Seminary, New York, for reading some parts of my manuscript, and for valuable suggestions in regard to Hebrew sacrificial terms.

To the Rev. J. R. Oliver, one of my fellow-clergy at St. Mark's, I am indebted for assistance in looking up references and for translations from the German of Dr. Thalhofer and Dr. Schanz, and for the translation from Socinus in Appendix B.

To Mr. W. H. McClellan for much help in preparing the work for press, as well as in verifying references.

And last but not least, to the Rev. Shirley C. Hughson, for the laborious task of reading and correcting the proof-sheets of the whole book.

May the HOLY GHOST, Who searcheth all things, even the deep things of GOD, enlighten our minds and enable us more fully to comprehend the Sacred Mysteries of our LORD'S Body and Blood, that we may offer the Divine Sacrifice with greater devotion, feed on Him more worthily, and with deeper love adore Him present beneath the Sacramental veils. So will our Eucharists on earth prepare us to take our place in eternity in the worship of heaven.

S. MARK'S CLERGY HOUSE,

PHILADELPHIA,

Christmas, 1900.

A. G. M.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

SOME DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR

TIMES.

PAGE

Introductory: Human thought tends to exaggerated re-

action.—Examples: the age of the Councils, and the

Renaissance, or Reformation

I. THIS TENDENCY SEEN IN THEOLOGY IN CENTURY XVI. ;

in polity, morals, worship, and dogma.-The revulsion

greatest in priesthood and related questions.-On both

sides a distortion of truth revealed by comparison with
fundamental truths.-The importance of the "reductio
ad absurdum" method in theology.-The likeness of
century XVI. to our own age.-We should therefore
avoid the mistakes of the Reformation period

II. REMEDY FOR EXAGGERATION NOT COMPROMISE, BUT

THE "VIA MEDIA OF ARISTOTLE.-The Catholic

Faith not a series of isolated propositions, but a body

of perfectly harmonious truth.-At the Reformation

the Atonement isolated from the Incarnation.-Now

the opposite tendency: the Atonement obscured, and

humanitarian distortions of the Incarnation intro-

duced. In this work theories must be tested by other

doctrines.-The violation of this principle illustrated

from Dr. Milligan's lectures on "The Ascension and

Heavenly Priesthood of our LORD."-Two charac-

teristics observed in his work:

I

Ι

3

1. The neglect of the writings of the Fathers and

theologians of the Church, and the weight

given to modern schismatics .

2. His treatment of the Sacrifice of the Cross as a

question still open for discussion.-Dr. Mil-

ligan denies that our LORD'S Priesthood had

any connection with earth, and rejects various

theories offered by schismatical writers to

bring the Death of the Cross within the scope

of His priestly work, and so to recognize it as

a Sacrifice. He considers that the universal

conviction of the Christian Church is "not

without force."-He proposes a theory of his

own, based on the interpretation of one pas-

sage of Scripture.-He considers that the ob-

jection that it rests on one passage only has

no weight, but that its inconsistency with S.

Paul's language has a certain force.- Ex-

amples of this.-A theologian is discredited:

(1) Who little values Catholic consent; (2)

rests the Sacrifice of the Cross on one passage

of Scripture; (3) and ignores the consensus

of the Fathers

III. TWO PRINCIPLES RECOGNIZED BY ANGLICANS:

1. The appeal to antiquity; i. e., to the writings of

the Fathers as a whole, not merely to doubt-

ful passages. This test applied to the modern

theory of our LORD'S Sacrifice in heaven

2. The Church herself the interpreter of all truth.

-The place therefore to be given to the

writings of schismatics.-The modern view of

the Kenosis started from Beron through

Lutheran sources.-The modern interpreta-

tion of Hebrews comes from Socinus, and has

been spread in England through Dr. Milligan.

IV. TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE US TO-DAY, PRIESTHOOD AND
SACRIFICE.-The questions which the Reformation
and the Oxford Movement took up were first Apos-
tolical Succession, then the Doctrine of the Eucharist.

Little critical work done in regard to the nature of

priesthood or sacrifice.-Renewed interest stimulated

by the Papal Bull of 1896, and more scientific investi-

gation, which may yet afford a better basis for the

union of Christendom than Papal recognition.-The

investigation of these questions must be made in many

fields. Many learned Roman Catholic treatises inval-
idated by faulty premises.-An illustration of this in
the controversy as to the "form" in Holy Order

V. THE QUESTION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE DEBATED

WITH GREAT DILIGENCE AND LIBERALITY IN GER-

MANY.-Three German schools:

I. The extreme school of Thalhofer, started in

1870. Its learning and literary industry.—

But little known in England.

2. On the opposite side the works of Stentrup

3. Between these the treatises of Scheeben and

Schanz, and, in France, of Lepin, and Vacant.

-In England Dr. Moberly's "Ministerial

Priesthood supplies an example of con-

structive treatment of priesthood, but we have

practically nothing on the Eucharistic Sacri-

fice. The only book on this subject Sadler's

"One Offering."-Mr. Kidd's work confined

to medieval doctrine.-The subject is touched

upon in various works on the Articles, and

treated more fully in a paper by Mr. Bright-

man. These authors do not meet the diffi-

culties involved in their theory, nor give any

substantial proofs of it.-The laborious work

done by the modern school in Germany.-

Bishop Westcott's great work on Hebrews en-

tirely against the modern view

VI. THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORK CHIEFLY TO PRESENT

EVIDENCE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE.-Four difficulties

in treating the subject

1. The equivocal use of the term "sacrifice"

2. No adequate attempt to determine the nature

of sacrifice till century XVI.

PAGE

13