Resurrection-Body was bloodless, and that the precious Blood which He shed upon the Cross exists in heaven separated from His Body, and is offered sacrificially somewhat as the Jewish priest offered the blood of the victim.

It is not necessary to

of Mr. Sadler's book.

make any further examination What we have pointed out is sufficient to show how little weight can be attached to his opinion on any question which rests on Patristic authority.

APPENDIX G.

CORRESPONDENCE.

N the preparation of The Eucharistic Sacrifice the author had occasion to write to many theologians

IN

in England, France, and Germany, whose works are among the standard authorities on this subject, to ask for explanations of passages which were not clear; but especially to find out their opinion on questions which had not been treated in their works. From all he received most courteous replies,-from several most helpful and suggestive letters. Out of this correspondence he has selected the following letters as of special value and interest, since they are all from writers of great eminence and, with the exception of the Bishop of Durham, from those who are somewhat in sympathy with the Modern school.

of five German theologians to whom he wrote, he gives a letter from Dr. Paul Schanz, so well known from his work, Die Lehre von den Heiligen Sacramenten der Katholischen Kirche.

Of the three French writers he prints in full a most interesting correspondence with Dr. Lepin, Director of the Grand Seminary of S. Irenæus at Lyons.

Of the many English theologians he has obtained permission to use letters from the Bishop of Durham and from the Rev. F. A. Brightman. Bishop Westcott's letter will carry great weight as the opinion of the greatest living authority on the interpretation of the

Epistle to the Hebrews. Mr. Brightman's letter is of special interest as setting forth with great clearness the distinctive features of the more extreme form of the Modern view.

The author wished to add letters from several other representatives of this school, but found that they were unwilling that their letters should appear.*

Of each of the French and German theologians the author asked whether they knew of any writer earlier than Socinus who interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews on the Socinian theory that our LORD is therein represented as offering a sacrifice in heaven after His Ascension, for which His Death upon the Cross was only the preparation. Not one of them, however, knew of any writer earlier than Socinus who held this view.

With this introduction we shall proceed to the letters themselves.

The first we give is from the Rt. Rev. Dr. Westcott, Bishop of Durham. The author had written to ask:

1. For references to certain passages in S. Chrysostom and S. Euthymius Zigadenus.

2. Whether the Bishop knew of any passages in the Fathers in any way favorable to the Modern view.

3. Whether his lordship knew of any writer earlier than Socinus in which the modern interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to be found. Bishop Westcott's answer is very definite and convincing.

MY DEAR SIR:

AUCKLAND CASTLE,

BISHOP AUCKLAND,

June 19, 1900.

Allow me to thank you for your most interesting letter. I am sorry that you should have found any *In the Preface p., x., will be found some account of these letters.

difficulty about the quotations. Unless a special reference is given, the quotations are, I think, uniformly taken from the part of the Commentary which deals with the special passage. Thus the passage of Chrysostom is taken from Hom. xiii., § 8, in which he deals with Heb. vii. 27. The words of Euthymius are taken from his comment on the same verse. The whole note runs: ἐκεῖνοι (the Levitical priests) μὲν δι ὅλης τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς καθ' ἡμέραν ἱεράτευον, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ ἱεράτευσεν. The notes of Euthymius on the Epistle were first published at Athens by Abp. Calogeras in 1887, and the book is not, I think, well known. On verse 25 Euthymius expresses the true conception of the LORD'S Intercession with singular terseness and force: αὐτὴ οὖν ἡ ἐπανθρώπησις αὐτοῦ παρακαλεῖ τὸν Πατέρα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.

Of the history of the "modern conception of CHRIST pleading His Passion in heaven" I cannot say anything. I have not worked it out. When I feel satisfied that an opinion is wrong, I generally dismiss it. The pathology of interpretation, if I may use the phrase, has no attraction for me. I greatly regret, therefore, that I cannot add anything to what you have collected. The thought is, as far as I know, not found in the Fathers.

Believe me to be, yours most faithfully,
(Signed) B. F. DUNELM.

THE REVEREND DR. MORTIMER.

MY DEAR SIR:

AYSGARTH, YORKS, P. S. O.,
September 4, 1900.

Let me thank you for your letter. Pray make any use you think right of what I wrote to you. To me more and more Holy Scripture is the standard of faith and I hardly look beyond it as I study the words in the full light of our present experience. Your work, I cannot but hope, will do valuable service to Biblical truth.*

*This must not be referred to the book as a whole, but only to what his lordship knew of its contents, namely, to the in

Forgive a very short note. Just now I am overwhelmed with work and years tell. Yours most faithfully, (Signed)

THE REVEREND DR. MORTIMER.

B. F. DUNELM.

The next letter is from the Rev. F. E. Brightman, Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford, to whom the author had written asking for titles of works on the subject of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, for passages of the Fathers in support of the Modern view, and for an explanation of some statements in Mr. Brightman's pamphlet, The Eucharistic Sacrifice; and, further, to seek his opinion in regard to the view of Bengel and Alford, that our LORD's Blood was offered in heaven separated from His Body.

DEAR DR. MORTIMER :

PUSEY HOUSE, Oxford,

June 11, 1900.

I scarcely know how to apologize to you for leaving your letter so long unanswered.

I do not think I can very satisfactorily answer your questions.

i. I cannot suggest anything beyond the authors you quote.

ii. In speaking of the "other acts" one is necessarily, of course, referring to the "type" rather than to the "antitype." In speaking of His life now as acts," I conceive one is only speaking symbolically. His eternal Sacrifice is not an act or succession of acts, but a relation. In speaking of Him as presenting His Blood, I conceive one means that He is doing, or rather He is, what was symbolized by the presentation of the

terpretation of the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to the tracing back of the modern interpretation to Socinus, and the attempt to show that it is inconsistent with the teaching of the Fathers.