Abbreviations
Preface
Theses
Chapter 1: Of Sacrifice in General
Chapter 2: The Sacrifice Enacted In The Passion
Chapter 3 : The Offering Of The Passion Enacted By Christ In The Supper
Chapter 4 : The Partaking Of The Eucharist By Christ
Chapter 5 : The Sacrifice Of Christ Continued In Heaven
Endnotes

A. H.—Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, ed. G. M. Dreves, S. J., and C. Blume, S. J., accedente H. M. Bannister, tom. 1-55, 1896-1915.

B.—Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western. Vol. I. Eastern Liturgies, 1896.

C. S. C. O.—Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, accurantibus L. B. Chabot, etc.

D. H.—Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, etc., IO, ed. Bann-Wart.

D. A. C.—Dictionnaire d'Archeologie chretienne et de Liturgie. Dom Cabrol et Dom Leclercq.

D. B.—Dictionary of the Bible, ed. J. Hastings.

D. T. C.—Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. A. Vacant. E. Mange-Not.

F. D.—Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolicae, ed. Funk, 1906.

F. P.—Patres Apostolici, 2, 1901, Cd. Funk.

J. T. S.—Journal of Theological Studies.

L. B.—Le Brun, Explication .... de la Messe, 1777-1778.

P. G.—Patrologia Graeca, accurante J. P. Migne.

P. L.—Patrologia Latina, accurante J. P. Migne.

P. O.—Patrologia Orientalis. R. Graffin and F. Nau.

P. S.—Patrologia Syriaca. R. Graffin.

R.—Renaudot, Collectio lirurgiarum Orientalium.

R. S. R.—Recherches de Science Religieuse.

S. Th. I S.—St Thomas, Summa Theologica. 1st part.

T. a. S.—Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature. J. Armitage-Robinson.

T. U. U.—Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. O. V. Gebhardt, Adolf Harnack, Carl Schmidt.

In this treatise I deal first with the sacrifice and then with the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, with the sacrifice offered by our Lord Himself before the sacrifice offered by us every day in our churches, with the Last Supper before the institution of the Mass. Hence I have inverted the usual order followed in the schools in treatises on the Eucharist. The reason for this will, I think, be plain when we consider how the communion is related to the sacrifice, and bow our Mass is related to what Christ did at the Supper before He said: Do this. I have simply followed the natural order, dealing first with what came first, and then with everything that followed therefrom in natural sequence.

It will cause some surprise that I have never of set purpose undertaken in any part of this work to vindicate the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but merely as occasion offered dispelled some shadow of difficulty arising from certain sayings of the Fathers. In explanation I may say that I did not intend to treat the Blessed Eucharist fully from every aspect, and having for the most part omitted apologetical matters, I turned to phases on which faith seeking knowledge would shed some theological light. Other greater reasons weighed with me against undertaking a work well and abundantly done by many great theologians. In the first place, the Real Presence of our Lord appeared to me to be quite sufficiently proven from the arguments advanced and sifted through the whole course of this book, particularly in what is written of the sacrifice of our Lord and the sacrifice of the Mass. Besides, it would be frivolous to deny the constant and firm faith of the Church in the Real Presence, even from the first century. Who accepts today the sophisticated exegeses of the sixteenth-century reformers? Even the Protestants, particularly those of the so-called liberal school, have eventually come to admit that the Real Presence is taught by the sacred writings, especially from the time of St Paul (as we shall see in its proper place). For the theologian this is enough: for the real sources of theology are the documents of divine revelation; to one who denies the authority of these documents the theologian as such has nothing to say, because theology is for believers. Sacred theology, however, having in mind the good of believers, is bound to solve difficulties advanced by an adversary who, "while believing nothing in things divinely revealed, brings difficulties against faith," (I S. 1, 8). Hence we have answered adversaries who, though interpreting rightly St Paul's mind, would have it that His mind was foreign to the mind of our Lord; we had also answered those who have maintained that, in the matter of our sacrifice, the teaching of the Church today is other than the teaching of the early Church.

In explanation of the doctrine, I have kept separate as a rule Scripture documents and the teaching of the Fathers or the Doctors of the Church. It may be thought that I have been prolix in my quotations from the Fathers, but I will be readily forgiven when it is remembered that the ideal of a theologian is not to advance His own special findings, but what He has actually gathered from the Fathers and Doctors. His purpose is to record them honestly, co-ordinate and refine them, and, where necessary, set them down in detail. At times I have presented the teachings and pronouncements of certain mediaeval theologians both of the East and of the West; they were not writers of the first rank; some, indeed, were tainted with heresy or schism. My object was, not to advance their teachings as authentic masters of the faith, but to show that they were historical witnesses of the teachings handed down to them by their predecessors of olden days. Meantime, that l have bestowed the highest encomiums on one or other of these writers, Nicholas Cabasilas, for example, need not be taken amiss. Had Cabasilas, in dealing with the unity of the Church, bestowed the care and skill that He showed in dealing with the sacraments of the faith, He would be above all praise. Hence Catholic theologians of former centuries are in no way culpable for praising what is good in what He wrote; rather they are to be commended, according to the phrase of Moses: O that all the people might prophesy, provided, as St Paul says, Christ is announced.

For I have written, not to dispute but to illuminate, not to sharpen my wits or to obtain praise for learning, but to build up the faith, that the knowledge of the faith may be enriched, to enable us to appreciate the full benefit of the gift of God: unto the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He hath graced us in His beloved Son. In whom we have redemption through the remission of sins according to the richness of His grace, which hath superabounded in us in all wisdom and prudence. That He might make known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which hath proposed in Him in the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in Him (Eph. 16). For theology is a speculative science of revealed truth, but revealed in such manner as to aim at fostering piety. Hence St Paul calls it the acknowledging of the truth which is according to godliness (Tit. 11). Hence in theology there is no place for anything which does not foster piety. One must keep in mind, however, that though theology has to do with what is of the highest importance and value to our spiritual progress, it still remains a science. Indeed it is a science in the strict meaning of the word, an ordered group of knowledge, resting on its own principles, with all its parts connected and coherent among themselves, after the manner of an organic body. Hence no part of theology, no smallest portion of any province of theology, can be fully explored and solidly founded without reference to its corresponding part and corresponding member. Those who have scant knowledge of the argumentative method of theology scout this idea, as though it meant our becoming the victims of systems of theology. Perish, indeed, all such systems, which are, as Cardinal Billot says, "the ruin of theology" (Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, I, 426). But a system and a body of doctrine are poles apart. A body of doctrine is certainly coherent, just as truth is coherent; no one element of it can be in opposition to another, and, if we are concerned with necessary elements, no one element can be sacrificed without the loss of another, so much so that you tear down the whole building, so to speak, if you remove a single stone. Such is the glory of truth at its summit, without admixture of any prejudgments resting on error.

A system, however, is quite a different thing. It is not deduced from the first principles of the branch of knowledge in question (such as are, in theology, the articles of faith), inferring therefrom manifold conclusions, from the complexus of which arises a new increment of knowledge, a new birth; a system is merely a hypothetical explanation of things impossible of demonstration; not having a principle of demonstration, it merely provides a form or mould for the elements in question, a mould formed and conceived by the mind artificially, by the help of which we can conveniently unite and co-adapt the elements according to our scheme. Such a systematic method is useful, even necessary in the physico-mathematical sciences, in which we merely investigate the quantitative relations between the measurable effects of natural agents, but do not investigate the essences of things and potencies; such quantitative relations are then given by convention symbolical expression such as is well suited to the end in view, according to time and circumstances. In theology the case is quite different: we ask ourselves, What properly is this, what in its intrinsic essence is this matter with which our faith concerns itself? There is no theology that does not reject systems; but theology does require an organic articulation and complexus of all the elements among themselves. If you find the latter in this book, know that I am quite unrepentant; I accept the imputation so gladly that I would go on to say that in my opinion, no part of the book could be completely understood by a reader who had not read the whole. And so, while I beg you, prudent reader, to pardon me for the many defects in the work before you, at the same time I earnestly ask critics not to condemn me unless first heard with toleration from the opening chapter to the conclusion.

Each smallest portion, as well as the whole work, I submit without reserve to the universal episcopate and to the Roman Pontiff.

Amiens, March 19, 1915, Feast of St Joseph.
The Author.

I had scarcely finished this work when I was summoned to a military camp as war chaplain. Thus I had no opportunity to study any interim writings. Still I must not omit here the learned discussion of Dom. R. H. Connolly, O.S.B., published in Texts and Studies, vol. 81 n. 4, and entitled The So-Called Egyptian Order and Derived Documents. From this work of Dom. Connolly it appears:

First: The opusculum (A), first written in Greek, the Coptic and Arabic versions of which (in lack of the original text) we had called Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aegyptiacae (or, for the other Ethiopic version, Constitutiones Ecclesiae Aethiopicae), and some notable parts of which are given in Latin in what are called Reliquiae canonum Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum by Hauler (Leipzig, 1900), and which opusculum we have often referred to in three forms, is nothing else than the Apostolike Paradisos of Hippolytus, which was formerly looked upon as lost.[1]

Second: From this work are derived what we call the Canones Hippolyti (B) compiled by a much more recent writer who corrupted and interpolated the text.

From these two facts it is inferred that the value and authority of A, which we have cited as indicating the Liturgy, not necessarily of the Church at Rome, but at least a Roman liturgy of the beginning of the third century, has been greatly enhanced; on the other hand, B, to which we have alluded only very rarely, is not a little lessened in authority.

After Dom. Connolly had arrived at His conclusions and independently confirmed them, He discovered that the same conclusions had been reached in 1910, and the results published in Alsace, by E. Schwartz, Ueber die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen, in Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, n. 6.

As occasion arises, we shall note any other matters of importance derived from new sources.

From the Overseas Canadian Forces, Feb. 11, 1919, Feast of our Lady of Lourdes.

This translation was made substantially from the second edition published in 1923, but with certain additions and emendations from the third edition published in 1929.

I. Latreutic and propitiatory sacrifice is due to God. The offering of Sacrifice may be really distinct from the immolation. The offering is to be distinguished from the acceptance by God and from human partaking.

II. The Passion of Christ was a sacrifice in the strict sense, lacking no element—visible or invisible—of a true sacrifice.

III. It can be shown from the Supper narrative that Christ as priest offered His Body to the immolation in blood of the Passion.

IV. The same can be shown from the comparison of the Supper narrative with the figures of the Mosaic covenant and the legal pasch.

V. The same can be shown also from the comparison of the Supper narrative with the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchisedech.

VI. Finally it can be shown from the comparison of the Supper narrative with the promise of the Eucharist.

VII. It is confirmed by three circumstances of the Supper.

VIII. The teaching of the Fathers and Theologians regarding the obligation of Christ to die is set in clearer light by the above doctrine.

IX. Conclusions may now be reached concerning the nature of the unity existing between the Supper and the Passion, between the apparent sacrifice of bread and wine and the real sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ; the agreement of the doctrine regarding the reality of the eucharistic sacrifice and that of the Real Presence.

X. It is illustrated from the history and teaching of the Council of Trent.

XI. It is highly probable that Christ Himself received the eucharistic food and drink at the Supper.

XII. The sacrifice offered by Christ at the Supper and actually given to God in the Passion received a certain consummation in the Resurrection and Ascension, and continues f or ever, as is clear from Scripture, the Fathers and Theology.

XIII. Connected with the victimhood of Christ is His eternal dignity as altar of the sacrifice.

XIV. Consistent with this is the dogma of the eternal intercession of Christ.

XV. From all this a conclusion can be reached as to various teachings regarding the heavenly sacrifice.

XVI. Christ instituted the Eucharistic rite to be celebrated by us.

XVII. Christ endowed the Eucharistic rite with the true character of a heavenly sacrifice to be offered by us.

XVIII. The Fathers of the first two centuries knew that we offer to God in our celebration of the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ.

XIX. The writings of the Fathers and Theologians of a later period prove copiously that we offer the Victim of the Passion in a sacramental commemoration of the Passion.

XX. Consequently, too, the Fathers teach that our eating of the Eucharistic Food is the partaking of the sacrifice in Blood.

XXI. Similarly, too, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church saw clearly that the heavenly sacrifice is offered to God in the Mass.

XXII. Consequently the Fathers understood that in the Eucharistic Communion we partake of the celestial sacrifice.

XXIII. Though Christ is the Priest of all our sacrifices, He does not elicit a new offering for each one of them.

XXIV. We fail to estimate rightly the Eucharistic sacrifice, if the Communion is included among the constitutive elements of the sacrifice, or if Christ is considered to be affected in our sacrifice with no intrinsic condition of victimhood, or if it is maintained that such a condition is given to Christ by our own sacrificial action.

XXV. We explain in what the fruit of the Mass, ex opere operato, consists; how it differs from the fruit of the sacraments ex opere operato; how it is limited.

XXVI. The Church holds the chief place among the offerers of the Mass, and her devotion is the chief regulative measure of the fruits of the Mass.

XXVII. The celebrant, the person giving a stipend, the faithful assisting, contribute cumulatively to determine the value of the sacrifice.

XXVIII. Hence we see how the fruit of the Mass may be computed, and what must be thought about the obligation of celebrating as many Masses as there are stipends received.

XXIX. The faithful in this life obtain the fruit of the Mass both by way of personal quest and by way of suffrage, the faithful departed by way of suffrage only.

XXX. The sacrifice cannot be offered by infidels or by any others outside the visible society of the Church.

XXXI. Nevertheless the sacrifice can be duly offered for all these while living; by way of suffrage, and can be beneficial to all of them respectively ex opere operato.

XXXII. It is lawful to make a special offering of the sacrifice for dead Catechumens, though it may not be so offered for departed non-Catholics, though (under certain conditions) these can be assisted by the offering of the Mass for the Dead in general. It can be offered specially and publicly after death for the repentant excommunicate who has been absolved from excommunication.

XXXIII. The Mass of a priest cut off from the Church, or unauthorised to offer the sacrifice, is fruitful, not however without the co-operation of the Church.

XXXIV. The sacrifice is accomplished by the Consecration alone. The Epiclesis does not effect the Consecration, nor is it necessary for it, though it has been wisely instituted and is appropriately placed in the Liturgy.

XXXV. St. Thomas rightly and justly held that in the Consecration of the Blood certain words annexed to those which demonstrate the Blood are part of the form. On the other hand, Scotus rightly taught, that apart from the formal words, other narrative words are required, without which the former would not have, on our lips, the true sense. But it is not plain whether, besides the formal words and the narrative, other, interpellative words are or are not necessary.

Before coming to the discussion of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, some preliminary remarks on sacrifice in general are necessary. We shall consider first the latreutic, then the propitiatory character of sacrifice. Having considered the offering of sacrifice, we shall consider the partaking of the sacrifice.

The doctrine of sacrifice as latreutic is contained in two statements.[2]

First: Some kind of invisible internal offering of ourselves is due to God; this offering is of such nature that it cannot be given to any other being without very grave sin.

Second: This offering must be outwardly and sensibly signified.

All beings are made to attain to God in the manner appropriate to the nature of each. But rational beings are superior to the rest. They partake of God by knowledge; indeed by the decree of God, if worthy, they will possess Him; and to this end they are inspired, helped, and drawn by God. Hence it is strictly in accordance with the dues and merits of the highest Goodness [3] (or of the first cause beyond which there is no ulterior end, since it is itself the ultimate end) that man should pay homage to His creator, His providential Guardian and source of happiness, with that interior cult with which it behooves Him to worship The Supreme Good, from which all good things come (while nothing is good unless directed to Him), and in whom, since He alone is good, is accumulated the one Goodness of all good things. Hence St. Thomas:

"Amongst other things which pertain to latria, sacrifice seems to have certain characteristics peculiar to itself .... ; external sacrifice is representative of interior true sacrifice, according to which the human mind offers itself to God. Now our mind offers itself to God, as to the principle of its creation, the foundation of its activities, and the end of its happiness. All this is applicable only to the highest principle of things. For it has been shown that the creative cause of the rational soul is alone the Most High God; and He alone can bend the will of man to what He wishes, as was shown above. It is clear also, from what has been said above, that in the fruition of Him alone the happiness of man consists" (3 C. G., par. 7).[4]

The first and the highest duty of man, therefore, is to hand himself over, to surrender, to submit himself to God; and the name latria is given to this duty.

Moreover, seeing that the divine Goodness is the diffusive principle of all the good conveyed to us, it is in accordance with the duty of latria that the benefits conferred on us by God should receive recognition by thanksgiving (eucharistia).

And further, seeing that this first Goodness is the one and only source whence the supreme good and all other goods leading up to its attainment may be hoped for, He who devotes himself to the pursuit of the supreme good expresses thereby His desire for God's help and God's gifts, all of which He may with more reason expect to receive, in so far as God does not allow Himself to be outdone in generosity. Hence the language of the saints:

"The more closely a man is united to God [5] the more generous He is to the supreme majesty, and the more generous also will be the benefits conferred on Him, and every day He will become more worthy of richer spiritual graces and gifts" (St. Ignatius Loyola, Constitution of the Society of Jesus, p. 3, c. 1, par. 22).

Impetration, therefore, namely, the securing of favours by petition, is implied too in all latria.

Taking our nature as it is, and in the present condition—wherein it is by the senses only, and the organs of sense, that man apprehends anything in His mind or performs any mental act—this essential duty of latria must be clothed in sensible rites; and these rites must be such as to express the supreme dominion of God, and our absolute dependence on Him. Thus St. Thomas says:

"Now because it was connatural for man to acquire knowledge through the senses, and most difficult for Him to transcend sensible things, provision was made for man by God that even in sensible things, a commemoration of divine things should be made for Him, thereby directing the mind of man to divine things with greater facility, man's mind being incapable of contemplating divine things in themselves. Hence also sensible sacrifices were instituted; these sacrifices man offers to God, not that God has need of them, but that man should be given to understand that He is under obligation to refer himself and all He has to God, as to an end, and as to the Creator, Lord, and Ruler of the universe" (C. G. 119, par. 1).

It is but just and reasonable, moreover, that both in body and soul, man should ratify and proclaim this unique relation of His to God—"that man should serve God with the whole being which He has from God, not only with His mind but also with His body," as St. Thomas says when treating of vocal prayer (2-2, 83, 12, c).

Furthermore, man is a gregarious animal, born for the companionship of His kind, and the Most High God is the Author, the Legislator, and the Consummator of this social relation. Hence our worship of God must be sealed with the social impress, and it can neither be social nor public unless ratified and given outward manifestation.[6]

Visible sacrifice therefore is in conformity with the psychological requirements of our present condition, the moral debt of our nature to God, and the social element of our make-up. Hence from every point of view it is man's duty, deeply immersed as He is, especially since the fall,[7] in sensible things, to pay worship to God in sensible things, and show by some exclusive form of external worship, chosen especially for the purpose, His reverence, His obedience and His striving towards God, as His unique First Cause, His omnipotent Ruler, His ultimate End. Peter the Venerable says very justly: "And when the world ceases to offer sacrifice to God, it will cease to be God's" (Tract. contra Petrobrusianos, P.L. 189, 793).

It is a crime and a sacrilege to offer sacrifice to any other than the true God, for this is to attribute to the creature the dignity of the Creator.

Apart, however, from that one special sign of divine honour, any other protestations of veneration or homage may be accorded to others besides God; for example, to the saints. St. Augustine says: "Christians celebrate the memory of the martyrs with religious solemnity .... . But though we build altars in memory of the martyrs, we do not build them to the martyrs. What bishop at the altar where the relics of the martyrs lie, ever said .... we offer to thee, Peter, Paul, or Cyprian? What is offered is offered to God, who crowned the martyrs, at the memorials of those whom He crowned .... Therefore we honour the martyrs with that worship of love and sympathetic association, with which even in this life, men of God are worshipped, men whose hearts we feel are prepared to undergo similar suffering in the cause of the truth of the gospel .... . But that worship which is termed latreia in the Greek, and for which the Latin language has no word, is a service proper to and due to the divinity alone; and with this we do not worship, and we teach that no one should worship, any other than the one God" (Contra Faustum, 1. 20, c. 21, P.L. 42, 384-385).

Thus, prompted by nature from the very dawn of His creation or taught by God Himself, man has been wont to give gifts and presents[8] to God, for this one end only—a protestation and an indication of His internal surrender, as appears in the offerings which Abel from His flocks dedicated to God, and Cain from the fruits of the earth.[9]The objects thus offered to God, as we see at a later period in the pouring out of oil, in the libation of wine, the loaves of proposition and so on, BECAME SACRED TO GOD; IN THIS SENSE THAT, SET APART FROM OTHER THINGS AND REMOVED FROM THE USE OF MAN, THEY WERE SO FAR WITHDRAWN FROM HUMAN OWNERSHIP, AS TO BE TRANSFERRED INTO THE PROPER AND (SO TO SPEAK) PERSONAL DOMINION OF GOD, TO BE, AS IT WERE. CONSUMED IN DIVINE USES.[10]

The term sacrifice was given to this offering from its intrinsic nature: "For sacrifice, " says William of Paris, "is a gift which is made sacred in the offering, and to offer sacrifice is essentially this, to make the actual gift sacred by the offering" (De legibus, c. 24. Opera omnia, Paris, 1674, t. l, p. 72). Clearly, therefore, without the actual HANDING OVER OF THE EXTERNAL GIFT, NO PRESENT ACT OF SACRIFICE IS MADE: although at the same time the most important constituent of sacrifice is not the external but the internal and invisible gift. In the light of all this we see how appropriate is St. Augustine's definition of sacrifice, a definition adopted by the scholastics, for example St. Thomas (2-2, 85, 2; 3 S. 22, 2, C. and passim), and also by the liturgists, like Durandus (Rationale divinorum officiorum, lib. I. cap. 9, n. 2). "Sacrifice therefore" says St. Augustine, "is the visible sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, that is, it is a sacred sign (Civit. Dei, 1. 10, C. 5. P.L. 41, 282).[11]This implies two elements: a sign, and a thing signified. Our internal surrender is what is signified; the sign which signifies it is the thing made sacred, that is the gift which we offer.[12] Each element is required by the integrity of true sacrifice; if there is nothing signified, the sacrifice is fictitious, it is a mere outward show; if the external sign is wanting, the sacrifice is improper in that it lacks an essential element of sacrifice.

But as truth, the negation of fiction, accrues to the sacrifice from the invisible element, we sometimes find in the works of St. Augustine, and after His time in the works of the earlier theologians, the expression true sacrifice used for the internal sacrifice: "That, " says Augustine, "which every one calls sacrifice, is the sign of TRUE sacrifice. Hence MERCY is true sacrifice" (Civ. Dei, 1. 10, c. 5, P.L. 41, 273). Hence "true sacrifice is every action done to bring us into holy union with God, referred to that good end in which we can be truly happy" (op. cit., L 10, C. 6, col. 283). Similarly William of Paris: "That true and general sacrifice which is first and before all else to be offered to God, and which God first and before all else requires, and without which He will not accept anything that is offered to Him, is each one of our own selves .... . The first and the principal sacrifice therefore which is required of us is ourselves; without this offering nothing that we offer to (God will be acceptable to Him" (op. cit., c. 28, p. 99-100). On the other hand, since the sign proper accrues to sacrifice from the visible element, later theologians have used the expression true sacrifice for external sacrifice.[13] However, it is customary with the Fathers to commend each element, and to teach that each element is found in true and proper sacrifice; so too with ecclesiastical writers. Thus Procopius, a very learned scholar and an enthusiastic exponent of patristic teaching, speaking on sacrifice in general, remarks that the Fathers "teach among other things, that it is part of our duty as victims, that men should inflame their souls with love, and so offer them as a gift to God" (In Leviticum, 2 fol. P.G. 87, 698), and St. Cyril of Alexandria, referring particularly to the sacrifice of the Christians, says: "For in our sacrifices, we to a certain extent immolate and offer our soul, AS IN AN IMAGE, to God, when we die to the world and to the wisdom of the flesh, when we mortify our vices and are, so to speak, crucified with Christ; and thus living a pure and holy life, we spend our days in submission to His holy will" (De adoratione in spiritu et veritate, l. II. P.G. 769)

In like manner, Eusebius of Caesarea, speaking of the glories of the sacrifice of the Mass, says: "We offer therefore a sacrifice of praise to the Most High God; we offer a sacrifice sealed by the divine Spirit, an august and sacrosanct sacrifice, we offer in a new manner a clean victim in sacrifice, following the New Testament. But a sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit. On the one hand, therefore, we make sacrifice and make a burnt-offering, when we celebrate the memorial of that great sacrifice, thanking God for our salvation, and offering to Him religious hymns and holy prayers; and on the other, when we consecrate ourselves wholly to Him and to His Pontiff (Who is the Word) : prostrate in body and soul immolated before Him" (Demonstr. evangel., 1. 1, C. 10. P.G. 22, 92-93).

Among the Latin Fathers the words of St. Gregory are equally clear. Speaking of the wonders of the sacrifice of the Mass He says impressively: "But when we celebrate these mysteries, we must immolate ourselves to God with a contrite heart; for we who celebrate the mysteries of the Passion of the Lord, should be an image of what we do. When we offer ourselves also as victims, then indeed there will be for us before God a real, true victim" (Dial., 1. 4, c. 59. P.L. 77, 428).[14]

Speaking of Christ's own sacrifice, St. Leo the Great says that the Cross was presignified by the prophets, as an altar where the OFFERING OF HUMAN NATURE WOULD BE CELEBRATED BY THE SAVING VICTIM" (Sermo 55, c. 3. P.L. 54, 324).[15]

Thus for the proper understanding of sacrifice as latreutic, we must distinguish, exactly as in the sacraments, between the sign and the reality. For the handing over of the external gift, though it is in itself res, that is to say it is real giving, is nevertheless not a res tantum; it is a res et signum. The offering of the internal gift is a res tantum. Later we shall inquire if anything is in sacrifice by way of signum tantum.

Meantime, be it noted that, just as latria itself has, as we have already seen, a eucharistic and impetratory character, so all sacrifice, in so far as it is symbolical of latreutic devotion, possesses the same twofold signification, as eucharistic and as impetratory.

We have seen that the obligation of sacrifice arises first of all from the duty of latria as such. We must now consider a second source of obligation, arising from the necessity of making atonement for the sins of men. This brings us to the propitiatory character of sacrifice. Man sinned and offended God, and thus became hateful to Him. It was therefore essential that any honour paid to God, and any gift offered to Him, should above all else show indications of sorrow as well as some kind of reparation and compensation; otherwise the gift offered and the goodwill made known would savour of contumely, as coming from one who was both unworthy and unfriendly. For just as the man who is without sin, when fulfilling the religious obligation of latria, declares that He is turned to God; so the sinner, turned away from God, contrary to right order, by His sin, must make reparation for the outrage to the divine justice that He is guilty of. The injury will not be forgiven, nor the evil undone, unless adequate compensation is made for the sin. The greater the intensity of love in the person converted to God, and turned away from sin, the more adequate will the compensation be. The greater the difficulty to be overcome—namely, the stronger the appetite (for a purely natural good) that has to be subdued, or the more arduous the task to be performed—the more intense will be the effort required. Thus also it comes about that not only is the guilt of sin wiped out by the compensation that has been made, but also the debt of punishment is cancelled by the satisfaction given.

Here there are two things which we must distinguish: the first is Propitiation in the strictest sense. By this, God is appeased and the balance of commutative justice is restored. The second is what is specifically called Satisfaction. By this, the punishment of the judge is anticipated, and the accused inflicts punitive justice upon himself. Hence the compensation we have been considering has two elements which are really distinct: one, propitiation, which is indemnitive; the other, satisfaction, which is punitive. But the one term, propitiation, is often used to cover both.

Clearly, then, death or pain from a motive of love plays a most important part in propitiation: for it is a fact that nothing is so repugnant to the natural appetite of man, even when free from sin, as suffering or death; hence there is no wider or nobler field of victory open to love (John, XV, 13; Philip., II, 8).

Moreover, seeing that sin in man implies, as a natural consequence, the immediate subjection of the spirit to the flesh, like a king driven from the throne by rebellious subjects, it was fitting that the flesh, the breeding ground of sin, should undergo real or metaphorical death in the eradication of sin. Add to this that every sin merits eternal death, but for the sinner eternal death begins with temporal death, as an integral part of the whole. Hence the Apostle: the wages of sin is death.

The attestation of repentance and the indication of reparation, therefore, could not be expressed by a more fitting rite than the slaying of an animal, and the shedding of blood, wherein as commonly estimated lies the life of the flesh.[16] Hence practically in every age and nation, sacrifices were offered in blood, as Scripture says: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebr., IX, 22).

There appears, then, to be no reason why we should attribute sacrifices in blood to the obligation of latria, saying, so to speak, that the destruction of life in itself pays honour to God. This is the teaching of those theologians who say that the Most High God, the supreme Lord of life and death, could not be perfectly honoured or worshipped without the deprivation of life and the infliction of death, but seeing that this was neither lawful nor becoming, the slaying of an animal was substituted. On the contrary, in itself, the destruction of the works of God, the loss of life or existence, gives no praise to God the Creator, the Ruler, and the ultimate End of all things; rather, in the words of king Ezechias, The living, the living shall give praise to thee (Is., XXXVII, 19). And Christ our Lord says: For He is not the God of the dead but of the living (Luke, XX, 38). Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres., 1. 4, c. 20, n. 7. P.G. 7, 1037) very wisely says: "The glory of God is living man. "[17] But where there has been sin, death of the flesh is exacted, not only as medicinal, but also as penal. Even now we are deserving of death. God threatened our first parents: Thou shalt die the death. And it was with this threat in mind that St. Paul said: The wages of sin is death.

Therefore, just as death, as penal, can and does accord with the justice of God, so too the sacrifice in blood satisfies the justice of God sacramentally or symbolically, that is to say it expresses the desire of making satisfaction, as far as lies in us, together with the added hope of assuaged justice.

William of Paris illustrates this well: "The second cause was the very vehement and very powerful emphasis of the plea for justice and mercy, which these sacrifices made. By the very act of offering and giving these animals over to death, men acknowledged that they themselves were deserving of death; and in this action, they expressly admitted, that did God will to judge them as their sins deserved, He could in justice inflict death on them. In the fact that the death of animals was commuted for the death they deserved men could read distinctly the mercy of God towards them" (op. cit., c. 2, P. 29).

We are now in a position to arrive at a conclusion touching the theological dispute: is destruction (formal or equivalent) of the offerings as such essentially necessary to constitute a true sacrifice? Where the primary and prevailing end is latreutic only, we hold that destruction is not necessary, that it is sufficient if, in the words of St. Thomas (2-2, 85, 3m), something is done over the offerings as evidence of their passing from the possession of man to the possession of God, which would be a pledge of the offering that we make of ourselves. In this we follow Suarez (De Eucharistia, disp. 73, s. 5, n. 4-5), who denies the necessity of destruction in every sacrifice. Where, however, the propitiatory purpose is more prominent, we say that slaying or destruction of some kind is the more fitting. In this sense (with some reserve, however), we interpret the words of Bellarmine (De Missa, 1. I, C. 2, last par.), Vasquez (disp. 220, C. 3, n. 22 foll.), Lugo (disp. 19, s. I, n. 7), and the greater number of modern theologians, chief among them being Cardinal Billot.

Propitiation, however, since it includes the concept of compensation for injury done to the divine right, is an actual recognition of the injured right of God, and thus includes a latreutic attitude towards the divine excellence; indeed it is simply a kind of latria, appropriate to the state of the sinner. Hence it also is both eucharistic and impetratory. Indeed it implies special gratitude for special mercy—special, because it is shown towards one who is unworthy and undeserving. Further, it not only implies impetration for pardon, namely, pardon received through petition, but it also implies that, pardon being granted and no other obstacle to the influx of goodness and favour towards men being placed, other benefits besides pardon are obtained from God. Every propitiatory sacrifice is therefore also eucharistic and impetratory.

From all we have said it follows that change of itself, or destruction of itself, does not suffice to integrate the sacrifice. No matter what the change, or how complete the destruction, an offering to God of the thing changed or destroyed is absolutely essential,[18] and this offering must be sensible, ritual, liturgical (that is, it must contain the action of the liturgus, the duly constituted sacrificer, without whom there is no sacrifice). The sensible offering is not always necessarily distinguished (that is, as one thing is distinguished from another) from the change of the thing sacrificed; it suffices that it be implied (as sometimes happens) in the outward contingencies of the sacrifice, namely, in the actual rite of slaying, of changing the condition of the victim, whatever that change may be.[19] But where the offering is distinct from the immolation, it must consist in some action suitable to indicate surrender and dedication or consecration of the victim. Such an action, common among the Hebrews especially, was the pouring of blood round about or upon the altar.[20] This we know from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. For an animal slain, even by a layman, outside the temple, was commonly regarded as being presented to God, in the fact of the priest bringing the blood to the altar, the altar supplying, so to speak, the place of the divinity by whose presence the victim was sanctified.[21] The reason is: sacrifice being in the nature of a gift, there must be some sensible act of presentation or of handing over of the gift. This same statement is clear from Leviticus, I, 2 foll. There we read that the slaying of the animals appointed for the sacrifice was permitted to others than the priests, though the duty of offering the animals fell on the priests alone (compare Exod., XVIII, I; Hebr., V, 1-4).

This is clear particularly from the sacrifice of Christ. He certainly did not slay Himself. That was the work of the deicide Jews, although He did offer Himself immaculate to God (Hebr., IX, 14). At another time we shall consider the manner of this offering. Therefore, the slaying of the victim might be a dreadful crime, yet the offering of that victim (still to be slain or already slain) might be a religious and holy action. Thus the crime of the Jews was awful, and the priestly offering of Christ the Lord most holy.[22]

The word immolation, therefore, in its very strictest sense implies the destruction or the slaying of the victim, though not without reference to some kind of offering. Sacrifice, therefore, in its proper sense has two factors: the (outward) act of offering and the immolation. The victim is either offered to be immolated, or is offered by immolation, or is offered as immolated. Neither the offering in itself alone, nor the immolation in itself alone suffices to confer victimhood; both are required.

We often find writers who use the words offering and immolation without making this distinction clear. They employ one or the other word for the whole act of sacrifice. This is more or less natural, because there are many sacrifices where the offering is distinguished from the immolation merely in concept, so that in these cases the sacrifice is actually either the one or the other. Besides, even where both offering and immolation are distinct, neither pertains to the sacrifice without the other. Hence it resulted that offering and immolation were looked upon as synonymous, offering being used for immolation and immolation for offering. In this sense we say that Christ immolated Himself for our salvation, though He did not slay Himself; He simply offered Himself to the slaughter. We say that Christ offered Himself on the altar of the Cross, because it was on the Cross that He was immolated, and in so far sacrificed, in fulfilment of the offering which we know that He had already made as Priest. When dealing with the sacrifice, however, as far as possible we shall always adhere to the distinction, not only in thought but in word, between the offering and the immolation; we shall likewise distinguish both offering and immolation, as part, from the total act of sacrifice.

The word sacrificare stresses the action of the sacrificing priest, and thus indicates offering directly, or slaying indirectly. It will suffice, then, for true sacrifice, that something be offered either as to be immolated, or as immolated.[23]

Sacrifices are bloody from the slaying. They are bloodless, therefore, when there is no slaying: and this may be either because the offering is not connected with the immolation, as when inanimate things are sacrificed, or because a blood sacrifice being presupposed, from which a victim in a permanent state of victimhood is the result, any given sacrifice of that victim is referred back to the presupposed immolation, repeating, so to speak, that principal offering in virtue of which it is made. In this case the sacrifice is bloodless, but it is essentially relative to the sacrifice in blood, as will be explained later.

Even after the offering and the immolation (where there is immolation), there is a further twofold extrinsic consummation pertaining to the sacrifice—one on the part of God, the other on the part of man. We look to God for the acceptance of the sacrifice, while it is fitting that man should partake of it.

When we give anything to a person, it is given with a view to its acceptance. If man makes a gift to God, He is in hopes that God will accept that gift. If God rejects it, the gift will not pass into the ownership of God; therefore it is not sacred, it is profane. A victim is not thrown at God, it is not hurled into heaven; in that case it would not be a victim at all. FOR IT IS RATIFIED AS A VICTIM AT THE MOMENT, AND ONLY AT THE MOMENT, WHEN IT IS ACCEPTED BY GOD, AND THUS PASSES INTO THE CONDITION AND THE DIGNITY OF THINGS DIVINE.

If it is refused, cast off, and despised by God, it is just a useless mass of material substance, the offensive slaughter of brute animal, the filth and refuse of flesh and blood. The sacrifice which is not ratified by God is void. The priesthood which is incapable of transferring gifts to God, which is incapable of pledging in turn God's gifts to man, is void.

If, however, God does accept, He is looked upon, in virtue of the sacrifice accepted, as in duty bound towards man. For in the fact that the sacrifice is offered as propitiatory or impetratory, there is on the offerer's side a kind of tentative compact, or treaty, or contract with God, with the end in view that God would deign to accept it, and if so, that He would grant pardon (propitiatory sacrifice), or that He would confer a benefit (impetratory sacrifice). But if God does not accept what is offered, there is no contract. If God refuses to accept the sacrifice, no effect is secured. No pact has been struck between God and man. But if God does accept, a bilateral contract immediately intervenes: and man will certainly and necessarily obtain that for which the sacrifice was ordained.

But seeing that the inner workings of the mind of God are not known to man, it was at all times natural that men should endeavour to discover some outward sign of the divine acceptance. And there was this further reason: in the sacrificial contract between God and man, just as in ordinary contracts, there had to be some kind of mutual signification of giving and receiving. This signification might be expressed either by a human or a divine act. Where acceptance was expressed by a human action, this action might be of two sorts. One way—inchoative and imperfect—was the pouring of the blood of the victim on or round about the altar. Though this action coincided with the ritual offering, therefore, it was different from the viewpoint of its different aspects; for what man gave, the altar accepted; the altar, permeated, so to speak, with the presence of the divinity, took the place of God. What the altar received, therefore, was looked upon as taken up by God.

The other—the more perfect way—was that of the holocaust. For after the sacrifice was offered, by the sprinkling of blood upon the altar for example, various parts of the victim were placed upon the kindled fire, and thus devoured by the fire, with the end in view that under the symbol of fire God Himself would be taken as consuming and feasting on the victims.[24]

Each of these ways was weak, because each was liable to falsification on man's part; the human sign could exist, and the divine thing be absent. In other words, man could signify that a thing was acceptable to God, yet that thing could be really hateful to Him.

On the part of God, divine acceptance was usually made known by fire sent down from heaven (Gen., XV, 17; Judg., VI, 19-20; Paral., XXI, 26; Kings (3), XVIII, 38),[25] "which fire," as William of Paris (op. cit., C 24, p. 72) writes, "would eat His part of the sacrifices, taking His place, as it were." This was the more perfect way,[26] for a sign coming from God could not be false. But even then, as we shall see, it was not the most perfect way of all. At best it was only figurative. For the victims were carnal, and even though they were food for the divine fire, they did not actually pass into the divine sanctity, they merely prefigured the perfect Victim, which was to be the food for the divine glory, and to be borne into the sanctuary of divine holiness, into the holy of holies.

In so far as circumstances permitted, men have always converted to their own use as food and drink, part of the gifts and victims dedicated to God. Nor was this by any means a violation of the sacrifice; rather it was a consummation of it. For sacrifice aimed particularly at opening a path to obtain the favours of God. when He was appeased by our victims, or when He was moved to bestow gifts on us in return for our own to Him. This communication of divine gifts was most appropriately signified by a banquet[27] in which God would feast men with food proper to man himself. For then men did not come to an altar as to an ordinary table; they came to a table which was sacred and divine, and at this table they were fellow guests of God,[28] who summoned them to His banquet, and bade them sit at His table.[29] And if a lamb, or bread, or a cup was distributed, it was not looked upon as common food, it was the lamb of God, the bread of God, the cup of God. St. Paul declares this to be a universal dogma, in reference to all sacrifices of both Jews and Gentiles (not to mention our own sacrifice), when in the same Epistle He writes, first, of the Jewish sacrifices: Behold Israel according to the flesh; are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? (2 Cor., X, 18); and then of the sacrifices of the Gentiles: I would not that you should be partakers with the devils; you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the tables of devils (2 Cor., X, 21-22). Therefore, just as those who were partakers of the sacrifices to idols were rated as table-companions of the devils, those who partook of the sacrifices to God were rated as table companions of God. The use of the common table is, for those who sit at that table, the most effective and closest bond of unity.[30] William of Paris speaks of this effect of the sacred banquet as the fifth cause of sacrifice: "The fifth cause is familiarity and nearness to God. For the offering of gifts and the partaking of the sacred table beget the greatest confidence of nearness to God, and make us partakers with the family of God, for one is considered a member of the family of the person from whom He receives nutriment, and by whose table He lives. Clearly, then, these sacrifices impressed on the partakers the sense of familiarity and nearness to God, since by partaking of the same table they became in a manner sitters at the table with God. Now apart from the union of the father and mother as cause of our being, this is the most effective bond of familiarity. For this reason, seeing that God could not be in their presence to eat with them, He sometimes sent fire from heaven to consume His share of the sacrifice, and, so to speak, to take His place" (op. cit., c. 2, p. 30).

Hence He represents the person partaking of the sacrifice as speaking to the divinity in these terms: "By this sharing of the immolations, by this that I am admitted to thy sacrifices with thy other worshippers, I proclaim that I am one of thy family and of thy worshippers" (op. cit., C. 24, p. 72).

In this divine intercourse was figured particularly the future attainment of heavenly favours, for which man would be prepared by the sacrifice of justice, and to which He would be initiated by feasting on victims consecrated to God. But there was also figured a present sanctification. Because the thing made sacred to God, by the fact of its being made sacred, acquired a sanctification of its own. Now that it was above and before anything else the property of God, it passed into the nature, so to speak, of a divine thing, clothed as it were with the sanction and the unction of the divinity itself. Therefore, the sacrificial action was a sanctification. Indeed the sacrificial form and condition of the gifts and victims consisted precisely in this sanctity with which they were endowed by the act of sacrifice, and which they conserved as long as the things sacrificed remained incorrupt. For this sanctity inherent in the sacrifice was regarded as infused into the partakers of the victim; it not only destined them for future partnership in the divine sanctity, but it made it present to them here and now. For the man who ate of the sacrifice, by communion with the victim sacrificed to God, became himself, so to speak, a victim sacrificed to God; and the signification was in the highest degree perfected by the fact that nothing else was indicated but that man consecrated and dedicated himself interiorly to God, and consequently became united to Him also.

Finally, besides the communion with God from the partaking of the sacrifice, there was further the communion of the partakers one with another.[31] William of Paris speaks of this as an additional reason for the sacrifices: "The sixth cause was to make or to unite the people of God into one body, in other words, that from the many, they would form one household and one family. For there is nothing so conducive to make the whole household of children and family one as the partaking of food in common; so also the communion of spiritual food and drink more than any other thing, makes for one spiritual household family" (op. cit., C. 2, p. 30).

Here, then, we have all the reasons why the partaking of the sacrifice, offered by way of banquet, is by no means repugnant to the nature and character of sacrifice; on the contrary, this partaking by way of banquet is most appropriate to sacrifice.

We may state that for the most part it occurs that in the one action a sacrifice is offered to God and a banquet is prepared for us. There is a danger, however, in attempting to explain the nature of sacrifice by stressing the banquet; rather it is the other way round: the banquet must be explained by the sacrifice. The banquet is not sacred unless it is consecrated to God by the sacrificial offering and the divine acceptance. There is no sacred banquet without the supposition or understanding of a sacrifice previous to the banquet. Hence the true character of sacrifice cannot be explained by merely pointing to the banquet in the case where the offering is wanting. No matter how much you insist on the signification of a banquet prepared for me, you will never show that it is a sacrifice celebrated by me as long as you say that it is not offered by me. If, therefore, the Church has a sacrifice, she must offer it in the truest sense. If she has the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, she must truly and sensibly offer the Body and Blood of Christ. She possesses no sacrifice if, while making no offering, she possesses only the banquet of the Body and Blood of Christ, though it was once offered on the Cross in sacrifice, and offered by Christ Himself. Suarez, therefore, very justly says: "Although in the ancient sacrifices the things offered and sacrificed were sometimes consumed by the priests or by the people, still this was not common to all the sacrifices, as is clear in the cases of the holocausts; and even in those sacrifices in which this consummation occurred, it did not pertain to the essence of sacrifice but, after the sacrifice was consummated,[32] it used to be done to signify that man was admitted to the participation of divine things by the sacrifice" (De Eucharistia, disp. 73, s. 5, n. 6).

Hence the error of those writers who, collecting innumerable excerpts from the Fathers in which they state that the Eucharistic sacrifice is a banquet prepared for us, think to prove that the actual teaching of the Fathers was, not that the Body and Blood of Christ was, properly speaking, offered by the Church, but that the Victim once offered by Christ alone is now placed before us as food by the priests of the Church.[33] For although in the one same action Christ is offered to God by the Church, and is given to us to be partaken of, nevertheless this same action on the one subject has two formalities absolutely distinct; it bespeaks two opposite terms of reference, namely, God and ourselves. For the banquet that is prepared is prepared for me; the Body and Blood that is offered is offered to God.

William of Paris in His lucid way expressed this beautifully: "The Church of God is at once His house and His temple. Because it is His temple He must be worshipped in it for the three ends mentioned (praise, propitiation, impetration), hence in His temple there are both altar and sacrifice. Because it is His house—and He has a large family-it requires a table whereat to eat, a table that is suited to the home and to the family. It is not necessary to pile up proofs to show that the altar and the table are one and the same thing, just as the temple and the house are one and the same thing. But we speak of it as an altar when we have in mind the offering and the sanctification (meaning: the act of sacrifice), and as such it is of course essentially referred to God, in the fact that it is appointed to the honour and worship of God; we speak of it as a table, when we have in mind spiritual food, and as such it is essentially referred to the family for whose spiritual refection it has been set up and prepared; so that one and the same thing is sacrifice as offered to God, and at the same time food which sanctifies as partaken of by the faithful" (De Sacramento Eucharistiae, c. 2, t. I, p. 437-438).

The Council of Trent, therefore, taught that in the passage where St. Paul speaks of the table of the devils and the table of God, in each case table means altar (sess. 22, C. 1. D. 939).[34] It added the following canon: "If any one says that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is other than Christ gave us to be eaten, A.S." (D. 938). This chapter should suffice upon the matter of sacrifice in general, as understood and defined by the Council of Trent: "visible sacrifice .... as the nature [35] of man demands."

There are those outside the Faith who have tried to prove that Christ had no intention of offering His death for the remission of sins. We shall spend no time upon them. Our concern is with the teaching of the Church. Not only does our faith teach that the death of Christ was redemptive, that is, it adequately and even superabundantly satisfied God for us,[36] but it also teaches that His death was a real and true sacrifice offered by Christ Himself. To deny this or doubt it is to deny or doubt the Catholic faith.

Moreover, many centuries before, it was foretold by Isaias, LIII, 10 (according the more probable reading, compare Condamin, Le Livre d'lsaie, p. 323 and 349); and Christ Himself on the very threshold of the Passion (shortly we shall show that He actually did offer the sacrifice in the Last Supper), openly declared that He was sanctifying Himself, that is, offering Himself in sacrifice for others; for them do I sanctify myself (John, XVII, 19). St. Paul, as we have seen, institutes a comparison between the eating of the sacrifice to the idols and the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. And He confirms in express terms the truth of this sacrifice, when He says Christ our pasch is sacrificed (2 Cor., V, 1), that Christ gave Himself an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness (Eph., V, 2). So much so that He is a victim of propitiation (Rom., III, 25), a victim for sin (I2 Cor., V, 21),[37] by whose Blood we are cleansed (Tit., II, 14).

St. John also agrees, He calls Him a propitiation for our sins (1 John, IV, 10 and II, 2, coll II Mach., III, 33, Septuagint Numbers, V, 8, Septuagint Ezech., IV, 27), He says that we are cleansed (1 John, I, 7), or freed (Apoc., I, 5) by His Blood. In these words, as in the words of St. Peter (1 Peter, I, 2) that we are sprinkled with the Blood of Christ. There is an evident allusion to the Mosaic sacrificial rite.

The title lamb as a designation proper to Christ and used both by St. Peter and St. John also refers to the sacrificial rite. He is a lamb unspotted and undefiled (1 Peter, I, 18-19), who taketh away the sin of the world (John, I, 19), as the Lamb of God, that is dedicated to God; He is the lamb slain (Apoc., V, 6 and 12, XIII, 8).

But even without any of these testimonies, the abundantly clear and compelling evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews (IV, 14 and foll.) would be quite sufficient to convince us of this. For the whole trend of the Epistle goes to show that in the one sacrifice of Christ contrasted with the sacrifices of the Law, which were a shadow of it, the ancient priesthood was abrogated and a new priesthood instituted. No apter or more powerful proof of the actuality of the sacrifice could be desired than this comparison of the figure and the reality.

Moreover, the Priesthood of Christ so forcefully insisted on in Holy Scripture, both by the Psalmist (Ps., CIX, 4, compare with Hebr., V, 6, VII, 15, 17, 21) and by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews (priest, V, 6, VII, 15, 17, 21, high priest (ierea megan), X, 21 high priest (arxiereuj), II, 17 III, r, IV, 15, V, 10, VI, 20, VII, 26, IX, II; great high priest, IV, 14), would of necessity be wanting, if Christ did not offer sacrifice in the strictest sense of the word: For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is necessary that He also should have something to offer (see Hebr. VIII, 3, compare V, 1). And really, if we deny to the Passion its sacrificial character, the priesthood of Christ does not exist; it is from the Passion that Christ is Victim, and the sacrificial condition is in the Eucharist only from the Passion.

From the time of the Apostles on, the theologians of the Church have always taught this doctrine of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus the very early author of the Epistle attributed to Barnabas (about A. D. 72),[38] "He was crucified for our sins .... He was to offer the vessel of the spirit (i. e., His body) as a victim, that the figure represented in Isaac, who was offered on the altar, might be fulfilled. What, therefore, does He say according to the Prophet? .... 'You will give vinegar and gall to drink to me who am about to offer my Flesh for the sins of the new people.'" (Barnab., VII, 3-5 Compare VIII, 2-3, V, 1-2. F. P. 1, 58-60, 62, so).

Clement of Rome calls Christ "our Pontiff" (2 Cor., 64. F. P. 1, 82), the "pontiff of our souls" (ibid., 61, 3, p. 180), and the "pontiff of our offerings" (ibid., 36, 1, p. 144), "He gave His Flesh for us, He gave His Flesh for our flesh, His Soul for our souls" (ibid., 46, 6, p. 162). Polycarp also calls Him "the eternal pontiff" (Epist., XII, 2, P. P. I, 310).

Justin calls the second goat, offered at the same time as the emissary goat that was sent into the wilderness, a figure of Christ, who "was an offering for all sinners willing to do penance" (Dial., 40. P.G. 6, 564).

Tertullian writes: "Isaac, led a victim by His father, and carrying the wood for himself, thus early foreshadowed the death of Christ, given as victim by the Father, and carrying the wood of His own Passion" (Adv. Judaeos, 10. P.L. 2, 626).

Following this early period, there is no doctrine of the Church so universally insisted on as this teaching on the sacrifice of Christ. J. Riviere. in His erudite work, Le Dogme de la Redemption (Revue d'etude historique, 1905), has collected a number of examples of this teaching of the Church. To these we add a few specimens of outstanding significance.

Zeno of Verona: "This, I say, is the perfect Lamb, for in it the high priest concealed in His victim by reason of the mystery, today gave to God the Man whom He offered in sacrifice, " (Lib. 2, tract. 55, in die paschae. P. 1:, . II, 511).

St. Ephraem abounds in the praises of this great sacrifice. Thus He writes in the Hymnus azymorom: "The Lamb of truth, knowing that a rejected priesthood and polluted sacrificers did not suffice for Him, became for His own Body the Priest and the Prince of sacrificers. Our Sacrificer, become Victim by His own sacrifice, abolished the victims and showered His grace all over the world. No lamb is greater than the heavenly Lamb. Since the priests were earthly and the Lamb heavenly, He was both Priest and Victim for Himself. For polluted priests were not worthy to offer the immaculate Lamb, the pacific Victim who brought peace to heaven and earth, bringing peace to all by His Blood" (Hymn azym., hymn. 2, str. 2, 3, 5, 6, ed. Lamy, t. I, p. 576-578).

St. Hilary, contrasting the sacrifices of the Law with the sacrifice of Christ, says that the sacrifice of Christ was superexcellent in this: that the sacrifices of the Law were commanded to be offered under threat of a curse, while that sacrifice was offered in the most perfect freedom: "Therefore He offered Himself to the death of the accursed, in order to destroy the curse of the Law, by freely offering Himself a Victim to God the Father, so that the curse which sin caused, and which was attached to the necessary and intermittent victims, should be lifted by a voluntary victim. In another place in the Psalms mention is made of this sacrifice: Sacrifices and oblations thou wouldst not: but a body thou hast fitted to me; by offering to God the Father, who rejected the sacrifices of the Law, the pleasing Victim of His Body. The holy Apostle thus speaks of this offering: This He did once offering himself a pleasing victim to God; He would redeem the whole human race by the offering of this holy and perfect victim" (in Ps. 53 3, n. I 3. P. L 9, 345).

Indeed, so widely promulgated and so firm was the faith of the Church in the truth of the sacrifice of Christ, that it was looked upon as an established fact in the controversies that arose between the heretics and the Catholics. The question of how the priesthood was to be attributed to the Incarnate Word was interwoven in all their discussions. The Catholics maintained against the Arians that Christ was not Priest by reason of His more sublime nature (see Epiphanius, Haer. 69, 37-39. P.G. 42, 260-261; Ambrose, De Fide, 1. 3. c. 11, n. 87. P.L. 16, 607); against Nestorius, that He is Priest (though by reason of the human nature), and yet at the same time God (see Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Nestorium, 1. 3, c. P.G. 76, 116-125); and finally against the Eutychians, that in one and the same Priest there are two natures unconfused (see Theodoretus, Eranistes, Dial. I. P.G. 83, 57; Leo the Great, Ep. 124, C. 4. P L. 54, 1064).[39]

A summary of the whole teaching of the Church on the true character of sacrifice is to be gathered from the works of St. Augustine. He declares: "By His death, that is BY THE ONE TRUE SACRIFICE OFFERED FOR US, He washed away all sin" (Trin., 1. 4, C. 13, n. 17. P.L. 899). "In the wonderful and ONE TRUE SACRIFICE the Blood of Christ was shed for us. " This ONE ONLY TRUE and wonderful sacrifice was signified in figure by the many sacrifices which went before" (Contra Advers. Leg. et Prophet., 1. 1, P.L. 42, 624). Indeed, all the sacrifices that were ever offered, even those offered to the devils, were predictions OF THE ONE TRUE SACRIFICE TO COME, which was offered for all the sins of all believers .... Therefore do the devils arrogantly demand for themselves THE TRUE SACRIFICE which is due to the one true God, and which Christ alone offered on the altar of God, the devils imitating it with their victims of cattle .... On the other hand, in the victims of cattle which the Hebrews offered to God, the Victim to come was plainly foretold. Hence Christians now celebrate the memorial of that same sacrifice, by the most holy offering and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ" (Contra Faust., 1. 20, C. I 8. P.L. 42, 382-383). And again: "Here in dwelling at some length on the TRUE SACRIFICE, my aim was to prove that this sacrifice is due only to the one true God, the sacrifice which the one true Priest, Mediator between God and man, offered to Him, and that it was fitting that the sacrifices, which were promised in figure of that sacrifice, should be celebrated with animal victims, so commending to us the Flesh and Blood to come, the unique Victim by which the remission of the sins, contracted by flesh and blood, could be obtained .... And thus it was fitting that, just as the Hebrews celebrated religious predictions OF THIS TRUE SACRIFICE, SO also the pagans celebrated sacrilegious imitations of it" (op. cit., L 22, c 17, col. 409). Therefore, "In many different ways all these signified the one sacrifice, the memorial of which we now celebrate. Hence when this sacrifice was revealed to us, and in its own time offered, those other laws regarding the celebration of the sacrifices were abrogated, but they still retained for us their value as signs" (op. cit., L 6, c. 5, col. 231). Finally, "Before the coming of Christ the Flesh and Blood of this sacrifice was foreshadowed in similitude by the sacrifices of victims; in the Passion it was celebrated in real truth; after the Ascension, the equivalent sacrament of memorial is celebrated .... Thus the sacrifices of the pagans and those of the Hebrews are far apart, even though the difference is found merely in the different persons to whom they were immolated and offered. The sacrifices of the pagans were offered to the sacrilegious arrogance of the devils; those of the Hebrews to the one true God, in order that an image promising the true sacrifice to come should be offered to Him to whom it was to be offered in real truth in the Passion of the Body and Blood of Christ" (op. cit., L 20, C. 21, col. 385-386).

From all this it is clear how contrary it is to the tradition of the Fathers, to treat as metaphorical that sacrifice whence was derived all the truth that was in the ancient sacrifices and all their value as figures of truth to come, as well as all the reality of our own sacrifice of the Mass. For only in that sacrifice of the Passion and Death of Our Lord do we find combined and in plenitude all the latreutic and propitiatory signification and efficacy of sacrifice.

To examine the Fathers in detail would be waste of time, for up to the present no one has called in question the dogma declared by the Church (Trent. sess. 22, compare can. 3 and 4. D. 938-940, 950-951), apart from the Socinians,[40] a few Protestants and Rationalists. Gihr writes: "That the propitious death of Christ is a true and real sacrifice, is taught explicitly by the word of God, and this has at all times been believed and acknowledged by Christians" (Das heilige Massopfer, 4. 33).

"The sacerdotal office is in a sense the basis and the foundation of all the benefits of Christ to us; these benefits are really to be considered as so many effects of the death of Christ who gave Himself, an expiatory victim to God, on behalf of man. And truly from this expiatory sacrifice offered on the Cross, redemption, reconciliation, and full satisfaction spontaneously flow. This dogma: that Christ, true Priest, offered to God a true sacrifice on the Cross, is opposed among others by Socinians and Rationalists" (Madureira, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae specialis, t. 2, tract. 1, c. 3, . par. 23, p. 195).

The first of our theologians, as far as I know, to cast a faint shadow upon this dogma was H. Riviere (Revue pratique d'Apologetique, Oct. 1 and Nov. 1, 1911). It is true and it has never been denied by any Catholic theologian, that Christ the Redeemer made satisfaction for us by a moral act (ibid., Nov. 1, p. 162), by an exercise of His liberty (ibid., 163), by virtue and merit of His love (ibid., 164), by obedience yielded freely through charity (ibid.); but it is agreed by all theologians of all ages, that it is not by any moral act or free act, or act of charity or act of obedience, that we are redeemed, but by one particular act of that fourfold sort, the act by which Christ suffered His Passion in such a way that He was thereby offering the sacrifices of His Body and Blood. That sacrifice was in no way METAPHORICAL (ibid., p. I 74 and Oct. 1, p. 32), in no way a sacrifice improperly so called, to be admitted as a sacrifice only in the wide sense that there was a value before God in Christ's death, rendering it apt to win divine favour for us; but in the strictest possible sense as a sensible offering of the Passion made by Christ Priest, to give the supreme worship of latria to God, and to make propitiation for man. Theologians have always realized that such a sacrifice in this strict acceptation was the foundation of speculative theology, and have never spoken of it otherwise (ibid., p. 3 2), save when through want of caution they have made use of language lacking precision, or have been for a space of time devoid of sobriety of judgment.[41]

Christ is the Head of mankind in two ways particularly—He presides as Ruler over us, and He infuses grace. He possessed the virtue of infusing grace by natural right in His Incarnation from the union of the humanity to the divinity. Divine ordinance, however, decreed the free exercise of this right only from His Passion. Hence the activity of that virtue of infusing grace must be considered as consequent on the sacrifice of Christ.[42]

He had already before the sacrificial action the office of presiding or ruling, and in virtue of this office He presided over men as Prophet and King, and in virtue of this office also He was Priest for man whom in His own Person He represented—the true God-Man, as God turning towards man, as Man turning towards God.[43] It was fitting, therefore, that He should offer sacrifice for us "all of whom Christ bore, as He also bore our sins" (Cyprian, Epist. 63, n. 33. P.L. 4, 383). And it was especially fitting that He should sacrifice Himself, thus representing human nature as its Head, as in person He represented God. We have now to consider the two elements of this sacrifice—the visible and the invisible element.

The invisible element signified in the Passion of Christ our Head, is the dedication of the human race to the worship of God and the alienation of the human race from sin. We have seen already the words of Leo the Great: "Therefore the Cross of Christ has the sacrament of the true and already foretold altar, on which by means of the victim of salvation, the offering of human nature should be celebrated" (Sermo 55. P.L. 54, 324). Dealing with this subject, St. Thomas notes the following objection: "The Passion of Christ is not a sign. Therefore, it seems that the Passion of Christ is not a sacrament"—He answers: "The Passion of Christ is .... a sign of something to be observed by us, according to the saying of I St. Peter, IV, 1: Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, be you also armed with the same thought: for He that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sins, that now He may live the rest of His time in the flesh, not after the desire of men, but according to the will of God" (3 S. 48, 3, 2m). Indeed, in the same Epistle, St. Peter had already written: Christ died once for our sins: the just for the unjust, THAT He MIGHT OFFER US TO GOD (1 Peter, III, 18). Here is the invisible sacrifice, of which the visible sacrifice was the sacrament. To this invisible thing signified, which carries with it the detestation of sin, there is a corresponding reply on the part of God, in man being redeemed and restored to His rights in the celestial heritage, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is at the right hand of God, swallowing down death, that we might be made heirs of life everlasting (1 Peter, III, 2 I-22).

The greatest difference between the sacrifice of Christ and the ancient sacrifices was that in the ancient sacrifices the invisible element was really signified by the visible element, but it was not effected. Indeed, it was regarded as presupposed. But in the sacrifice of Christ, what was signified was effected by virtue of the sacrifice. For our turning away from sin is not a precondition of the sacrifice of the Cross, but follows on that sacrifice.

Up to the present we have spoken of what is signified in this sacrifice, and of what is signified as pertaining only to ourselves. But in this sacrifice there is something pertaining to Christ, and indeed to Christ principally and first of all. For the sacrifice of the Cross, from its latreutic and eucharistic aspect, is a sign of the internal dedication of Christ Himself to the praise and worship of God the Father, and from its propitiatory aspect it signifies the desire of Christ to make compensation to the divine honour outraged by us. Hence Suarez, wisely speaking of the signification as pertaining to Christ, and then of the signification as pertaining to us, says:

"Signification is essential to all sacrifice, because without signification there can be no worship of latria which is the essence of sacrifice: and this signification is found in the sacrifice of Christ. For it signified the interior acts whereby Christ offered His life to appease God; it also signified the destruction of sin, and the death of death itself, which the sacrifice was to cause" (De Incarn., in 3 S. 48, 3, commentarius, n. 2. ; compare part 1a disp. 46, s. 1, n. 2). Le Grand similarly: "The sacrifice of Christ, both in respect of Christ as Man and in respect of us, was an attestation of the supreme dominion of God and of perfect subjection to Him .... In this sacrifice also Christ gave thanks for the benefits conferred on man" (De Incarnatione Verbi Divini, Dissert. 10 C. 1, concl. 4).

There need be no fear that what we have said would imply that Christ offered the sacrifice for Himself in the sense condemned by the 10th anathema of Cyril. Because there are two ways in which sacrifice may be offered for a person. In the first way, a priest may offer the sacrifice as presenting the sacrifice of another—He celebrates Mass on behalf of a person giving a stipend. In the second way a priest may offer the sacrifice in favour of somebody—in this sense we say that a priest offers the sacrifice for Him in whose favour the donor of the stipend desires the Mass to be celebrated.

When we consider the first way, there is nothing essentially wrong in saying that Christ offered the sacrifice for Himself—because He presented His own sacrifice, not the sacrifice of another. Although to ward against ambiguity, it would be better not to use an expression of this kind. But in the second way, the only one condemned by Cyril in this connection, we are far from saying that Christ offered the sacrifice for Himself. For in this way sacrifice is offered for a person with this end only: either to make atonement for Him, or to obtain benefits for Him. When Christ offered the sacrifice He had no such end in view in respect of Himself. His end was to make atonement for us and to intercede for us.[44] At the same time it was actually meritorious for Christ. But this merit was by reason of the charitable intention of the ultimate aim of Christ, which arose from His will to offer the sacrifice for us. For just as prayer said for another can be meritorious for myself, though I do not ask anything for myself, so Christ merited by the sacrifice which He did not offer for Himself, but for us. It is thus that we must interpret St. Thomas (3 S. 22, 4, 2m),[45] and also St. Bonaventure.

Nor is it wrong to say that Christ received glory for Himself by the sacrifice, not indeed as needing the sacrifice for Himself, but as the Head of those who did need it. For just as it was preordained that Christ should enter heaven as our Head, and what is not open to the body cannot be open to the head, Christ our Head could enter only by way of His sacrifice, by means of which alone the way to glory was open to us His body. And as He purchased the state of glory for Himself, in so far He presides as Head over us, united to Him as members. This solution will not come under the anathema of Cyril.[46] It furnishes, moreover, a right interpretation of a number of sayings of the Fathers on the Resurrection and the Ascension of Christ which will be considered later (Chap. V). Keep in mind throughout this enquiry that the angle from which we view Christ as an individual, is not the same as that from which we view Christ as our Head. They are two different angles, just as within the individual Person of Christ Himself we have the divine and the human nature, and each nature must be considered from a different viewpoint.

Three things are required for the complete constitution of the visible element of sacrifice—the victim, the immolation of the victim, and the offering of the victim. We shall deal with these three in turn.

We may consider the victim prior to the sacrifice, which is the material consideration, or formally—as the actual subject of the sacrifice.

Materially considered, the victim was rational and clean.

By clean we mean that the victim was free from every stain and contagion or debt of sin, not only because in Christ the Victim was infused with the sanctity of the Word, (this sanctity is incompatible with what is unclean, it absolutely excludes even the slightest deordination from the Person of the Son of God), but also because though His human nature was derived from Adam, it was not derived in the manner in which sin, or at least the debt of original sin, was propagated.[47]

Secondly, the victim was rational, gifted with reason, and so a willing and loving victim, in heart's desire one with the Priest, as also one with the Priest in value and acceptability. It is quite true that any offering whatever coming from Christ would be clothed by His divinity with infinite worth, and by His charity or love would possess all-sufficient power of atonement for every sin.[48] But by offering Himself He showed much more His love and His desire to make satisfaction to God: for the virtue of the Passion which He accepted was to increase the difficulties to be surmounted by His love.[49]

Therefore, the very highest significative virtue accrued to the sacrifice from the fact that Christ was at the same time its Priest and its Victim. And since sacrifice in its proper sense is in its significative virtue, the sacrifice of our Redeemer was of all sacrifices the most perfect and the most effective to appease the divine majesty. Looked at from this aspect, the closest of all the ancient sacrifices to the one true sacrifice was that of Abraham, ready to sacrifice Isaac His son.[50] Considered, therefore, from every aspect, the Victim of our salvation was by far the most fitting for the end desired.

Here the words of St. Augustine are to the point: "What priest so just and so holy as the only Son of God who needed no cleansing from His sins, whether original sin, or the sins of daily life? What more suitable could man choose to be offered for Him than human flesh? And for this immolation, what so fitting as mortal flesh? What so clean to cleanse the sins of men, as the Flesh born without any contagion of carnal concupiscence, Flesh nourished in and born from a Virgin's womb? What offering can be so acceptable and so pleasing as the Flesh of our sacrifice made the Body of our Priest?" (4 Trin., l. 4, c. 14. P.L. 42, 901).

St. Thomas is in perfect agreement with St. Augustine: "It is a most perfect sacrifice. In the first place, being the flesh of human nature, it is appropriately offered for man and received under the sacramental veil. Secondly, being mortal and passible, it was suited for immolation. Thirdly, being without sin, it was effective for the cleansing from sin. Fourthly, BEING THE FLESH OF THE OFFERER IT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO GOD BECAUSE OF THE INEFFABLE CHARITY OF Him WHO IS OFFERING His OWN FLESH" (3 S. 48, 3, Im).

Moreover, the fact that Christ was at the same time Victim, explains to us in what manner He was borne down for our sins and inflicted, so to speak, with the punishment of our transgressions (Is., LII, 12, LIII, 13). For the priest offering sacrifice for the sins of the people is looked upon as bearing the sins of the people. And the victim immolated for sin, by His VICARIOUS death, indicates the punishment deserved by the guilty, and by intercession averts it, and by averting, supplies for it: Thus therefore Christ went to His death bearing our sins, though the burden of our sins was not placed on Him by the Father (for this would be unjust), but it was the Son Himself who took up the burden, desiring (under the impulse of love) both to act as our Priest and to surrender Himself as our Victim; and so in His sacrifice Christ made Himself both the bearer of sin and the bearer of punishment.

In the essential character of sacrifice, then, we find the reconciliation of the penal or expiatory nature of the Passion of Christ with the justice of God and the innocence of Christ. "That which was punishment in the eyes of man, was sacrifice in the eyes of the Father" (Adulphus, Expositio super Epistolam B. Pauli Ap. ad Hebr., c. 9. P.L. 79, 1381). We see, therefore, how the substitution of Christ for the human race, which was required for vicarious satisfaction, is a fitting consequence of His Priesthood, and is realized in the sacrifice; we see too how necessary it is in explaining the sacrificial character of Christ's vicarious satisfaction for us, that we avoid the adoption here of the strictly penal explanation of such satisfaction.[51]

When we come to consider the victim as formally underlying the sacrifice, we are at once confronted with the question: how could that sanctification in which the formal condition of victim consists (Ch. 1) accrue to Christ. For even before the sacrifice, the perfection of sanctity was in the human nature of Christ from the unction of the divinity united with it in the one Person.

However, a little clear thinking will show that this difficulty is not peculiar to this point of theology, it is constantly met with in other points of doctrine, and with equal force. One might ask, for instance: How could Christ merit such things as are already His, and due to Him by natural right, such as the glory of His Body, and so on (3 S. 19, 3). The usual solution given to all these difficulties is as follows: in these cases, Christ did not merit these things in such a way as to make things hitherto less due, now more due to Himself, but made them from being due to Himself on one ground, now due to Him on one or more additional grounds. On this matter read Toletus (in 3 S. 19, 4, conc. 2). Thus in the matter now before us, we must say that perfect sanctity, as inherent in Christ through the Incarnation, could not indeed be increased in Him, but could come to be inherent in Him on added grounds, in the words of Rupert of Dietz (in Levit., L 2, C. 5. P.L. 167, 791) : "The great High Priest of the true heavenly tabernacle was sanctified first in the Holy Spirit, and afterwards in His own Blood."

In this sense we must understand St. Thomas, where He advances and solves the objection: "Every victim, from the fact that it is offered to God, is sanctified to God. But from the beginning the humanity of Christ was sanctified and united to God. Therefore, it cannot be said properly that Christ as Man was a Victim. " He replies: "It must be said that the sanctity of the humanity of Christ from the beginning did not prevent His human nature when offered to God in the Passion, from being sanctified in a new manner, that is as Victim actually presented then, for He acquired the actual sanctification as Victim AT THAT MOMENT from the charity and grace of the union which had from the beginning sanctified the same humanity absolutely" (3 S. 22, 3, 2m). In other words, the existent sanctification of Christ FROM THEN ONWARDS acquired a new relation to the offering whereby He was made Victim (Compare ibid., 2m). For although He could not acquire this sanctity (since He already had it), it was in Him now as it would have been, had it been induced in Him by the offering.

Hence Christ the Victim now appears as the Holy One of God on an additional ground in so far as He is now definitely constituted the Lamb of God.

It should be noted here that despite the fact that the sacrifice of Christ is often called the sacrifice of His death (and in the sense to be explained immediately, properly so), the immolation did not have place at the precise moment of the separation of the Soul from the Body. For in that moment the soul is separated from the inanimate body, so that a living body does not underlie the separation: because life is terminated extrinsically, as the philosophers say, at the first moment of its non-existence (that is when the soul, the principle of life, leaves the body), while death begins intrinsically at the first moment of its existence. Now the inanimate body is in no way the subject of voluntary passion, because every principle of a voluntary act, either of the will itself, or commanded by the will, is lacking in such a body. But it was essential that the immolation of Christ should be actually voluntary in Him who was accepting and enduring it; for it was precisely this voluntary acceptance that gave worth to the Victim, as well as merit to the Priest: because the Victim and the Priest are one in will just as they are one in reality. Hence the immolation is to be placed, not in the death but in the Passion, in so far as the Passion was the road to the death (St. Thom., 3 S. 50, 6).

In this it is like all other immolations in which violence inducing death is involved. Hence from the viewpoint of immolation, strictly the sacrifice should be called the sacrifice of the Passion.

Nevertheless, from another aspect the sacrifice of Christ may rightly be called the sacrifice of His death, in this way that, had the Passion of Christ not been death-bringing, it would not have been an immolation. Under this aspect, both the Passion as the road to death, and the death as the terminus of the Passion, are looked upon as one thing. For as Cajetan (in h. 1.) justly remarks: "Although the being dead, considered in itself alone, is neither an act elicited nor an act commanded by the soul," nevertheless "as the death terminates the process of its coming, it falls under the one same title of merit as its coming: for in one and the same act the martyr is willing to be slain and to have been slain. And thus precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints: and thus the death of Christ was meritorious."

Just as it can be said in this sense that Christ offered His death, so we too can be said to offer the same death after Him, when we offer the Body and Blood of Christ sanctified for ever from His Passion.

In determining the manner of Christ's offering of His death and Passion, it should be noted (as theologians agree), that He suffered it willingly. Thus Peter the Venerable (Tractatus contra Petrobrusianos. P.L. 197, 797) : "He is said to offer Himself, because He surrendered His soul to death not by compulsion but freely. " St. Thomas: "Christ did not slay Himself, but of His own free will He exposed Himself to death, and so He is said to have offered Himself" (3 S. 22, 2, Im). Now, that voluntariety was all-embracing and continuous: He could not only have avoided His enemies or prevented them; but also He could have let them work their fury upon Him yet prevented Himself from suffering any pain; or He could have submitted to these pains yet have kept Himself from death (such was the power of His Soul united to the divinity). All this notwithstanding, He allowed His enemies to afflict Him, and submitting to pain, He submitted likewise to the law of death.

Following Eusebius of Caesarea (De Theophania, fragm. 3. P.G. 24, 609-612), Hilary treated this doctrine at length in the tenth book De Trinitate (cap. 23 seq. P.L. 10 361 seq.), and Philippus Eleemosynarius, a medieval writer, in a very complete and brilliant exposition upheld it against the opponents of His time (Epist., 5; 6; 7. P.L. 203 col. 40-44, 52-56, 62-65).

It was also taught by Augustine (4 Trin., n. 15-17. P.L. 42, 898-899. Compare Arnobius Junior, in Ps., 27. P.L. 53, 360; Leo the Great, Serm. 54, c. 2. P.L. 54, 519-520). St. Bonaventure (3 D. 16, art. I, q. 3), St. Thomas (3 S. 47, 1), Cajetan (in h. l.) and Suarez (De Incarnatione, t. 1, disp. 46, s. 1, n. 3), and later theologians generally, follow St. Augustine.[52] The voluntariety therefore extended to the Passion—which was of a nature to lead to death yet might have been prevented by Christ from leading to it—and to the death which, while it was the connatural termination of the Passion, yet need not have terminated it, had Christ willed otherwise. It rested, therefore, with Christ that the Passion should happen at all, and that it should be death-inducing. Looked at from every aspect, therefore, the immolation was free.

But an act of the will, even with such an all-embracing ambit, does not suffice to constitute a sacrificial offering. There must be something more. It must carry with it a direction of the gift to God, and this direction must be outwardly manifested. For an offering is the active tender of a gift; and a sacrificial offering must be sensible, that is, in a manner plain to the senses. Hence modern theologians very wisely lay stress on this external character of the offering, taught explicitly by the earlier writers. Thus Franzelin speaking of the "voluntary submission to the torments and death AND THE DIRECTION OF THE OFFERING OF CHRIST HIMSELF TO THE FATHER, remarks that it was essential "that the intention should be made manifest by an outward act," (De Verbo Incarnato, th. 50). And Gihr: "The priestly activity and self-sacrifice of our Saviour were first of all in His spirit and in His heart, but it did not remain interior and invisible, for Christ's Heart's desire and will to sacrifice Himself appeared in outward act" (op. cit., p. 38). Pesch is even more explicit: "In the sacrifice of Christ we have a sensible offering made to God .... For Christ offered Himself immaculate. This offering is not merely an inward intention, it is also external and sensible" (De Verbo Incarnato, 2, n. 545).

Possibly an objection may be raised from Cajetan; He writes: "For in sacrifices which consist in action, the sacrificial rite is external, as in the sacrifices of animals and of the altar. But in the sacrifices which consist in suffering, the sacrificial rite is to be found in the interior action, wherein a person offers His suffering of His own free will. And thus Christ offered His sacrifice by an interior action, while the outward action of His executioners was not sacred, it was rather a dreadful sacrilege" (in 3 S. 48, 3).

But this solitary teaching of Cajetan would leave us in the untenable position that it could be said that Christ did not offer sacrifice in the strict meaning of the word at all. There would have been no outward sacrificial action whatever, and hence no visible sacrament or sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice. For an obviously cogent reason, therefore, we must reject this teaching of Cajetan: that the sacrificial action of Christ was merely internal.

Admittedly, then, the sacrificial action of Christ must have been of necessity external. And now we arrive at the very heart of our subject. Where or when did Christ perform that voluntary and active dedication of Himself to the worship of God as Victim, SENSIBLY, LITURGICALLY, RITUALLY (Chap. 1) ? Our question is: BY WHAT EXTERNAL ACT DID CHRIST ASSUME THE BEARING OF A PRIEST towards His Passion, BY WHAT RITE DID He OFFER THE SACRIFICE? What did He do by way of sacrifice whence a victim would result? Theologians have tried to find in the actions and words of Christ, from the garden to the Cross, some indications of this sacrificial activity. Many have remarked, for example, that it was in order to show the voluntariety of His Passion and death that He prostrated the soldiers in the garden, or, when at the very moment of His death, He cried in a loud voice.

Thus St. Ephraem (Evangelii concordantis expositio, Moesinger, 1876, p. 2 36) : "They were laid prostrate before Him forcibly, in order to show them that of His own free will He delivered Himself to them. " St. Thomas similarly following Chrysostom: "He made manifest His power, when His onrushing enemies fell backwards before Him on the ground. By this let the faithful learn that it was of His own free will that He was taken. He offered because He willed" (in Joann, XVIII, lect. I, 6). Some point to His cry: "In order to show that the Passion inflicted on Him by violence did not seize His Soul from Him, Christ kept the natural strength of His Body, so that even at the moment of His death, He cried out with a loud voice" (3 S. 47, 1, 2m). Suarez says that they were laid prostrate: "Lest it should be thought that He had fallen from His Majesty and power, or that His Passion was unwilling, and that He was compelled to suffer. " And that He cried out in a loud voice in order to show "that He was the Lord of life and death, and that it was not from necessity but freely, that He submitted to death, which He could easily prevent" (ibid., disp. 38, sect I, n. 9).

All this does certainly go to show, and clearly show, His free will in accepting the Passion and enduring it; there is not, however, the slightest indication of directing the gift to God, there is nothing whatever to compel us to see in Christ a Victim given over to God's ownership, or consecrated to the divine worship. Was it not possible for Christ to exercise these two actions in the garden and on the Cross, and yet not to offer sacrifice, dying though He was? Suppose these two actions had not taken place, then would there be no sacrifice of Christ? Such a thing has never been suggested. In respect of the Passion of Christ, it has never been imagined, that Christ was Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, at the very moment when He prostrated the soldiers, or when He cried with a loud voice at the moment of His death. Adorable and salutary though these actions of our Lord may be, yet they did not imply any proper specific exercise of the new and eternal priesthood.

While admitting that these two actions of our Lord do not imply any sacerdotal act, possibly one may look elsewhere. There are the words, for instance, at the moment of His death: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Quoting them, Eusebius Emisenus writes: "The Spirit has gone above and the Body is on the Cross for us. For like a lamb He offered all that was corporeal in Him" (Fragmentum primum. P.G. 86, 541). But when we consider these words, we might weigh carefully the wise remark of Suarez: "Offering on the Cross Christ did not utter any words [expressive of sacrificial action]. If we could imagine any phrase of His of that sort, it undoubtedly would be: Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit. But these are words of beseeching rather than of offering, " (De Eucharistia disp. 75, s. 2).[53] Apart from all this it should not be forgotten that the sacrificial offering is pragmatic, it must be in action, and not merely in words (although the action in which the offering consists can be accomplished in words, as we shall see later).

Possibly it might be argued that the sacrificial offering is in the words of the Lord in the garden: not my will but thine be done. As a matter of fact, Albert Stoeckl (Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen und nach seiner Geschichte. Mogunt, 1861, p. 379380) did think that a form of offering was to be found in the words of our Lord: "Father, not my will, but thine be done. These were words of free oblation, with which the Saviour began His Passion, and impressed on it the character of sacrifice. " But in the first place there is no pragmatic offering in mere words, we have remarked that even if the words declare an offering it is not thereby pragmatic. Secondly, as they stand, the words are not words of offering. The offering must be free, it must be in the absolute disposal of the offerer; in other words no obligation to present the gifts to God. But here Christ speaks words of consent to some apparently inevitable law: If it be possible, let this chalice pass .... nevertheless, etc .... . If it may not pass .... thy will be done. Finally, the ancient Fathers and Theologians did not at any time see in these words anything pertaining to sacrificial action. It is not credible that it was left to our time to discover here the formal element of the sacrifice of Christ.

Moreover, when we consider all the words, actions and gestures in the garden and on the Cross, we have still to answer the question: without them, would there be no sacrifice? On the other hand, notwithstanding these words, actions and gestures, is it not possible for the sacrificial action to be lacking, as it certainly was lacking when St. Stephen said: Receive my spirit?

Or we might look to the complexus of words, movements, and gestures of our Lord through the whole course of the Passion. Throughout all, the evidence of self-surrender to death for our salvation in obedience to divine ordinance is clear. Here we have more than sufficient indications of sacrificial intention and trend. But, could not all this from the garden to the Cross be the same, and yet no sacrifice offered?[54] Do we not find the same or similar in the martyrs of every age both before and after Christ, and yet their death was not a sacrifice, except in the broad or metaphorical sense? Now SACRIFICE MUST BE: IN ITSELF PLAINLY EVIDENT AS SACRIFICE, because sacrifice is in the nature of a sign—a pragmatic locution signifying an invisible thing; before all else therefore it should be self-evident. Now nothing is self-evidently a sacrifice—hence an adequate sign—hence a sacrifice at all—if it is wholly indeterminate in the line of sacrificial being. But anything that could be just the same if it were not a sacrifice is certainly so indeterminate. Therefore the Passion of our Lord is not sufficiently specified as a sacrifice (properly so called) by this complexus of events.

That our Lord did at times enunciate the sacrificial character of His Passion (for instance, I sanctify myself), or that the Scriptures proclaimed or the Fathers [passim] declared it, has no bearing on the present question. Declarations of this kind did not make it a sacrifice; they were made because it was a sacrifice. Therefore, it is a sacrifice apart from these declarations of fact, and if so, it must be evident as a sacrifice, because as we have said, it is of the essence of sacrifice to be of itself discernible.

Since then, neither these particular events, nor the general complexus of the Passion of our Lord FROM THE GARDEN TO THE CROSS, give of themselves any indication of the essential form or character of a sacerdotal offering, we must look for this elsewhere. We shall find it where the Scripture clearly shows it, and where the Fathers and early Theologians constantly recognized it. We shall treat of it in the following chapter.[55]

We propose to prove in sections I to IV that Christ as Priest, consecrating in the Supper the image of His Passion, offered to God the reality of His Passion. This will be shown as follows: we shall study the Supper in the light of

(1) The Passion, I;
(2) The ancient covenant and the ancient pasch, II;
(3) The "Epistle to the Hebrews, " III;
(4) The promise of the Eucharist, IV.

Further, our argument will be confirmed in V from certain circumstances of the Supper.[56]

St. Matthew, XXVI, 26-29. St. Mark, XIV, 22-25. St. Luke, XXII, 15-20 2 Cor., XI, 23-26.

15. And He said to them, with desire have I desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. 16. For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17. And having taken the chalice, He gave thanks, and said: Take and divide it among you: for 18. I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

26. And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and brake, and said: take ye and eat. This is My Body. 22. And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessing, broke and gave to them, and said, take ye, this is My Body. 19. (a) And taking bread, He gave thanks, and brake, and gave to them, saying: this is My Body, (b) which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of Me. 23. For I have received from the Lord, that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus Christ the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread. 27. And taking the chalice He gave thanks, and gave to them saying: drink ye all of this. 23. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 20. In like manner the chalice also, after He had supped, saying: this is the chalice the new testament in My Blood, which shall be shed for you. 24. And giving thanks, broke and said: take ye and eat; this is My Body which shall be delivered for you: do this for a commemoration of Me. 28. For this is My Blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins

24. And He said to them: this is My Blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

25. In like manner the chalice also, after He had supped, saying: this chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do ye, for the commemoration of Me. 29. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until the day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of My Father. 25. Amen I say to you that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until the day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God.

26. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord until He come.

If these Supper narratives are examined, we see immediately that some kind of bloody death is placed before us in the words and things which designate the Body and Blood separately. For the separate mention and representation of the Body and Blood, and in particular the indication of the Blood as shed, of the Body as given, obviously imply a slaying.

Secondly, a propitiatory intent is added in the words "for many" (Matth., V. 27) and still more in the words "which shall be shed for many" (Mark, V. 24); "for you" (2 Cor., V. 24); more especially with the addition of the clause "unto the remission of sins" (Matth., V. 27).

From all this it follows that some sacrificial action is accomplished, in such manner that, though no blood-shedding is enacted, some blood-shedding is implied. That is, the Passion of Christ is placed before us, implied in the bloodless rite, with some kind of propitiatory benefit.

We are now to prove more distinctly that a bloodless offering of an immolation in blood is contained in these expressions.

I say then in the first place: that there is merely a representative slaying of Christ in the Supper.

I say secondly: that in this representation of the slaying to come, there is an offering of Christ.

I say thirdly: that this offering is not representative only, or apparent only, but that It is real and present.

I say fourthly: that the offering of the victim is made with a view to the real immolation, which is represented as future.

In a word: Christ is here and now offered to an immolation, in the image of that immolation.

The words pronounced over the bread and wine express death, and they express death in blood. But it is evident that in the actual time in which Christ is speaking, though there is the presence of the Body and Blood, still no slaying is enacted. The slaying of Christ is represented, therefore, though it is not effected. In the Supper, then, was no immolation of Christ; it was merely by similitude, or a representative immolation, consisting in the symbolic virtue, which is given to the visible species by the words designating the Body as delivered to death, and the Blood as flowing from the Body.

To constitute an offering it is sufficient, as we have already said, that the will, directive of the gift to God, should be expressed in a sensible rite.

Now the rite in the Supper appears wholly voluntary. Christ not only approaches it of His own free will, but He even accomplishes it gladly,[57] and commands His apostles to repeat it.

Specifically, He indicates His freedom by renewing the covenant, or testament (for a contract must as a matter of course be voluntary); and giving in particular is a proof both of liberty and of liberality.

The direction of the gift to God is shown in the previous thanksgiving and blessing on the gifts and presents (that is, on the bread and wine) as eucharisteria, gifts, that is, of God to be surrendered to God; it is shown particularly in the surrender of His Body, made not indeed to the apostles, but for the apostles, and made undoubtedly as a Victim to God; it is shown in the shedding of His Blood, for the apostles, for many even, unto the remission of sins, for which in the justice of God we were condemned to punishment, which the expiatory Victim removes from us, paying the price to God for us. Hence there was most decidedly a direction of the gift and the price to God, to gratify and appease Him.

There really are here both an apparent offering and a real offering. There is the apparent offering of the bread and wine, there is the real offering of the Body and Blood. I mean by this that Christ outwardly appears to be offering to God the eucharisteria of bread and wine, after the manner of Melchisedech. "For when He showed to God and the Father the bread and wine which He held in His hands, He appeared to be offering and dedicating them as gifts to Him" (Nicholas Cabasilas, Expositio Liturgiae, c. 2. P.G. 150, 377), as was said above. But He did not offer those things which in the moment of the sacramental Supper were not actually there, since Christ did not say: This is bread, He said This is my body; He did not say: this is wine, He said This is my blood. He did not offer bread, therefore, because it was not there; nor did He offer wine, because it was not there; if He did offer anything, He offered what He said was there: His own Body and His own Blood. The offering of bread and wine, then, was apparent only; in it the offering of the Body and Blood was hidden from the senses, but it was open to the eyes of faith. This latter offering, therefore, was not like the former, a mere effigy of some more secret giving; it was itself substantially a true and real giving.

Again, this offering of the Body and Blood was so really true that it was not merely foretold or promised, it was there and then effected. That is, Christ actually in that very moment was given into the ownership and keeping of God: a present offering was enacted.

There is a twofold proof of this.

In the first place: the Body is not said to be about to be given, it is given now.[58] Therefore the giving or the surrender of the reality to God takes place now, and in this the offering consists.

It is proved in the second place from the fact that (1) under the concept of offering there is accomplished some propitiatory action de praesenti, which itself (2) shows that this offering is made in the present.

(1) That a propitiatory action is here and now accomplished is gathered in three ways.

First, in general, from the present participles applied everywhere (in the original Greek)

"which is given for you" to uper umwn didomenon (Luke, XXII, 19),
"which is shed for many" to ekxunnomenon uper pollwn (Mark, XIV, 24),
"which is shed for many unto the remission of sins" to peri pollwn ekxhunomenon eis afesin amartiwn (Matth., XXVI, 28)

These verses show amply that something is now done for us, that something has now taken place that is beneficial for us, that some salutary result is now effected, that propitiation is now made.

Secondly, and in a special way, from the fact that not the Blood only, but the chalice itself is said to be shed for us; "this is the chalice .... which shall be shed (in original Greek, rather 'is shed') for you" (Luke, XXII, 20), the propitiatory role of the chalice, as such, can only be referred to the present time, since from now on there is no future occasion in the course of the Passion for the shedding of the chalice.[59]

Thirdly, indirectly, by reason of the New Testament, which is here and now sealed, as will be shown below, whence it follows that our propitiation is here and now made.

(2) That propitiation, as immolative and present, denotes that the offering is made in the present must be maintained as certain, because the propitiatory virtue of itself is inherent in the sacrifice, not in a mere foretelling or preliminary figure or promise, but in the very sacrificial action, wherein the Victim is actually offered to be immolated or offered as immolated.[60]

This is proved indirectly and directly.

Indirectly, because had not Christ been offered to that real immolation which is represented as future, He must be regarded as offered to a mere figment of an immolation, which is not the reality of immolation. But there is no true sacrifice unless there is an offering of a victim as already really immolated or to be immolated, and, if there is no sacrifice, no propitiatory influence can result. But we have already shown that propitiatory influence has here and now resulted; therefore, an offering is made of Christ as to be really immolated at the Passion.

Directly, in two ways.

For (1) it is clear by the very fact that the Blood is shed by Christ in figure before God,[61] and the Body is slain in figure with a view to the remission of sins, that the Body is deputed to a real slaying and the Blood is deputed to a real shedding for us. For in the symbolic shedding of the Blood, in the symbolic slaying of the Body, in the symbolic death of the Flesh of our Lord, and that actually propitiatory, there is not merely promised a true slaying of the Body, a real shedding of the Blood; not alone is the Victim vowed[62] to God, but it is now actually made sacred to God, in view of that future true shedding and true slaying.

Therefore, just as Christ is here and now given over into the ownership of God, so, too, here and now He is dedicated to the Passion. In that representative immolation, therefore (call it symbolic, sacramental, mystical),[63] the offering of Christ to the immolation in blood is actually made.

Later on this will become clearer (p. 215), as it will be shown that the Body of Christ was His altar. When Christ, therefore, sacramentally sheds His own Blood on His own altar, He is thereby (Chap. 1) acting as the High Priest offering to God in the mystery the life of His Victim.

(2) It is clear from the fact that Christ said that His Body is given for us. This could have only one meaning, that His Body is given over to death.

Thus from every aspect we are impelled to the conclusion that the Body and Blood of Christ in the bloodless imitation of the Passion was pledged before God to the endurance of the Passion in blood; in other words, that in that rite of mystic immolation, the actual Victim of the Passion, as Victim, was offered to God by Christ as Priest.[64]

In the Supper, Christ appeared as though giving bread and wine to God; and He showed thereby that He was giving something to God: not what was apparent, but what was hidden; not bread, but what He said He was holding in His hands in the place of bread, namely His own Body; not wine, but what He said He mingled in the chalice in the place of wine, His own Blood. He gave His Body; He gave His Blood; He gave each separately, as far as was indicated, by way of signifying, in the appearances and in the words. He gave Himself in the effigy of death; He gave Himself to death for us, and by death He gave Himself as Victim to God.

When Christ is said to have given Himself as Victim to God, the meaning is not only that such surrender of Himself was made known by Christ in words. Indeed in the sacrifice of the Redemption, just as in every true sacrifice generally, the ritual offering, significative of the internal oblative will, did not consist just in the mere oral expression of that will, as, for instance, in the words "I offer" or the like; it consisted in A LITURGICAL RITE applied by the liturgus himself, wherein, in respect of the Victim to be immolated, the actual intention would be pragmatically expressed of handing over and consecrating the gift to God.[65] The Eucharistic rite was indeed a certain complexus of things and words, but it was such that the words alone of themselves would not perfect the offering made to God, but would only indicate (and effect) the presence of the Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine to propitiate for sins. This presence implied by the words constituted the oblative rite in the Supper, wherein Christ was actually given over to God as Victim, deputed to an expiatory death for us.

Before entering on a discussion of the teaching of the Fathers we must make one remark by way of preface. Apart from controversies with heretics, the Fathers as a rule did not put forward their teaching in so didactic and peremptory a manner as to leave the intellect no choice, nor did they express their meaning so clearly as to allow no way of escape. Hence outside a few passages which of themselves might attest the opinion of an author, a theologian is bound to set down what is more obviously the trend of the teaching, or what the actual words present to us and naturally suggest. Now if all the testimonies, with no clear exception, converge on the same point, a powerful argument is available as to the mind of the Fathers, based on that "cumulative probability, " which Cardinal Newman shows can transcend all mere opinion, and beget certainty; in other words, the only explanation of this universal and consistent unanimity is that the Fathers were convinced of this particular teaching. The certainty becomes all the greater if we find a like unanimity (as in matters Eucharistic we do) in the Liturgies. It will be well to keep this in mind in this chapter and in the others to follow until we arrive at the examination of the Mass; the Fathers have dwelt at greater length on the Mass, so that that chapter will reflect a clearer light back on to the discussion on the Supper.

I. The Fathers imply indirectly that the very sacrifice of the Passion was offered in the Supper, when, making the distinction between the act of sacrifice (or the offering) and the slaying (or mactation), they assign the latter to the deicide Jews, reserving the act of sacrifice to Christ consecrating the bread and wine in the Supper. Thus St. Ephraem (Hymni Azymorum, Hymn 2, ed. Lamy, t. I, p. 576-578) :

Str. 2.

"The Lamb of truth knowing that rejected priests and polluted sacrificers did not suffice for Him, became for His own body Priest and Prince of Sacrificers.

Str. 3.

"The sacrificers of the people slew the prince of sacrificers. "Our Sacrificer, become Victim, abolished the victims by His sacrifice, and spread His graces throughout the whole world."

Str. 5.[M1]

"No lamb is greater than the Lamb of heaven. "Since the priests were of the earth, and the Lamb was of heaven, He became both Victim and Priest for Himself."

Str. 6.

"Polluted priests were indeed unworthy to offer the immaculate Lamb, the pacific Victim, which brought peace to heaven and earth, reconciling all things in His Blood."

Str. 7.

He broke the bread in His hands for the sacrament of the sacrifice of His Body; He filled the chalice in the sacrament of the offering of His Blood. Priest of our propitiation, He offered the sacrifice for Himself."

Str. 8.

"He clothed Himself with the Priesthood of Melchisedech, the figure of Himself. He did not bring forth victims, but He offered bread and wine, the ancient priesthood is gone, libations are past."

II. Possibly the same doctrine is suggested when the suffering of martyrdom on our part is taken to be the perfection of the Eucharistic banquet: here there is apparently a confirmation, to a certain extent, that on the part of Christ the perfection of the Supper was the immolation of the Passion.

St. Augustine: "Let us see, He says, let us hear the Lord further: 'I will pay my vows in the sight of them that fear Him.' What are His vows? The sacrifice which He offered to God.[66] You know what sacrifice? The faithful know the vows which He paid before them that fear Him: for there follows: 'The poor eat and shall be filled. ' Blessed are the poor, because they eat that they may be filled: for the poor eat; those who are rich are not filled, because they are not hungry. The poor eat: hence there was the fisherman Peter, John another fisherman, James His brother and the publican Matthew. They were of the poor, who ate and were filled, suffering such things as those they fed on ('talia passi, qualia manducaverunt'). He gave His Supper, He Gave His Passion: He is filled, who imitates. The poor have imitated: for they have suffered so, that they followed in the footsteps of Christ" (in Ps., 21, 27. P.L. 36, 178).

III. The taking away of sin, which is the work of the Redemption, is at times attributed to the Supper itself. We have an example of this in St. Gregory Nazianzen, when among other incidents of the Jewish rite, He shows the typical significance of the circumstance that the lamb was to be eaten towards evening.

"The lamb will be eaten by us. And it will be eaten towards evening, because in the end of ages is the Passion of Christ: seeing that He too towards evening is partaker of the Sacrament with His disciples, dispelling the darkness of sin" (Or. 45 in sanctum Pascha, n. 16. P.G. 36, 644).

He explains the late time of the Passion by the evening hour of the Supper, and He also says that the Supper itself accomplished the remission of sins.[67]

The same conclusion is arrived at, I believe, if death is said to be destroyed by the Supper (because Christ, as St. Paul says, overcame death and destroyed sin in the same sacrifice). Cyril of Alexandria (De adoratione in spiritu et veritate, 3. P.G. 68, 285-293) [68] expresses this clearly, in the example of David staying the hand of the Exterminating Angel by the victim, which, bought at a great