No reference of H. E. to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Drs. Wace and nect it with the Passover. Lord 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 † Robertson con- say that the Eucharist as a sacrifice takes the place of the Passover, which is exactly our contention; while Lord Halifax, who would represent the Catholic view, states that (1) "CHRIST, mystically represented under the aspect of death . . . offers Himself, presents 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 primarily 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 instituted for the perpetual memory of His Death, gives to His faithful people," || etc. While Mr. Dimock, Brightman tell us is the view of the liturgies and mediæval liturgical commentators, the explicit treatment of this subject by one of the best-known medieval liturgical writers. Odo of Cambrai (ob. 1116), commenting on the Supplices Te, 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 movement 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. † See p. 541. + Cf. p. 139. | P. 542. ལ་“སྣ། ། تنا and even Mr. Dimock, so far sacrificial action, traces it as he sees any who seems to have been the representative of the op- to the Death upon the it to our LORD'S Medi No speaker or writer traces any connection between No one refers the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven, unless possibly Mr. Gore's de- atorial work in scription of what he thinks was S. Irenæus' theory may be considered to refer to that. heaven. 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. 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 ninetytwo pages, and was entitled The One Offering: A Treatise on the Sacrificial Nature of the Eucharist. The main purpose of this little book was to show that the sacrificial 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 produced. 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 circulation, 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 to whom the Church owes much ; and Prebendary Sadler's Church Doctrine Bible Truth, The Second Adam, The Sacrament of Responsibility, The Catechist's Manual, 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 erroneous teaching in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice which is prevalent in our own times, but that the writer'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 supreme 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 Eucharist 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 following passage: "Others, seeing the danger to their opinions of thus interpreting this altar as the actual Cross, affirm that it is CHRIST Himself, Who 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 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 interpretation 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 LORD as Himself the Altar. To quote but one example, S. Epiphanius says, "He is the Victim, He the Priest, He the Altar."† 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 medieval 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 Waterland'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, The One Offering, pp. 31, 32. † S. Eph., Hær., lv., n. 4. |