accidental relation between the H. E. and our LORD'S Mediatorial work. In cent. XVIII. In England since the Reformation the E. S. has received but slight treat ment. Bp. Andrewes refers to it. They taught that the Eucharistic Sacrifice was essentially 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 sacrificial act. They rejected from their definition of sacrifice 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 predominant, 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 attention, 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 controversy with Bellarmine, points out in the following words: "Take away from the Mass your doctrine of * Cienfuegos, Vita Abscondita. transubstantiation, and there will be no longer any dispute between us in regard to the Sacrifice."* overall and Taylor connect directly with our LORD'S the H. E. more Offering in heaven, and this view is followed by the Modern school. In the works of Overall and Jeremy Taylor the Eucharistic Sacrifice is connected more directly with our LORD's Offering in heaven than with the Sacrifice of the Cross. This theory, however, received but slight consideration in their works; although within the last ten years a radical development of it has appeared in certain quarters. † This development is founded upon an interpretation of the Epistle 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 (though without in any way depraving the completeness of the Sacrifice of the Cross) has shown itself in Germany in the writings of Thalhofer, Franz, and others; and side by side with it we find the orthodox school of Scheeben and Schanz, who follow Vasquez Schanz, follow and Suarez and have affinities with the views of Bossuet Suarez. and the Gallican school of the seventeenth century. These represent, perhaps, the latest and best theological work on this difficult and interesting question. radical school has appeared in Germany, headed by Thalhofer. The brilliant theologians, Scheeben and Church has contributed nothing new on the subject. We must bring the chapter to an end by pointing The Eastern out that during this last period the writers of the Eastern Church have contributed nothing new to the conception of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Eastern 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; nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio" (Andrewes, Lib. Anglo-Cath. Theol., Responsio ad Bellarminum, p. 251). E. g., Milligan's The Ascension, and Brightman's The Eucharistic Sacrifice. In cent. XIV. Cabasilas wrote an "Exposition of the Liturgy;" in 1643 the Catechism of Peter Mogila was approved; 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. About the middle of the fourteenth century Nicholas Cabasilas, Bishop of Thessalonica, wrote a work entitled 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 Exposition he treats of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, but adds nothing to the ordinary Western idea. He holds that there is in the Eucharist a true immolation of our LORD'S Body and Blood, and that the Eucharist depends upon the Sacrifice of the Cross. In the year 1643 the Catechism of Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kieff, was approved and recommended 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 Apostolic Eastern Church." In Question 107 of this Catechism 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 sufferings and of the Death of CHRIST, wherewith He was afflicted not for His own, but for our transgressions; secondly, this Mystery is a propitiation or atonement with GOD for our sins, both of the living and of the dead." † * Cabasilas, De Expos. Missæ, Migne, P. G., tom. 150. rius, times MacaBishop of Vinnitza, has put on dogmatic theology; forth a treatise In our own times a systematic work on dogmatic and in our own theology has been put forth by Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza and Rector of the Theological Seminary of S. Petersburg. It was written in Russian, and a French translation appeared in 1860.* In this the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is treated in much the same way as in 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 Eucharist ends. It may enable us in the succeeding chapters to treat the opinions of individual authors with a better appreciation of their historical position in the theology of the Catholic Church. * Theologie dogmatique orthodoxe par Macaire. Paris, 1860. but all follow Introductory: The Fathers of the first six centuries: IN CHAPTER VIII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. N 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 indication 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 Catholic 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. In this chapter we shall consider the testimony of the Fathers of the first six centuries, so as to make our inquiry 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 Appendix D. |