defending S. Augustine against Berengarius in
regard to his use of the word "sign."-Noth-
ing in Guitmundus supports Thalhofer's views.

3. Thalhofer quotes from Odo of Cambrai.-He

is discussing the "Supplices Te."-The full

context. The passage cited only a paraphrase

of the prayer.-Its real purport.-Another

passage from Odo.-Its interpretation.-A

third passage from Odo.-Stentrup's comment

on this passage.-Odo gives no support to

Thalhofer's theory

4. Mr. Brightman refers to S. Ivo of Chartres

and Hildebert of Tours.-Mr. Brightman's

statements both misleading and inaccurate.—

S. Ivo's work on the Sacrifices of the Old and

New Testaments.-A good example of the

mystical treatment of the liturgy. He divides

.

it into two parts: the first is interpreted by

our LORD'S first Advent and by the sacrifices

offered without the veil; the second by our

LORD'S Passion and Intercession and by the

priest's action within the veil and after his

return to the people.-S. Ivo the first to at-

tempt this parallel.-Its difficulties avoided

by S. Ivo.-Mr. Brightman's statement about

S. Ivo's teaching is entirely unfounded.-S.

Ivo's introduction to his treatment of the

liturgy. i. The Introit and Litany. - The

"Gloria in Excelsis."-The Collect, Epistle,

Gospel, Creed, and Offertory.-S. Ivo's intro-

duction to the Canon. ii. From the Offertory

to the end of the Canon.-The three secrets cor-

respond with the prayers in Gethsemane, and

with the three sacrifices of the bullock, ram, and

goat.-The "Sursum Corda" and the exhort-

ation to "Watch and pray.”—The Preface,

the ministry of angels, and the cherubim.-The

Canon. The two goats signify CHRIST'S

two Natures: the goat slain, His Human Na-

ture; the scapegoat, His Divine Nature.-The

“Memento of the Living," the intercession of

the Levitical priest, and of CHRIST on earth.

-The incense of the Day of Atonement is

connected with the fragrance of our LORD'S

Humanity, and with the commemoration of

the Apostles and Martyrs.-The significance

of the breastplate noted.-The incense in the

Apocalypse taken of the "Quam Oblatio-

nem;" its spiritual significance pointed out.

-The sprinkling of the mercy-seat with blood

typifies CHRIST'S Mediatorial work in

heaven, and the sign of the Cross made over

the elements before and after the Consecra-

tion. The act of Consecration is referred

solely to the Death on the Cross.-In the

"Unde et Memores" the Sacrifice is offered,

and in the "Supra Qua" the priest prays

that it may be accepted.-S. Ivo then takes

the "Supplices Te" of the scapegoat and the

high priest's return to the camp as typifying

our LORD'S Ascension and Intercession.-

The mystery of our LORD'S Presence in the

Holy Eucharist while still in heaven must be

apprehended by faith.-S. Augustine quoted.

-The washing of the high priest's garments

taken of Baptism and Confession, and of

our LORD'S work of reconciliation.-The

mention of the Apostles and Saints connected

with the high priest's breastplate and ephod.

-Commemoration of the Saints and of their

merits.-S. Ivo again asserts that the Holy

Eucharist commemorates the Passion.-Mr.

Brightman's statement compared with S.

Ivo's words: i. The "Anaphora," the Jew-

ish ritual, parallelled with our LORD'S

actions on earth. ii. The three sacrifices

represent only the Passion. iii. The incense

the fragrance of our LORD'S glorified Body

--

iv. The

which had been offered on earth.

crucial point the act of Consecration.-The

mercy-seat sprinkled with the blood of a sacri-

fice which had been offered.-The force of

"immolati."—The sprinkling in heaven of

Blood which had made the FATHER pro-

pitious. The force of 'fecit."-S. Ivo the

author of the expression, "sprinkling the

FATHER."-V. Hildebert's explication of

S. Ivo's words.-S. Ivo's application of the

blood-shedding to the liturgy. The force

of "hanc aspersionem" connects the action

of the liturgy with that of the Cross.-The

act of Consecration commemorates the Death

on the Cross, and not our LORD'S action in

heaven. V. The Supplices Te" corre-

sponds with the scapegoat and with the Ascen-

sion.-Duchesne considers this the Epiklesis,

which is neither the act of Consecration nor

the sacrificial act, and has no place in the

English liturgy.-Our LORD'S Intercession

corresponds with the high priest's prayer and

washing, and with Baptism and Penance in
the Church.-The "Memento" and the "No-
bis quoque" connected with the breastplate
and ephod.—Mr. Brightman's statement con-
trary to facts.-S. Ivo's teaching summed up.

5. Mr. Brightman and Thalhofer cite V. Hilde-

bert of Tours.-His verses on the "Supplices

Te."-On the "Te Igitur."-Some passages

from his prose works

6. Hugo of S. Victor merely repeats Hildebert's

thought.

7. Algerus of Liége: his great authority, and his
affinity with the Greek Fathers. His discus-
sion of the mode of CHRIST'S Presence in
the Holy Eucharist and at the same time in
heaven.-From which Thalhofer quotes a pas-
sage. The only heavenly sacrifice known to

PAGE

280

307

309

PAGE

44

Algerus is the Eucharistic Sacrifice.-Some

passages overlooked by Thalhofer; in which

Algerus clearly relates the Eucharistic Sacri-

fice to that of the Cross.-His other work on

the Holy Eucharist, De Sac. Missæ."-His

comment on the "Te Igitur," in which he

actually uses the words "heavenly sacrifice,"

but of the sacrifice on earth in the Holy

Eucharist. The sign of the Cross tells of the

sprinkling of blood.-He also treats of the

"Supplices Te," and makes clear his former

statement. - No support for Modern view

found in Medieval writers

--

II. GALLICAN WRITERS OF CENTURY XVII. De Bérulle,

founder of the Oratory; de Condren, the theologian

of the Resurrection; Olier, founder of S. Sulpice;

Thomassin. Theology of the latter two influenced

by de Condren. All three, but especially Thomassin,

claimed by Modern school.-De Condren's and Olier's

writings chiefly on ascetics. — Thomassin's great work

on dogmatics.-Restatement of the characteristics of

the Modern view, that we may see what support can be

found for it in Thomassin.-The headings of his chap-

ters misleading.—He speaks of a heavenly Sacrifice,

but explains his meaning, and does not support the

Modern view.-He connects this Sacrifice with the

Resurrection, not with the Ascension; with the " cre-

mation," not with the "sprinkling of blood."-His

exposition of this: 1. x., c. xi.-The "cremation" has

no place on the Day of Atonement.-He does not say

that our LORD'S Blood is carried within the veil to be

presented, but that His Body is carried there to be con-

sumed in the fires of the Deity.-This view mystical,

but unobjectionable, more fully set forth in c. xiv.—

His treatment of our LORD as the eternal holocaust.—

His quotations from S. Augustine and S. Gregory Mag.

-Thomassin's review of the chapter.-He speaks of a

Sacrifice in heaven, and explains it by our LORD'S In-

tercession. He says that the Sacrifice is figurative and

310

metaphorical.-In c. xvii. he connects the Eucharistic

Sacrifice with that of the Cross directly and distinctly.

-The three propositions of the Modern view find no

support in Thomassin

1. De Condren's view

2. and Olier's view.

PAGE

316

329

-

Both are identical with

that of Thomassin

330

331

331

3. Traces of the same idea in Benedict XIV.

4. and in Bossuet

III. THE WITNESS of two EASTERN WRITERS

1. Cabasilas, century XIV., the first to attempt

to formulate a theory of the Eucharistic Sacri-

fice. The value of his testimony to the views

of the Greek Fathers.-Cabasilas is strongly

anti-Latin.-Two passages in Cabasilas which

refute Mr. Brightman's arguments.-Incident-

ally he sees in the Holy Eucharist a com-

memoration of the Resurrection and Ascen-

sion. He devotes a chapter to the signification

of "Do this in remembrance of Me," in which

he explicitly repudiates Mr. Brightman's

view.—Also a chapter on the nature of the

Eucharistic Sacrifice. He finds the sacri-

ficial act in the Consecration, and relates the

Sacrifice solely to that of the Cross. - The

statements of Cabasilas and Mr. Brightman

compared

-

2. The other Eastern writer, Macarius, century

XIX. He teaches that the Holy Eucharist is

a Sacrifice, and that it is related solely to the

Cross.-No trace, therefore, of the Modern

view in the Eastern Church.-Conclusion ad-

verse to the claims of the Modern school

CHAPTER X.

332

332

337

THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES.

Introductory: MR. BRIGHTMAN CLAIMS THAT ANGLICAN
THEOLOGIANS HOLD THE MODERN THEORY OF SACRI-