The Eucharistic Sacrifice
Subtitle: An Historical And Theological Investigation Of The Sacrificial Conception Of The Holy Eucharist In The Christian Church
Publisher: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Published: 1901
Place of publication: London, England
Language: eng
Table of contents: title: CONTENTS.; title: CHAPTER I.; title: SOME DANGERS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR TIMES.; title: Introductory: Human thought tends to exaggerated reaction. — Examples : the age of the Councils, and the Renaissance, or Reformation 1; title: 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 1; title: 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 introduced. — 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 characteristics observed in his work : 3; title: 1. The neglect of the writings of the Fathers and theologians of the Church, and the weight given to modern schismatics 5; title: 2. His treatment of the Sacrifice of the Cross as a question still open for discussion. — Dr. Milligan 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 passage of Scripture. — He considers that the objection that it rests on one passage only has no weight, but that its inconsistency with S. Paul's language has a certain force. — Examples of this. — A theologian is discredited : (i) 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 6; title: III. TWO PRINCIPLES RECOGNIZED BY ANGLICANS:   10; title: 1. The appeal to antiquity ; i. e., to the writings of the Fathers as a whole, not merely to doubtful passages. — This test applied to the modern theory of our LORD'S Sacrifice in heaven 10; title: 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 interpretation of Hebrews comes from Socinus, and has been spread in England through Dr. Milligan. 11; title: IV. TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE US TO-DAY, PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE. — The questions which the Reformation and the Oxford Movement took up were first Apostolical 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 investigation, 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 invalidated by faulty premises. — An illustration of this in the controversy as to the "form " in Holy Order 13; title: V. THE QUESTION OP THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE DEBATED WITH GREAT DILIGENCE AND LIBERALITY IN GERMANY.— Three German schools :   14; title: 1. The extreme school of Thalhofer, started in 1870. — Its learning and literary industry. — But little known in England   15; title: 2. On the opposite side the works of Stentrup 15; title: 3. Between these the treatises of Scheeben and Schanz, and, in France, of Lepiu, and Vacant. — In England Dr. Moberly's " Ministerial Priesthood" supplies an example of constructive treatment of priesthood, but we have practically nothing on the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — The only book on this subject Sadler's " One Offering." — Mr. Kidd's work confined to mediaeval doctrine. — The subject is touched upon in various works on the Articles, and treated more fully in a paper by Mr. Brightman. — These authors do not meet the difficulties 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 entirely against the modern view   16; title: VI. THE PURPOSE OF THIS WORK CHIEFLY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE.— Four difficulties in treating the subject 21; title: 1. The equivocal use of the term "sacrifice" 22; title: 2. No adequate attempt to determine the nature of sacrifice till century XVI  22; title: 3. Entire absence of modern works on the subject in the English Church 23; title: 4. The many departments of theology on which the subject trenches 23; title: CHAPTER II.; title: SACRIFICE.; title: INTRODUCTORY: Its origin and meaning. — Religion distinguishes man from other creatures. — Sacrifice the universal characteristic of religion. — Its primaeval origin. — Sacrifice not necessarily of Divine institution. — Its meaning primarily the expression of Love. — Mediaeval theology saw in Sacrifice a sense of sin, and a desire for reconciliation with GOD. — This view true, but not the primary conception. — Love itself is essentially self-sacrificing 24; title: I. THE PURPOSE OF SACRIFICE.— Sacrifice expresses man's true relation to GOD and dependence on Him. — This results first in inward acts or feelings, then finds expression in outward acts of worship, since man consists both of soul and body. — External worship not needed to reveal man's heart to GOD, but to enable man to fulfil his duty, and to confess GOD before his fellowmen. — Socially, as well as individually, man must worship God 26; title: II. — THE CHIEF ACT OF PUBLIC WORSHIP IS SACRIFICE. — Sacrifice is the union of two things. — Its' true side is inward. — But this must be expressed by outward action. — The union of outward and inward essential to a true and proper Sacrifice 28; title: 1. The genus to which Sacrifice belongs is that of "a sacred sign." — S. Augustine's definition. — His treatment of the rationale of external sacrifice. — S. Augustine, " De Civ. Dei," 1. x., c. 5. — S. Thomas' treatment of Sacrifice, 2a 2ae, q. 85, a. I and 2   29; title: 2. Sacrifice derives its essential character from its institution. — This institution to be authoritative must be public. — In revealed religion this authority is GOD alone   32; title: 3. The external form demands some appropriate sacrificial action 33; title: III. SCHANZ'S PROPOSITIONS IN REGARD TO SACRIFICE. — A twofold idea underlies Sacrifice : an outward expression of religion, and a type of the future. — Offering is the fundamental notion of Sacrifice. — Through acceptance of Sacrifice, GOD admits to communion with Him. — Its essential character not destruction, but consecration. — The killing only preparatory to the Sacrifice. — Greek, Latin, and Hebrew terms show that destruction is not the essential idea. — With the Hebrews the two sacrificial acts, effusion of blood and cremation. — Philo's explanation of the effusion. — In burning incense and oil the object is the sweet odour, not the destruction. — The meal a symbol of communion. — S. Irenaeus. — Schanz's definition of Sacrifice  33; title: IV. VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF SACRIFICE   37; title: 1. S. Augustine's famous definition. — Of a true Sacrifice, not of Sacrifice in general. — The union of two parts in Sacrifice. — " Verum ac proprium sacrificium." — Use of " true " illustrated from S. John xv. 1. — S. Augustine's definition of Sacrifice in general. — The sacrificial act illustrated from martyrdom   37; title: 2. Definition of Alexander of Hales  41; title: 3. Of S. Thomas "; title: 4. Of S. Isidore of Seville 42; title: 5. Of Vasquez 42; title: 6. Of Biel and de Castro.— Vasquez's final definition. 43; title: 7. Suarez's definition 44; title: 8. Scheeben's definition 45; title: V. RECAPITULATION OF THE ELEMENTS IN SACRIFICE 45; title: 1. Two parts, an outward and an inward 45; title: 2. The sacrificial action, on which the Sacrifice depends 46; title: 3. This must be performed by a priest 46; title: CHAPTER III.; title: THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS.; title: INTRODUCTORY: The Sacrifice of the Cross the only absolute Sacrifice. — All others are relative in that they gain their efficacy from it. — Investigate how the Sacrifice of the Cross fulfils the general definition of Sacrifice. — Not necessary here to examine any of the theories of the Atonement 47; title: I. HOLY SCRIPTURE DESCRIBES OUR LORD'S DEATH AS A SACRIFICE BY APPLYING TO IT SACRIFICIAL TERMS. — In Isa. liii. the word "niggas" in v. 7 is a sacrificial term, and the word "asham " in v. 10. — The " oblation and sacrifice " of 2 Cor. v. 21 and Eph. v. 2 are also sacrificial. — So 1 Cor. v. 7; Rom. iii. 25; 1 S. John ii. I, 2, and 1 S. John iv. 10 47; title: II. Five actions in the Sacrifice of the Cross, corresponding with those of the Jewish Law   49; title: 1. The dedication of the victim   49; title: 2. The identification of the victim with the offerer. — Our LORD not a mere substitute for man, but the Representative of man  49; title: 3. The interior act : the offering in will of a life of perfect obedience 50; title: 4. The shedding and presentation of the blood.— The significance of the victim's death, and of the sprinkling of the blood in the Levitical Law. — On the Cross both the slaying of the Victim and the sprinkling of the Blood find place. — The significance of the rending of the veil of the Temple 50; title: 5. The cremation of the victim. — The significance of fire. — This is fulfilled on the Cross in two ways : i. As the great act of love by which the world was redeemed ; ii. As offered "through the Eternal Spirit," the action of His Godhead in the Sacrifice. — Socinus' view of this passage. — Thus every rite of the Old Testament is fulfilled upon the Cross   53; title: III. OUR LORD WAS PRIEST AND VICTIM IN HIS HUMAN NATURE ALONE. — In His Divine Nature He receives the Sacrifice offered. — " Communicatio idiomatum." — Our LORD is actively the Priest, passively the Victim. 54; title: IV. A DIFFICULTY REMAINS : In what precisely did our LORD'S sacrificial action consist? — Socinus claims that our Lord's Death was a martyrdom, not a Sacrifice. — The argument of Socinus drawn almost exclusively from Hebrews. — The system of Socinus. — Its kernel his view of our LORD'S Priesthood. — This Socinus limited to heaven. — Socinus treats of the relation of the Cross to the Jewish sacrifices and to the Mediatorial work in heaven. — He denies that all the Jewish sacrifices typify the Death of CHRIST, but confines this chiefly to that on the Day of Atonement. — He asserts that in Hebrews CHRIST'S Oblation refers only to His work in heaven. — He argues from the Day of Atonement that the Death of CHRIST was not a Sacrifice. — He also denies that any " satisfaction " was made by our LORD.— Alford and Bengel go beyond Socinus in teaching that our LORD'S Blood was presented by Him, separated from His Body, after the Ascension: Heb. xii. 24.— The issue raised by Socinus practically the basis of the Modern view of our LORD'S Sacrifice.— If the essentially sacrificial act took place in heaven, our LORD'S Offering upon the Cross was not a Sacrifice and the statement in the English Prayer of Consecration is untrue   56; title: V. IF THE SOCINIAN POSITION BE ASSUMED, HOW ARE WE TO EXPLAIN : 59; title: 1. The words, "It is finished"   60; title: 2. Our LORD'S work in Hades   60; title: 3. Our LORD'S gift of peace on Easter Day 60; title: 4. Our LORD'S gift of absolution on Easter Day 61; title: 5. Our LORD'S claim, "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth"?   61; title: VI. EXAMINATION OF THE SOCINIAN THEORY THAT ON THE CROSS OUR LORD WAS NEITHER PRIEST NOR SACRIFICE 61; title: 1. When did our LORD'S Priesthood begin?— From Heb. x. 4-9, theologians unanimously answer. At the Incarnation. — The Unction of the HOLY GHOST at His Baptism considered. — Summary of the argument from Heb. x. 4-9 61; title: 2. Was our LORD'S Death a Sacrifice or a martyrdom? — The elements of a true and proper sacrifice found in the Cross. — The difference between martyrdom and sacrifice examined, i. The martyrs were neither priests, ii. nor victims, iii. nor as sinners could they offer sacrifice 64; title: VII. THE LAST OBJECTION, THAT OUR LORD WAS SLAIN BY HIS PERSECUTORS, BUT NOT AS A SACRIFICE. — The proper sacrificial action indicated in S. John x. 17, 18. —The agents of our LORD'S Death did not act against His will. — A sacrificial action may be performed by a layman under the priest's direction, e. g.,the Roman sacrifices, and those of the Jews. — Our LORD, therefore, on the Cross adequately fulfilled the law of Sacrifice. — The Socinian theory in regard to our LORD'S heavenly Priesthood the foundation of the Modern view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice   66; title: VIII. THAT MAN'S REDEMPTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED ON THE CROSS IS SHOWN BY MANY REFERENCES TO IT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. — The point at issue restated. — Passages in the New Testament which refer man's redemption to the Cross : S. John iii. 14, 15 ; 1 Thess. v. 9, 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; Gal. ii. 20 ; S. Matt. xx. 28 ; Rom. viii. 32 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Eph. v. 25 ; Titus ii. 13, 14 ; 1 S. Pet. iii. 16 ; S. John x. II, 15, 18 ; S. John xv. 13 ; Rom. v. 6, 8 ; 1 S. Pet. ii. 24; Rom. v. 10 ; Eph. ii. 16 ; Col. i. 21, 22 ; Phil. ii. 8, 9 ; Heb. ii. 14, 15 ; Heb. xiii. 12. — For the Socinian view no passage can be quoted. — Conclusion. — The Catholic Church teaches that upon the Cross our LORD offered His perfect Sacrifice 68; title: CHAPTER IV.; title: THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE.; title: INTRODUCTORY : We are now able to examine the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — The best method is to give the three prevalent views, in the words of representative writers, and to notice the accretions attaching to each. — Then to consider the support for each in Scripture, the liturgies, history, the Fathers, theologians, Anglican divines, and Tractarians 73; title: I. THE CATHOLIC VIEW IN THE WORDS OF BOSSUET 74; title: 1. He teaches that : the essence of the Sacrifice is in the Consecration ; CHRIST both consecrates and offers ; priests are only His ministers; the Sacrifice is a consequence of the Real Presence; in it is renewed the Death upon the Cross ; and this makes GOD propitious to us ; this Sacrifice does not take away from the sufficiency of that upon the Cross ; in the Holy Eucharist we apply the merits of the Cross; there is no destruction of the Victim; the Holy Eucharist, while a proper Sacrifice, depends entirely upon the Sacrifice of the Cross. — The salient features of this view 74; title: 2. Summary : i. The essence of the Sacrifice consists in the Consecration ; ii. The Sacrifice is related directly and essentially to the Sacrifice of the Cross ; iii. The destruction of the Victim only mystical 77; title: 3. A large school makes destruction an essential element, relying on S. Thomas as interpreted by Vasquez. — It finds its fullest expression in De Lugo. — There has always been a school which rejected this view. — In our day De Lugo's view represented by Franzelin. — The opposite opinion gaining ground : its exponents Scheeben, Schanz, Lepin, Tyrrell. — Destruction not a necessary element of the Catholic view 77; title: II. THE PROTESTANT VIEW ; taught by Luther, held by most Protestant bodies 79; title: 1. Well set forth by Burnet 79; title: 2. Summary : i. This view agrees with the Catholic in recognizing the Cross as the only absolute Sacrifice ; ii. a reaction from exaggerated claims for the Mass 80; title: 3. Modifications of the Protestant view : i. Mede's theory of a material offering of bread and wine ; ii. Spiritual sacrifices of prayer, etc. — Dr. Hickes' view. — Waterland's view 81; title: III. THE MODERN VIEW. — The name discussed. — The term " Anglican View" misleading 82; title: 1. Mr. Brightman's paper its exponent. — Mr. Bright man's exposition. — The Eucharistic Sacrifice reproduces, not the moment of the Cross, but our LORD'S action in heaven. — The Cross only the initial act of the Sacrifice. — The other acts are fulfilled perpetually in heaven. — The assumption that the Holy Eucharist is pre-eminently the memorial of CHRIST'S Death, in its most exaggerated form, found in popular teaching. — In a less exaggerated form, in our own liturgy. — A denial that this exclusive reference of the Holy Eucharist to the Cross is found in the New Testament or the early Church. — " Do this in remembrance of Me" suggests no special reference to our LORD'S Death, but to Himself. — In the Institution nothing to suggest a relation to our LORD'S Death.— The mark of death only in the separate Consecration of the chalice. — The witness of the Holy Eucharist is not " I died," but " I am He that liveth." — The Holy Eucharist related to the Cross only through the eternal action of CHRIST in heaven.— The Holy Eucharist is an absolute Sacrifice. — And the Atonement ought to be interpreted by it, not it by the Atonement. — This view is most radical, but it is a clear-cut, definite system. 83; title: 2. Summary : It differs from the Catholic view : i. In that it relates the Holy Eucharist not to the Cross but to what our LORD is now doing in heaven. — Its claim that only the initial act of Sacrifice was performed on Calvary ; that the essential act by which man was redeemed took place in heaven. — This view is precisely that which originated with Socinus. ii. It regards the Holy Eucharist as an " absolute " Sacrifice. — The sense in which some Romans have considered it an "absolute " Sacrifice. — Scheeben's view that relativity is the specific 11 form " of this Sacrifice. — Mr. Brightman would interpret the Atonement by the Holy Eucharist, iii. In the Institution he sees no special reference to our LORD'S Death.— In spite of S. Paul's words, I Cor. xi. 25, 26 88; title: 3. These views are, however, repudiated by many of the Tractarian school: e. g., Bp. Forbes, "Articles;" Rev. B. J. Kidd, "Articles;" Rev. E. C. S. Gibson, "Articles;" Dr. Mason, "The Faith of the Gospel."— Dr. Mason's peculiar view in regard to the manner of our LORD'S Presence 88; title: 4. The principal accretion to the Modern view, as stated by Alford. — Taken from Bengel. — And rejected by most writers except Sadler and Jackson. — Conclusion. — The essential difference between the Catholic and Modern views 92; title: CHAPTER V.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.; title: INTRODUCTORY : In this chapter the Catholic and Modern views are compared with the teachings of Scripture. — 100; title: Does Scripture teach :; title: I. THAT THE HOLY EUCHARIST IS A SACRIFICE? 100; title: II. THAT ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER DEPENDS ON ITS RELATION TO THE CROSS, OR TO OUR LORD'S WORK IN HEAVEN? 100; title: I. The witness of Scripture to the fact of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 101; title: 1. The evidence of the Old Testament : i. The Passover, Ex. xii. 3, 6, 8, 14 ; Lev. iii. 1, vii. 15 ; 1 Cor. v. 7. — In two points it is typical of the Holy Eucharist : (1) as a commemorative Sacrifice ; (2) as a feast upon a Sacrifice, ii. The prophecy of Malachi i. 11 : (1) refers to external worship ; (2) contrasts the "pure Offering" with the legal sacrifices; (3) contrasts its universality with their local character; (4) the word used is  "Minchah," and the other terms are sacrificial. — The early Christian Fathefg interpret the prophecy of the Holy Eucharist 101; title: 2. The evidence of the New Testament : i. The Consecration of the chalice, S. Matt. xxvi. 28 ; S. Mark xiv. 24 ; S. Luke. xxii. 20. ii. The Consecration of the bread, iii. " This do in remembrance of Me," S. Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24-26. iv. " We have an Altar," Heb. xiii. 10. — Conclusion as to the fact that the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice 103; title: II. The teaching of Scripture about the manner in which the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice.— The Catholic theory. — Difference between the Catholic and Modern views. — Each school bases its view on the same passages of Scripture 106; title: 1. The words of Institution : The Catholic view connects this with our LORD'S Death.— " Do this in remembrance of Me." — Mr. Brightman's interpretation of this passage. — He refers to Godet and Milligan for the force of yap in 1 Cor. xi. 26. — Godet, however, preserves the literal sense. — Milligan does not notice the force of ydp % but extends the remembrance to oar LORD'S exaltation in heaven. — Mr. Brightman questions whether the reference is to our LORD'S Death as an historical event. — He cites the liturgies as commemorating the Resurrection and Ascension. — The method of interpretation popular but vicious. — It would never have been thought of except to support an " a priori" theory. — No Father or Church commentator has advanced this interpretation   107; title: 2. The Epistle To The Hebrews the battle-ground of the two views : i. A sketch of the purpose and argument of the Epistle. — From Melchisedec the writer contrasts the universal and eternal nature of CHRIST'S Priesthood with the local and transitory character of that of the Jews. — The two main points in regard to the Sacrifice are, that it was offered once for all, and that its effects, or merits, live on in our LORD'S Mediatorial work.— Thus far both views accord, but here they divide. — The Catholics teach that the Sacrifice was completed on the Cross, and that in heaven our LORD pleads only the merits of this Sacrifice. — The Modern school are split into different camps, the more radical denying that the Sacrifice was completed on the Cross, others trying to find some sacrificial action in our LORD'S Mediatorial work, or taking the word only in a passive sense. — The passages in the Epistle on this subject fall into two divisions : Our LORD'S Priesthood as typified by Melchisedec, or in the Day of Atonement. —The ruling thought is CHRIST'S High-Priesthood. — (1) Chaps, ii., Hi., and iv. give a prefatory treatment of the subject and show the foundation of CHRIST'S Priesthood in the Incarnation (ii. 17, 18) ; (2) Chaps, v., vi., vii., set forth the nature of this Priesthood ; (3) Chaps, viii., ix., x., treat of the work of CHRIST as High Priest ; (4) In the remaining chapters the fruits of this Priesthood are applied to believers, ii. Our LORD'S Priesthood as typified by Melchisedec. — The statements and silence of Scripture about Melchisedec. — The universal character of this priesthood. — The special features tithes and blessings. — No reference to the bread and wine. — The Fathers assume that they were the materials of a Sacrifice. — The argument concludes that such an High Priest needs not to offer daily, for this He did once for all. — But that He is able to save all that come to GOD through Him, and ever liveth to make intercession for them. — Not only is there no mention of any Sacrifice offered in heaven, but it seems explicitly excluded. — The Modern school object that since our LORD is a Priest for ever, He must continually offer Sacrifice. — This objection answered. — Our LORD exercises His Priesthood in intercession, pleading the merits of His Sacrifice, in blessing, and in presenting to the FATHER His own glorified Humanity and His Mystical Body the Church. — In Chap. viii. we reach the main point, that we have an High Priest Who fulfils all the conditions required, and has sat down at the Right Hand of GOD.— The chief characteristic, that He reigns as royal High Priest, and that He is a Minister of the sanctuary. — XetrovpyoS not the same as "Sacrificator."— CHRIST reigning and serving shows forth His Divine Majesty and infinite love. — The idea suggested by the true tabernacle. — The earthly tabernacle symbolized three things : GOD dwelling among men, His holiness, His " approachableness." — The Fathers consider the tabernacle to be our LORD'S Flesh or Humanity.— In this Body CHRIST ministers. — In Heb. viii. 3 are we to supply ffv or Idril — This does not affect the argument. — What is the nature of CHRIST'S Offering ?— Certainly not His Blood, but either Himself or His Body, iii. Our LORD'S High-Priesthood as typified by the ritual of the Day of Atonement. — The signification of this ritual. — The effect of sin twofold : A sense of alienation from GOD, and a conviction of guilt. — The conception of Sacrifice also twofold, as a means of removing the guilt, of reconciling man with GOD. — The chief significance of the ritual, that till the sufficient Sacrifice is offered there is no free access to GOD, but that the yearly entrance of the high priest within the veil arouses hope. — The first tabernacle was open to the priests daily, the Holy of holies only to the high priest once a year. — The purpose for which the high priest went within the veil was not to sprinkle the blood, but to appear before GOD. — The sprinkling of the blood was not the " end," but the ** means." — The details of the ritual. — Summary of teaching on this point : (1) The Old Testament teaches that (i.) Sacrifice was not offered in the Holy of holies, (ii.) but that in certain cases the blood of a sacrifice was applied to atone or reconcile ; (2) The Epistle points out resemblances and contrasts between the high priest and our LORD : (i.) Resemblances : (a) The entry into the Holy of holies ; (b) " Not without blood ; " (c) To intercede ; (d) The waiting people, (ii.) Contrasts : (a) Many times, and " once for all ; " (b) A place made with hands, and heaven ; (c) " With the blood of another," and through His own Blood. — The interpretation of the type in the Epistle. — The contrast between the repeated entrance of the high priest, and our LORD'S entrance once for all.— The means in each case "through blood/' but not "with blood."— The chief thought, that the blood was the means of access. — The preposition "//era" is never found in the New Testament in connection with blood as the means of access to GOD. — Examination of the eleven passages in the New Testament in which blood is thus referred to. — From this it is evident that the Blood is the " instrumental means " of access. — The truth signified by the blood here is that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." — Most of the Modern school admit this : Alford and perhaps Sadler are exceptions. — In verses 13 and 14 the superiority of CHRIST'S Blood to that of animal sacrifices is shown. — The word ajuoo/iov connects our LORD'S Sacrifice with the Cross. — Chap. ix. concludes by relating our LORD'S Intercession to His finished Sacrifice. — Two passages in Chap. x. to be considered : (1) Verse 10 implies that our LORD'S Sacrifice is the only absolute Sacrifice ; (2) Verses 11-14 repeat this thought, but add to it our LORD'S Session. — Three points here : (1) The significance of "sitting," as indicating finished work, excludes any actual sacrifice from our LORD'S Intercession. — This is admirably expressed by Euthymius Zig. : (2) The Sacrifice was offered before He sat down ; (3) The significance of CHRIST'S perfecting the faithful by one Offering. — The last passage quoted from this Epistle as favourable to the Modern view, xii. 24. — Bengel and Alford's interpretation. — The context shows that the sphere of the action is not heaven but earth. — An analysis of the whole passage proves this. — Summary : All the sacrifices under the Law foreshadowed different aspects of the Sacrifice of CHRIST.— The two great annual rites prefigure the Holy Eucharist and our LORD'S Intercession. — The Passover typifies the Holy Eucharist ; the Day of Atonement our LORD'S Intercession. — Both rites point to the same source of merit, but to a different application of it. — No part of the rite on the Day of Atonement prefigures the Holy Eucharist 110; title: 3. Rev. v. 6, the " Lamb as It had been slaughtered." — The Modern school are here divided into two groups, the more moderate seeing only a description of our LORD as the Victim, which is quite justifiable. — Some of the Modern school see in the wounds a sacrificial action. Thalhofer's argument shown to be altogether invalid. — Illustration from the difference between a martyr and martyrdom. — Between a state and an act. — So the Lamb is the Sacrifice, but does not offer sacrifice 140; title: III. SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY :   145; title: 1. Old Testament and New Testament both prove that the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice   145; title: 2. The New Testament recognizes only one absolute Sacrifice. — The Holy Eucharist is therefore a relative Sacrifice, in which we make the memorial of our LORD'S Death  145; title: 3. There is no indication of any sacrifice being offered in heaven. — This is not inconsistent with our LORD'S being a Sacrifice in a passive sense, or with His offering a virtual Sacrifice. —The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice because essentially identical with that of Calvary. — It is accidentally related to our LORD'S Mediatorial work   145; title: 4. Scripture affords no support to the view that the essentially sacrificial act took place in heaven, and that therefore the Cross is not a completed Sacrifice 146; title: CHAPTER VI.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES.; title: The witness of the liturgies to the Eucharistic Sacrifice is naturally of great importance. — We must not expect in them the accuracy of definition which belongs to a creed. — That the liturgies prove the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist may be assumed ; the only question is, whether they support the Modern view. — The controversy concerns only two classes of passages in the liturgies. — Mr. Brightman refers to both   148; title: I. HIS REFERENCE TO THOSE WHICH COMMEMORATE THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION. — He says the liturgies do not confine the memorial to the act of our LORD'S Death, and gives examples from various sources. — The Roman rite. — The Anglican, Scotch, and American liturgies. — Mr. Brightman's inferences from these quotations. — The facts indisputable ; the inferences unwarranted. — Catholic writers teach that the Holy Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation, as well as a memorial of the Passion, and brings before us our LORD'S whole Life both on earth and in glory. — The word dva^YTj6i% has both a subjective and an objective force. — Mr. Brightman quotes that part of "the Oblation" in the Scotch and American rites in which it is used subjectively, but omits the context in which it is referred objectively only to our LORD'S Death. — Answers to the contention that the two are identical. — The valuable element in the Modern view, the relation of the Holy Eucharist to the Life of glory. — This does not involve a heavenly Sacrifice. — The charge that Reformation theology obscures the Incarnation and the great Intercession by dwelling exclusively on the Atonement. — The precise import of this, and the conclusion which follows from it. — The relation of our life now to the Life of glory. — The dangerous tendency of the day to ignore the more severe side of revelation. — The evidence of the Gospels to the importance of our LORD'S Passion. — A conclusion noted which does not follow from the premises. — The interpretation of Fathers and commentators must determine the significance of the passages in the liturgies  149; title: II. THE SECOND CLASS OF PASSAGES ARE THOSE WHICH SPEAK OF A " HEAVENLY ALTAR. " — Mr. Brightman's statement of his case. — He specially refers to the "Supplices Te" of the Roman rite. — The facts again are indisputable, but the inferences unwarranted. — This prayer supplies Thalhofer with his main argument for a heavenly Sacrifice." — He refers the " heavenly altar " of the liturgies to Isa. yi. 6 and Rev. viii. 3. — He argues that since these passages speak of a heavenly altar they imply a heavenly Sacrifice. — It is, however, evident that the Sacrifice must precisely cor- respond with the altar. — So that if the altar be only figurative, we cannot infer a literal Sacrifice. — A literal altar involves manifest difficulties. — The Fathers interpret this passage of Isaiah mystically: S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, Haymo, Philastrius, S. Basil, S. Cyril. — Cornelius a Lapide points this out. — All take the passage figuratively. — That the heavenly altar is only figurative is seen from the adjectives applied to it in the liturgies, e. g., dxepovpdviov, voepov, xvev/uartxov. — The Fathers and later writers take this altar as our LORD Himself. — S. Chrysostom explains " heavenly " as equivalent to "spiritual," and applies it to the Church and her rites. — The importance of his evidence. — He was conversant with the liturgies, and Greek was his mother tongue. — The same interpretation given by Theophylact, and Primasius. — The Fathers speak often of a heavenly altar, but never of a heavenly Sacrifice. Exovpcivioi is used in the New Testament of gifts in the Church on earth : Eph. i. 3 ; Eph. ii. 6, 19 ; Phil. Hi. 20; Col. Hi. 1. — 'Ertovpdvios occurs six times in Hebrews of things on earth : Heb. iii. 1, vi. 4, viii. 5. — Having determined the sense of " heavenly altar, " we must investigate the liturgical meaning of the " Supplices Te." — This prayer found only in the Roman and Ambrosian liturgies. — It differs from the corresponding prayer in Eastern liturgies. — This prayer in the Clementine liturgy. — In the liturgy of S. James. — Another prayer in the same. — Eastern liturgies have no mention of the angel carrying the gifts. — The Roman must be interpreted in accordance with the Eastern. — Liturgical writers differ on three points in this prayer : (1) Some refer "haec " to the prayers, others to the sacramental gifts ; (2) Some take the " angel " of angels> generally ; others of our LORD ; (3) The purpose of the prayer as expressed in the Roman and in the Eastern liturgies. — A peculiar interpretation in century IX. — Duchesne's view of the " Supplices Te." — The theological difficulties of the modern interpretation of the prayer. — The relation of this prayer to the words of S. Irenseus. — These words must be interpreted by their context, 1. iv., c. xviii. — From the context it is doubtful whether " oblation " refers to the Holy Eucharist. — The passage itself shows that " altar w is only used figuratively. — The altar not one on which sacrifice is offered, but towards which "prayers and oblations" are directed. — It seems equivalent to the " throne of grace." — The discussion of the heavenly altar thus summed up :   156; title: 1. The phrase frequently found in the liturgies 173; title: 2. 'ExovparioS signifies only what pertains to the Kingdom of heaven   174; title: 3. The meaning of "haec" doubtful  174; title: 4. The true and valuable element in the Modern; title: view, the prominence given to the union of; title: the worship of earth and heaven. — This must; title: be earnestly asserted, but without admitting; title: the Modern view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 174; title: CHAPTER VII.; title: HISTORY OF THE SACRIFICIAL CONCEPTION; title: A bird's-eye view of theological opinion of the Eucharistic Sacrifice from the sub-apostolic age to our own time. — This will enable us to relegate the various views to their place in history. — The field falls into three divisions : 176; title: I. The Early Ages, from S. Clement to S. Gregory the Great ; the Holy Eucharist treated synthetically as a great whole 177; title: II. The Middle Period, from S. Gregory to S. Thomas ; the treatment practical, regarding effects and liturgical forms 178; title: III. The Modern, from S. Thomas to our own times ; the treatment analytical, in determining the sacrificial act. — The strongest evidence of the fact of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is that till century XVI. there was no attempt to define it. — From century IX. to XVI. controversies about the Real Presence occupied theologians. — This began with the controversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus. — S. Peter Damian apparently the author of the term "transubstantiation " In the first period we shall find : 178; title: 1. The Holy Eucharist regarded by all as a Sacrifice 179; title: 2. No trace of the Modern view   179; title: 3. Certain Greek Fathers even deny that our LORD is now offering Sacrifice, except through His Church 179; title: 4. The Fathers generally relate the Holy Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the Cross 179; title: I. THE EARLY AGES BEGIN WITH S. CLEMENT OF ROME. — Writers trace analogies between Old Testament sacrifices and the Holy Eucharist. — The Holy Eucharist as the Church's Sacrifice and as the bond uniting her to her Head. — S. Clement sets forth its public and sacrificial character, and restricts its celebration to bishops and priests. — S. Ignatius speaks of the altar and calls the Holy Eucharist the Flesh of CHRIST.— He confines its fruits to those in union with the Church. — He regards it as the centre of the Church's unity. — The "Didache" regards it rather from the moral stand-point of the sanctity required in the offerer. — S. Justin Martyr describes the liturgical service and affirms that the Holy Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion.— S. Irenaeus associates the Holy Eucharist with our LORD'S Blood shed on the Cross ; and calls the oblations the first-fruits of creation. — S.Cyprian teaches that the Holy Eucharist reproduces the Passion of JESUS CHRIST.— The priest in it fulfils the functions of the Sovereign Priest. — It is a proper Sacrifice in which the Passion is re-presented. — S. Ambrose says that in it the Sacrifice is the same as that of the Cross. — S. Augustine regards it as uniting us to GOD and depending for its effects upon right dispositions in the offerer. — He defines sacrifice and shows that our LORD'S Sacrifice is renewed daily in the Holy Eucharist. — S. Leo the Great sees in the Eucharistic Sacrifice the accomplishment of all mysteries 180; title: The Eastern Fathers :; title: 1. connect the Holy Eucharist with the Passion ;; title: 2. and Incarnation ; 187; title: 3. and point out that through the Church our LORD is now exercising His Priesthood 187; title: In this period both East and West dwell upon the relation between CHRIST'S Mystical Body and His Body in the Holy Eucharist, and between the Holy Eucharist and His Intercession in heaven ; but have no knowledge of any sacrifice now being offered in heaven 188; title: II. THE MIDDLE PERIOD BEGINS WITH S. GREGORY AND ENDS WITH S. THOMAS.— The Sacrifice of the Mass treated practically, and its character sought in its effects. — The image of our LORD'S Death sought in the liturgical forms. — S. Gregory teaches the efficacy of the Sacrifice for the souls in purgatory ; that in it the Passion is reproduced ; and that by it heaven and earth are united. — He gave an impulse to liturgical study. — S. Isidore of Seville contributes a definition of Sacrifice. — Bede's view is similar. — In century VI. one Mass only was allowed on the same day at any altar by the Synods of Auxerre and Merida. — In century IX. Strabo notices an increase in the number of Masses. — The Eucharistic writers of century IX. : Amalarius, Floras, Paschasius, Ratramnus, Strabo, Rabanus. — In century IX. a new current sets in, mystical rather than theological, resulting from liturgical study, and attempting to find in the liturgy itself the image of the Passion. — Amalarius its source. — His exposition of the liturgy. — His serious theological errors. — Stercorianism, and the triple form of our LORD'S Body.— These views were attacked by Floras and condemned at Quiercy. — Their strange reappearance in the works of other writers. — The views of the Pseudo-Rabanus Mauras. — Floras' "De Expositione Missae" the most important contribution of century IX. — The controversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus. — Walafrid Strabo. — Centuries X. and XI. added nothing to the subject. — The attack of Berengarius upon the Real Presence, century XI. — Century XII. a period of liturgical activity.— Odo of Cambrai, S. Ivo of Chartres, V. Hildebert of Mans. — The view of Peter the Ven. and William of S. Thie'ry.— Robert Pulleyne.— Peter Lombard the first author to see in the double Consecration the image of the Passion. — His peculiar theory about the species. — Algerus of Liege the ablest writer on the Holy Eucharist of century XII. — Lombard's view reproduced by Innocent III., Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, and S. Bonaventura. — A strange theory about the Consecration of each species. — William of Auvergne. — His definition of Sacrifice. — Albert the Great regards the Sacrifice from two standpoints. — But he places its essence in its effects. — His " Explanation of the Canon of the Mass."— His view of the Elevation." — The Greek theologians of this period : S. John of Damascus, S. Dionysius the Areopagite. — The commentators : Aemcnius, Euthymius Zigadenus, Theophylact 183; title: III. POST-MEDIIEVAL AND MODERN EPOCH. — S. Thomas introduces this period. — While scarcely touching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, he gives a definition of Sacrifice which changes the current of theological thought. — His definition, revived by Vasquez, became the basis of the treatment of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — S. Thomas also held that Sacrifice was the sign of " latria." — He lays great stress on the representative character of the priest. — On this point Scotus takes the opposite view. — The writers of centuries XIV. and XV. contributed nothing new. — The attacks of Protestantism led to attempts to define Sacrifice. — Luther entirely denied the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist. — He is refuted by Clichtovee, Eck, Cajetan, and others. — The theory that the Mass was for the remission of actual sin and the Cross for original sin was popularly held in century XVI., but its author is unknown. — Vasquez attributes it to Catharinus ; and with Canus repudiates it. — Suarez charges Catharinus with teaching that the Mass was a separate source of grace. — Catharinus, however, was not the author of this view, for it is mentioned in the Augsburg Conference in 1530, and denied by Arnold Wesaliensis, John Cochlaeus, and Peter Anspach. — Melanchthon traces it to the " Opusc. de Ven. Sac. Altaris," ascribed to S. Thomas ; but the statement there is capable of an orthodox interpretation, as shown by R. P. Dummermuth. — Dr. Paulus holds that the opusculum is not the work of S. Thomas, and attributes it to Albert the Great. — Dr. Vacant refutes this authorship. — The diversity of view at Trent in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — Corrionero places the sacrificial act in the Oblation ; Canus in the fraction of the Host. — The Council only stated that the Holy Eucharist was a Sacrifice, without defining the mode. — In centuries XVI. and XVII. theologians who treat of this subject fall into three groups  202; title: 1. Those who eliminate destruction from their definition, as Salmeron 211; title: 2. Those who find this only in the ritual action, as Canus, Vasquez, and in a less degree Suarez, Bellarmine, and Lessius   211; title: 3. The third group represented by De Lugo, who is followed by the majority of Roman theologians. — In century XVII. the great Gallican theologians trace an accidental relation between the Holy Eucharist and our LORD'S Mediatorial work. — In century XVIII. Cienfuegos suggests a strange theory. — In England since the Reformation the Eucharistic Sacrifice has received but slight treatment. — Bishop Andrewes refers to it. — Overall and Taylor connect the Holy Eucharist more directly with our LORD'S Offering in heaven, and this view is followed by the Modern school. — Since 1870 a radical school has appeared in Germany, headed by Thalhofer. — The brilliant theologians, Scheeben and Schanz, follow Suarez. — The Eastern Church has contributed nothing new on the subject. — In century XIV. Cabasilas wrote an " Exposition of the Liturgy ;" in 1643 the Catechism of Peter Mogila was approved ; and in our own times Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, has put forth a treatise on dogmatic theology ; but all follow the Catholic view   213; title: CHAPTER VIII.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS.; title: INTRODUCTORY : The Fathers of the first six centuries :   218; title: I. Passages supporting the Catholic view   219; title: II. Those adduced in favour of the Modern view 219; title: III. Passages treating of our LORD'S Intercession 219; title: I. WITNESSES TO THE CATHOLIC VIEW, LIMITED HERE TO THOSE OF SPECIAL WEIGHT. — Realize first precisely what we are seeking, — not a theological theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but to show that the Fathers relate it to the Sacrifice of the Cross   219; title: The Greek Fathers : 1. S. Irenaeus, 2. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, 3. S. Gregory of Nyssa, 4. S. Cyril of Alex., 5. S. Chrysostom, 6. S. Chrysostom — Thomassinus on this passage, 7. S. Chrysostom 220 1. S. Irenaeus 220; title: The Latin Fathers : 8. S. Cyprian, 9. S. Cyprian, 10. S. Cyprian, 11. S. Ambrose, 12. S. Ambrose, 13. S. Augustine, 14. S. Augustine 15. S. Augustine, 16. S. Augustine, 17. S. Augustine, 18. S. Augustine, 19. S. Augustine, 20. S. Augustine, 21. S. Gregory, 22. S. Gregory 224; title: Summary of passages supporting the Catholic view 228 II. PASSAGES THOUGHT TO SUPPORT THE MODERN VIEW.— This view stated in two propositions. — Mr. Brightman cites four passages : S. Ignatius, S. Justin Martyr, S. Irenaeus, S. Cyril of Alex. — These passages considered. —English writers only refer to the Fathers generally in support of this view. — Thalhofer, however, adduces many passages. — Dr. Thalhofer is orthodox in his view of the Sacrifice of the Cross. — His innovation is an actual Sacrifice in heaven. — His assumption in regard to a " heavenly" Sacrifice. — The terms examined : (1.) "heavenly" as explained by S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Primasius. (2.) The use of the word "altar" by S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, Hennas, Clement of Alex., S. Methodius, S. Chrysostom, and S. Cyril of Alex. (3.) Different senses in which " sacrifice" is used. — Hence the character of the sacrifice must be determined by that of the altar in heaven   228; title: 2. Origen. — Thalhofer's argument. — Origen's words in full. — Thalhofer's exposition of them. — Other passages from Origen. — Thaihofer omits the context, which refutes his interpretation. — The full context of the passage, — No allusion here to a heavenly altar or sacrifice 235; title: 3. Origen. — Inference from this passage 239; title: 4. Origen. — The passage examined 242; title: 5. Origen. — Origen's teaching considered 243; title: 6. Origen. — The sense of the passage examined 245; title: 7. S. Chrysostora. — This passage refutes rather than supports Thalhofer 246; title: 8. A passage attributed to S. Chrysostom : Another passage of S. Chrysostom. — Which is inconsistent with Thalhofer's view 247; title: 9. S. Gregory.— -The passage examined 248; title: 10. S. Ambrose, quoted by both Brightman and Thalhofer.— Neither Mr. Brightman nor Thalhofer is the author of this misinterpretation of S. Ambrose, which is found in the works of Edmond Albertino and proves too much ; for it is inconsistent with S. Ambrose's words in other passages. Its fallacy exposed : i. By S. Ambrose's explanation of the term "imago ; " ii. By the clause omitted by Mr. Brightman ; iii. By the "reductio ad impossibile"   249; title: 11. S. Augustine 255; title: 12. S. Augustine : a second passage. — The passage examined 257; title: 13. S. Gregory 259; title: Result of examination of Thalhofer's authorities 260; title: (1.) No passage really supports his view   260; title: (2.) The Fathers teach that our LORD presents in heaven the worship of the Church, and therefore the Holy Eucharist   260; title: (3.) They explain the heavenly altar by our LORD'S Humanity, though some apply the term to the altar of the Church   260; title: IX. PASSAGES WHICH EXPLAIN OUR LORD'S INTERCESSION.; title: The Greek Fathers :; title: 1. S. Chrysostom,; title: 2. Theodoret,; title: 3. Euthymius Zig.,; title: 4. S. Chrysostom,; title: 5. S. Chrysostom,; title: 6. S. Cyril of Alex.,; title: 7. Eusebius Caesar,; title: 8. S. John of Damascus,; title: 9. Euthymius Zig 260; title: Latin Fathers.; title: 10. Primasius,; title: 11. S. Augustine,; title: 12. S. Augustine,; title: 13. S. Gregory the Great,; title: 14. S. Gregory 265; title: Summary of Patristic testimony : 267; title: (1.) No passage supports the Modern view   267; title: (2.) Some passages inconsistent with it   268; title: (3.) The explanation of our LORD'S Intercession excludes it 268; title: CHAPTER IX.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF MEDIEVAL AND POST-MEDIEVAL WRITERS.; title: Introductory: IMPETUS GIVEN TO THE STUDY OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE IN CENTURY IX. ; which bore fruit in century XII. in mystical works on the liturgy. — Of these Mr. Brightman claims Paschasius Radbertus, Ivo of Chartres, and Hildebert of Tours as favourable to his view. — Thalhofer adds Guitmundus, Odo of Cambrai, Hugo of S. Victor, and Algerus. — Only passages adduced in support of the Modern theory considered here. — The mediaeval writers frequently speak of a "heavenly altar," from which Thalhofer infers a heavenly Sacrifice 269; title: I. Examination of the passages quoted   270; title: 1. Paschasius Radbertus. — The passage considered. — Paschasius explains his meaning in the context, which refutes Thalhofer's inference. — Paschasius takes the heavenly altar as CHRIST'S Humanity, through which our prayers are offered to GOD. — Paschasius : another passage. — No trace here of any sacrifice other than the Holy Eucharist. — Mr. Brightman's reference to Paschasius   270; title: 2. Thalhofer cites Guitmundus Aversanus, who is defending S. Augustine against Berengarius in regard to his use of the word "sign." — Nothing in Guitmundus supports Thalhofer's views. 277; title: 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 279; title: 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 attempt 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 introduction to the Canon, ii. From the Offertory to the end of the Canon. — The three secrets correspond with the prayers in Gethsemane, and with the three sacrifices of the bullock, ram, and goat.— The " Sursum Corda " and the exhortation 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 Nature ; 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 "Quarn Oblationem ; " 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 Consecration. — 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 Quae" 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 Jewish 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 which had been offered on earth, iv. The crucial point the act of Consecration.— The mercy-seat sprinkled with the blood of a sacrifice which had been offered. — The force of "iramolati." — The sprinkling in heaven of Blood which had made the FATHER propitious.— The force of te fecit."— S. Ivo the author of the expression, "sprinkling the FATHER." — V. Huldebert's explication of S. Ivo's words. — S. Ivo's application of the blood-shedding to the liturgy. — The force of "banc 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" corresponds with the scapegoat and with the Ascension. — 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 "Nobis quoque" connected with the breastplate and ephod. — Mr. Brightman's statement contrary to facts. — S. Ivo's teaching summed up 280; title: 5. Mr. Brightman and Thalhofer cite V. Hildebert of Tours. — His verses on the "Supplices Te."— On the "Te Igitur."— Some passages from his prose works  307; title: 6. Hugo of S. Victor merely repeats Hildebert's thought 309; title: 7. Algerus of Liege : his great authority, and his affinity with the Greek Fathers. — His discussion of the mode of CHRIST'S Presence in the Holy Eucharist and at the same time in heaven. — From which Thalhofer quotes a passage. — The only heavenly sacrifice known to Algerus is the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — Some passages overlooked by Thalhofer ; in which Algerus clearly relates the Eucharistic Sacrifice to that of the Cross. — His other work on the Holy Eucharist, "De Sac. Missae." — 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 Mediaeval writers   310; title: II. GALLICAN WRITERS OF CENTURY XVII. : De Berulle, 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 chapters 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 " cremation," 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 consumed 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 Intercession.— He says that the Sacrifice is figurative and 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 316; title: 1. De Condren's view 329; title: 2. and Olier's view. — Both are identical with that of Thomassin 330; title: 3. Traces of the same idea in Benedict XIV. 331; title: 4. and in Bossuet 331; title: III. THE WITNESS OF TWO EASTERN WRITERS 332; title: 1. Cabasilas, century XIV., the first to attempt to formulate a theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — 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. — Incidentally he sees in the Holy Eucharist a commemoration of the Resurrection and Ascension. — 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 sacrificial act in the Consecration, and relates the Sacrifice solely to that of the Cross. — The statements of Cabasilas and Mr. Brightman compared  332; title: 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 adverse to the claims of the Modern school 337; title: CHAPTER X.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF ANGLICAN DIVINES.; title: INTRODUCTORY : MR. BRIGHTMAN CLAIMS THAT ANGLICAN THEOLOGIANS HOLD THE MODERN THEORY OF SACRIFICE, AND GIVES AS HIS AUTHORITY THE CATENA IN "TRACT 81" 339; title: I. BEFORE EXAMINING THE AUTHORITIES, CERTAIN FACTS TO BE NOTICED 340; title: 1. The purpose of "Tract 81" was not to support any theory of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, only to show a consensus of Anglican divines as to the fact of the Sacrifice 340; title: 2. The writers were prejudiced against everything Roman, and so avoided the terminology of Rome 3"; title: 3. Hence it is often difficult to determine the force of their statements 3"; title: 4. They certainly appealed to the Fathers ; hence little trace of any clear theory of the mode of the Sacrifice is found in their writings. — The Tract contains extracts from sixty-three writers, of whom twelve make no allusion to the mode of the Sacrifice. — Of the fifty-one left, four, Overall, Taylor, Johnson, and Philpotts, favour in some measure the Modern view. — Five others, Mede, Hammond, Thorndike, Fell, and Scandret, are claimed on insufficient grounds as on the same side. — Forty-two, however, clearly witness to the Catholic view. — The method pursued in selecting extracts. — The Tract does not comprehend all Anglican writers, but represents the best 3"; title: II. WE BEGIN WITH THOSE WHO FAVOUR THE MODERN VIEW 343; title: 1. Overall quotes from Cassander. — The authenticity of the passage disproved 343; title: 2. Jeremy Taylor 346; title: 3. Johnson. — His unorthodox views detract from his authority 349; title: 4. Philpotts. — Other passages from his writings greatly modify this statement  353; title: III. THE FIVE WRITERS WHO ARE CLAIMED BY THE MODERN SCHOOL, BUT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT GROUND 353; title: 1. Mede, 2. Hammond, 3. Thorndike, 4. Fell (?), 5. Scandret 354; title: Review of the opinions of these five writers   362; title: IV. THE FORTY-TWO WRITERS WHO TEACH THE CATHOLIC VIEW; title: 1. Jewell, 2. Bilson, 3. Field, 4. Buckeridge, 5. Morton, 6. Andrewes, 7. Mason, 8. White, 9. Laud, 10. Hall, 11. Mountague, 12. Forbes of Edinburgh, 13. Bramhall, 14. Cosin, 15. Heylyn, 16. Sparrow, 17. Feme, 18. Brevint, 19. Scrivener, 20. Patrick, 21. Towerson, 22. Bull, 23. Stiliingfleet, 24. Beveridge, 25. Hickes, 26. Sharp, 27. Comber, 28. Leslie, 29. Nelson, 30. Wake, 31. Wilson, 32. Sherlock, 33. Grabe, 34. Brett, 35. Potter, 36. Hughes, 37. Laurence, 38. Law, 39. Wheatly, 40. Ridley, ". Daubeny, 42, Jolly   363; title: SUMMARY OF OUR INVESTIGATION OF THESE PASSAGES. — In four writers are passages relating the Holy Eucharist to our LORD'S Intercession. — Only one, however, teaches that the Oblation was not " finished " upon the Cross. — Five passages in the other forty-seven writers which seem to relate the Holy Eucharist to our LORD'S action in heaven, but which are explained by other passages in their writings. — In forty-two writers clear reference of the Holy Eucharist to the Sacrifice of the Cross. — We are therefore justified in affirming that Mr. Brightman's statement about Anglican authorities is not borne out by the facts, since, of sixty-three authors, only one really representative Anglican divine explicitly connects the Holy Eucharist with our LORD'S offering in heaven, and they do not favour that view which sees in the Cross only the initial stage of our LORD'S Sacrifice. — The explanation of the in- definite character of passages put forth by the Modern school considered and refuted. — "Tract 81" proves that there are no grounds for claiming that the Modern view is "the Anglican position." — It remains to trace to their source the two new currents in Anglican theology. 393; title: 1. The view which relates the Holy Eucharist to our LORD'S Intercession, as taught by the Pseudo-Overall, Taylor, Philpotts, and others, can claim no authority from the Fathers, nor from any writer earlier than century XVI., but does not conflict with Catholic dogma. — Its source, so far as Anglican writers are concerned, is Cassander. — Cassander's history. — The passage in his Consultatio" in which this view is stated. — The Pseudo-Overall's words compared with Cassander's. — Cassander the undoubted source of this view, so far as Anglicans are concerned. — Its attraction as a 11 via media." — Only one Anglican, however, follows Cassander in the objectionable feature of his theory ; all others avoid, and therefore reject, it. — A passage in Watson's 14 Sermons" claims our notice at this point. — Watson's history. — His view of our LORD'S Intercession and of its relation to the Holy Eucharist. — He is the earliest writer in whom this teaching is found. —It is, however, balanced by an accurate exposition of the Sacrifice of the Cross  397; title: 2. The source of the radical form of the Modern view, which holds that the Cross was only the initial act of our LORD'S Sacrifice. — Most of its English adherents admit that our LORD was then a Priest. — Dr. Milligan points out that this has a vital bearing on the Atonement. — He attributes the view to Grotius ; we may trace it, a century earlier, to Socinus, who seems to be the real source of the theory, as shown by three arguments. — Reasons why the views of Cassander and Johnson should be rejected by members of the Anglican Church 407; title: CHAPTER XI.; title: THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRACTARIANS.; title: INTRODUCTORY: THE TRACTARIANS THE LEADERS OF THE CATHOLIC REVIVAL. — The great debt the Church owes to them. — Their wonderful lives. — Some difficulties of their task, especially from two assumptions, in part true but liable to bias the judgment   "3; title: 1 That Roman teaching was necessarily wrong. "4; title: 2. That a "via media" between Romanism and Protestantism could be found in the Fathers. — The true "via media," the touchstone of truth, considered "4; title: I. IT IS WONDERFUL HOW FULLY THE TRACTARIANS GRASPED THE CATHOLIC FAITH "5; title: 1. A progress may, however, be observed in the views of the leaders : i. as is evidenced in a letter of Pusey to Rev. B. Harrison ; ii. and in a letter to Bishop Wilberforce "5; title: 2. The absence of a contemporary theological literature threw the Tractarians back on the Fathers and Anglican divines. — Hence their view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is that of the Fathers, coloured by Anglican writers. — They formulate no definite theory in regard to it, and if we find traces of modern influence, that is more than counterbalanced by their explicit recognition of its relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross "7; title: II. THIS WILL BE EVIDENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL WRITINGS ON THE SUBJECT. — This examination will be limited to the works of Pusey, Keble, and Forbes "8; title: 1. Dr. Pusey's view stated in " Tract 81 : " i. The passage quoted. — Dr. Pusey first states the doctrine as he finds it in the Fathers, and then analyzes it. — No theory is formulated. — The Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice made in memory of the Cross, therefore a commemorative Sacrifice. — The Sacrifice was completed on the Cross, its merits presented in heaven. — His reference to a heavenly altar, ii. Three passages from his sermon on our LORD'S Intercession. — Dr. Pusey distinguishes between the Atonement finished on the Cross and its effects abiding in our LORD'S Intercession, and so gives no support to the Modern view. — He uses the word " sacrifice " only in a passive sense, quoting from S. Epiphanius  "9; title: 2. Mr. Keble's view : i. It is expressed in passages from his sermon on "The Unchangeable Priesthood of CHRIST;" ii. in his treatise " On Eucharistical Adoration," iii. and in his " Considerations." — It differs but slightly from Dr. Pusey's view ; it is less Patristic, and coloured by Cassander's theory, though without its objectionable features ; but it sets forth the finished Sacrifice of the Cross 428; title: 3. The most important witness to the Tractarian view is the Bishop of Brechin, i. The " Theological Defence " the joint work of Keble, Pusey, and Bishop Forbes. — The circumstances of the trial. — Keble's " Considerations." — The Bishop's presentation, ii. Extracts from his " Primary Charge." iii. Passages from his " Theological Defence." iv. A passage from his sermon on Manasseh. v. A review of the Bishop's teaching: (1) That the Sacrifice of the Cross is complete ; (2) that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is substantially the same as that of the Cross ; (3) that our LORD'S whole life has a sacrificial character ; (4) but that the expression " celestial sacrifice " is only used in a passive sense. — The affinity of these views with those of Johnson ; but the Bishop in three places seems to disown Johnson's authority. — Bishop Forbes makes two admissions in regard to Johnson's theory which are its condemnation  433; title: Conclusion: An examination of the Tractarian writings discloses a recognition of a relation between the Holy Eucharist and our LORD'S Intercession, but the Eucharistic Sacrifice is explicitly and directly connected with that of the Cross. The Tractarians would therefore have repudiated the more extreme form of the Modern view 448; title: CHAPTER XII.; title: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.; title: Introductory : 450; title: I. Three points established : (1) The Eucharist is a Sacrifice, (2) whose character depends on the Sacrifice of the Cross; (3) no theory of the mode " de fide." — Summary of the results of our investigation  450; title: 1 Of Holy Scripture, 450; title: 2. Of the liturgies 450; title: 3. Of the Fathers, 451; title: 4. Of mediaeval writers,    451; title: 5. Of Anglican divines, 451; title: 6. Of Tractarian writers 452; title: History shows that no theory of the mode of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is " de fide." — Some theories, however, are "contra fidem," for they conflict with the doctrine of the Atonement. — The Modern school falls into four divisions, three of which are entirely orthodox. — The school of Cassander, of Lepin, of Drs. Scheeben and Schanz. — These differ not only in degree hut in kind from the extreme Modern view  452; title: II. There are three points on which we shall express an opinion : (1) What views must be denied as "contra fidem ; " (2) what may be held as not " contra fidem ; " (3) what must be affirmed as " de fide." 455; title: 1. Propositions " contra fidem : " i. That the Sacrifice of the Cross was imperfect or unfinished ; ii. That the Sacrifice of the Altar consists in aught else than doing what our LORD did, i. e., consecrating bread into His Body and wine into His Blood ; and that in our LORD'S Intercession there is any counterpart to this Consecration ; iii. That the mere presence of a once sacrificed Victim is a " proper " Sacrifice ; iv. that our LORD " offers" any Sacrifice in heaven 456; title: 2. Propositions not "contra fidem:" i. That there is an altar in heaven on which are offered the oblations of the Church; ii. That our LORD may be in mystery styled a 11 perpetual Oblation " in heaven ; iii. That our LORD  is " a Sacrifice in heaven 457; title: 3. Propositions necessarily " de fide : " i. That our LORD offered upon the Cross a full, perfect, and sufficient Sacrifice ; ii. That the Eucharistic Sacrifice though a true is not an absolute Sacrifice, but depends for efficacy on the Sacrifice of the Cross ; iii. That the remembrance of the mysteries of our LORD'S life, and the oblations and intercessions, are not essential parts of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which consists only in doing what our LORD did and commanded us to do. — These statements are not peculiar to any school, but belong alike to the teaching of every part of the Church. — An explanation of the purport of the foregoing propositions in their relation to modern theories 457; title: III. Catholic dogma embraces all sides of truth.— The exaggeration at the Reformation, of the doctrine of the Atonement, which was then made the foundation and centre of all theology. — In correcting this, and supplying what was lacking, we must not abandon what was true ; the Tractarians acted on this principle. — In our day a danger of giving up truth in response to a popular clamour, which represents the " irreligious conscience." The attack not limited to the Atonement ; the Incarnation also assailed. — At the same time is seen a tendency to develop a view of our LORD'S Life in glory, which is made the centre of a new theology. — Much that is helpful in this if it be not allowed to conflict with other truths. — The value of a realization of our privileges as fellow-citizens with the Saints, but this is not the centre of Christian theology. — The Incarnation the centre ; its relation to the Atonement and to the Holy Eucharist. — The attraction of the life of glory, but first must come the life of suffering. — The remembrance of the Passion as a force in the our lives, and in the lives of the Saints 467; title: Conclusion : To be Catholic we must hold all sides of the truth 472; title: APPENDIX A.; title: An examination of the sacrificial terms used in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew 473; title: Latin sacrificial terms: Sacrificare, Mactare, Litare, Immolare 473; title: Greek sacrificial terms : [Greek text] 475; title: Hebrew sacrificial terms : Minchah, Korban, Zebach, Olah, Shelem, Chattath, Ashim  478; title: APPENDIX B.; title: Faustus Socinus : " Disputation on Jesus Christ our Saviour."; title: Part II., chapter xv 480; title: APPENDIX C.; title: Tertullianus : " Adversus Judaeos," chapter xiv  492; title: APPENDIX D.; title: A catena of passages from the Fathers which bear witness to the fact that they regarded the Eucharist as a Sacrifice :; title: I. S. Irenaeus, 2. S. Ircnaeus, 3. S. Hippolytus, 4. Tertullian, 5. S. Cyprian, 6. S. Cyprian, 7. S. Cyprian, 8. S. Cyprian, 9. S. Cyprian, 10. S. Cyprian, 11. S. Cyprian, 12. S. Laurence, 13. Council of Nicsea, 14. S. Ephrem Syrus, 15. S. Optatus, 16. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, 17. S. Macarius of Egypt, 18. S. Gregory of Nyssa, 19. S. Ambrose, 20. S. Ambrose, 21. S. Ambrose, 22. S. Ambrose, 23. S. Ambrose, 24. S. Ambrose, 25. S. Chrysostom, 26. S. Chrysostom, 27. S. Chrysostom, 28. St. Chrysostom, 29. S. Chrysostom, 30. S. Chrysostom, 31. S. Chrysostom, 32. S. Chrysostom, 33. S. Chrysostom, 34. S. Chrysostom, 35. S. Chrysostom, 36. S. Chrysostom, 37. S. Chrysostom, 38. S. Jerome, 39. S. Jerome, 40. S. Jerome, ". S. Jerome, 42. S. Jerome, 43. S. Jerome, 44. S. Jerome, 45. S. Gaudentius, 46. S. Augustine, 47. S. Augustine, 48. S, Augustine, 49. S. Augustine, 50. S. Augustine, 51. S. Augustine, 52. S. Augustine, 53. S. Augustine, 54. S. Augustine, 55. S. Augustine, 56. S. Augustine, 57. S. Cyril of Alexandria, 58. S. Cyril, 59. S. Cyril, 60. S. Proclus, 61. S. Proclus, 62. Theodoret, 63. Theodoret, 64. Theodoret, 65. S. Leo, 66. S. Leo, 67. S. Leo, 68. S. Leo, 69. S. Leo, 70. S. Gregory the Great 495; title: APPENDIX E.; title: The reports of the Oxford Conference on Priesthood and Sacrifice and of the Fulham M Round Table" Conference 515; title: Conference held at Oxford, December 13, 1899.— It consisted of ten Churchmen and five Nonconformists. — The question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice only incidentally touched upon. Father Puller's view similar to Mr. Brightman's. — This view supported by no other member, but condemned by several in " obiter dicta." — Father Puller's speech at the first discussion. — Father Puller's second speech. — Father Puller's third speech. — Father Puller's " Statement."— -Dr. Ryle's views, Canon Scott Holland's, Dr. Moberly's, Canon Bernard's, Canon Gore's, Rev. C. G. Lang's, Dr. Sanday's, Rev. A. C. Headlam's, Dr. Fairbairn's, Dr. Davison's. — Father Puller divides the process of Sacrifice into six acts, — three sacerdotal and three not sacerdotal.— He considers the priestly acts to be confined to heaven and to the Holy Eucharist ; and that the Death on the Cross, not being a priestly act, cannot be a strictly sacrificial act. — Father Puller nowhere relates the Eucharistic Sacrifice to the Death on the Cross. — He quotes only two authorities, Dr. Milligan and Dr. Davison, both Presbyterians. — Mr. Lang's reference to Father Puller's view. — Dr. Ryle's " obiter dicta" inconsistent with Father Puller's theory ; Canon Scott Holland's, Canon Bernard's, Canon Gore's, Dr. Sanday's, Mr. Headlam's, Dr. Fairbairn's, Dr. Davison's, Dr. Moberly's, Canon Bernard's. — Conclusion to be drawn from the Oxford Conference 515; title: Folham Conference. — Its constitution. — The subject discussed was the Holy Eucharist. — A written statement invited in preparation for the Conference. — That of the Rev. N. Dimock taken as the starting-point for discussion. — One entire session devoted to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. — The Modern view conspicuous by its absence. — A practical agreement that the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist depends solely on its relation to our Lord's Sacrifice on the Cross; the only possible exception Canon Gore's theory about S. Irenseus  535; title: I. Extracts from the statements : 1. Rev. N. Dimock, 2. Rev. H. E. J. Bevan, 3. Lord Halifax, 4. Rev. Dr. Moule, 5. Rev. Canon Newbolt, 6. Rev. Dr. Robertson, 7. Rev. Canon Robinson, 8. Rev. Dr. Wace   537; title: II. Extracts from the discussion : 1. Canon Gore, 2. Dr. Wace, 3. Lord Halifax, 4. Canon Gore, 5. Mr. Dimock, 6. Dr. Robertson, 7. Canon Gore, 8. Lord Halifax   539; title: Summary. — No one puts forth the Modern view. — All trace the Eucharistic Sacrifice solely to the Death upon the Cross. — Canon Gore's interpretation of S. Irenaeus considered. — No reference of the Holy Eucharist to the ritual of the Day of Atonement. — Drs. Wace and Robinson connect it with the Passover. — Lord Halifax gives the Catholic view ; and even Mr. Dimock, so far as he sees any sacrificial action, traces it to the Death upon the Cross. — No one refers it to our Lord's Mediatorial work in heaven. — Conclusion   543; title: APPENDIX F.; title: On Sadler's "The One Offering" 546; title: APPENDIX G.; title: CORRESPONDENCE.; title: Letter (first) from the Bishop of Durham to Dr. Mortimer 551; title: Letter (second) from the Bishop of Durham to Dr. Mortimer 552; title: Letter from the Rev. F. E. Brightman to Dr. Mortimer 553; title: Letter from Dr. Mortimer to Dr. Paul Schanz   556; title: Letter from Dr. Schanz to Dr. Mortimer   557; title: Letter (first) from Dr. Mortimer to M. l'Abbe Lepin   560; title: Letter (first) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer   563; title: Letter (second) from Dr. Mortimer to M. Lepin  571; title: Letter (second) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer   574; title: Letter (third) from Dr. Mortimer to M. Lepin   578; title: Letter (third) from M. Lepin to Dr. Mortimer  581; title: LIST OF WORKS REFERRED TO IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK.