
for all."— P. 115.
We have now before us Father Puller's three
speeches in full, and all the passages from the speeches
of the other members of the conference which seem to
bear directly upon Father Puller's theories. In each
discussion Father Puller was the first speaker, and in
34
530
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Father Puller
divides the pro
cess of S. into
six acts, three
sacerdotal and
three not
sacerdotal.
He considers
the priestly
acts to be con
fined to heaven
and to the
H. £.
and that
the Death
on the Cross,
not being a
priestly act,
cannot be a
strictly sacri
ficial act.
each of his speeches he confined himself to what we
have called the Modern view of the Kucharistic Sacri
fice, and the grounds upon which it is based.
In his first speech he divides the process of sacrifice
into six different acts, three of which — " The Present
ation Alive," " The paying on of Hands," and " The
Killing " — he describes as non-sacerdotal acts. He con
siders that the priestly part in the work of sacrifice con
sisted in the manipulation of the blood and in placing
the body or part of it on the altar to be burned. The
sixth act in the process he regards as the feast upon the
sacrifice, and he asks (and recognizes the question as a
vital one) whether the Sacrifice of our LORD simply con
sists in His Death upon the Cross ; whether His priestly
action is confined to His Death, or whether His sacri
ficial action goes on after His Death and in His life of
glory. He has, however, already implicitly answered
the first question, for in saying that the killing is a
non-sacerdotal act, he implies not only that our LORD'S
priestly act is not confined to His Death, but that it
has nothing to do with His Death.
In his second speech he says : " I would lay great
stress on the thought that while our Blessed LORD'S
Death on the Cross is a most essential and fundamental
element in His Sacrifice, His Priestly work is to be
especially connected with His life in glory. I have
pointed out that the killing of the sacrifice was not in
the typical dispensation a sacerdotal act.
Similarly I am accustomed to regard our LORD, when
He was dying on the Cross, rather as the Victim than
as the Priest."
He also considers that when our LORD entered the
heavenly sanctuary and was about to present Him
self to the FATHER, He became a High Priest, and
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 531
no doubt also fulfilled the other priestly act of present
ing His Body as a sacrifice. Here Father Puller is
entirely in accord with Socinus in confining our LORD'S
Priesthood to heaven, and in placing the act of sacrifice,
the presentation of His Body as a sacrifice, after His
Ascension.*
In support of the view that a sacrifice is offered in
heaven, he quotes Rev. v. 6 : "In the midst of the
throne ... a Lamb standing as though it had been
slain " (apviov GDZ sffcpayj^evov^.'f
In his third speech he expresses his ' ' belief that the
Holy Eucharist was instituted by our LORD as a sacri
fice ; the earthly counterpart of the sacrificial oblation
which is being carried on in the heavenly tabernacle. ' '
He, however, nowhere alludes to the Catholic view Father Puller
that the sacrificial character of the Eucharist depends nowlierere-
lates the H S
on its showing forth of the LORD'S Death upon the to the Death
Cross. He speaks of the words, " Do this for My me- on the cross,
morial, ' ' but refers this to a sacrificial offering burned on
the altar which he apparently considers finds its coun
terpart in our LORD'S action now in heaven. Through
out his treatment there is no reference whatever to
the Eucharist as related to the Sacrifice of the Cross.
There are two things in connection with Father He quotes only
Puller's speeches which are very noticeable : First, that £™ ^f1^' •
he quotes only two authorities, the Rev. Dr. Milligan J gan'andDr. *"
and the Rev. Dr. Davidson of Edinburgh § — both Davidson, both
Presbyterians.
* Cf. Appendix B, pp. 480.
t We have already pointed out (page 142) that &5? k6q>ay).ievov
excludes the idea of a sacrifice in an active sense, since the
tense of the participle shows that the condition of the Lamb
was the result of an act which had taken place in the past, the
effects of which remained ; but the effects of a sacrifice cannot
be the sacrificial act.
\ See p. 522. § See p. 519.
532
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE,
Mr. Lang's
view.
Dr. Kyle's
"obiter dicta'
inconsistent
with Father
Puller's
theory.
Canon Scott
Holland's.
of them estimable men, no doubt, but as Presbyterian
ministers they are not precisely the authorities which
would carry much weight with churchmen. We may
be sure that Father Puller would have quoted Patristic
authorities for his view if there had been any ; he might
have quoted Socinus as its source, but those he cites
indicate how modern and unchurchly his theory is.
Second, that with the solitary exception of Mr. Lang,
no member of the conference made any reference di
rectly to Father Puller's speeches; although he was the
first speaker and his speech was evidently most care
fully prepared, yet, with the exception mentioned, it
was entirely ignored by all the other speakers. And
Mr. Lang, in expressing sympathy with one aspect of
Father Puller's view, uses expressions which, as we
have shown, are entirely inconsistent with the grounds
on which that view is based.
Several of the other speakers, however, incidentally
condemn either the grounds on which his theory is
based or the principles of interpretation by which it is
supported. To point out a few of these instances:
Dr. Ryle : ' ( The work of our LORD as a Priest [i. e. , in
heaven] will include of course His function of interces
sion, benediction, and absolution. These belong to His
eternal Priesthood. . . . The Priesthood and Sac
rifice of CHRIST ' in the heavenlies, ' in the Presence of
the FATHER, seem to me matters quite beyond the
range of our conception." And again : " The Death
of CHRIST . . . from the Christian point of view,
was a sacrifice." *
Canon Scott Holland : " The inward self-dedication
only becomes sacrificial when it has discovered the ap
propriate offering by which it can verify itself." And
again : " The inward motive is not, in itself, sacrificial
* See p. 522.
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 533
until it has obtained an outward realization — until it
can succeed in making an offering. But the ' Lo ! I
come to do Thy will ' becomes sacrificial when it has
completed its intention in the offering of the body pre
pared for it. ... And so it is that our own offer
ings of spiritual thanks and praises only gain the right
to use sacrificial language through the Sacrifice, present
in their midst, of the Body and Blood* It is this that
constitutes them sacrifices." f
Canon Bernard : " That that sacrifice was made once canon
for all, and that it was followed not by continuous pre- Bernard's,
sentation of the sacrifice, but by session at the Right
Hand of GOD. " J
Canon Gore speaks of "our LORD'S" dying or Canon Gore's.
" our LORD'S Sacrifice " as identical.!
Dr. Sanday : " Our LORD undoubtedly regarded His Dr. sanday's.
own Death as sacrificial. ... If His Death is sac
rificial He is Himself the High Priest by whom it is
offered." And again : "The Sacrifice of CHRIST is
offered once for all. Its effects and the Intercession of
CHRIST following upon it are eternal." ||
Mr. Headlam : " It seems to me that the analogy Mr. Head-
runs thus : Instead of tjie paschal lamb the sacrifice to lam's,
be once offered was that of our LORD on the Cross.
The effects of that Sacrifice were to be continued.
Therefore, though the death is accomplished, the com
munion in the sacrificial rite and the effect of it in the
new covenant live on ; and in that sense the Eucharist
is a sacrifice." ^[
Dr. Fairbairn : ' ' Thus . . . there is complete agree- Dr. Fair-
ment as to the death of CHRIST being a Sacrifice for sin. ' ' trim's.
Again, " the explicit references to CHRIST'S Death as
a Sacrifice bear out this view." And again : " What
do we conceive CHRIST accomplished by His death ?
What was its purpose, its terminus ad quern ? " **
Dr. Davison : "In that Sacrifice [CHRIST'S] we Dr. Davison's.
cannot share. Whatever it was it was perfect, offered
once for all." ft
* Italics ours. J See p. 525. || See p. 528. ** See p. 529.
f See p. 524. \ See p. 526. f See p. 528. ft See p. 529.
534
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Dr. Moberiy's. Dr. Moberly : " As to the bearing of the Old Testa
ment upon the true meaning of sacrifice and priesthood,
I would urge that it is limited. The Old Testament
itself is only really understood retrospectively. Of
course all that is in the Old Testament is relevant.
The New Testament will interpret it all. But the Old
Testament is not determinative of the meaning of the
New [therefore the rite of the Day of Atonement is not
interpretive of our LORD'S action in heaven, but is to
be interpreted by it]." *
Canon Canon Bernard: " I will only remark that I think
Bernard's. the teaching which has been drawn from Hebrews as to
our LORD'S high-priestly work in heaven has been ob
tained by using the Old Testament to interpret the
New, which I do not look upon as legitimate. It has
been well said that the Old Testament explains the
New Testament, while the New Testament interprets
the Old Testament. The distinction between explain
ing and interpreting is a very important one. But in
remarks made at the beginning of our discussion, the
maxim was practically inverted." t
Conclusion to
be drawn from
the Oxford
Conference.
These passages seem quite inconsistent with Father
Puller's view that our LORD'S Priestly action is limited
to heaven (or to the Eucharist on earth), and therefore
that while the Death upon the Cross might be an essen
tial and fundamental element in His Sacrifice (just as
the preliminary rites performed by the layman under
the Jewish law, when he brought the victim to the
door of the tabernacle, placed his hands upon its head,
and killed it, were essential and fundamental elements
in the sacrifice offered by the Jewish priest), yet they
were not the Sacrifice itself. Besides, Father Puller's
view is quite irreconcilable with the words of the Eng
lish Canon, that upon the Cross our LORD made a full,
perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice.
See p. 524.
f See p. 525.
REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE. 535
The Fathers are never tired of teaching that on the
Cross our L,ORD was both Priest and Victim, Offerer
and That which was offered ; and that there He com
prehended and fulfilled every sacrificial act. This,
too, we have shown in our treatment of the Sacrifice
of the Cross. *
We may conclude, then, that of the fifteen repre
sentative members of the Conference, Father Puller
was the only advocate of the Modern view, and that
his opinions were not endorsed by any of the other
members, and were explicitly rejected by several.
FUI<HAM CONFERENCE
A resolution was passed at the London Diocesan Round Table
Conference on May 16, 1900, requesting the Bishop of Conference at
Fulham, Octo-
London to appoint a Round Table conference, consist- ber 10, 1900.
ing of members of the Church of Kngland, on ritual
and the doctrines involved therein. In accordance itsconstitu-
with this resolution the Bishop appointed the follow- tion-
ing Churchmen as representing divergent schools of
thought in the Church of England : Rev. Dr. Barlow,
Rev. H. E. J. Bevan, Rev. Dr. Bigg, Mr. W. J. Birk-
beck, Rev. N. Dimock, Rev. Canon Gore, Viscount
Halifax, Rev. Prof. Moule, Rev. Canon Newbolt, Rev.
Dr. Robertson, Rev. Canon Robinson, Rev. Prof. San-
day, Mr. P. V. Smith, the Earl of Stamford, Rev.
Dr. Wace.
At the invitation of the Bishop the Conference as
sembled at Fulham Palace on Wednesday, October 10,
1900, and continued its sessions until Saturday morning
the i3th.
The subjects discussed were : (i) The nature of the The subject
discussed was
* See pp. 49-54.
536
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
the Holy
Eucharist.
A written
re
paration for
the confer-
That of the
odJ takers"
the starting-
01" dls~
one entire ses-
sion devoted to
tic sacrifice. "
The Modern
Divine Gift in the Holy Communion ; (2) the relation
between the Divine Gift and the consecrated Elements ;
(3) the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Communion ; (4)
the expression in Ritual of the doctrine of the Holy
Communion. As at the Oxford Conference, the mem-
bers were invited to send beforehand a written state-
ment of their views, — in this case on the subject of the
Divine Qjft jn Holy Communion.
It will be observed that two of the members (Dr.
Sanday and Canon Gore) took part also in the Oxford
Conference.
Of the written statements sent at the Bishop's re-
<luest» that of tne Rev- N- Dimock was taken as the
starting-point for discussion. As one entire session
was devoted to the consideration of the sacrificial as-
pect of the Holy Communion, and as the members of
^he Conference were representative of the various
schools of opinion in the English Church, we shall turn
to this discussion with special interest.
Mr. Brightman in his pamphlet on The Eiicharistic
Sacrifice assures us that " what is more characteristic
among our theologians is the theory which is remark
able by its general absence in the Roman writers, the
interpretation of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the re
production on earth, not of the moment of the Cross,
but of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven as the
minister of the true tabernacle." * We should there
fore expect to find this the basis of, or at least occupying
a prominent place in, a discussion of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice at a conference of Anglican Churchmen. It
is not a little remarkable, therefore, that no such view
is put forth by any member of the Conference ; that
there seems to have been practical agreement that the
* Brightman, p. 2.
REPORTS OF THE FULITAM CONFERENCE. 537
sacrificial aspect of the Holy Communion depends on
its reproduction (or commemoration) on earth of our
LORD'S Death upon the Cross ; that is, to reverse Mr.
Brightrnan's language, " of the moment of the Cross,"
not " of our LORD'S perpetual action in heaven." The
only possible exception to this was a statement by
Canon Gore of what he considered to be S. Irenseus'
view of the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist.
As in the case of the Oxford Conference, — to enable
the reader to judge for himself, — we shall proceed to
give extracts from the statements and speeches in so
far as they seem to bear upon the question of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice.
I. FROM THE STATEMENTS.
A practical
agreement
that the sacri
ficial aspect of
the Eucharist
depends solely
on its relation
to our LORD'S
Sacrifice on
the Cross ;
the only pos
sible exception
Canon Gore's
theory about
S. Irenaeus.
Extracts will
be given of all
passages bear
ing on the
E.S.
i. Rev. N.
Dimock.
i. Rev. N. Dimock: "That, though not the pur- Extracts from
pose of the Ordinance, there may be truly said to be the written
an offering, i. e., to the Divine view, of the Sacrifice statements.
of the Death of CHRIST, or of CHRIST Himself, in re
presentation, not representation, symbolically, not
hypostatically, offered to view — not as making, but as
having made once for all the perfect propitiation for the
sins of the world." — P. n.*
Rev. H. E. J. Bevan: " I believe that the Euchar-
2.
ist has a two-fold sacrificial aspect, in that it (i) ' shews Bevan.
forth ' the benefits of the SAVIOUR'S atonement ' until
He come ; ' and (2) symbolizes ' the reasonable, holy,
and lively ' sacrifice of ' ourselves, our souls, and
bodies.' " — P. 14
3. Lord Halifax : " I believe that each Eucharist is
a repetition of what our Blessed LORD did in the Last fax.
Supper. That CHRIST, mystically represented under
the aspect of death by the separate consecration of His
Body and His Blood, offers Himself, presents Himself,
* The paging in the text refers to the Report of the Confer
ence, — that in the footnotes to this work.
2. Rev. H. E. J.
538
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
4. Rev. Dr.
Moule.
5. Rev. Canon
Newbolt.
6. Rev. Dr.
Robertson.
is offered, is presented to the FATHKR in commemora
tion of all He did or suffered for us throughout His
whole life and upon the Cross. That each Eucharist
is the showing forth of the one Sacrifice which is the
complete and perfect satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world. . . .
" Further, as CHRIST, the second Adam and the
Head of the human race, by the sacrifice of Himself
which He offered throughout His whole life and on the
Cross, was discharging all the obligations due from
mankind collectively and individually to GOD, every
member of CHRIST'S Body in the celebration of the
Holy Eucharist, which is the commemoration of that
Sacrifice, is bound to take, so far as he can, his personal
share in that Sacrifice, and to tread in the steps of his
SAVIOUR CHRIST by offering himself, body, soul, and
spirit, in union with CHRIST'S offering of Himself, as
a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto GOD." —
Pp. 22, 23.
4. Rev. Dr. Moule : ' ' The Ordinance is ' a sacra
ment of our Redemption by CHRIST'S Death.' And
this distinctively and supremely.
" For the occasion, the action, and the full words of
the Institution, all define the sacred Body in our
LORD'S thought to be the Body as in death, and the
sacred Blood to be the Blood as in death. That is, as
in the act and process of the one Sacrifice which is our
Redemption." — P. 29.
5. Rev. Canon Newbolt : " I believe that the Holy
Communion was ordained ' for the continual remem
brance of the Sacrifice of the Death of CHRIST, and of
the benefits which we receive thereby; ' and that this
' remembrance ' is in the first place a memorial before
GOD, because ' CHRIST instituted not only a remem
brance of the Sacrifice to ourselves, but also a special
mode of pleading it before GOD ' whereby we offer the
same Body once for all sacrificed for us, and the same
Blood once for all shed for us, sacramentally present,
to the FATHER." — Pp. 30, 31.
6. Rev. Dr. Robertson : " Like Baptism, the Eu
charist has a special reference to the Death of CHRIST.
REPORTS OF THE FULHAM CONFERENCE. 539
In both sacraments we are so united with CHRIST that
His Death becomes our death, His merits our righteous
ness, — the forgiveness wrought by Him is applied to
us. In the Eucharist especially we make CHRIST'S
Sacrifice our own." — P. 33.
7. Rev. Canon Robinson: "The Johannine and 7. Rev. Canon
Pauline conceptions find a meeting-point, when we go Robinson.
on to consider the food offered to us in the Eucharist
as Sacrificial Food. Whether or not we supply the
word ' given ' or ' broken ' to the phrase ' My Body
which is on your behalf,' a reference is clearly intended
to the Crucifixion ; and the sacrificial aspect is yet
more plainly indicated in the words ' My Blood of the
Covenant, which is being poured forth on behalf of
many.' ' -P. 35.
8. Rev. Dr. Wace : " I believe that, at the Institu- s. Rev. Dr.
tion of the Holy Communion, our LORD appointed the Wace-
Bread which He broke to take the place of the Paschal
Lamb, and the Wine to take the place of the blood of
the Covenant, and that He thus established the Christ
ian Passover in place of the Jewish, as a Covenant
between GOD and believers. . . . The Holy Com
munion is a commemoration, as well on the part of GOD
by Whom it was instituted, as on the part of man, of
the one sufficient Sacrifice offered by our LORD on the
Cross, and a visible means for assuring and conveying
to us the benefits of that Sacrifice ; while on the part
of man it is a Eucharistic Sacrifice of ourselves, our
souls and bodies." — P. 38.
II. FROM THE DISCUSSION.
At the third session, held on Friday morning, the Extracts from
sacrificial aspect of the Holy Communion was con- the discussion-
sidered, starting from the consideration of Mr. Dim-
ock's statement already quoted.*
" Canon Gore intimated that he felt much hesitation i. canon Gore,
in accepting the opening words of this statement, that
*P.537-
540
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
2. Dr. Wace.
3. Lord Hali
fax.
4. Canon Gore.
5. Mr. Dimock.
the offering to the Divine view of the Sacrifice of the
Death of CHRIST was not the purpose of the Ordinance.
He thought that the commemoration of that Sacrifice
before GOD as well as man must be recognized as at
least one of its purposes." — P. 59.
' The Chairman (Dr. Wace) intimated a similar diffi
culty, as he was disposed to regard such a commemora
tion, before both GOD and man, as the primary purpose
of the Ordinance. . . ." — P. 59.
" Lord Halifax said that what he intended to express
in his statement on this point was that the bread and
wine, sacramentally identified with our LORD'S Body
and Blood, are offered in commemoration of all our
LORD suffered. The Eucharistic Sacrifice depends
upon a valid Consecration, by means of which the
Body and Blood of CHRIST, mystically represented
under the aspect of death, are sacramentally offered to
the FATHER. . . ." — P. 60.
" Canon Gore desired to urge two points : A. That
it may be emphatically stated that down to the time of
S. Thomas Aquinas inclusive, the memorial of our
LORD'S Death made in the Holy Communion is re
garded as commemorative only, and is not connected
with any idea of actual immolation ; B. That it would
be generally agreed that that which differentiates our
relation to the Sacrifice of CHRIST as commemorated
in the Holy Communion from our relation to that Sac
rifice on any other occasion, when we might agree to
commemorate His Death, is the fact that this sacrament
is the ordained occasion on which our LORD gives us
His Body and Blood, sacramentally identified with the
bread and wine. . . ." — P. 60.
" In reply to a question from Dr. Barlow, Mr.
Dimock explained his meaning by referring to Water-
land's distinction between sacrifice actively and pas
sively considered. ' CHRIST'S Sacrifice is our sacrifice,
but in the passive sense ; for us to partake of, not to
give unto GOD.' . . ." — P. 61.
' ' It was then agreed as an amendment to Mr. Dim
ock' s statement, to omit the words * though not the
purpose, ' and to substitute the words ' as one aspect. ' '
REPORTS OF THE FULHAM CONFERENCE. 54!
" The discussion then turned to the nature of the
offering made in the Holy Communion."
' ' Dr. Robertson drew attention to the early use of 6. Dr. Robert-
sacrificial terms in the primitive Church, which he son-
thought arose inevitably from the connection of the
Eucharist with the Passover, which was a sacrificial
meal, the expression Oveiv TO 7taaxa being used by
S. Mark (xiv. 12) and S. Luke (xxii. 7), and Svsiv
being a sacrificial word. But he thought that if we got
to the real meaning of early Christian writers in the use
of such language, their idea is always that of a retro
spective reference to the Sacrifice on the Cross, and he
quoted passages from S. Chrysostom (Horn, in Hebr.,
xvii.) andS. Augustine (G?«£ Faust., xx. 18) in which
this view is expressed in almost identical terms. " — P. 62.
" Canon Gore then said that there was no subject on 7 CanonGore
which similarity of phrase had covered more difference
of meaning than that of the Kucharistic Sacrifice. The
supposition that there is any re-sacrificing of CHRIST
might at once be excluded ; but when we proceed be
yond that point, there have been and still are great
differences as to the sense in which the Kucharist is
regarded as a sacrifice. More particularly :
" A. He agreed with Mr. Dimock that in the sense
in which the early Christians used the word, as, for
example, in Irenaeus, the main stress was laid on the
material elements. The Sacrifices of the Church
are regarded as offered for the acceptance of GOD.
The thought in the mind of Irenseus is that they
were offered for acceptance at the heavenly altar.
Then in response to the invocation of the HOLY SPIRIT
they were consecrated to be our LORD'S Body and
Blood ; and the Consecration was regarded as the ac
ceptance of the Church's Sacrifice at the heavenly
altar, in virtue of which the elements were returned to
the Church as the Body and Blood of our LORD. This
he thought was the view primarily represented in the
liturgies — our gifts go up to heaven and receive an
identification with CHRIST'S priestly offering.
;' B. There is a view characteristic of Eastern
teaching and represented by Cyril of Jerusalem, accord-
542
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
8. I,ord Hali
fax.
Summary.
No one puts
forth the Mod
ern view.
All trace the
!£. S. solely to
the Death
upon the
Cross.
ing to which the Consecration is specially regarded as
a consecration of the bread and wine to be on the altar
the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which makes a special
presence of CHRIST'S everlasting Sacrifice, bringing
it, as it were, into the midst of the Church. . . .
11 C. There is the view that by means of Com
munion the real connection of the Church with the
Sacrifice of CHRIST is substantiated or maintained.
In S. Augustine this view became dominant. Though
he speaks also of the offering of CHRIST or of the Pas
sion of CHRIST, yet he lays the main stress on the
offering of the Church in CHRIST." — Pp. 65, 66.
Lord Halifax then presented a statement which he
had drawn up, from which the following is extracted :
" That expressed devotionally, in the words of
Prof. Moule, ' I see in the Holy Eucharist, which
is primarily and before all things the memorial of the
LORD'S Death, CHRIST my LORD at the Holy table,
coming to me and saying : This is My Body which
was broken for you, this is My Blood which was shed
for you,' — or, as was expressed by Canon Gore, Canon
Newbolt, and Lord Halifax, ' That in every Eucharist
CHRIST is the real Consecrator ' Who in the service
which He has instituted for the perpetual memory of
His Death gives to His faithful people His Body as
broken, His Blood as poured out, mystically repre
sented and exhibited under the act of death by the
separate Consecration of the bread and wine." — P. 69.
We believe we have now given every statement in
regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which in any way
bears upon the nature or character of that Sacrifice,
with the result that in this representative gathering of
Anglican Churchmen not one puts forth the view which
Mr. Brightman tells us is " characteristic of Anglican
writers." * All alike seem to see the sacrificial charac
ter solely in the reproduction of the moment of the
Cross, which is what Mr. Brightman explicitly tells us
Anglican writers do not hold. The only statement
* Brightman, p. 15.
REPORTS OF THE FULHAM CONFERENCE. 543
which can possibly be considered as a recognition of canon Gore's
the unobjectionable part of the Modern view (what M. ^^^^
Lepin calls the accidental relation existing between the considered.
Kucharistic Sacrifice and the heavenly Offering) is
found in Canon Gore's description of what he considers
to have been the theory of S. Irenseus on this subject.
We have already pointed out that in the passage of S.
Irenseus from which Canon Gore deduces this view
(' ' There is therefore an altar in the heavens, for thither
our prayers and oblations are directed"*) it is very
doubtful from the context whether S. Irenseus in
speaking of oblations is referring to the Eucharist at
all. The oblations of which he is treating are good
works, i. e., the corporal works of mercy inculcated in
S. Matt. xxv. f If, however, this refers to the Euchar
ist we would only remark that Canon Gore has here
constructed for us from very slender materials the
theory which S. Irenaeus held.J
* S. Iren., Adv. Htzres., 1. iv., c. xviii., n. 6.
t Cf. pp. 172, 173.
J Canon Gore tells us (p. 65) that " this was the view prim
arily represented in the liturgies— our gifts go up to heaven,
and receive an identification with CHRIST'S priestly offering."
What precisely are we to understand by these words ? " Our
gifts" are the material elements of bread and wine. Are we
to suppose that these material elements, while remaining
physically present on the altar, are really carried up to heaven?
This undoubtedly is what Canon Gore says, and Mr. Brightman
in his pamphlet (pp. 13, 14) attributes a very similar opinion to
Paschasius Radbertus, and to the mediaeval liturgical writers.
As regards S. Irenaeus, the only passage which supplies any
grounds for constructing such a theory is the one we have
quoted above, and as we have pointed out it is doubtful whether
it refers to the Eucharist at all, but if so, it certainly does not
contain any such view as this. It will be both interesting and
useful to place side by side with what Canon Gore and Mr.
544
THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
No reference of
H. E. to the
ritual of the
Day of Atone
ment.
Drs. Wace and
Robertson con
nect it with
the Passover.
I^ord Halifax
gives the
Catholic view ;
There is no reference whatever in the discussion at
the Conference to the action of the Jewish high priest
in the Holy of holies on the Day of Atonement. On
the other hand, both Dr. Wace * and Dr. Robertson f
say that the Eucharist as a sacrifice takes the place
of the Passover, which is exactly our contention ; f
while Lord Halifax, who would represent the Catholic
view, states that (i) " CHRIST, mystically represented
under the aspect of death . . . offers Himself, pre
sents Himself, is offered, is presented to the FATHER
in commemoration of all He did or suffered for us
throughout His whole life and upon the Cross." § Here
the Sacrifice upon the Cross is certainly the climax and
end, since there is no reference to anything which our
LORD did after His death upon the Cross. (2) And
again: " I see in the Holy Eucharist, which is prima
rily and before all things the memorial of the LORD'S
Death," . . . "In every Eucharist CHRIST is the
real Consecrator, Who in the service which He has in
stituted for the perpetual memory of His Death, gives
to His faithful people," || etc. While Mr. Dirnock,
Brightman tell us is the view of the liturgies and mediaeval litur
gical commentators, the explicit treatment of this subject by one
of the best-known mediaeval liturgical writers. Odo of Cambrai
(ob. 1116), commenting on the Supplices 7>, says : "Here the
Sacrifice is offered, there it is accepted, not by change of place
nor by succession of time ; not that the translation as a move
ment begun in this place is afterwards completed in another
place, but in the same place that which was bread becomes the
Flesh of the Word. There is no translation of place that from
bread it may become Flesh, but it is translated from the altar
to heaven, because it is translated from bread to GOD." — Odo
Cam., Expos, in Can. Miss., div. liii. Cf. also p. 281 sqq.
* See p. 539. \ Cf. p. 139.
t See p. 541. § P. 538. 1 P. 542.
REPORTS OF THE FULHAM CONFERENCE. 545
who seems to have been the representative of the op
posite or Evangelical School, says : " That, though not and even Mr.
the purpose of the Ordinance, there may be truly said JJj^w^
to be an offering, i. e., to the Divine view, of the Sac- sacrificial ac-
rifice of the Death of CHRIST." And Canon Gore and tion' traces il
to the Death
Dr. Wace, objecting to the words though not the upon the
purpose of the Ordinance, ' ' intimate * that the primary Cross-
purpose of the Ordinance was the offering to the Divine
view of the Sacrifice of the Death of CHRIST (not of
His Mediatorial work in heaven).
No speaker or writer traces any connection between NO one refers
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and our LORD'S Media- ^°Ug Medi.
torial work in heaven, unless possibly Mr. Gore's de- atoriai work in
scription of what he thinks was S. Irenaeus' theory heaven-
may be considered to refer to that.
We may therefore with much satisfaction assert that conclusion,
in these two Conferences of representative Churchmen
the Modern view was not entertained as in any way
representing the views of the Church. Although it
was pressed in the Oxford Conference throughout with
great persistency and skill by Father Puller, yet it
found no adherents there, and some opponents, and it
is conspicuous for its absence in the Conference held at
Fulham.
35 * P. 540.
APPENDIX F.
SADLER'S " THE ONE OFFERING."
The One Offering, by the Rev. M. F. Sadler, Rector
of Honiton, Prebendary of Wells, appeared in 1875.
It was a small duodecimo of one hundred and ninety-
two pages, and was entitled The One Offering : A Treat
ise on the Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist. The main
purpose of this little book was to show that the sacrifi
cial character of the Eucharist is recognized by the
early Christian Fathers, by the liturgies, by all schools
of Catholic writers, including the Anglo-Catholic writers
of the seventeenth century, the Tractarians, Romanists,
and even many Protestants. Incidentally Mr. Sadler
discusses the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and in
his treatment of this point proposes a theory which is
based (although he probably did not know it) upon the
Socinian interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The One Offering was the first definite treatise on the
Eucharistic Sacrifice which the Catholic revival pro
duced. This fact, together with the popular style in
which it was written, and the author's reputation as
the writer of several very useful and practical works on
theological subjects, gave to the book a wide circula
tion, and there is little doubt that in this way erroneous
views of the nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice were
widely spread. It is a thankless task to criticise one
546
SADLER'S " THE ONE OFFERING:' 547
to whom the Church owes much ; and Prebendary Sad
ler's Church Doctrine Bible Truth^ The Second Adam,
The Sacrament of Responsibility, The Catechises Man-
nal, in their day were the means of winning many
to the Church who were prejudiced against her
teachings.
While recognizing our indebtedness to Mr. Sadler,
we must, however, point out not only that the book we
are now discussing is responsible for much of the er
roneous teaching in regard to the Kucharistic Sacrifice
which is prevalent in our own times, but that the writ
er's knowledge of the subject was not only inadequate,
but seems to have been mostly second-hand. If there
is one authority to which Mr. Sadler appeals as of su
preme importance, it is the authority of the Fathers of
the early Church. But we notice that his quotations
and other writings are mostly taken at second-hand
from the works of Keble, Pusey, Neale, and others ;
and what shakes our faith in Mr. Sadler's authority is
his examination in chapter vi. of the words " We
have an Altar" (Heb. xiii. 10). After stating that
he considers the altar to mean the altar or holy table
on which the Kucharist is offered, he observes that
some say this altar is the actual Cross upon Mount
Calvary, and while he admits that, in a certain sense,
the Cross is the one Christian altar, we find the fol
lowing passage: " Others, seeing the danger to their
opinions of thus interpreting this altar as the actual
Cross, affirm that it is CHRIST Himself, WTho they say
is at once our Priest, our Sacrifice, and also our Altar;
but such an opinion, however pious it may sound, is
simply an absurdity ; although CHRIST was at once
the Priest and Victim He was not His own altar, i. e.,
His own Cross. ... I am ashamed to take up the
548 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
reader's time with showing the absurdity of such an
opinion." In a foot-note he adds : " I am aware that
the name of Waterland can be pleaded for the inter
pretation that CHRIST is our Altar as well as Priest
and Sacrifice." *
It would have been quite impossible for anyone with
even a moderate acquaintance with the Fathers to have
written these words — that is, if he had the reverence
for the Fathers which Mr. Sadler manifests in other
places; since readers of the Fathers would know that a
great many of them speak of our L,ORD as Himself the
Altar. To quote but one example, S. Kpiphanius says,
" He is the Victim, He the Priest, He the Altar." f
Many commentators on Hebrews also take the altar to
mean our LORD'S Humanity, the Altar in heaven on
which the sacrifices of the Church are offered to GOD.
This view is found also in many mediaeval writers on
the liturgy. It is therefore quite inconceivable that
Mr. Sadler would have characterized it as an opinion
so absurd that he apologizes for taking up the reader's
time with showing its absurdity, if he had been aware
that it was the Patristic view. The way, too, in which
he quotes Waterland, as though he thought that he
was the author of this opinion, is another indication
that he was quite unaware that it was Patristic in its
origin. Indeed I fear that those who have read Water-
land's treatise On the Eucharistic Sacrifice will feel that,
Protestant as he was, he knew a great deal more about
the Fathers, at first hand, than Mr. Sadler did.
We have drawn attention in Chapter IV. to Mr.
Sadler's apparent adoption of the "appalling view"
of Bengel and Alford, who teach that our LORD'S
* Sadler, Th4 One Offering, pp. 31, 32.
t S. Eph., H<zr., lv., n. 4.
SADLER'S " THE ONE OFFERING." 549
Resurrection-Body was bloodless, and that the precious
Blood which He shed upon the Cross exists in heaven
separated from His Body, and is offered sacrificially
somewhat as the Jewish priest offered the blood of the
victim.
It is not necessary to make any further examination
of Mr. Sadler's book. What we have pointed out is
sufficient to show how little weight can be attached
to his opinion on any question which rests on Patristic
authority.
APPENDIX G.
CORRESPONDENCE.
IN the preparation of The Eucharistic Sacrifice the
author had occasion to write to many theologians
in England, France, and Germany, whose works
are among the standard authorities on this subject, to
ask for explanations of passages which were not clear ;
but especially to find out their opinion on questions
which had not been treated in their works. From
all he received most courteous replies, — from several
most helpful and suggestive letters. Out of this cor
respondence he has selected the following letters as
of special value and interest, since they are all from
writers of great eminence and, with the exception of
the Bishop of Durham, from those who are somewhat
in sympathy with the Modern school.
Of five German theologians to whom he wrote, he
gives a letter from Dr. Paul Schanz, so well known
from his work, Die Lehre von den Heiligen Sacramenten
der Katholischen Kirche.
Of the three French writers he prints in full a most
interesting correspondence with Dr. Lepin, Director of
the Grand Seminary of S. Irenseus at L,yons.
Of the many English theologians he has obtained
permission to use letters from the Bishop of Durham
and from the Rev. F. A. Brightman. Bishop Westcott's
letter will carry great weight as the opinion of the
greatest living authority on the interpretation of the
550
COR RE SP ONDENCE. 5 5 I
Epistle to the Hebrews. Mr. Brightman's letter is ot
special interest as setting forth with great clearness the
distinctive features of the more extreme form of the
Modern view.
The author wished to add letters from several other
representatives of this school, but found that they were
unwilling that their letters should appear.*
Of each of the French and German theologians the
author asked whether they knew of any writer earlier
than Socinus who interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews
on the Socinian theory that our LORD is therein rep
resented as offering a sacrifice in heaven after His As
cension, for which His Death upon the Cross was only
the preparation. Not one of them, however, knew of
any writer earlier than Socinus who held this view.
With this introduction we shall proceed to the letters
themselves.
The first we give is from the Rt. Rev. Dr. Westcott,
Bishop of Durham. The author had written to ask :
1. For references to certain passages in S. Chrysos-
tom and S. Euthymius Zigadenus.
2. Whether the Bishop knew of any passages in the
Fathers in any way favorable to the Modern view.
3. Whether his lordship knew of any writer earlier
than Socinus in which the modern interpretation of the
Epistle to the Hebrews was to be found. Bishop West
cott' s answer is very definite and convincing.
AUCKLAND CASTLE,
BISHOP AUCKLAND,
June 19, 1900.
MY DEAR SIR:
Allow me to thank you for your most interesting
letter. I am sorry that you should have found any
* In the Preface p., x., will be found some account of these
letters.
5$2 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
difficulty about the quotations. Unless a special refer
ence is given, the quotations are, I think, uniformly
taken from the part of the Commentary which deals
with the special passage. Thus the passage of Chrysos-
tom is taken from Horn, xiii., § 8, in which he deals
with Heb. vii. 27. The words of Buthymius are taken
from his comment on the same verse. The whole note
runs : sxsiroi (the Levitical priests) }&v di o\i]S
GOTJZ naQ rj^pav iepdrsvov, o de
lepdrevffsv. The notes of Kuthymius on the
Epistle were first published at Athens by Abp. Calo-
geras in 1887, and the book is not, I think, well
known. On verse 25 Euthymius expresses the true
conception of the LORD'S Intercession with singular
terseness and force: avrrf ovv rf STtavOpoaTtrjGiZ avrov
rtapanciksi rov liars pa vnkp i^wv.
Of the history of the ' ' modern conception of CHRIST
pleading His Passion in heaven" I cannot say any
thing. I have not worked it out. When I feel satis
fied that an opinion is wrong, I generally dismiss it.
The pathology of interpretation, if I may use the
phrase, has no attraction for me. I greatly regret,
therefore, that I cannot add anything to what you
have collected. The thought is, as far as I know, not
found in the Fathers.
Believe me to be, yours most faithfully,
(Signed) B. F. DUNEI.M.
THE REVEREND DR. MORTIMER.
AYSGARTH, YORKS, P. S. O.,
September 4, 1900.
MY DEAR SIR :
Let me thank you for your letter. Pray make any
use you think right of what I wrote to you. To me
more and more Holy Scripture is the standard of faith
and I hardly look beyond it as I study the words in
the full light of our present experience. Your work, I
cannot but hope, will do valuable service to Biblical
truth.*
*This must not be referred to the book as a whole, but only
to what his lordship knew of its contents, namely, to the in-
CORRESPONDENCE. 553
Forgive a very short note. Just now I am over
whelmed with work and years tell.
Yours most faithfully,
(Signed) B. F. DUNELM.
THE REVEREND DR. MORTIMER.
The next letter is from the Rev. F. K. Brightman,
librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford, to whom the
author had written asking for titles of works on the
subject of the Kucharistic Sacrifice, for passages of
the Fathers in support of the Modern view, and for an
explanation of some statements in Mr. Brightman's
pamphlet, The Eucharistic Sacrifice ; and, further, to
seek his opinion in regard to the view of Bengel and
Alford, that our LORD'S Blood was offered in heaven
separated from His Body.
PUSEY HOUSE, OXFORD,
June ii, 1900.
DEAR DR. MORTIMER :
I scarcely know how to apologize to you for leaving
your letter so long unanswered.
I do not think I can very satisfactorily answer your
questions.
i. I cannot suggest anything beyond the authors
you quote. *
ii. In speaking of the "other acts" one is neces
sarily, of course, referring to the " type " rather than
to the " antitype." In speaking of His life now as
" acts," I conceive one is only speaking symbolically.
His eternal Sacrifice is not an act or succession of acts,
but a relation. In speaking of Him as presenting His
Blood, I conceive one means that He is doing, or rather
He is, what was symbolized by the presentation of the
terpretation of the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to
the tracing back of the modern interpretation to Socinus, and
the attempt to show that it is inconsistent with the teaching
of the Fathers.
554 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Blood. In fact, His Blood is merely Himself in a
certain relation, resulting from His historical acts.
Accordingly, I do not wish to find myself within meas
urable distance of the appalling view of Alford and
Bengel.
iii. I have no catena of Fathers, etc., beyond what
you have, I expect. I may have noted somewhere one
or two things which seemed to bear on the subject, but
I do not think I have anything of importance.
iv. I have not looked at the Anglican Catena for a
very long time now. But when I did, it seemed to me
that, of those who tried to define more exactly what
they meant, comparatively a good many tended to
wards this view ; and in the explicitness of its state
ment it seemed, and seems, to me to be characteristic
of the Anglican divines. I do not mean more than
this, that so far as they have a characteristic view, or
theory, or statement, it is this.
I should like to say in general two things :
i. That, whatever may seem to be the scantiness of
authority for this view put explicitly, the same may be
said about any other view. There is plenty of author
ity for the Eucharist being a Sacrifice, or the memorial
of a Sacrifice ; but there is exceedingly little, if any,
for any particular explicit view of how it comes to be
so, or what exactly you mean when you say it is so.
Any particular view, therefore, is only offered as an
'attempt to articulate the meaning of the thing, and
ought not to make any claim to adequacy or exhaust-
iveness. To me it seems that the sort of view I fol
lowed in my tract — not said there — best harmonizes
the many things that have been said about it.
ii. That the most explicit view or views have been
founded on an a priori definition of sacrifice which does
not seem to me even worth discussion. I should now
say what I have said on this point in that tract, much
more strongly. Whatever a sacrifice is, at least it
seems to me one may say confidently that it is not the
destruction of a thing in honour of GOD.
It certainly seems to me that the results of Compara
tive Religion, so far as any are reached, and whatever
CORRESPONDENCE. 555
modifications they may require in the future, are quite
illuminating for this subject. So far, they mean that
the Eucharist requires no discussion as to the fact of its
being obviously, absolutely, and primarily a Sacrifice :
it simply satisfies the definition and embodies the idea ;
and this becomes the fundamental fact from which we
start, not the result at which we arrive, in all theorizing
and speculation upon it. And in fact it seems to be
implied that we ought to have begun with the Euchar
ist as the Sacrifice, and derived our conception of Sac
rifice from it, and interpreted the Atonement by it.
And I am not sure that this whole position was not
much more that of the Fathers than we commonly im
agine. The conception of Sacrifice was still more or
less living, and the Eucharist spoke directly to what
was in their minds. Whereas our minds are rilled with
all sorts of arbitrary and perverted imaginings, so that
we have to argue, even to ourselves, that the Sacrifice
is a sacrifice at all ; while utterances on the sacrificial
side of the Atonement are apt to be simply unintel
ligible or irrelevant.
I am sending you the tract. I should like to alter
some of it in detail.
Yours very faithfully,
(Signed) F. E. BRIGHTMAN.
The third letter is from Dr. Schanz, so well known
for his profound treatment of the whole question of the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. To understand Dr. Schanz's
reply it is necessary to prefix a copy of the author's
letter to him. It will be observed that Dr. Schanz
points out that the author was in error in attributing
to Dr. Thalhofer the view held by Mr. Brightman, that
the essentially sacrificial act, our LORD'S oblation of
Himself to the FATHER, took place not upon the
Cross, but after our LORD'S Ascension into heaven.
This error arose from the difficulty of obtaining copies
of Thalhofer' s works. The author had twice sent to
556 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Germany for them and received the answer that they
were out of print. His knowledge of Dr. Thalhofer's
views was therefore obtained from references to his
writings in Stentrup, Vacant, and others. A few
days before Dr. Schanz's reply was received, the au
thor succeeded in obtaining copies of Dr. Thalhofer's
books, Das Opfer des Alten und des Neuen Bundes and
Handbuch der Katholischen Liturgik, through a second
hand German bookseller, and found, of course, as Dr.
Schanz shows, that Dr. Thalhofer was entirely ortho
dox in regard to our LORD'S Sacrifice upon the Cross.
Claris^ ac Rev0 Paulo Schanz,
Doctori et Professori SS. Theologies,
Aluredus G. Mortimer, SS.T.P., Salutem.
VIR DOCTISSIME :
Jam diutius studio " Quomodo Missa sacrificium sit "
deditus, nunc autem evulgando opere de ea re ad-
laborans, mirum non est me summam operam contulisse
ut mentem tuam respectu doctrinae istius perspectam
haberem.
Quum votis meis potitus essem, libet tibi significare
opiniones tuas mihi adniodum arrisisse.
Unicum tamen obstabat quominus Germanice legendo
ipse perfruerer mea ejus linguae imperitia, quapropter
ut voto meo potirer partim interpretis auxilio mihi
utendum erat, partim autem librorum Anglicorum et
lyatinorum in quibus placita tua allegata reperiri pote-
rant, veluti Manuale Theologies Catholicce, auctoribus
Wilhelm et Scannell.
Consilium proinde cepi ut tibi scriberem et praesertim
circa unum qusestionis punctum te consulerem, utpote
qui tutius consilium mihi praestare possis, quam quis-
cumque quern sciam.
Cornu quaestionis hujus spectat ad obtutum Cl* Thal
hofer, qui a Cl° Stentrup (in Soteriologia, Parte II.)
acriter oppugnatus est. Placitum Thalhoferianum de
Sacrifido Ccelesti interpretation quadam Kpistolae ad
CORRE SP ONDENCE. 557
Hebrseos nititur, scilicet, actionem essentialiter sacri-
ficalem oblationis semel a CHRISTO factae nou in Cruce
sed in Ccelo post ejus ingressum quaerendam esse.
Doctrina haec, quse in saeculo XVII0 in scriptis
Anglicanis aliquando invenitur, auctori plerumque
attribuitur Georgio Cassandro, Belgae Catholico, qui
anno 1566 erat mortuus.
Attamen interpretatio eadem Epistolae ad Hebraeos
in operibus Fausti Socini exhibetur. Hie autem credi-
tur a plurimis e scriptis posthumis patrui, Lselii Socini,
interpretationem hanc hausisse. lyselius vero vita
functus est anno 1564.
Kx hoc clare intelligimus lyselium Socinum binis
annis, antequam opus Cassandri (quod opinionem hanc
complectitur), lucem viderat, mortuum fuisse.
Ad fontem anteriorern L,. Socino regredi non poteram.
Persuasum mihi est earn sententiam a patribus ac
theologis veteribus depromi non posse.
Suntne ulla vestigia obtutus hujus in operibus scrip-
torum quorumcumque saeculo XV° vel dimidio priore
saeculi XVI1 tibi cognita ?
Quaestionem hanc jam variis theologis proposueram
a quibus cunctis humanissima responsa tuli, nemo
tamen scriptorem Socino anteriorem suggerere poterat.
Indulge, quaeso, eapropter ut idem a te percontari
possim quum te humanitate summa esse intelligam.
Quum Clos et Revdos Thalhofer atque Stentrup jam e
vivis migrasse compertum habeam, nee ad quern recur-
sus pateat praeter te sciam, officium praestabis exi-
mium, nee memoria abolendum, si quaesito, quoad ejus
possis, responsum dederis.
Cum summo ac perpetuo tui studio,
AIJJR^DUS G. MORTIMER.
PHII.ADEI.PHI^, xiiio Julii.
TUBINGEN, 24° Au^., 1900.
Clarissimo ac Rev0 Aluredo G. Mortimer, SS. T. D.
Salutem /
VIR DOCTISSIMK :
Litteras tuas accepi et quaestionem de vi ac natura
Sacrificii CHRISTI quantum possum solvere conabor.
558 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Inter placitum Thalhoferianum de Sacrificio Ccelesti
et dogma Socinianorum de eodem magni interest.
Thalhofer ex epistola ad Hebraeos neutiquam concludit
actionem essential! ter sacrificalem oblationis semel a
CHRISTO factae non in Cruce sed in ccelo post ejus in-
gressum quaerendam esse, sed characterein sacrificii
cruenti omnino destructionem vitae esse contendit,
quare per sanguinis efFusionem CHRISTUM semel in ara
Crucis mundum reconciliasse credit.
At sacrificium coeleste nihilominus vere esse Sac-
rificium opinatur, non nudam interpellationem seu
reprsesentationem. Auctores antiquos, quos enumerat,
invenies apud Stentrup, nee minus apud Thomassin.,
De Incarn., cc. x., xi., sqq.
Quod vero attinet ad Socinianos, hi negant divinita-
tem CHRISTI et pretium sacrificii in Cruce oblati pro
redemptione hominum. Solus CHRISTUS a mortuis
resuscitatus et in ccelum ingressus ofFert tanquam
vicarius Patris sacrificium quoddam cceleste, ex quo
gratiae in homines influunt.
Atque haec doctrina non tantum Cassandri est sed
etiam Socinii Fausti et Lselii, ex epistola ad Hebraeos
hausta. Eadem est in catechismo Socinianorum Raco-
vensi (anno 1609) posita. Qui non solum secundum
citatam epistulam perenne sacerdotium CHRISTI com-
memorat, sed etiam addit : ' ' JESUS in coelis expiationem
peccatorum nostrorum peragit,dum a peccatorum poenis
nos liberat virtute mortis suae, quam pro peccatis nostris
ex DEI voluntate subiit. Victima enim tarn preciosa,
tantaque CHRISTI obedientia, perpetuam corarn DEO
vim habet, nos qui in CHRISTUM credimus, et CHRISTO
commortui sumus, ne peccatis vivamus, a peccatorum
poenis defendendi ; porro dum potestate sua, quam a Pa-
tre plenani et absolutam consecutus est, perpetuo nos
tuetur et iram DEI, quam in impios effundere consuevit,
intercessione sua a nobis arcet, quod scriptura inter
pellationem pro nobis appellat ; deinde ab ipsorum
peccatorum servitute nos liberat, dum nos sibi manci-
pat, partim inorte itidem ilia sua quam pro nobis
perpessus est, partim in sua ipsius persona nobis os-
tendendo, quid consequatur is qui a peccando destitit,"
CORRESPONDENCE.
etc. (Sectio de munere CHRISTI). CHRISTUM demum
resuscitatione a mortuis Sacerdotem coelestem consti-
tutum esse expressis verbis enuntiatur.
Antecessores sensu stricto Sociniani non habent, nisi
Nominalistas et Scotistas tales habueris, quippe qui
omnia in libero arbitrio DKI et in obedientia CHRISTI
ponant.
At hi semper sacrificium Crucis defendant, et effica-
ciam Sacramentorum ex opere operate tenent.
Denique addo, notionem Sacrificii, quam Scheeben,
Schanz, et alii statuunt, a plerisque oppugnari. Singuli
quidem nuperrime earn suam fecerunt, ex. gr. I^epin,
L* Idee du Sacrifice dans la Religion Chretienne, princi-
palement apres le P. de Condren et M. Olier, Lyon,
1897. Fixeront (Z,' Universite CathoL, 1897, J5 Mai,
p. 550) citat Berulle, Thomassinum et Bossuet tan-
quam antecessores huic notioni consentientes.
Hsec sunt quae quaestioni tuae respondere possum.
Quse si labori tuo prosint, pergratum mihi est.
Cum summo tui studio,
DR. SCHANZ.
The last letters given are from M. 1'Abbe Lepin, to
whose work, L? Id£e du Sacrifice dans la Religion Chre
tienne, we have so often referred. These letters most
eloquently and ably present all that is attractive in the
Modern view, but without its unorthodox basis, the
transference of the act of our LORD'S Sacrifice upon
the Cross to heaven.
As M. Lepin is often quoted as favouring the Modern
view in its entirety, the author wrote to ask him how
far he accepted certain statements of Mr. Brightman
and others. The whole correspondence is given, since
it is only fair that, as M. L,epin had not Mr. Bright-
man's work before him, the very words in which the
author described that view should be given. And be
sides, the author's last letter points out where he con
siders M. Lepin' s argument to be wanting in cogency.
560 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Clarissimo ac Reverendo M. Lepin, SS.T.D., Viro
Dodissimo,
Aluredus G. Mortimer, Salutem !
VIR SPECTATISSIME :
Binis annis abhinc amicus meus Revus F. Puller,
S.S.J.K., Oxoniensis, tractatum L* Ideedii Sacrifice dans
la Religion Chretienne a te scriptum fuisse me edocuit,
quern ego, quamprimum per otium poteram, summa
cura ac studio, nee sine uberrimo fructu, perlegi.
Quum et ipse quaestionum a te propositarum sim
studiosus, plurimum mea interesse arbitrabar ut in doc-
trina tanti moment! mentem tuarn plane perspicerem.
Hoc autem eo magis quod inter erudites Anglise opini-
onum schola viget, quae auctoritate tui nominis ad ful-
cienda sua placita utendum putat.
Dubio quodam tentus, anceps sum utrum proposita
tua de Sacrificio Kucharistiaa reapse innuant, quod
schola suprafata iis significari contendat. Hinc veni-
am tuam impetrare spero, si in tanto dubio ad fonteni
doctrinae, auctorem nimirum doctissinium ipsum, re
cur rere ausus sim.
Quamquam peritus Gallice legendi, impar tamen
scribendo, ut lingua scholse uterer satius ducebam.
Cornu igitur quaestionum in medio istud est : De
Sacrificio Missae tractans Schola, cujus Clarissimi
Brightman et Puller, Oxoniae, sunt interpretes, ac-
tionem sacrificalem e reproductione vult constare non
teinporis momenti mortis JESU CHRISTI in Cruce, sed
momenti temporis actionis Domini nostri in coelo per-
petuae, qua Ministri tabernaculi veri, Sacerdotis secun-
dum ordinem Melchisedec.
Placet ei in Bucharistia "Agnum tanquam occisum "
attamen ' ' stantem in medio Throni ' ' potius quam se
in Cruce offerentem deprehendere.
Ut alium scriptorem quendam scholae allegem,
<4 Modus quo sacrificium comprehend! debeat," inquit
Doctor Mason, " est hie : CHRISTUS adest nobis in
altari eodem modo quo in coelo. Idem nos Ipsi in
altari facere sinit quod Ipse in coelo facit."
CORRESPONDENCE. 561
Hinc manifestum est Kucharistiam ad mortem in
Cruce indirecte tantum referri, id est, mediante func-
tione CHRISTI, qua Mediatoris, in ccelo.
Estne hoc tua niens ? Schola praefata asseverat
hoc tuam mentem esse. Ego dubito, atque hoc propter
rationes subsequentes :
1. Propter usum vocabuli " Sacrificii " sequivocum
in lyitteris Sacris atque in scriptis sanctorum Patrum ;
quandoquideni in utrisque sacrificium adhibitum de-
prehendimus, partim improprie (recte tarnen) ad actus
internes veluti ad preces, laudes, gratiarum actiones,
poenitentiam, e. g., " Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribu-
latus" (Ps. li. 17), partim autemproprze ad actuni ex-
ternum quo res quaedani Deo offertur.
2. Quod in Patribus ac theologis duas assertorum
series invenimus (i) Alteram Eucharistiam cum func-
tione CHRISTI, qua Mediatoris, in ccelo mystice con-
jungentem ; (2) Alteram Eucharistiam cum morte
CHRISTI in Cruce dogmatice nectentem.
(1) Series prior precibus quibusdam vetustis nititur
in liturgia adhibitis, quarum oratio, Supplues Te ro-
gamus, in liturgia Romana est exemplum.
Forma antiquissima precum hujusmodi, quantum
sciam, in libro octavo Constitutionum Apostolicarum
occurrit. Scriptores vetustissimi forsitan qui ad preces
has alludunt, sunt : S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, S. Am-
brosius, atque minus directe S. Irenseus, uti, " Est ergo
altare in coelis (illuc enim preces nostrse et oblationes
diriguntur) " (Adv. H<zres., 1. v., c. 18, n. 6).
Missis vetustioribus, recentiores theologi,a te allegati,
Olier, de Condren, et Bossuetus magnus, iisdem prope
verbis utuntur. Scripta tamen, quse has sententias
comprehend tint, plerumque indolem admodum myslicam
exhibent, atque ambages verborum mysticorum prse se
ferunt, suntque opera maxima ex parte ad pietatem
facientia.
(2) Huic adversatur series posterior, quae ex operi-
bus ssepe eorundem Scriptorum dogmaticis erui potest,
in quibus essentiam sacrificii Eucharistici in relatione
sua ad sacrificium Crucis sitam esse semper docent,
atque hoc sine ulla men ti one relationis ad ea quse
36
562 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Dominus noster in coelo nunc agit. Quin etiam non de-
sunt Patres perinde ac theologi, qui negare non dubi-
tent Dominum nostrum in coelo sacrificium verum et
proprium nunc offerre, quamquam scriptores hoc genus
oblationem, seu immolationem, mysticam in coelo sine
dubio agnoscunt; e. g., ut manifestum fit e sequentibus
Theodoreti verbis, " Sacerdos autem mine est CHRIS-
Tus, ex luda secundum carnem ortus, non ipse aliquid
offerens, sed Caput exsistens eorum qui offerunt. Cor
pus enim suum Bcclesiam vocat, et per earn sacerdotio
fungitur ut homo, recipit autem ea quae offeruntur ut
Deus. Offert vero Kcclesia corporis et sanguinis sym-
bola, totam massam per primitias sanctificans " (In
PsaL, cix., 4, Migne, P. G., torn. 80, col. 1774).
Quandoquidem iidem scriptores in diversis suis operi-
bus ambobus placitis favent, manifestum est ea sibi non
repugnare se arbitrates fuisse.
His praemissis, indulge, amabo, ut velut explica-
tionem, quid ego hac de re sentiam, paucis ostendam.
Ex mea identidem sententia de rebus tnystids scriben-
tes auctores hi multum aberant quominus sacrificium
Missae definire voluissent, nee nisi relationem veram,
spiritalem, ad vitam Domini nostri in coelo glorificam
exprimere gestiebant.
Ne copiosus sim, me ad citandum Bossuetum solum
restringam, quippe quern tu pagina 184 in medium pro-
tuleras. Citatum tuum est ex operibus suis mysticis,
nempe, Explication de quelques difficultes sur les prieres
de la Messe a un nouveau catholique.
At ex ad versa parte in sua definitione sollicita cura
elaborata de sacrificio Missae, quam in litteris atque
explicationibus ad Cl. ac Rev. Ferry, Ministrum Pro-
testanticum, Mettensem, invenimus, mentionem prorsus
nullam facit sacrificii Missae quasi id ullo modo nexum
sit cum functione JESU CHRISTI in coelo. Verba sunt
hsec :
[Here followed the passages from Bossuet (a transla
tion of which we have given in Chapter IV., pages 74-
76), CEuvres, torn, vi., pp. 116-118.]
CORRESPONDENCE. 563
In his verbis, oblationis, quam JESUS CHRISTUS in
coelo facit, nulla mentio invenitur.
Si tibi dogmatice definiendum foret ex quibus ele-
mentis sacrificium Eucharisticum consistat, potiusne
definitionem scholae Anglicanae, Mason et Brightman,
cujus verba meraoravi, an vero definitionem Bossueti,
in sua propositione ad Cl. ac Rev. Ferry, Ministrum
Protestanticum, Mettensem, datam, adoptare eligeres ?
Quanquam Bossuetus, ut supra videbamus, defini
tionem hanc conceptui, Eucharistiam cum functione
CHRISTI, qua Mediatoris, in coelo conjungenti, repu-
gnare arbitratus non sit, attamen mini, causarn ejus rei,
quod Bucharistia est sacrificium verum ac proprium, in
relatione Eucharistiae ad functionem suprafatam Domini
nostri in coelo inveniri, pugnare videtur.
Veritatem tanto tuo incommode indaganti, veniam-
que tuam bonam flagitanti indultum a te iri spero.
Quodcunque responsum mihi benigne dederis, exi-
mium erga me beneficium a te collatum, me considera-
turum scito. Vale quarn plurimum.
Cum tui studio persevere,
ALUREDUS G. MORTIMER.
S. MARK'S CLERGY HOUSE,
, ii° April., 1900.
SEMINAIRE ST. SUFFICE, ISSY, PRES PARIS.
MONSIEUR :
II a fallu toutes les occupations d'une fin d'annee
scolaire pour me faire retarder aussi longtemps la re-
ponse que j'avais promise a votre honoree lettre du 5
aout dernier. Je profite d'un peu de repit, a la veille
de nos examens pour satisfaire de mon mieux aux
questions que vous voulez bien me proposer. Puisque
vous connaissez la langue francaise, et que moi-meme,
tout en lisant couramment Tanglais, ne saurais 1'ecrire
assez correctement, c'est en frangais que je prends la
liberte de venir m'entretenir avec vous.
I. Tout d'abord, Monsieur, les RR. Brightman,
Puller et Mason, me paraissent bien dans le vrai
lorsqu'ils etablissent une relation entre le Sacrifice de la
564 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
Messe et 1'Offrande que J£sus CHRIST fait de L/ui-meme
dans le Ciel. I,e Sacrifice de la Messe, en effet, contient
JE)SUS CHRIST, reellement present, dans sa vie ressusci-
tee et glorieuse sur nos autels. II L,e contient done
avec cette oblation incessante qu'Il fait de L,ui-meme
a son PERE, c'est a dire avec le Sacrifice du Ciel, de-
sormais inseparable de sa personne. En sorte que, par
1'Kucharistie, nous avons sur nos autels terrestres,
1' equivalent exact du Sacrifice qu' off re Notre SEI
GNEUR J£sus CHRIST sur 1'autel du Ciel.
C'est cette relation du Sacrifice de la Messe au Sacri
fice du Ciel que j'ai essaye d'exposer moi-meme dans
mon ouvrage, en montrant (p. 201) comment " le
Sacrifice de 1'Kucharistie contient le Sacrifice du Ciel,"
et (p. 225) comment notre Sacrifice est sur la terre le
parallele, le correspondant du Sacrifice Celeste.
Sur ce point done, je suis heureux d'etre en parfait
accord avec les R.R. Brightman, Puller et Mason.
Mais ou je me separerais de ces RR. DD., c'est sur
la question de definir si cette relation avec le Sacrifice
du Ciel constitue veritablement V essence du Sacrifice de
la Messe, ou bien lui est settlement en quelque sorte
accidentelle. Ces RR. DD., me dites-vous (car mal-
heureusement j' ignore leurs ecrits auxquels vous faites
allusion), veulent faire consister 1'essence du Sacrifice
de la Messe dans sa relation au Sacrifice du Ciel,
plut6t que dans sa relation au Sacrifice de la Croix, de
telle sorte que le Sacrifice Eucharistique ne se rap-
porterait au Sacrifice de la Croix qu' indire dement et
par I ' intermediaire du Sacrifice Celeste.
Je ne voudrais pas souscrire a une proposition ainsi
formulee, et vous avez tout a fait raison, Monsieur, de
penser que cette conception ne repond pas exactement
a ma propre maniere de voir.
En effet, la relation du Sacrifice Eucharistique au
Sacrifice Celeste, tout en me paraissant tres veritable et
tres reelle (sur ce point je suis pleinement d' accord
avec les RR. DD.), ne me semble pas constituer es-
sentiellement le Sacrifice de la Messe, mais lui etre
plutot une relation accidentelle (et c'est la ou je me
separerais de ces Messieurs).
CORRESPONDENCE. 565
Le Sacrifice de la Messe, en effet, etant tin sacrifice
d1 application, a V Eglise de la terre^ des merites du Sac
rifice premier accompli sur la Croix, doit essentiellement
avoir une relation sensible a ce Sacrifice de la Croix.
Sans doute dans 1'Eucharistie nous avons le Sacrifice
du Ciel, et ce Sacrifice est Lui-meme directement relatif
au Sacrifice du Calvaire, dont il est 1'eternelle com
memoration et application. Mais cette relation, tres
reelle, au Sacrifice du Calvaire est invisible pour nous.
Or le Sacrifice propre de 1'Eglise militante doit etre un
Sacrifice sensible. II est done essentiel a notre Sacri
fice Eucharistique d' avoir avec le Sacrifice de la Croix
une relation visible et directe, independante de cette
relation indirecte et invisible qu'il a deja avec lui par
le Sacrifice du Ciel qu'il contient. Cette relation
directe et visible se fait par la mise du SAUVEUR sous
les especes separees du pain et du vin, qui nous repre-
sentent sensiblement son Corps et son Sang separes
par 1' Immolation du Calvaire.
Le Sacrifice de la Messe est done bien la reproduction
de rOffrande sacrificale de Notre Seigneur dans le Ciel,
mats faite dans conditions appropriees a 1'etat de
1'Eglise militante, pour qui il est particuliereinent of-
fert. Ce qui le constitue essentiellement, c'est bien
1'offrande que N. S. fait de Lui-m£me a son Pere.
Mais avec une speciale et directe relation sensible azi Sac
rifice de la Croix, par la consecration sous les especes
du pain et du vin separees.
C'est bien la, si je ne me trompe, la notion essentielle
que j'ai donnee du Sacrifice Eucharistique dans mon
ouvrage. En effet, apres avoir expose la relation entre
le Sacrifice de la Messe et le Sacrifice du Ciel, j'ai eu
soin de remarquer (p. 209) : cc Nazis ne pouvons dire
simplement que la Messe est le Sacrifice du Ciel, rendu
present avec la personne de J£sus CHRIST sur V autel.
Le SAUVKUR, en effet, continue dans le tabernacle sa
presence sous 1'espece du pain avec son Sacrifice
Celeste, et nous savons cependant qu' a la communion
au moins est termine le Sacrifice proprement dit."
D'autre part lorsqu'il s'est agi de determiner 1'essence
du Sacrifice de la Messe, apres avoir note (p. 219)
566 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
que, " absolu par ailleurs, le Sacrifice de la Messe est
aussi essentiellement relatif au Sacrifice du Calvaire qu'il
renouvelle par une mystique representation," j'en suis
venu a le definir (p. 224) : " 1'offrande que Notre
Seigneur Ji&us CHRIST par le ministere exterieur du
pretre visible, y fait de son Humanite Sainte, aneantie
sous les especes mais aussi revetue des marques sensible*
de sa Passion et de sa Mort. ' '
Cette definition, vous 1'avez tres bien vu, Monsieur,
ne Concorde pas avec celle des RR. DD. Bile ne fait
pas mention de la relation au Sacrifice du Ciel, parce-
que, dans ma pensee, cette relation, tout en etant tres
veritable et tres reelle, n'est pas cependant essentielle
ment constitutive du Sacrifice de la Messe, mais lui est
plutot accidentelle, simple relation d' analogic ou de
parallelisme, comme j'ai eu soin de le faire remarquer
(p. 225) : " Awsr, dans le Ciel, Jijsus CHRIST perpe-
tue son Sacrifice et en renouvelle eternellement les
effets. . . ."
II. Cette maniere de concevoir le Sacrifice de la
Messe est entierement conforme, me semble-t-il, a celle
que fait valoir (sans parler du P. de Condren et de M.
Olier), Bossuet lui -me" me, dans tous ses ouvrages, soit
de piete, soit de controverse. Ivt ce n'est pas un des
traits les moins remarquables de la doctrine du grand
theologien que sa parfaite et constante unite de vue sur
ce point.
Toujours, lorsqu'il veut determiner 1' essence de notre
Sacrifice, il la place fax&V oblation que fait Notre Seign
eur de Lui-meme present sous les especes avec relation
sensible au Sacrifice de la Croix par la separation de ces
especes.
Ainsi, dans son Explication de quelques Difficultes
sur les Prieres de la Messe, a un nouveau catholique
(citee dans mon outrage, pp. 184, 185), il mentionne
(i) que " 1'essence de 1'oblation est dans la presence
meme de Jiisus CHRIST en personne, sous cette figure de
mort (par la separation mystique de son corps d'avec
son sang) ; (2) que ce Sacrifice est analogue et parallele
a ce.^u qui a lieu dans le Ciel : " C'etait imiter sur la
terre ce que J£sus CHRIST fait dans le Ciel ; " " Cette
CORRESPONDENCE. 567
presence emporte avec elle une intercession aussi efficace
quc celle que fait Jfesus CHRIST dans le Ciel me* me, en
offrant a DiKU les cicatrices de ses plaies."
Cette Explication . . . est-elle si qualifier d'ecrit
mystique plutot que dogmatique ? Je me permettrai
d'en douter, car Bossuet s'y adresse " a un nou-
veau catholique," et s'y propose de repondre a des
difficultes sur le dogme, bien qu' a propos des prieres de
la Messe. C'est, me semble-t-il, un veritable ecrit
de controverse, et dont les termes sont inurement peses.
Quoiqu'il en soit, Bossuet, sur le point qui nous occupe,
1'exprime absolument de m£me fason dans ses ouvrages
les plus etudies, de controverse dogmatique, en^par-
ticulier dans son Exposition de la Doctrine de V Eglise
catholique sur les Matieres de Controverse, ouvrage dont
il assurait avoir pese toutes les syllabes, et dans son
Explication de differents Points de Controverse, adressee
au Ministre Ferry, et a laquelle vous voulez bien me
referer.
Dans son Exposition de la Doctrine de r Eglise catho
lique . . . (citee dans mon ouvrage, pp. 183, 184),
(i) Bossuet, cherchant la raison pour laquelle nous
avons dans la Messe un veritable sacrifice, la trouve
en ce que " JESUS CHRIST, present sur la sainte table
en cette figure de mort (par la consecration), intercede
pour nous, et represente continueljement a son Pere la
mort qu'il a soufFerte pour son Eglise." (2) II note
1' analogic ou le parallelisme de notre Sacrifice avec le
Sacrifice du Ciel, et semble meme arguer de la realite
du Sacrifice Celeste a la realite du Sacrifice de 1'Eucha-
ristie, a cause de 1' analogic des conditions : " I/ Kglise
. . . ne craint point de dire que JESUS CHRIST s'offre
a DIEU partout ou il paraft pour nous a sa face, et qu'il
s'y offre/>tfr consequent dans 1'Kucharistie, suivant les
expressions des Saints Peres."
Enfin, dans son Explication au Ministre Ferry
de differents points de controverse, et en particulier,
(< de 1'Eucharistie et du Sacrifice," Bossuet s'exprime
en termes identiques : (i) II fait " consister principale-
ment 1' action du Sacrifice que nous reconnaissons dans
1'Eucharistie," en la consecration, " en tant que la
568 THE EUCPIARISTIC SACRIFICE.
mart de J£sus CHRIST y est represents, et que son corps
et son sang y sont mystiquement separes par ces divines
paroles: Ceci est mon corps, ceci est mon sang." (2)
II remarque un peu apres, comme dans ses autres ou-
vrages, 1' analogic entre notre Sacrifice Eucharistique et
le Sacrifice du Ciel : " C'est pour cela que nous disons
que JESUS CHRIST s' off re encore dans I'Eucharistie :
car s'elant une fois devoue pour etre notre victime, il
ne cesse de se presenter pour nous a son Pere, selon ce que
dit V Apotre, qii1 II parcdt pour nous devant la face de
DIEU" " Tout cela n'empeche done pas qu'il ne soit
tres veritable que JESUS CHRIST n'est offer t qu'une
fois ; parcequ' encore qu'Il se soit offert en entrant au
monde pour etre notre victime, ainsi que 1'Apotre le
remarque, encore que nous croyions qu'z'/ ne cesse de se
presenter pour nous a DIEU, non seulement dans le Ciel,
mats encore sur la sainte table, neanmoins tout se rap-
porte a cette grande oblation par laquelle il s'est offert
une fois a la Croix."
C'est done bien, me semble-t-il, 1'idee meme de Bos-
suet que j'ai rendue dans mon ouvrage, en notant (i)
(pp. 201 et 225) que le Sacrifice de 1'Eucharistie contient
le Sacrifice du Ciel, et en est, en quelque sorte V ana
logue, le correspondant, le parallele, sur nos autels ter-
restres, JKSUS CHRIST y faisant a la Messe la meme
oblation qu'il fait de Lui-m£me devant le trone de
Son Pere ; mais en precisant aussi (2) (pp. 209, 214,
223 et 224) qu'il est essentiel au Sacrifice de la Messe
d' avoir, par la mise du SAUVEUR sous les especes sepa-
rees, une relation sensible avec le Sacrifice de la Croix,
dqnt il doit etre la commemoration et 1' application pour
rfiglise de la terre, et que, ce qui constitue essentielle-
mentco. Sacrifice Kucharistique c'est (p. 224) 'Toffrande
qu'y fait Notre Seigneur (offrande d'ailleurs analogue
et parallele a celle qu'il fait au Ciel) de son Humanite
Sainte, aneantie sous les especes, mais aussi revalue des
marques sensibles de sa Passion et de sa Mort. ' '
III. Pour ce qui est de la verite du Sacrifice du Ciel,
je me permettrai d'aj outer simplement quelques mots.
Sur ce sujet, et sur la maniere generale d'envisager le
Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur, on peut distinguer comrne
CORRESPONDENCE. 569
un double courant daus la Tradition patristique et
theologique.
L,es uns plus rigoureux se placant a un point de vue
plus essentiellement pratique ne concoivent le Sacrifice
de Notre Seigneur que sous une double forme : (i)
comme Sacrifice de la Croix, c'est a dire comme Sacrifice
d'expiation, restreint au moment de 1' immolation sur
le Calvaire ; (2) comme Sacrifice de 1'Bucharistie, c'est
a dire comme Sacrifice d' application pour 1'Eglise mili-
tante, borne a la consecration sous les especes sacra-
mentelles representant 1'immolation du Calvaire et
nous en appliquant les fruits. Cette conception est
parfaitement juste, dans toute sa paxtie positive, et elle
restera toujours peut-e"tre la plus simple, la plus acces
sible a 1' esprit des fideles, la plus capable de faire
impression sur eux.
D' autres, plus larges dans leurs vues, plus meditatifs,
plus mystiques si Ton veut, se sont demande si sans
contredire a la theorie precedente et sans rien diniinuer
de ce qu'elle affirme touchant le Sacrifice expiateur de
la Croix et le Sacrifice applicateur de l'Kucharistie, on
ne pouvait pasl'elargir, 1'agrandir, en etendant le Sac
rifice expiateur de Notre Seigneur d toute sa vie mor-
telle, et son Sacrifice applicateur aj;oute sa vie glorieuse.
I/ analogic, et le langage de 1'Kpitre aux Hebreux
paraissent bien justifier cette maniere de voir.
Dans toute la vie mortelle du SAUVEUR, en effet, on
trouve ce qui constitue essentiellement son Sacrifice de
la Croix: 1'offrande de son Humanite Sainte humiliee
et souffrante, pour tous les devoirs de la religion, et
particulierement celui de la reparation. L,e Sacrifice
expiateur de JESUS CHRIST embrasse done tout 1' en
semble de sa vie mortelle. Mais comme I'humiliation
et la souffrance de 1' Humanite Sainte ont atteint leur
summum a 1' immolation du Calvaire, et que c'est a ce
moment du Sacrifice de son FILS qu'il a plu d DIEU le
PERE d'attacher tous les meritesde notre Redemption,
c'est aussi pour cela que le Sacrifice premier de JESUS
CHRIST sur la terre est generalement identifie avec le
Sacrifice de la Croix, qui est bien, en effet, le couron-
nement auquel toute la partie anterieure n'etait pour
57<D THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
ainsi dire, qu'une preparation, le point culminant de-
vant lequel peut s'effacer tout le reste.
De meme, trouve-t-on dans la vie glorieuse de Notre
Seigneur au Ciel tout ce qui constitue essentielle-
ment notre Sacrifice commemorateur et applicateur
de 1'Eucharistie : 1'offrande de son Humanite Sainte,
ressuscitee et glorieuse, mais portant encore les marques
de 1'immolation du Calvaire, afin de rappelere ternelle-
ment a DIKU et d'appliquer aux hommes les merites
attaches au Sacrifice de la Croix.
Que si Ton a souvent laisse dans 1' ombre ce Sacrifice
du Ciel, parallele au Sacrifice de 1'Eucharistie c'est
que, en somme, il nous importe moins, il n'est pour ainsi
dire pas directement pour nous, mais pour les bienheu-
reux : notre Sacrifice a nous, memorial et application,
du Sacrifice de la Croix etant le Sacrifice Eucharistique.
Que si, d'autre part, quelques-uns ont paru nier la
verite du Sacrifice Celeste, le plus souvent ils ont seule-
ment voulu ecarter de 1' esprit des fideles la peasee qu'il
y aurait au Ciel un Sacrifice d' humiliation et d'expia-
tion, comme s'il n'avait pas suffi du Sacrifice du Cal
vaire. Et, entendue ainsi, leur maniere de parler est
parfaitement juste (cf. 1' explication de quelques textes
de St. Jean Chrysostome, et de St. Gregoire de Nazi-
auze dans mon ouvrage, p. 178, notes).
Mais si Ton prend le Sacrifice dans le sens moins
restreint que suggere 1'Epitre aux Hebreux et que
necessjte la verite du Sacrifice Eucharistique enseignee
par 1'Eglise et toute la tradition, on ne peut, me semble-
t-il, refuser de voir un vrai Sacrifice dans cette offrande
que Notre Seigneur fait au Ciel de son Humanite Sainte
toujours marquee des signes de sa Passion et de sa
Mort.
Niee la verit£ du Sacrifice du Ciel, je ne vois pas
comment on peut se tirer du langage tres formel de
Saint Paul dans son Epitre aux Hebreux. D' autre part
il sera toujours, me semble-t-il, fort difficile de donner
du Sacrifice tres veritable de la Messe, une notion qui
ne convienne pas parallelement d 1'offrande que fait
Notre Seigneur de lyui-meme dans le Ciel.
C'est ce qu'a bien compris Bossuet, qui, dans toutes
CORRE SP ONDENCE. 5 7 1
ses argumentations suit constamment ce precede tres
remarquable : (i) apporter le temoignage de 1'Epitre
aux Hebreux pour prouver 1' existence d'un Sacrifice
de Notre Seigneur au Ciel ; (2) conclure par analogic
rigoureuse, de la verite du Sacrifice Celeste a la verite
du Sacrifice de nos autels, ou Notre Seigneur s'offre de
m£me en rappelant son Sacrifice de la Croix par des
marques sensibles, appropriees a notre condition pre-
sente, independantes de celles que porte invisiblement
pour nous son Humanite glorieuse, et qui font de son
offrande sur nos autels un Sacrifice distinct du Sacrifice
Celeste, le Sacrifice propre de 1'figlise militante destine
a lui appliquer particulierement les fruits du Sacrifice
de la Croix.
Ces quelques explications, tres honore Monsieur,
repondent-elles bien aux questions que vous m'avez
fait 1'honneur de me poser ? Je le desire de tout mon
cceur ; et je 1'espere car je crois que vous aviez deja
bien saisi ma pensee, et que nos esprits etaient parfaite-
ment d' accord au moins sur les points principaux de
cette conception du Sacrifice adorable de Notre Seigneur
JESUS CHRIST.
II me reste, Monsieur, a vous remercier de nouveau
de I'interet si bienveillaut que vous avez bien voulu
temoigner a ma these. Soyez persuade que ce sera
toujours pour moi un plaisir de m'entretenir de ces
belles questions avec quelqu'un que les comprend et les
goute si bien.
Je vous prie, tres honore Monsieur, d'agreer 1'hom-
mage de ma respectueuse et bien sympathique consid
eration. M. lyEPIN,
p. s. s.
Ce 4 Juin, 1900. Directeur au
Seminaire Saint Sulpice
a Issy pres Paris.
VIR HUMANISSIME :
Antiquius mihi nihil habeo quam ut tibi plurimas
refundam gratias pro tua humanitate, qua causa mei
tantum incommodum suscipere non dubitabas, ut
5/2 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
qusestionibus meis tarn disertam tamque accuratarn
responsionem elaboravisses.
Conscius non sum te edocuisse me operi de Sacrificio
Kucharistico scriberido intentum esse, nee profecto
mentem meam tibi aperuisse quid de re sentirem.
Quapropter multo gratius mihi est obtutum ad quern
perveneram in essentia concordare cum opinionibus
quas tu in litteris tuis tarn clare tamque dilucide explicas
et evolvis.
Fundamentum, cui ego insisto, est combinatio du-
arum sententiarum extremarum ; altera ad Crucem
solam refert, altera ad Sacrificium cceleste solum, Sacri-
ficium Eucharistiae.
Doctrinam propono Sacrificium Missse directe atque
essentialiteroA Sacrificium Crucis solum referre, attamen
Kucharistiam, qua Sacrificium, veram, imo verissimam
relationem habere ad oblationem Domini nostri in ccelo,
nempe ad magnam Ipsius interpellationem. Kx litteris
tuis colligo mentem tuam hanc esse.
Kx parte mea destructionem victimse elementum
necessarium sacrificii esse ego non censeo, inter nos hie
quoque convenitur.
Quaestio unica, de qua mihi certo non constat, est
utrum in sacrificio coelesti actio proprie sacrificalis re-
periri possit. Cum Cl? Scheeben mihi videtur sacrifi-
cium coeleste Sacrificium mrtualiter esse, sed non
actualiter, siquidem cicatrices in corpore suo gloriosae
tantum actus sacrificalis preeteriti indicio sint.
Dubitandum non censeo opera hac de re in Germania
triginta postremis his annis evulgata tibi cognita esse.
Primum horum, quantum mihi constat, ab auctore
Thalhofer, Das Opfer des alien und des nenen Bundes,
anno 1870 editum erat. Post hoc secuta sunt opera
Schmid, Franz, et aliorum ejusdem scholae, atque trac-
tatus alter a Thalhofer, Handbuch dcr Katholischen
Liturgik (torn, ii., 1887 et 1893). Kx ad versa parte
edebatur magnum opus Stentrup, S. J., quo acriter op-
pugnantur argumenta Thalhoferiana. Inter has duas
scholas collocanda sunt opera Scheeben atque Schanz
de re eadem, auctores hos a te non nimium differre
mihi videtur. Novistine haec opera ?
COR RE SP ONDENCE. 573
Hx quo tibi nuper scripseram plures literae de hac re
haud exigui moment! ad me pervenerunt. Quorum
unae a Cl? Brightman eum imo abruptius quam tibi in-
dicaveram recedere demonstrant, siquidem Kuchari-
stiam Sacrificium absolutum censendum esse asseverat,
atque eapropter doctrinam Propitiationis in Cruce e
Sacrificio Kucharistico interpretari debere, potiusquam
doctrinam Sacrificii Kucharistici e Sacrificio Crucis ar-
bitratur. Doctrinam hanc, te mecum una, ex toto
corde repudiaturum fore certo scio.
Alise litterae ab Illustrissimo ac Reverendissimo B. F.
Westcott, Episcopo Dunelmiensi, heri tantum acceptse,
quibus respondet qusestionibus meis de historia inter-
pretationis modernse Epistolae ad Hebrseos respectu
sacrificii ccelestis. Obtutum hunc indagando ad dimid-
ium posterius sseculi XVI1 usque recessi, quocirca
interrogabam eum utrum quisquam auctorum anterior
saeculo XVI0 sibi notus esset in scriptis cujus doctrina
haec reperiri posset. Bpiscopus Westcott, ut tibi sine
dubio notum, auctoritate in interpretando L,itteras
Sacras, atque prsecipue Epistolam ad Hebrseos, saltern
apud Anglicanos, certe sumnia pollet. Responsio sua
est doctrinam hanc nusquam apud Patres reperiri, nee,
quantum sibi notum, apud ullos auctores ante saeculum
XVIm.
Estne tibi fortasse quisquam auctor cognitus, qui
sacrificium coeleste, ut in ea Epistola docetur, clare ac
distincte profiteatur ?
Has quaestiones a te interrogare ausus sum, quoniam
in litteris tuis tain humanis mini hanc f acultatem largiri
videbaris.
Tandem indulge ut haud pauca quae in litteris tuis ad
rem a me tractatam tarn apprime faciunt, quum visum
fuerit, argumento adhibere possim.
Ex intimis meis gratias summas tibi habeo atque
refero pro omni qua in me es humanitate, quibus cum
omni studio ac fide tibi persevere.
S. MARK'S CLERGY HOUSE, Ai^URKDUS G. MORTIMER.
1625 LOCUST STREET,
PHILADELPHIA, U. S. A.
IVojulii, 1900.
574 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
SIOMINAIRE SAINT IR^NISE, LYON.
12 Septembre, 1900.
MONSIEUR :
Vous etes bien en droit de vouse tonner de mon long
retard a repondre a votre honoree lettre du mois de
Juillet dernier. Mais votre lettre ne m'a pas trotive a
Issy : j'etais a la campagne, malade et condamne au
repos. D'autre part, ces derniers temps, j'ai recu de
mes Superieurs une destination nouvelle : Du Semi-
naire d'Issy, j'ai ete nomine, comme professeur et
directeur, au Seminaire Sl Irenee de Lyon. Vous
voyez, Monsieur, que mon retard a vous ecrire a ete
tout a fait independant de ma volonte. J'espere que
vous voudrez bien m'en excuser, car ca a ete une
vraie peine pour moi de ne pouvoir vous repondre
plus t6t.
C'est avec le plus vif interet que j'apprends, Mon
sieur, votre intention de publier un ouvrage sur le
grand sujet du Sacrifice de 1'Eucharistie. Permettez-
moi de vous en adresser mes sinceres felicitations. Ce
sera pour moi une raison de perseverer, avec une nou
velle ferveur, dans 1' habitude deja prise de porter
chaque jour votre souvenir au Saint Sacrifice de la
Messe, demandant a Notre Seigneur qu'Il vous donne
de comprendre et de gouter de plus en plus son divin
Sacrifice, afm que vous-meme le fassiez mieux com
prendre et mieux aimer.
Vous avez bien raison, Monsieur, de penser que je
suis avec vous pour rejeter la theorie du Rev. Bright-
man. Sans doute, le Sacrifice de 1'Eucharistie est
absolu, comme le Sacrifice de la Croix, en tant qu'il
contient le meme JESUS CHRIST, s'offrant a son Pere
pour tous les devoirs de la religion. Mais, d'une part,
on ne peut dire que le Sacrifice de la Croix soit relatif
au Sacrifice de 1'Kucharistie, car c'est un sacrifice com-
plet par lui-meme et independant ; d'autre part, au
coutraire, le Sacrifice de I'Eucharistie est ^essentielle-
ment relatif, comme Sacrifice propre de 1'figlise mili-
tante, au Sacrifice de la Croix, qu'il est destine a
rappeler et a appliquer par un acte exterieur et sen
sible, approprie a la condition presente du CHRIST
CORRESP ONDENCE. 575
qui est offert et a celle de 1'Eglise pour qui II est
offert.
Vous pensez, Monsieur, avec le Dr Scheeben, que,
dans 1'ofTrande de Notre Seigneur JKSUS CHRIST au
Ciel, nous n'avons pas un sacrifice actuel proprement
dit, mais seulement un sacrifice virluel, en tant que les
cicatrices glorieuses du Sauveur y sont un simple signe
de son sacrifice actuel passe, a savoir de son Sacrifice de
la Croix. Je me permettrai, Monsieur, de yous pre
senter quelques courtes observations sur ce sujet, en me
contentant de mettre simplement en relief la concep
tion un peu differente que j'ai developpee dans mon
ouvrage.
Vous £tes d' accord avec moi, dites-vous, pour penser
que la destruction de la victime n'est pas un element
essentiel au sacrifice. Des lors, si 1' oblation de Notre
Seigneur sur 1'autel Kucharistique, sans destruction
nouvelle de la Victime, mais avec simple representation
sensible de son immolation passee, vous parait nean-
moins etre un sacrifice actuel proprement dit, distinct
du Sacrifice passe de la Croix, pourquoi ne pas voir
aussi un sacrifice actuel et proprement dit dans 1' obla
tion que Notre Seigneur fait de Lui-meme dans le Ciel
en presentant incessamment a Dieu son corps marqu6
des signes de 1' immolation anterieure ? Sur 1'autel du
Ciel, comme sur 1'autel de la terre, nous avons un m£me
Pretre, une m£me Victime, une meme Oblation infini-
ment efficace, appuyee sur une meme representation
(quoique appropriee, ici aux conditions des Bienheu-
reux, la aux condition des fideles mortals), de 1' immola
tion accomplie sur la Croix. Ou bien il faut dire que
le Sacrifice de la Messe n'est qu'un sacrifice virtuel ;
ou bien, a mon avis, il faut dire que le Sacrifice du Ciel,
tout comme le Sacrifice de 1'Kucharistie, est un sacrifice
veritable et actuel,
Comme j'ai eu soin de le faire remarquer dans mon
ouvrage [le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur JKSUS CHRIST
a un element invariable, perseverant a travers ses
diverses phases exetrieures, et qui en fait 1' unite : c'est
1'offrande que Notre Seigneur fait incessamment de
a son Pere, depuis le premier instant de son
5/6 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
existence j usque dans!' eternite, offrande qui comprend
tous les devoirs de la religion et a une infinie efficacite
sur le Coeur de Dieu. Cette offrande, toujours actuelle,
constitue le Sacrifice toujours actuel de Notre Seigneur
JKSUS CHRIST. Kile se trouve au Calvaire, elle se
trouve au Ciel, elle se trouve dans 1'Kucharistie : au
Calvaire, au Ciel, dans 1'Kucharistie, nous retrouvons,
de ce chef, le meme acte, en diverses phases, de 1' unique
et veritable Sacrifice. Cependant, si cette Oblation
toujours actuelle suffit a constituer 1'acte incessant du
sacrifice general de Notre Seigneur JESUS CHRIST, in
separable de sa personne, elle ne suffit point a constituer
specifiquement telle ou telle partie speciale du Sacrifice
du Sauveur, que nous appelons le Sacrifice propre de la
Croix, le Sacrifice propre du Ciel, le Sacrifice propre de
la Messe. II est essentiel au Sacrifice de la Croix que
Notre Seigneur s'y ofrre humili& et immole afin d'expier
reellement nos fautes ; il est essentiel au Sacrifice du
Ciel que Notre Seigneur s'y offre avecune representation
de I immolation du Calvaire (a laquelle il a plu a DIKU
d'attacher les merites de notre Reclemption), representa
tion appropriee a la condition du CHRIST glorieux et a
celle des Bienheureux du Ciel ; il est enfin essentiel au
Sacrifice de 1'Kucharistie que Notre Seigneur s'y offre
avec une representation de la meme immolation du Cal
vaire, appropriee elle aussi a la condition glorieuse du
CHRIST et a celle des fideles de la terre pour qui II est
particulierement offert.
Des lors, a la Croix nous avons un Sacrifice actuel et
proprement dit de Notre Seigneur, parce que nous y
avons, (i) 1'acte incessant de son oblation a son Pere, (2)
1'acte de son immolation sanglante, terme de la longue
immolation qui a commence avec sa vie, et qui sert en
quelque sort de support a son offrande pour 1'expiation
des peches des homines.
Dans 1'Kucharistie, nous avons un sacrifice actuel et
propre de Notre Seigneur, parceque nous y avons, (i)
1'acte incessant de son oblation a son Pere, (2) 1'acte de
sa mise sous les especes separees, en signe de son im
molation anterieure, acte coutinu qui persevere aussi
longtemps que les especes paraissent separees sur
CORRESPONDENCE. 5 77
1'autel. Knfin, dans le Ciel nous avons un Sacrifice
actuel et proprement dit de Notre Seigneur, parceque
nous y avons, (i) 1'acte incessant de son oblation a son
Pere, (2) 1'acte continu, eternel, de la conservation des
cicatrices glorieuses qui rappellent egalement a leur
rnaniere 1' immolation passee.] Sur la question de 1'in-
terpretation traditionelle de 1'fipitre aux Hebreux,
1' eminent Dr. Westcott est certainernent bien capable
de vous fournir des renseignements autorises. Pour
mon propre compte, je ne connais pas de textes patris-
tiques plus formels que ceux cites dans ma these a
propos du sacrifice du Ciel. Je crois seulement que les
textes ou les Peres interpretent 1'fipitre aux Hebreux
se present tres bien dans leur ensemble a la theorie
d'un veritable sacrifice Celeste, et que souvent nieme
leur maniere de decrire, d'apres 1'Apotre, 1' interpella
tion du Sauveur aupres du trdne de Dieu, va sinon
jusqu'a formuler explicitement, du moins jusqu'a in-
sinuer et suggerer la doctrine mise depuis en lumiere
par des hommes tels que Bossuet, le P. de Condren, M.
Olier, et bien d'autres apres eux.
Je suis heureux, Monsieur, de pouvoir vous autoriser
d faire de mes chetives explications 1' usage qui vous
semblera bon. Ce sera un grand honneur pour nioi si
elles meritent votre consideration bienveillante, et un
grand bonheur aussi si elles peuvent, pour leur petite
part, contribuer a faire mieux connaitre et mi eux aimer
Notre Seigneur JESUS CHRIST dans son adorable Sac
rifice.
Je me permets, Monsieur, de vous adresser en meme
temps, une petite brochure, dontj 'ignore 1'auteur, mais
qui vous interessera peut-etre en vous renseignant sur
le mouvement qui porte actuellement bon nombre de
saintes ames, soit dans le monde, soit dans le cloitre, a
etudier le Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur JESUS CHRIST,
et d s'y unir, par leurs aspirations et leurs immolations,
afin de dormer a ce divin Sacrifice ce qui, dans les in
tentions ineffables de Dieu, doit s'y aj outer de la part
de pauvres creatures pour en assurer de plus en plus
1'effet redempteur et sanctificateur.
Veuillez encore une fois, tres honore Monsieur, agreer
37
578 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
mes sinceres excuses pour mon long retard a vous re-
pondre, et 1' expression de ma respectueuse et bien
sympathique consideration en N. S.
M. lyKPiN,
p. s. s.
Pretre de S1 Sulpice,
Directeur au Grand Setninaire de
VIR SPECTATISSIME :
Voluptati, quam e litteris tuis humanissimis haus-
eram, fructus tantum, quos mihi ex iis carpere licuit,
fuerunt pares.
Attamen quum vix ulla gaudia humana amaritudinis
immunia habeantur, aculeum doloris nee ego effugere
poteram, quum te corporis segritudine oppressum ac
gravatum intelligerem. Responsum tuum earn ob
causam remoratum quis miretur?
Caeterum nee mihi datum erat ut proprio meo
arbitrio parerem, quandoquidem procul a sedibus,
laborum, qui morse patientes non erant, mole obrutus,
dies sestivos in anfractibus umbrosis montium dissito-
rum, quasi sub jugum actus, degebam.
Nunc tamen aliquando ad aras focosque redux, ad
officia expedienda ex sententia me accinxi, quum an-
tiquius nihil habebam quam ut tibi, vir amicissime,
ob eximios honores, quibus prsepositi tui te ad altius
dignitatis fastigium evexerant, gratulabundus mea
vota suffragarer. Simul etiam certiorem te fieri volo,
humanitatem tuam, qua exiguitatis mese in sacro Mis-
sse Sacrificio memorem fuisse nuntias, me non modo
summi fecisse, nee gratissimum erga te animum meum
devinxisse scito ; sed et vicem vice pari a me repensam,
atque Numen ^Sternum eodem sacro ritu a me supplici
precatum fuisse, ut tibi dignitate nova honestato, tarn
in celso munere tuo obeundo, quam in novo opere in-
eundo, et feliciter explicando, gratise coelestes nun-
quam deessent, atque ut manus ilia divina, quse te
hactenus in hac vitse semita tanto bono gregis Chri-
stiani rexerat ac gubernaverat, ad suam gloriam te ultro
quoque sospitem ac vegetem servari et vigere juberet.
Gratiis demum tibi obstrictum me sentio pro eo erga
CORRESPONDENCE. 5/9
me beneficio, quo facultatem mihi feceras, ut litteris
tuis doctissiinis in opella mea ad arbitrium nieum uti
liceret, quae facultas mihi certe gratissima est, nee ea
me abusurum spondeo.
Mirus profecto afflatus ille divinus existimandus est,
cujus sub alis tu posthac functurus es, quique te ad
nova orsa singular! virtute excitat. Sub tutela enim
constitutus es summi illius Sancti, Irensei nimirum,
martyrii corona inclyti, qui patronus vestrse urbis vest-
rique seminarii exsistit. Ilia enim nunc tibi est patria,
illse sedes, ille locus, quern Ipse Sanctus, suique socii,
caeteri amici Dei singulares, sua vita, suis rebus gestis
suoque sacro sanguine in perpetuum purpura collus-
trarunt ac bearuut.
Quum hoc aninii sensu essem, haud mediocri cura
legebam quae ad fulciendum obtutum in ccelo sacrifi-
cium actuale potiusquam virtuale perfici memoras.
Tuani itaque indulgentiam imploro ut quid discriminis
inter opiniones nostras intercedat, hie paucis ostendere
patiaris.
Tua verba sunt :
[Here followed that part of M. Lepin's letter which
on pages 575-577 is enclosed in brackets.]
Convenit inter nos de actu, quern tu actum invari-
abilem appellas, ego autem actum interiorem, atque
actum istum sacrificium verum constituere ; sed ad sacri-
ficium verum et proprium efficiendum, actu quoque
exteriori definite opus est.
Actus interior atque invariabilis in ea voluntate in-
venitur qua Dotninus noster Patri Suo, per totam vitam
in terris se offerebat, turn in ccelis et in Kucharistia
sese perpetuo offert.
Actus, contra, exterior, atque essentialiter sacri-
ficalis, queni tu actum specificum nominas, in sacrificio
Crucis in efTusione sanguinis, in Eucharistia autem in
consecratione panis ac vini gemina invenitur. Hacte-
nus inter nos convenitur.
In oblatione ccelesti actum istum, exteriorern, spe-
5 SO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
cificum, atque essentialiter sacrificalem, cicatricibus
continuatis tu consistere autuinas.
Ab hoc puncto vise nostrse divergunt, quandoquidem
continuatio cicatricum cum reliquis duobus actibus,
nempe sanguinis effusione atque panis vinique conse-
cratione, ut mibi videtur, nulla analogia gaudet.
Kffusio sauguinis in Cruce est actus, exterior, defini-
tus, specificus, atque essentialiter sacrificalis ; conse-
cratio quoque panis in Corpus Christi, et vini in
sanguinem CHRISTI, ex institutione Salvatoris nostri,
est actus, exterior, definitus, specificus, atque essential
iter sacrificalis. At, contra, continuatio cicatricum
actus ejusmodi non est. Enimvero continuatio cica
tricum est status, sen conditio, non vero actus, nee
est nisi repraesentatio actus praeteriti, seu effectus
sacrificii praeteriti, non tainen ipsum sacrificium pro-
prium.
Liceat mini illustratione hac uti ; — Confessor, qui
voluntate, sed non facto, martyrium perpessus fuerit,
cicatrices quotidie gerit, velut symbola martyrii hujus
quod pati voluerat, nee tamen eum martyrium quotidie
pati dici potest.
Actum sacrificalem, invariabilem in vita Domini
nostri, ab Incarnatione sua ad Mortem suam usque in
Cruce, in effusione sanguinis culmen attingere atque
effectui datum esse, sententia mea est. Ita ut sacrifi
cium hac effusione sanguinis in Cruce factum, quod
antea (juxta definitionem S. Augustini notissimam)
sacrificium verum fuisset, in sacrificium quoque pro-
priicm elevatum esset.
Simili modo oblatio in ccelis perpetua effectus seu
fructus, hujus sacrificii veri ac proprii in Cruce semel
facti esse censenda est. Oblationem igitur hanc cce-
lestein cum S. Augustino sacrificium verum, cum
Scheeben et Schanz sacrificium virtuale vocare quidem
possumus ; attamen, me judice, non sacrificium pro-
prium nee actuale.
Ratio est, quod oblatio haec coelestis quolibet actu
sacrificali definito caret. Nam, ut a S. Isidore Hi-
spalensi et a S. Thoma ostenditur, etymon vocabuli
ipsius suadet sacrificium vocari * ' ex hoc quod homo
CORRESPONDENCE. 5 8 1
facit aliquid sacrum ; " at continuatio in Corpore
CHRISTI in ccelis definition! huic nullo pacto respondet.
Ko tamen non obstante in Eucharistia consecratio
gemina est actus, qui definition! ex omni parte con-
gruit, quoniam in ea actum essentialiter sacrificalem
cernimus, nempe hanc consecrationem geminam a
Domino nostro Ipso demandatam.
Verum ea, quse inter nos intersuut, verba potius
quarn res esse videntur, quandoquidem utrique nostrum
efFusio sanguinis in Cruce actum essentialiter sacrifi
calem valet, ad quern sacrificium Salvatoris, sive in
terris, sive in ccelis, sive vero in Eucharistia referendum
est.
Libellus, quern de Sacrificio Eucharistiae scripseram,
circa initium anni secuturi ex prelo prodibit, quum
librariis, ut tibi exemplar honorarium niittant, jubebo.
Verendum mini arbitror ne tarn prolixe de his rebus
disserens tibi taedium attulerim, quod si invitus fecis-
sem veniam ab humanitate tua impetrare non diffido.
Opto te semper bene valere, sumque, qui fui, omni
obsequentia tibi deditus,
AiyUREDus G. MORTIMER.
ST. MARK'S CLERGY HOUSE,
PHILADELPHIA, U. S. A.,
XX° Nov., 1900.
GRAND SEMINAIRE ST. IRENES, LYON.
20 Xbre? 1900.
TRES HONOR^) MONSIEUR :
Vous u'avez pas a craindre de m'importuner le moins
du monde par vos lettres. Je puis au contraire vous
assurer qu'elles me font et me feront toujours le plus
grand plaisir.
J'ai lu avec beaucoup d'interet les remarques que
vous avez bien voulu me comrnuniquer touchant 1'ex-
plication du Sacrifice Celeste. Le sentiment que vous
exprimez est, en effet, celui de tres illustres theolo-
giens, et je le crois parfaitement fonde en raison. Nean-
moins, je persiste a croire que 1'autre conception est
egalenient soutenable, et, pour ma part, je tends a lui
donner ma preference.
582 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
II est tr£s vrai que 1'on ne trouve pas, dans 1'ofFrande
de Notre Seigneur au Ciel, un acte extZrieur proprement
dit (acte transitoire et pour ainsi dire instantane), qui
corresponde a Vacte d' immolation sanglante que nous
trouvons dans le Sacrifice du Calvaire, ou a Vacte
d' immolation mystique que nous trouvons dans le Sacri
fice de la Messe, opere par le double consecration.
Mais est-il bien essentiel au Sacrifice de Notre Seig
neur que son oblation interieure soit appuyee sur un
acte exterieur, transitoire et instantane, et non pas sur
un acte continu, ou, si vous aimez mieux, sur un Hat
ou une condition ext&rieure de son Humanite Sainte,
parfaitement apte a agir sur le coeur de DIEU ?
I. Si Ton consulte le langage, il est bon d'interroger
en premier lieu nos langues sacrees. En hebreu, a
c6te de z£bach (immolation) qui designe plus speciale-
nient les sacrifices sanglants, nous trouvons minchdh,
qui sert a designer les sacrifices non sanglants, et a le
sens ftoffrande, de donation ; qorban, qui a le m£me
sens ftqffrande, de donation, zst meme le terme generique
employe pour designer le sacrifice. II semble bien,
d'apres ces expressions, que le sacrifice consiste propre
ment dans \mprSsent offert a DIEU ; d'autant plus que
les verbes, employes pour niarquer 1' action sacrificale,
presentent la meme idee ftoffrande et de donation :
hiqrib {faire approcher de DIEU, faire passer en DIEU),
herim ou he '/Idh (faire rnonter vers Di^u).
X cette idee peuvent se ramener egalement les ex
pressions grecques : Ovaia (offrande d'agreable odeur ;
de la racine 6voo, qui signifie proprement faire bruler
unparfum}\ Ttpoacpepsir (presenter, offrir). De meme,
les expressions latines : offerre (offrir) ; sacrifidum (con
secration et donation a DIKU d'une chose qu'on tire de
1'ordre profane pour la faire passer dans le domaine de
DIEU).
X en juger par le langage, le sacrifice est done
proprement un acte d' 'offrande ou de donation a DIEU.
Et c'est egalement 1'idee que nous en donne I'analyse
attentive des sacrifices de 1' Ancienne I/oi. Or, dans le
Sacrifice de Notre Seigneur, Vacte d'offrande ou de
donation, qui doit le constituer, ne doit-il pas £tre
CORRE SP ONDENCE. 583
considere du cote du Pretre Souverain ? Et n'est-il pas
avant tout un acte interieur d' oblation, ayant pour
terme, ou pour objet offert, son Humanite Sainte ? Et
cette Humanite Sainte, ne suffit-il pas qu'elle soit con-
stituee dans tel ou tel £tat ou elle soit apte a plaire a
son PERE ? Par exeniple, durant sa vie mortelle
Notre Seigneur offre son Humanite humiliee, souf-
frante, irnmolos finalement sur la Croix; dans I'Eucha-
ristie II offre son Humanite immolee mystiquement sous
les especes separees; au Ciel, II I'ofFre encore a 1'etat
de victime iinniolee et portant encore les marques de
son immolation. A. travers toutes ces phases, dans touts
ces etats, le Souverain Pretre ne continue-t-Il pas a
faire de son Humanite Sainte un acte d1 oblation infini-
ment agreable a DiKU son PERK ? Par consequent,
n'y a-t-il pas un veritable sacrifice au Ciel, tout comme
dans I'Eucharistie, tout comme sur le Calvaire ? C'est
ce qu'il me semble permis de croire, a s'en tenir a la
notion essentielle du sacrifice fournie parole langage.
II. Si maintenant nous consultons 1'ficriture, nous
voyons que : (i) Le sacrifice de la Loi Ancienne n'etait
pas tout entier dans V acte d' immolation de la victime
offerte, mais s' etendait jusqu' a la consommation, par
laquelle DIEU entrait symboliquement en jouissance de
son offrande, et durait autant que cette consommation.
Or, au Calvaire s'est accomplie seulementl' Immolation
sanglante de la divine Victime, c'est a dire seulement
une importante partie de son Sacrifice ; la consom
mation de la Victime, son passage definitif dans le
domaine et la jouissance de DIEU, se fait a la Resur
rection, pour ne point cesser, car, a la difference des
hosties anciennes, 1' Humanite Sainte n'est point de-
truite par sa consommation en DIEU, ou plut6t cette
consommation meme durera eternellement, et DIEU ne
cessera de prendre eternellement en elle ses complais
ances. I/ analogic conduit done a admettre une reelle
continuation du Sacrifice de Jiisus CHRIST au Ciel
(voir mon ouvrage, pp. ^151, 190).
(2) De fait, d'apres 1'fipitre aux Hebreux, comparee
avec I'Apocatypse, il semble bien que le Sacrifice de
Notre Seigneur n'a pas ete tout entier exclusivement
584 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
dans 1'acte de Son Immolation sanglante, mais qu'il se
continue a jamais dans le Ciel. L'Huinanite de Notre
Seigneur n'est pas immolee actuellement au Ciel ; mais
elle est a V&tat de victime immolee et portant encore les
marques de son Immolation : dans cet etat, Notre
Seigneur roffre encore a son PERE ; et, a voir les ex
pressions de l'Ap6tre, il semble bien qu'il veuille
designer par la une vraie oblation sacrificale, un veri
table et reel sacrifice. (Hebr. viii. 1-3, etc.): " Omnis
enim pontifex ad offerendum munera et hostias consti-
tuitur ; unde necesse est et hunc habere aliquid quod
offerat."
(3) On ne trouve rien dans 1' ficriture qui etablisse
formellement et avec precision la nature exacte du
Sacrifice Eucharistique. La meilleure maniere de
1'appuyer sur I'ficriture parait bien encore etre celle
de Bossuet, qui suppose la realite du Sacrifice Celeste
teinoignee par I'Bpitre aux Hebreux, et de ce Sacrifice
Celeste conclut, par analogic, a la realite du Sacrifice
de la Messe: Au Ciel, J^sus CHRIST offre son Humanite
dans 1'etat de victime immolee, et cet acte d'offrande
est un vrai et actuel sacrifice ; un vrai et actuel sacri
fice doit se trouver egalement sur nos autels, ou JiCsus
CHRIST s' offre pareillement dans un etat semblable de
victime immolee.
III. Enfin, si nous consultons la tradition patristique
et theologique : (i) Ou ne peut pas dire que les Peres
enseignent positivement la realite du Sacrifice Celeste.
Mais aucun n'y contredit formellement. Bien plus,
on peut citer un certain nombre de temoignages patris-
tiques qui lui sont plut6t favorables et 1'insinuent (voir
mon ouvrage, pp. 172, 180).
(2) Les fheologiens se sont egalement peu occupes
du Sacrifice du Ciel ; beaucoup au contraire, du Sacri
fice de la Messe. Or, la facon dont un bon nombre
concoivent le Sacrifice de la Messe justifie, selon moi,
la realite du Sacrifice du Ciel. En effet, alors que les
uns, comme St. Thomas, se contenteut de dire, d'une
maniere generale, a la suite des Frees, que le Sacrifice
Eucharistique consiste dans une representation de la
Passion du SAUVEUR, sans afiirmer positivement que
CORRESPONDENCE. 585
cette representation, et par consequent la realite du
Sacrifice, soit restreinte au seul instant de la consecra
tion, et ne continue pas suffisamment tant que les
especes paraissent separees sur 1'autel : d'autres, en
assez grand nombre, sont tres formels a ne pas re-
streindre la realite du Sacrifice de la Messe au seul
instant de la consecration, et 1'etendent jusqu' a la
communion (voir mon ouvrage, p. 227, note i). I^e
celebre Cardinal de L,ugo enseigne meme formellement
que " revera sacrificium durat in ratione sacrificii
usque ad consumptionem " (ibid., p. 228, note 2). II
parait bien aussi que c'est 1'opinion de Bossuet (ibid.,
p. 226, note 2). D'apres ces theologiens, ce qui con-
stitue la realite du Sacrifice de la Messe, ce ne serait
done pas exclusivement Vacte d1 immolation mystique
produit au moment de la double consecration, mais
tout aussi bien Vetat de victime immolee dans lequel
Notre Seigneur continue de s'ofTrir a son PERE
jusqu' a la communion. Des lors, pourquoi ne pas voir
egalernent un sacrifice reel et actuel dans le Ciel, ou
Notre Seigneur offre pareillement a son PERK son
Humanite Sainte dans un etat semblable de victime
immolee, " agnum tanquam occisum " ?
X vrai dire, cet acte d'immolation mystique a, dans
le Sacrifice de la Messe, une signification speciale ; il
a pour but de rappeler sensiblement Vacte d'immola
tion sanglante accompli sur la Croix ; et, pour cela,
je crois que le fruit principal du Sacrifice dela Messe
doit etre attache au moment de la double consecration,
(voir mon ouvrage, p. 228). Mais s'ensuit-il que
t'etat de position sous les especes separees, qui en
resulte, ne suffise pas a Vactualitt continuee du sacrifice,
et que Notre Seigneur, continuant de s'oSrir a son
Pi^RK Victime immolee pour notre salut, ne continue
pas la realite de son Offrande sacrificale pour une
efficace application des merites de sa Redemption ?
Kt, des lors, pourquoi ne pas admettre la realite du
Sacrifice Celeste, dont les conditions sont analogues ?
En resume, je conviens qu' au Ciel nous ne trouvons
pas uii acte proprement dit d'immolation mystique cor-
respondaiit precisement a V acte d'immolation mystique
586 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.
que nous trouvons a la sainte Messe, au moment de
la consecration. II me semble neanmoins que Ton
peut voir un veritable et toujours actuel sacrifice dans
1'acte incessant par lequel Notre Seigneur offre a son
PERK son Humanite Sainte, revetue des marques de
Son Immolation et lui rappelant tres efficacement cette
mort sanglante a laquelle sont attaches tous les merites
de notre Redemption : " ut appareat nunc vultui DEI
pro nobis" (Hebr. ix. 24), " semper vivens ad inter-
pellandum pro nobis" (vii. 25). Encore une fois, tres
honor e Monsieur, je presente cette idee, non comme
une theorie qui s' impose, mais comme une maniere de
voir qui me parait avoir sa raison d'etre et ses avant-
ages, tout en reconnaissant que votre facon de con-
cevoir les choses, qui est celle de nombreux et tres
illustres theologiens, est parfaitement justifiee.
C'est vous dire, cher Monsieur, que je suis heureux
de vous sentir pleinement d'accord sur ce qu'il y a de
veritablernent fondamental dans la doctrine du Sacrifice
de Notre Seigneur.
Je vous suis par avance bien reconnaissant de Thorn •
mage, que vous voulez bien me promettre, d'un ex-
emplaire de votre ouvrage. Ce sera pour moi une
jouissance de le lire et d'entrer ainsi plus intimement
dans votre pensee. Si meme vous me le permettez, je
serai heureux, aussitot que j'eu aurai le loisir, d'en
donner un compte-rendu dans quelque Revue francaise
dont les lecteurs ne manqueront pas de s'interesser a
votre travail.
Et puisque nous sommes aux approches de la nou-
velle annee, veuillez me permettre, cher Monsieur, de
vous offrir mes meilleurs souhaits. Daigne Notre
Seigneur repandre de plus en plus sur vous les lumieres
de son Saint Esprit et les graces de son Sacre Coeur !
C'est ce que je Lui demande et Lui demanderai chaque
jour, particular einent aux grands jours de fete qui
s'approchent.
Veuillez agreer, tres honore Monsieur, avec mes
souhaits de coeur, 1'hommage de ma profonde et bien
respectueuse synipathie. M. LEPIN,
p. s. s.
INDEX.
A.
Abbott, 447.
Albert the Great, 198, 201, 203,
209.
Albertino, Edmond, 250, 251.
Alexander II., 191.
Alexander of Hales, 41, 198.
Alford, Dean, 54, 58, 96, 97,
I32» I36» I37, 361, 460.
Algerus of Liege, 196, 197,
227, 269, 310-316.
Altar, treatment of, by S. Ig
natius, 1 80, 181 ; use of
term, by S. Ignatius, 233 ;
Hennas, 233 ; S. Clement of
Alexandria, 233 ; S. Metho
dius, 233 ; S. Chrysostom,
233 ; S. Cyril of Alexandria,
233-
Amalarius, Bp., 166, 191, 192,
196.
Ambrose, S., 48, 158, 185, 224,
225, 249-255, 431, 500-502.
Andrewes, Launcelot, Bp. of
Winchester, 214, 215, 342,
346, 367-369, 395, 447, 448.
Anglican theology, two new
currents traced to their
source, 397-402 ; Cassander
the source so far as Angli
can writers are concerned,
401; reasons why they
should be rejected by Angli
cans, 412.
Anglicans recognize two prin
ciples, 10.
Anglican view, term mislead
ing, 82.
Anselm, S., 88.
Anspach, Peter, 208.
Antiquity appealed to, 10.
Antoninus Pius, 182.
Apostolic succession, question
of Reformation and Oxford
Movement, 13.
Aristotle, 3.
Articles, works on, byBp. Bur-
net, 79, 80 ; Bp. Forbes, 93,
94, 96; Rev. E. C. S. Gib
son, 94, 95 ; Rev. B. J. Kidd,
94-
Athanasius, S., 88.
Atonement, isolated from In
carnation, 4 ; our LORD
man's Representative in,
50 ; doctrine of, made the
foundation of theology at
the Reformation, 467.
Augustine, S., 25, 29-31, 38-
41, 43, 48, 50, 82, 185, 186,
211, 225-227, 255-259, 265,
266, 271, 278, 297, 323, 325,
326, 364, 365, 368-370, 507-
510.
Austin, S. , 364.
Auxerre, Remi d', 194.
B.
Barlow, Bp., 342.
Baronius (Rayualdus), 306.
Barrow, Dr., 345.
Basil, S., 158, 159, 416.
587
588
INDEX.
Bede, Venerable, 190.
Bellarmine, Card., 78, 208, 214,
370.
Benedict XIV., S., 331.
Bengel, 58, 97, 122, 132, 136,
137, 361, 460.
Bennett, W. J. B., 342.
Berengarius, 196, 278, 310.
Bernard, Canon B. R., 515,
524, 525, 533, 534-
Berou, 12.
Berulle, Card, de, 316, 317.
Bessarion, Card., 306.
Bevan, Rev. H. B. J., 537.
Beveridge, William, Bp. of S.
Asaph, 342, 395, 397.
Beza, Theodorus, 408, 483, 487.
Biel, Gabriel, 43, 205, 211.
Bilsou, Thomas, Bp. of Win
chester, 342, 363-366, 395.
Bonaventura, S., 198.
Bossuet, Bp. of Meaux, 74, 78,
151, 213, 215, 331, 332, 384,
409, 452.
Bramhall, John, Abp. of Ar
magh, 342, 371, 372.
Brett, Thomas, Noujuror, 342,
387-389-
Brevint, Daniel, Deaii of Lin
coln, 342, 375, 376, 395;
Bridget, Father, 403.
Brightman, F. B., 19, 83-92,
96, 108-110, 112, 113, 132,
142, 149, 150, 152-154, 156,
164, 183, 215, 229-231, 249-
253, 269, 276, 277, 286-288,
299, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307,
332, 333, 335-337, 339, 34o,
407, 408, 433, 444, 453, 454,
465, 466, 491, 516.
Buckridge, John, Bp. of Ro
chester and Bly, 366.
Bull, George, Bp. of S. Da
vid's, 342, 378, 395.
Burigny, J. L., 409-
Burnet, Bp., 79, 80.
C.
Cabasilas, Nicholas, Bp. of
Thessalonica, 216, 332-337,
452.
Cajetan, 205.
Caly, Robert, 402.
Campbell, McLeod, 529.
Cassander, 344, 346, 354, 355,
396-402, 408, 412, 445, 452-
454-
Castellio, Seb., 483, 484, 487.
Castro, Alphonsus de, 43.
Catechism of Peter Mogila,
216.
Catena of passages from the
Fathers bearing witness to
the fact that the Bucharist
is a Sacrifice, 495-514.
Catharinus, 81, 206.
Catholic Church, interpreter
of truth, ii ; teaches that
upon the Cross our LORD
offered His perfect Sacrifice,
71 ; Sociuian theory con
trary to teaching of, 71, 72.
Catholic revival, Tractarians
leaders of, 413.
Catholic view, destruction of
Victim not a necessary ele
ment of, 79 ; connects words
of Institution with our
LORD'S Death, 107, 108 ;
witness to, by Greek Fa
thers, 220-224 ; by Latin
Fathers, 224-228 ; summary
of passages from the Fa
thers in support of, 228 ; of
forty-two Anglican writers,
363-396; only two represent
ative Anglican divines hold
Modern view, 396.
Cawley, Rev. Thomas, 346.
Channing, W. B., 56.
Chrysostom, S., IT, 120, 135,
147, 160, 161, 179, 187, 188,
202, 222-224, 23°, 232, 233,
261, 262, 267, 268, 306, 312,
315, 321, 370, 451, 457, 502-
504.
Cieufuegos, Card., 214.
Clement of Alexandria, S.,
"5, 233.
INDEX.
589
Clement of Rome, S., 77, 177,
1 80.
Clementine liturgy, 165.
Clichtovee, 205.
Cochlaeus, John, 208.
Coleridge, 433.
Collier, Bp., 342.
Comber, Thomas, Dean of
Durham, 381, 382.
Condren, Charles de, 213, 270,
316, 317, 324, 329, 330, 332.
Conference at Fulham (Round
table), Oct. 10, 1900; its con
stitution, 535 ; subject, 536;
Canon Gore's interpretation
of S. Irenseus, 543 ; Dr.
Wace and Robertson con
nect Eucharist with the
Passover, 544 ; no one at
this Conference refers Eu-
charist to our LORD'S Medi
atorial work, 545.
Conference at Oxford, Dec. 13,
14, 1899 : report of, 5I5-.532 \
Eucharistic Sacrifice inci
dentally touched upon, 516;
conclusion to be drawn
from, 534.
Consecration, the, essence of
Eucharistic Sacrifice, 77.
Considerations, by Rev.
John Keble, 431, 434, 452.
Contarini, Card., 211.
Cornelius a Lapide, 159.
Corrionero, Bp. of Almeiia,
210.
Cosin, John, Bp. of Durham,
345, 372, 373-
Council of Nicsea, 499.
Council of Trent, diversity of
opinion in regard to Euch
aristic Sacrifice, 209, 210 ;
stated that the Eucharist
was a Sacrifice, 210 ; does
not define mode, 210.
Cyprian, S., 115, 184, 185, 224,
364, 369, 37i, 497, 498-
Cyril of Alexandria, S., 19,
158, 187, 221, 222, 230, 233,
263, 510, 511.
Cyril of Jerusalem, S., 220,
499-
D.
Damascus, John of, S., n, 202,
264, 333-
Daubeny, Charles, 392.
Davidson, Rev. A. B., 519.
Davison, Dr., 515, 529, 53*,533-
Day of Atonement, typifies
CHRIST'S High-Priesthood,
123-126 ; typifies our LORD'S
Intercession, 139.
De Castro, Alphonsus, 43, 205,
211.
De Expositione Miss&, by
Florus, most important con
tribution of century IX. ,105.
Definition, of the "genus" of
Sacrifice by S. Augustine,
29; of " heavenly" by S.
Chrysostom, 132, 160 ; of
Sacrifice, Dr. Schanz, 36,
37 ; by S. Augustine, 37-41 ;
Alexander of Hales, 41 ; S.
Thomas Aquinas, 41 ; S.
Isidore of Seville, 42, 189,
190 ; Vasquez, 42-44 ; Ga
briel Biel, 43 ; Alphonsus
de Castro, 43 ; Suarez, 45 ;
Dr. Scheeben, -45 ; Wil
liam of Auvergne, 199 ; S.
Thomas Aquinas, which
changed the current of theo
logical thought, 203, 204.
Delitzsch, Dr., 54.
De Lugo, Card., 42, 78, 204,
212-214.
De Sacramentis Corporis,
by Algerus of Liege, 310-
315 ; only heavenly Sacri
fice known to Algerus the
Eucharistic Sacrifice, 312.
De Sacrificio Misses, by Al
gerus of Li£ge, 314.
De Sacrificio Missce, by Bene
dict XIV., 331.
Destruction of Victim, not an
essential idea of Sacrifice
shown by Latin, Greek, and
INDEX,
Dest'n of Victim— Continued.
Hebrew terms, 34, 35 ; in
Eucharistic Sacrifice only
mystical, 76, 77 ; Roman
schools, 77-79 ; view of, by
S. Thomas Aquinas, 77 ;
Vasquez, 77 ; Perrone, 78 ;
De Lugo, 78 ; Salmeron, 78 ;
Bossuet, 78 ; Melchior Ca-
nus, 78 ; Card. Bellarmine,
78 ; Suarez, 78 ; Card. Fran-
zelin, 78 ; Dr. Scheeben,
78 ; Dr. Schanz, 78 ; Dr. Le-
pin, 78 ; Tyrrell, 78 ; not a
necessary element of Catho
lic view, 79.
"Didache," the, 181.
Dimock, Rev. N., 537, 540.
Dionysius the Areopagite, S.,
202.
4 'Disputation on JESUS CHRIST
our SAVIOUR," by Faustus
Socinus (chap, xv.), 480.
Dodwell, 342.
Dowden, Dr., Bp. of Edin
burgh, 434.
Duchesne, M. 1'Abbe, 169,
194, 305.
Dummermuth, Pere, 209.
Duns vScotus, 204.
Du Perron, Card., 316.
Duppa, Bp., 342.
E.
Early ages examined, 180-188.
Eastern writers : Nicholas
Cabasilas, Bp. of Thessa-
lonica, 216, 332-337, 452;
Macarius, Bp. of Vinnitza,
217, 337, 338, 452.
Eck, J., 205.
Eirenicon, by Dr. Pusey, 74.
Elizabeth, Queen, 402.
Ephrem Syrus, S., 499.
"Epiklesis," the Greek, 305.
Epiphanius, S., 424, 427.
Eucharist, doctrine of, ques
tion of Reformation and
Oxford Movement, 13 ; mer
its of the Cross applied in,
76 ; asserted to be no Sac
rifice by Protestants, 82 ;
difference between Catholic
teaching and Modern view
held by Brightmau, 88-92;
sense in which some Rom
ans have taught that it is
an absolute Sacrifice, 90 ;
Dr. Scheeben's view of, as
a relative Sacrifice, 90 ; in
Institution, Brightman sees
no special reference to our
LORD'S Death, 91 ; peculiar
view of our LORD'S Presence
by Dr. Mason, 95, 96; ex
amination as to whether it
can be proved from Script
ure to be a Sacrifice, 100-
106 ; examination as to
whether its sacrificial char
acter depends on its rela
tion to the Cross, or to our
LORD'S work in heaven, 100,
106-109 5 witness of Old Tes
tament to its being a Sac
rifice, 101-103 5 evidence of
New Testament to its being
a Sacrifice, 103-106 ; con
clusion as to the fact that
it is a Sacrifice, 106 ; testi
mony of Scripture as to the
manner in which it is a Sac
rifice, 106; Catholic teach
ing, 106, 107 ; difference be
tween Catholic and Mod
ern view ; same passages of
Scripture quoted on each
side, 107 ; typified by the
Passion, 139 ; Old and New
Testaments both prove it to
be a Sacrifice, 145 ; a relative
Sacrifice in which we make
a memorial of our LORD'S
Death, 145 ; a Sacrifice be
cause essentially identical
with Sacrifice of Cross, 146 ;
accidentally related to our
LORD'S Mediatorial work,
146 ; extension of Incarna-
INDEX.
591
Eucharist— Continued.
tion, 151 ; treatment in three
periods of Church history,
177, 178 ; the Church's Sacri
fice, 180 ; best writer in cent
ury XII. Algerus of Li£ge,
197 ; Luther denied sacrifi
cial character of, 205 ; de
fined as a Sacrifice by Coun
cil of Trent, 210 ; mode not
defined, 210 ; accidental re
lation between it and our
LORD'S Mediatorial work
shown by Gallican theolo
gians, in century XVII. , 213 ;
strange theory suggested
by Cienfuegos, century
XVIII., 214; Bp. Macarius
teaches that it is a Sacri
fice, 337, 338 ; three points
established by our investi
gations, 450; summary of
their result, 450 ; witness
of Scripture, 450 ; of litur
gies, 450, 451 ; of the Fa
thers, 451 ; of mediaeval
writers, 451 ; of Anglican
divines, 451, 452 ; of Tract-
arian writers, 452 ; catena
of passages from the Fa
thers bearing witness to the
fact of its being a Sacrifice,
495-514 ; at Fulham Confer
ence, Oct. 10, 1900, Canon
Gore's interpretation of S.
Irenaeus given, 543 ; Drs.
Wace and Robertson con
nect the Sacrifice with the
Passover, 544 ; no one at
the Conference refers it to
our LORD'S Mediatorial
work, 545.
Eucharistic Adoration, by
Rev. John Keble, 419, 430,
431-
Eusebius of Caesarea, 187,
263, 264.
Euthymius Zigadenus, 120,
128, 135, 147, 175, 179, 202,
262, 265, 268, 451, 457.
Ewald, Dr., 108.
F.
Fairbairn, Dr., 515, 528, 529,
533-
Fathers, the, neglect of, by
Milligan, 5 ; summary of
passages from, in support
of Catholic view of words
of Institution, 228 ; teaching
as to our LORD'S Interces
sion in heaven, by Greek
Fathers : S. Chrysostom,
261, 262 ; Theodoret, 261 ;
Euthymius Zigadenus, 262,
265 ; S. Cyril of Alexandria,
263 ; Eusebius of Caesarea,
263, 264 ; S. John of Damas
cus, 264 ; by Latin Fathers :
Primasius, 265 ; S. Augus
tine, 265, 266; S. Gregory
the Great, 266, 267 ; sum
mary of Patristic testimony,
267 ; catena of passages
bearing witness to the fact
that the Eucharist is a Sac
rifice, 495-514.
Felicitas, S., 416.
Fell, John, Bp. of Oxford, 342,
360, 361, 396.
Ferdinand I., 398.
Ferae, Henry, Bp. of Chester,
375-
Ferry, M., 74-
Field, Richard, Dean of
Gloucester, 365, 366, 403.
Florus, 166, 191, 194-196, 198.
Forbes, A. P., Bp. of Brechiu,
93, 94, 96, 112, 113, 145,419,
427, 433, 435, 439, 44», 464.
Forbes, William, Bp. of Edin
burgh, 342, 371, 397.
Forsyth, Dr., 515.
Franz, Dr., 215.
Franzeliu, Card., 42, 78, 104,
105, 213, 214.
French school, Lepin, 16, Va
cant, 17.
Fulham Conference (Roman
INDEX.
Fulham Conf. — Continued.
table), Oct. 10, 1900 : its
constitution, 535 ; subject,
536 ; Canon Gore's interpre
tation of vS. Ireuseus, 543 ;
Drs. Wace and Robertson
connect Eucharist with the
Passover, 544 ; no one at
this Conference refers Eu
charist to our LORD'S Media
torial work, 545.
G.
Gallican writers in century
XVII. : Charles de Condren,
270, 316, 317, 324, 329, 330,
332 ; Jean Jacques Olier,
270, 317, 3i8, 329-332 ; Card.
de Berulle, 316, 317 ; Card,
du Perron, 316 ; Thotnassin,
317, 318, 320, 321-328, 331.
Gaudentius, S., 506, 507.
Genebradus, 243.
" Genus" of Sacrifice, defini
tion of, by S. Augustine, 29.
German schools, three, 15,231.
Gibson, Rev. E. C. S., 94, 95.
Glyn, Bp. of Bangor, 402.
GOD the only Authority for
Sacrifice, in revealed relig
ion, 33.
Godet, Dr., 12, 108, 109.
Gore, Canon, 515, 525, 526,
533, 539-541-
Grabe, John Ernest, 342, 386,
387, 395-
Grancolas, M.J., 166.
Greek sacrificial terms, 475,
477-
Gregory the Great, S., 178,
180, 188, 189, 228, 230, 248,
249, 259, 266-268, 323, 418,
469, 5i4-
Gregory Nazianzen, S., 198,
424
Gregory of Nyssa, S., 187, 221,
224, 500.
Grotius, Hugo, 497, 409-412.
Guitmundus Aversanus, 269,
277-279.
H.
Haldane, Dr. A. Chinnery, Bp.
of Argyle, 434.
Halifax, Lord, 537, 540, 542.
Hall, Joseph, Bp. of Norwich,
370.
Hammond, Henry, 165, 168,
342, 356, 357.
Harrison, Rev. B., 415.
Haywood (Pseudo - Overall),
345, 346, 402.
Headlam, Rev. A. C., 515, 528,
533-
Heath, Abp. of York, 402.
Heavenly altar, Thalhofer's
argument considered ; ex
amination of Isa. vi. 6, and
Rev. viii. 3, quoted by
Thalhofer, 157-159; taken
for our LORD Himself, 160 ;
often spoken of by the
Fathers, 162 ; discussion of,
summed up, 173, 174 ; fre
quently spoken of by medi
aeval writers, from which
Thalhofer infers heavenly
Sacrifice, 270; his authorities
examined, 270-286, 307-316 ;
views of Charles de Condren,
329, 330 ; Jean Jacques Olier,
330, 331 ; Bossuet, 331, 332 ;
referred to by Dr. Pusey,
424.
''Heavenly," defined by S.
Chrysostom, 160; passages
in the New Testament as to
the use of the word, 162-164.
Hebrews, Modern interpreta
tion of, 12 ; battle-ground of
Catholic and Modern views,
no ; sketch of purpose and
argument of, 111,112; ruling
thought, CHRIST'S High-
Priesthood, 113 ; examina
tion of passages bearing on
Sacrifice of Cross, 114-119,
INDEX.
593
Hebrews — Continued.
122-126; examination of, as
to our LORD'S work, as typi
fied by Day of Atonement,
126-134 ; chap, xii., 24, by
Bengel and Alford, 136, 137 ;
in no Catholic commentary
nor before century XVI. nor
in any of the Fathers, are
found any traces of Modern
view, i47«
Hebrew sacrificial terms, 478,
479-
Hefele, Bp., 190.
Hermas, 233.
Herodotus, 475.
Hickes, Dr. George, Titular
Bp. of Thetford, 82, 379, 381,
448.
Hildebert of le Mans (or
Tours), 196, 269, 286, 303,
307-309.
Hippolytus, S., 496.
Histoire de la Conception,
by Dr. Vacant, 17.
Hofmann, Dr., 108.
Holland, Canon Scott, 515,
523, 524, 532.
Holy Orders, form of, 14.
Homer, 475.
Hooker, R., 342.
Hooper, Bp.,342.
Horsley, Bp., 342.
Hughes, John, 390.
Hugo of S. Victor, 269, 309,
310.
I.
Ignatius, S., 19, 180, 181, 229,
232, 233.
Incarnation, humanitarian dis
tortion of, 4 ; Eucharist ex
tension of, 151 ; assailed,
468 ; centre of Christian
theology, 470; its relation
to the Eucharist, 470.
InnocentHI., 166, 191, 194, 198.
Institution, words of, Catholic
view connects with our
LORD'S Death, 107, 108 ; in
terpretation by Brightman in
support of Modern view, 108-
110.
Intercession, our LORD'S, in
Heaven, teaching of the
Fathers regarding 260-267.
Irenaeus, S., 19, 36, 164, 170,
172, 173, 182, 183, 185, 220,
229, 234, 235, 495, 496.
Isidore of Seville, S., 42, 189,
190.
Isidore Pelus., 187.
Ivo of Chartres, S. , 196, 269,
286-307, 432.
J-
Jackson, Dean, 58, 97, 361.
Jerome, S., 116, 158, 425, 504-
506.
Jewell, John, Bp. of Salisbury,
363-
Johnson, John, Vicar of Cran-
brook, 342, 349-353, 393,
395, 396, 412, 446-448.
Johnson, William, 452.
Jolly, Alexander, Bp. of Mo
ray, 392, 393-
Jones, 342.
Justin Martyr, S., 19, 103, 156,
182, 229.
K.
Keble, Rev. John, 419, 428-
434, 452, 464.
" Kenosis," 12 ; Lutheran
sources of, 12, 449.
Kidd, Rev. B. J., 18, 190, 207,
213-
L.
Lang, Rev. C. G., 515, 516,
526, 527, 532.
Latin sacrificial terms, 473,
474-
Laud, William, Abp. of Can
terbury, 342, 369, 370, 395,
447-
594
INDEX.
Laurence, Richard, Abp. of
Cashel, 390.
Laurence, S., 498, 499.
Law, William, 342, 391.
LeBrun, M., 166, 167.
Leo the Great, S., 60, 186, 513,
514.
Lepin, Dr., 16, 78, 146, 332,
363, 454-
Leslie, Charles, 382, 383.
Lessius, 212.
Letter, of Dr. Pusey to Rev.
B. Harrison, 415 ; to Bp.
Wilberforce, 415-417 ; of
Bp. Westcott to Rev. Dr.
Mortimer, first, 551 ; second,
552; of Rev. F. E. Brightman
to Dr. Mortimer, 553 ; of
Dr. Mortimer to Rev. Dr.
Schanz, 556 ; of Dr. Schanz
to Dr. Mortimer, 557 ; of Dr.
Mortimer to Rev. Dr. Lepin,
first, 560; second, 571; third,
578; of Dr. Lepin to Dr.
Mortimer, first, 563 ; second,
574 ; third, 581.
Liddon, Canon, 415, 417, 433,
435, 448, 449-
L? 'Idee du, Sacrifice, by Dr.
Lepin, 16.
Lightfoot, Bp., 162.
Liguori, S., 212.
Liturgies, quoted by Bright
man in support of Modern
view, 109; witness to Eu-
charistic Sacrifice, 148 ; Ro
man, Scotch, Anglican, and
American, quoted by Bright
man, 150-152 ; significance
of passages must be determ
ined by the Fathers, 156.
Liturgy, the, attempt in cent
ury IX. to find image of
the Passion in, 191 ; exposi
tion of by Bp. Amalarius,
192-196 ; exposition written
by Bp. Nicholas Cabasilas in
century XIV., 216 ; mystical
works on, in century XII. :
by S. Ivo of Chartres, 269 ;
treatment of in his sermon
Opusculum, 286-307;
B. Odoof Carnbrai, 269, 279-
285 ; V. Hildebert of le Mans
(or Tours), 269, 286, 303, 307-
309 ; V. Peter of Cluiiy, 269 ;
Algerus of Liege, 269, 310-
316; Hugo of S. Victor, 269,
309, 310 ; Guitmundus Aver-
sanus, 269, 278, 279.
Luther, Martin, 205.
M.
Macarius of Egypt, S., 500.
Macarius, Bp. ofVinnitza, 217,
337, 338, 452.
Mackay, Rev. D. J., 434.
Man, as an individual and as a
society, must worship GOD,
28.
Mansi, G. D., 306.
Marcion, 12.
Martyrdom, illustration of
sacrificial act, 40 ; differ
ence between it and sacri
fice examined, 65-68.
Mary, B. V., 417.
Mason, Dr., 19, 95, 96.
Mason, Francis, Archdeacon
of Norfolk, 369.
Massarello, 210.
Mede, Joseph, 342, 354-356,
397-
Melanchthon, P., 208.
Melchior Canus, 78, 207, 210,
211.
Methodius, S., 233.
Meyer, Dr., 108, 122.
Meyrick, Canon, 346.
Milligan, Dr., 5-10, 12, 20, 59,
97, 108, 109, 215, 328, 396,
407-409, 459, 491, 522, 531.
Ministerial Priesthood, by
Dr. Moberly, 18.
Moberly, Dr., 18, 515, 524, 534.
Modern view, term used in this
book, 82 ; principal accre
tion, stated by Alford, 96, 97;
words of Institution, i Cor.
INDEX,
595
Modern view — Continued.
xi. 26, interpreted by Bright-
man in support of, 108-110 ;
several theories in regard to
Sacrifice of Cross, 112, 113 ;
Rev. v. 6, 140, 141 ; Thalhof-
er's argument on this verse,
142-145 ; no basis for, found
in any commentary, nor in
any of the Fathers, on He
brews, before century XVI.,
147 ; question as to whether
the liturgies support this
view, 148 ; true and valuable
element in, 153, 174; result
of examination of Thalhof-
er's authorities, 260 ; only
passages in support of this
view considered in Chapter
IX., 270 ; no support found
in Mediaeval writers, 316 ;
re-statement of characteris
tics, 318-321 ; finds no sup
port in Thomassin, 328 ; no
notice of, in Eastern Church,
nor among any writers of
the Middle Ages, nor of
century XVII., 338 ; Bright-
man claims that Anglican
divines held this view, 340 ;
writers who favour this view
in Tract 81 by Dr. Pusey,
342-362.
Mogila, Peter, 216.
Montague, Richard, Bp. of
Norwich, 370, 371.
Mortimer, Rev. Dr., Letters,
55i-58i.
Morton, Thomas, Bp. of Dur
ham, 355, 367.
Moule, Dr., 538.
N.
Nelson, Robert, 383, 384.
Newbolt, Canon, 538.
Newman, Rev. J. H., 96, 414.
New Testament, passages
which refer man's redemp
tion to the Cross, 69-71 ;
recognizes only one absolute
Sacrifice, 145 ; passages as to
use of the word "heaven
ly," 162-164.
Nicholson, Bp., 342.
O.
Odo of Cambrai, B., 167, 196,
269, 279-285.
CEcumenius, 120, 202.
Olier, Jean Jacques, 270, 317,
318, 329-332.
One Offering, The, by Sadler,
18, 546.
Optatus, S., 499.
Opusculum, sermon by S.
Ivo of Chartres : his treat
ment of the liturgy, 286-
307 ; no support found for
Modern view, 299 ; teaching
of S. Ivo summed up, 307.
"Opusc. de Ven. Sac. Alta-
ris," ascribed to S. Thomas
Aquinas, 208 ; author and
source cannot be determ
ined, 209.
Oratory, the, founded by Card,
de Berulle, 316.
Origen cited by Thalhofer,
235-246.
Overall, John, Bp. of Norwich,
215.
Overall (Pseudo-), 342-345, 393,
395-397, 400-402, 407, 445,
447, 448, 452, 453.
Oxford Conference, Dec. 13
and 14, 1899 ; report of, 515-
532 ; Bucharistic Sacrifice
incidentally touched upon,
516 ; conclusion to be drawn
from, 534.
P.
Papal Bull, 13.
Paschasius Radbertus, 169,
179, 191, 195, 269-276.
Passion, the, typifies the Eu
charist 139 ; evidence of
Gospels to importance of,
596
INDEX.
Passion, the — Continued.
155 ; remembrance of, a force
in our lives, 471.
Patrick, Simon, Bp. of Ely,
377, 378.
Paulus, Dr., 209.
Pearson, Bp., 63.
Perpetua, S., 416.
Perrone, Rev. J., S. J., 78.
Petavius, 63, 103.
Peter of Cluny, V., 196, 197,
269.
Peter Damian, S., 62, 179.
Peter Lombard, S., 194, 196-
198, 202, 364, 375.
Peter of Prussia, 309.
Philastrius, 158.
Philo Judoeus, 36.
Philpotts, 342, 353, 393-395,
397-
Pighius, 205, 211.
Pitisco, 473.
Plautus, 474.
Plutarch, 475.
Poly carp, S., 233.
Potter, John, Abp. of Canter
bury, 389, 390.
Priesthood, High-, Christ's,
ruling thought of Hebrews,
113; as typified by Day of
Atonement, 123-126.
Priesthood, Christ's, on earth,
questioned by Milligan, 7, 8 ;
theory as to when it began,
by Socinus, 61-63 ; theo
logians agree it began at
the Incarnation, 62 ; theory
of Socinus finds no support
in Scripture, and is contrary
to the teaching of the Catho
lic Church, 71, 72.
Priesthood, necessity of, in
sacrificial act, 46.
Priests ministers of Christ, 75.
Primary Charge, by Dr.
Forbes, Bp. of Brechin, 435-
439- .
Primasius, 120, 162, 232, 265,
268.
Proclus, S., 511, 512.
Propositions in regard to Eu-
charistic Sacrifice contra
fidem, 456, 457 ; not contra
fidem, 457; explanation of
propositions in their relation
to modern theories, 459-467.
Protestant view of Eucharistic
Sacrifice expressed by Bp.
Burnet, 79, 80.
Puller, Father, S.S. J. E., 403,
515-522, 527, 529-532-
Pulleyne, Robert, 196, 197.
Pusey, Rev. Dr., 74, 96, 340,
345, 395, 415, 419-427, 432,
434, 435, 446.
R.
Rabanus Maurus, 169, 191,
194, 196.
Ratramuus of Corbey, 179, 191,
195.
Reaction exemplified by age
of Councils, and Reforma
tion, I, 2.
Real Presence, Eucharistic
Sacrifice a consequence of,
75 ; rejected by Protestants,
82 ; discussed from century
IX. to XVI., 178, 179 ; at
tacked by Berengarius, 196.
Redemption, man's, passages
in New Testament which
refer it to the Cross, 69-71.
Reductio ad absurdum, im
portance of, 2.
Reductio ad impossibile, 253.
Reformation, theology of, ob
scures the Incarnation and
our LORD'S Intercession,
154 ; doctrine of the Atone
ment made the foundation
of theology at time of, 470.
Reichenau, Bernon de, 196.
Religion, distinguishes man
from other creatures, 24 ;
demands external worship,
27.
Resurrection, theologian of,
Charles de Condren, 316-
318.
INDEX.
597
Revelation v. 6, views of Mod
ern school, 140, 141 ; Thal-
hofer's argument, 142-145.
Ridley, Gloucester, 391, 392.
Robertson, Dr., 538, 541.
Robinson, Canon, 539.
Ryle, Dr., 515, 522, 523, 527,
532.
S.
Sacrifice, equivocal use of
term, 22, 23 ; nature of, not
determined before century
XVI., 22; absence of modern
English works on, 23 ; uni
versal characteristic of relig
ion, 24 ; origin primaeval,
24 ; institution not necessa
rily divine, 24 ; meaning pri
marily love, 25, in mediaeval
theology a sense of sin, 25 ;
purpose of, practical relig
ion, 27 ; expresses man's re
lation to God, 27 ; demands
external worship, 27 ; chief
act of public or external
worship, 28 ; S. Augustine's
definition of the "genus"
of, 29 ; his treatment of,
29-31; S. Thomas' treatment
of, 31, 32 ; its character and
Authority, 32 ; God the only
Authority in revealed relig
ion* 33 '» demands external
form, 33 ; propositions in
regard to, by Dr. Schanz, 33,
34 ; idea of destruction not
essential, shown by Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew terms,
34> 35; S. Irenaeus on, 36;
definition of, by Dr. Schanz,
36, 37; S. Augustine, 37-41;
Alexander of Hales, 41 ; S.
Thomas Aquinas, 41 ; S. Isi
dore of Seville, 42, 189, 190 ;
De Lugo, 42 ; Vasquez, 42-
44 ; Gabriel Biel, 43 ; Al-
phonsus de Castro, 43 ;
Suarez, 45 ; Dr. Scheeben,
45 ; recapitulation of ele
ments, 46 ; how the Cross
fulfils definition of, 47; terms
used in Scripture describing
our LORD'S Death as a Sacri
fice, 48,49; elements of,found
in the Cross, 64 ; New Testa
ment recognizes only one ab
solute Sacrifice, 145 ; defin
ition of, by William of Au-
vergne, 199 ; by S. Thomas
Aquinas, which changed
the current of theological
thought, 203, 204 ; this defi
nition became true basis of
treatment of Bucharistic
Sacrifice, 203 ; different sens-
esin which it is used 233.
Sacrifice of Cross, Milligan's
treatment of, 6; only absolute
Sacrifice, 47; five actions cor
responding to those of Jew
ish Law, 49-54 ; every rite
of Jewish Law fulfilled, 54 ;
our LORD Priest and Victim
in His Human Nature only,
in His Divine Nature He re
ceives the Sacrifice, 54-56;
Socinus' theory as to its be
ing a martyrdom discussed,
56-72; man's redemption ac
complished by it, 68 ; pas
sages in New Testament
which refer man's redemp
tion to the Cross, 69-71 ;
Catholic Church teaches that
upon the Cross our LORD
offered His perfect Sacrifice,
71 ; recognized by both Pro
testants and Catholics as the
only absolute Sacrifice, 80 ;
Catholic teaching, 112 ; sev
eral theories of Modern
school, 112, 113; examina
tion of passages in Hebrews,
114-126 ; only absolute Sac
rifice, as shown by Hebrews
x., 134-136; all the sacrifices
of the Law foreshadowed dif-
erent aspects of, 138, 139;
Scripture offers no support
INDEX.
Sacrifice of Cross— Continued.
for view that it is not a com
pleted Sacrifice, 146; Thal
ia ofer's view orthodox, 231 ;
his innovation, 231, 232 ; his
authorities examined, 232-
260.
Sacrifice, JEucharistic, diffi
culties in treatment of, 21 ;
many departments of theo
logy touch on, 23 ; method
of treating the subject, 73 ;
three views given by writ
ers to be traced to cent
ury XVI., 73 ; support for
each view, 74 ; Bossuet on
essence of, 74 ; CHRIST both
consecrates and offers, 74 ;
consequence of the Real
Presence, 75 ; Sacrifice of
Cross renewed in, 75 ; does
not take away from suffi
ciency of Sacrifice of Cross
but depends entirely upon
it, 75, 76 ; Consecration,
essence of, 77 ; Protestant
view of, as taught by Lu
ther, and held by most
Protestant bodies, 79, 80 ;
Protestant view a reaction,
modified in century XVII.,
81 ; Mede's theory, 81 ; Dr.
Hickes', 82; Waterland's,
82 ; name discussed, 82 ;
term " Anglican view " mis
leading, 82 ; term " Modern
view" used in this book,
82 ; Brightman as expon
ent of Modern view, 83-88 ;
his view very like that of
Socinus, 89 ; difference be
tween Catholic teaching and
Modern view, 88-92 ; essen
tial difference between Cath
olic and Modern views, 98,
99; Hebrews the battle
ground of Catholic and Mod
ern views, no; sketch of
purpose and argument of
Hebrews, in, 112 ; sum
mary of Scripture teaching,
145 ; witness of liturgies,
148 ; no attempt to define it
until century XVI., 178,
179 ; celebration of, re
stricted to bishops and
priests, 180 ; treatment dur
ing middle period of the
Church, 1 88 ; efficacy of, for
souls in Purgatory taught by
S. Gregory the Great, 189 ;
frequency of, limited in
century VI., increased cent
ury IX., 190 ; consecration
of species, strange theory,
198; definition of, by Wil
liam of Auvergne, 199 ; by
Albert the Great, 199-201 ;
S. Thomas' definition of,
became basis of treatment
of, 203 ; view taken by Duns
Scotus directly opposed to
that of S. Thomas, 204 ; the
ory popularly held in cent
ury XVI., 206 ; attributed
to Catharinus, 206 ; he was
not its author, 207 ; divers
ity of opinion at Council of
Trent, 209, 210 ; in centuries
XVI. and XVII., theolog
ians who treated of this fall
into three groups, 210 ; has
received little attention in
Kngland since Reformation,
214; question as to whether
the Fathers relate it to Sac
rifice of Cross, 219 ; witness
to Catholic view of, by
Greek Fathers, 220: S.
Irenoeus, 220 ; S. Cyril of
Jerusalem, 220; S. Greg
ory of Nyssa, 221, 224 ;
S. Cyril of Alexandria, 221,
222 ; S. Chrysostom, 222-
224 ; Thornassin, 223, 224 ;
witness to Catholic view of,
by Latin Fathers, 224 : S.
Cyprian, 224; S. Ambrose,
224, 225 ; S. Augustine, 225-
227 ; Algerus of Liege, 227 ;
INDEX.
599
Sacrifice, Eucharistic—Cont.
S. Gregory the Great, 228 ;
summary of passages from
the Fathers in support of
Catholic view, 228 ; only
heavenly Sacrifice known
to Algerus of Li£ge, 312 ;
treated by Nicholas Cab-
asilas, century XIV., 332
~337 > Brightman claims
that Anglican divines hold
Modern view of, 339-340;
view of Tractarians, 417,
418 ; writings on the sub
ject confined to Pusey,
Keble, and Forbes, 419 ; in
Tract 81, Pusey 's view
stated, 419-424 ; in Sermon
IV., 424-427 ; Keble's view,
428-434 ; his sermon No.
XXXIX. of Sermons for the
Christian Year, 428 ; Bp.
Forbes' view in his Pri
mary Charge, 435-4391 in
his Theological Defence,
419, 439-443; a passage in his
sermon on Manasseh, 443,
444 ; review of his teaching,
444-448 ; result of examina
tion of Tractarian position,
448, 449 ; no theory of mode
is de fide, 452 ; some
theories are contra fidem
453 ; four divisions of Mod
ern view, three entirely or
thodox, 453 ; theory of Cas-
sander, 453 ; of Dr. Lepin,
454; of Dr. Scheeben, 454; of
Dr. Schanz, 454 ; these differ
from extreme Modern view,
454 ; opinion expressed on
three points, 455 ; proposi
tions contra fidem 456,
457 ; propositions not con
tra fidem, 457 ; explana
tion of propositions in
their relation to Modern
theories, 459-467 ; incident
ally touched upon in Con
ference at Oxford, 1899, 516.
Sacrifices, Jewish, 35.
Sacrificial terms, Latin, 473,
474; Greek, 475~477 ; He
brew, 478, 479.
Sadler, Rev. M. F., 18, 59, 97,
132, 361, 431.
" S. Sulpice," founded by Jean
Jacques Olier, 317.
Salmanticenses, 212.
Salmeron, 78, 211.
Salmond, Dr., 515.
Sancroft, Alex., 342, 345.
Sanday, Dr., 515, 516, 527, 528,
533-
Scandret, J., 342, 361, 362.
S can n ell, Wilhelm and, 16,
33, 50, 90-
Schanz, Dr., 16, 33, 34, 36,
37, 78, 214, 215, 454.
Scheeben, Dr., 16, 45, 78, 90,
214, 215, 454.
Schismatics, place of their
writings, 12.
Scrivener, Matthew, 377.
Scudamore, Rev. W. E., 403.
Sergius, Pope, 194.
Sharp, John, Abp. of York,
381.
Sherlock, William, 385, 386.
Smith, 342
Socinus, Faustus, 12, 54, 56-
72, 89, in, 112, 245,408-410,
412, 448, 459, 460, 480-491,
53i, 532.
Socinus, Laslius, 408, 410.
Sparrow, Anthony, Bp. of
Exeter, 374, 375.
" Sprinkling of the FATHER,"
expression attributed to S.
Ivo of Chartres, 303.
Stentrup, Rev. F. A., 15, 64,
285.
Stephens, Robert, ed., 485.
" Stercorianism," 193.
Stillingfleet, Edward, Bp. of
Worcester, 378, 379.
Strabo, Walafrid, 190-194,
196.
Suarez, 44, 45, 78, 204, 206,
207, 212, 214, 215.
6oo
INDEX.
Stipplices Te, of Roman
rite, referred to by Bright-
man, 156, 164 ; three points
in this prayer, 166-168 ;
peculiar interpretation of, in
century IX., 1 69; Duchesne's
view of, 169 ; theological
difficulties of Modern inter
pretation, 170, 171 ; quota
tion from S. Irenaeus, as
sociated with this prayer,
171-174, 273, 280, 286, 295,
305, 306 ; B. Odo of Cambrai
discusses this prayer, 280-
285 ; verses by Hildebert of
le Mans (or Tours), 307 ;
treated by Hugo of S. Vic
tor, 309, 310 ; treated by Al-
gerus of Liege, 315, 316.
T.
Taylor, Jeremy, Bp. of Down
and Connor, 215, 342, 346-
349, 393, 395-397, 418, 433,
441, 452.
Te Igitur, exposition of this
prayer by Hildebert of le
Mans (or Tours), 308 ; corn-
men t of Algerus of Iviege, 314.
Tertullian, 184, 496.
(chap, xiv.), 492.
Thalhofer, Dr., 15, 20, 119, 122,
142, 143-145, 156-159, l64,
172, 215, 230, 231, 234, 235,
245, 248-250, 255, 269-273,
275-282, 286, 307, 308, 311,
312, 315, 316, 329, 396.
Theodoret, 11,55, I2O> J47, J79,
188, 202, 261, 268, 451, 457,
512.
Theological Defence, by A.
P. Forbes, Bp. of Brechin,
419, 439-443, 464-
Theophylact, 120, 162, 202,
232.
Thirlby, Bp. of Ely, 402.
Thomas Aquinas, S., 31, 32,
41, 77, 178, 188, 194, 199, 202-
204, 208, 209, 211.
Thomas, Arnold, 515.
Thomassin, 19, 184, 187, 223-
224, 270, 317, 318, 320, 321-
328, 331.
Thorndyke, Herbert, 342, 357,
360, 378.
Tigurini, 487.
Tournely, G., 212.
Towerson, Gabriel, 378.
Tractarian school, quotations
from various prominent
writers of, repudiating Mod
ern view, 93-96 ; men of,
leaders of Catholic revival,
413 ; authority for views
taken from the Fathers and
Anglican divines of century
XVII., 417 ; examination of
the subject confined to Rev.
Dr. Pusey, Rev. John Keble,
and Bp. Forbes, 419; in
Tract 81 Pusey's view
stated, 419-424 ; in Sermon
IV., 424-427 ; Keble's view,
428-434 ; his sermon No.
XXXIX., of Sermons for
the Christian Year, 428;
Bp. Forbes' view in his
Primary Charge, ^435-439;
in his Theological De
fence, 419, 439-443; a pas
sage in his sermon on
Manasseh, 443, 444 ; re
view of his teaching, 444-
448 ; result of examination
of Tractarian position, 448,
449-
Tract 81 of Tracts for the
Times, by Dr. Pusey, ex
amination of, 340-396 ;
proves that there are no
grounds for claiming that
the Modern view is the An
glican position, 396 ; Pusey's
view stated, 419-424; this
Tract written by Pusey in
1838, 422.
Transubstantiation, author of
term probably S. Peter
Damian, 179.
INDEX.
601
Trower, Bp. of Glasgow and
Galloway, 434.
Tyrrell, Rev. G., S. J., 78.
U.
Unbloody Sacrifice, by John
Johnson, 446.
V.
Vacant, Dr., 16, 17, 176, 184,
190, 209.
Varro, 474.
Vasquez, 42-44, 77, 81, 205-
2O7, 211, 214.
Vergil, 474.
Via Media of Aristotle, 3,
414, of Cassander, a com
promise between Rome and
Protestantism, 402; between
Romanism and Protestant
ism, not the teaching of the
English Church, 414.
W.
Wace, Dr., 539, 540.
Wake, William, Abp. of Can
terbury, 342, 384, 395.
Waterland, Archdeacon, 82,
357-
Watson, Thomas, Bp. of Lin
coln, 402-406.
Wesaliensis, Arnold, 208.
Westcott, B. F., Bp. of Dur
ham, 20, 21, 54, 97, 106, 113,
116, 119, 121, 122, 126, 135,
138, 147, 164, 265, 432, 433,
463, 476-478.
Wheatly, Charles, 342, 391.
White, Francis, Bp. of Ely,
369-
Wilberforce, S., Bp. of Oxford,
415.
Wilhelm and Scannell, 16, 33,
50, 9°-
William of Auvergne, 198, 199,
203.
William of S. Thierry, 196.
Wilson, Archdeacon, 515.
Wilson, Thomas, Bp. of Sodor
and Man, 342, 385, 395.
Winer, 129.
Wordsworth, 230, 247.
Worship, external, why
needed, 27 ; religion de
mands, 27.
INDEX OF LATIN, GREEK, AND HEBREW WORDS.
Ad rem, 219.
Agnus Dei, 194.
Altare sublime, 173.
Anaphora, 299.
Ascensurus, 291.
Aspergit, 293.
Beneficia, 411.
Christus patiens, 469.
Christus regnans, 469.
Communicantes, 201.
Confectio rei, 42.
Conficere rem, 44.
Contra fidem, 453.
De fide, 453.
Demutatio, 42.
Destructio, 42.
Disciplina arcani, 181.
Fecit, 293.
Haec dona, 291.
Haec munera, 291.
Hsec sancta sacrificio, 291.
Hanc aspersiouem, 294.
Hie in imagine ibi in veritate,
250.
Humano modo, 213.
Imago, 251.
Itnmolandi, 301.
Immolare, 474.
602
INDEX.
Iminolati, 293.
Immolatio, 42.
Immolatus, 367.
Interveniens, 259.
Juge sacrificium, 344.
Lacuna, 252.
Latria, 35.
Litare, 474.
Mactare, 473.
Mactati, 301.
Memento etiam Domine, 201,
306.
Missa Catechumenorum, 287.
Missa Fideliuui, 287.
Modo cruento, 343.
Nobis quoque peccatoribus,
192.
Obiter dictum, 42.
Oblatio, 34.
Offerrimus enim ei uon qua^i
indigenti, 172.
Passibile, 368.
Peracti, 411.
Per quern haec omnia, 202.
Per quern htec omnia creas,
298.
Popa, or victimarius, 67.
Pro-Anaphora, 299.
Pro mactatione et occisione
victimae, 344.
Pura prece, 400.
Quam oblation em, 169, 294.
Qui pridie, 169.
Quoad substantiam, 97.
Reductio ad absurdum, 2.
Reductio ad impossibile, 253.
Sacrificare, 473.
Sacrificator, 119.
Sacrificii praeparatio, 411.
Sacrificium quo, 354.
Sacrificium quod, 354.
Sacrum facere, 33.
Sanctus, 300.
Status declivior, 212.
Supplices Te, 160, 164.
Suppressio veri, 92.
Supra quae, 169.
Sursum corda, 300.
Te Igitur, 300.
Terminus ad quern, 529.
Toto ccelo, 96.
Tradere, 487.
Unde et memores, 169.
Verum ac proprium sacri
ficium, 39.
Veteres enim in hoc mystico
Sacrificio, 354.
Via media, 3.
GREEK.
i, 120.
, 54, 133.
ctvayyiaiov, 121.
399.
t 152, 437, 444, 458.
475.
,, 122, 129.
artac, ydp ispdtiaro, 248.
apviov GO'S t6cpay).ievovt 520.
yap, 108.
dta, 123.
349.
yd^rr^6ivy 105,
521.
e$ TO rrvyxvstr, 117.
si's rov at&Dva, 116.
£fji(pavi6$r]vai, 441.
kv, 129.
c,, 162, 173, 174.
, 475.
, 160.
,, 116, 129, 134, 410.
, 105.
r]v or e(5rt, 121.
Qv<5ia, 399, 437, 475.
Bvdia stS ro dif/fSHsS, 439.
Bvtfiatfrr/piov, 105, 173, 234.
idov Ovpa r/veopyjusr?/, 142.
INDEX.
603
is pa 60 at, 248.
ispovpyia, 399.
Xarpsia, 399.
harpsvsir, 477.
A.eirovpyEir, 476.
\sirovpyia, 119, 399.
$, 119.
50.
123.
aijuarot, 128.
roEpov, 159, 234.
ot; £ffi>pi? <*z/*aro£, 128.
Ttaps'dGOKEr, 48, 487.
rtecparepoorai, 484.
50, 159.
Ash am, 48.
Azkarah, 521.
Hizzah, 127.
Minchah, 102.
Muggash, 102.
Muqtar, 102.
icoietr, 475.
^ 163.
122, 133
7tpoSq>epeiv, 122, 475.
, 48.
, 487.
, 35, 475.
, 36.
rz' £(?ri rot) uvpiov
&*, 334-
TOVTO TtOlElTE, 105.
vrtspovpdviov, 159.
36.
140
HEBREW.
Nagash, 102.
Nathan, 127.
Niggas, 48.
Qatar, 102.
Zarak, 127.
Zebach, 35.
INDEX OF TEXTS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
2 Chronicles, VII, i, 53.
Deuteronomy, IV, 24, 53.
Exodus, III, 2, 53 ; X, 25, 479 ; XII, 3, 6, 8, 14, 101 ;
XVIII, 12, 512; XXVIII, 29, 376; XXIX, 36, 37, 460;
XXX, 10, 126.
Ezekiel, I, 2, 34, 323.
Genesis, I, i, 283 ; IV, 3, 5, 478 ; XIV, 8, 505 ; XXXII, 14, 19,
21, 478.
Isaiah, VI, 6, 157 ; LIII, 12, 48, 425.
Jeremiah, IX, i, 298.
I. Kings, V, i, 478.
II. Kings, XVII, 4, 478.
604 INDEX.
Leviticus, I, 3, 4, 19, 49; 5, 127, 479; 9, 127 ; II, i, 4, 5, 6,
478; III, i, 101, 479; 2, 127; 2, 8, 479; 3-6, 8-1 1, 127;
JV, 5-7, 5i i 5-8, 462 ; 6, 127 ; 7, 9, 127 ; 10, 479 ; 24, 29,
33, etc., 479 ; 30, 127 ; VII, 2, 127 ; 15, 101 ; IX, 24, 53 ;
XVI, 133; 4, 125; 6, 441; 13, 14, 242; 16, 20, 126;
18, 19, 462 ; 33, 460 ; XVII, n, 35 ; XXIV, 7, 521.
Malachi, I, 2, 102.
Numbers, XIX, 133.
Proverbs, IX, i, 496.
Psalms, XXI, 507 ; XXXIII, 6, 283, 507 ; XXXIX, 508 ; XL,
7, 478 ; LXII, 3, 512 ; LXV, 13, 323 ; CIV, 4, 262 ; 24, 283 ;
CIX, 4, 512 ; CX, 519 ; 4, 114 ; CXL, 504.
I. Samuel, XIII, 12, 356.
II. Samuel, VIII, 2, 6, 478.
Zephaniah, III, 10, 510.
Acts, II, 3, 53 ; III, 15, 55 ; XIII, 2, 476 ; 33, 519 ; XX, 28, 55.
Colossians, I, 15, 183 ; 19, 20, 125, 294 ; 21, 22, 71 ; III, i, 163.
I. Corinthians, II, 8, 55 ; V, 7, 48, 101, 529; XI, 24-26, 91,
104, 105, 108, 145, 528 ; XIII, 12, 253 ; XV, 53, 331.
II. Corinthians, III, 6, 490 ; V, 14, 15, 69; 18, 20, 457 ; 21, 48 ;
IX, 12, 477.
Ephesians, II, 6, 163 ; 16, 70 ; V, 2, 48, 53, 181, 529 ; 2, 25, 69,
70; 7, 181 ; XX, 2, 181.
Galatians, I, 4, 487 ; II, 20, 69, 487 ; V, 21, 257.
Hebrews, I, 3, 113, 410; 14, 36 ; II, 14, 15, 71 ; 17, 519 ; III,
1,163; IV, 14, 410; V, 7, 82; 7-10,519; 5-10,519; VI,
4, 163 ; 20, 324, 519 ; VII, 15, 25, 528 ; 24, 410 ; 25, 428 ;
26, 410 ; 27, 123, 129, 528 ; 28, 519 ; VIII, 2, 477 ; 2, 3, 519 ;
3, 121, 411 ; 4, 410 ; 5, 160 ; 6, 477 ; IX, 7, 442, 486 ; 8, 51 ;
9,10,36; 10,123; 12,129,410; 12,14,528; 12,24,125;
12, 26-28, 528 ; 13, 14, 480 ; 14, 54, 321 ; 14, 25, 123 ; 20,
373 ; 21, 477 ; 21, 22, 460 ; 22, 131 ; 24, 240 ; 26, 129, 336,
529 ; 28, 122, 336 ; X, i, in ; 2, 490 ; 4-9, 61, 62 ; 5, 141,
410; 5-7,65; 5, 7, 9, I0, 4io; 10,129; ",477; ii, 14,
134; 12, 142, 525, 529; 12, 14, 528; 12, 14, 18, 528; 19,
123 ; XII, 2, 9 ; 22-24, 58, 96 ; 29, 321 ; XIII, 10, 105, 420;
12, 71 ; 15, 82.
John, S., I, 4, 283; 29, 36, 528; II, i, 2, 238; III, 14, 15,
69 ; 16, 53 ; 24, 262 ; 34, 293 ; IV, 34, 60 ; V, 6, 484 ; VI,
27, 65, 141 ; 51, 104, 528 ; 53, 297 ; 56, 200 ; VIII, 5, 485 ;
INDEX. 605
X, 9, 52; ii, 15, 1.8, 70; 17, 18, 66; XI, 25, 278; XII, 26,
297 ; 32, 8 ; XIV, 6, 52 ; XV, i, 39 ; 13, 70, 107 ; XVI, 13,
8 ; XVII, 528 ; i, 291 ; 2, 292 ; 19, 331 ; 24, 297; XIX, 30,
60 ; XX, 19, 60 ; 22, 23, 61.
I. John, S., I, 2, 125 ; 7, 125 ; II, i, 2, 49 ; III, 5, 484 ; 16, 70 ;
IV, 10, 49.
Luke, S., I, 23, 476; II, 34, 278; XI, 30, 278; XII, 49, 53,
239; XXII, 19, 528; 19, 20, 104, 105; XXIII, 45, 52;
XXIV, 51, 118.
Mark, S., VII, u, 478 ; X, 45, 528 ; XIV, 22, 24, 104 ; 22-24,
528 ; XV, 38, 52.
Matthew, S., I, 4, 505; V, 23, 420; VII, 6, 181 ; IX, 13, 38;
XVI, 526; XVIII, 10, 167, 282; XX, 28, 36, 70, 528;
XXII, 41, 116; XXVI, 26, 116; 26, 28, 104; 26-28, 528;
29,183,243; 39>49I XXVII, 20, 296; 25, 296; 51, 52;
XXVIII, 1 8, 61, 136.
I. Peter, S., I, 19, 50 ; II, 5, 82, 382 ; 9, 240, 258 ; 24, 70 ; III,
J8, 70, 528 ; 18, 19, 60.
Philippians, II, 8, 9, 9, 71; 17, 476, 488; 25, 477; 30, 477;
III, 20, 163 ; IV, 1 8, 488.
Revelation, V, 6, 140, 531 ; VI, 10, 245 ; VIII, 3, 157.
Romans, I, 4, 519; 5, 14, 476; III, 25, 49, 238; V, 6, 8, 70;
10, 70; VI, 4, 330; 10, 528; VIII, 32,70,487; 34,267,
373, 528 ; XIII, 6, 476 ; XV, 16, 476 ; 27, 477.
Catholic Faith and Practice
A MANUAL OF THEOLOGY
Part I.
BY THE REV. ALFRED G. MORTIMER, D.D.
RECTOR OF ST. MARK'S, PHILADELPHIA
Author of " Helps to Meditation" " The Seven Last Words of Our
Most Holy Redeemer" etc.
Small 8vo, cloth, pp. XLVI-34O, "js. bd.
CONTENTS : Chap. I. — God. II. — The Creation and Fall of the
Angels. III.— The Creation and Fall of Man. IV.— The Incarna
tion. V.— The Atonement. VI.— The Church. VII.— The Origin
of the Church's Doctrine. VIII. — Grace and the Sacraments in
General. IX. — Baptism. X. — Confirmation. XI. — The Sacrament
of Penance. XII. — Sin and Self-Examination. XIII. — Conditions
required for Penitence. XIV. — The Holy Eucharist. — As a Sacra
ment. XV.— The Holy Eucharist.— The Real Presence. XVI.—
The Holy Eucharist.— The Sacrifice. XVII.— The Holy Eucharist.—
The Communion. XVIIL— The Liturgy. XIX.— Prayer. XX.—
The Rule of Life. Index.
©pinions ot tbe {press
" Any work from the pen of Dr. Mortimer is sure of a cordial welcome. . . .
He has already laid us under many obligations, but we do not think that any of
his works, not excepting the valuable Meditations, will prove of greater or more
permanent value than the one now under notice. . . . It is a systematic out
line of dogmatic theology, based upon, by no means blindly following, Western
theology as formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas ; scholarly, concise, and written
in a clear and luminous style . . . the manual, as a whole, seems to us of the
highest value. It pursues no phantoms of modern speculation, but appeals
throughout to conservative theologians of repute. It will supply the need of those
intelligent lay folk who desire some manual more detailed than The Catholic
Religion ; and we can imagine no work more useful to the student who desires to
have before him at the beginning of his theological course an accurate outline of
which his after-reading will fill in and complete the details." — The Church Times
"We can highly commend it for parish libraries as a little encyclopaedia of
the main points of Catholic doctrine. . . . The chapter on the origin of the
Church's doctrine is quite a little compendium of Christian philosophy, and is cer
tainly very excellent. We want in England, as well as in America, to give some
re.-isons for the faith that is in us. Thoughtful men often ask the clergy for the
basis of their doctrine: "Why is it so?" This is not merely cavilling, but a
search for an intellectual basis of belief. In this book certainly (although very
briefly), we have this basis cleverly stated. . . . The chapter on Baptism is
interesting and full, but not nearly so long as those dealing with the Holy Euchar
ist. Between Baptism and the Eucharistic chapters there are thoughtful chapters
on Confirmation and Penance, as preparations for a worthy reception. The infor
mation given as to the forms of Confirmation in divers churches and on the seven
fold gifts of the Spirit is very valuable. . . . The chapter on the Liturgy is
full of valuable information lucidly expressed. . . . This is a most valuable
book, lucid, Catholic, simple, and thoughtful, and is one of the most important
recent contributions to theology that we have had from the other side of the
Atlantic."— -The Church Review.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY
be tbe IRev. BlfreD <3. Mortimer, S>.2>,
RECTOR OF ST. MARK'S, PHILADELPHIA
Catholic Faith and Practice: A Manual of Theology.
In two parts. Crown 8vo. Part I., pp. xlvi~34O, *js. bd.
Part II., pp. Ixix-sig qs.
The Seven Last Words of Our Most Holy Redeemer,
with Meditations on some Scenes in His Passion. Crown
8vo ......... 5&
Jesus and the Resurrection. Thirty Addresses for Good
Friday and Easter. Crown 8vo • . . 5J.
Helps to Meditation : Sketches for Every Day in the Year.
Vol. I. Advent to Trinity. 8vo "js. 6d.
Vol. II. Trinity to Advent. 8vo . . Is. 6<t.
Sermons in Miniature for Extempore Preachers :
Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy Day of the Christian
Year. Crown 8vo . . . . . 6s.
Notes on the Seven Penitential Psalms, Chiefly from
Patristic Sources. Small 8vo 3-r. bd.
Learn of Jesus Christ to Die : Addresses on the Words of
Our Lord from the Cross, taken as Teaching the Way of
Preparation for Death. i6mo . . . 2s.
The Laws of Happiness ; or, The Beatitudes as Teaching
Our Duty to God, Self, and Our Neighbour. i8mo, 2s.
The Laws of Penitence : Addresses on the Words of Our
Lord from the Cross. :8mo is. bd.
Stories from Genesis : Sermons for Children. Crown
8vo 4-r.
The Way of Progress : 32mo, sewed, zd. ; or 8j. 4</.
per 100.
The Way of Penitence. 32mo, sewed, zd. ; or 8^. 4<f.
per loo.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY
BY
'•* A 3 ft
Mortimer
The eucharistic
M67 sacrifice
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11