the same author's contribution to the Oxford Church in various Text Books, on "The Thirty-Nine Articles."

Dr. Mason, in The Faith of the Gospel, devotes six pages to this question. Perhaps among the bestknown monographs on the subject is a paper of sixteen pages on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the Rev. 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 Eucharistic 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 the difficulties involved in their theory, nor do they meet the objection that it seems to conflict with the complete and finished character of our LORD's Sacrifice on the Cross. They usually quote no authority for their view, unless it be from modern authors, although 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. Irenæus, and S. Cyril of Alexandria, which he seems to think give some support to his view, and which we shall examine later on.†

Another writer, in response to a request for some definite passages from the Fathers, refers in general terms to Thomassinus. Yet another, confesses himself unable to name any particular passages, while a fourth thinks that the germ of the theory may be found

*S. Ignat., Ad Smyrn., vii. 1 ; S. Justin Martyr, Trypho, lxx.; S. Iren., Adv. Hær., iv. 17, 18, v. 2; S. Cyril, M. Ep. ad Nest. Ecum., ii. 7.

† Chapter VIII.

works on the

Articles,

and treated more fully in a

paper by Mr.

Brightman.

These authors do not meet involved in their theory, nor give any substantial proofs of it.

the difficulties

The laborious

the modern

school in

Germany.

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 work done by the painstaking and laborious research of German theologians of the school of Thalhofer, to which we have already referred. They have gone most carefully 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 unknown 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 discussion 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.

Bishop Westcott's great work on

Hebrews entirely against the modern 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.

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 recognized 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 consequence of a study of the Fathers and of ancient commentaries; 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 controversies.

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 this work is not to put forth a view, or to prove one already put forth, so much as to arrange materials gathered from divers sources and not easily accessible to those who have not a large theological library within reach; to collect authorities, examine and test arguments, 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 many reasons,—of which we shall briefly notice four, the treatment of the subject presents unusual difficulty. *Westcott, Heb., p. 230.

VI. The purpose of this work chiefly to present evidence not

easily accessible.

Four difficulties in treating

the subject.

I. The equivo

cal use of the term "sacri

fice."

2. No adequate attempt to determine the

nature of sacrifice till

century XVI.

First, the extreme looseness with which the term "sacrifice" is employed by theological and other writers. Sometimes it has an active sense, sometimes a passive, as when our LORD is said to offer the Sacrifice of Himself, and to be Himself the Sacrifice. Sometimes 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 feelings 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; sometimes 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.

The next difficulty is that until the sixteenth century there was no adequate attempt to determine the essential characteristics of sacrifice, and that the endeavours then made were so biased by the theological prejudices of the different parties that the structures

built up were rendered unstable by the weakness of their foundations. Protestant writers confined themselves 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 destruction in order to constitute a proper sacrifice.

The third difficulty, which has already been touched upon, is the entire absence of any modern works in the Anglican Church which treat the subject of sacrifice scientifically or with any fulness. There are many 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 seventeenth century.

The last difficulty which we shall notice is, that the subject branches out in so many directions and touches upon so many kindred topics that it is not easy to pursue any definite method which will enable us in moderate space adequately to present it in its entirety.

3. Entire absence of modthe subject in

ern works on

the English Church.

4. The many departments of

theology on

which the subject trenches.