of Lepin, of Drs. Scheeben and These differ not only in degree but in kind from the on the authority of Cassander. Certainly no one before his day taught that in the Eucharist 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 Eucharist 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 Eucharist. 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 extreme Mod- 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. ern view. 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 Conception to the day of His Death our LORD'S whole life was sacrificial, in that it was the continuous offering to * Cf. p. His FATHER of a perfect obedience, of an entire conformity 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 Ascension, 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 Socinian 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 defend any theory in regard to the mode of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but rather to gather together material from which each for himself may be able to form an opinion upon three points: II. There are three points on which we shall express an opinion: 1. What views must be denied as conflicting with 1. What views dogmas which form an essential part of that great body of truth which we call the Catholic Faith. must be denied as contra fidem;" be held as not "contra 2. What views may be held, which, while lacking 2. what may antiquity, are not inconsistent with Catholic truth, and have the authority of many names of great fidem;" weight. 3. What views must be affirmed as necessarily com- 3. what must prised in the Catholic Faith and clearly set forth in the be affirmed as formularies of the Church of England. It will perhaps facilitate the use of this chapter for "de fide" 1. Propositions " contra fidem :" i. That the S. of the Cross was imperfect or unfinished; ii. that the S. of the Altar con sists in aught what our LORD did, i. e., consecrating bread into His Body and wine into His Blood; 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. 1. Propositions which must be denied as conflicting with some doctrine of the Catholic Faith: i. It must be denied that in any sense the Sacrifice of the Cross was imperfect or unfinished, or that by anything our LORD 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. It must be denied that the Sacrifice of the Altar consists in aught else than the "doing" of that which else than doing our LORD Himself did, and commanded His Apostles to continue, namely, the taking of bread, and the consecrating it into His Body, the taking of wine in the cup, and the consecrating it into His Blood. Hence it must be denied that this Consecration of the Body and and that in our Blood of the LORD under diverse species, as severed by death, has any counterpart in our LORD's Mediatorial work in heaven; and it likewise must be denied that it finds its counterpart anywhere save in His Sacrifice on the Cross. LORD'S Intercession there is any counterpart to this Consecration; iii. that the mere presence of a once sacrificed Victim iii. It must be denied that the mere presence of a once sacrificed Victim is a proper sacrifice,—that is, in the active sense of the word. Our LORD'S glorified is a "proper" Humanity, sitting at the Right Hand of the FATHER S; iv. that our LORD 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. It must therefore be denied that in the proper sense our LORD offers any sacrifice in heaven, or that "offers" any He there exercises that function of His Priesthood.* For revelation assures us that He has committed to the S. in heaven. priesthood on earth the ministry of reconciliation,† through which priesthood, in the Church on earth alone, He actively offers sacrifice. I 2. Propositions which may be admitted as entirely 2. Propositions 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, Expectant, and Triumphant. Most of the Fathers consider this altar to be our LORD's Sacred Humanity. not "contra fidem :" i. That there is an altar in heaven on which are offered the the Church; oblations of LORD may be in mystery ii. It may be admitted that, since the presence of the ii. that our 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. styled a "perpetual Obla tion" in heaven; LORD "is" a Sacrifice in iii. It may be admitted, too, that our LORD is a Sac- iii. that our rifice in heaven, since He is the Lamb which was once offered in sacrifice for us. And in this sense, using the heaven. 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 3. Propositions comprised in the Catholic Faith and clearly set forth in necessarily 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., hom. xiii., 3; Euthym. Zig., In Heb., c. vii., v. 27. For these passages, see pp. 261, 262. † 2 Cor. v. 18-20. Theodoret, In Psalm., cix., 4; for the passage see pp. 261, "de fide:" i. That our LORD offered upon the Cross a full, perfect, and sufficient S.; ii. that the E. S. though a true is not an Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and that to this Sacrifice nothing can ever be added, by Him or by anyone else. And further, that this Sacrifice was sufficient and superabundant as a satisfaction for all the sins of men, both original and actual. ii. It must be affirmed 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 S. of the Cross; of the Cross, of which it is the perpetual memorial (άváμvno15) and application. absolute S., but depends for efficacy on the iii. that the remembrance of the mysteries of our LORD'S life, and the obla iii. It must be affirmed 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 symbolical way, gifts like those of Abel and Melchisedec tions and inter- 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 consists, as we have said, only in doing that which the LORD did and LORD did, and which He commanded us to do when He instituted this Sacrament. cessions, are not essential parts of the E. S., which con sists only in doing what our commanded us to do. long alike to the teaching of every part of the Church. In making these affirmations and denials, we believe that we are not following any particular school, nor peculiar to any school, but be- accepting the opinions of any individual teachers, whether ancient or modern; but that we are simply following the express words of Divine revelation as interpreted by the Church in all ages, alike by its liturgies, 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 England. An explanation of the pur In the ten foregoing propositions we have summed up in a concise form the dogmatic conclusions which |