The charge that Reformation theology obscures the Incarnation and the great Intercession by dwelling exclusively on the Atonement. The precise and the conclusion which follows from it. It is quite true that under the dominance of Reformation theology, the Life of Suffering, the Sacrifice by which we were once for all redeemed, has been allowed to obscure the Life of Glory, the great Intercession, the continual presentation to GOD of CHRIST'S Mystical Body, the Church, through His Mediatorial work in heaven. It is also true, as Mr. Brightman points out, that this tendency to dwell too exclusively upon the Atonement can be traced back far beyond the Reformation. It is even true that the writers of the early Church lay more stress on our LORD'S Resurrection and present exaltation at the Right Hand of the Majesty on high, as the Son of Man, the Firstborn from the dead, the Head of His Church, than they do upon His Life of suffering, and upon His Death of shame. But what is the actual import of these facts? Not import of this, that in the treatment of the Holy Eucharist only the doctrine of the Atonement was allowed so to preponderate as to obscure, on the one hand, the doctrine of the Incarnation, and, on the other, its relation to His Life of Glory; but that this was the case in every department of theology. What, then, is the conclusion which follows from this? Surely, that we are to endeavour to correct this tendency by bringing forward the great importance of the Incarnation as the foundation of all Christian dogma, and of the Life of Glory as the goal of all moral effort; but not that we are to go to the opposite extreme, and practically forget the Cross and Passion in the ecstatic joy of the heavenly Life. It is true that "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory," only "while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen." The relation of our life now to the Life of Glory. Yet tendency of the the more severe side of day to ignore revelation. it is also true that one of the most dangerous tendencies The dangerous of the present day, manifesting itself as much in doctrine as in practice, is to ignore the more severe side of revelation; to keep in the background the Cross in the life that now is, and the possibility of eternal loss in the life to come; to wear the Cross in jewelled form, as the symbol of a victory which but few are striving to win, rather than to bear daily that Cross of CHRIST in which S. Paul gloried because by it the world was crucified unto him and he unto the world. The evidence of the Gospels to the importance of our sion. In view of this undoubted tendency, it would be well to observe the relative space which the writers of the Gospels devote to the record of our LORD'S Passion and to that of His Resurrection and Ascension. In S. LORD'S PasMatthew the story of the Passion occupies 141 verses, that of the Resurrection only 20. In S. Mark the proportion is 119 to 20; in S. Luke, 127 to 53; and in S. John (if we include the discourses after the Last Supper), 237 to 56. So that, even if the Church for the last thousand years has given greater prominence to the Death and Passion of our LORD than to "His mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension," she may, perhaps, plead some justification, in that she has only followed in the steps of the inspired writers of the Gospels. A conclusion which most certainly does not follow from the premises just stated, is that because the doctrine of the Atonement has in every department of theology obscured that of the Incarnation and of the Life of Glory, therefore the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is related to the Life of Glory rather than to the Sacrifice of the Cross. A more complete non sequitur than this can scarcely be imagined. S. Paul explicitly says: "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in A conclusion noted which does not fol low from the premises. ation of Fathers and remembrance of Me. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the LORD's Death till The interpret. He come." And it is no argument against the interpretation which has been put upon these words by commentators practically every Father, theologian, and commentator of the Church, that in the liturgies a remembrance was also made of His Resurrection and Ascension, and that S. Justin Martyr * speaks of the Eucharist as a memorial of His Incarnation. must determ ine the sig nificance of the passages in the liturgies. II. The second class of pas sages are those II. The second class of passages which the Modern school cites in support of its theory Mr. Brightman which speak of refers to in the following extract : † a "heavenly altar." Mr. Brightman's statement of his case. He specially refers to the "Supplices man rite. 66 Or again, to put it in another way, It [the Eucharist] is that in which the Church offers on the heavenly altar,' in which it presents its material gifts on earth that they may be gathered up into the action of the Great High Priest as He ministers at the altar on high. This figure of the 'heavenly altar' is a common one in the liturgies, most strikingly in the Roman Te" of the Ro- canon, where the celebrant prays: 'We humbly beseech Thee, Almighty GOD, command these gifts to be carried by the hands of Thy holy Angel on to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that all we who by this participation of the altar shall receive the most holy Body and Blood of Thy SON, may be fulfilled with all grace and heavenly benediction.'' The facts again are indisputable, but the inferences unwarranted. This prayer supplies Thal Here, again, we must say that there is no question in regard to the facts which Mr. Brightman cites, but the inferences which he draws from these facts seem quite unwarranted. As Thalhofer treats this prayer from Mr. Brighthofer with his man's point of view, only much more elaborately, we *S. Justin M., Trypho, lxx. † Brightman, p. 13. shall at once proceed to consider the arguments put main arguforth by the former. In the first place, he considers that those passages of the liturgies which refer to a heavenly altar are distinctly based upon two passages of Holy Scripture, Isa. vi. 6, and Rev. viii. 3: "Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he laid it upon my mouth." "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." Thalhofer asserts that if we admit that there is an altar in heaven, whatever may be the conception which we otherwise form in regard to it, we must necessarily admit a heavenly Sacrifice corresponding to it. So that he conceives that in proving the existence of this heavenly altar, he at the same time proves the existence of a heavenly Sacrifice, since the term "altar" necessarily connotes the term sacrifice." ment for a He refers the altar" of the viii. 3. He argues that since these pas sages speak of a heavenly altar they heavenly S. imply a It is, however, evident that the S. must precisely cor respond with the altar. But at this point we must insist upon its being clearly recognized that this heavenly Sacrifice can be conceived of only in precisely the same sense as the heavenly altar. That is, if the altar be an actual and proper altar, we must of course admit the Sacrifice to be an actual and proper sacrifice; but if the altar is to be understood so that if the only in a symbolical, figurative, metaphorical sense, then the Sacrifice must be understood in precisely the same sense. With this principle of interpretation clearly in our minds, let us now examine these two passages of Holy Scripture which Thalhofer quotes. "Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the altar be only figurative, we cannot infer a literal s. A literal altar involves manifest difficulties. The Fathers interpret this passage of Isaiah mystically: S. Ambrose; S. Jerome, S. Cyril. : tongs from off the altar and he laid it upon my mouth." And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne." The question upon which the whole argument depends is this: Are we to understand by these verses that there is in heaven an altar upon which fire burns, and at which an angel offers sacrifice and incense with the prayers of the saints? And was it from such a material altar that an angel, with material tongs, took a piece of coal glowing with fire, with which he touched the lips of Isaiah? If this is what we are to understand by the passage, it would be natural to pass on to the consideration of the physical effect upon the lips of Isaiah of contact with this live coal. Probably there is no one, not even excluding Thalhofer and the Modern school, who understands this passage otherwise than in a metaphorical and figurative sense. Certainly the Fathers, to whose interpretation Thalhofer appeals, understood the heavenly objects only as symbolical; for S. Ambrose says that the live coal represented the grace of the HOLY SPIRIT, which purified and sanctified Isaiah from sin. S. Jerome, Haymo, and Philastrius regard the coal as the Word of GOD, and the altar as Holy Scripture, from which the Word of GOD is taken. S. Basil and S. Cyril see in the coal the mystery of the Incarnation, for as fire is united to coal, and coal to fire, so humanity was united hypostatically to the Word, and the Word Incarnate is as a glowing coal, which by contact kindles us with the fire of love. Others have seen in the coal a type of the fiery tongues at |