Illustration from the difference between a martyr and martyrdom. Between a state and an act. So the Lamb is the S., but does not offer S. are entirely independent of any present interior disposition of our LORD's human will. By this we are not in the slightest degree denying that our LORD in His glorified Humanity preserves the same desire to die for us which He manifested in act upon the Cross. We do assert, however, that this desire is altogether independent of the marks of the wounds, which simply bear witness to a past Sacrifice, and have no necessary connection with any present sacrificial disposition. We may illustrate this by the example of a confessor, or martyr in will, who, though so grievously tortured as to bear to the day of his death the marks of his martyrdom, escaped with life. Such an one at the time of his martyrdom had the will to die for CHRIST, and the scars and marks of mutilation are the testimony that this inward disposition was carried into act. Therefore they confer upon him a right to the title of martyr, since they indicate that, in will at least, he suffered martyrdom. As long as he lives, the marks of these scars prove that he is a martyr; but we cannot from this draw the conclusion that every day of his life he suffers martyrdom. The scars are the witness to a past, not to a present, act; and though it may be argued that the martyr still retains the same inward disposition and readiness to die for CHRIST, this disposition is quite independent of the scars which he bears, since if he were to apostatize from the Christian Religion, the scars would remain, though the inward disposition would have changed. So the scars exhibited in the "Lamb as though slaughtered, standing in the midst of the throne," testify that He is the Sacrifice, that He once consummated the act of Sacrifice; but they are not "the external form," as Thalhofer calls it, of a present Sacrifice. Hence we may conclude our examination of this last passage by saying that the interpretation put upon it by the moderate school of Bishop Forbes is quite unobjectionable; but that the attempt of the Thalhofer school to find in these scars a sacrificial action which will constitute a celestial Sacrifice, properly so called, fails absolutely, and, indeed, does little credit to their logical perception. We may further observe that the Lamb is standing in the midst of the throne of GOD, not lying upon an altar, as would be expected if He were, strictly speaking, a celestial Sacrifice. For a celestial Sacrifice demands, not a throne, but an altar; not the attitude of standing, but of a slaughtered Victim laid upon that altar. III. We may now sum up the results of our investi- III. Summary gation of Holy Scripture in regard to the Eucharistic of Scripture Sacrifice, somewhat as follows: 1. From type and prophecy in the Old Testament, and from the use of sacrificial terms in connection with the Institution of the Eucharist in the New, it is proved that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. testimony: 1. O. T. and N. T. both prove that the H. E. is a S. 2. The N. T. recognizes absolute S. only one therefore a relative S., 2. That our great High Priest JESUS CHRIST upon the Cross made one Sacrifice of Himself once offered, is the reiterated teaching of the New Testament. Hence it follows that this is the only absolute Sacrifice which Holy Scripture recognizes, and the Eucharist is, The H. E. is therefore, a relative Sacrifice, a Sacrifice of commemoration, of re-presentation, by which the Sacrifice of the Cross is renewed, but not repeated. This follows from S. Paul's exposition of the words, "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me;" which he thus explains: "For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the LORD'S Death till He come."* Death. 3. There is no indication of any Sacrifice, properly 3. There is no * 1 Cor. xi. 25, 26. in which we make the memorial of our LORD'S ΤΟ indication of any S. being offered in heaven. This is not inconsistent with our LORD being a S. in a passive sense, or with His offering a virtual S. so called, being offered by our LORD in heaven. This does not conflict with the doctrine that in the passive sense of the word " sacrifice," He is in heaven what He was on the Cross, what He is in the Eucharist,— the Sacrifice, the propitiation for the sins of the world. Nor is it inconsistent with the view that, since in our LORD'S Mediatorial work He presents His glorified Humanity, and so pleads with the FATHER for man, He continues to offer a virtual, but not an actual Sacrifice; for He offers the fruits of His one Sacrifice upon the Cross, pleading His merits for the remission of our sins. To this virtual Sacrifice the Sacrifice of the Eucharist stands in a very true relation, but a relation The H. E. is a which is accidental rather than essential.* The Eucharist is a Sacrifice because it is essentially identical with the Sacrifice of Calvary, which it reproduces and re-presents. It is accidentally related to our LORD'S Mediatorial work in heaven, because in it the same Priest officiates and the same Victim is present. But in the Eucharist there is a sacrificial action, the act of Consecration, by which the Body and Blood of CHRIST are produced under the forms of bread and wine, separated as by death; whereas in our LORD's heavenly Offering no such sacrificial action can be found. S. because essentially identical with that of Calvary. It is accidentally related to our LORD'S Mediatorial work. 4. Scripture port to the 4. The witness of Holy Scripture, especially of the affords no sup- Epistle to the Hebrews, affords no support for the view that the real sacrificial act in our LORD'S great Offering took place after His Ascension, and not upon the Cross. On the contrary, such a view is quite incompatible with the many passages in which it is stated that man's redemption was purchased upon the Cross, and that by CHRIST'S Death we were redeemed.† view that the essentially sacrificial act took place in heaven, and that therefore the Cross is not a completed S. *See Lepin's exposition of this point, Appendix G. While not strictly pertaining to this part of our treatment of the question, we may here state that in no commentary upon the Epistle to the Hebrews before the sixteenth century are any traces of this view to be found. It is entirely unknown to the Fathers,* and there are many passages in their writings which absolutely conflict with this view.† And, further, since the sixteenth century we know of no commentary on this Epistle of any weight which adopts this view, unless it be the works of some of the German schismatics. Therefore, so far as the text and interpretation of Holy Scripture is concerned, we may confidently affirm that this theory has no authority whatever. * "In regard to the 'modern conception of CHRIST pleading His Passion in Heaven,' the thought is, as far as I know, not found in the Fathers."-Private letter of the Bishop of Durham. † S. Chrysostom, Hom., xiii., ?3; Euthymius Zigadenus, Ep. ad Heb. vii. 27; Theodoret, in Psal. cix. 4. These passages will be considered later. CHAPTER VI. A THE TESTIMONY OF THE LITURGIES. FTER the testimony of Holy Scripture in regard to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, we take up next, both in order of time and of importance, the The witness of witness of the liturgies of the Church. For they the liturgies to the E. S. is naturally of great importance. We must not expect in them the accuracy of definition to a Creed. not only express her teaching, but, inasmuch as they are exclusively concerned with her Eucharistic worship, we naturally expect to find in them, more than in any other authoritative documents, an indication of her view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It is well, however, to bear in mind that in the liturgies we ought not to look for the accuracy of expression or clearness of definition which belongs to a which belongs Creed. The liturgies grew simply and naturally out of the devotional needs of the Church, whereas the Creeds were the definite expression of the Church's mind at a time when most of the doctrines contained in them had already been called in question. That the litur- the H. E. may be assumed; the only ques tion is, whether they It is scarcely necessary for us here to show to what extent the liturgies bear witness to the fact that the Church's Eucharistic worship was regarded as distinctly sacrificial. Our work is rather to inquire whether the liturgies afford any support to the Modern view, which regards the Eucharist as a Sacrifice only in so far as it is related to a Sacrifice which our LORD |