in fact confirms it. For what is the drift of that argument? That the One Sacrifice of Christ has superseded and abolished all types and shadows of the Law, and is itself incapable of supplement or iteration. He has, we are told, an 'unchangeable Priesthood,' and is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.' What is this but to say, that His Sacrifice abides for ever in the Church, and remains for all time the supreme act of creaturely adoration, and centre of all Christian worship? Or, in other words, that glorified Body, which He presents continually before God in heaven, He presents no less truly, though 'in a mystery,' on our altars, in whose sight the visible and invisible Church are not two but one Kingdom of God. What Christ really offered by anticipation in the upper room at Jerusalem He offers really now by perpetuation in heaven and on earth.

In illustration of what has been said, I subjoin a passage from a great living theologian, forming the close of a dissertation on 'the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice,' the whole of which is well worth perusal; "Thus the Christian Sacrifice is at once permanent, and single. Its unity does not contradict its duration, nor its duration prevent its being ever one and indivisible. The offering of that Sacrifice is indeed divided into numberless acts, according to the conditions of time and space in this earthly life; but they are brought into unity and held together through the Person of Christ, in whom and with whom His ministers do all their acts. It is precisely in this multiplicity of the oblation, by which the One everliving Victim is offered and the Sacrifice of the Cross constantly applied anew in its effects to the whole body and to its individual members, that the perfection and indissoluble power of that Sacrifice reveals itself. To the retrospective glance of the Christian the number of sacrificial acts on the altars of the Church at once take their place, as dependent on that one heavenly offering, which again depends on that of the Cross, as one single celebration of sacrifice. 'For Christ is gone into heaven itself to appear now for us before the presence of God.' It is no new immolation that takes place, only that once offered on Golgotha is shown to the Christian people in a symbolic act sensibly representing the separation of body and blood in death. The Cross has developed into a living Tree, ever green and ever fruitful, overshadowing the Church of all times and all places."*

Döllinger's Christenthum und Kirche (ut supr.), p. 256.

Lastly, I will give, as it stands, the statement on this subject in the Tridentine Catechism; "Unum igitur et idem sacrificium esse fatemur, et haberi debet, quod in missa peragitur, et quod in Cruce oblatum est; quemadmodum una est et eadem Hostia, Christus videlicet Dominus noster, qui Se Ipsum in ara Crucis semel tantummodo cruentum immolavit. Neque enim cruenta et incruenta Hostia duæ sunt Hostiæ, sed una tantum; cujus sacrificium postquam Dominus ita præcepit, ' Hoc facite in Meam commemorationem,' in Eucharistia quotidie instauratur. Sed unus etiam atque idem Sacerdos est, Christus Dominus; nam ministri, qui sacrificium faciunt, non suam, sed Christi Personam suscipiunt, cum Ejus Corpus et Sanguinem conficiunt. Id quod et ipsius consecrationis verbis ostenditur. Neque enim sacerdos inquit, 'Hoc est Corpus Christi,' sed 'Hoc est Corpus Meum,' Personam scilicet Christi Domini gerens, panis et vini substantiam in veram Ejus Corporis et Sanguinis, substantiam convertit."*

It is superfluous to add passages from the Fathers in evidence of their well-known and unanimous teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

*Cat. ad Par. Pars II., cap. iv., Q. 74, 75.

Z

NOTE II. ON CHAP. VI.

RECENT LUTHERAN THEOLOGY ON THE MOTIVE OF THE INCARNATION.

Ir has been observed more than once, that the Scotist view of the motive of the Incarnation was foreign to the ideas of the Reformation. It was indeed maintained by Osiander, as we have seen, but the exception is exactly of that kind which proves the rule, for here, as in many other points, Osiander felt himself and was felt by his coreligionists to be out of harmony with the general Lutheran sentiment of his day. With him began that reaction against the first Reformers, which has been traced out in an earlier chapter, and which lasted till the Reformation merged into the Rationalist movement in Germany. A similar spirit has however reappeared in our own day in some of the more eminent Lutheran divines of the orthodox school, and their adoption of the Scotist view as an integral part of their system is an illustration of it. It may be worth while to give a few instances of this.

Martensen, a Danish Lutheran, whose work, Die christliche Dogmatik (Kiel, 1850), I quote from a German translation, teaches as follows. Man is created after the image of the divine Logos. The 'supralapsarian' view of Calvin, that redemption, and therefore sin, was predestined from eternity is met by saying that the Incarnation was predestined from eternity as the true ideal of humanity, but not the Passion and death of the God-man. It resulted from our wilful sin, that 'the divine revelation of love actually took place as a revelation of redemption.' Christ can only become our Redeemer because He is by an eternal purpose our Mediator. We must not say, that 'without sin there would have been no place in the human

family for the glory of the Only-begotten.' He, who would anyhow have been the Mediator of an imperfect race, has humbled Himself yet further to become the Redeemer of a sinful race. (Christ. Dogm. pp. 157, 193-5, 294.) The author, while accepting generally the language of the Lutheran formulas, gives them an interpretation widely different from that of their founders. The shocking exaggerations of Luther and Calvin on the nature and consequences of original sin are softened down to a sense little, if at all, different from that of Catholic tradition. The satisfaction of Christ is explained through His redemption, and justification as implying the gift of a new principle of holiness implanted in the soul. The appeasing the wrath of God, and the 'active obedience' of Christ, which play so important a part in earlier Protestant theology, are reduced to conformity with the teaching of the Fathers; while many Lutheran opinions are expressly rejected, as the ubiquity of Christ's Body, and the Lutheran gloss on the descent into Hell. An intermediate state of purification between death and judgment is maintained, nor does Martensen object to call it Purgatory; he prefers the medieval opinion to that of the Reformers as to the age of the resurrection body. The book is interesting in itself, and as marking the contrast between earlier and later Lutheranism. It closes with a remarkable discussion on the future condition of the wicked, with scriptural and patristic authorities.

Thomasius, a professor at Erlangen, of narrower views than Martensen, whose work on Origen has already been referred to, discusses the motive of the Incarnation at some length in his Christi Person und Werk (Erlangen, 1853), urging the authority of Scripture, Fathers, and Schoolmen against Martensen's view, which he rejects as well on that account as from thinking that it derogates from the love of Christ, and refers His taking our nature to an internal necessity in the being of God, not to compassion for man-an objection which would be at least equally applicable to the Anselmic and many Protestant theories of satisfaction; but in fact it does not really apply at all here, for the intention of taking our humanity in order to unite us with God is itself one free act of love, the further purpose of suffering for our redemption is another. Thomasius considers the decree of the Incarnation to be included in the decree of creation, modified through the entrance of sin foreseen though not predestined by God. He says that in Christ the archetype of humanity is bodily fulfilled. He quotes Dorner, as holding the opposite (Scotist) view; but the

purely historical character of Dorner's work does not give scope for treating such questions directly.

Nägelsbach, in his work Der Gottmensch (Nürnberg, 1853), devoted to showing, as against atheism and pantheism, that the Godman is 'the fundamental idea of revelation in its unity and historical development,' maintains that the union between God and man which love requires, can only be realized by God taking on Himself not abstract but actual humanity, i. e. becoming man. His Incarnation cannot be accidental. It is opposed, as Kurtz says, to all Christian feeling and consciousness, that we should owe it, and the deification of our nature, only to sin. It is implied in the very principle of love, that this was from the first the end and scope of human history. Its first prophecy is not Gen. iii. 15, but Gen. i. 26. The First Adam implies the Second. All previous history was an education of the world for His coming, all Christian history springs from Him as its Root, whose appearance is the centre-point in the life of the world. (Der Gottmensch, vol. i. pp. 28-32.) Liebner, in his Christologie (Gottingen, 1849), argues at length, that the Incarnation and the consequent deification of our nature were involved in the original act of creative love, as the archetype and proper term of humanity. He answers in detail the objections of Thomasius.

Rothe, one of the greatest Lutheran divines of the day, in his Theologische Ethik (vol. ii. pp. 252-338), treats of the redemption wrought by Christ. He does not expressly touch on the probabilities of the Incarnation, as antecedent to sin; but he considers redemption involved in the original act of creation, though requiring a fresh creative act or new beginning of the race, proceeding from the race itself, but by a supernatural origin: i. e. a Second Adam. The author traces out the preparation for Christ's coming under the Old Law by the moral education of mankind, and by miracle and prophecy, leading up to the final revelation in His personal appearance, the end of which is redemption, or restored communion between God and men, by the removal of sin which divided them. In order to mediate between God and man, He must share the nature of both perfectly, and must make a free and complete self-oblation of His whole being for the honour of God, and for love of man; and this in a sinful world, hating holiness and truth, and under the dominion of Satan, can only be consummated through the sacrifice of His life. To impart the fruits of His redemption, He has founded a spiritual kingdom or family among men, whereof He is the Head and Heart,