or payment a great benefit, such as a deliverance from
captivity or from the doom of death. And in another
saying of fundamental importance He speaks of His
blood (of which the Supper was to be the memorial,
and the shedding of which was the great act of His
ministry) as a covenant offering that in which the new
covenant was founded as the Sinaitic covenant had been
founded in the blood of sacrifices of old, and not only so,
but as having specifically in view ' the remission of sins '
(Matt. xx. 28, with parallels). According to His own
testimony, therefore, the act or work which made His
peculiar sacrifice was not one done simply for the good of
others, but definitely for the remission of sin, i.e. the
cancelling of guilt, or the relief from penalty.
When we look to the New Testament writings we find
that the various expressions used by Christ Himself are
taken up and have their sense developed. The work, the
death, the sacrifice of Christ, is presented by the several
writers in different aspects, and with different points of
incidence. Peter, e. g. speaks of it as a redemption from
a vain traditional way of life (i Pet. i. 18-20), but also
as a ' bearing of our sins in His body ' (i Pet. ii. 24), which
has for its effect righteousness and healing. John speaks
of it specially as a 'propitiation' (i John ii. a ; iv. 10).
With Paul it is an ' offering ' and a ' sacrifice '
110 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 7
6v<ria, Eph. v. 2), a sacrifice like the Passover (i Cor. v. 7),
but also specially a redemption which 'declares' the
' righteousness of God ' in the pretermission of sins (Rom.
iii. 25) ; which had a propitiatory meaning (t&.) ; which
effects a reconciliation (KaToAAayTjv) between God and
man (Rom. v. 10-11 ; 2 Cor. v. 18-20) ; which expiates
sin, redeems from the curse of the law, and answers to
the ' sin-offering ' of old, &c. (2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13 ;
. Rom. viii. 3 ; &c.). The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks
of Christ as High Priest, and of His offering or sacrifice
as the one perfect sacrifice for sins, requiring no repeti-
tion, purging sin away, propitiating God in respect of sin,
purifying the conscience ; obtaining eternal salvation, the
remission of sin, &c. (Heb. i. 3 ; ii. 17 ; v. 9 ; vii. 27 ; ix.
11-14, 26, &c.).
Taking these things together it will appear, I think,
that the New Testament draws an absolute distinction
between Christ's sacrifice and anything that can be called
' sacrifice ' on our part, and this not only in respect of the
greater intrinsic worth of the former, or the perfection in
virtue of which it needs to be done but once, but also
definitely in respect of its efficacy in the cleansing of the
conscience, the removal of guilt, the remission of sin,
the rectification of broken spiritual relations between God
and sinful man. In particular, in the great passage already
referred to in Heb. ix. 11-14, Christ's sacrifice is described
in terms of the expiatory offerings of the Levitical system,
and has a positive efficacy ascribed to it comparable to
what they had, but acting in the moral sphere, while they
belonged to the ceremonial, and availing for the removal
of the penalties or disabilities of sin and the satisfaction
of conscience. The New Testament speaks, indeed, of
' sacrifices ' which it is competent for us to offer, and to
some extent it specifies what these are (Rom. xii. i ; Heb.
xi. 15, 1 6 ; i Pet. ii. 5). But it speaks of these only in
II. 8] SECOND DISCUSSION III
terms of the ' gifts ' as distinguished from the ' sacrifices
for sins,' and never applies to them the phraseology of the
Levitical sin and trespass offerings which is used of
Christ's sacrifice. There is nothing in the New Testament,
as I read it, to warrant us to speak of the Lord's Supper
as a ' sacrifice,' or of the Christian minister as a ' sacrificing
priest.' The term ' priest ' itself indeed (lepevs) is not
used of the Christian minister as such, though it is used
of the Christian man or the Christian people. Nor, again,
do I find anything in the New Testament to warrant us
to speak of Christ's sacrifice as continued in any sense on
earth. It has its memorial in the Church, and its virtue
abides. But that is all. In the heavenly life Christ's
priesthood is continued in the form of intercession, and
in the sense that He appears in the presence of God for
us (Heb. vii. 25 ; ix. 24). But beyond this the New
Testament does not carry us.
8. CANON GORE. I should like to say something about the
silence of Christ on the subject of His own sacrifice, and
our relation to it, as referred to by Dr. Fairbairn. I sup-
pose that as one studies the New Testament documents
more closely, nothing gets hold of one more in regard to
them than the central place held in the earliest Church
by the ideas derived from Isaiah liii. These ideas under-
lie the early speeches of the Acts in such a way as forces
one to realize that from the first beginning of the Church
the conception was dominant that Christ's death was the
realization of the ideal suggested by Isaiah. And our
Lord Himself, in all that central spiritual labour of His
life, which consisted in habituating His disciples to the idea
of glory through death, was but recalling them to the lost
conception. 'Ought not the Christ to have suffered?' was
an appeal more especially to Isaiah liii. The forerunner,
according to St. John, had already prepared the way for
this recall by pointing to Christ as ' the Lamb of God
112 SECOND DISCUSSION [H. 8
who taketh up and expiateth the sin of the world*
Surely the idea of Christ the sacrifice is at the very
centre and kernel of the New Testament. These general
considerations give distinction and emphasis to the one
or two special utterances of our Lord about the sacrificial
character of His own life and death. The words ' This
is My blood which is being shed' (or 'poured out')
'for you,' characterize His death as the spiritual coun-
terpart of the sacrifice which inaugurated the first
covenant. There is also the passage ' For their sake
I consecrate Myself that they also may be consecrated
in truth' a phrase which identifies priesthood and
sacrifice in Christ, i. e. brings out the fact that the sacrifice
i* essentially of the person, which means, of course, that
priest and sacrifice are identified. I am afraid that
Dr. Fairbairn somewhat left out of sight two important
passages when he said that our Lord never associated
His own death with that of His disciples. One passage
is that in St John ' Except a com of wheat fall into the
ground and die, it abideth by itself alone, but if it die it
bringeth forth much fruit' (chap. ia, ver. 24). These
words were used when the Greeks approached and asked
to see Jesus, and Jesus postpones His fruitful manifesta-
tion in the wider world until the way has been opened by
His death. After using the words I have quoted, our
Lord goes on to say, ' He that loveth his life shall lose
it ; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it
unto life eternal,' &c. This means that the law of
sacrifice the law of living through dying which is the
law of His own life is to be also that of His disciples.
There is also St Matthew xvi, where Peter rebukes our
Lord for His anticipation of His death, and where our
Lord refers to the cross which is to be the instrument of
His own death, adding, ' Whosoever will come after Me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
II. 9] SECOND DISCUSSION 113
me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and
whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it,' &c.
Here again He implies that the cross, the instrument of
His own sacrifice, is to belong to the disciples as well.
I should have thought, however, that the New Testament
as a whole required us to draw a distinction between the
spiritual meaning and efficacy of our Lord's dying or our
Lord's sacrifice, and anything which we, through Him,
can share. I own that I claim to confine the word
propitiation to that inaugural act by which our Lord
treading the winepress alone brought humanity by His
single incommunicable act into a new relation to God,
and inaugurated a new covenant ; and I would altogether
reserve that word for the sacrifice of Christ without the
least failing to recognize that there is ambiguity in all
theological terms, which may give to almost any proposi-
tion an almost boundless application. Nevertheless
I think that ' propitiation/ and words that go with it,
should be strictly reserved for the great inaugural act
which reconstituted humanity on a new basis, and
inaugurated a new covenant in virtue of the remission of
sins which it won for us.
But I should also have thought that propitiation does
not exhaust the meaning of Christ's sacrifice. In its
deeper sense it expresses what is, even apart from the
alienation caused by sin and requiring atonement, the
fundamental relation of man to God which Christ
restores to us ; and in this sense the whole of the New
Testament implies that it is to be perpetuated in us and
in our religion, both towards God and towards one another.
9. CANON BERNARD. I do not think that I have anything
to add to what has already been so well said on this
question by Dr. Salmond and Dr. Ryle. I will only
remark that I think that the teaching which has been
drawn from Hebrews as to our Lord's high-priestly work
I
114 SECOND DISCUSSION [tt. 10
in heaven has been obtained by using the Old Testament
to interpret the New, which I do not look upon as legiti-
mate. It has been well said that the Old Testament
explains the New Testament, while the New Testament
interprets the Old Testament. The distinction between
explaining and interpreting is a very important one. But
in remarks made at the beginning of our discussion the
maxim was practically inverted. I do not like to pass
by the opinions expressed this morning as to the possi-
bility of the Church or individuals, by virtue of their
union with Christ, exercising the same atoning power for
sin which He exercised. Accept that, and you have
enough foundation for the doctrine of the Mass. I feel
mat I must dissent from any agreement with such a view.
10. DR. DAVISON. I had intended to emphasize the absten-
tion, or silence, observed by our Lord in relation to
priesthood, and especially as to any transmission of
priesthood or sacrifice in His Church. But almost all
the speakers have agreed that such testimony as we have
is indirect. Dr. Sanday plainly says so (p. 22), and the
passages quoted by Dr. Moberly and Canon Gore imply
the same thing. But is not this a very significant fact,
especially as much of the indirect evidence is uncon-
vincing ?
As to the Apostles, I find for the most part silence
among them in relation to our Lord's priesthood
though they have much to say about sacrifice the
exception, of course, being the Epistle to the Hebrews.
As Dr. Fairbairn has urged, this silence or abstention is
very significant, and weight must be given to it when so
much stress is being laid on ' sacerdotal ' characteristics.
I doubt whether we can build much upon our Lord's
priestly work in heaven, because we know so little
about it.
Leaving that part of the subject, therefore, I would
II. 11] SECOND DISCUSSION 115
refer to that large measure of identification between our
Lord's priesthood and that of the Church, or the indivi-
dual, which some are anxious to establish. I cannot
accept such statements as that of Dr. Milligan, ' What-
ever the Head is or does, the body must in a measure be
or do' (p. 27) ; or that of Canon Moberly, ' They are what
He is ' (p. 25). If we are to understand that in any
sense our Lord's priestly work is perpetuated in the
Church, is the piacular element included in that work ?
If so, on what basis, with what Scripture sanction ?
I cannot accept this inclusion in any form.
Dr. Moberly said that 'the chief atoning element in
the world is penitence,' and if that be the main element
in Christ's atoning work, we might be said in some
sense to continue it. But surely this is misleading.
M'Leod Campbell dwelt unduly upon our Lord's con-
fession of man's sin as atoning, but he did not use the
term 'penitence,' which does not properly describe
Christ's sacrifice at all. In that sacrifice we cannot
share. Whatever it was, it was perfect, offered once for
all. It was unique, partly because of His person, partly
because of His mission. I find no guidance in the New
Testament on this identification of Christ's sacrifice with
ours, and I shrink from all language concerning priest-
hood and sacrifice, which, under cover of expressing one
set of ideas, introduces, or makes it easy to introduce,
widely different ones.
ii. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. I am most grateful to
Archdeacon Wilson for his strong assertion of the
depth to which the elemental conceptions of priesthood
and sacrifice are rooted in the story of human develop-
ment, and of the necessity of our retaining elements so
radical and so vital. They belong to the inherent
essential experiences which are the ground of all our
inductive certainty.
I 2
Il6 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 11
Any words that have been used which would minimize
or explain away such ground ideas, seem to me disastrous
to the faith. We have only to consider the living powers
that would be gone out of the Creed of Christ, if the
appeal to the sprinkling of the blood, the pleading of
the one sacrifice and oblation, the uplifting of the cross,
were withdrawn as antiquated ; and we should be aware
how profoundly serious the situation would be.
The Epistle to the Hebrews pronounces the older
sacrifices to be antiquated and ready to vanish away
on one ground only i.e. that every detail of the
sacrificial system has been taken up into Christ. The
blood of bulls and goats is useless because the blood
of *Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin. Sacrifice is trans-
figured, not abolished.
Language has been used to-day implying that Christ
came in response to the prophetic, rather than the sacri-
ficial and priestly elements in the older covenant. But
is it not the note of the vital difference between the
Baptist and Jesus Christ, that the prophetic office had
come to an arrest ; had found its own impotence to
fulfil its aspirations, in the Baptist ; and that its advance
was blocked unless the road could be opened for it by
that which was essentially priestly and sacrificial ? The
Baptist was a c prophet, and more than a prophet.' He
carried prophecy to its highest value. He shook souls,
he convicted, he drew to God. But he was so great
a prophet because he knew and confessed that, in
exercising the full powers of the prophet he had done
nothing to secure his aim. He might preach ; men
might repent and confess ; and yet they were no
further on ; for the sin was in them, and they could
not wipe it out. They could but signalize a need ;
they could but wait for another to deliver. The pro-
phetic office revealed in the Baptist its own limitations.
11. 12] SECOND DISCUSSION 1 17
And 'the other' would deliver because he would bring
into play the regenerating efficacy of sacrifice. He
would come to the relief of arrested prophecy by the
power of the priest and the victim. ' Behold the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the world.'
In these words, the Baptist fulfils his mission ; he
brings the prophetic office of man under the power of
the redemptive blood. And is it not worth while to
recall the pregnant words which were made the accusa-
tion of our Lord at His trial ? We know from St. John
their true form and intention. 'Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up.' He was speaking
of the temple of His body. The old temple would be
destroyed by its sin ; but its significance, as the home-
altar of sacrificial acts, would become alive again in
Him, would be absorbed into Him. And this would
be through and in His body the body in which He
died the death ; the body which was prepared for Him
the body of His offering.
These words hold in them the whole Epistle to the
Hebrews. And they were uttered at a moment which
revealed to the disciples the passionate attachment of
our Lord to the old temple and its worship, which
burnt in Him as a fire.
1 2. DR. SANDAY. I should like to say a word in regard to
the silences of Scripture. I think it is quite possible to lay
too much stress upon these. If we take only one passage
that great passage which contains the Words of Institu-
tion (Matt. xxvi. 28, and parallels), we find that they are
full of sacrificial meaning. I think I should estimate the
extent of the sacrificial element in the teaching of St.
Paul much higher than Dr. Fairbairn has done. Nearly
all the references to the ' Blood ' of Christ must be sacri-
ficial. So also would be the use of iAao-r^ioy, ikdo-Kcvdai,
I see that Dr. Fairbairn questions the Levitical
Il8 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 13
sense of Uaorq/xoi; (p. 27) ; but I think that he would find
most commentators against him on that point. There
are great masses of sacrificial teaching in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Does not all this language point back-
wards to something ? Could we not understand it much
better if there had been something in our Lord's teaching
to suggest it ? Can a saying so weighty as that of our
Lord to which I have referred (Matt. xxvi. 28) stand
quite alone ? In any case it is an exceedingly pregnant
saying.
Then there is the great point which was raised by
Dr. Davison, a point on which I am specially looking for
heip from our discussions. I mean the identification of
the acts or funclions of the Church as the Body of Christ,
with those of Christ as its Head. A few years ago
I should have been content to take a view which I under-
stand is that of Dr. Davison and of Canon Bernard ; but
I have been obliged to ask myself whether, in doing so,
I should have really done justice to the teaching of
Scripture; and that is what is haunting my mind at the
present time. On the other hand I must confess that my
imagination is staggered by Dr. Moberly's answer to
Question 5 (p. 31). It is so very large, and so very
inclusive; and the question, to my mind, is, whether I can
make such language a reality to myself. I see its depth,
and fullness, and richness. I see it all ; and I am well
aware that there is a great deal of very remarkable
teaching in the Epistles. I will only now express my
own great gratitude for what I have heard to-day. You
will not ask me to express a positive opinion, because
I am feeling my way to new ground.
13. THE REV. ARNOLD THOMAS. In considering the New
Testament doctrine of priesthood and sacrifice, it is
important to bear in mind what we must feel to be a
characteristic note of New Testament teaching, namely,
11.18] SECOND DISCUSSION 119
the emphasis which is laid on the universal presence
and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The
ministration of the Gospel is pre-eminently a ministration
of the Spirit. And I understand that to mean that we
are all brought through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
into the presence of His Father, who thus becomes in
the dearest and fullest sense our Father, and into direct
and intimate filial relations with Him. We all, all, with
unveiled face, reflect as a mirror the glory of the Lord.
We are transformed into the same image as from the
Lord the Spirit. Whether Jew or Gentile, we come
through Jesus unto the Father, having access to Him in
one Spirit. We are all sons of God through faith in
Christ Jesus, having received into our hearts the Spirit
of God's Son, whereby we cry, 'Abba, Father,' so that
we are no longer bond-servants, but sons. It is impos-
sible to study the New Testament without being struck
with the prominence which is given to this wonderful
conception of the Christian life. And I feel that we
must only accept such ideas of priesthood and sacrifice
as are consistent with this conception of the believer as
a child who has been brought into his true home.
How then can we, who live under the New Testament
economy, be priests, and what sacrifices can we offer ?
We can be priests only inasmuch as we stand by the
grace of God in the very sanctuary of His presence.
And the sacrifices we may offer are those sacrifices only
that belong to a spiritual dispensation, namely, the
sacrifice of a consecrated will, of the love of a loyal heart,
and the devotion of the whole life.
If these are true conceptions of the calling and state of
the Christian, it is difficult to see what need there is, or
what room there is, for any official priest in the household
of God. What I need is the human teacher and guide
who can convince my mind, and touch my conscience,
120 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 14
and awaken my faith ; and to admit an official inter-
mediary, when once the spirit of adoption has been given
to me, is to part with the child's most precious prerogative.
It is to say that Christ's work is but imperfectly done, and
that He has not brought us to God Himself, but only as
it were into an outer court, from which we may hold
intercourse with Him through agencies specially appointed
for the purpose.
14. THE REV. C. G. LANG. It is exceedingly difficult to
speak at the end of a discussion like this, and my wiser
self tells me I had better be silent, but there are a few
points upon which I may try to interpret my own thoughts
and perhaps those of others. With regard to the silence
of the New Testament, and the reticence of our Lord
on the subject of sacrifice, surely it is easy for us to
understand, if I may say so reverently, why there should
be that reticence. If our Lord had used very directly
familiar sacrificial language it would have connoted at
that time associations which were transitory, and which
He Himself was to render unnecessary. The essential
point of His teaching was to concentrate the minds of
His disciples upon the thought that it was not any
particular acts that He did that constituted his sacrifice,
but that He Himself was the sacrifice for the sins of the
world. Our Lord's method would be to bring them to
the root-idea of His sacrifice ; and in order to do that, it
would be necessary to be sparing in the use of the
ordinary sacrificial language, which had been, and was so
completely misunderstood. Yet this very fact surely
makes that impression of the spirit of sacrifice upon the
whole of our Lord's life, and the whole teaching of
the New Testament, just so remarkable. It is from this
very reticence that the wonderful impressiveness comes
when He does use sacrificial language. What can be
more impressive than that our Lord should have been
II. 14] SECOND DISCUSSION 121
ushered into His ministerial work with the words ' Behold
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World ' ?
How significant that in the institution of the eucharist
He should have used language directly sacrificial in its
meaning ; and that St. John, who entered into the inner
secrets of His life, should have used the memorable words
' The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'
These things are so much the more impressive because of
the normal reticence of our Lord on the subject. I agree
with Canon Scott Holland that we should altogether miss
the force of such language if we were to regard it merely
as an accommodation to the times, or as simply figurative.
The fact that our Lord so carefully avoided the risk of
accommodation to current conceptions of sacrifice, makes
us feel that when He did use such language, then the
words were of eternal significance. And when we con-
sider what has been the effect of the words the ' sacrifice
of Christ,' and the ' Blood of Christ,' one cannot take
sacrifice out of the New Testament. As to the very
profound subject of the nature of our Lord's sacrifice,
surely it is necessary from His own language to feel that
there was more in the sacrifice than the mere dedication
and sacrifice of His own will that He looked forward to
the death on the cross as the great deed that was to work
some great achievement ; that that achievement was to
be done once ; and that once done it was to have eternal
significance and efficacy. Whatever the act of death
meant, it was at least the completion of the sacrifice in
time, but its significance and efficacy were to be eternal.
I agree with Father Puller that in thinking of the
sacrifice of Christ of the Eternal Son it is impossible
to think of it merely as an event past in time something
that has come to an end. The conception of our own
share of that sacrifice depends entirely upon what inter-