2. Επουράνιος signifies only what pertains to the Kingdom of heaven. 3. The meaning of "hæc" doubtful. 4. The true and valuable ele ment in the the promi nence given to the union of earth and heaven. 2. The sense in which enouрávios is to be understood is the sense in which it is used in similar passages in the New Testament, and in which the Greek and Latin Fathers clearly explain it; that is, of things pertaining to the Kingdom of heaven, or spiritual things. 3. It is not certain what precisely we are to understand by the word "hac" in the prayer Supplices Te; and it is difficult to conceive in what sense the sacramental 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 the Sacrifice already offered. of 4. There is a true and valuable element in the Modern view, especially as it was set forth by the Tractarians. Modern view, The passages quoted from the liturgies and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the explanation of them found in the Fathers, all point to a union between the Church the worship of on earth and the Church in heaven, a fellowship not 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 adoration of the Church on earth and in heaven. The oneness of this worship is such that we speak of the angels 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, appears for us before the face of GOD," His very Human Nature interceding for us." * asserted, No words can be too strong to express the closeness This must be of this joyous fellowship, which in the dark days of the earnestly past three hundred years has indeed been obscured by the cold, unsacramental worship of the Church in England. 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 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 theologians, rejected alike by East and West, and inconsistent with the express teaching of the English Prayer Book. * Euthymius Zig., in Heb., cap. vii., v. 25. but without admitting the Modern view of the E. S. A bird's-eye view of theological opinion of the E. S. from the subapostolic age to our own time. This will enable us to relegate the various views to their place in history. CHAPTER VII. HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPTION OF THE B EUCHARIST. EFORE proceeding to an examination of the Church, we shall find it useful to stop and take *Histoire de la Conception du Sacrifice de la Messe dans l'Église Latine. Delhomme et Briguet, Paris, 1894. 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 Scripture and of the liturgies from that of the Fathers and theologians, 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, absolutely 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 struck with the clearness and simplicity of the three divisions into which it is marked out. To adopt Dr. Vacant's suggestive classification, we see, in the first, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist 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 theological. 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 sacrificial act consists. These divisions, as we have said, fall into clearly defined epochs, the first extending through some five centuries, from the writings of S. Clement of Rome in the sub-apostolic age to the beginning of the papacy of The field falls into three divisions: 1. The Early Ages, from S. Clement to S. Gregory the Great; ed syntheti cally as a the H. E. treat S. Gregory the Great; the second, from S. Gregory the Great, or the earliest years of the seventh century, to the age of S. Thomas Aquinas; and the last, from the age of S. Thomas, or the middle of the thirteenth century, to our own times. great whole. II. The Middle Period, from S. Thomas; the treatment practical, re and liturgical forms. ern, from S. Thomas to our own times; analytical, in determining act. The first period may be termed the "Early Ages" of the Church; the second, the " Middle Period;" and garding effects the third, the "Post-Mediæval and Modern Epoch." Before we turn our attention to an examination of III. The Mod- these three periods, there is one point which it is very important we should state most distinctly. It is, that until the controversies of the sixteenth century the treatment brought into question the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, no serious attempt was made by the theothe Sacrificial logians 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 produce of the fact that the Eucharist was always regarded as a true and proper Sacrifice. The history of dogma shows us that doctrines are never fully discussed 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. evidence of the fact of the E. S. is that till cent. XVI. there was no attempt to define it. From cent. IX. to XVI. controversies about the Real Pre From the ninth century, theologians were so engrossed in their attempts, first to define the doctrine of our LORD's Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and then sence occupied to defend their definition, that they gave but little attention to the question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, about which, as we have said, there was no controversy until the sixteenth century. theologians. In the ninth century the attempt to define the mode |