adoring love. If there is aught in these pages tending in any way to lessen that reverence, or to cloud the vision of His Atoning Love of whom they speak, the author would wish it blotted out ere it was written. "Domine Deus, quæcumque dixi in his libris de Tuo ignoscant et Tui; si qua de meo, et Tu ignosce et Tui." LONDON, Advent, 1868. [Since this volume was in type, my attention has been called to a passage bearing on certain statements made in it (p. 279), in the interesting Dissertation on the Christian Ministry, in Lightfoot's Epistle to the Philippians (Macmillan). Professor Lightfoot insists that "the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no place for a Christian priesthood" in the sacrificial sense. He accordingly objects to votaorpiov in Heb. xiii. 10, being understood of the Lord's table, and considers that meaning to be excluded by the context, in vv. 9, 15, 16 especially, and inferentially by a comparison with 1 Cor. ix. 13; x. 18, which, however, can have little force, except on the improbable assumption of a common authorship of both Epistles. The reference to Heb. xiii. 9 is hardly relevant; the language of vv. 15, 16 is quite consistent, to say the least, with the Eucharistic application of volaστptov in v. 10, indicating, as it does, what all would admit to be certain aspects of the rite. It is no doubt true that "the Christian Ministry is a priesthood of a type essentially different from the Jewish," or Heathen; and there were obvious reasons for keeping this distinction prominently in view, which would abundantly account for any “silence" of the N. T. or other early writers, on the recognised principle of the "economy," sanctioned expressly by our Lord Himself (Matt. vii. 6), and acted on both by Him and His apostles. But the distinction is not that the Christian is less really a priesthood than the Jewish, but the reverse. The Jewish priest "stood daily offering often the same [bloody and typical] sacrifices," i.e., a succession of them. The Christian priest presents and pleads on earth the One true and availing Sacrifice, offered once in blood on Calvary, which Christ has entered into heaven to plead continually "in the presence of God for us." This surely explains the contrast drawn out in the Epistle to the Hebrews.] Difficulties and Objections Necessity of Preliminary Explanation. No Division of Will between the Father and the Son What is meant by the Justice' and 'Wrath' of God, and the need for an Atonement Foreshadowings and Illustrations of the Atonement 73 Why One Sacrifice alone could be perfect 76 The Atonement not the sole Object of the Incarnation 78 The Scotist View of the Motive of the Incarnation considered The Theory of 'Imputation' no part of Catholic Doctrine The Testimony of Fathers and Theologians, how to be used NOTE TO CHAPTER I. ON THE CONDITION OF OUR LORD'S HUMAN Summary of Teaching of first three Centuries Theory of a Ransom to Satan first clearly enunciated by Irenæus . 111 CHAPTER III. THE LATER FATHERS AND SCOTUS ERIGENA. The altered Character of Theology in the fourth Century 125 The two Theories of a Ransom to Satan and Sacrifice to God combined. 126 The Ransom to Satan includes, His Claim to a Payment Remarks on this Theory The Deceit practised on Him The Necessity of Compensation. The Death of Christ also viewed by the Fathers as a Sacrifice to God No change in the Divine Mind taught General Summary of Patristic Teaching Speculations of Scotus Erigena 127 NOTE TO CHAPTER III. ON STRAUSS' ESTIMATE OF THE BELIEF OF 156 |