JKgSg ." ' WE* i 
 
 . ; tr v :^ 
 
 t '--',: 
 
 i s
 
 DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS 
 
 OF 
 
 PRIESTHOOD AND SACRIFICE 
 
 A Report of a Conference held at Oxford 
 December ij and 14, 1899 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 W. SANDAY 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 
 
 fc 
 
 1900
 
 Ojcforfc 
 
 HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PACE 
 
 PREFACE ..,_.,.. v 
 
 I. PRELIMINARIES .... . i 
 
 II. STATEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS . 5 
 
 III. THE CONFERENCE ... .62 
 
 FIRST DISCUSSION . * . 64 
 
 SECOND DISCUSSION . .100 
 
 THIRD DISCUSSION . 134
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE publication of this Report is felt to be an experi- 
 ment. It was decided upon at an informal meeting after 
 the conclusion of the Conference, not quite unanimously, 
 but by a considerable preponderance of opinion ; and the 
 writer of this was entrusted with the duties of editor. 
 
 The publication was indeed open to drawbacks which, 
 in some respects, have proved rather greater than had been 
 anticipated. The shorthand report, on which the reproduc- 
 tion of the discussions depended, was not a complete success. 
 It was a somewhat condensed version of speeches which, by 
 the necessities of the case, were themselves condensed within 
 the narrowest limits possible ; so that the inevitable appear- 
 ance of scrappiness in consequence has been increased beyond 
 what it perhaps might have been. 
 
 I must, however, as editor, warmly acknowledge the help 
 that has been given me by the several contributors, and 
 by some in especial degree, in restoring the report of what 
 they had said to a sufficiently full and readable form. The 
 discussions were conspicuously marked, not only by the 
 frankness which Archdeacon Wilson invited (p. 51) and 
 of which he himself set an excellent example, but also by 
 an effort after brevity and precision. And compressed as 
 the result still is, I cannot but think that it will be found 
 to map out the main lines of the important subject discussed, 
 at once with a clearness and boldness of relief and if I may 
 say so an accuracy of shading with which I doubt if it 
 has ever been presented before.
 
 viii PREFACE 
 
 The Conference arose out of the idea that the bitterest 
 part of modern ecclesiastical controversy turned upon the 
 associations of what is called ' Sacerdotalism ' ; and the 
 further idea that much of this bitterness might be preventible 
 by mutual explanations. It was felt that, outside the irre- 
 ducible minimum of real difference, there was a great amount 
 of misunderstanding as to what was really held and really 
 objected to on either side. 
 
 For any effectual clearing away of these misunderstandings 
 it seemed necessary that the Conference should in some 
 degree represent not the Established Church alone, but the 
 whole of English Christianity: only in this way was it 
 possible to get at the root of current differences, and really 
 to affiict opinion at its source. 
 
 With this object in view it was decided to aim at bringing 
 together three groups : a group of High Churchmen, a group 
 of Nonconformists, and an intermediate group of Churchmen, 
 who would not be called ' High.' In filling up a vacant 
 place at the last moment this condition was not strictly 
 observed ; but, roughly speaking, the Conference fell into 
 three equal groups of five. 
 
 To those who are familiar with the active life and with 
 the formative elements of English religion the personnel of 
 the Conference will explain itself. For those who are not 
 so familiar it may be right to mention that three members 
 of the first group (Dr. Moberly, Canon Gore, and Canon 
 Scott Holland) had been previously associated together as 
 contributors to the well-known volume of essays entitled 
 Lux Mundi. Of the Nonconformist members, Dr. Salmond 
 was representative of Scottish Presbyterianism ; Dr. Davi- 
 son was representative of the Wesleyans; Dr. Fairbairn, 
 Mr. Arnold Thomas, and Dr. Forsyth were Congregationalists : 
 but of these Dr. Fairbairn in particular was qualified by 
 widely ramifying connexions to speak for other bodies besides 
 his own. Great disappointment was felt at the absence from
 
 PREFACE ix 
 
 the Conference of Dr. Moule. Mr. Headlam, who at short 
 notice took the vacant place, did so rather as a friend of the 
 convener than as representing a particular type of opinion. 
 
 It may be allowed to one who himself took a very small 
 and neutral part in the actual discussions of the Conference 
 to say a word as to the impression made upon him, and he 
 believes also upon others, as to the course taken by the 
 Conference. The most striking feature in it seemed to be, 
 on the one hand, the propounding of a definite, coherent, 
 and comprehensive view, embracing the whole subject of 
 the Conference, by the three contributors to Lux Mundi, 
 and on the other hand, the criticism of this by others (notably 
 by Canon Bernard, Disc. iii. 13, p. 149), but mainly by the 
 Nonconformist members. Yet along with the criticism and 
 antithesis there seemed to emerge in the course of the 
 discussions not a few points of contact and conciliation. 
 
 Although, generally speaking, the agreement in the Lux 
 Mundi section was most marked, and covered the whole of 
 the main subject, a certain divergence appeared upon a 
 side issue the mode of defining or describing the ultimate 
 significance of the Atonement (Disc. ii. 38, 39, p. 131). 
 And in like manner, but more noticeably, the Nonconformist 
 criticism presented an interesting variety of shades and stand- 
 points. 
 
 It was, I believe, felt on all sides that the Conference 
 culminated, as it might have been expected to culminate, 
 in the Third Discussion. It was evident that there was 
 here a real feeling about for points of approximation, as 
 well as a real effort frankly to define points of difference 
 that was hardly less helpful 
 
 The weighty speech of Dr. Salmond at the end of this 
 discussion (iii. 58, p. 172 f.) took hold of three points in 
 particular on which there seemed to be an encouraging 
 amount of agreement. 
 
 i. The Nonconformist members were evidently struck
 
 x PREFACE 
 
 by the unqualified recognition on the other side of the 
 absolute completeness and uniqueness of Christ's work and 
 our entire dependence on it It appeared that they had 
 come with some misgivings on this head, but that in the 
 course of debate these misgivings had been removed. The 
 language used was indeed both explicit and repeated (GORE, 
 ii. 8, p. 113; L 62, p. 98; MOBERLY, i. 45, 65, pp. 96, 98; 
 ii. 29, p. 129 ; SCOTT HOLLAND, Hi. 19, p. 153 ; HEADLAM, 
 ii. 15, p. 122). The expressions used by Mr. Lang (ii. 14, 
 p. 12 if.), taking up Father Puller, and by Mr. Headlam 
 (ii. 17, p. 123) were entirely consistent with this. 
 
 A step will be gained if it is distinctly understood that 
 in speaking (e.g.) of the eucharist as a sacrifice, there is 
 no intention on the part of High Churchmen to derogate 
 in the slightest degree from the sole efficacy of the one 
 Great Sacrifice. It is not regarded as having any virtue 
 in itself independently of this. 
 
 2. Another point that struck Dr. Salmond was the general 
 assertion of * the great truth of the priesthood of the Christian 
 people.' Nothing could have been more spontaneous than 
 the assurances that came from all sides of the Conference 
 on this head. The cordial acknowledgement of Dr. Salmond 
 was in response to a previous acknowledgement, not less 
 cordial, by Canon Gore (iii. 12, p. 147). Here, again, it is to 
 be hoped that the Conference may leave behind it something 
 permanent Dr. Moberly's definition of the clerical order 
 as 'ministerial organs of the Church's priesthood' was 
 generally welcomed. And Canon Gore (iiL 12, p. 148) 
 and Mr. Headlam (iii. 26, p. 161 f.) joined in an invitation 
 to Nonconformists to meet them on what might be common 
 ground. It was clear that if there were some High Church- 
 men who were in danger of losing sight of this important 
 truth, the more thoughtful members of their own party 
 were ready to do all in their power to correct them. 
 
 3. The third point noted by Dr. Salmond was the degree
 
 PREFACE xi 
 
 of agreement as to 'the real essence of the unity of the 
 Church ' the identification of this essence with the presence 
 and work of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The question how far the maxim holds, Ubi Spiritus ibi 
 ecclesia, is no doubt crucial, and in regard to this it was 
 not to be expected that all would think alike. Still it is 
 well that attention should be called to the carefully weighed 
 words of Dr. Moberly (iii. 43, p. 168). While declining, in 
 answer to Dr. Fairbairn, to accept the simple converse of 
 the proposition that the Spirit of Christ makes the Church 
 to be what it is, he guarded himself as follows : 
 
 'I do not think it would be right to say simpliciter, or 
 in the way of definition, upon earth, that where the Spirit 
 of Christ is, there is the Church. In other words, I believe 
 that, while the whole meaning of the Church is Spirit, there 
 is, none the less, such a thing as a true and proper outward 
 organization of the Church ; and that in the orderly con- 
 tinuity of that organization is the due historical expression 
 of the Spirit on earth. In respect of the status of those who 
 are separated from it, and otherwise organized, I do not 
 pronounce anything. I do not define that their position 
 is exactly this, or is exactly that. But so far as they are 
 sundered from the true historical order, I should certainly 
 not be willing to make the assertion that they were, or 
 were a portion of, the Church. At the same time, I freely 
 recognize the working of the Spirit amongst them ; I do 
 not dream of denying spiritual reality in their ministries, 
 and have, indeed, no basis for delimiting the methods or 
 possibilities of the working of the Spirit amongst those 
 whom I must still consider to be, in respect of their refusal 
 of the true organization of the body, irregular.' 
 
 It is difficult to see how one who believed that there was 
 'such a thing as a true and proper outward organization 
 of the Church' could help going as far as this; but it is 
 important to note the scrupulous care with which he restrains 
 himself from going the least step further than the premises 
 absolutely demand. If all controversialists were as careful 
 much natural soreness would be avoided.
 
 xii PREFACE 
 
 So far I have followed Dr. Salmond, and he has 
 undoubtedly singled out points of real and great moment. 
 There are perhaps two additions that may be made to his 
 list, one on a comparatively minor point, the other on 
 a point of first-rate importance, but both illustrating the 
 attitude which the members of the Conference assumed 
 towards matters of controversy, an attitude which it is to 
 be hoped may be found capable of imitation. 
 
 4. Among the points which the Conference did not 
 reach in any detail was the question of transmission in 
 relation to orders. It might have been expected that there 
 would be differences of opinion in regard to this; but the 
 noticeable thing is the stress laid on Continuity, as the 
 essential idea lying behind transmission, by those who could 
 not accept a stricter theory (see for this the conversation 
 between Dr. Fairbairn, Dr. Salmond, and Mr. Headlam, 
 with the speech of Dr. Forsyth which followed, on p. 162 ; 
 compare Dr. Fairbairn, iii. 32, p. 164, and Archdeacon Wilson, 
 
 P- 57 f-)- 
 
 5. But I am not sure that the most impressive feature 
 
 in the Conference as a whole was not the persistent effort 
 on all sides to give to the doctrines or practices contended 
 for a moral meaning; and not only a moral meaning, but 
 the very highest and most truly Christian meaning attainable. 
 The significance of this becomes the more apparent, when 
 we consider how much of the keenness of controversy has 
 at all times turned on the more or less latent suspicion 
 that opponents were aiming at objects that were really 
 immoral. We draw consequences for them that they would 
 not draw for themselves ; we press these consequences to 
 the furthest logical extreme of which they are capable ; 
 and then our indignation is roused by a picture that is 
 more than half our own creation. The process is often 
 quite honest, but none the less disastrous for the peace of 
 the world.
 
 PREFACE xiii 
 
 Against any such tendency it seems to me that the pro- 
 ceedings of this Conference are a standing protest. It is 
 not as though the effort of which I have spoken character- 
 ized one party more than another, or as though it were 
 the result of any conscious posing. It was certainly not 
 this ; it was more often felt than expressed. But no one, 
 I think, could be present at the Conference without being 
 aware that it was the deep underlying motive of every one 
 who was there. 
 
 It will of course be understood that this identity of aim 
 may admit of very different practical conclusions. There 
 was a cleft running through the Conference as to the 
 relation of the inward to the outward, and of the moral to 
 the ceremonial. The division of opinion was happily described 
 by Canon Scott Holland : 
 
 c It has been implied that the moralizing of sacrifice lies in 
 dropping the "outward" expression and in accentuating solely 
 the " inward " act of will : so that Christ's perfect sacrifice 
 is wholly inward, "of the heart." But is it not essential 
 to sacrifice that it should be the outward act by which 
 the inward intention is realized, is pledged, is sealed ? The 
 inward self-dedication only becomes sacrificial when it has 
 discovered the appropriate offering by which it can verify 
 itself. Only through attaining this expression, in outward 
 realization, does the language of sacrifice apply to it. It 
 has somewhat to offer, by which it can pledge its loyalty 
 of self-surrender : there is its relief, its reality. The pro- 
 cess by which the sacrifice is moralized is, not by dropping 
 the external offering, but by raising the moral quality of 
 that which it expresses. This can, for ever, be rising higher 
 and higher ; but always, as it rises, it will need to make 
 its external offering; and Christ completes all sacrifice 
 because He gives perfect outward expression to the inner 
 motive ' (i. 17, p. 85). 
 
 This is a plea for the acceptance of one side of the 
 alternative. It may be observed that the arguments on 
 this side, as in the extract, are in the main philosophical, 
 or a priori, turning upon the relation of inward to outward
 
 xiv PREFACE 
 
 in the nature of things ; or else historical, going to show 
 that a particular form of outward expression is historically 
 legitimated. On the other hand, the counter-arguments 
 are in the main Biblical inferences from the language, 
 or more often from the silences, of Scripture. It ought not 
 to be impossible to reach an understanding on this head, 
 at least to the extent of recognizing what follows as legiti- 
 mate inference from the fundamental principles of the 
 opposing parties. There were not wanting signs in the 
 Conference of that sympathetic appreciation of divergent 
 views which is the first condition of peace and amity. 
 
 It would not be right to speak only of the agreement 
 brought out by the Conference. I have said that in some 
 ways the strongest impression left by it was that of the 
 statement by the High Church members, and especially 
 by those who were jointly concerned in the Ltix Mundi 
 volume, of a comprehensive theory of Sacrifice and Priest- 
 hood, with the criticism of this theory, especially by the 
 Nonconformists. And I take it to be a most hopeful sign 
 that this criticism should have been so uniformly and so 
 genuinely respectful; not merely with the formal courtesy 
 of chivalrous opponents, but with the real affinity of 
 earnest Christian minds for minds earnest and Christian 
 like their own. 
 
 The touchstone of opinion on this main point may be 
 said to be Question 5 of the paper originally circulated. 
 If the answers to this question on p. 31 f. are compared 
 with each other those of Dr. Moberly and Canon Gore, on 
 the one hand, with those of Canon Bernard, Dr. Fairbairn, 
 and Dr. Salmond on the other the divergence will appear 
 at its widest. What seems to absorb into itself the very 
 essence of Christianity on the one side becomes little more 
 than a figure of speech upon the other. 
 
 The difference goes down into more fundamental regions
 
 PREFACE XV 
 
 still. It will be found, I think, most instructive to read 
 and read again and more often still, for the thought is highly 
 condensed in both cases the speech of Canon Bernard, 
 iii. 13, p. 149, and then the latter half of Dr. Moberly's, 
 iii. 7, the last paragraph on p. 142 and p. 143. There 
 is involved nothing less than one of the most searching 
 questions of modern philosophy the question as to what 
 constitutes the individual, what constitutes personality. 
 
 Outside our Conference this is a question that is attracting 
 deep attention at the present time. I may refer in particular 
 to Mr. Inge's Bampton Lectures, pp. 28-35, and to an article 
 of his in the American Journal of Theology for April, 1900, 
 
 P- 33 6 f - 
 
 A similar conception to Dr. Moberly's underlies the 
 
 speeches of Canon Gore, iii. 12, pp. 147-149, and Canon 
 Scott Holland, iii. 19 (especially what is said on p. 153). 
 
 And yet when these three speeches are studied with the 
 care which I have invited, the antithesis will be seen to be 
 somewhat mitigated. Dr. Moberly in part anticipates what 
 is urged by Canon Bernard. It further appears that both 
 Canon Scott Holland and Canon Gore allow for something 
 of what is asserted by Canon Bernard, and for the particular 
 point pressed by Mr. Arnold Thomas (p. 157, ' The Apostle's 
 Christian life had a beginning, it would seem, that was 
 not related to the Church, but directly to Christ') and by 
 Dr. Salmond (p. 166, ' I wish to say that I take absolutely 
 the opposite view, and hold that we must begin with the indi- 
 vidual believer '). I do not gather that Canon Scott Holland 
 would deny this in the sense in which it is intended, when 
 he says (p. 154) 'the soul's capacity for priesthood begins 
 at the point where, being already saved, it can lend itself 
 out to the redemptive purposes of the body. It is when 
 it has become capable of service, that it can claim to be 
 priestly.' And Canon Gore speaks to like effect (iii. 37, 
 p. 167) : { I quite admit that those who become Christians
 
 xvi PREFACE 
 
 in the belief of the heart are at first outside the body. 
 And the faith that leads them into the body comes to 
 them through the Spirit of Christ. No doubt it was the 
 awakening of the consciousness of the individual that led 
 him into the body, and that awakening was outside the 
 body. But its end was to lead him into the body.' This 
 seems to meet Canon Bernard at least halfway, while not 
 surrendering anything of the main position. 
 
 From the other side it must needs be noticed that 
 Dr. Salmond, in an important passage (iii. n, p. 146 f.), 
 treats of the 'oneness' between Christ and His disciples as 
 if it were real and something more than metaphor, though 
 metaphors are used to describe it (compare however p. 32). 
 It it much to be regretted that limits of time prevented 
 Dr. Salmond from developing his views on this subject 
 more fully. What he was able to say contains hints of 
 difference, but also, I cannot but think, elements of approxi- 
 mation to the views which he is criticizing. 
 
 Similar elements appear in the utterances of others whose 
 general attitude is critical. Thus Dr. Fairbairn, while 
 challenging on exegetical grounds the priestly attributes of 
 'the body,' nowhere, I think, challenges the idea of the 
 mystical body itself. He rather seems to assume that con- 
 ception as found in St. Paul, and to take the measure of 
 it from him. Again, Dr. Davison expressly states his agree- 
 ment with what had been said before him in regard to the 
 mystic union, though holding that this union does not join 
 Christ and His followers together in respect to priesthood 
 and sacrifice. He also says (iii. 18, p. 151): 'I know 
 that there is a line of continuity between Christ's work 
 and that of His Church, and I value it highly. But is it 
 not clear that the attempt to preserve it down the line of 
 priesthood and sacrifice has brought in disputable and even 
 mischievous elements ? ' Dr. Moberly and Canon Gore would 
 allow that it had been attended by such elements, though they
 
 PREFACE xvii 
 
 would not consider it responsible for them. Archdeacon 
 Wilson also is unstinted in his recognition of the ' mystical 
 body,' which he explains as meaning 'all humanity in so 
 far as it is animated by the Spirit of Christ' (p. 56). Still 
 closer approximation will be found in the speeches of 
 Mr. Arnold Thomas and Dr. Forsyth. The latter speaker 
 especially, while clearly marking off his own position, 
 repeatedly uses language that presents a striking resem- 
 blance to Dr. Moberly's compare for instance the two sets 
 of answers to Questions 5, 6, 7 (pp. 31-36), and the coin- 
 cidences in the speech (iii. 31, p. 163 f.). Nor should it 
 be forgotten that the remarkable language quoted from 
 Dr. Milligan on pp. 26, 27, was that of a Scottish Presby- 
 terian. I am quite aware that Dr. Milligan was a steadfast 
 defender of his own Presbyterian orders; but that is a 
 question to itself, and affects the minor premiss rather than 
 the major. It would not be too much to say that he had 
 anticipated the underlying principles of the teaching of 
 Dr. Moberly, Canon Gore, and Canon Scott Holland ; just 
 as he himself would seem to have been in much anticipated 
 by the Bampton Lectures for 1868 of Dr. Moberly's father, 
 the Bishop of Salisbury. These are pleasing signs that our 
 divisions of opinion are not simply denominational. 
 
 As I look back over our Conference the sense of its 
 importance grows upon me. 
 
 Two great opposing tendencies in the religious life of 
 our time were brought definitely to confront each other, 
 and were compared together not on the superficial plane 
 on which they meet and clash in popular antagonism, but 
 in the higher region of first principles, of theoretical develop- 
 ment and justification. How great is the contrast which 
 both sides present as viewed in these different lights! 
 
 Take, for instance, the common distorted picture of Sacer- 
 dotalism, and, in particular, of those features in it which have 
 
 b
 
 xvili PREFACE 
 
 aroused the most passionate opposition, and set them side 
 by side with the presentation of the same subject at this 
 Conference. What traces are there here of the disloyalty 
 to Christ, the rank idolatry and arrogant assumption that 
 the popular imagination has painted? Nay more, would it 
 be possible for any such tendencies to live in the spiritual 
 atmosphere which those who have really thought out their 
 beliefs on these matters are creating ? 
 
 Does not this go far to support the advice of Canon Gore 
 and Mr. Headlam already referred to? The true policy 
 for those who wish to see their country delivered from the 
 dangers of a false and corrupt Sacerdotalism is, as far as 
 they honestly can, to strengthen the hands of those whose 
 teaching is free from these vices. The whole public situation 
 would be different if the leaders of thought on all sides, instead 
 of actively or tacitly encouraging half-instructed and often 
 worse than half-instructed attacks and denunciations, would 
 themselves preach and enforce positively the best that they 
 can make their own in respect to these ideas of Priesthood 
 and Sacrifice. 
 
 And on the other hand, if I may permit myself a word 
 of address to those of my friends to whom our Conference 
 owed so much, and to whose exposition of their views 
 I myself listened with deep attention; if I might venture 
 to say a word to them it would be this. Our Conference 
 was, I conceive, no untrue reflexion of the better mind of 
 the nation towards them. They may see in it the many 
 points of contact and sympathy which that better mind, 
 even when furthest removed from themselves, still has with 
 their teaching. They are conscious of possessing a body 
 of beliefs which they hold with strong conviction, and which 
 for them is fraught with rich moral and spiritual inspiration. 
 It would not be strange if, arguing from their own experience, 
 they should think that only some wilful obstinacy prevented 
 those who cannot see eye to eye with them from doing so ;
 
 PREFACE xix 
 
 or at least, if they should regard them as deliberately 
 choosing the lower part, deliberately taking the path that 
 is cold and grey and bare, when they might be walking 
 in a land flowing with milk and honey. If they should 
 be tempted to think thus, I would ask them to remember 
 that for some minds the tests of truth are strict and stern, 
 and do not allow that to be at once accepted which is 
 most attractive and most comforting. A large part of the 
 English people has been bred upon the Bible, and refers 
 all its religious beliefs ultimately to that. For them it is 
 not enough that a particular set of opinions should be 
 deduced by way of inference and construction from the 
 Bible, if they are not clearly and explicitly contained in it ; 
 still less if the acceptance of such opinions seems to disturb 
 the balance and proportion of those that are contained in 
 it clearly and explicitly. And for others whose standards 
 of truth may be somewhat less restricted, there may never- 
 theless be a necessity, which is as severe in its operation, 
 to harmonize the whole body of that which they accept as 
 true, from whatever source derived, and so make it their 
 own as to confess it with a sincerity that has no reserves. 
 Such minds may be haunted by the fear that they may 
 be taking a beautiful mirage for reality, a sunlit vision 
 which would be everything if it had the substance of truth. 
 If my friends of the Right would bear in mind as I know 
 that they do bear the existence of these two classes, I think 
 that they would be very patient in their judgements, even 
 when they found themselves the object of some opposition. 
 Wisdom is justified of all her children, although they may 
 be trained in different schools, and although some may wear 
 the garb of an intellectual and even of a spiritual 
 asceticism. 
 
 W. SANDAY. 
 
 CHRIST CHURCH, 
 July, 1900.
 
 PRELIMINARIES 
 
 PRELIMINARY negotiations with a view to the proposed 
 Conference went on through the Long Vacation of 1899. 
 A short sketch of these will be found in the Report of the 
 Conference (p. 64 ff. below). The changes that took place in 
 the list of members of the Conference are there explained. 
 When the preliminaries had been sufficiently settled, the 
 following letter, with the appended paper of Questions, was 
 sent out on November 6. 
 
 CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD, 
 
 November ft, 1899. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 / have the pleasure to inform you that the Conference in 
 which you have expressed your willingness to take part is now 
 constituted as follows : 
 
 FATHER PULLER (Society of St. John ARCHDEACON WILSON (Rochdale). 
 
 the Evangelist, CowleySt.John*}. DR. RYLE (Cambridge). 
 
 DR. MOBERLY (Oxford}. DR. MOULE (Cambridge). 
 
 CANON GORE ( Westminster). CANON E. R. BERNARD (Salisbury}. 
 
 CANON SCOTT-HOLLAND (St.Pauts). DR. SANDAY (Oxford). 
 
 REV. C. G. LANG (Portsea). DR. FAIRBAIRN (Oxford). 
 
 1 The addresses have been added. 
 B
 
 2 PRELIMINARIES 
 
 DR. S ALMOND (Aberdeen). DR. BARRETT (Norwich). 
 
 DR. DAVISON (Handsworth). DR. FORSYTE (Cambridge). 
 
 It is proposed to meet on Wednesday and Thursday, 
 December 13 and 14. There will probably be three sittings of 
 two and a half hours each ; but more exact particulars will be 
 sent round later. 
 
 In the meantime it is thought that a step in advance would 
 be made if the members of the Conference would be so good as 
 to answer in writing such of the enclosed Questions as they may 
 think well. It would not be expected that every question should 
 be answered. The replies may be as concise as possible. At the 
 present stage argument would not be necessary, but precise 
 statements and definitions would be welcomed. 
 
 References would be enough where Biblical authority is 
 appealed to. It might also facilitate future discussion if 
 references were given to works in which points which it was 
 desired to bring forward are fully elaborated. 
 
 Replies may be given by the members singly or in 
 concert. They should be sent to me not later than Thursday, 
 November 23. They shall then be tabulated and sent round 
 with a Time-table of the Conference. 
 
 Believe me, 
 
 Yours very truly \ 
 
 W. SANDAY. 
 
 The Questions circulated with this Letter were these: 
 
 i. Is it possible to define the idea of Sacrifice 
 
 (a) in religion in general ; 
 
 (b) in the O. T. (history, prophecy, and worship) ; 
 
 (c) in the N. T. ?
 
 2. Is there 
 
 (a) a generic idea of Priesthood ; and if so, what are 
 the elements and functions necessary to it ? 
 
 (b) a specific Christian idea ; and if so, what are its 
 specific characters? 
 
 3. What was the Teaching of our Lord Himself 
 
 (a) as to the priestly idea ; 
 
 (b) as to His own Priesthood and Sacrifice ; 
 
 (c) as to any perpetuation and transmission of these in 
 His Church? 
 
 4. What is the Apostolic teaching 
 
 (a) as to the Sacrifice of Christ ; 
 
 (b) as to His Priesthood ; 
 
 (c) as to the Priesthood of His people ; 
 
 (d) as to the relation of this Priesthood, if there be any, 
 to His, and to His Sacrifice? 
 
 5. What relation has the idea of the Church as the 
 Mystical Body of Christ to the ideas of His Priesthood 
 and Sacrifice? 
 
 6. Does the idea of Priesthood applied to the Church reside 
 in the whole body collectively, or in the whole body ideally, 
 or in individual members of the body ? 
 
 7. Can there be any delegation of the functions of this 
 Priesthood ? 
 
 8. If there is such delegation, how does it affect 
 
 (a) those to whom the functions are delegated ; 
 
 (b) those to whom they are not delegated ? 
 
 Is the Priesthood of the Church affected by the delegation? 
 
 9. What is the fundamental signification of the Laying on 
 of Hands ? Does it involve Transmission? And if so, what 
 is transmitted ? 
 
 B 2
 
 4 PRELIMINARIES 
 
 10. What was the original authority of the Apostles? Has 
 that authority in any way descended to those who came after 
 them? 
 
 11. Supposing that there are some to whom the functions 
 of Priesthood belong in a sense in which they do not belong 
 to others, should not a distinction be drawn between the 
 historical question as to the process by which this condition 
 of things has arisen, and the theoretical question as to the 
 place which it holds in the whole Christian economy? How 
 are the historical and the theoretic questions related to each 
 other ? 
 
 12. What parts of the historical problem at the present 
 moment seem most to need further elucidation ? 
 
 13. Of what parts of the theoretical problem may the same 
 be said ? 
 
 14. If there is a Ministerial Priesthood under the New 
 Covenant, can it rightly be described as a Sacrificing 
 Priesthood ? 
 
 15. How far is the Early Church to be determinative to-day 
 of the questions discussed under above heads, and what are 
 the limits which we ought to assign to the determinative 
 period?
 
 II 
 
 STATEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS 
 
 THE Answers received to the above Questions were sent 
 round a few days before the meeting of the Conference. In 
 place of set Answers a Memorandum was circulated privately 
 among the Members of the Conference by Archdeacon Wilson, 
 which will be found on p. 51 ff. 
 
 1. IB it possible to define the idea of Sacrifice (a) in 
 religion in general ; (b) in the O. T. (history, prophecy, 
 and worship); (c) in the N. T. ? 
 
 FATHER PULLER. (b} Under the dispensation of the Sinaitic 
 covenant, a sacrifice appears to have been a gift offered to 
 Almighty God, with the object of either appeasing His 
 just indignation, or of expressing and presenting to Him 
 homage or gratitude, or of impetrating from Him some 
 favour. Looked at from another point of view, sacrifices 
 were gifts offered to God with the object of bringing 
 those, on behalf of whom they were offered, into fellowship 
 with God, or of restoring that fellowship when it had 
 been in any degree suspended, or of maintaining and 
 strengthening, and symbolizing and exercising, such fellow- 
 ship, when it remained intact. 
 
 (c) Under the Gospel dispensation Christ's sacrificial 
 work, both in the state of humiliation and in the state 
 of glory, absolutely fulfils all that was sketched by the 
 sacrifices under the law ; and His Church is permitted to 
 join with Him in His heavenly offering, and in union 
 with Him to present His heavenly Sacrifice and herself
 
 6 STATEMENTS [l a, b, C 
 
 as found in Him, for purposes of worship and thanksgiving, 
 and for the impetration of pardon and grace and other 
 gifts natural and supernatural. 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. It is only possible to reach real definitions 
 retrospectively: i.e. as the revelation of Christ lights up 
 the earlier inadequate efforts and meanings. 
 
 Sacrifice =(a) an offering to a god with dim germinal 
 
 mode of access ; 
 
 instincts as to 
 
 communion 
 
 atonement. 
 
 (b} the same to God with definite, and 
 differentiated, expression of the same 
 three elements. 
 
 * (c) the living consecration, in perfect love, 
 
 of perfect holiness, to consummate 
 human penitence. 
 
 CANON GORE. (a) ' The presenting of anything before a 
 god with a view to communion with him.' 
 
 But (c) for us Christians the norm of sacrifice is in 
 Christ. Therefore I define Sacrifice (at its highest) as 
 ' The offering to the Father of the perfect manhood by 
 the perfect man with a view to divine fellowship for 
 man V 
 
 [N.B. The N.T. conception of sacrifice involves the 
 position that the acceptable sacrifice is of persons, and of 
 things or rites only as adjuncts of persons.] 
 
 CANON BERNARD. (a) Gifts to supernatural powers in order 
 to express dependence and obtain favour. 
 
 (b) In the O. T. (as well as in some other religions) 
 the sense of sin increasingly realized, requires a special 
 character in these gifts in some cases. 
 
 1 I omit any consideration of non-human sacrifice, e. g. of an eternal 
 sacrifice in the Godhead.
 
 1 a, b, c] AND DEFINITIONS 7 
 
 (c) The place given to the idea of sacrifice in some 
 parts of the N.T. is in a measure due to ' accommodation,' 
 on the part of the writers, to the religious training of Jew 
 and Gentile which by Divine providence had preceded the 
 Gospel. 
 
 DR. SAND AY. There are three root-ideas in Sacrifice which 
 appear to be constant throughout : (i) the idea of gift, 
 tribute, propitiatory offering ; (ii) the idea of communion 
 through the sacrificial meal ; and (iii) in either case, 
 solemn presentation to God. 
 
 (a) In their origin all these ideas go back to pre- 
 historic times : (i) is a simple and natural anthropomor- 
 phism ; (ii) belongs to the very primitive cycle of ideas 
 relating to ' kinship,' which extends to the tribal deity as 
 well as to fellow-tribesmen. 
 
 But, as in so many other examples, what begins as 
 something apparently crude and low-pitched is found 
 to have an unexpected profundity and capacity for 
 development, so that it rises in the end to a high degree 
 of moral refinement and perfection. This is a testimony 
 to the Divine unity which underlies and binds together 
 the gradual unfolding of thought and life. 
 
 On Pre-historic Sacrifice, see Jevons, Introduction to the History of 
 Religion, and Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites. It is argued 
 that of the ideas mentioned above, (ii) is prior to (i), because the idea 
 of kinship is earlier than that of property. 
 
 (6) Thus in O. T. there is a gradual moralizing of 
 the whole conception of sacrifice. The best gift man 
 can offer is the moral discipline of self (Isa. i. 11-17; 
 Mic. vi. 6-8; Ps. Ii. 17, &c.). 
 
 The elaborate ceremonial of the Day of Atonement 
 is probably late, but corresponds to a deepened con- 
 sciousness of sin, and is prophetic of the need of a supreme 
 Sacrifice.
 
 8 STATEMENTS [l a, b, c 
 
 There is no necessary antithesis between the ceremonial and the moral. 
 Ideally speaking, the ceremonial and the moral shonld be different but 
 harmonious expressions of the same fundamental spirit. The prophets 
 aimed at reforming this spirit, not at abolishing sacrifice altogether. To 
 abolish sacrifice before the coming of Christ would have been to interrupt 
 its standing witness to Him. 
 
 (c) In N.T. the exalted form which sacrifice takes 
 should not obscure its ultimate continuity with the low 
 beginnings. There, too, we have sacrifice as gift or 
 tribute, sacrifice as propitiation, sacrifice as the sacra- 
 mental meal. (See under 3 and 4.) 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. (a) The idea of Sacrifice depends through- 
 out on the idea of religion. If religion be taken in the 
 concrete sense of the historical religions, it is hardly 
 possible to reach a generic idea of Sacrifice ; for, in 
 certain of the greatest, Sacrifice is an unknown idea, 
 and in no two of those which possess it is the idea pre- 
 cisely the same ; while in each it differs in the different 
 stages of culture which the religion passes through. 
 
 If religion be taken in an abstract sense, the idea must 
 agree with ideas more ultimate and determinative than 
 itself, especially with the conception of God on the one 
 hand and of man on the other. In other words, we must 
 ascertain (a) the terms on which the religion conceives that 
 God is willing to enter into communion with man, and 
 to save him ; (/3) how far man's actual condition renders 
 him capable or incapable of fulfilling these terms ; and 
 (y) if he be unable, by what means or agency he may 
 be enabled to do so. 
 
 A definition of the idea of Sacrifice is therefore 
 impossible without prior definition of the ideas on which 
 it rests, of the end it proposes to attain, and of its 
 fitness as means to this end. We had better then post- 
 pone any attempt to define this idea to a later point 
 in the inquiry. 
 
 (b) Under this head we need not class those sacrifices
 
 1 b] AND DEFINITIONS 9 
 
 that had a more or less bodily form ; such as deprivation 
 of personal adornment, abstention from pleasures, or the 
 practice of asceticism ; though these were not unknown 
 in the O. T., and were judged by certain persons or parties 
 as of singular religious merit. But to limit ourselves to 
 what seem references to the sacrificial idea, taken in the 
 stricter sense, it may be said that in its older forms 
 Sacrifice appears to have been quite independent of a 
 priest or a priesthood, or of any place consecrated by 
 him or sacred to it (Gen. iv. 3-5, viii. 20-21, xxxi. 54, 
 xlvi. i ; Judges vi. 19-32, xiii. 19-21 ; Job i. 5). 
 
 But the idea undergoes, in the O. T., several re- 
 markable transformations, (a) In the historical books, 
 Sacrifice appears as an offering, agreeable to God, 
 but costly to man, of a victim now human (Gen. xxii. 
 1-19; Judges xi. 34-40), now animal (Judges vi. 26; 
 Exod. x. 25 ; Joshua xxii. 26-29), now of fruits and now 
 of wine (Gen. xiv. 18); and meant either to secure the 
 favour of Deity, or to express the gratitude of man, to 
 seal a covenant (Gen. xv. 9) or to expiate a real or 
 possible sin (i Sam. iii. 14). (/3) In the Levitical worship 
 the idea and practice of Sacrifice have been worked into 
 a ritual system which expresses now the thankful and 
 now the guilty consciousness of the collective people, or 
 some of its constituent parts, and which seeks to secure 
 the divine favour and forgiveness. Here Sacrifice has 
 practically ceased to be occasional and spontaneous, and 
 has become stated and regulated, incorporated in a worship 
 which tends to be co-extensive, and indeed identical with 
 the religion. It deserves to be noted that the decalogue 
 has nothing in it concerning Sacrifice or any worship 
 in which it plays a part. And while it was incorporated 
 in the Levitical system, it is doubtful whether that system 
 was ever more than an ideal, or, so far as it did attain 
 realization, whether it was ever accepted by many of the
 
 STATEMENTS ' [l b, c 
 
 . 
 most religious men in Israel as either integral to their 
 
 religion or necessary to its existence. 
 
 And so (y) we find that, in the main current of 
 "prophetic literature, the ceremonial or ritual practice 
 is either thrown into the background or made second - 
 
 Mary to obedience and a pure heart (Isa. i. 11-14; 
 Mic. vi. 6-8 ; Amos v. 2 1-22 ; Hos. vi. 6 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; 
 vii. 21-23 5 P f ov. xxi. 3, 27 ; Ps. li. 16-17, xxiv. 4) : while 
 
 the sacrifices enjoined become personal and ethical, 
 
 j 
 
 the act of reconciliation being initiated by the mercy 
 of God and conditioned on the repentance and obedience 
 of man. And as the highest and most perfect example 
 
 *; .* 
 
 of Sacrifice and Mediation of this new and higher type, 
 
 we have the Suffering Servant of God in Isaiah, who 
 
 though a sacrifice and an offering for sin, is quite without 
 
 //,' v f anv sacerdotal attributes or denomination. He neither 
 
 bears the priestly name nor fills any priestly office, 
 
 ** -but is rather a sacrifice which no priest offers ; and he 
 
 accomplishes a mediation higher and more inward than 
 
 any outward sacrifice had either achieved or symbolized. 
 
 (c) In the N. T. we must distinguish historical from 
 doctrinal and ethical interpretations of Sacrifice. Historical 
 references to the O. T. idea or custom occur as in 
 Luke ii. 23-24, xiii. i ; Acts vii. 41-42 ; but their impo- 
 tence is specially emphasized (Heb. ix. 9-10, x. 1-4), 
 and their insufficiency as a means of placating God 
 (Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7 ; Mark xii. 33 ; Heb. x. 8). 
 
 We have, therefore, to note the following positive facts : 
 Sacrifices as understood in the Hebrew ritual completely 
 disappear from the worship of the Christian people, nor 
 is any provision made for any persons qualified to do any 
 corresponding sacrificial acts : neither is there any com- 
 mand expressed as to the need for their observance, nor is 
 anything said as to times or places or occasions where 
 they may be, or where they ought to be, offered. On
 
 la, b, c] AND DEFINITIONS II 
 
 the contrary, the only sacrifices which the N. T. speaks 
 of as agreeable to God, and as accepted of Him, are 
 ethical, i.e. the spiritual counterparts or antitypes of 
 those whose inefficiency has been emphasized (Rom. xii. i ; 
 Phil. ii. 17, iv. 1 8 ; Heb. xiii. 15-16 ; i Pet. ii. 5). This, of 
 course, is exclusive of the teaching as to the Sacrifice 
 of Christ, which stands by itself, and at once fulfils and 
 ends all the ceremonial sacrifices of Sacred History. But 
 of this something must be said later. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. (a) This question suggests much that we 
 have not yet the materials to determine. It is doubtful 
 whether we can go beyond the general idea of an offering 
 to God, an idea taking different forms in different races, 
 and at different times. 
 
 (b] The ideas of gift, expiation, and communion or life- 
 fellowship appear in the O.T., but in different degrees of 
 
 prominence in different parts. 
 
 (c) The same ideas appear in the N.T., the primary 
 idea, however, being that of Christ's sacrifice as an 
 offering of positive efficacy in relation to sin. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. (a) Sacrifice in religion in general is an 
 offering to God in worship of that which implies self- 
 denial in the offerer. 
 
 (b) The sacrificial ideas embodied in O. T. ceremonial 
 expiatory, dedicatory, eucharistic, &c. do not admit 
 of generalization and succinct definition. 
 
 (c) In N.T. the word covers fundamentally different 
 ideas, according to whether it be applied to Christ or 
 the Christian. In the former case it is propitiatory, in the 
 latter self-dedicatory; a confusion between these senses 
 is fatal. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. (b) Sacrifice in O.T. was first something shared 
 by man with God as a meal, next something surrendered
 
 12 STATEMENTS [l, b, c 
 
 by man to God, and lastly this gift as symbolic of the 
 surrender of the self in righteousness. It was in nature 
 collective more than individual, and replaced the individual 
 in the community of grace, when by his sin he had fallen 
 from it. For high-handed and defiant sin, sacrifice did 
 not avail, and there remained only judgement. O.T. 
 sacrifice lay not in the alienation of a thing but in the 
 submission of self. It did not procure grace, but fulfilled 
 the provision of grace. 
 
 (c] These features pass into the N.T., and Christ's 
 sacrifice is essentially one of will in obedience. It is 
 corporate in nature. It combined both the judgement 
 on sin and the offering for it. So He dealt finally with 
 all sin and absorbed all sacrifice. 
 
 The following note has been communicated by DR. DRIVER. 
 
 Words for Sacrifice. The usual Heb. word for 'to sacrifice' is 
 zabah, 'to slaughter' (see, of profane slaughtering, Deut. xii. 15, 21), 
 hence zebah, ' a slaughtering,' or, by usage, ' a sacred slaughtering,' or 
 ' sacrifice ' (often specially of the ' peace- ' or ' thank-offering '), mizbeah, 
 ' a place of slaughtering,' ' an altar ' (the usual word). 'dsdA, ' to do," 
 an idiomatic usage, akin probably to that of the same word in the sense of 
 ' dressing ' food (see Gen. xviii. 7,851 Kings xviii. 23, 25, 26), is also 
 used. 
 
 Burnt-offering, 'oldh, ' that which goes up ' (most prob. on the altar, opp. 
 to sacrifices such as the ' peace '-offering, of which large portions were 
 consumed by offerer or priest : according to others, up to heaven, in 
 ' sweet smoke '), Lev. i. 
 
 Peace-, or thank-offering (shelem, shelamim : the explanation is uncertain, 
 and there are good authorities for both peace and thank [the vb. means 
 ' to be whole,' hence a state of wholeness, peace (between those sharing 
 in the accompanying meal) : trans, in the conjug. ' to make whole,' 
 hence to requite or pay wholly (as in the phrase, to ' pay vows '), render 
 one's due, and so a ' thank-offering ' : it is not certain which sense 
 should be adopted]), Lev. iii. The characteristic of this was the 
 common meal accompanying it; cf. Lev. vii. 15, 16, xxii. 30. 
 Sin-offering (Ao#afA),Lev. iv. I v. 13 (the word is derived from hate?, 
 
 ' to sin ' the regular word). 
 
 Guilt- offering (as&am), enjoined chiefly for cases of fraud, and accom- 
 panied by repayment of amount embezzled + , Lev. v. 14 vi. 7. 
 (The word means guilt, as Gen. xxvi. 10; the cogn. verb 'to be guilty,' 
 or ' be found guilty,' bear the consequences of guilt, Hos. x. 2, &c.)
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 13 
 
 MeaUoffering (or better, cereal offering), minhah (Lev. ii). This means 
 properly a present, esp. one made to secure or retain good- will (there 
 are other words to express the neutral idea of 'gift'), Gen. xxxii. 13, 
 18, 20, 21 (to Esau), xliii. n, 15, 25, 26 (to Joseph), Jnd. iii. 15, 
 a Kings viii. 8, 9, xx. 12, Ps. xlv. 12, offered, as something expected, 
 by a political subject, 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, i Kings iv. 21, &c. : then it is 
 used of a tribute offered to God, both generally (including animals), 
 Gen. iv. 3, 4 (Abel's), 5, i Sam. xxvi. 19, as well as in the special 
 sense of the cereal offering (so always in the Levitical system). This 
 double application of the term minhah sometimes causes ambiguity. 
 
 The broad distinctions between zebah and minhah are that the z. 
 consisted of an animal, and the m. (in later times exclusively) was 
 vegetable; and that the z. was accompanied by a meal implying 
 communion with the deity (I do not know that this is anywhere stated, 
 though it is, no doubt, probable), and that the m. was of the nature of 
 a gift to secure the deity's goodwill. See esp. on this W. R. Smith, 
 Rel. Sem., 199-207, 218-225 (ed. 2, 216-224, 236-243); and Wellhansen, 
 Hist., 71, 72. 
 
 The burnt-offering does not seem to have been often offered anciently 
 alone, except on unusual occasions : it is frequently mentioned in combi- 
 nation with the zebahim or sheldmim. 
 
 Asham and hattdth are rare, zabah is used in a figurative or spiritual 
 sense, Ps. 1. 14, 23, ' sacrifice thanksgiving.' 
 
 Passages in which eating, or a meal, is associated with a zebah : 
 Gen. xxxi. 54 (in concluding a covenant ; cf. v. 46), Ex. xviii. 12, xxxii. 6, 
 xxxiv. 15 (Canaan.), Num. xxv. 2 (Moab.), Deut. xxvii-7 (peace-offerings), 
 i Sam. ix. 13, Ps. cvi. 28 (idolatrous) : notice also Jud. xvi. 23-25 (ver. 25 
 implies a feast}; and cf. Deut. xii. 7, 18 ('to eat before J.'), xv. 19 
 (firstlings). 
 
 To eat and drink, or to eat alone, to be understood prob. similarly : 
 Exod. xxiv. 10, Jud.ix. 27, Amos ii. 8, Ps.xxii. 26, 29 : note also the articles 
 of food in i Sam. i. 24, x. 3, carried by persons going up to a sanctuary. 
 Also 'eating on the mountains' in Ezek. xviii. 6, n, 15, xxii. 9. 
 
 The sacrifice accompanied by a meal ( =the later ' peace '-offering) must 
 have been once the most ordinary kind of sacrifice ; and hence it came to 
 be denoted, KO.T' ((oxhv, by zebah, a ' slaughtering.' 
 
 There is much confusion in A.V. and R.V. in the use of the words offer, 
 offering, oblation ; and they each stand, unfortunately, for several very 
 different words in the Hebrew. 
 
 The expression offering (sometimes sacrifice) made by fire (Deut. xviii. I ; 
 and often in P) represents one word in the Heb. (as though a ' firing '). 
 
 Zabah, zebah are commonly rendered sacrifice; but our idea of 'sacrifice* 
 (as I should understand it) is wider than zabah. The (Levitical) minhah 
 was, I suppose, what we should call a ' sacrifice,' though zabah, ' to 
 slaughter,' could not be used of it. The more neutral word which Heb. 
 would use in such cases is hiqrlb, ' to bring near, present' (R.V. ' offer,' 
 ' present '), Lev. i. 2, 3, 10, &c. : also of other gifts than sacrifices, as
 
 14 STATEMENTS [l, 2 a, b 
 
 Num. vii. a, 3, 10, II. The cognate subst is the familiar corban, of 
 sacrifices, Lev. i. a, 3, 10, 14, &c., and of other gifts, Num. vii. 3, 10, u, 
 and often in this chap, (the word occurs only in P and Ezek. xx. 28, xl. 43, 
 R.V. always oblation [which however stands also for other words], except 
 Ezek. xx. 28 offering). 
 
 The definition of sacrifice is difficult I doubt if the Hebrews had any 
 term exactly co-extensive with our ' sacrifice.' Applying our idea of 
 ' sacrifice ' to the regular and recognized sacrificial system of the Hebrews 
 (whether in earlier or later ages), I should say it was something offered 
 to the deity, of which the whole (substantially) or a part was consumed 
 on the altar. The part consumed was the issheh, or ' firing.' 
 
 On ancient Arab. Sacrifice, see Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heid. t 
 pp. 112-115, 167 (ed. a, pp. 114-120, 143). A slaughtered animal is 
 here also the principal sacrifice ; but nothing is said of a fire, or burning, 
 on the altar : the blood is simply poured over a sacred stone (cf. i Sam. 
 xiv. 33-35). The flesh of the sacrifice was generally eaten at a common 
 meal. 
 
 2. Is there (a) & generic idea of Priesthood ; and if so, 
 what are the elements and functions necessary to it? 
 (b} a specific Christian idea ; and if so, what are its specific 
 characters ? 
 
 FATHER PULLER. (a) Omitting the imperfect and partially 
 distorted conceptions of the heathen, it seems to me 
 that, according to the law of the old covenant, a priest 
 was one who had been chosen and appointed by God to 
 draw nigh to Him in some special way, that he might 
 offer sacrifices to Him, and transact with Him on behalf 
 of His people, and convey to the people certain gifts 
 from God, such as cleansing and blessing. [N.B. I have 
 mentioned what seem to me to be the most prominent 
 functions of priesthood, but my definition does not 
 pretend to be exhaustive.] 
 
 (b) The idea of priesthood, outlined in the O. T., is 
 perfectly fulfilled by our Lord in the life of glory ; but 
 in every respect His Priesthood is, both in itself and 
 in its effects, on an infinitely higher level than was the 
 Priesthood under the Law.
 
 2 a, b] AND DEFINITIONS 15 
 
 Christ exercises His Priesthood in heaven in His own 
 Person. He exercises it on earth in and through His 
 Church. To use Dr. Milligan's words : ' The Church 
 of Christ is a sacerdotal or priestly institution. Sacer- 
 dotalism, priestliness, is the prime element of her being ' 
 (Expositor, 3rd series, ix. 200). In the Church there 
 is a priesthood which belongs to the whole body, and 
 there is a priesthood which belongs to each member in 
 particular. Christ's Apostolic ministers in their various 
 orders are, within the limits appointed for each order, 
 the normal organs for exercising the priestly functions 
 which belong to the body. 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. (a) The 'generic' idea is merely the dim, 
 unrealized feeling after what Christianity brings to light 
 and consciousness. 
 
 (b} In the Christian revelation Priest and Sacrifice are 
 so identified that the definition of the one (just given) 
 really covers the other. 
 
 CANON GORE. (a] Heb. v. i will serve as a definition. 
 
 (b) In Christ, priest and sacrifice coalesce. The perfect 
 Man, consecrated by God, offers Himself, on behalf of 
 His brethren, to the Father, in order to reconcile the 
 world to the Father. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. (a) To represent man to God. Elements 
 necessary are a knowledge of the needs of man, and 
 of the character of God. 
 
 (b} In the wide sense given above we may say that 
 there is a Christian Priesthood, which is exercised towards 
 God on behalf of the congregation by persons ' lawfully 
 chosen and called.' But the work of the Christian 
 Ministry towards man as Rulers, Pastors, and Teachers 
 is not a priestly work, and the endeavour to represent it 
 as such only tends to the confusion of two distinct ideas.
 
 16 STATEMENTS [2 a, b 
 
 DR. SANDAY. (a) The leading idea of Priesthood appears to 
 be consecration for liturgical service, especially sacrifice. 
 This sense seems to be constant, though the nature of 
 the service and the matter of the sacrifice vary with 
 the phase of religion to which they belong. 
 
 Dr. Milligan defines the functions of Priesthood as : (i) offering ; 
 (ii) intercession, in a wide sense, by confession, prayer, or praise; 
 (iii) blessing (Expositor, 1889, i. 19 f.). These functions are all 
 liturgical. 
 
 In O. T. and in many other religions the priest also 
 communicates the will of God by oracular response, and 
 is commissioned to teach. 
 
 (b) Is it not well to distinguish between the acts or 
 functions proper to Priesthood and its motive or animating 
 spirit ? The acts or functions are the presenting to God 
 oT worship or sacrifice. The animating spirit is that 
 which the worship or sacrifice is intended to express. 
 
 The Christian Priesthood thus corresponds to Christian 
 worship and the Christian sacrifice, which should be 
 modelled upon the Sacrifice of Christ 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. (a) It is as little possible to formulate *a 
 generic idea of Priesthood ' as to define ' the idea of Sacrifice 
 in religion in general.' There is no term more vaguely 
 used, or more frequently used to denote, if not contra- 
 dictory, yet different and even incompatible conceptions. 
 If, however, we take the Levitical usage as determining 
 our idea, we may define the priesthood as a community 
 of men endowed with the threefold function of mediation, 
 expiation, and absolution : or as an order of men qualified 
 by descent, appointment, and consecration, (a) to stand 
 between God and man ; (ft] to offer the worship at once 
 becoming man and agreeable to God, especially in the high 
 acts and articles of presenting to God the sacrifice which 
 expiated sin, and (y) to bring to man the assurance that he 
 was forgiven. The priest did not create the sacrifice. In
 
 2 a] AND DEFINITIONS 17 
 
 Israel, as in other religions, it was older than he. But 
 he gave it a more definite character and function; he 
 introduced exactness and proportion into the relations 
 of God and man ; he could assure man that what was done 
 through him and according to his laws pleased God, and 
 that the God he pleased was sure to forgive. The priest 
 thus became necessary to the sacrifice as expiatory, for in 
 his hands it became a means efficient for its end ; and as 
 the person who secured its efficacy, he also was the person 
 who garnered and attested its results. These, then, were 
 the three functions of the priest in the Levitical System, 
 mediation, expiation, and absolution. The first function 
 was realized in the second, and perfected in the third. 
 Without the sacrifice there could be no efficient media- 
 tion, and without absolution there was no efficacy in the 
 mediation and sacrifice. These, then, made a whole, and 
 were the inseparable constituents of the priestly idea. 
 
 Now it seems to me as if we must at the very outset 
 define what we mean by the terms ' priest ' and ' priest- 
 hood.' Do we conceive the Christian priest as fulfilling 
 any or all of the above functions? Do we hold any or 
 all of the Levitical elements as in any sense or degree 
 necessary to the Christian priesthood ? By what process, 
 involving what manner of change, have 'priest' and 'priest- 
 hood ' been naturalized in the Christian Church ? In 
 what respect does the priest differ from the minister or 
 the preacher ? And by what special quality or act is his 
 mediation distinguished from theirs? What place in 
 particular have expiation and absolution in his office and 
 mediation? And whence does he derive his authority 
 to fulfil these functions ? 
 
 Until we know with some degree of precision the 
 positions to be maintained, we can neither know what 
 evidence may be needed to prove or disprove them, nor 
 the respects in which we agree and in which we differ. 
 
 C
 
 i8 STATEMENTS [2 a, b 
 
 (b) The need of definition becomes the more im- 
 perative when we find there is nothing that can be 
 called ' a specific Christian idea ' of the priesthood. 
 There is indeed in the N.T. (Heb. v. 1-6) a definition of 
 High-priesthood, with special reference to Christ's ; but 
 none of priesthood as exercised by the Christian man 
 or Church. The two necessary conditions for the office 
 of High-priesthood are (i) taken from among men, 
 (ii) called of God. Its special functions are (i) to act 
 for man in things pertaining to God, and (ii) to offer 
 gifts and sacrifices for sins. But this High-priesthood as 
 predicated of Christ stands in antithesis to the Levitical ; 
 first, as belonging to an order which was before it and 
 above it ; secondly, as being His own solely, participated 
 in by no other ; and so, thirdly, through His eternal life, 
 there is involved His eternal continuance as priest. And 
 His one and eternal priesthood implies that His Sacrifice 
 is also one and eternal. 
 
 But if sacrifices have ceased, how can the priesthood 
 continue ? Has not Christ by ending Sacrifice absorbed 
 into Himself the functions of priesthood ? Certainly if 
 any one affirms that the office of the priesthood still 
 continues, the onus probandi must be wholly his. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. (a) That of drawing near to God, and with 
 the particular function of doing that for others. So 
 especially in the O.T. 
 
 (3) The Christian idea is the same, with the special 
 note that Christ's Priesthood is the only one by which 
 men have access to God. See also 3. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. (a) Generically, Priesthood implies an order 
 intermediary between God and men in religious worship. 
 In O.T. sundry ideas attach to it, e.g. (i) Divine appoint- 
 ment, (a) special consecration, (3) representative or
 
 2 a, b] AND DEFINITIONS 19 
 
 vicarious character, (4) medium of approach or trans- 
 mission of blessing, &c. 
 
 (b) There is no ' specific Christian idea ' which can be 
 understood to include Christ and His Church (ministers 
 and people) in one common category. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. (a) (i) Representative ; (2,) Mediatorial ; 
 (3) Sacrificial in its nature. 
 
 (b) Yes ; in Christianity it is primarily personal, i.e. 
 turns on a quality or attitude of heart and will. It is 
 a matter of character not of institution, of person not of 
 office. The power to make any sacrifice pleasing to God 
 depends on the prior sacrifice to Him of heart and will 
 in the sacrificing subject. Nothing but a personal priest- 
 hood is connate or congenial with the Priesthood of Christ, 
 whose essence was the sacrifice of the will in the obedience 
 of faith. 
 
 The following note has been communicated by DR. DRIVER. 
 
 The Heb. word for priest is Kohen, in form a partic. of kdhan, 
 though the verb is not in use. In Arab, the corresponding word Kdhin 
 means a diviner (e.g. Qor. lii. 29), more exactly, one in whom later 
 (apparently) a jinn, originally a deity, spoke, and who was his organ 
 (Wellhausen, Reste, pp. 130, 133; ed. 2, pp. 129-136). The Kdhin 
 was often consulted before an undertaking, to see whether he would 
 advise or dissuade. The Arab. Kdhin was primarily the guardian of the 
 house, if at least there was a house (or image, &c.) at the sacred place : 
 where this was not the case, there was no Kdhin ; he was not needed to 
 perform sacrifice at a sacred stone, and even the sacred lot could be cast 
 without him, though it was usual for him to take charge of the lots, and 
 to receive a fee for the use of them (Wellh., p. 128 f.; ed. 2, p. 133). The 
 office was usually hereditary in particular families. 
 
 The Heb. and Arab, words correspond exactly, so that they must have 
 some common origin. Most prob. the Kdhin orig. gave the oracles and 
 judicial decisions, in the name of a deity, at a sanctuary ; and a fundamental 
 function of the Heb. Kohen was just the giving of torah, or ' direction,' 
 in the name of J. : the Kdhin gradually sank his connexion with the 
 sanctuary, and became a mere diviner; the Kohen grew in importance, 
 and acquired sacrificial and other functions (cf. Wellh., pp. 132-4 ; ed. 2, 
 PP- J 34> J 43)- [O n tne priestly function of giving tordh, see ray Joel 
 and Amos, p. 230, with the passages quoted : and add Exod. xviii. 16, 20 
 
 c a
 
 20 STATEMENTS [2, 3 C 
 
 early passage which represents the decisions given by Moses on 
 secular disputes as the statutes and 'directions' of God (torotK).'] 
 
 Functions of priests in the O. T. : 
 i. To give torah (Deut. xvii. 10, n, xxiv. 8, xxxiii. 10 ; obs. how even in 
 
 a late passage, 2 Chron. xv. 3, a ' directing priest ' is a phrase which 
 
 naturally occurs). 
 
 ii. To bear the ark (Deut. x. 8 ; cf. xxxi. 9, I Ki. viii. 3, 4 [LXX], 6). 
 iii. To stand before J., to minister unto him (Deut. x. 8, xvii. 12, xviii. 5, 
 
 xxi. 5, i Chron. xxiii. 19), i.e. to serve God, in particular (cf. Ezek. 
 
 xliv. 15) by offering sacrifice (Deut. xxxiii. 10, i Sam. ii. 28). 
 iv. To bum incense (Deut xxxiii. 10, I Sam. ii. 28, i Chron. xxiii. 13). 
 v. To bear the ephod {perhaps an image, before which lots were cast : 
 
 see art. ' Ephod ' in Hastings' Bibl. Diet.), i Sam. ii. 28. 
 vi. To bless in J.'s name (Deut. x. 8, xxi. 5, i Chron. xxiii. 13). 
 
 There are, of course, many other passages which support or illustrate 
 this enumeration of functions : but the passages quoted describe them 
 rather pointedly. It seems clear that in early times the right of sacrificing, 
 and even of blessing, was not confined to priests, but that the restriction 
 4 to them was of gradual growth. Functions connected with i. and v. 
 seem to have been those inalienably connected with the priesthood. 
 
 3. What was the Teaching of our Lord Himself (a) as 
 to the priestly idea; (b] as to His own Priesthood and 
 Sacrifice ; (c) as to any perpetuation and transmission of 
 these in His Church? 
 
 FATHER PULLER. (c) Our Lord by instituting for His Church 
 a religious rite, in which an important part was assigned 
 to earthly sacrificial things, such as bread and wine, and 
 a still more important part was assigned to heavenly 
 sacrificial things, namely, His own Body and Blood, and 
 by connecting these things with words implying sacrificial 
 action, such as rd uirep v^5>v SiSo/xevoi; and TO virep v/i<3v 
 cKxyvopfvov (Luke xxii. 19, 20), and with other words 
 closely bound up with sacrificial ideas, such as SIO^TJKTJ 
 and avafjivrja-is, made it clear that the rite which He was 
 instituting was of a sacrificial character, or in other words 
 was a sacrifice. Now our Lord perpetuates His Sacrifice 
 in the heavenly tabernacle (cf. Heb. viii. 1-3, Rev. v. 6),
 
 3 a, b, o] AND DEFINITIONS 21 
 
 ' appearing openly before the face of God on our behalf ' 
 in His glorified Body as the Lamb without spot, and 
 cleansing ' the heavenly things ' with the ' better sacrifices,' 
 that is, with the incorruptible ' Blood of sprinkling ' (cf. 
 Heb. ix. 23, xii. 24; i Pet. i. 18, 19). And the matter 
 of the Church's sacrifice is also, as we have seen, primarily 
 Christ's Body and Blood. It follows that the sacrifice 
 which the Church offers is identical with the heavenly 
 Sacrifice which Christ offers. In other words, Christ's 
 sacrifice is perpetuated not only in heaven above, but also 
 in His Church below. This perpetuation is involved in 
 our Lord's words roCro jroteire eis r^v CHT\V avdpirrio-iv, 
 taken with their context. 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. (a) and (b} John x. n, xv. 13, xvii. 19, are 
 brief verbal indications of what is really taught in every- 
 thing that unfolds Incarnation or Atonement. 
 
 (c) Matt. x. 16-25 > John xiii. 35, xv. 17, xx. 21, are 
 similar indications of what is implied in the very idea of 
 a Pentecostal Church, which is the incorporation, revela- 
 tion, and perpetuity of the Spirit of the Christ in human 
 life to the end of time, and for ever. 
 
 CANON GORE. Our Lord offers Himself, the perfect on 
 behalf of, or in the stead of, the sinful, but with a view 
 to their perfecting in Him*. The sacrifice is, therefore, 
 offered in order that it may be perpetuated in the 
 Church, in virtue of His initial propitiation whereby we 
 recovered our standing with the Father (John x. 36, 
 xvii. 19 ; Matt. xxvi. 28). 
 
 CANON BERNARD. (a) I do not know what passages are in 
 view in this question. 
 
 () Very little teaching by Himself as to this. It is to 
 be noticed in what varied aspects He presents His death :
 
 22 STATEMENTS [3 a, b, c 
 
 (i) as a ransom ; (ii) as the death of a victim for ratifying 
 a covenant ; (iii) as the death of a shepherd in defence of 
 his sheep. 
 
 (c) No teaching on this subject so far as I know. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. All the teaching seems to be indirect : it 
 appears not so much in what the Gospels state as in 
 what they assume. 
 
 (a) I do not find any clear indication. 
 
 Many passages imply direct access (Matt. vi. 6; 
 vii. 7 f., &c.) ; but an inference against Priesthood can 
 hardly be drawn from this. The Psalms are full of such 
 passages, though concurrently there was an elaborate 
 system of regulated approach. 
 
 N. B. Great caution should be used in drawing negative inferences 
 from the Synoptic Gospels. The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles show- 
 that there must have been much teaching which they have not preserved. 
 
 (b) Our Lord undoubtedly regarded His own Death 
 as sacrificial. 
 
 The central passage is Mark xiv. 22-24 (Matt. xxvi. 
 26-28 [Luke xxii. 19 f.]). Compare Mark x. 45 (Matt. 
 xx. 28); John i. 29, 36 ; vi. 51. 
 
 If His Death is sacrificial, He is Himself the High 
 Priest by whom it is offered (John xvii). The fuller 
 teaching of the Epistles appears to have its root in 
 sayings of Christ Himself. 
 
 (c) If our Lord instituted a permanent rite which 
 embodied the essential idea of the ' feast upon sacrifice ' 
 (cf. I Cor. x. 21 Tpa.TT(a Kvpiov, xi. 20 KvpiaKov SeiTrvov, 
 Heb. xiii. 10), it would seem to follow that those who 
 administer such ' feasts ' might be rightly called ' priests.' 
 And in view of the relation which these feasts bear to 
 the Great Sacrifice, it would not seem to be an illegitimate 
 use of language to describe them as 'sacrificial.' In O.T. 
 the ' eating ' is part of an important group of sacrifices.
 
 3 a, b, c] AND DEFINITIONS 23 
 
 There would be a deeper reason for the use of the 
 name 'priests' if the view mentioned under 4 (d), 5, 
 holds good. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. (a) To what may be termed in strictness, 
 whether in the historical or theological sense, 'the priestly 
 idea,' our Lord makes no explicit or direct reference 
 whatever. All attribution of sacerdotal ideas to Him is 
 due either to a figurative interpretation of simple scripture 
 language such as He uses in John xvii. 19 or to His 
 attitude to offices and customs in the worship of His 
 own day. 
 
 (b) He represents Himself as the Temple (John ii. 19); 
 as one who has established the new Covenant in His 
 blood, which He has shed for the remission of sins 
 (Matt. xxvi. 28) ; and as one who gives His life a ransom 
 for many (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45). And He exercises 
 the high function of Mediation, though never under any 
 of the conditions or forms proper to the priesthood as 
 an office. His teaching therefore as to His own Priest- 
 hood is a matter of inference rather than of exact and 
 literal exegesis. 
 
 (c) In the only allusions He makes either to His Church 
 or Kingdom, He says nothing on these points. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. (a) (b) It centres in His own Priesthood, 
 and His teaching as to that centres in His own Sacrifice. 
 That Sacrifice is more definitely expressed by Himself as 
 a life given for others ', a ransom, and a covenant-offering, 
 having in view the remission of sins. 
 
 (c] His words indicate no transmission, nor any per- 
 petuation in the Church, the ordinance of the Supper being 
 a commemorative, covenant, and representative ordinance 
 only.
 
 24 STATEMENTS [3 a, b, c, 4 a, b 
 
 DR. DAVISON. (a, b} Christ's teaching in one or two places 
 e.g. Matt. xx. 28, and the institution of the eucharist 
 warrants the drawing of some typical analogy between 
 the O.T. sacrifices and His atoning death. But the 
 references are general only, implying the redemption 
 of the race, and a new covenant ' in His blood.' 
 
 (c) Our Lord gives no warrant for the perpetuation 
 or transmission of His priesthood and sacrifice in His 
 Church. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. (b) Jesus spoke of Himself as King and offered 
 Himself as sacrifice. He had little affinity for the institu- 
 tional priesthood of His race. He was Priest as self- 
 sacrificing King. He is not explicit about the relation of 
 His sacrifice to O.T. types ; His few words bear more 
 on the Covenant than the atoning Sacrifice. He realized 
 it not as mere self-devotion but as an offering to God 
 quite as much as for man. It was the total and active 
 surrender of His will to the Father, and only so a perfect 
 sacrifice for the sin of the world. The expiatory element 
 is in it, but was not by Christ made explicit. 
 
 (c) The only thing transmitted to His Church was the 
 benefits of this Sacrifice, and especially fellowship with 
 Him in it and through it. This was to be common, in 
 differing degrees, to every believer as the priesthood of 
 the Church. 
 
 4. What is the Apostolic teaching (a) as to the Sacrifice 
 of Christ ; (b) as to His Priesthood ; (c} as to the Priesthood 
 of His people ; (d) as to the relation of this Priesthood, if 
 there be any, to His, and to His Sacrifice? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. (a) and ()=the perfect love of the self- 
 oblation of the perfectly holy, in reality of Humanity
 
 4a,b, c,d] AND DEFINITIONS 25 
 
 perfectly consummated in penitence (Heb. x ; Rom. vi. 
 1-10 ; i Cor. xv. 20-28, &c., &c.). 
 
 (c) They are what He is (Eph. passim ; Rom. viii ; 
 Gal. ii. 20, 2i ; i Pet. ii. 5-9 ; Rev. i. 6). 
 
 (d) Because He alone is, and they are only in Him. 
 E.g. i Cor. iii. 17, xii. 12, 27, xv. 28, and the > XpioraJ 
 passim. 
 
 CANON GORE. The Apostolic teaching is that Christ offered 
 Himself for us in order to offer us in and with Himself. 
 He is our Priest and Sacrifice in order that, in reliance 
 on His merits alone, we may share His Priesthood, and 
 ourselves render an acceptable sacrifice in Him. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. (a) That that sacrifice was made once 
 for all, and that it was followed not by continuous 
 presentation of the sacrifice, but by session at the right 
 hand of God (Heb. x. 12). There is, of course, much other 
 teaching, but this is the point which appears relevant to 
 the present discussion. 
 
 (b) That it is a Priesthood of intercession: and also 
 of mediation, in regard of our whole life towards God. 
 
 (c) That all His people have in Him that right of imme- 
 diate access to God which is characteristic of Priesthood. 
 
 (d) A passage which might be held to bear on this is 
 i Pet. ii. 5 Trvfvp.aTiKas Ova-ias. But I am unable to believe 
 that it refers to any kind of ritual action. See Dr. Hort's 
 note in loc. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. (a) (i) The Sacrifice of Christ inaugurates 
 a new covenant-relation (Heb. viii. 6-13, ix. 15-23, x. 29, 
 xii. 24, xiii. 20 ; cf. i Cor. xi. 25). 
 
 (ii) It is compared in its effects to the sacrifices of 
 the Day of Atonement (Heb. ii. 17, vii. 27, ix. 7-9, 
 11-14, 24-28, x. 19-22, xiii. 10-13; Rom. iii. 25 ; i John 
 ii. 2, iv. 10).
 
 26 STATEMENTS [4 a, c 
 
 (iii) Also to other forms of sacrifice (i Cor. v. 8; Rom. 
 viii. 3; Heb. viii. 3, x. 4-18; I Pet. iii. 18; Rev. i. 5, 
 v. 6, &c.). 
 
 No sharp division can be drawn between the Sacrifices of the Day of 
 Atonement and other sacrifices into which there enters any element 
 of propitiation. I have referred to the Day of Atonement proper such 
 terms as iXaa-riipiav, fAacr/xos. 
 
 (iv) The Sacrifice of Christ is offered once for all 
 (Rom. vi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 27, ix. 12, 26-28, x. 10, 12, 14; 
 i Pet. iii. 1 8). 
 
 (v) Its effect and the intercession of Christ following 
 upon it are eternal (Heb. vii. 15, 25, ix. 12, 14, x. 12- 
 14, 1 8 ; Rom. viii. 34). 
 
 (vi) The 'feast upon the Sacrifice' is intended to be 
 perpetually repeated (i Cor. xi. 25 f.). 
 
 Dr. Milligan argues that, ' since the offering on the part of the eternal 
 Son is His life, it follows that His offering must be as eternal as 
 Himself. . . . [It] was only begun and not completed on the cross ' 
 (Expositor, 1888, ii. 351). In other words, the death is once for all; 
 the offering of the life, which completes the Sacrifice, goes on to eternity. 
 
 It is a question perhaps of more importance than may appear at first 
 sight, whether the ' pleading ' that takes place in heaven is to be regarded 
 as part of the Sacrifice, or as distinct from and subsequent to it Is there 
 an eternal presentation of the Blood (which seems to be Dr. Milligan's 
 view), or an eternal ivrtvts following upon the presentation (Heb. vii. 35)! 
 Mr. Dimock (Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium, p. 49) draws a dis- 
 tinction ' between a " proper offering," which was once performed by His 
 death upon the cross, and between an " improper offering," which is now 
 made either in heaven, by that His appearance on our behalf, or here on 
 earth, by prayers and representation, or obtestation, or commemoration." 
 On Dr. Milligan's view ' the appearance in heaven ' at least might be 
 considered as part of the original Sacrifice (word ovrapiv <ufjs dxara^vrov, 
 aiuviav Xvrpojcnv, fkct, n>cv/jaros atcwtov). 
 
 It may be true that one of these modes of speaking is more exact than 
 the others, but they are all intended to describe the same acknowledged 
 facts, and not one of them is without an intelligible ground. 
 
 (c) The main direct passages are i Pet. ii. 5, 9 ; Rev. 
 i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6. 
 
 It is noticeable that in i Pet. ii. 5, which is most 
 explicit, the sacrifices offered are moral rather than 
 ceremonial. Compare Rom. xii. i ; Heb. xiii. 15 f.
 
 4 a, b, d] AND DEFINITIONS 27 
 
 (d) Dr. Milligan argues that ' whatever function Christ 
 discharges in heaven must also be discharged, according 
 to her capabilities and opportunities, by His Church on 
 earth. This principle is the simple corollary to the 
 fundamental principle of the Church's existence as a 
 spiritual body, that she is the Body of Christ, and that 
 the Body lives in such close communion with the 
 Head, that whatever the latter is or does the former 
 must in a measure be or do' (Expositor, 1889, i. 200). 
 This is far-reaching, if true. It invites discussion. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The answer to this question may be intro- 
 duced by the remark that, while on these points there is 
 in the Apostolic thought a striking unity, there is a 
 significant variety in its types, or the forms under which 
 it is presented. Thus, while there is complete agree- 
 ment as to the death of Christ being a Sacrifice for sin, 
 this Sacrifice is by no means regarded by all, equally, as 
 sacerdotal in its character. 
 
 (a) and (b} St. Paul's references to the death of Christ are more 
 forensic or legal than sacerdotal, i. e. His death is conceived more 
 figuratively than formally and materially as a sacrifice. For while He 
 conceives it as involving loss and suffering even unto the surrender of 
 life, in order that by its means Christ might effect man's reconciliation 
 to God ; yet he does not conceive it, like the author of ' Hebrews,' as 
 the act of a priest who offers Himself as a sacrifice in a temple, in order 
 that he may enter the Holy of holies and make eternal intercession for us. 
 On the contrary, Paul conceives the death through the idea of the Law as 
 living and regulative and punitive rather than through the associations of 
 the Levitical system. Indeed, nothing is more remarkable than his 
 avoidance of Levitical figures and phraseology ; and his preference, so 
 far as he uses any historical forms for the interpretation of the sacrifice 
 and death of the Redeemer, for the forms that we may call prophetic rather 
 than priestly. Thus he finds the prototype of Christ and His work not in 
 Leviticus, but in the Suffering Servant of God in Isaiah (Rom. x. 16-17, 
 ao, xi. 26 ; i Cor. xv. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21). This Pauline standpoint is made 
 the more emphatic by such a crucial text as Rom. iii. 25, 26, where to 
 read iKaarrjptov in a Levitical sense is to dislocate the whole order of his 
 thought ; and by references throughout to the righteousness of God by 
 faith as opposed to the righteousness of law or of works. Even the
 
 28 STATEMENTS [4 a, b, c 
 
 explicit references to Christ's death as a Sacrifice bear out this view : 
 ' Christ is our Passover' (i Cor. v. 7), the rite where the father was the 
 priest and the official priesthood had no function. And Eph. v. 2 is too 
 purely ethical to permit a strictly sacerdotal inference. 
 
 In Hebrews, the Sacrifice is conceived under sacerdotal forms, but these 
 are expressly designed to bring out the uniqueness of both the Priesthood 
 and the Sacrifice. He was a priest without sin and without successor, and 
 His Sacrifice was spiritual, made by His obedience and offered once for 
 all, leaving no other possible or necessary (Heb. ix. 26, x. 5-7, 12). 
 
 In i Pet. i. 19, ii. 24, the texts determinative of the Petrine position, 
 the form under which the Sacrifice is conceived is not sacerdotal and 
 Levitical, but prophetic and ethical, being, like the Pauline, directly 
 suggested by the Deutero-Isaiah. 
 
 The Apocalypse and the Epistles of John both speak of the piacular 
 work of Christ, but in neither is it associated with the express recognition 
 of His Priesthood. The ritual or Levitical formulae are most marked in 
 the Apocalypse, where of course they are very numerous, as i. 5, v. 6-9, &c., 
 and this makes only the more significant the emphatic statement that in 
 *the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, the only temple is the Lord God 
 Almighty and the Lamb (xxi. 22). In i John His work is described as 
 a propitiation (i\a<ry5s), but this is not expressly associated with hierarchic 
 functions, but rather with those of a person potent in a court of law 
 (vapaic\r)Tos, ii. 1-2), or of a special apostle or messenger from God 
 (iv. 10). 
 
 (c) The explicit texts here are i Pet. ii. 5, 9 ; Rev. i. 6, 
 v. 10, xx. 6. 
 
 In i Pet. ii. 5 the adjectives are significant : the stones are ' living,' the 
 house or temple is ' spiritual,' and so are the sacrifices, and the priest- 
 hood, not as office, but as community, is holy. These seem to emphasize 
 the apostolic idea as essentially ethical. But even more characteristic is 
 the mediated nature of the priestly function. The Priesthood does not 
 stand before God in its own right or by virtue of what it offers, as was 
 the case of the Levitical priest, or as is the case of the High Priest of 
 our Confession ; but there is mediation in the relation of these mediators 
 of the New Covenant. It is a priesthood which He has constituted and 
 which has nothing worthy of God's acceptance to offer save what comes 
 from its standing in Christ and its action through Him. It belongs to the 
 whole people, and its functions are spiritual in character, even as its 
 temple and sacrifices are. The ' royal priesthood ' of ver. 9 emphasizes 
 the fact that the community is royal as well as priestly ; and we must 
 read both qualities as alike real and alike ideal. This is true of the 
 texts in the Apocalypse, where the kingdom of God is a kingdom of 
 priests, who live and reign with Christ. The priestly and the royal 
 functions must be construed in similar terms; both are spiritual, the 
 society is a kingdom, but its citizens are priests.
 
 4 a, b, c, d] AND DEFINITIONS 29 
 
 (d) This priesthood is at once related to Christ's and 
 distinguished from it. His is causal, it is consequent. 
 His is personal, it is collective realized in the infinite 
 multitude of the citizens within His kingdom. His is 
 real and substantive, the priesthood of one who knew no 
 sin, and never needed to sacrifice on his own behalf ; theirs 
 is ideal and figurative, the priesthood of those who have 
 been by the sacrifice of the Sinless redeemed from their 
 sins. His as original is creative ; theirs as derivative is 
 received only from Him, and is incapable of transmission 
 by its recipient. These are fair inferences from the fact 
 that their priesthood is traced directly to Him ; but His 
 to the act and call of God. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. (a) The main points, which alone can be 
 indicated here, are these that His Sacrifice was the 
 giving of Himself for redemptive ends, voluntarily ; that 
 in particular it was for the declaration of righteousness 
 (Rom. iii. 24, &c.), the forgiveness of sin, and the breaking 
 of the power of sin ; the notes which are most prominent 
 being those of its reconciling, propitiatory, and expiatory 
 power, its uniqueness and its perfection. 
 
 (b) That it is the one Priesthood in the full and proper 
 sense of the word, the only one by which men come to 
 God superior to Aaron's, changeless and of efficacy for 
 the conscience. 
 
 (c) That all His people are priests in the sense that 
 they can draw near to God by Him, having also their 
 own peculiar sacrifices to present 'spiritual sacrifices,' 
 to wit, those of their bodies, praises, prayer, obedience, &c. 
 
 (d) The former is related to the latter as consequent 
 and response. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. (a) The Apostles view the sacrifice of Christ 
 mainly as expiatory for the sin of the world ; secondarily,
 
 30 STATEMENTS [4 a, b, c, d 
 
 as self-dedicatory and implying a mystical union between 
 Himself and believers. 
 
 (b) But the idea of the Priesthood of Christ is almost 
 confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the analogy 
 between the High Priest of O. T. and the Heavenly 
 Priesthood of the Saviour is encompassed with difficulty, 
 if pressed in detail. 
 
 (c) The whole Church is (very occasionally) recognized 
 in N. T. as in a modified and metaphorical sense a 
 * priesthood,' intended to present only the spiritual ' sacri- 
 fices ' of self-consecration and thanksgiving (i Pet. ii. 5) 
 The eucharist is never viewed in N. T. as a sacrifice. 
 
 (d) The people of Christ accept and rest in the benefits 
 o/ the Sacrifice of their Lord, and look to Him as the 
 only 'Priest' in the full sense of the word in the 
 Christian religion. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. (a) To God it is atoning and in some true 
 sense piacular. To man it is feeding and succouring 
 the source of common life and mutual help vicarious. 
 
 (b) His Priesthood unique; abolished all else but what 
 it might create ; the only medium of communion between 
 God and man. He was both Priest and Victim, and in 
 N.T. the name Priest is reserved for Him and no Apostle 
 claims it or its function. 
 
 (c) The priesthood of His people is universal in Him. 
 Every man in Him is his own priest and pastor other 
 men may be helps but are not necessaries. The Church 
 is thus priestly in its nature, but only as a whole, and only 
 as interceding, working, suffering for men ; it has a com- 
 munion of the vicarious, but not of the atoning side of 
 Christ's work. The Church is priestly as being a priest, 
 not as having priests, and it is priestly more by the 
 indwelling of Christ's Spirit than by virtue of any com- 
 mission or transmission.
 
 6] AND DEFINITIONS 31 
 
 5. What relation has the idea of the Church as the 
 Mystical Body of Christ to the ideas of His Priesthood 
 and Sacrifice? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. Priest and Sacrifice are the very heart's core 
 of what He became, and is, as Man. The Church, as His 
 Mystical Body, is wholly made one with His Manhood, 
 therefore it is wholly made one, par excellence ', with His 
 Priesthood and Sacrifice. 
 
 CANON GORE. The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ 
 lives, as quickening Spirit, in this body, in order that 
 the priesthood and sacrifice of man may be realized in 
 the Church. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. To ascribe sacrifice to the Church on 
 this ground seems to me to be pressing a figurative 
 presentation of truth beyond the limits to which it is 
 applicable. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. The fundamental question is that just stated 
 
 The passages most in point would seem to be John xv. 
 1-7, xvii. 21-23 ; Rom. vi. 3-11, xii. 4 f. ; I Cor. xil 12-27 ; 
 Eph. i. 22 f., iv. 1 2-1 6; Col. ii. 19. 
 
 It may be observed that the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ 
 is correlative to the idea of its members as fniaa pivot, 7101, /cXi/rci ayioi. 
 This character comes to them through the Sacrifice of Christ (Heb. xiii. 12, 
 x. 10 ; compare Rom. v. 2, &c.). 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. I cannot recall a single case where the 
 idea of the Church as the mystical body of Christ is 
 associated with the idea of the priesthood. Of course, 
 His Priesthood and Sacrifice are the causes of its being, 
 as they are the ground of the Christian redemption as
 
 32 STATEMENTS [5 
 
 a whole. But this does not mean that the Church 
 participated or participates in the acts or functions by 
 which it was itself created. They make its existence 
 possible, and so it lives the life of the redeemed rather 
 than experiences the passion of the Redeemer. Besides, 
 the idea of the priesthood can be got into the mystical 
 body an essentially Pauline idea only by conveying 
 Hebraic forms of thought into the Pauline phraseology. 
 Further, we must carefully define the sense in which 
 Sacrifice is here used, whether when predicated of the 
 body it means sacrificium or sacrificatio. The mystical 
 body is a body that lives, a resurrection body as it were, 
 incapable of death, and so incapable of being conceived 
 or described as a sacrificium. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. The designation 'body of Christ' being 
 applied to the Church by a figure (which also is only 
 one of various figures so applied), there is no necessary 
 or intended relation between the two ideas. Figures of 
 speech are good for illustrative not for dogmatic pur- 
 poses. This particular figure is introduced in relation 
 to the existence and use of gifts, but also and especially 
 in relation to Christ's Headship. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. The relation of the Church to Christ is not 
 only as a Body but as a Bride. It is not only His organ 
 but the object of communion by the Spirit flowing entirely 
 from His death- work. By this the Church enjoys the 
 benefits of His atonement, and re-echoes the ministering 
 aspect of His death, both to its own members and to the 
 world. By this Spirit also the Church worships in the 
 perpetual fellowship of the Son's obedience to the Father. 
 But the Christian Church cannot, even by the Holy Ghost, 
 reproduce the sacrificial act which constituted it the 
 Sacrifice proper of Christ. The Atonement was not really
 
 6, 6] AND DEFINITIONS 33 
 
 made by Christ's body or His sufferings, but by His loving 
 soul and holy obedient will. Its chief nature was prayer, 
 which is a function not of body but of soul. The Church, 
 therefore, in so far as it is Christ's body, can but carry out 
 what is foregone in Christ's act. Body is not a complete 
 outward to the Spirit's inward. The Church is Christ's 
 earthly tabernacle rather than His home. Its priesthood, 
 therefore, is a real but inferior function of His. 
 
 6. Does the idea of Priesthood applied to the Church 
 reside in the whole body collectively, or in the whole body 
 ideally, or in individual members of the body? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. In the whole collective body ideally, and 
 in all its members as sharing in what it is ; but some 
 individuals are set apart, as others are not, for the public 
 and corporate representation of its priestliness. 
 
 CANON GORE. It resides in the body collectively and in the 
 individuals, therefore, as rational, personal, members of 
 the body. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. 'St. Peter doubtless meant by lepc&rev/xa not 
 a mere aggregate of individual priests, but a priestly 
 community. Such a priesthood is doubtless shared by 
 each member of the community in due measure, but 
 only so far as he is virtually an organ of the whole 
 body ; and the universality of the function is compatible 
 with variations of mode and degree as to its exercise' 
 (Hort, i Pet., p. 126). The last sentence appears to 
 mean that though all are priests, some may be priests 
 in a fuller and more special sense than others. 
 
 D
 
 34 STATEMENTS [6, 7 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The only usage found in the N. T. ascribes 
 the priesthood to the living stones, whether collectively or 
 severally, in other words, to the citizens of the kingdom. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. In the first instance in the individual 
 members, each of whom is a priest in the N. T. sense. 
 In the second instance in the body, in so far as the 
 individuals are regarded as a whole ; in this sense, there- 
 fore, in the ' whole body collectively/ but not in the 
 sense of the whole body institutionally. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. If 'Priesthood' in this modified sense be 
 applied to the Church, the idea resides in the whole 
 body collectively, and in individuals separately ; but its 
 meaning is found in that direct access to God which is 
 now made possible for all believers through Christ the 
 One true Priest, as they offer the only ' sacrifices ' they 
 are called to present, viz. themselves, their thanksgivings 
 and worship generally. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. In the whole body ideally without denying 
 that it is an ideal having its spiritual reality in Christ. 
 The priesthood belongs to individuals, not as such, but 
 in virtue of their incorporation with the spiritual body, 
 which is, under Christ, the only true priest. 
 
 7. Can there be any delegation of the functions of this 
 Priesthood ? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. Delegation is hardly the right word. There 
 are some who, for public and corporate purposes, repre- 
 sent and discharge the priestly functions of the whole. 
 They must indeed be authorized by a public and minis-
 
 7] AND DEFINITIONS 35 
 
 terial action of the body. But their authorization 
 requires something more than a popular appointment, 
 whose method might depend upon the unfettered fancy 
 of the contemporary body. Each generation has a 
 trusteeship, not an irresponsible ownership ; and must 
 comply with the conditions which are the guarantee of 
 continuity. 
 
 CANON GORE. The body is an organized whole with 
 differentiated organs and functions ; and particular organs 
 of the body (i.e. persons) may be therefore in a special 
 sense consecrated to priestly ministry by divine appoint- 
 ment or delegation from the body, or both. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. Exception is taken to the words 'delegate,' 
 'delegation' in this connexion (Moberly, Ministerial 
 Priesthood, p. 90, with context). And it would seem 
 that the idea of ' organs ' or ' representatives ' of the 
 community is more appropriate (see the passage quoted 
 from Bp. Moberly, ibid., p. 70 ; and for a repudiation of 
 any idea of 'vicarious action,' a quotation from Canon 
 Gore, p. 71). 
 
 Though an ' organ ' of the whole body the ministry may be a necessary 
 organ, and the only organ qualified to act for certain purposes (guoad 
 sacra). 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The priesthood of the Christian man can 
 be as little delegated as the passion of Christ could have 
 been delegated. It is of the very essence of his calling 
 and state ; and it can be neither assigned to another, nor 
 undertaken by any representative or substitute. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. Yes, in the sense that the individual members 
 may act collectively or corporately, and commit certain 
 functions or services to particular men with a view to 
 order, rule, convenience, or public worship. 
 
 D 2,
 
 36 STATEMENTS [7, 8 a, b 
 
 DR. DAVISON. Properly speaking, No. The minister may 
 be said to act as ' representative ' or ' organ ' of the whole 
 body see Dr. Moberly's Ministerial Priesthood^ passim 
 this is for the sake of church order, and the phrase 
 ' delegation of functions ' is likely to mislead. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. The most priestly function of Christ cannot 
 be delegated, either by Himself to others, or by those 
 others again. The words, delegate or representative, are 
 both misleading, and connote an independence from the 
 real priestly body, the Church, which is practically un- 
 happy. It might be better to describe the ministers of 
 the Church as its organs, which can act only when the 
 oody is present. The distinctive acts of the ministry 
 should not be performed apart from the presence of the 
 Church, were it but of two or three. The Church 
 should be present in the same bodily sense as the 
 minister. 
 
 8. If there is such delegation, how does it affect (a) those 
 to whom the functions are delegated; (b) those to whom 
 they are not delegated ? Is the Priesthood of the Church 
 affected by the delegation? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. (a) Those set apart have all their lives and 
 powers consecrated to the public representation of the 
 priestly character, and the enactment of the functions 
 which express and embody it. 
 
 (b) Those not set apart have no authorization to 
 represent the corporate priesthood publicly in relation 
 to a congregation. Yet their lives too (according to 
 their different professions and opportunities) are to be 
 animated by, and illustrative of, its spirit.
 
 8 a, b, C, 9] AND DEFINITIONS 37 
 
 (c) The Priesthood of the Church is itself, for all 
 public or corporate purposes, expressed, uttered, and 
 exercised, necessarily and only through those who are 
 authorized to be the Church's instruments for the 
 purpose. 
 
 CANON GORE. Such delegation enables the body to express 
 its priestliness corporately. Those to whom such delega- 
 tion is not made obviously do not become thereby less 
 priestly, as members of the priestly body. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. That there should be this marking off of 
 certain organs for certain definite purposes is strictly 
 in accordance with the analogies of civil society (e.g. 
 the judicature, the army, &c.). Though the whole body 
 acts through the organs, it does not follow that every 
 member of the body can make himself an organ when 
 and as he wills (Heb. v. I, 4). 
 
 DR. SALMOND. (a] Only in respect of distinction of office 
 or particularity of service. 
 
 (b) In no sense implying that by their act of com- 
 mittal they part with any power proper to them, or 
 become the servants of those to whom they make the 
 delegation. 
 No. 
 
 0. What is the fundamental signification of the Laying 
 on of Hands P Does it involve Transmission ? And if so, 
 what is transmitted ? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. Its fundamental significance is the conferring 
 of a blessing from God, or an appeal to God for the 
 conferring of a blessing. It does not, per se, involve 
 transmission. But blessing for ministerial office cannot
 
 38 STATEMENTS [9 
 
 be (divinely) conferred without it, nor conferred except 
 by those who have received authority for conferring. 
 Thus (in regard of ministry) transmission of authorization 
 comes to be inseparably connected with it. 
 
 CANON GORE. In tJie Christian Church the normal significa- 
 tion for the laying on of hands is the transmission of 
 a divine gift lodged in the body whether pardon or 
 strength or authority of some kind. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. In its 'fundamental signification' it 
 designates the person on whom hands are laid as the object 
 commended in prayer to Divine favour and assistance. 
 * It does not involve transmission, but it is obvious that 
 the supposition would naturally arise, whenever this sym- 
 bolical action was used in connexion with bestowal of 
 authority or appointment to office. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. Does not the laying on of hands in blessing 
 tell against the idea of transmission ? The good things 
 invoked were not first possessed by him who invokes 
 them : they are in the hands of God, and the blessing is 
 a petition that He may bestow them. 
 
 There might seem to be more ground for the idea in 
 connexion with miracles of healing: and the popular 
 idea probably was that vital power passed from the 
 healer to the healed. But here, too, there is a Divine 
 intervention in answer to prayer, expressed or implied. 
 So that it would seem on the whole best to explain 
 these instances in the same way as in blessing. All 
 forms of laying on of hands will then fall into the 
 same category. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The priesthood of the Christian man is 
 quite independent of the laying on of hands, and is as 
 incapable of transmission as of delegation.
 
 0] AND DEFINITIONS 39 
 
 DR. SALMOND. That of a symbolical act, of ancient use in 
 solemn acts of prayer and benediction, and in the public 
 setting apart of men to office. It transmits nothing. 
 It is part of the transaction which sets apart, accompany- 
 ing the word of prayer which ordains and invokes 
 blessing. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. The action of laying on of hands is sym- 
 bolical only. It is appropriate as implying, Godward 
 a prayer for blessing ; manward a commission to teach 
 and fill a certain office. 
 
 There is no ' transmission ' of specific grace or power. 
 
 DR. FoRSYTH. It is a symbol, and not a channel, of con- 
 secration. Nothing is transmitted. It is an expressive 
 and impressive concomitant to prayer of ordination 
 specially so in the case of a personal relation as between 
 Paul and Timothy. It was not used by Christ as an 
 official act. Neither St. Paul nor St. Matthew had it ; 
 and the idea of transmission of spiritual faculty by it 
 is outside the genius of the Christian idea, and too easily 
 becomes magical. 
 
 The following note has been communicated by DR. DRIVER. 
 
 To lay (more exactly, to lean or rest) the hands upon 
 by offerer on head of wr/-offering (Exod. xxix. 15, Lev. i. 4, viii. 18, 
 
 Num. viii. 12) ; of/a-offering (Lev. iii. a, 8, 13, viii. 22, Exod. xxix. 
 
 19) ; of '-offering (Lev. iv. 4, 15, 24, 29, 33, viii. 14, Exod. xxix. 10, 
 
 2 Chron. xxix. 23). 
 by high priest on head of scape-goat, when confessing the people's 
 
 iniquities (Lev. xvi. 21). 
 
 by witnesses on head of blasphemer (Lev. xxiv. 14 ; cf. Susanna, v. 34). 
 by people on head of Levites to be admitted to menial services in the 
 
 sanctuary (Num. viii. 10). 
 by Moses on head of Joshua, when instituted formally as his successor 
 
 (Num. xxvii. 18, 23, Deut. xxxiv. 9). 
 
 The idea of the ceremony appears to be the solemn and deliberate 
 appropriation of an object, coupled with its assignation to a particular
 
 40 STATEMENTS [9, 10 
 
 purpose 1 , by the person performing it (so e.g. Oehler, 0. T. Theol., 
 126, a ; Keil on Lev. i. 4; Dillmann on Lev. i. 4, xxiv. 14, &c.). 
 
 It symbolized also the transference of the purpose, or intention, 
 actuating the agent, or (Oehler) 'die Zueignung dessen, was der Handelnde 
 dem Andern vermoge der ihm zustehenden Machtvollkommenheit zuer- 
 kannt.' Dillmann's words are, 'der eine theilt dem andem etwas zu, 
 genauer : bezeichnet, bestimmt, und erklart ihn damit, als den, auf 
 welchen er etwas iibertragt oder hinuberleitet, und wendet dieses ihm 
 zu.' Ewald (Alt. 58) : ' a symbolical transmission (in the case of Moses 
 and Joshua) of the whole spirit of a man upon the one whom he deems 
 worthy of his blessing and highest commands ; and (in the case of sacrifice) 
 of all the feeling which must fill the worshipper at such a moment on to 
 the creature whose blood is about to be spilt and, as it were, go before 
 God for him.' 
 
 In Lev. xxiv. 14 the idea seems to be that the witnesses were in a way 
 responsible for a misdeed which they had witnessed, until they disowned 
 the guilt themselves by solemnly attaching it to the offender. In Num. 
 viii. 10 the people mark out the Levites as their representatives for various 
 menial services. In Num. xxvii. 18 Joshua is marked out by the rite as 
 Moses' successor : whether the following ' command or commission 
 him,' and 'put some of thy dignity upon him,' are involved in the 
 ceremony, or are something additional to it, is not clearly indicated. 
 
 All the instances are quoted in which the ceremony is referred to. 
 It is not enjoined in the ordination of priests. 
 
 In Gen. xlviii. 14 the Heb. word is simply place or put, not the more 
 formal lean or rest. 
 
 The ceremony does seem to symbolize the transmission, or delegation, 
 of a moral character or quality, or of responsibility or authority (or, of 
 power to represent another). 
 
 10. What was the original authority of the Apostles ? 
 Has that authority in any way descended to those who 
 came after them ? 
 
 FATHER PULLER. Our Lord said: 'As the Father hath 
 sent (aTT&TaXKev) Me, even so send (W/wro)) I you/ Bishop 
 Westcott says : ' The mission of Christ is here regarded 
 
 1 Or, in one word, dedication : but (i) many things were ' dedicated ' in 
 which this ceremony was not used ; and (ii) ' dedication ' hardly suits 
 Lev. xvi. 21, xxiv. 14. So perhaps this word (or 'consecration') is 
 better avoided.
 
 10] AND DEFINITIONS 41 
 
 ... in the permanence of its effects (hath sent}. The 
 form of the fulfilment of Christ's mission was now to be 
 changed, but the mission itself was still continued and 
 still effective. The Apostles Were commissioned to carry 
 on Christ's work, and not to begin a new one. Their 
 office was an application of His office according to the 
 needs of men.' Now Christ had been sent to be the 
 Messianic Prophet and Priest and King. The Apostles 
 were therefore commissioned to carry on, in subordination 
 to Him, prophetic, priestly, and kingly work. The 
 Apostolic ministry has succeeded into the place of the 
 Apostles, and carries on their prophetic, priestly, and 
 kingly work. Compare St. Matt, xxviii. 20 ; and see 
 Godet on St. Luke xii. 41-48. 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. Their authority was the authority of living 
 messengers and representatives of Christ, chosen, trained, 
 sent, and empowered by Himself. As no one since has 
 been exactly this, no one (in the nature of things) has 
 wielded the fullness of Apostolic authority. Yet in its 
 main administrative and representative functions it was 
 carefully handed on by them to those whom they thought 
 fittest, with provision for its authoritative devolution 
 for ever. 
 
 CANON GORE. Their authority was that of witnesses of 
 Christ 's Resurrection, stewards of divine truths, founders 
 and rulers of the society, and ministers of divine gifts. 
 In all these respects (but in a changed sense so far 
 as touches the words in italics) their office has been 
 perpetuated in the Christian ministry. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. The primary work of the Apostles was 
 to be chosen witnesses and authorized depositories of the 
 Gospel, that is to say, of what Christ had taught and
 
 42 STATEMENTS [10 
 
 done. From this flowed the authority which they exercised. 
 The office was thus of an exceptional nature, and by its 
 very conditions it could not continue. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. The Apostles appear to have had a large, but 
 in great part undefined, authority. The most explicit 
 passage is John xx. 2,2, f. On the other hand, Eph. ii. 20, 
 and Rev. xxi. 14, are not explicit. Both seem to be 
 susceptible of the interpretation put upon the first by 
 Hort (' He had in mind the historical order of the actual 
 structure and growth of the Ecclesia itself, not any 
 authority over the Ecclesia,' Rom. and Eph., p. 146). 
 The question is complicated by the double ambiguity, 
 (^ as to the relation of St. Paul to the Twelve, and (ii) as 
 to the relation of ' Apostles ' in the narrower sense, and 
 in the wider (as in the Didack^). No doubt the Twelve, 
 the Twelve + St. Paul, and the whole class of ' Apostles,' 
 all exercised a high authority; but it is not clear that 
 this authority was a formal jurisdiction intended to be 
 handed on from generation to generation. The facts may 
 perhaps be described in that way, but not necessarily ; 
 and there is danger of resting too much upon a formal 
 scheme, rather than upon the living work of the Spirit. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The Apostles never claimed any priestly 
 authority, and so could not speak of it ' descending to 
 those who came after them.' 
 
 DR. SALMOND. The original authority of the Twelve in the 
 character of Apostles is given most definitely in Mark iii. 
 14, &c. It is given again at a later stage, and with a 
 larger scope, in Matt, xxviii. 19. Other passages (Matt, 
 xvi. 19, xviii. 18 ; John xx. 32, &c.) refer less clearly to 
 the Apostles as such and exclusively. I see no evidence 
 of a descent of the authority in question to other 
 individuals.
 
 10] AND DEFINITIONS 43 
 
 DR. DAVISON. The Eleven derived their commission from 
 Christ, Matthias from a special election, Paul by direct 
 commission from the glorified Lord, in each case to 
 proclaim and diffuse the message of the Gospel (see 
 Dr. Hort's Eccksia). No specific authority to appoint 
 others was included in this commission. 
 
 They had not, nor were they intended to have, 
 successors. They were instrumental in founding a living 
 Church, with power to organize itself. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. They were (i) witnesses, (2) intimate dis- 
 ciples, (3) missionaries and Church founders. They had 
 a natural and historic authority in the first Church, due 
 to their personal education by Christ, and their prestige 
 of personal association with Him. Their real authority 
 lay, not in their inspiration but in their Revelation, not in 
 their standing but in their word which was mightier in 
 St. Paul than in the Twelve. The Apostles were not 
 priests, but missionaries bent on the extension more than 
 the rule of the Church ; whereas the bishop is an ad- 
 ministrator and not an apostle. The authority of the 
 Apostles was not transmitted their personal contact 
 with Christ could not be except as in St. Paul's sense, 
 and that was not transmission, but a fresh call. The 
 pastoral office was quite distinct, and grew out of the 
 Church's needs and the Spirit's wisdom. The ministry 
 is but the virtual, not the official, successor of the 
 Apostles, i.e. they are such in virtue of the same word 
 of the Gospel, and not of institutional continuity.
 
 44 STATEMENTS [ll 
 
 11. Supposing that there are some to whom the functions 
 of Priesthood belong in a sense in which they do not belong 
 to others, should not a distinction be drawn between the 
 historical question as to the process by which this condition 
 of things has arisen, and the theoretical question as to the 
 place which it holds in the whole Christian economy ? 
 How are the historical and the theoretic questions related 
 to each other? 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. For purposes of analysis and investigation 
 the distinction is an important one. But unless the 
 theoretical is the interpretation of the historical, and 
 the historical is the witness and embodiment of the 
 theoretical, the Church must have been on the wrong 
 lines from the very beginning. For those who refuse to 
 accept such a conclusion, the two are but distinguishable 
 aspects of one fact. 
 
 CANON GORE. The distinction should be drawn, but the 
 two questions meet in the principle, that only those can 
 fulfil any office in the Church who have been appointed 
 to fulfil it by an authority mediately or immediately 
 apostolic. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. I should answer the first part of this question 
 in the affirmative. 
 
 As to the second I would suggest a caution. It does 
 not follow that we can always treat the end of a process 
 of evolution as in itself supplying the simple and sufficient 
 interpretation of the process. It marks the result which 
 God has willed but rather in the general sense in which 
 all that happens is His will than in the particular sense 
 that either the end attained or the operative causes are
 
 11, 12] AND DEFINITIONS 45 
 
 wholly such as He would approve. We must allow for 
 the element of human free-will and human error, with 
 the consequent mixture of good and evil. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. Granting the supposition, the distinction is 
 both just and important. The historical question is the 
 first and fundamental question, and only in the light 
 of it can the theoretical question be scientifically handled. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. The theory of the ministry should be drawn 
 from the principle of Christ's priestly work (i. e. of 
 Redemption) and of His Church, and not from the 
 principle of any explicit commission given by Christ 
 to an Apostolic order. 
 
 12. What parts of the historical problem at the present 
 moment seem most to need further elucidation P 
 
 CANON GORE. The spare use of priestly terms for the 
 ministry in the N.T. ; the position of the prophets; 
 the development of ' *#0episcopacy.' 
 
 DR. SANDAY. The critical points would seem to be : (i) the 
 exact nature of Apostolic authority (on which something 
 has been said above) ; (ii) the transition from the 
 extraordinary ' gifts ' to the settled regular ministry ; 
 (iii) the like transition from the plural to the singular 
 episcopate. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. The history of the office of the ' Apostle,' 
 its idea, functions, and fortunes outside the Canonical 
 literature. The earliest history also of the eucharist; 
 together with the question of the first functions of the 
 , and the source of the term.
 
 46 STATEMENTS [12, 13 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. Perhaps the rise of the Catholic Church out 
 of the N. T. Church in the sub- Apostolic age. 
 
 13. Of what parts of the theoretical problem may the 
 same be said? 
 
 DR. SANDAY. The points on which I should myself most 
 desire further light would be : (i) the relation of the 
 moral element in Sacrifice to the ceremonial (this has 
 beW alluded to under 1. (b\ but comes up elsewhere) ; 
 (ii) the point at which the language of Sacrifice and 
 Priesthood becomes metaphorical ; (iii) the extent to 
 which the Church and the ministry of the Church can 
 be said to be identified with the Priesthood and Offering 
 of Christ through the Mystical Union ; (iv) the relation 
 of the ' prophetic inspiration ' (which I believe to have 
 been at work in varying degrees all through the history 
 of the Church) to the regular official ministry. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The parts of the theoretical problem that 
 seem to me most in need of elucidation are these : the 
 ideas of the priest, of the sacrifice, of the relation of 
 the priest to the sacrifice, of the relation of the sacrifice 
 to God who receives it, and those on whose behalf it 
 is offered ; and of the relation of these complex notions 
 to the Church and Kingdom of God as conceived in 
 the N.T. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. The precise place and worth of ' succession,' 
 ' descent,' ' devolution,' and the precise relation of ' priest ' 
 and ' minister ' to the Christian people.
 
 13, 14] AND DEFINITIONS 47 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. The relation between the sacrifice of Christ 
 and the sacrifice of the Church in worship or work. 
 Also the relation between the individual priesthood of 
 the believer and the corporate priesthood of the Church 
 with special reference to the right of public ministry. 
 
 14. If there is a Ministerial Priesthood under the New 
 Covenant, can it rightly be described as a Sacrificing 
 Priesthood P 
 
 FATHER PULLER. There can, I think, be no doubt that the 
 ministerial priesthood under the New Covenant can rightly 
 be described as a sacrificing priesthood. To speak of 
 a non-sacrificing priesthood would appear to me to be 
 a misuse of terms. 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. Yes. The phrase, if properly understood, is 
 certainly not untrue. But it is a blunt phrase, in itself not 
 unlikely to mislead, and in use too nearly identified with 
 misconceptions of the truth, which it is important to 
 correct. 
 
 CANON GORE. Yes : if the terms are rightly defined. The 
 function of the episcopate ' to offer the gifts ' is widely 
 accepted in the first century (Clement and Didacht}. 
 But the important matter is to keep the function of 
 the ministry in its right relation of subordination to 
 Christ and to the Body.
 
 48 STATEMENTS [14 
 
 CANON BERNARD. There is a Ministerial Priesthood, in the 
 sense of an office whereby the congregation is represented 
 towards God. But it has no sacrifices to offer other than 
 those of the devotions, alms, and self-surrender of the 
 congregation. 
 
 I think, moreover, that nothing is gained by the attempt 
 to represent the whole of man's religious life in the garb 
 of ' sacrifice.' The clothes are too small for the body. 
 
 DR. SANDAY. See above, on 3 (c), 5-8. 
 
 DR. SALMOND. No. It could be so called only by imposing 
 ap unwonted sense on the term, which would be a 
 misleading sense. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. The Ministerial Office is not 'priestly' in 
 the proper sense of the word (see above). If the term 
 be admitted in a modified sense, it is not a 'sacrificing 
 priesthood.' The distinction between the meanings of 
 'priest' and 'sacrifice' above indicated is fundamental 
 and vital. 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. In a sense, but better not ; more misleading 
 than useful. The priesthood makes no sacrifice but what 
 the Church makes, and neither makes the Sacrifice which 
 Christ did. The word suggests a distinction between the 
 sacrifice of the ministry and those of the whole Church ; 
 or else it absorbs the latter in the former.
 
 15] AND DEFINITIONS 49 
 
 15. How far is the Early Church to be determinative 
 to-day of the questions discussed under the above heads, 
 and what are the limits which we ought to assign to the 
 determinative period P 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. In principle it may be said that 
 
 1. The corporate life and its history are an interpre- 
 tative comment upon the revelation, and inseparable 
 from it. In Canon Gore's words : ' You cannot tear the 
 N. T. out of the mind of the Church as expressed from 
 the first.' 
 
 2. All later developments or advances, of whatever 
 kind, must be really developments not reversals of what 
 was deliberately and universally accepted. They must 
 not constitute a real breach with their own past, by 
 running counter to it and condemning it ; but must 
 be advances along and in continuity with the really 
 deliberate conviction and agreement of the earlier centuries. 
 
 No definite limit of date is to be drawn. But appeal 
 to the Church before her great disruptions (and par- 
 ticularly to formal (Ecumenical decisions within that 
 period) will always, of necessity, be of more argumentative 
 weight, and of more universal application, than appeal to 
 any portion of the divided Church. 
 
 CANON GORE. You cannot tear the N. T. out of the mind of 
 the Church as expressed from the first. The generally 
 expressed mind of the Church, especially of the earliest 
 tradition, reasonably determines the ambiguities of the 
 N. T. documents. But no definite limits to the 'Early 
 Church' can be assigned. 
 
 CANON BERNARD. The teaching and practice of the Early 
 Church is not, of itself, determinative of these questions, 
 but must be carefully compared with the N.T., regard 
 being had to the general principles laid down therein, 
 and to its silences as well as to its statements. 
 
 E
 
 50 STATEMENTS [15 
 
 DR. SANDAY. If Priesthood is a permanent institution, the 
 question need not be asked for our present purpose, 
 except as affecting the form of the Christian Ministry. 
 This was sufficiently determined by the date of the 
 Ignatian Letters (c. no A. D.), which does not seem too 
 long to allow the principles at work in the Apostolic Age 
 properly to declare themselves. 
 
 DR. FAIRBAIRN. The Church of the N. T. is the standard 
 by which the questions here agitated ought to be dis- 
 cussed and determined. The later Church may supply 
 illustrative material for the interpretation of the earlier, 
 but has no claim to be regarded as either a witness to its 
 constitution and beliefs, or a standard for ours. 
 
 [I regret that time has compelled me to pass over questions 11, 12 and 14, 
 and to handle all, and especially the later ones, more briefly and superficially 
 than I could have wished. What is submitted is matter for discussion, 
 not reasoned judgements. A. M. F.] 
 
 DR. SALMOND. Scripture, the original authority, is the only 
 determining authority, not the Early Church. The voice 
 of the latter is the voice of testimony, not of authority. 
 
 DR. DAVISON. Appeal lies to N. T. alone as authoritative ; 
 the usage of the Early Church is 'determinative' of 
 nothing. But historical evidence drawn from the de- 
 velopment of doctrine during the first three centuries 
 is very instructive, and the introduction of certain ideas 
 on the subject of priesthood and sacrifice by Cyprian, 
 and in the early part of the third century, contrasts with 
 the prevailing tone of the sub-Apostolic age, and the 
 greater part of the second century (see Bp. Lightfoot's 
 Essay, and the writings of the Fathers in question). 
 
 DR. FORSYTH. The praxis of the Early Church settles little 
 (else the Baptists are right). Its precise views and 
 doctrines are fontal, but not necessarily final. But its 
 revelation, its principle, the ideas embodied in its central
 
 15] AND DEFINITIONS 51 
 
 fact of Christ and His cross, its spirit and Gospel of 
 Redemption are final, and must slowly subdue all foreign 
 elements to themselves. The period, broadly speaking, 
 would be the first century, but not necessarily the whole 
 N. T. Canon. 
 
 The following Memorandum was circulated privately by 
 Archdeacon Wilson. 
 
 SACRIFICE AND PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 To the Members of our Private Conference. 
 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 I find myself unable to meet Professor Sanday's 
 wish by sending brief answers to his questions. I can only 
 answer them in some such form as follows. I submit my 
 reply to your perusal with every possible respect and 
 deference, and with the conviction that no good can come 
 from our Conference unless we are perfectly frank with one 
 
 another. 
 
 I remain, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 J. M. WILSON. 
 
 It would seem that we may enter on a discussion on this 
 subject with widely divergent fundamental postulates, latent 
 or formulated ; and that it is advisable to attempt to state 
 them explicitly. One way of expressing them is as follows : 
 see A and B, 
 
 A. We assume that the Canon of the New Testament 
 and the tradition of the early Church taken jointly, if they 
 could be critically and historically ascertained and established, 
 and shown to be reasonably unanimous (exceptis excipiendis\ 
 
 E 2,
 
 52 STATEMENTS 
 
 constitute a final and permanent authority, not only as to the 
 historical fact what the immediate followers of Christ and 
 their successors thought and arranged in the matter of Church 
 Government, but as to the absolute and ideal truth for all ages 
 of the relations of God to man through a ministry as revealed 
 by Christ. 
 
 The assumption is, in brief, that in the historical facts 
 of what was done or thought lies the solution, not of historical 
 development only, but of theological truth. 
 
 A similar assumption was made in the age of Protestant 
 Scholasticism after the Reformation. The Church then 
 hoped, by exhaustive discussion of the Bible, to find one 
 complete system of doctrine to which all reasonable people 
 must *assent, as the revelation of Christ. Some men now 
 indulge a similar hope as to the authority and power of a 
 priesthood. 
 
 The questions laid before our Conference appear to be 
 framed chiefly with this underlying assumption, although this 
 method has hitherto failed to elicit such unanimity. 
 
 B. We assume that the fact of our Lord's conferring on 
 his Apostles, and on the whole Church, the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, and promising His own perpetual Presence wherever 
 men gather in His Name, as it assures the Church of a 
 perpetual advance into the clearer interpretation of His Mind 
 and Will, so also it gives to every generation the indefeasible 
 right of self-government and adjustment to needs ; and bids 
 us look for the absolute and ideal truth respecting the 
 function of a ministry in each age, not as something to be 
 extracted solely from the thoughts of the past, but as some- 
 thing to be won by patient truth-seeking, and by lives led in 
 the spirit of Christ. 
 
 This assumption is, in brief, that history and criticism play 
 only a subsidiary, though highly important, part in approxi- 
 mating to ideal theological truth. The supreme part is taken
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 53 
 
 by the religious insight of the living Church guided to use 
 rightly all that is subsidiary. 
 
 Now these two assumptions are mutually exclusive. It 
 makes all the difference whether the results of history and 
 criticism are regarded as final or subsidiary in settling the 
 problems. They may be in a very high degree subsidiary ; 
 they may constitute an essential factor; but that does not 
 make them final. 
 
 To disregard the working systems of the past, and treat 
 everything as an open question and it is in such terms as 
 these that the view put forward in B will be caricatured by 
 some is sheer individualism, utterly unhistorical in spirit, and 
 leads to dissolution. But to treat the conceptions of priest- 
 hood and sacrifice that were held in any age of the Church 
 as so authoritative as to compel us to read the N. T. and 
 interpret Christ Himself in their light is a mistake that blinds 
 the eyes to the meaning of the Incarnation itself, and hardens 
 the line of division among Christians. 
 
 Those who enter on this discussion with the second assump- 
 tion are unable to read the records of the Church in other 
 than an historic spirit ; such and such were the sayings of 
 Christ transmitted by the memories of His followers, and 
 grouped by them in accordance with their conception of His 
 Person and Revelation. Such and such were the thoughts 
 of Apostolic and sub-Apostolic men, or the belief of others 
 as to their thoughts. Such and such were the organizations 
 of churches and their ministries, that grew up under such 
 and such intellectual and civil and spiritual influences: but 
 not, such and such then is for ever and for all the world the 
 absolute truth and the Will of Jesus Christ and the Law of 
 God. 
 
 With these preliminary remarks I attempt to answer the 
 questions proposed. I approach them from the point of view 
 indicated in B.
 
 54 STATEMENTS 
 
 i. Is it possible to define the idea of Sacrifice 
 
 (a) In religion in general ? 
 
 (b) In the Old Testament (history, prophecy, and 
 
 worship) ? 
 
 (c) In the New Testament ? 
 
 I leave (a) and (b} unanswered, not at all as unimportant, 
 but as only remotely bearing on the point I wish to bring 
 out. The reply to (c) would seem to be that Christ, by His 
 manifestation of His own relationship to God, and by His 
 revelation of the Presence of the Divine Life in man, that 
 is by His Incarnation, transformed the whole idea of sacrifice, 
 and showed the spiritual reality; of which all that went 
 before* was an obscure and temporary symbol. 
 
 The root-idea of sacrifice henceforth for Christians is 'I 
 come to do Thy will, O my God ' (Heb. x. 7). It is a mere 
 incident in our service that, human nature being what it is, 
 so perverted by sin, our service of God sometimes involves 
 suffering much and giving up much. Christ's death on the 
 cross was an incident in His perfect Service of God. (I do 
 not, of course, say that this exhausts the effect of the Death 
 of Christ.) 
 
 The idea, then, of sacrifice in the Kingdom of Heaven as 
 taught in the New Testament is SERVICE. ' I come to do 
 Thy will ' to do it, cost what it may : obedience is the true 
 Xarpeia. 
 
 There is one book in the New Testament, the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews, written expressly and explicitly to teach the 
 new and Christian idea of sacrifice. ' He taketh away the 
 first, that He may establish the second.' And the second is 
 service. Westcott paraphrases it as 'the fulfilment of the 
 divine will by rational self-devotion. 1 ' Wherefore we, receiv- 
 ing a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace 
 whereby we may SERVE GOD acceptably with reverence 
 and godly fear' (xii. 28). I suppose men's minds are differently 
 constituted. To me this is the plainest lesson in the Bible.
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 55 
 
 a. Is there 
 
 (a) A generic idea of Priesthood ; and, if so, what are 
 
 the elements and functions necessary to it ? 
 
 (b) A specific Christian idea ; and, if so, what are its 
 
 specific characters ? 
 
 (a) The generic idea of Priesthood is based on the assump- 
 tion that certain channels (e. g. places, times, persons, rites, &c.) 
 exist through which the eternal and the temporal normally 
 meet. An order of persons is regarded as indispensable to 
 these channels, and such an order is a Priesthood. 
 
 (b) The specific Christian idea of Priesthood is that Christ 
 Himself is the channel of Grace and Truth to the world, ' the 
 new and living way'; and that the Divine life, dormant in 
 every one, but waked into consciousness through the revela- 
 tion made by Christ, is in itself, for every individual the 
 point in which the eternal and the temporal meet. However 
 useful and honourable a ministry of the Sacraments and 
 teaching and service may be for bringing men within reach 
 of the Gospel that awakes the Divine life, and for assisting 
 their spiritual growth, an order of persons controlling for 
 others the channels of the Divine life is not conceivable, 
 under the revelation of Christ. 
 
 3. What was the teaching of our Lord Himself 
 
 (a) As to the priestly idea ? 
 
 (b) As to His own Priesthood and Sacrifice ? 
 
 (c) As to any perpetuation and transmission of these in 
 
 His Church? 
 
 I think that the answers above given convey the substance 
 and purpose of our Lord's teaching, seen in due proportion, 
 and separated from the language and illustrations and meta- 
 phors in which, of necessity, coming in that age and nation, 
 He taught His hearers, and in which they transmitted His 
 teaching.
 
 56 STATEMENTS 
 
 4. What is the Apostolic teaching 
 
 (a) As to the Sacrifice of Christ ? 
 
 (b) As to His Priesthood? 
 
 (c) As to the Priesthood of His people ? 
 
 (d) As to the relation of this Priesthood, if there be any, 
 
 to His, and to His Sacrifice ? 
 
 The same answer, mutatis mutandis, may be made as in 3. 
 
 The fundamental idea is service and SELF-CONSECRA- 
 TION. Constant and inevitable references are made to the 
 current ideas of God, and of a Covenant, and of the Jewish 
 Priesthood and sacrifices ; but the new relation to God, which 
 constituted the Gospel, is now a spiritual union with God, 
 reveiJed by Christ and in Him, existing * through an eternal 
 Spirit,' and issuing in loving service and self-consecration. 
 
 The explicit teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews is in 
 accordance with this view. I regard it as Apostolic. This 
 Epistle also tells us that ' Christ abideth a priest continually,' 
 and thus teaches that no new priesthood is necessary. 
 
 5. What relation has the idea of the Church as the Mystical 
 Body of Christ to the ideas of His Priesthood and 
 Sacrifice ? 
 
 The Mystical Body of Christ is all humanity in so far as 
 it is animated by the Spirit of Christ. The members of the 
 Church, consciously called to represent Christ, necessarily, so 
 far as they are thus animated, live the life of service that 
 is sacrifice ; and of consecration that is priesthood, which 
 marked Christ's earthly life. Priesthood and sacrifice are 
 thus of the same nature in us as in Him. 
 
 6. Does the idea of Priesthood applied to the Church 
 reside in the whole body collectively, or in the whole 
 body ideally, or in individual members of the body ? 
 
 Priesthood, being the consecration to a life of service, is 
 a mark, or should be a mark, of the Church collectively,
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 57 
 
 and of its members individually; and, of course, of the 
 Church ideally. 
 
 7. Can there be any delegation of the functions of this 
 Priesthood ? 
 
 There can be no delegation of the duty of this life of self- 
 consecration and service. Other functions, of administering 
 the sacraments, of teaching, service, government, &c,, may 
 be delegated to a ministry; but not these which are the 
 characteristic functions of a Christian Priesthood. 
 
 8. If there is such delegation, how does it affect 
 
 (a] Those to whom the functions are delegated ? 
 
 (b) Those to whom they are not delegated? Is the 
 
 priesthood of the Church affected by this delegation ? 
 
 The belief in the possibility of the delegation of an exclu- 
 sive possession of the channels of grace and pardon may have 
 served, and may, among backward races, still serve, useful 
 temporary purposes of discipline ; but it has also produced 
 obvious and serious evils in both classes. To this belief 
 are due the worst elements in the Roman Catholic Church, 
 and some real dangers in our own. The delegation of ministry 
 and office to duly appointed persons in no way affects the 
 priesthood of the Church. 
 
 9. What is the fundamental significance of the Laying on 
 of Hands? Does it involve transmission; and, if so, 
 what is transmitted ? 
 
 The laying on of hands is a symbol of prayer, of blessing, 
 and of delegation of authority. It is a recognition of the 
 continuity of the presence of the Spirit of Christ from one 
 generation to the next. It is further a public recognition 
 of individuals by a solemn act which localizes and symbolizes 
 the prayers of the society that God will continue His gifts 
 and His presence in the Church.
 
 58 STATEMENTS 
 
 It is a transmission of authority to teach, to administer 
 the sacraments, and to do certain acts, by those who have 
 been themselves authorized by the society both to exercise 
 and to transmit that authority. 
 
 10. What was the original authority of the Apostles? Has 
 that authority in any way descended to those who come 
 after them ? 
 
 The Twelve, and others like St. James and St. Paul, had 
 of course the authority of witnesses, and of our Lord's direct 
 commission to teach. They had conceded to them, as a 
 matter of course, the further authority to guide and mould 
 the new society as circumstances then required. 
 
 The dbthority to teach and govern is permanently inherent 
 in the Church as a whole ; and by analogy with civil govern- 
 ment, and from the necessity of order and continuity of 
 doctrine, the exercise of that authority has been for eighteen 
 centuries normally vested in the historic episcopate, acting 
 for and in the name of the whole Church, and appointed in 
 such way as the Church approves. 
 
 11. Supposing that there are some to whom the functions 
 of Priesthood belong in a sense in which they do not 
 belong to others, should not a distinction be drawn 
 between the historical question as to the process by 
 which this condition of things has arisen and the theo- 
 retical question as to the place which it holds in the 
 whole Christian economy ? How are the historical and 
 the theoretic questions related to each other ? 
 
 By a confusion of ideas, inevitable in a Church which 
 has been so much influenced by Paganism as well as by 
 Judaism, orders of ministry which are essential for the 
 conduct of worship, for teaching, for the preservation of 
 orthodoxy, and for government, arising on the analogies of 
 the synagogues and of civil government, have at some stage
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 59 
 
 in their development been identified with a priesthood con- 
 nected with a temple, and supposed to be an exclusive 
 channel of approach to God, and have acquired its asso- 
 ciations. The historical questions concern, firstly, the growth 
 of the orders of the Church ministry and of government, 
 and their local variations: and secondly, the develop- 
 ment of the theoretic or theological views as to the spiritual 
 power of this ministry in controlling the Divine Grace. 
 These questions are entirely distinct ; and the truth of any 
 theoretic idea of the spiritual power of the ministry is not 
 to be established by the enumeration of those who at various 
 times have accepted it. How to give due weight, and not 
 excessive weight, to the opinions held by saintly men of 
 the past on this question is, in my judgement, the most 
 difficult of historical questions, and one on which confidence 
 is not a mark of wisdom. 
 
 The historical conclusions, both as to facts and opinions, 
 can only be subsidiary to the theological question. They 
 tell us only what at certain times and places some men did 
 and taught ; not what is for ever right and true for the Church 
 to do and teach. 
 
 12. What parts of the historical problem at the present 
 moment seem most to need further elucidation ? 
 
 (i) The intellectual or other influences which in an early 
 age caused the transference into the Christian ministry of 
 the ideas of what was originally separate from it, the Jewish 
 or pagan priesthood ; and (2) those influences which in the 
 present age are making this transference again acceptable to 
 a certain type of mind, and impossible to others. 
 
 13. Of what parts of the theoretical problem may the same 
 be said ? 
 
 The theoretical problem needs to be stated. I am not 
 quite sure what is meant. When stated, however, it will, 
 I think, be seen to be unanswerable.
 
 60 STATEMENTS 
 
 There is the permanent contrast in human nature between 
 two types of minds ; between the priest and the prophet ; 
 between tradition and illumination ; between those who value 
 continuity, order, orthodoxy most, as a means of securing 
 to the world and themselves an approach to God, and those 
 who, conscious of a direct approach to God, and valuing 
 supremely the life of the Spirit within, place continuity and 
 all externals in the second place. It is the contrast of the 
 logician and the philosopher, of the ecclesiastic and the 
 mystic. The only hope of union, or even of mutual under- 
 standing, is in each of these types endeavouring to under- 
 stand, to appreciate, to emulate the characteristic excellencies 
 of the other. The two types are not irreconcilable, if the 
 ecclesiastic is content to urge the value of continuity as a 
 security, and because of its influence on the minds of men, 
 and foregoes dogmatism as to its exclusive possession of 
 God's gifts of grace ; and if the mystic will accept it as his- 
 torically proven that his mind and temperament is not a 
 measure of those of all men, and that the most loyal adherence 
 to a Church system, as highly expedient, is compatible with 
 utter simplicity and piety and humility. 
 
 14. If there is a Ministerial Priesthood under the New 
 Covenant, can it be rightly described as a Sacrificing 
 Priesthood ? 
 
 The phrases Ministerial Priesthood and New Covenant 
 should be avoided unless they are carefully defined in a 
 Christian sense. Such a ministry as is contemplated in the 
 New Testament is a ministry of teaching, and worship, and 
 governing, but is not a sacrificing priesthood, except in the 
 sense above described; it is a body of representatives of 
 the Church specially consecrated to the life of service. In 
 that sense it is both ministerial and a priesthood. 
 
 15. How far is the Early Church to be determinative to- 
 day of the questions discussed under the above heads?
 
 AND DEFINITIONS 6l 
 
 And what are the limits which we ought to assign to 
 the determinative period ? 
 
 No limit can be assigned to the age which may be studied 
 as throwing light on the elements in human nature which 
 have introduced modes of thought or customs into the growth 
 of the idea of the Church as it existed in the mind of Christ. 
 But no age is determinative for us. We have to ascertain 
 the idea of Christ Himself; and a study of Church traditions 
 may obscure as well as illuminate that idea. From the New 
 Testament and especially from the Gospels, we must always 
 derive correctives to those idola which haunt us ; ever striving 
 to see the spiritual beneath the visible ; the eternal beneath 
 the temporal ; and to adapt our visible or temporal forms of 
 thought and worship, in our own age, so as best to lead our 
 generation to a knowledge of the spiritual and the eternal. 
 
 To conclude 
 
 If any agreement can be come to on these subjects, it must 
 be on some basis broad enough for both types of mind to 
 stand upon ; and each type must be willing to allow the other 
 to stand by its side and not try to push it off. Can we agree 
 that the Christian idea of sacrifice is the spiritual sacrifice 
 of ' ourselves, our souls and bodies ' ; and that the one con- 
 summate sacrifice is that of Christ's own humbling Himself, 
 giving up His glory, taking the form of man, and dying the 
 death of the Cross? Can we agree that each Christian is 
 pledged to offer a similar sacrifice of self-consecration to God, 
 and is therefore verily a priest ? And can we agree, finally, 
 that the Ministry of the Church of Christ is the representative 
 of the whole Church, bound even more than others to the life 
 of service and self-consecration, and bound to show forth the 
 Lord's death, by symbol, by word, by life, till He come ?
 
 62 THE CONFERENCE 
 
 III 
 
 THE CONFERENCE 
 
 THE time-table of the proceedings will give a sufficient 
 idea of the manner in which the Conference was conducted. 
 With the exception of Mr. Headlam, Ex-Fellow, and 
 Mr. Lang, Fellow, of All Souls who stayed in their own 
 College, the non-resident members of the Conference were 
 entertained at Christ Church and at Mansfield College ; and 
 the meetings for business were pleasantly interspersed with 
 social gatherings in which all took part. 
 
 TIME TABLE. 
 Tuesday \ December 12. 
 
 Dine at Christ Church (Dr. Sanday), 7.30. 
 
 Wednesday, December 13. 
 Preliminaries, 10-10.15. 
 
 First Discussion (Questions i, 2), 10.15-1245. 
 
 PRESUPPOSITIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE. 
 Definitions of Sacrifice and Priesthood. 
 Relation of the Ceremonial Element in Sacrifice and 
 
 Priesthood to the Moral. 
 Bearing of Old Testament Doctrine. 
 
 Lunch, 1.15. 
 
 Tea (at Christ Church), 345. 
 
 Second Discussion (Questions 3, 4), 4-6.30. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE AND PRIESTHOOD. 
 The Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ 
 Silences of the New Testament
 
 THE CONFERENCE 63 
 
 What means are there of distinguishing between Metaphor 
 and substantial Reality ? 
 
 Dine at Christ Church (Dr. Moberly and Dr. Sanday), 7.30. 
 
 Thursday, December 14. 
 Third Discussion (Questions 5-15), 10-12.30. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE (continued"). 
 
 The Mystical Union : What is it, and what does it imply ? 
 
 The Relation of the Body to its ' organs.' 
 
 Provision for the Perpetuity of the Christian Priesthood. 
 
 Lunch at Mansfield College (Dr. Fairbairn), 1.15. 
 
 Informal Meeting (at Mansfield College), 2.30. 
 Publication of Report, &c. 
 
 N.B. The heads for discussion are only suggestions of leading points , 
 and are not meant to preclude the raising of any question relevant to the 
 main issue.
 
 64 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 1 
 
 FIRST DISCUSSION. 
 
 AT the first sitting, and throughout the Conference, the 
 following were present : 
 
 FATHER PULLER. DR. SANDAY (in the Chair). 
 
 DR. MOBERLY. REV. A. C. HEADLAM. 
 
 CANON GORE. DR. FAIRBAIRN. 
 
 CANON SCOTT HOLLAND, DR. SALMOND. 
 
 REV. C. G. LANG. DR. DAVISON. 
 
 ARCHDEACON WILSON. REV. ARNOLD THOMAS. 
 
 DR. RYLE. DR. FORSYTH. 
 CANON E. R. BERNARD. 
 
 After prayer, the proceedings were opened by Dr. Sanday, 
 who spoke as follows : 
 
 i. DR. SANDAY. I must express my great thankfulness that 
 at last we meet together face to face, and that these 
 friendly but serious discussions to which we have been 
 looking forward, through what I have no doubt have 
 been very busy weeks, are at last about to begin. 
 I know that many of those who are present have come 
 here at no small cost to themselves, and at cost of various 
 kinds. I know that they have done so from no personal 
 motive, but from a public motive, and from the hope 
 that what will be done now may ultimately, in some way 
 or other, redound to the general good ; and I earnestly 
 trust that when our meetings are over we may feel that 
 we shall not go empty away. I am quite aware that the 
 course I have proposed is a serious and responsible one. 
 I can quite imagine it to be possible that our Conference
 
 I. 1] FIRST DISCUSSION 65 
 
 might have more definite and tangible success if it had 
 been on a smaller basis, and if it had a smaller scope. 
 But I ventured to aim at something more than this ; 
 I thought that we might go to the root of some of 
 the differences which affect us most as English Church- 
 men and English Christians. Of course I have not 
 allowed myself to be too sanguine. I do not suppose 
 that many of us here will go away thinking very 
 differently from the way in which we thought when 
 we came. I myself, from the special circumstances in 
 which I find myself, may be more likely to be affected 
 by the results of this Conference than any one here. 
 In any case, I think we shall bring out at least what 
 we have in common ; and I cannot help hoping that 
 the eloquent passage with which Archdeacon Wilson's 
 paper concludes may express the minimum of this 
 common ground. But beyond that, I think we may 
 define the extent of our differences, and see just the 
 point where they come in. I have great hopes that 
 we shall be able to clear away a great deal of irrelevant 
 controversy. Differences there must be ; but I trust they 
 will not be harsh differences, and that the more we get 
 to know each other, the more we shall see how much 
 our views really do rest upon serious and deeply thought- 
 out grounds, and the more we shall feel mutual respect. 
 
 There are just a few explanations that I should like 
 to make. You may be interested to know something 
 about the invitations which have been sent out for this 
 Conference. I am glad to say that of all the invitations 
 that were originally sent out only one was declined, and 
 I must express my own personal thanks for the very 
 cordial way in which they have been received. The 
 only one that was declined, and that after long con- 
 sideration, was by Dr. Armitage Robinson ; and I am 
 afraid that one of the main reasons why he declined 
 
 F
 
 66 FIRST DISCUSSION [L 1 
 
 it was the very high standard which he sets himself in 
 approaching a subject like this. He felt that his own 
 work was so absorbing that it would take him away from 
 it too much to enable him to prepare, as he would wish 
 to prepare, for this Conference. Well, after receiving 
 that reply, I wrote to Dr. Swete, of Cambridge, and 
 I should have been very glad if he could have seen 
 his way to join us ; but unfortunately his health is far 
 from strong, and he did not feel equal to undertaking the 
 Conference on that ground. I then wrote to Mr. Lang, 
 of Portsea, whom I had a special reason for asking to be 
 present, as he has been for some time interested in this 
 subject, and will form a welcome link of connexion with 
 our friends in Scotland. I am sorry that all of those 
 who were originally invited are not here. Dr. Moule, 
 I regret to say, is away. He found that our meetings 
 would clash with the last ordination of the Bishop of 
 Liverpool, and as he stood in such intimate relation to 
 the Bishop he did not feel that he could be absent from 
 the ordination. For some time he held out a hope that 
 he would send us a paper of answers to our questions, 
 although he was not here in person. It was impos- 
 sible for me to overcome the modesty of my friend, 
 Mr. Chavasse ; and at the strong instance of Dr. Moule, 
 I wrote to Mr. Nathaniel Dimock, who has written 
 a learned work on the Christian Doctrine of Sacerdotium. 
 Unfortunately I wrote to an old address, and after some 
 days my letter was returned by the Post Office. I had 
 previously written to the Bishop of Wakefield, Dr. J. H. 
 Bernard, of Dublin, and Dr. Robertson, of King's College. 
 All replied most cordially, but all had engagements that 
 stood in the way. Almost at the last moment I thought 
 that I need not hesitate to write to my old friend and 
 fellow-worker, Mr. Headlam, and he has kindly con- 
 sented to come.
 
 I. 2] FIRST DISCUSSION 67 
 
 I am extremely sorry that Dr. Barrett, of Norwich, 
 is also not able to be here. I have had this letter 
 from him : 
 
 'I am most deeply grieved and disappointed that 
 I am unable to be with you this week. There has 
 been an extraordinary pressure of work connected with 
 my own church which has made it impossible for me 
 to leave. I anticipate, with the greatest interest, the 
 results of the Conference. Will you be so good as to 
 express my sincere regret for my absence, which is 
 enforced by circumstances over which I have no control.' 
 
 I should add that Dr. Fairbairn at once wrote to 
 Mr. Arnold Thomas, of Bristol, and we are all exceed- 
 ingly glad that he has been able to come. That, I think, 
 will explain what has been done in the matter of the 
 invitations. 
 
 I hope you will approve of the method I have adopted 
 of circulating these questions and of asking for answers 
 in writing, and that we shall find them helpful. 
 I took the further liberty of asking Dr. Driver to con- 
 tribute notes on some of the points. I felt sure that 
 it would be a great advantage to us to have them 
 treated on strictly philological and scientific principles, 
 without regard to the inferences which we draw from 
 them ; and he has done exactly what I asked of him. 
 I should say that the notes as they appear are somewhat 
 condensed and abridged from the form in which they were 
 sent to me ; for those who know Dr. Driver's work will 
 know how profuse he is in supporting any statements he 
 may make by detailed references. And now, the only 
 question to consider is as to our method of procedure, 
 a. DR. FAIRBAIRN. May I, Dr. Sanday, before you pass from 
 these general remarks, respond to the kindly sentiments 
 with which you have opened the Conference, and say 
 that our hopes are exactly your hopes. We do not 
 
 F a
 
 68 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 3-5 
 
 anticipate, any more than you, that there may not be 
 differences of opinion at the end of it ; but we are happy 
 to feel as Christian brethren that we can still meet and 
 discuss these questions freely, even though in our hearts 
 there may be differences. 
 
 3. DR. SANDAY. There is the question yet to decide how 
 
 we should proceed, and I think it would be best for each 
 to take five minutes, and that we should follow the order 
 of the groups and the way in which the names appear 
 upon the circular. I would ask those gentlemen whose 
 names appear first in each group to speak first, each 
 taking five minutes, and so on with the others, group 
 succeeding group, and going round the table. 
 
 Perhaps we might see this morning how that works ; 
 but if amongst yourselves you would prefer to change 
 that order, we might well do so. My idea was that we 
 should each take five minutes, and then spend the rest 
 of the time in general conversation. We might either 
 make connected remarks or ask questions of each other ; 
 but I would propose that, if questions are asked in the 
 course of the five minutes' speeches, the answering of 
 these questions should be reserved until they are finished. 
 Before I ask Father Puller to speak, I should like to 
 know whether any one would wish to say anything as 
 to the method of procedure. If any one has anything to 
 suggest in that respect, now is the opportunity. 
 
 4. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Are we to understand that we are to 
 
 speak for five minutes on all the topics that are set out ? 
 
 5. DR. SANDAY. I think I stated on the time-table that the 
 
 heads for discussion are only suggestions of leading 
 points, and are not meant to preclude the raising of 
 any question relevant to the main issue. I think our 
 centre of gravity should be the New Testament doctrine. 
 If no one wishes to make any further remark I would 
 ask Father Puller to commence.
 
 I. 6] FIRST DISCUSSION 69 
 
 6. FATHER PULLER. On the spur of the moment I have 
 to consider how to begin the Conference ; and it occurs 
 to me that I should like to lay stress on what is no doubt 
 very familiar to every one here, although some persons, 
 who are not present, seem to have misconceptions on the 
 subject. The point on which I wish to lay stress is the 
 fact that in the Old Testament sacrifices are represented 
 to us as processes consisting of various acts. A sacrifice 
 is not simply the killing of a victim, but a process of 
 a complex nature. The victim was first brought and 
 presented alive by the offerer ; then the offerer laid his 
 hands on the head of the victim, and in some sense con- 
 stituted it as his representative. The victim was next O 
 killed by the offerer ; and it was not until the death had 
 taken place, as I understand it, that the priest^s part 
 commenced. It was his duty to calch. the^ blqpd which 
 flowed from the victim, and then to offer the blood on A 
 the altar, or round the base of the altar, and in some 
 cases on the horns of the altar ; while on the Day of 
 Atonement the High Priest took it within the innermost 
 veil and sprinkled it before the Shekinah enthroned over 
 the Mercy-seat. It was in that blood-sprinkling that 
 the priestly action in the sacrifice commenced. Then the 
 priest had to take either the whole body of the victim / 
 as in the case of the burnt-offering, or, as in the case 
 of some other forms of sacrifice, choice portions of the 
 victim, and lay them upon the great altar of burnt-offering, 
 where they were burned in the holy fire which had come 
 o*ut from God. To use the remarkable language of the 
 Old Testament, the victim became the bread or the food 
 of God. Finally, there came the feasting on the sacrifice. 
 In the whole burnt-offering there could be nothing pf the 
 victim eaten, because the peculiarity of that kind of 
 sacrifice consisted in the fact that the whole victim was 
 burnt; but there was always offered with the burnt-
 
 70 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.7 
 
 offering a meal-offering, part of which was eaten by the 
 priest. In the case of the peace-offering the eating was 
 much more emphasized. The priest had his share, and 
 the offerer and his family had their share. Altogether, 
 there seem to have been six different acts which went 
 to make up the great complex process of sacrifice. The 
 presentation alive, the laying on of hands, and the killing 
 these three may be described as non-sacerdotal acts, 
 because they were ordinarily performed by the offerer, 
 who was generally a layman. When the priest took 
 part in these acts, he was acting, not as a priest, but 
 rather as an offerer, or as the representative of the 
 oljerers. The priestly part in the work of sacrifice con- 
 sisted in the manipulation of the blood, and in placing 
 the body or part of it on the altar to be burned. Now 
 this may all seem at first sight unfruitful ; but I think 
 that it has a great bearing on the way in which we 
 should regard the sacrifice of our Lord, and sacrifice 
 generally under the Gospel dispensation. The question is a 
 very vital one, and it has been answered in various ways 
 the question, I mean, whether the sacrifice of our Lord 
 simply consists in His death on the Cross ; whether His 
 priestly action is confined to His death, or whether 
 His sacrificial action goes on after His death and in His 
 life of glory. 
 
 7. ARCHDEACON WILSON. I think that some apology is 
 needed from me, because of all present I have the least 
 claim to be regarded as a professed theologian. I feel, 
 with respect to these words Sacrifice and Priesthood 
 that they are valuable and indispensable, but that they 
 are attended with two bad connotations; and we are 
 such slaves to words that it is extremely difficult for us 
 to think of these words without their connotations. In 
 the first place, there is the association of sacrifice with 
 the idea of a bargain some bargain struck with God
 
 I. 7.] FIRST DISCUSSION 71 
 
 which survives though it has been immensely altered 
 since the early days of sacrifice. The second bad conno- 
 tation, that of the word priest, is that of a human 
 mediator between God and man. The essential thought 
 that should for us Christians underlie the words is that 
 of self-consecration to God, always remembering that 
 self-consecration in our present sinful and imperfect 
 condition of human nature involves suffering. Tracing 
 back our use of the words to the Old Testament, we find 
 that propitiation of God and human mediation which 
 are the two bad connotations are practically inseparable 
 from some of the Jewish sacrifices ; and these elements in 
 our worship were, in my judgement, entirely abrogated 
 by Christ; and when they have reappeared in the 
 Church they have been mischievous. I cannot regard 
 the eucharist as a sacrifice. It is to me a symbol so I 
 read my New Testament a symbol of self-oblation of 
 the mystical body of Christ ; an offering of our souls 
 and bodies expressed in actual life in service, whether 
 of the individual, or of the whole body of the Church, 
 or of its representatives i. e. those who are appointed 
 as its ministers. An extremely important question 
 arises as to the cause of the vitality of what is regarded 
 by some people at any rate as the magical view of 
 sacrifice and priesthood. I do not wish to use an 
 objectionable term here, but at the instant no other word 
 occurs to me. There appear to be three causes for 
 this vitality. The first is bad ; for unquestionably the 
 magical view has been maintained in all religions in 
 the interest of priestcraft, in the belief that it increases 
 the power of the priest. The second is also bad, or 
 rather arises out of our weakness, namely, the desire on 
 the part of weak human nature for external mechanical 
 support and delegation of responsibility, and to sub- 
 stitute these for the actual devotion of the soul and
 
 72 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 8 
 
 spirit to God's service. And the third is good, namely, 
 the recognition that there are, as a matter of fact, special 
 and mysterious means of grace, to feed and support 
 spiritual life the recognition that just as our earthly 
 life, mysterious and inconceivable as it is, is supported 
 by external means by the food for our body, food of 
 an organic kind and therefore containing life so in this 
 unity and continuity of nature our spiritual life may be 
 actually maintained by some similar means. 
 8. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I think it would be a real gain were we 
 to eliminate from the discussion all abstract ideas, whether 
 gathered from our conceptions of religion in general, or 
 from certain selected historical and ethnical religions in 
 particular, and to confine ourselves to what alone is really 
 vital, the ideas of sacrifice and of priesthood in the Old 
 and New Testaments. Within these limits three ques- 
 tions seem to me at once to emerge : What is priest- 
 hood ? what is sacrifice ? and what is the relation between 
 them ? If we take our Lord Himself as the normal 
 priest, then we have in Him one who realizes, as the first 
 and essential function of priesthood, mediation. He is 
 mediator by virtue of His very nature as the Word 
 manifest in the flesh, so constituted as to be a daysman 
 between God and us, by the right hand of His divinity 
 laying hold upon God, and by the left hand of His 
 humanity upon man. He is thus, by the very terms of 
 His theanthropic person, able to mediate between the 
 parties at variance, who are absolute contrasts at once 
 in dignity and in moral state or quality of being. And 
 so He could be fitly described as both taken from among 
 men and called of God (Heb. v. 14). The priesthood, as 
 He fills it, is in the Epistle to the Hebrews placed in 
 antithesis to the Levitical (i) inasmuch as it stands for 
 a multitude, where son succeeds father in an order that 
 may not be broken j while He stands alone, ' a priest for
 
 I. 8.] FIRST DISCUSSION 73 
 
 ever after the order of Melchizedek ' (v. 6 ; vii. 1-3, 15- 
 24). (2) Inasmuch as the Levitical priesthood was an 
 order of sinful men, who each needed to sacrifice first for 
 himself and then for the people : but Christ, as sinless, sac- 
 rificed for the people without any need of sacrificing for 
 Himself (vii. 26-28). This means that in His case, as in 
 that of His great prototype, His person created His 
 office ; the office did not, as in the case of the Levitical 
 priesthood, exist independently of the person (vii. 1 1-14). 
 The sacrifice which He offers comes in a form that has 
 been expressed by obedience, specifically as obedience 
 to God (x. 7). He does the Father's will (John v. 30 ; 
 vi. 38). But what turned His obedience into sacrifice ? 
 The need which has been variously expressed by the 
 terms expiation, propitiation, atonement. He suffers 
 that He may become the Captain of our salvation and 
 reconcile man to God (Heb. ii. 10, 14 ; iv. 16 ; v. 9 ; 
 Rom. v. 10; a Cor. v. 19-21). The priesthood, therefore, 
 involves a sacrifice which He Himself constitutes, and 
 which is the necessary basis of His mediation. This 
 sacrifice is expressly directed towards a reconciliation of 
 sinners with the God from Whom their sin has estranged 
 them. Hence out of the mediation which springs out of 
 the person of the priest and the expiation which is 
 achieved by His sacrifice, there comes absolution, which 
 is the bringing to man of forgiveness from God. With- 
 out absolution the other functions would fail of their 
 effect. And the three functions are marked by the same 
 quality which distinguishes His person : they are all 
 alike unique. He is the one advocate with the Father 
 (i John ii. 2); His sacrifice is offered once for all 
 (Heb. ix. 12, 26; x. 10-14); and He alone on earth 
 hath power to forgive sin (Matt. ix. 6 ; Mark ii. 7, 10 ; 
 Acts xiii. 38 ; Eph. i. 7). As to the peculiar nature of 
 His sacrifice, we shall essentially err if we construe it only
 
 74 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 9 
 
 through those sacrifices which are specified in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews or described in the Levitical legislation. 
 We have to remember that an entirely distinct order of 
 sacrifice is to be found in the prophetic writings, where 
 the notion is transferred from an animal victim to a moral 
 person. The most perfect type of sacrifice given in the 
 Old Testament is the Suffering Servant of God, in Isaiah, 
 who bears our sins and carries our sorrows, who is 
 stricken, smitten of God and afflicted, and who stands as 
 a sheep dumb before his shearers (Is. liii). And this 
 Servant is an ideal priest as well as an ideal sacrifice, 
 who redeems and absolves the people whose sins he 
 bears (lix. 20 ; Ixi. 1-3 ; Hi. 7, 13-15), though he stands 
 in* absolute antithesis to all that the Mosaic legislation 
 meant by these terms. 
 
 9. DR. MOBERLY. As to the bearing of the Old Testament 
 upon the true meaning of sacrifice and priesthood, I would 
 urge that it is limited. The Old Testament itself is only 
 really understood retrospectively. Of course all that is 
 in the Old Testament is relevant. The New Testament 
 will interpret it all. But the Old Testament is not 
 determinative of the meaning of the New. What things 
 mean in the New Testament, is their true meaning. It 
 is only from that that you can go back and find out how 
 all the Old Testament had been (however blindly) leading 
 up to the different elements of the fullness of the truth. 
 
 As to the relation of the ceremonial element to the 
 moral, I would say that in all the earlier stages they 
 seem to me to stand comparatively widely apart. In the 
 Levitical law there was a great system of ceremonial, 
 which had indeed an inward meaning, but which was 
 largely separable, in ordinary observance, from its own 
 true inwardness. The prophets are in constant protest 
 against this separation. But it is only very gradually 
 that you approach any true conception of the fusion of
 
 I. 10, 11] FIRST DISCUSSION 75 
 
 the ceremonial and the moral. The fusion is only 
 complete in the Person of Christ. 
 
 The fusion is no merely peaceful climax. Underneath 
 everything connected with sacrifice and priesthood runs a 
 certain assumption of fact, which colours all. This is 
 man's 'disability' (as it may be called in its more rudi- 
 mentary aspects) ; a disability which, as more fully 
 realized, becomes the deepening consciousness of sin. 
 , I doubt whether, save as within and tinged by the atmo- 
 sphere of consciousness of sin, the word sacrifice (and its 
 cognates) could be strictly used at all. 
 
 I should like to refer to one or two words of Archdeacon 
 Wilson's. He criticized the word ' bargain ' as a word of old 
 and false associations. I would suggest that the essence 
 of what underlay the 'bargain' language does not disappear 
 though the associations may be greatly modified in 
 detail. The word may have primarily suggested a 
 spontaneous agreement between two equal parties. But 
 the free bounty of an immense benefactor does, without 
 previous compact, impose on the recipient the strongest 
 moral obligations of responsive gratitude. The essence 
 of a reciprocal relation is created by his single act. 
 Conceptions gradually deepen. We may learn to tran- 
 scend the accidental implications of a symbolic word : and 
 yet the essential reality symbolized be not thereby 
 impaired, but more intensely realized. 
 
 10. DR. SANDAY. As the five minutes have expired, I should 
 like to know, Dr. Moberly, with what further subjects 
 you were proposing to deal. 
 
 11. DR. MOBERLY. I was proposing to welcome the Arch- 
 deacon's phrase ' self-consecration ' in relation to sacrifice, 
 but with a considerable difference \ and I was going to 
 challenge his implication that events ' in time and space ' 
 could not be real causes of vast results in the spiritual 
 sphere.
 
 76 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.12 
 
 i a. DR. RYLE. With regard to the presuppositions of New 
 Testament doctrine, I have been very strongly impressed 
 with the remarkable manner in which the conceptions 
 of sacrifice and priesthood have come round in the 
 present day to what seems to have been the original con- 
 ception that prevailed in the most primitive times. The 
 history of sacrifice and priesthood seems to pass through 
 three periods (i) the prehistoric period, (2) the Old 
 Testament period, and (3) the New Testament period. 
 In the case of sacrifice, the thought of communion with 
 the unseen power, and in that of priesthood the thought 
 of service by means of representation and of self-dedica- 
 tion, take us back to primitive ideas. The Old Testament 
 presents a stage of development in regard to sacrifice in 
 which the primitive ideas are no longer actually present. 
 They represent the three aspects called the eucharistic, 
 the dedicatory, and the piacular ; but the piacular idea of 
 sacrifice is largely predominant. Then with regard to 
 priesthood, the two ideas of making offerings and of 
 making expiation are combined in the earliest concep- 
 tions. The Jewish system received in Christ so complete 
 a fulfilment that except by the introduction of meta- 
 phor the Jewish ideas no longer have any place in the 
 Christian society. The thought of sacrifice which seems 
 to have been the most prominent one to the Jews was 
 that of expiation. This piacular side of sacrifice has 
 been completely absorbed in the death-offering of Christ. 
 I imagine that what may be called the piacular side of 
 the priesthood is one which is present in the priesthoods 
 of all religions ; and what Dr. Moberly has said about the 
 sense of man's disability lies at the bottom of all priest- 
 hoods, ethnic and Jewish alike. Sacrifice is needed to 
 express man's disability, and the desire of obtaining 
 atonement. Now if the atonement is perfect and complete, 
 as we receive it in the New Testament, the fundamental
 
 I. 18] FIRST DISCUSSION 77 
 
 piacular idea of priesthood and sacrifice has been, as it 
 were, abolished in Christ, and only the more general and 
 secondary purposes of priesthood and sacrifice remain. 
 13. DR. SALMOND. The presuppositions of the New Testa- 
 ment ideas of sacrifice and priesthood are to be sought 
 chiefly, if not wholly, in the Old Testament. Little 
 is gained, it seems to me, by attempting to go beyond 
 that. It is in terms of the Old Testament system 
 that the New Testament speaks of these ideas ; and it 
 is in the light of Old Testament conceptions, institu- 
 tions, and usages that the New Testament conceptions 
 and expressions are to be interpreted. 
 
 With respect to the idea of sacrifice, it does not 
 appear to me to be possible to get to anything generic. 
 It is doubtful whether we can unite in a single, definite 
 idea the various terms, notions, and usages connected 
 with sacrifice even in the Old Testament itself. Far 
 less are we entitled to say that we can travel back, by 
 the way of history and archaeology, to the primitive 
 idea of sacrifice. We have not the means of reaching 
 a conception which can be called generic, or of which 
 it can be said that all races had it at first. It is true 
 that a strong case is made out for the idea of a common 
 meal a participation on the part of a god and his wor- 
 shippers in a common act of eating and drinking, which 
 was significant of kinship between them as the original 
 or fundamental conception. But it is in the line of 
 Semitic religion that the argument in behalf of this 
 has been best worked out ; and I do not know that we 
 can speak of it as made out in the same way also for 
 the non-Semitic religions. It is a hasty and, to my 
 mind, unscientific way of dealing with such matters 
 when men leap, from a case held to be established 
 on strong grounds of probability for one great class 
 of religions, at once to the conclusion that the same
 
 78 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 13 
 
 holds good for all religions. What we actually see in 
 the case of the non-Semitic religions is a number of 
 sacrifices of different kinds and apparently of different 
 meanings, of which we cannot say with any measure 
 of certainty when they arose in the life of the different 
 races, how they stood related to each other, whether 
 they had the same significance in different races, or 
 even in the same race at different periods, or whether 
 they followed the same course of development in the 
 history of different peoples. We are not in a position 
 to affirm even that the unbloody sacrifices preceded the 
 bloody sacrifices in the case of this or that people. Investi- 
 gation into the history of the non-Semitic religions must 
 be carried much beyond what it has yet reached before 
 we can attain to the generic idea of sacrifice. The real 
 question is, what is the significance that is attached to 
 sacrifice in Scripture itself? and, in particular, what is it 
 in those Old Testament writings and institutions to 
 which the New Testament ideas are most nearly akin ? 
 
 It appears, then, that in the Old Testament at least 
 three ideas are connected with sacrifice, viz. those of 
 gift, expiation, and communion or participation, that 
 is to say, in a common meal. Of these, however, the 
 last has a subordinate place in the Old Testament, 
 particularly in the Levitical system; while in the New 
 Testament it practically disappears. It is true that 
 in the Old Testament acts of eating are mentioned 
 in connexion with certain sacrifices. But it does not 
 appear that the ' eating ' was the essence of the sacri- 
 ficial act. It is assumed that the Tsebach was accompanied 
 by a meat-offering. But this is only a probable supposi- 
 tion. And, in any case, it seems to me impossible to 
 explain the most solemn sacrifices of the Old Testament 
 system in terms of the third of these ideas. In the New 
 Testament view of sacrifice the idea of a fellowship
 
 1.13] FIRST DISCUSSION 79 
 
 between God and the offerer, or anything like a par- 
 ticipation in a common life, is conspicuous by its absence. 
 It cannot be introduced except by recognizing the Lord's 
 Supper to be a 'sacrifice,' and one of a definite kind. 
 The only passage outside this that has any plausible 
 relation to the question is Hebrews xiii. 10. But few 
 will undertake to say, few competent exegetes at any 
 rate, that the ' altar ' in view there is that of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 The important thing, however, is that there is a dis- 
 tinction between two great orders of sacrifices those 
 that take the form of thank-offerings and the like, and 
 those that relate to offences. There are some offerings, 
 indeed, in which the specific idea may be doubtful, e. g. 
 the burnt-offerings. But the broad distinction referred 
 to is recognized all through the Old Testament ; and it is 
 explicitly affirmed and acted on in the New Testament, 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews (v. i) having it in view when 
 it speaks of ' every high priest ' being ordained to offer 
 ' both gifts and sacrifices for sins.' The distinction is a 
 vital one, and the second class of offerings, the ' sacrifices ' 
 as distinguished from the ' gifts, 5 in other words those 
 offerings which are known as sin-offerings and trespass- 
 offerings, express the idea of liability or guilt and its 
 removal. They deal with offences^ with the penalties 
 attached to offences, and the provision for relief. The 
 various theories elaborated by Bahr and others seem to 
 me to fail here, whether we look at them in the light of 
 the statements made in the Old Testament itself on the 
 purpose and efficacy of these sacrifices, or in that of 
 the interpretation of them which is given us in the New 
 Testament. The great passage in Hebrews, ix. 9-14, 
 which again distinguishes between ' gifts ' and ' sacrifices/ 
 certainly ascribes to 'the blood of bulls and goats' under 
 the Old Testament a positive efficacy, an efficacy vastly
 
 8o FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 13 
 
 beneath that belonging to Christ's sacrifice of Himself in 
 death, and one operating in a different sphere of things, 
 but yet a real efficacy, and one meaning the removal of 
 certain disabilities or penalties. These Old Testament 
 sacrifices availed to ' the flesh,' to ceremonial ends, to the 
 rectification of disturbed relations between an Israelite 
 and the law or the congregation, which were caused by 
 some offence ; the sacrifice of Christ avails for the ' con- 
 science,' and the removal of guilt in the moral sphere. 
 
 This distinction is of importance to the whole question 
 of the relation of the moral to the ceremonial, and in 
 particular to those disavowals or denunciations of sacrifice 
 which are so frequent in the Old Testament itself, 
 especially in the Psalms and Prophets. Like everything 
 else pertaining to worship or service, the ceremonial 
 requirements of the Mosaic system might be observed 
 wrongly or perfunctorily, without a due sense of their 
 meaning and value. It is not strange, therefore, that all 
 through the Old Testament we have strong things said 
 against sacrifices, which are dealt with as a mere opus 
 operatum. And in point of fact, it appears that most 
 that is said in this way in the Old Testament refers to 
 the ' gifts ' in particular, or to that abuse of the ordinance 
 of sacrifice generally which made it stand for all that was 
 required of the worshipper, and put it apart from the 
 spirit of obedience and the moral qualities of life and duty. 
 
 With respect to priesthood, time permits me only to 
 say that in its case, as in that of sacrifice, it is difficult to 
 reach the generic idea. If we look to the Old Testament 
 itself, however, and to the New Testament interpreta- 
 tions of the term, we see that the general idea of a 
 ' priest ' is that he is one who ' draws near to God,' who 
 in doing so brings gifts and offerings, and who does this 
 in particular for others, so that they find access to God 
 through him.
 
 I. 14] FIRST DISCUSSION 8l 
 
 14. CANON GORE. I should like to make three remarks by 
 way of supplement to my printed answers on questions 
 (i) and (2). 
 
 (1) If we look upon sacrifice as a typical act of religion 
 all over the world and at all times, we shall have to admit 
 that it is a typical act which has been always or generally 
 of a social character. It is an act not primarily of an 
 individual man, but of man as a member of a body a 
 tribe or family or nation or church. In the Bible, 
 sacrifice is closely connected therefore with covenant. 
 The divine covenant is the basis of a society first Jewish, 
 then catholic. And as the sacrifices of the Old Testa- 
 ment were the acts of a society, so the eucharist was 
 regarded as ' the Christian sacrifice,' because it was a 
 corporate act in which the whole society was bound 
 together into one body in being bound to God in Christ. 
 The eucharist thus expresses the idea which has most 
 deeply underlain the institution of sacrifice all over the 
 world. 
 
 (2) If, with your eye on the records of universal religion, 
 you give the word ' sacrifice ' its extended meaning, you 
 include manifold outward ceremonial acts of sacrifice 
 which have exceedingly little ethical meaning. There 
 are sacrifices and rituals which are entirely non-moral. 
 My point is that the institution of sacrifice is presented to 
 us in the Old Testament under the discipline of a divine 
 education ; and the New Testament or perfected concep- 
 tion of sacrifice involves the position that the acceptable 
 sacrifice is essentially an offering of persons, and of things 
 or rites only as adjuncts or expressions of persons. Here 
 again the eucharist realizes the ideal of sacrifice, because 
 (according to the truest conception of it, which Augustine 
 is for ever emphasizing) it culminates in the corporate 
 offering of the worshippers, all together in one body 
 offering themselves, their souls and bodies, in union with 
 
 G
 
 82 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.15 
 
 the offering of the perfect Person to whom they have been 
 afresh united in the communion of His body and blood. 
 
 (3) Sacrifice is a far broader conception than propitia- 
 tion. Christ's propitiation is not the abolition of sacrifice, 
 but the establishment of the true priestly race, which 
 having won, through His propitiation once made, its 
 position of sonship, can henceforth enjoy and exercise the 
 freedom for approach, the freedom for divine communion, 
 which is the perfection of sacrifice. He not only offered 
 Himself for us, but offered us in Himself. Christ is our 
 High Priest and Sacrifice, in order that we in Him may 
 have both light and power to be ourselves priests and to 
 |hare His sacrifice. The eucharist is regarded as the 
 chief mode in which the priestly life of the Church is to 
 be expressed or realized. As we look widely over the 
 ethnic religions and, more closely, into the religion of 
 the Old Testament, we are bound always to bear in mind 
 that Christ came ' not to destroy, but to fulfil.' 
 15. CANON BERNARD. I believe that hitherto the idea of 
 sacrifice has been too exclusively studied from the Old 
 Testament. That affords an inadequate conception of 
 God's whole dealings with humanity. The most worthy 
 explanation of the universal instinct of sacrifice is that He 
 Himself planted in the minds of all mankind the desire 
 to approach Him and find their way to Him. I cannot 
 admit that communion with the god by a sacrificial meal 
 is an invariable characteristic of sacrifice. It was not so 
 even in Semitic sacrifices, for no one partook of the burnt- 
 offering in Hebrew ritual. Still less can this be made 
 good of sacrifice generally. And I also dissent from the 
 view expressed that sacrifice was primarily a corporate, 
 not an individual act, although the corporate character 
 may preponderate in Semitic sacrifice. But we are dealing 
 with a wider circle of ideas, and Tylor's account of sacrifice 
 in Primitive Culture, vol. II. 375 ff., will not justify this
 
 I. 16] FIRST DISCUSSION 83 
 
 limited view. It is important to decide whether these 
 conceptions are fundamental, because a good deal, and 
 I think too much, has been built upon them in regard to 
 sacrifice in the New Testament. 
 
 It is through the instinct of sacrifice in all its varied 
 forms, some lofty, some corrupt and degrading, that man- 
 kind have been led up to see ultimately that it is moral 
 obedience and spiritual devotion which are the things that 
 are really acceptable to God. It was these things which 
 were exhibited in the life and death of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. It seems to me that Church teaching and Church 
 ritual have allowed the elements through which this true 
 idea was evolved to influence them too much, and that, 
 having got to the sense that it is moral and spiritual 
 devotion which are really acceptable to God, we might 
 very largely put aside the ideas that have led up to that 
 thought the oroi^eTa TOV KOCT-/AOU. 
 
 1 6. DR. DAVISON. I should not like to say anything that 
 might seem to reflect on the arrangement of these questions. 
 But it seems to me a mistake to begin with the widest 
 generalizations. In attempting to deal with the ' pre- 
 suppositions of New Testament doctrine,' we shall find it 
 almost impossible to define sacrifice in general, and hard 
 to define it even in the Old Testament. I am glad to 
 find Dr. Driver in his printed note makes a similar state- 
 ment. He doubts whether the Hebrews had any term 
 exactly co-extensive with ' sacrifice.' 
 
 The Old Testament doctrine has, of course, an important 
 bearing on the New ; but I agree with what Dr. Moberly 
 has said on page 6, that it is only possible to reach real 
 definitions retrospectively. The sacrificial ideas embodied 
 in the Old Testament ceremonial expiatory, dedicatory, 
 eucharistic, &c. do not admit of broad generalizations 
 and succinct definitions. These ideas must be clearly 
 distinguished. Whatever word be used 'propitiatory,' 
 
 G2
 
 84 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 17 
 
 ' expiatory,' or ' piacular ' this idea forms an essential 
 element in the Mosaic ritual. And I wish to contend 
 very strongly for this element, viz. the removal of dis- 
 ability arising from sin as the main element in the sacrifice 
 and priesthood of Christ, while it does not belong to the 
 priesthood and the sacrifices of the Christian Church. In 
 speaking of ' a specific Christian idea ' of sacrifice, there 
 is some danger of our losing sight of the vital and funda- 
 mental distinction between a sacrifice which avails for the 
 remission or removal of sin and other sacrifices, which 
 are only self-dedicatory or eucharistic on the part of the 
 offerer. 
 
 17. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. We seem to be all agreed, 
 practically, that the sacrifice of Christ is absolute and 
 real : and that in it is to be found the full interpretation of 
 all that it comes to fulfil whether (i) in the Levitical 
 ceremonial, which lay nearest to it of all the other 
 religious forms which sacrifice takes ; or (a) in the 
 deep moral meanings underlying the term, wherever 
 it is used. 
 
 And, in relation to these moral meanings, I would 
 venture to doubt whether the terms (i) 'bargain' or (a) 
 ' mediation ' ought to be excluded, as Archdeacon Wilson 
 appeared to require. Surely (as Canon Moberly has 
 suggested) the word 'bargain' is only the lowest term 
 of that which, under moral transfiguration, takes the 
 shape of a covenant, a bond, a transaction between 
 two parties which places them under moral and spiritual 
 obligations to one another. The conception of covenant 
 of a covenanting act lies deep in sacrifice, and in the 
 Jewish and Christian conceptions of man's relation to 
 God. This might have its germinal expression under 
 the grosser form of a 'bargain' (such as Jacob made 
 on waking from his dream) ; but our interest lies, not 
 in excluding the term, but in watching the gradual
 
 1.17] FIRST DISCUSSION 85 
 
 historical process by which it becomes spiritualized and 
 refined. This is the historical task to retain the 
 germinal form and to note its moral disclosure. 
 
 So, again, with (2) mediation. It had many bare or 
 elementary forms. But Christ is, after all, above every- 
 thing a Mediator, a human Mediator, a man who stands 
 between us and God. To qualify Himself for this, He 
 became a man so necessary is human mediation. 
 He adopts the root-conception, uplifts it, transfigures it. 
 That is the moral process which we have to watch. 
 
 And, then, about the contrast that has been so fre- 
 quently made between ' outward ' and ' inward ' in 
 sacrifice. It has been implied that the moralizing of 
 sacrifice lies in dropping the 'outward' expression and 
 in accentuating solely the ' inward ' act of will : so that 
 Christ's perfect sacrifice is wholly inward, ' of the heart/ 
 But is it not essential to sacrifice that it should be the 
 outward act by which the inward intention is realized, 
 is pledged, is sealed ? The inward self-dedication only 
 becomes sacrificial when it has discovered the appropriate 
 offering by which it can verify itself. Only through 
 attaining this expression, in outward realization, does 
 the language of sacrifice apply to it. It has somewhat 
 to offer, by which it can pledge its loyalty of self- 
 surrender: there is its relief, its reality. The process 
 by which the sacrifice is moralized is, not by dropping 
 the external offering, but by raising the moral quality 
 of that which it expresses. This can, for ever, be rising 
 higher and higher ; but always, as it rises, it will need 
 to make its external offering ; and Christ completes all 
 sacrifice because He gives perfect outward expression 
 to the inner motive. He recovers for it its true realiza- 
 tion by the offering of His body, by which act, once 
 done, all man's capacity of self-dedication is sealed 
 and crowned. He can take up in His hands, and
 
 86 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 18 
 
 bring before God, that in which His oblation of Himself 
 is verified and eternalized. 
 
 1 8. DR. SANDAY. I find myself in a rather different frame of 
 mind from that of many who have spoken. It is natural 
 to me to approach the subject from below rather than 
 from above, and I may say that I am much impressed by 
 the earlier ideas. I am filled with wonder not at their 
 crudities, but at their promise and depth of meaning. 
 
 In regard to what fell from Archdeacon Wilson, I 
 rather deprecate saying, This idea is bad, and that idea is 
 good. They require careful analysis ; and when we look 
 into them we find that each of those ideas has bad 
 elements and good elements, and we want to distinguish 
 between them. 
 
 Then, again, I feel rather specially bound to lay stress 
 upon those ideas which are not popular and are not 
 attractive to men's minds at the present day. For this 
 reason I welcome very much what Dr. Davison said on 
 the subject of Propitiation. It was also admirably 
 expressed by Dr. Moberly in what he said about dis- 
 ability. I only wish I could express it half so well 
 myself. With reference to what fell from Dr. Salmond 
 and Canon Bernard, I cannot help thinking that their 
 views are somewhat at variance with facts. The idea of 
 life-communion in sacrifice seems to be very deeply 
 rooted indeed. Jevons and Robertson Smith argue that 
 the idea of communion through the sacrificial meal is 
 prior to the idea of gift, tribute, or propitiatory offering, 
 because the idea of kinship is earlier than that of property ; 
 and the argument appears to be sound. I think the concep- 
 tion of life-communion, instead of being subordinate, will be 
 found to run right through from the beginning, and what 
 we should like to do would be to watch the gradual puri- 
 fication of those ideas. 
 
 I have a feeling that in studying the Old Testament
 
 I. 19] FIRST DISCUSSION 87 
 
 the ceremonial side does not get justice done to it. 
 We cannot help remembering, for instance, the 84th 
 Psalm ' How amiable are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of 
 Hosts' which shows the intense feeling that centred 
 in the Temple and the Temple services. The 12 2nd 
 Psalm also proves what a strong feeling there was for 
 Jerusalem itself. It all centred in the Temple worship. 
 I am afraid there was a tendency in Dr. Fairbairn's answer 
 to get rid of this ceremonial side rather too much. There 
 is a chapter in Montefiore's Hibbert Lectures which made 
 a considerable impression upon me when I read it. It 
 referred primarily to the attachment which the Jew had 
 to the Law, and the wealth of meaning that he found in 
 it ; and I think we may say the same thing of the cere- 
 monial side of Old Testament religion. 
 19. THE REV. ARNOLD THOMAS. Father Puller threw out 
 a hint in regard to the continued sacrifice of our Lord as 
 suggested and symbolized by the complexity of the 
 sacrificial system in the Old Testament, and I would like 
 to say a word as to my own conception of the manner in 
 which that divine sacrifice has been continued since the 
 death of Jesus. Christ died once, and dies no more. 
 He reveals Himself to St. John as the ' Living One.' 
 His sacrifice now, therefore, is not the giving up of life. 
 It is rather the giving out, the communicating, of life. 
 He lives ; and He lives in direct relations with His 
 people knowing their works, concerned in their welfare, 
 moving hither and thither among the golden candle- 
 sticks, aware of all that is happening, and having His 
 part in it all. Now if in the idea of sacrifice there are 
 the three ideas of giving something that is precious, of 
 suffering or cost connected with that giving, and of 
 coming into fellowship with another, we see how Christ 
 is still, through His Spirit, continuing His sacrifice. 
 i. As He gave His body on the cross, so He now gives
 
 88 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.19 
 
 His life, His very nature, to those who yield themselves 
 to Him in faith and obedience. It is this perpetual giving 
 which is symbolized by the Sacrament of the Holy 
 Supper. The bread and wine speak to us of the com- 
 munication of His very self for the nourishment of our souls. 
 
 2. This sacrifice always must involve suffering so long 
 as men reject Him, and grieve His Spirit. He is 
 persecuted by Saul of Tarsus: He is trodden under 
 foot, and crucified afresh, by those who forsake and 
 despise Him. As Browning puts it : 
 
 'Is not His love at issue still with sin, 
 Visibly when a wrong is done on earth ? ' 
 
 Tnis sacrificing of Himself through His identification 
 with our race is suggested in the description of the Last 
 Judgement. 
 
 3. As the priest by sacrifice came into fellowship and 
 communion with God, so Christ, ever giving and sacri- 
 ficing Himself, comes into fellowship and communion 
 with His people. He stands at the door, and knocks, 
 and will come in and sup with those who will receive 
 Him. This is the man-ward aspect of His con- 
 tinued sacrifice. Of its other aspect I do not venture 
 to speak. 
 
 The point I would especially urge is, that in the New 
 Testament Christ is constantly represented as being 
 alive, and in living contact with the souls of men. And, 
 if I may say so, it is a distress to me to note the prevail- 
 ing tendency to localize Him on the altar, or to conceive 
 of Him as being carried in the hands of the priest, 
 because I do not see how that mode of thought is to be 
 reconciled with what I take to be the scriptural concep- 
 tion of a Living Personality, of One who knows, loves, 
 counsels, helps, warns, is ever present in our midst. 
 The ' Real Presence ' as commonly understood seems to
 
 I. 20] FIRST DISCUSSION 89 
 
 me to be incompatible with that other ' Presence ' which 
 is so much more real. 
 
 20. THE REV. C. G. LANG. I feel that if any one ought to 
 apologize for taking part in this Conference, it is I. 
 I come from an extremely busy and active life, without 
 the opportunity for thought and study which many here 
 have. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we run the risk 
 of manifold confusion when we attempt to elaborate 
 the ideas underlying sacrifice with anything like 
 systematic precision. We must be content with a 
 general impression, which all forms of sacrifice bear. 
 It is indeed sufficiently striking. It may perhaps be 
 thus described : Sacrifice is the offer by man to God of 
 something which is deemed to be pleasing to God, so 
 that man may thus be put right with God and secure 
 His favour and fellowship. The differences are rather in 
 the matter than in the purpose of the sacrifice. But 
 sacrifice in some form, as the means to man's union with 
 God, represents one of the fundamental instincts of 
 human nature. In primitive times, the conception of 
 what is pleasing to God shares the imperfections of the 
 conception of God's nature. 
 
 The characteristic mark of the Old Testament stage 
 in the development of the idea of sacrifice is the impressive 
 insistence on moral righteousness as the offering which 
 pleases God and restores man to His favour and fellow- 
 ship. The ethical conception of sacrifice was the great 
 gift of the prophetic teaching. They sought to raise the 
 fragments of ceremonial sacrifice which they found 
 existing to this high level. 
 
 It is essential to remember that the full development 
 of the ceremonial law of sacrifice came after, not before, 
 the prophets. They were not in essential opposition to 
 one another. The ceremonial law carried with it the 
 ethical teaching of the prophets. It was its expression
 
 90 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 21 
 
 in ordered and elaborated symbol. The elaboration of 
 the symbolic element may have resulted in the practical 
 obscuring of the ethical element. But the ethical 
 purpose was there. The fundamental conception was 
 still the offering of righteousness the abandonment of 
 the sinful will, the acceptance of its penalty. 
 
 Further, the corporate as well as the individual con- 
 ception of sacrifice was strongly brought out. The 
 sacrifice was the act of the people, or of the individual as 
 a member of the chosen people. The highest spirit of 
 Jewish sacrifice was expressed in the conception of the 
 'suffering servant,' the embodiment or type of the 
 nation offering righteousness perfected by penitence and 
 the acceptance of penalty to Jehovah. These concep- 
 tions were fulfilled in the great offering of the righteous 
 will of the Son of Man to the Father. 
 
 The ethical and the corporate conceptions of sacrifice 
 are both fulfilled in the great offering of the life and 
 death of man's Representative. Being thus a perfect 
 fulfilment, His sacrifice is eternal. The perfect is the 
 eternal. It is not past only it is eternally present. 
 And by virtue of our union with Christ as the members 
 of His body, we have our share in the presentation and 
 the efficacy of that eternal sacrifice. 
 
 21. THE REV. A. C. HEADLAM. Many of our difficulties arise, 
 I think, from definitions and meanings of words. We 
 are in danger too of making some rather crude, and as 
 I believe, unreal distinctions. An instance would be the 
 tendency, a tendency which I have noticed is becoming 
 rather common in certain writers, of emphasizing very 
 strongly the distinction between the prophetic and 
 Levitical elements in the Old Testament, and of con-' 
 demning the latter, or at any rate minimizing very 
 considerably its importance. This cannot be defended 
 either on critical or historical grounds. Critically, even
 
 I. 21] FIRST DISCUSSION 91 
 
 if the origin of the Levitical element is different, its 
 presence in the canon is not affected ; historically, the 
 Levitical element was as essential to the development 
 of the Jewish nation as the prophetic. It formed the 
 framework without which the continuity of the religion 
 and life of the nation would have been impossible ; 
 while for a Christian the authority of either is equally 
 good. We accept the Old Testament on the authority 
 of Christ, and Christ bears witness to both the Law and 
 the Prophets. Dr. Fairbairn, I notice, would go even 
 further and eliminate the Levitical element from the 
 New Testament idea of sacrifice. That is, I believe, 
 impossible. To take only one instance : the Levitical 
 as well as the prophetic idea was in St. Paul's mind 
 when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. You cannot 
 read the third verse in the twelfth chapter without seeing 
 that at once. 
 
 A similar distinction, often made very crudely, is that 
 between the moral and ceremonial. Throughout history 
 we find the moral taught through the ceremonial, and 
 the ceremonial necessary for the expression of the moral. 
 Even if we take one of the most rudimentary forms of 
 sacrifice the banquet that the Homeric chieftain gives 
 to his gods there was a moral element in it. All the 
 moral element that there is in showing hospitality would 
 be present in what was religious hospitality. Among 
 the Jews their sacrifices and sacrificial ideas gradually 
 inculcated the lessons of obedience, self-sacrifice, and 
 self-dedication, and these had their supreme manifesta- 
 tion in the sacrifice of Christ. May I express my thanks 
 to Archdeacon Wilson for showing that our sacrifices, 
 imperfect although they are, may be of the same 
 character as the sacrifice of Christ Himself? 
 
 I should like to inquire how far we can really say, 
 as has been suggested, that prayer is in a sense ' pro-
 
 92 FIRST DISCUSSION [L 22 
 
 pitiatory ' ; and if prayer, which is human and limited 
 by the conditions of humanity, can be, whether the same 
 can be used of anything else that we are able to do ? 
 22. DR. FORSYTH. One feels in discussions of this kind 
 one's own unfitness swamped in a sense of the unworthi- 
 ness of mankind to penetrate into these great mysteries, 
 and our inability to do so because of our distance from 
 the Saviour. I make that remark as striking my key- 
 note in approaching these questions in such brevity. 
 Confining myself as far as possible to the suggestions 
 which have been placed upon the table, and with special 
 reference to the relation between the Old and the New 
 Testaments, I would say that in the Old Testament 
 it is the prophet that interprets the priest much more 
 than the priest \hat interprets the prophet. We might 
 extend that reference and say that instead of carrying 
 forward both priest and prophet we should look upon 
 the New Testament as continuing and interpreting the 
 prophetic rather than the priestly line. The Apostle 
 represents the prophet, while no Christian carries on 
 the priest. The one was an inspiration, the other an 
 institution. It may be possible to indicate the relation 
 between the two Testaments, both as to sacrifice and in 
 other respects, in this way that while the Old Testa- 
 ment explains or accounts for the New Testament, the 
 New Testament interprets the Old. Throughout, it 
 appears that the moral interprets the ritual and the 
 ethical interprets the ceremonial. One is struck by the 
 general recognition to-day of the developing principle 
 pervading the Old Testament, namely, that sacrifice is 
 in the nature of it righteousness, not a substitute for it. 
 Sacrifice is in the nature of it obedience. It is not an 
 experiment on God's mercy, but an obedience to the 
 institution of His grace. If we look to the continua of the 
 Old and New Testaments, I think the most important
 
 I. 23] FIRST DISCUSSION 93 
 
 of all is this, that the typical relation of man to God is 
 obedience, especially in its inward and spiritual form of 
 faith. Sacrifice both in the Old and the New Testa- 
 ments is in its nature personal it refers to the attitude 
 of the heart and will towards God. Another continuum 
 is this, that the primary relation of sacrifice in both 
 cases is to sin, not service. It is piacular more than 
 altruist, it bears on God more than man, on forgiveness 
 more than help. Further, every man is his own priest, 
 both in the oldest Old and the whole New Testament, 
 by God's ordinance and God's grace. Yet in both sacri- 
 fice is a corporate thing. It is chiefly the nation's in the 
 Old Testament, and in the New Testament it is Christ's 
 as our federal head. Moreover, in both it is the fruit 
 of grace and not its root. There is no reconciling of 
 God. In the Old Testament there was judgement for 
 those sins outside sacrifice and mercy. In the New 
 Testament both these lines converge in the sacrifice of 
 Christ, which was the judgement of sin no less than its 
 forgiveness. I was going on to say that ritual and 
 ceremony belong to the primary and educational stage, 
 and that they have done a good deal, perhaps most, 
 in the history of religion to retain man in that stage of 
 minority, when they ought to have passed him on towards 
 their complete realization in Christ. In both Testaments, 
 ritual develops towards its own absorption and disap- 
 pearance. 
 
 [At this point the five minutes speeches ended, and the general 
 discussion began^\ 
 
 23. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Dr. Sanday, the possible varieties in 
 the interpretation of the ideas as to sacrifice and priest- 
 hood in the Ethnic religions are practically infinite ; and
 
 94 FIRST DISCUSSION [I. 24-31 
 
 so were we to attempt to enter this field we should be 
 betrayed into a vaster inquiry than we can here pursue. 
 I feel, therefore, that it would be better for us to confine 
 our discussions to the ideas that underlie priesthood and 
 sacrifice in the Holy Scriptures. If this be allowed, then 
 I should like Canon Moberly to explain certain state- 
 ments concerning the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ 
 which he has made in his answers to the first and second 
 questions. 
 
 24. THE REV. C. G. LANG. May I point out that that is what 
 
 we are to discuss this afternoon ? 
 
 25. DR. SANDAY. I think we are coming on to that. It 
 
 seems to be an answer to the question we dealt with this 
 toorning. 
 
 26. DR. MOBERLY. The first subject we have for this after- 
 
 noon is the sacrifice of Christ. Personally I should 
 prefer not to enter on that subject in the form of an 
 answer to a question, this morning. 
 
 27. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Very well then, we have all spoken 
 
 this morning about priesthood and sacrifice in general ; 
 but I feel that what we really need to do is to try to 
 express what we mean by priesthood and sacrifice in our 
 own religion. So far as it is concerned, sacrifice may be 
 corporate without being external. 
 
 28. DR. MOBERLY. I think that it is precisely in the New 
 Testament that the real explanation of the terms is to be 
 found. 
 
 29. The REV. ARNOLD THOMAS. It seems to me that the 
 question of the priesthood is not receiving so much atten- 
 tion as that of sacrifice. 
 
 30. CANON GORE. The question hinges round the corporate 
 character of sacrifice. I cannot conceive that corporate 
 rites, or corporate religion, or corporate sacrificial life, 
 can be carried on otherwise than through outward acts. 
 
 31. DR. SALMOND. It would be useful to define the meaning
 
 I. 82-37] FIRST DISCUSSION 95 
 
 of this word ' corporate.' There is the corporate idea in 
 the Old Testament view of the relation of God to Israel 
 as a people. There is the corporate idea also in the 
 system of sacrifice under the Levitical institutions, and in 
 a very definite form in the ceremony of the great Day of 
 Atonement, in which the High Priest acted in behalf 
 of the whole people, and offered sacrifice for the sins of 
 the year. But what of the New Testament and the 
 Christian system ? 
 
 33. DR. FAIRBAIRN. What I wished to call attention to was 
 this : the external expression is not necessarily the corpo- 
 rate, nor is the corporate necessarily external. The two 
 ideas are quite distinct ; there may be a sacrifice which is 
 corporate yet not external. 
 
 33. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. Our point is that a corporate 
 
 act must be external to the individuals who unite to 
 make it. 
 
 34. DR. FAIRBAIRN. We agree that there can be no religion 
 without its proper external expression. That is one thing, 
 but it is quite another thing to say that the corporate act 
 or expression must be external. The corporate is not the 
 corporeal, but may even be its antithesis or negation. The 
 sacrifice of Christ expressed corporate relations and 
 interests, but these were not exhausted by His corporeal 
 form and suffering. 
 
 35. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. No ; but the corporeal form 
 
 supplies the externality which is essential to a corporate 
 act of sacrifice. 
 
 36. DR. MOBERLY. It is not necessary to say that the external 
 involves the corporate. 
 
 37. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. The sacrifice is not identical 
 with the righteousness which is the spirit of the sacrifice. 
 Our Lord's action, when He says ' I come to do Thy will,' 
 becomes a sacrifice, because he offers His sacred humanity; 
 that is, an outward offering by which the inward will is
 
 96 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.88-45 
 
 realized as a sacrifice ; and the sacrificial language we use 
 about our thoughts and prayer and praise is only intel- 
 ligible in view of the fact that there is a sacrificial gift and 
 outward act which constitutes them our sacrifices. 
 
 38. DR. FAIRBAIRN. What is the sacrificial idea behind this 
 
 sacrificial language ? 
 
 39. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. The outward sacrifice of 
 Christ's body, in union with which we offer our inward 
 spiritual sacrifices. 
 
 40. DR. FAIRBAIRN. If the sacrifices be inward can they be 
 corporeal acts ? and in whait sense are they corporate ? 
 
 41. CANON GORE. Surely what our Lord created for us by 
 
 His expiatory sacrifice was the freedom of approach to 
 <&od. It is that expiation of His which admits us into 
 that life which is (not in the expiatory, but in the more 
 fundamental and general sense) sacrificial. The wisest 
 and truest use of language appears to me to restrict the 
 phrase ' propitiation or ' expiation ' to Christ's initial work 
 for us ; but to assert also that propitiation does not exhaust 
 sacrifice, but rather restores the worshipper to its true and 
 original exercise. 
 
 42. DR. SALMOND. We have again and again, as I have said, 
 and in very explicit terms in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 the distinction drawn between two sacrifices gifts and 
 sacrifices for sin. Now when Canon Scott Holland speaks 
 of our ' sacrifices/ does he mean that they belong to the 
 second category sacrifices for sin ? I admit that the New 
 Testament says that we have sacrifices to offer, but in 
 what sense and of what kind ? 
 
 43. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. Only in the sense that Christ 
 was our sacrifice, and that we take part in His atoning 
 sacrifice. 
 
 44. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Does then our sacrifice like His atone 
 for sin ? 
 
 45. DR. MoBERLY. Apart from Him it does not.
 
 I. 46-58] FIRST DISCUSSION 97 
 
 46. DR. SALMOND. Apart from Him, we all agree, it has no 
 virtue. But has any sacrifice we can offer any virtue in 
 itself, or any such expiatory virtue as His has ? 
 
 47. DR. MOBERLY. We become a part of His sacrifice, and 
 our acts are echoes or expressions the result of God's 
 grace and not the cause. 
 
 48. DR. SALMOND. 'Is there anything in the New Testament 
 which attributes to our sacrifices the capability of effect- 
 ing the remission of sins, any propitiatory or expiatory 
 efficacy? 
 
 49. CANON GORE. My inclination would be to deny that our 
 sacrifices were propitiatory or expiatory. 
 
 50. MR. ARNOLD THOMAS. What sacrifices are we speak- 
 ing of? 
 
 51. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. We are speaking of the 
 sacrifice of a broken heart, and the value it has in Christ. 
 
 52. DR. SALMOND. We all agree that the grace of the Spirit 
 comes to us through Christ, and that it is only in virtue 
 of that that any offering we are competent to make has 
 any worth. 
 
 53. MR. LANG. May I ask what Dr. Salmond means by 
 sacrifices ? I think he has in his mind such sacrifices 
 as the offering of prayer for forgiveness of sins. 
 
 54. DR. SALMOND. Yes. The sacrifices which the New 
 Testament speaks of the believer as offering are those 
 ' spiritual sacrifices ' of which prayer is one. 
 
 55. MR. LANG. Then our prayer for forgiveness of sin 
 would avail, not for any inherent efficacy of its own, but 
 because it unites us with the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 56. DR. FORSYTH. I would ask, can the Church reproduce 
 the sacrificial act which constituted it ? 
 
 57. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. No. 
 
 58. MR. HEADLAM. May I inquire in what way is the prayer 
 
 of a righteous man efficacious in what way is it propitia- 
 tory or expiatory ? 
 
 H
 
 98 FIRST DISCUSSION [1.59-67 
 
 59. DR. MOBERLY. I think that the question might be asked 
 
 even more effectively with reference to penitence ; because 
 penitence, in relation to sin has certainly about it some- 
 thing which can be described as of an ' atoning' character. 
 
 60. DR. SALMOND. I should hold the term ' atoning ' entirely 
 
 inapplicable to penance or to prayer. 
 
 61. MR. HEADLAM. I want to know whether we can get at 
 a definition which will bring this home to us. It is 
 because of Christ's death and sacrifice that we are in 
 mystical union with Him. 
 
 62. CANON GORE. I think that every one must admit that we 
 
 avoid an extraordinary amount of misrepresentation and 
 misunderstanding if we limit such phrases as propitiatory 
 and expiatory to the work of Christ for us. It is only 
 a limitation of phrase adopted to express what we all 
 mean. 
 
 63. MR. HEADLAM. There is no doubt that a very large 
 part of Christendom, both in the East and the West, 
 believe that the eucharist is propitiatory. Although we 
 don't agree with that, we must find out what inherent and 
 fundamental truth there is in it. Can we in any sense 
 say that prayer is propitiatory, although we dislike the 
 phrase ? In the same way they may say that the eucha- 
 rist should be propitiatory, although we wish to avoid the 
 phrase. 
 
 64. DR. SALMOND. Of course the Roman Catholic Church 
 
 goes far beyond that. 
 
 65. DR. MOBERLY. I don't think you can ask what the 
 sacrifices of a Christian are, on the hypothesis that they 
 can conceivably be at all apart from Christ. The hypo- 
 thesis implies a distinction which is necessarily misleading. 
 
 66. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Then are you not arguing for a position 
 which identifies the creation with the Creator ; the equiva- 
 lent in Christian Theology of Pantheism in Philosophy ? 
 
 67. DR. MOBERLY. I do not think so.
 
 I. 68, 69] FIRST DISCUSSION 99 
 
 68. DR. SANITAY here intimated that the time for the adjourn- 
 ment had arrived. 
 
 69. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I think, Dr. Sanday, you have every 
 reason to congratulate yourself with regard to this con- 
 ference. It has begun well and is leading up to important 
 questions. 
 
 The Conference then adjourned. 
 
 H a
 
 100 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 1, 2 
 
 SECOND DISCUSSION. 
 
 1. DR. SAND AY. I think it will be best on the whole to 
 
 follow the same order of proceeding as this morning. We 
 shall have to finish quite punctually by half-past six, and 
 I therefore think we will begin with five-minute speeches. 
 I will once more call upon Father Puller to commence. 
 
 2. FATHER PULLER. I will take up the line I suggested 
 
 tttis morning in regard to the complex character of the 
 sacrificial act as set forth in the Old Testament, and apply 
 it to that which we are now prepared to discuss the New 
 Testament doctrine of sacrifice and of priesthood. I would 
 lay great stress on the thought that while our Blessed 
 Lord's death on the cross is a most essential and funda- 
 mental element in His sacrifice, His priestly work is 
 especially to be connected with His life in glory. I have 
 pointed out that the killing of the sacrifice was not in the 
 typical dispensation a sacerdotal act, and that it was only 
 accidentally that a priest ever took any part in it, and that 
 when on any occasion the priest did kill the victim, he 
 was not acting as a priest, but rather as the offerer. 
 Similarly I am accustomed to regard our Lord, when He 
 was dying on the cross, rather as the victim than as the 
 priest. This, I think, is the teaching of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. The author of that Epistle seems always 
 to connect our Lord's priesthood with His life in the 
 state of glory. I would refer specially to Heb. ii. 17; 
 v. 5-10 ; vi. 20 ; vii. 28 ; viii. 2, 3 ; and I would lay 
 stress on the fact that Dr. A. B. Davidson, of Edinburgh, 
 in his remarkable commentary on the Epistle to the
 
 2] SECOND DISCUSSION IOI 
 
 Hebrews, to a great extent bears me out. Dr. Davidson, 
 on p. 151, says : ' It is doubtful if the Epistle anywhere 
 regards the Son's death considered merely in itself as 
 a priestly act. . . . The Epistle seems to confine the high- 
 priestly ministry to the acts done in the sanctuary, and to 
 refrain from including under the priesthood, when it is 
 spoken of distinctively, any acts not done there.' I would 
 call special attention to what is said about our Lord's 
 becoming a High Priest in Heb. v. 5~ IQ - The holy 
 writer says : ' So Christ also glorified not Himself to be 
 made a High Priest, but He that spake unto Him, " Thou 
 art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee." ' Here I note 
 in passing that our Lord's elevation to the High Priesthood 
 is by implication described as a glorification of Him by 
 the Father; and it is also implied that the Father was 
 glorifying the Incarnate Son to be High Priest, when in 
 the words of the second Psalm He said, ' Thou art My 
 Son, this day have I begotten Thee.' But those words 
 are interpreted by St. Paul of our Lord's Resurrection 
 (see Acts xiii. 33 and Rom. i. 4). The writer of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews goes on to say : ' As He saith 
 also in another place, " Thou art a priest for ever after 
 the order of Melchizedek." ' And these words are taken 
 from Psalm ex., a psalm of our Lord's life in glory, a psalm 
 which begins with the words, ' The Lord said unto my 
 Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine 
 enemies Thy footstool.' Thus our Lord's glorification to 
 be High Priest is connected with His resurrection and 
 His session in the heavenly places. The rest of the 
 passage, Heb. v. 7-10, will be found to corroborate this 
 result. Thus, it would appear that, when our Lord 
 entered the heavenly sanctuary and was about to present 
 Himself to the Father, He became a High Priest, and in 
 some mysterious way He fulfilled what the high priest did 
 on the Day of Atonement, when he went within the veil
 
 102 SECOND DISCUSSION ' [II. 3 
 
 v**J^Jr*~~3 
 
 and offered the blood. Again, our Lord no doubt also 
 fulfilled the other priestly act of presenting His Holy 
 Body as a sacrifice.^ St. John, in the Book of the Revela- 
 tion, looking up into heaven, saw ' in the midst of the 
 throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst 
 of the elders, a Lamb standing as though it had been 
 slain.' There was the sacrifice in heaven. The lamb 
 was the sacrificial animal par excellence^ and our Lord is 
 described not simply as the Lamb, but as the bpviov s 
 (crQayufvov, which last word is the usual word in Leviticus 
 for the mactation of sacrifices. Yet the Lord is not now 
 dead. He is standing, for He is alive for evermore. Thus 
 He is represented as a living sacrifice, who has passed 
 through death. The Jewish sacrifices had to be offered 
 in death with no resurrection life in them ; while the 
 Christian sacrifice has passed through death and ' is alive 
 for evermore.' 
 
 3. ARCHDEACON WILSON. The special subject we have to 
 consider is the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ. I think 
 that when we are speaking of the sacrifice of Christ we are 
 speaking of the work of One whom we can only imperfectly 
 understand even in His functions and relations to man, and 
 still more imperfectly in His divine and eternal relations 
 to God. Those relations existed prior to, and during, and 
 subsequent to that which we speak of as His earthly life 
 and death which took place in time. Much of the con- 
 fusion and difficulty arises in speaking too positively and 
 precisely of an aspect of the subject with which we are 
 necessarily unable to grapple. I desire, therefore, to put 
 those latter relations aside as unknown to us except 
 through revelation as in a glass darkly; and to con- 
 centrate our thoughts on His human work, which we 
 have the faculties, at any rate in part, for understanding. 
 Those functions, seen from their human side, are in the 
 strictest sense an atonement or reconciliation with God
 
 II. 4] SECOND DISCUSSION 103 
 
 through identity of will, perfect obedience, and service ; 
 and are therefore, it seems to me, rightly described 
 as priestly and sacerdotal, and are the perfect model 
 for our imitation. The only part of Christ's sacrifice 
 we can repeat in this spirit, forming, as we do, His body 
 on earth, is the perpetual consecration of life in obedience 
 to His spirit. Now with this understanding our priest- 
 hood and sacrifice are of the same nature as His, and 
 that is as far as they are capable of intelligible state- 
 ment. Something I said this morning made it seem 
 to one speaker that I demur to the very use of these 
 words. I do not demur to the use of the words 
 priesthood or sacrifice, although they have the mis- 
 fortune of gathering around them some misleading 
 associations. I think the only test we have of truth 
 in religion is vitality and permanence. Ideas which 
 are permanent, must be rooted in human nature, and 
 are not accidents of association, or of race, or of educa- 
 tion. It is on these grounds of vitality and permanence 
 that we are obliged to believe in the personality of God, 
 in the possibility of approach to Him through prayer, 
 in the possibility and reality of the eternal life. Sacrifice 
 and priesthood come into that category, and have been 
 so vital in human nature as to lay claim to correspon- 
 dence with real truth. The danger to us is that we should 
 be drawn back into the lower and magical conception 
 of a sacrificing priesthood, when we should go forward 
 towards the higher and ethical. The thought of God 
 of our service to Him has to be detached from the 
 materialistic conceptions and made more spiritual. This 
 appears to me to have been the special characteristic of 
 Christ as a teacher. 
 
 4. DR. FAIRBAIRN. When we come to our Lord's own 
 teaching we are met by the difficulty that He never 
 names Himself a priest, makes no explicit reference to
 
 104 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 4 
 
 His priesthood, and does not interpret His death in 
 the terms of the Levitical sacrifices. If we grant the 
 presence of the priestly idea in His mind, we shall be all 
 the less able to regard this failure to find some fit ritual 
 expression for it as accidental or insignificant. On the 
 contrary, it may better be described as abstention than 
 as silence or as reticence. If we conceive how the 
 priesthood and their ritual constituted the very atmo- 
 sphere within which the local religion lived and breathed, 
 we shall see how impossible it was, spontaneously or 
 undesignedly, to think or speak concerning worship in 
 terms which shut them out. But this our Lord did, 
 never speaking of Himself or His disciples as priests, or 
 indulging in any form of sacerdotal speech. If we are 
 to seek a reason for this remarkable abstention, we 
 shall find it in the governing idea or thought which 
 filled His mind. This is embodied in the title which, 
 if He does not directly use it of Himself, He yet ex- 
 pressly invites and allows others to apply to Him the 
 Christ. (Cf. Matt. xvi. 16; xxvi. 63; xxvii. n, 12, 17, 
 22.) He is the Messiah ; it is because He claims to be 
 the Messianic King that He is crucified ; and the king- 
 dom He founds, with its laws and ideals of conduct and 
 worship, is the social expression of His Messianic king- 
 hood. Out of the same title grew the functions He 
 described Himself as having come to fulfil, especially those 
 which stood directly associated with His sacrifice. Thus 
 it is out of Peter's famous confession which our Lord 
 Himself elicits, 'Thou art the Christ,' that His first 
 explicit reference to His sufferings and death grows 
 (Matt. xxi. 1 6, 21). The Messianic idea is even more 
 distinctly expressed in the second reference: 'the Son 
 of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, 
 and to give His life a ransom for many' (Matt. xx. 
 26-28). The associations here are not those of a
 
 II. 5] SECOND DISCUSSION 105 
 
 priestly ransom, but of a kingly sacrifice ; the act of 
 One whose right was to be ministered unto, but whose 
 actual work was to minister. Hence He places His 
 sacrificial kinghood in contrast to the dominion exer- 
 cised by the great ones of the earth ; they lord it over 
 man, while He redeems by giving Himself unto death. 
 When He goes up to Jerusalem it is the Messianic 
 idea which fills His mind, and the minds alike of His 
 disciples and of the people (Matt. xxi. 5, 9, 12-17). 
 He is welcomed as David's son, and does not refuse the 
 name; the question He puts to the Pharisees is, 'What 
 think ye of the Messiah? Whose son is He?' (Matt, 
 xxii. 41-46). When He institutes the Supper He does 
 not cease to be the King, nor does He become a priest 
 save in the sense in which every Hebrew father was 
 a priest. The vision which fills His imagination was 
 Israel coming out of the house of bondage, the great 
 domestic sacrifice by which it was achieved, and the 
 solemn domestic ceremonial by which it was com- 
 memorated. His death was the reality foreshadowed 
 in those paschal sacrifices which belonged to the family 
 and not to the priesthood ; and it signified that in His 
 blood a new covenant had been established, which meant 
 that a new people stood before God, because God had 
 become a new and more gracious Redeemer of His 
 people (Matt. xxvi. 17-28; Luke xxii. 14-20; i Cor. 
 xi. 23-25). But though emphasis falls on the lamb, and 
 the blood, and the covenant, there is no place for the 
 priest; the father, the family, the household are all 
 here, but not the temple or any of the forms proper to 
 sacerdotal worship (Ex. xii. 3, 21-28, 43-46). 
 5. DR. MOBERLY. I said this morning that the ceremonial 
 and the moral, the inward and the outward of sacrifice 
 and priesthood were but very gradually fused, and fused 
 perfectly only in the person of Jesus Christ. In Him
 
 106 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 5 
 
 outward actions or sufferings were the direct expression 
 of the consecrated will ; along this line of thought I can 
 re-echo much of what Archdeacon Wilson said just now. 
 
 But if His sacrifice may be said to find its culmination 
 in consecration of will, I utterly demur to any inference 
 that the darker implications of Old Testament sacrifice 
 have therefore passed out of the word. It is the whole 
 Old Testament, not one aspect of it, that is fulfilled in 
 the New. If there is the prophetic protest against merely 
 outward sacrifice, there is also the whole ritual of sacri- 
 fice itself to be accounted for ; and the principle which 
 lies far back in it, that 'without shedding of blood is 
 np remission.' Nothing of all this is in vain. It is all 
 not abolished, but taken up and made vital in Christ. 
 
 I do not dwell now on the thought (supremely impor- 
 tant though it is) that the term 'blood' never simply 
 means death, but essentially life ; though, no less essen- 
 tially, life that has passed through dying. I do not 
 go further into that. But if we speak of the supreme 
 sacrifice as finding its culmination in consecration of 
 will, obedience, &c., the obedience in question is not 
 so much obedience in its other, or brighter aspects, as 
 particularly the obedience of penitence. It is the culmina- 
 tion of moral righteousness in reference to sin the actual 
 consummation of perfection of penitence. Penitence, on 
 analysis, is found to require no less than personal identi- 
 fication with absolute holiness ; but with holiness par- 
 ticularly in its aspect as the absolute condemnation 
 of sin. All penitence within our experience is imperfect 
 penitence. Perfect penitence is only possible to the 
 personally sinless. In Him it would mean the surrender 
 of self, on sin's account, as part of the self's relentless 
 condemnation of sin, by virtue of that self-identity with 
 sinful man, which was constituted by the Incarnation, 
 for the very purpose that this sacrifice might be possible.
 
 II. 6] SECOND DISCUSSION 107 
 
 I am endeavouring to answer Dr. Fairbairn's question 
 as to the meaning of my printed definition of the 
 sacrifice of Christ. It is the self-consecration of the 
 absolutely sinless, self-identified with the sinful so 
 that the absolute condemnation by righteousness, of 
 sin, may be made complete by the self, within the 
 self, and at the cost of the self; which is the ideal 
 consummation of what penitence, if ever it could be 
 absolutely perfect, would mean. 
 
 My time is finished. If I am able to add anything 
 further, I would rather try to do so in the time of 
 general conversation by-and-by. 
 
 6. DR. RYLE. I think it is essential that our attention 
 should be called to the absence from our Lord's teaching 
 of anything definitely relating to His priesthood. Our 
 Lord, who called Himself the Good Shepherd, and who 
 identified Himself with ' the Lamb who was slain,' never 
 identified Himself with the priest, whose work was 
 necessarily occupied in the constant performance of 
 animal sacrifice; though He dwelt in an atmosphere 
 of ritual associated with the sacrifice of animals, and 
 was Himself connected by relationship with one who 
 was born a priest. Our Lord and His great forerunner 
 were prophets and teachers ; and that part of their work 
 stands in the forefront of the Gospel teaching. True, our 
 Lord appropriated to Himself terms implying consecra- 
 tion ; and He called Himself a ransoming victim. But 
 this was only metaphorical language that would naturally 
 be employed in addressing Jewish hearers. In the institu- 
 tion of the Last Supper He introduced a memorial of 
 His death, a feast of sacrifice which was associated with 
 the thought of the lamb of the Passover, when the victim 
 was not killed by the priest, but by the head of the house- 
 hold. Moreover, both in the institution of this sacrament 
 and in the words with reference to Holy Baptism, our
 
 108 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 7 
 
 Lord addressed Himself to the Apostles as representa- 
 tives of the whole Society, and not as any priestly order. 
 The work of our Lord as a priest will include, of course, 
 His function of intercession, benediction and absolution. 
 These belong to His eternal priesthood. So far as His 
 historic work is concerned, there is no teaching in the 
 New Testament which would imply either that His 
 mediatorial office and sacrifice for sin were otherwise 
 than completely finished in Himself and in His own 
 person ; or that the duties of service are not to be per- 
 formed by all alike who were His disciples. The priest- 
 hood and sacrifice of Christ 'in the heavenlies,' in the 
 presence of the Father, seem to me matters quite beyond 
 the range of our conception. The self-surrender of 
 Christ is presented to us in the New Testament as a 
 propitiatory offering. The metaphor was intelligible to 
 the Jews, although it may not be to the modern and 
 Western minds which are quite unfamiliar with the 
 eastern sacrificial idea The Apostolic writer, in his 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, speaks of the Levitical system 
 as coming to an end. In Christ the old sacrifices were 
 abolished. The law and the prophets were ' fulfilled ' in 
 the sense of receiving their full and final meaning, not of 
 obtaining a new and undefined expansion. The work of 
 Christ as the Divine Head which has to be continued by 
 His ' society ' or ' body ' is not the work of expiation. 
 I cannot understand any way in which that atoning 
 work of Christ, once completed, can be said to be carried 
 on by those for whom the historic sacrifice was offered 
 7. DR. SALMOND. In endeavouring to ascertain the New 
 Testament ideas of sacrifice and priesthood, we should 
 begin, I think, with our Lord's own words, and try to get 
 His own conception of His work. From this we should 
 next proceed to the teaching of the various New Testa- 
 ment writers.
 
 II. 7] SECOND DISCUSSION 109 
 
 There is less of direct utterance, however, on these 
 subjects in our Lord's own words than we should expect, 
 especially with regard to priesthood. He does not speak 
 directly of Himself as a priest. He speaks of His work, 
 however, in priestly terms, and in terms of a sacrifice. 
 He speaks in general terms of ' giving His life for the 
 sheep/ of ' sanctifying Himself,' or setting Himself apart 
 as a sacrifice in His death, &c. But He speaks also more 
 specially of ' giving His life a ransom for many,' and the 
 idea of ' ransom ' (X-urpov) is that of procuring by a price 
 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- 
 pretation we put on the mystical union of our Lord and
 
 122 SECOND DISCUSSION [IL 15-17 
 
 His Church ; unless we are clear as to what we mean by 
 that union we shall be disputing largely about words as 
 to our share in the sacrifice ; and I am glad to see that that 
 is put down for our discussion to-morrow morning. It 
 seems strange to me that there should have been so little 
 recognition of what I should have thought an essentially 
 characteristic conception of St. Paul's teaching, viz. our 
 union with our Lord. I think we can claim to be united 
 with our Lord's sacrifice in the sense that we can unite 
 ourselves with that act in so far as it is eternal But 
 I apologize for speaking at all on so vast a theme. 
 
 15. THE REV. A. C. HEADLAM. The general topic has been 
 discussed very amply, and up to a certain point there has 
 been a remarkable and unanimous agreement. We all 
 agree that the propitiatory character of our Lord's death 
 is something unique, and the point at issue is, how far and 
 in what way the effects are shared in by us. I should 
 like now to pass on and ask how far, and in what way the 
 term sacrifice may be applied to the eucharist, and what 
 relation the eucharist has to the sacrifice offered by our 
 Lord on the cross. I do not know whether I should be 
 advancing too rapidly. 
 
 1 6. DR. SANDAY. I think not. 
 
 17. MR. HEADLAM. I should like, then, to say that although 
 
 the eucharist is never called a sacrifice in the New Testa- 
 ment, I do not think that we can eliminate the sacrificial 
 idea from it. And that firstly on account of the character 
 and occasion of its institution. It was instituted at the 
 time of the Passover, with all the ideas and associations 
 of the Passover in the minds of those taking part in it. 
 Secondly, when St. Paul refers to it in the Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, he uses the analogy of sacrifices, both Jewish 
 and Gentile, to explain it, and this quite dearly and 
 distinctly. 
 
 Now if we refer to the Passover we can distinguish the
 
 II. 18] SECOND DISCUSSION 123 
 
 following parts of the rite : the slaying of the victim, the 
 sprinkling of the blood, and then, afterwards, the sacrificial 
 meal ; there was also the offering of first-fruits. It seems 
 to me that the analogy runs thus : instead of the paschal 
 lamb the sacrifice to be once offered was that of our Lord 
 on the cross. The effects of that sacrifice were to be 
 continued. Therefore, though the death is accomplished, 
 the communion in the sacrificial rite and the effect of it 
 in the new covenant live on ; and in that sense the 
 eucharist is a sacrifice. There is not time to go into 
 the general question of the interpretation of the New 
 Testament in the early Church, but from the beginning 
 we find that a favourite expression always is 'the un- 
 bloody sacrifice.' 
 
 1 8. DR. FORSYTH. I should disavow the idea of a sacrifice 
 as describing the eucharist. If it is true in any sense 
 in respect to the eucharist, it is in a very subordinate 
 sense. It is so misleading, especially for the earliest 
 Church, that I think it would be much better to dispense 
 with it altogether, except where there is opportunity to 
 explain. It is more mischievous than useful to allude 
 to it in that way. Dr. Loofs traces all the abuses of 
 the eucharist to the time when it began to be treated 
 as a sacrifice. Perhaps the nearest we could come to 
 Mr. Headlam's idea is that in worship and rites like 
 these we do not ourselves offer, but we proffer the eternal 
 offering Christ has made. I do not think that the word 
 ' priest ' so finally and absolutely applied to Christ should 
 be applied to any of Christ's people, and I fear that 
 the nemesis of doing so has been very serious in the 
 history of the Church. Dr. Moberly refers to Christ's 
 sacrifice as ' consummating human penitence.' I hesitate 
 to describe as penitence any work of Christ, because 
 historically we cannot find any trace of repentance of 
 a vicarious repentance in His mind. Besides, vicarious
 
 124 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 19 
 
 repentance is a moral impossibility. I also make a dis- 
 tinction between penalty and punishment, and demur to 
 the description of Christ's priestly work as penal. God's 
 penalty on sin fell on Him by His own act, but He cer- 
 tainly was not punished by God. His work far 
 exceeded the work of producing or completing peni- 
 tence or amendment. It is not satisfactory to say that 
 amendment can atone, and that Christ came in order 
 to complete the atonement of human amendment or 
 penitence. I think that Christ's work is much more 
 profound than that. There is nothing really atoning in 
 penitence. Penitence cannot undo, and Christ did. Had 
 there been time I should have gone on to allude to the 
 extraordinary and vital distinction that there is between 
 the expiatory effect of Christ's work, and every other 
 aspect or effect of it. This involves, of course, a great 
 limitation of what the Church can be or do as the body 
 of Christ, and a great restriction in the function of those 
 who are the organs of the Church's priestly quality. 
 And so long as this distinction is clearly grasped the real 
 danger in priestly claims ceases to exist. 
 
 \Here the five minutes' speeches ended, and the general 
 discussion began^\ 
 
 19. DR. FAIRBAIRN. May I put now to Canon Moberly the 
 question I proposed to ask at the morning session ? 
 Would he kindly explain the definition of the Christian 
 sacrifice given in his answer to the first question : ' the 
 living consecration, in perfect love, of perfect holiness 
 to consummate human penitence ' ? In particular I should 
 like to know what the phrase ' to consummate ' means, 
 and whether any expiatory or sacrificial value is attached 
 to human penitence.
 
 II. 20] SECOND DISCUSSION 125 
 
 20. DR. MOBERLY. I don't know how far it will be possible 
 for me to make my answer to Dr. Fairbairn intelligible, 
 in any short compass. The question turns first upon the 
 place given to penitence. What do we mean by peni- 
 tence? All the penitence of which we have practical 
 experience is, of course, at its best, eminently imperfect 
 as penitence. I wish to think of penitence, not as it is in 
 our imperfect experience, but as it would be if it were 
 not imperfect. Even indeed within experience what 
 I said was true, as far as it went ; that, when a man has 
 sinned, there is nothing which approaches so far towards 
 atoning for his sin, as his penitence. I do not of course 
 say that any merely human penitence ever reached the 
 point at which it could really atone. I only say that 
 heartfelt penitence approaches more nearly towards an 
 ' atoning ' character, than anything else that our experi- 
 ence can furnish. But what would penitence be, if its 
 fullness of consummation were ever reached ? The point 
 of penitence is that it is the re-identification of the sinful 
 consciousness with holiness. If it were consummated 
 perfectly, it would be the perfect consummation of per- 
 sonal identification with holiness. Unfortunately, the 
 more clearly I realize what its perfectness would be, the 
 more obvious is the impossibility of my attaining it. 
 The more I have sinned the greater is, no doubt, my need 
 of repenting ; but also ipso facto, the more impossible is 
 it that I should repent. Meanwhile, even the least 
 reality of sin bars for ever the possibility of the perfect 
 consummation of my penitence. The very things which 
 increase my identification with sin do blurr thereby my 
 power of keen discernment of the sinfulness of sin, and 
 my possibility of absolute self-identity with holiness. 
 Yet no penitence could reach its perfect consummation 
 until the self-identity with holiness was absolutely perfect, 
 without fleck or flaw. In other words, penitence, by the
 
 126 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 21 
 
 very cogency of its own meaning when analysed, could 
 never be conceivably possible except only to the per- 
 sonally sinless. 
 
 I can quite understand people turning round and 
 asking, but how can it be possible to the personally 
 sinless ? Perhaps the shortest way of making any reply 
 to that question would be to suggest an illustration. 
 Imagine a child who has gone grievously wrong. The 
 very self-identification of the child with evil makes it 
 incapable of that whole-hearted detestation and antithesis 
 against evil which is necessary. But there is a possibility 
 in the mother whose own the sin is not which is not 
 in the child. In proportion as the mother approaches 
 towards being on the one hand personally identified 
 with holiness, and on the other personally identified, in 
 nature and in affection, with the child, you approach the 
 possibility in the mother of a heart literally broken for 
 sin which is not her own and yet her own. In the 
 broken heart of the mother (broken, be it observed, not in 
 proportion to her own part in the sin, but to her own 
 affinity with holiness, and yet her own capacity withal of 
 self-identification with the sin-consciousness of the child) 
 you get the nearest approach in human experience to the 
 supreme consummation of penitence, the sin-bearing of 
 the sinless. Her heart, broken at once and yet tranquil, 
 seems to me to have in it more than anything we know 
 of that contradictory consciousness of desolation and 
 holiness, which is the mystery of the great cry from the 
 cross. 
 
 I am conscious that it is impossible, in anything like 
 this compass, to make a full answer to the question. But 
 I hope that what I have said may indicate my meaning 
 enough for the present purpose. And perhaps it would 
 be convenient that I should stop at this point, 
 a i . DR. FAIRBAIRN. We are very much obliged to Dr. Moberly
 
 II. 22, 23] SECOND DISCUSSION 127 
 
 for his most sympathetic and illuminative exposition ; 
 but there are two points on which I should like further 
 light, viz. how he would, on the one hand, connect this 
 consummation of human penitence with the sacrificial 
 terms that have been applied to the death of Christ, and 
 on the other hand, with the sacrificial significance which 
 has been given to the eucharist ? In other words, can 
 such an act of consummation be described as piacular 
 and peculiar to a priest, or as constituting a sacrifice ? 
 
 22. DR. MOBERLY. I would rather deal with the question of 
 the significance of the eucharist later, as it belongs to 
 a later subject ; as to the connexion of what I have tried 
 to say with sacrificial language, I feel no difficulty at all. 
 The connexion seems to me to be natural and obvious. 
 For the penitence of which I speak involves death. 
 Self-identification of human nature with holiness cannot 
 be consummated without that absolutely supreme self- 
 surrender of which the final expression known to us is 
 death. Only as consummated in death is the sacrifice 
 of penitence, and therefore of atonement, complete. 
 Penitence cannot be consummated as atonement, until it 
 has become the ' life that has died.' 
 
 23. DR. SALMOND. I have listened with extreme interest to 
 
 the exposition given by Dr. Moberly, but I find it 
 impossible to realize how an absolutely sinless being 
 could have that consciousness of sin which is required. 
 When you speak of penitence as being consummated by 
 Christ's work, do you mean more than that through 
 Christ's work you come to real penitence, and that Christ's 
 work gives to penitence any value it has ? And in what 
 sense can we conceive of our penitence being an atoning 
 penitence ? I do not understand the phrase you used, 
 Dr. Moberly, as to penitence being ' consummated,' 
 unless it means that through Christ's work we receive 
 power to repent, and to do that from grace to grace.
 
 128 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 24 
 
 I 
 I do not see in what appropriate sense you can speak of 
 
 repentance as atoning. 
 
 24. DR. MOBERLY. As to the possibility of calling penitence 
 ' atoning,' it depends, no doubt, on what precisely we mean 
 by ' atoning.' Let us put it in this way. The problem is 
 how the really sinful can become really sinless. When 
 I speak of penitence as atoning, I mean to indicate that 
 the nearest approach we know towards the transforma- 
 tion of a sinful person into a not sinful one is when the 
 person truly repents of his sin. Penitence, at least, really 
 tends (as nothing else does) towards an erasing of 
 sinfulness. 
 
 When I speak of Christ as ' consummating ' penitence, 
 t don't for one moment suggest that He merely puts, as 
 it were, the finishing touches on something that was real 
 of its kind though unfinished without Him. From 
 end to end the whole reality of penitence only is His ; 
 and our penitence only is possible, even in its measure, 
 as made possible by His. I mean by the word to 
 emphasize the fact that His work, and His only, is 
 a consummate completeness, not falling a hair's breadth 
 short of the fullness of perfection. 
 
 If this is the relation of our penitence to His, I am 
 glad to have the opportunity of utterly deprecating any 
 statement which would seem to imply that penitent sur- 
 render on our part was an act of our own a following 
 after Christ in the way of imitation. If I speak of His 
 sacrifice as penitence, and speak also of penitence in our- 
 selves, I do not suggest that we, in repenting, are inde- 
 pendent imitators of Him. We have no power to 
 imitate Him. Any such achievement or any imitation 
 of it is beyond our possibility. On the contrary, as 
 I said, penitence is absolutely necessary for us in propor- 
 tion as it is impossible, and impossible in proportion as 
 it is necessary.
 
 II. 25-31] SECOND DISCUSSION 129 
 
 25. DR. FAIRBAIRN. That brings us to the root of the whole 
 
 matter. What do we conceive Christ accomplished by 
 His death ? What was its purpose, its terminus ad quern 
 as it were ? Is its influence exhausted in what it enables 
 man to do or to become ? Or does it so concern God that 
 because of it and through it He has new relations to man ? 
 
 26. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. It restores union with God. 
 
 27. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Certainly, it restores union with God, 
 but on what grounds, for what reasons ? Paul speaks of 
 a ' righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ,' and also 
 of God having 'set Him forth as propitiatory through 
 faith in His blood to show His righteousness . . . that He 
 might be just, and that justifier of him that is of faith 
 in Jesus.' Now how is this consummation of human 
 penitence related to the righteousness of God through 
 faith ? and to the righteousness which is demonstrated in 
 the sacrifice of Christ ? 
 
 28. DR. SALMOND. What I wish to understand, Dr. Moberly, 
 is what you precisely mean when you employ the terms 
 ' propitiatory ' and ' atoning ' in relation to ' penitence ' 
 
 29. DR. MOBERLY. I should not naturally use the words at 
 all of the penitence of our human experience, because it 
 never can reach the point of being really atoning. But 
 when I come to consider the efficacy of Christ's suffer- 
 ing, it seems to me to fulfil the (otherwise unconceived) 
 ideal of penitence ; and, moreover, to be effectively 
 atoning, just precisely because it is penitence con- 
 summated. 
 
 30. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. They are used as the terms 
 most akin to atonement, Christ being the only atone- 
 ment. 
 
 31. DR. SALMOND. I think your statement might imply 
 
 that Christ atones by taking our sins sympathetically 
 upon Himself, and evoking thereby in our hearts feelings 
 of penitence and love, with which God is pleased. 
 
 K
 
 130 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 32-37 
 
 32. ARCHDEACON WILSON. The word 'atonement* has two 
 
 different meanings one of reconciliation and another of 
 propitiation. 
 
 33. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. Would you not say that it 
 is to reconcile man to God by an act of propitiatory 
 penitence from man to God ? 
 
 34. ARCHDEACON WILSON. The word 'atonement' does not 
 
 appear in the Revised Version. 
 
 35. DR. SALMOND. Have you any word which you can 
 substitute for ' atoning ' ? 
 
 36. DR. MOBERLY. As I have said, I do not ordinarily call 
 penitence atoning. But in the sense in which I have 
 explained that I do so, I do not know that ' reconciling,' 
 or ' satisfying/ or any other word would be felt to be 
 any more helpful. 
 
 37. DR. FAIRBAIRN. If we get into the habit of using such 
 terms as ' expiatory ' and ' atoning ' both of Christ's 
 sacrifice and acts or states of our own like penitence, 
 will it be possible to maintain any distinction, as regards 
 intrinsic character, between them? But if we restrict 
 these terms to Christ's sacrifice alone, can we any longer 
 affirm the identity of His acfc and ours ? Canon Moberly 
 says that, apart from Christ's accomplished work, I cannot 
 repent. That indeed is true ; but His work has a merit 
 which makes my repentance not only possible to me but 
 acceptable to God. That seems to me to require some 
 modification of the phrase ' consummation of human 
 penitence,' for surely the sacrifice which is at once the 
 cause of our penitence and the means of securing for it 
 consequences and rewards it would never by itself obtain, 
 stands in a higher category than what we may call its 
 immeritorious resultant. And I do not see what func- 
 tion the priest has in connexion with human penitence, 
 nor how it can be limited to acts which can be termed 
 sacrifices of the Church.
 
 II. 38-40] SECOND DISCUSSION 131 
 
 38. CANON GORE. I do not feel some of the doubts that 
 have been expressed, but I do feel in some difficulty with 
 reference to the interpretation put by Dr. Moberly upon 
 some of the language in the New Testament. I cannot 
 see that his interpretation of the words ' My God, My 
 God, why didst Thou forsake Me ? ' is justified by either 
 their original Old Testament use or their application in 
 the New Testament it does not seem to be in line with 
 the thoughts of the New Testament exactly. 
 
 39. Mr. LANG. I feel precisely what has been said on the 
 other side. With much also that Dr. Moberly has 
 said, I cordially agree, but I think that the use of the 
 word 'penitence' brings with it associations which mislead 
 more than they help. I agree that ' penitence ' is almost 
 universally used as meaning 'sorrow for my own sin.' In 
 the illustration which Canon Moberly used of the mother 
 and the child, there is no penitence : there is sorrow for 
 sin ; there is repudiation of sin, with all the abhorrence 
 of a righteous nature of the results it may have upon the 
 child, but there is no penitence in the mother, and I do 
 not see how you can get penitence in the experience of 
 the mother. He might have used the words 'repudiation 
 of sin ' or ' condemnation of sin/ but ' penitence ' in such 
 a case is a word that I cannot make real to my own 
 mind. 
 
 40. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Canon Moberly's theory, though not 
 
 the terms in which he expresses it, has, I suppose, been 
 suggested by the work of John Macleod Campbell on 
 ' The Atonement,' and lies open to the objections which 
 applied to it : it reposes on a principle or idea which, in 
 order that it may be logically verified, must be capable 
 of being applied to both sides and to the whole case. 
 Thus the illustration so admirably worked out by 
 Dr. Moberly of the mother's penitence for the sin of her 
 son breaks down at the cardinal point. She stands not 
 
 K 2
 
 132 SECOND DISCUSSION [II. 41, 42 
 
 only under the corporate law of which so much has been 
 heard to-day, but she stands under it in a twofold 
 capacity as a fallible and by no means sinless individual, 
 and as a link in the chain of heredity ; a means by which 
 taint or defect may be propagated. Hence she cannot 
 quite rid herself of a sense of responsibility for her son's 
 sin, or of the feeling that it may have been due to some 
 conscious or unconscious error of her own, or to some 
 tendency which he owes to her or hers. And so 
 ' penitence ' may be possible in a mother in a sense 
 which is quite impossible in the case of a Saviour who is 
 without sin and without responsibility for it. 
 
 41. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. But her penitence is purer 
 than that of the child. Repudiation is at least a part of 
 the action of penitence, and the hatred of sin which is the 
 offering of penitence is only possible according to the 
 measure of the freedom from sin. 
 
 42. DR. FAIRBAIRN. But granting all that, her sorrow is 
 essentially sorrow on account of a sin to which she has 
 been in a sense contributory, and for which she is in 
 a degree responsible. But before turning to other 
 questions, I wish again to express our obligations to 
 Canon Moberly for his careful exposition of his views. 
 May I now put a question to Canon Gore relative to 
 a criticism he made on some words of mine ? We are 
 agreed in holding that there is an efficacy and a 
 significance attributed to the death and blood of our 
 Lord which are never attributed to those of His 
 apostles. In this respect His death and theirs are 
 never associated. Now I want to ask Canon Gore 
 whether he finds our Lord or His Apostles speaking of 
 any disciple as giving his life a ransom for many, or as 
 shedding his blood for the remission of sins ? And if not, 
 whether this does not signify an absolute distinction 
 between His death as the consummation of His sacrifice,
 
 II. 43] SECOND DISCUSSION 133 
 
 and the death His disciples might suffer? And if this 
 be so, whether the terms priesthood and sacrifice have 
 anything more than a metaphorical sense when applied 
 to offices and acts of the Church or its ministers ? 
 43. CANON GORE. I must wholly decline to identify ' sacri- 
 ficial ' with ' propitiatory,' which is only a department of 
 it. What is unique in Christ's sacrifice is its propitiatory 
 power: its power to reconstruct a violated relationship 
 between man and God to restore man into union with 
 God and with one another in the Church. But this 
 restoration is a restoration to the original and funda- 
 mental life of priesthood and sacrifice which sin had 
 destroyed. And the Church's acts or attributes of priest- 
 hood and sacrifice are no more ' metaphorical ' than 
 Christ's. St. Paul exhausts almost all the resources of 
 sacrificial language in application to the Church, includ- 
 ing the language of vicarious sacrifice (Col. i. 24). And 
 he represents Christ not only as offering Himself for us, 
 but as offering us in Himself (Col. i. 22, &c. ; cf. Col. i. 28, 
 Rom. xv. 1 6). 
 
 At this stage the Conference was adjourned till the 
 following day.
 
 134 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 1-4 
 
 THIRD DISCUSSION. 
 
 1. DR. SANDAY. Our discussion to-day will no doubt be 
 
 the most crowded of those ifl which we have been 
 engaged, owing to the number of subjects that are 
 down for our consideration. I think that yesterday 
 afternoon we drifted away somewhat from the main 
 points which were before us, though the questions raised 
 were so interesting in themselves, and the treatment of 
 them was so helpful, that I could not regret it; but 
 I would suggest that we should try this morning to 
 keep to the three points which are on the paper: 
 (i) 'The Mystical Union what is it, and what does it 
 imply ? ' (2) ' The relation of the body to its " organs " ' ; 
 and (3) ' The provision for the perpetuity of the Christian 
 priesthood.' Perhaps as the third subject is a very 
 wide one it may be advisable to narrow it down to 
 the question of transmission. 
 
 2. FATHER PULLER. I am afraid that what I am about 
 
 to say will transgress some of the suggestions that you, 
 Dr. Sanday, have made. I do not propose to keep to 
 the question of transmission, but rather to speak of 
 matters bearing on the question of the perpetuity of the 
 Christian priesthood. 
 
 3. DR. SANDAY. They were only suggestions for general 
 
 guidance. 
 
 4. FATHER PULLER. I think that we shall all agree that 
 
 our Lord is a 'priest for ever,' however much we may 
 differ in our views as to the functions of His priesthood ; 
 but I am afraid that we shall not all be agreed that His
 
 III. 4] THIRD DISCUSSION 135 
 
 sacrifice continues for ever, that it is a perpetual sacrifice. 
 To my mind, however, the perpetuity of our Lord's sacri- 
 fice is brought out with very special clearness by St. John 
 in the Apocalypse. In his vision he sees our Lord in 
 glory as the ' Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.' 
 It certainly seems probable to me that that particular 
 symbol was used with the object of expressing the idea 
 that our Lord continues to be a sacrifice, and that, what- 
 ever there may or may not be on earth, there exist at any 
 rate in heaven not only a High Priest but also a Sacrifice. 
 But in fact I believe that Holy Scripture teaches that the 
 oblation of the sacrifice of Christ is not limited to heaven, 
 but that it takes place also on earth in the celebration of 
 the eucharist. The whole account of our Lord's institution 
 of the eucharist implies the sacrificial character of that 
 rite. Every detail is sacrificial. I notice first that our 
 Lord taught us to use at the eucharist bread and wine. It 
 may be admitted that to an ordinary Englishman of the 
 nineteenth century these elements may not suggest sacri- 
 ficial ideas. But it was surely otherwise with those who 
 were gathered around our Lord in the upper room. The 
 meal-offerings consisted of preparations of fine flour. 
 The drink-offerings consisted of wine. Bread and wine 
 were also largely used in the heathen sacrifices. The very 
 word, ' immolation,' is derived from ' mola,' the sacrificial 
 meal that was sprinkled on the victims. Thus the bread 
 and the wine, which formed the basis of the eucharistic 
 rite, were sacrificial things. These sacrificial things our 
 Lord blessed and consecrated ; and having consecrated 
 them, He identified them with His own precious body 
 and blood. He said : ' This is My body,' ' This is My 
 blood.' But His body and blood are the sacrificial things 
 which He perpetually presents in heaven. He has, as 
 our High Priest, brought His 'blood of sprinkling ' within 
 the veil, that it may ' speak better things than that of
 
 136 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 5 
 
 Abel.' He appears openly before the face of God on our 
 behalf, clothed with His glorified body, the body of the 
 ' Lamb standing, as though it had been slain.' Moreover, 
 by the institution of the eucharist our Lord was inau- 
 gurating a new covenant. He said : ' This cup is the new 
 covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.' 
 And according to the teaching of Holy Scripture coven- 
 ants are made and ratified by sacrifice. Once more, our 
 Lord, after instituting the eucharist, gave an injunction 
 to His Church, saying : ' Do this for My memorial ' (eiy 
 TT)Z> e'jUTjy avdfj.vrj<nv). The word avd^vqats corresponds in 
 the LXX to the Hebrew rn?}*?, which is also rendered in 
 some passages of the LXX by the word pvrjn6<ruvov. It 
 nbrmally signified a sacrificial offering burnt on the altar. 
 Thus in Lev. xxiv. 7 it is written : ' Thou shalt put 
 pure frankincense upon each row [of the shew-bread], that 
 it may be on the bread for a memorial (eis avdjAvrja-iv), even 
 an offering made by fire unto the Lord.' In the case of 
 the meal-offerings the 'Ti3]K was that part of the offering 
 which was burnt on the altar, the rest being eaten by the 
 priest. From what has been said it seems clear that 
 the principal words used by our Lord at the institution 
 of the eucharist, and also the elements which He appointed 
 to be used in that rite, point in the same direction, and 
 indicate the sacrificial character of the ordinance ; and it 
 would require very explicit and authoritative statements 
 in the opposite direction to induce me to give up my 
 belief that the holy eucharist was instituted by our Lord 
 as a sacrifice, the earthly counterpart of the sacrificial 
 oblation which is being carried on in the heavenly taber- 
 nacle. Had there been time I should have gone on to point 
 out how from the Apostolic age onwards the eucharist has 
 always been understood in the Church to be a sacrifice. 
 5. ARCHDEACON WILSON. We are now approaching the real 
 point at issue. We are agreed that the idea of sacrifice,
 
 III. 5] THIRD DISCUSSION 137 
 
 and the usually concomitant idea of priesthood, are all 
 but universal in men, and were highly developed in 
 Judaism, and to a certain extent (on the amount of which 
 we differ) underlie the reports of our Lord's teaching and 
 that of His disciples as regards His work, both in the 
 eternal world where He is with the Father, and in the 
 temporal life which He spent on earth. We are agreed 
 also that the element in Christ's sacrifice, which we may 
 imitate and share, is the life of self-consecration ; and that 
 His whole Church and every member of it, and especially 
 its ministers, are bound to repeat, continue, and present 
 that sacrifice in Him and through Him, and that this has 
 no propitiatory effect, but helps us to draw near to God 
 as Christ's mystical body. Now we come to the dividing 
 question, which is really prior to and underlies heads 
 (a) and (3) of the questions set down for to-day. Are 
 there any propitiatory, mediatorial, absolving powers 
 committed to any order of men, or any powers other than 
 ministerial and representative ? Are there any powers 
 which are exclusive, personal, transmissible ? any which 
 we are wise in calling sacerdotal, remembering what that 
 word connotes as well as denotes ? On this question 
 I have only time to offer three remarks, (i) If this power 
 of transmitting grace through individual men is real it 
 must be demonstrable, by its results. As in everything 
 else, proof finally rests on observation and is of an inductive 
 nature. The theory is tested by facts, and is either 
 verified or disproved, and there is no appeal. To my 
 judgement the verdict of experience on the claim for 
 exclusive possession and mediation of grace on the part 
 of any order of men is that such claim is disproved. The 
 gift of the Spirit is wider than any human ministry. 
 (2) We all wish not to minimize the high and true con- 
 ception of sacrifice and priesthood, but we wish to 
 minimize what we regard as the lower conception ; and
 
 138 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 6 
 
 I regard as lower all those actions which are professional 
 and delegated, and consist in special and personal acts, 
 as contrasted with those which are human, universal, and 
 affect the whole life : in a word, the mechanical as con- 
 trasted with the ethical. We wish that the thought of 
 sacrifice and priesthood shall not remain longer than 
 necessary on the lower plane. Our Lord, as we think, 
 lifted it to the higher or ethical plane. We think that 
 He was followed by His disciples ; but that it slipped 
 back, owing to our imperfect nature, and specially to 
 those elements in it which are so strong in Paganism 
 and Judaism. We desire to keep it ethical, spiritual, and 
 universal, and to free it from that which is mechanical 
 a*nd professional. (3) It is impossible to dissociate the 
 question from that of the supernatural, and our view of 
 it. In some minds the contrast of natural and super- 
 natural is sharp ; and to lose the sharpness is to such 
 minds the loss of the supernatural. In others the distinc- 
 tion fades away. My own belief is that the distinction is 
 not tenable. The spheres described are identical, and the 
 contrast is provisional, depending on our knowledge and 
 its limitations. To those who take the other view, the 
 supernatural element in the human priesthood must be 
 very dear and necessary. Before they can understand 
 how devout minds can dispense with all sacerdotal claim 
 as commonly understood, they must face the question of 
 natural and supernatural, and their possible identity or 
 continuity; and that of certain other contrasts which 
 seem to me to be arbitrary, artificial, and to belong to 
 what may be called the Latin type of mind. 
 6. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I should like to thank Archdeacon 
 Wilson for what he has just said as to the piety of 
 peoples who know no priesthood, and as to the inability 
 of mere Church mechanism to create the higher godliness. 
 I come of a race which loved the ministry though it had
 
 in. e] THIRD DISCUSSION 139 
 
 no priesthood, yet it is a race whose piety is as eminent, 
 as real, and as abiding, as any that history knows. As 
 their son, born and nurtured in the heart of their awed 
 and reverent godliness, I feel that I dare not think of any 
 institution or agency as necessary to the higher piety 
 which was superfluous or even alien to theirs. Characters 
 that are to me ideals of Christian saintliness would become 
 reproachful memories, were I to attempt to believe that 
 failure in some matter of outward order had restricted 
 or obscured the grace of the God in whose eye they so 
 tremblingly lived. But we have so many grave questions 
 to discuss this morning that even personal affection must 
 not tempt me to linger by the way. 'The mystical 
 body ' is a Pauline idea ; ' the body of Christ ' is a 
 Pauline phrase (cf. i Cor. xii. 27 ; Eph. iii. 6 ; iv. 12,16 ; 
 Col. i. 1 8); and so we are bound to interpret idea and 
 phrase through the Apostle to whom we owe them. But 
 it is here as in the case of our Lord : there is no refer- 
 ence to any priesthood in the Church which is the body 
 of Christ, or to the performance of priestly functions by 
 its ministry. What we have is not simply silence, where, 
 indeed, silence would be inexplicable, but the picture 
 of a state where the priest as a priest does not exist. 
 This appears most impressively in the account of the 
 eucharist. The cup is a communion of the blood of 
 Christ, the bread a communion of His body (i Cor. 
 x. 1 6 ; cf. xi. 23-29) ; but this participation is not 
 effected by any specially commissioned person in a 
 specially defined office, but is an act performed in 
 common. ' The cup of blessing which we bless,' ' the 
 bread which we break'; and the 'we' who constitute 
 the 'one body* are defined as 'the many,' i.e. the 
 Christian people or multitude. Cf. the careful distinc- 
 tion as to what the Apostle himself does, and what the 
 corporate people do, in the verbs Ae'yo> } $T\V.( (i Cor. x. 15,
 
 140 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 6 
 
 19), and ev\oyoviJLv, K\&nev (ver. 16). The terms that 
 would have turned the rite into a priestly sacrifice are 
 absent ; it is a communal rather than sacerdotal cere- 
 mony ; preserves the domestic forms or family customs 
 under which the most creative and important of all the 
 events in the history of Israel had been wont to be 
 celebrated. And so out of the eucharist as Paul 
 describes it and he is the one Apostolic writer who 
 does describe it, though only in one of his epistles 
 the idea that it was a sacrifice offered by a sacrificing 
 priesthood cannot, by literary exegesis, be reasonably 
 deduced. And this inference is confirmed when we come 
 to look at his idea of the ' body ' through his enumeration 
 o*f its constituent organs or ministers. Here we have 
 three most significant passages. First he tells the Corin- 
 thians (i, xii. 27, 28) that they are 'the body of Christ, 
 and severally members thereof ' ; and then he specifies, 
 as organs or members set in the Church by the act 
 and will of God, 'Apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, 
 gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.' 
 The priesthood is not simply conspicuously absent ; it is 
 not even glanced at in any of the offices or functions 
 enumerated in the list. Secondly, in Rom. xii. 4-8, the 
 Church appears as the body of Christ, with members 
 who though they differ in duty or office, are all yet 
 as it were so inter-incorporated, as to be members one 
 of another through each being an organ of the whole. 
 The gifts which he specifies as differentiating each organ 
 or member from the others, even while enabling each to 
 contribute to the harmony and efficiency of the whole 
 body, are prophecy, ministry (StaKovia), teaching, exhor- 
 tation, charity, government ; but he never names priest- 
 hood, nor anything priestly. What he conceives is 
 a worship by the spontaneous obedience of God and 
 the ethical service of man, rather than by the observance
 
 III. 7] THIRD DISCUSSION 141 
 
 of sacerdotal forms. Quite as explicit is the third refer- 
 ence in Eph. iv. u, 12. The Church, as Paul there 
 conceives it, is c one body, and one spirit ' (ver. 4) ; and he 
 specifies the various organs which are needed for ' the 
 perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, 
 unto the building up of the body of Christ.' And what 
 were these organs or ministers ? Apostles, prophets, evan- 
 gelists, pastors, and teachers ; but again, no priest, and 
 no reference to any priestly office or function. These 
 are decisive passages, for they are the great texts con- 
 cerned with the mystical body and its organs ; and I feel 
 quite unable to conceive how Paul could have omitted 
 all reference to a priesthood and its sacrifices if they 
 had been in his mind, or the mind of the Apostolic 
 Church, necessary either to the being or to the well- 
 being of that Church. And this suggests another thing 
 which belongs to the perspective, and what we may 
 term the general proportion and harmony, of the picture. 
 Consider the place assigned to the priest and his sacrifices 
 in the Roman Church, to the eucharist and to the cele- 
 brating priest with his ritual and his robes in the 
 Anglican Church ; then imagine a series of letters as 
 individual in character, and as specific in detail as are 
 our Pauline Epistles, addressed by some person high in 
 authority to each province of the Roman Church, or 
 to each diocese of the Anglican ; and could you conceive 
 the questions touching the priesthood and its functions 
 and sacrifices treated, or rather completely omitted from 
 treatment, as they are in these epistles of Paul ? And 
 does not this imply a total change, if not, as regards 
 the thought, in the centre of gravity, yet in the perspective 
 of the picture, and in the proportion, quality, and value 
 of the figures that represent and embody its life ? 
 7. DR. MOBERLY. I begin with one or two comments upon 
 what has been already said.
 
 142 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 7 
 
 1. The crucial question is whether the corporate body 
 of the Church can be said to be priestly. It seems to 
 me a mistake to let the discussion turn primarily upon 
 the application of priestly terms to an order within the 
 Church. This is not unimportant, but it is, comparatively 
 speaking, a detail. Whether Christ's priestliness can be 
 predicated of the Church as a whole is a question of 
 cardinal importance. If this be once conceded, the use 
 of priestly terms of the Church's ministry is a mere 
 corollary, which will drop into its own proportions, and 
 follow in its own time. 
 
 2. Archdeacon Wilson used terms just now about the 
 ministerial order (as separate, exclusive, &c.), to which 
 C should demur. Without staying to make any com- 
 ment, I would merely offer instead the phrase that the 
 so-called ' priests,' instead of exclusively absorbing the 
 priestly character, are strictly the ( ministerial organs of 
 the Church's priesthood.' 
 
 3. I should like to say that the suggestion of the 
 identity or continuity of the natural and supernatural is 
 one which I do not at all shrink from. Again I would 
 comment only by offering the single, unexplained 
 phrase, that ' ideally, in the Church, everything is 
 supernatural.' 
 
 Turning to our main question, I observe that there is 
 much tendency to accentuate the contrast between what 
 Christ is, and what the Church can be said to be. ' Oh, 
 yes ! ' it is apt to be implied, ' we quite agree that such 
 or such a thing is true of Christ ; but it is not true of the 
 Church of Christ.' I do not say that there are not 
 aspects in reference to which such a distinction may have 
 to be drawn. Christ is a separate figure in history, as 
 well as a spiritual unity. Nevertheless, it seems to me 
 that we are, speaking broadly, upon the wrong tack, 
 when we are constantly basing ourselves upon this
 
 in. 8] THIRD DISCUSSION 143 
 
 distinction. The Pentecostal Church is the expression of 
 Christ, and the presence of Christ. Of course the phrase 
 ' body of Christ ' is scriptural and familiar. But that 
 very phrase is sometimes treated as if the emphasis were 
 all upon body the body of Christ, but not Christ. But 
 it is the body not as contrasted with spirit. The body 
 is alive, and the spirit is the breath of the life of the 
 body. The spirit is everything. Ecclesia proprie et 
 principaliter Ipse est Spiritus. ' If any man have not the 
 Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.' Whether we think 
 of the individual personality of a Christian, or of the 
 Christian corporate body as a whole, I think we are 
 wrong when we essay to find what either is by itself 
 in contrast with, or separation from, Christ. The deeper 
 way of understanding either is precisely the opposite. 
 Either individual personality or the corporate Church, is 
 what it is by virtue of identity an identity of spirit 
 even more than of body with Christ. Our main prin- 
 ciple should be that what Christ is, the Church is ; 
 because the Church is the body, whose breath is the 
 spirit, of Christ ; because the Church is Christ. That 
 Christ is this or that, but that the Church of Christ is 
 not, is a dangerous basis of thought. 
 
 If I do not wholly say that it is an inadmissible 
 distinction ; if there are spheres and purposes for which 
 it has reality ; yet, after all, it is not so much that there 
 are such and such reserved points predications which are 
 to be made of Christ, but denied of His Church ; as that 
 He alone is in Himself the cause and the possibility of all 
 that identity of the Church with Himself: an identity 
 which, when caused and made possible and actual by 
 Him alone, is then itself, ideally, quite absolute and 
 without reserve. 
 
 8. DR. RYLE. I wish to preface what I have to say with a 
 reference to a remark of Canon Scott Holland yesterday.
 
 144 THIRD DISCUSSION [m. 
 
 He demurred to the use of the word metaphor as applied 
 to sacrifice and priesthood. It is important that there 
 should be no misapprehension here. I should be very 
 sorry if any words I had used could be thought to 
 derogate from the supreme importance of the doctrine of 
 the atoning sacrifice. From the physical point of view 
 the death of Christ was a dying ; from the Roman point 
 of view it was an execution ; from the Jewish point of 
 view we may say it was a murder. From the Christian 
 point of view it was a sacrifice, and it becomes sacrificial 
 by the description of the historical fact under meta- 
 phorical terms. The reference to sacrificial institutions 
 was the best means for interpreting eternal truths. Then 
 toith regard to the priesthood, there is a very funda- 
 mental difference as to the way in which we regard 
 the question. In Christ we have a new priesthood in 
 which all have complete access to the Holiest an 
 access which before was only permissible to the high 
 priest. The Christian ministry may be conceived of as 
 a priesthood, an order representing the community in the 
 dedication of service and of offerings ; and in that way 
 the eucharist may be regarded as sacrifice. The phrase 
 'a sacrificing priesthood* for the Christian ministry 
 appears to me to be either incorrect or misleading. 
 It is incorrect if it indicates that the sacrifice of Christ 
 was not absolutely the one complete expiatory offering. 
 It is misleading if the priest is simply offering sacrifices 
 of thanksgiving or almsgiving ; for sacrifice is generally 
 associated with expiatory offering. No doubt the 
 phrase was used in early times, but it was used with 
 reference to an offering of prayer and thanksgiving. 
 We cannot dwell too strongly on the fact that we have 
 but one expiatory sacrifice. 
 
 9. DR. SALMOND. I should like to refer for a moment to 
 some remarks which fell from Dr. Moberly, and which
 
 III. 10, 11] THIRD DISCUSSION 145 
 
 seem to me of great importance. If I understood him 
 aright, he is quite willing to dissociate his position from 
 the use of terms like sacerdotal and priestly, and would 
 prefer to speak of ' ministerial organs of the Church.' 
 Now that is exceedingly important. 
 
 10. DR. MOBERLY. I do not think that is correctly quoted. 
 You have left out the word ' priesthood.' It was ' minis- 
 terial organs of the Church's priesthood.' 
 
 11. DR. SALMOND. Then that leaves me not without hope 
 
 that a good deal of our difference is a matter of terms 
 and definition of terms. (' Hear, hear.') I wholly admit, 
 of course, that Christ founded a Church, and that He 
 instituted certain rites in it. I also hold that it is open 
 to the Church to take order for its administration and 
 organization, but then I have to part company with many 
 brethren after that. I see that the New Testament speaks 
 of a priesthood of the Christian people, but I discover in 
 it nothing like a priesthood of any particular official. As 
 I have already said I do not find the recognized term for 
 ' priest ' applied anywhere in the New Testament to the 
 Christian minister as such, but I find it always restricted 
 to Christ Himself, and to the Christian people, where the 
 Christian idea of a priest or a priesthood is in view. 
 I have no proof, therefore, of the institution by our Lord 
 in His ' Church ' of anything like priestly rites or prero- 
 gatives, using the term priestly in the proper sense of 
 sacerdotal. Hence all such phrases as ' sacrificing priests,' 
 ' a sacrificing priesthood,' &c., seem to me to be without 
 New Testament warrant, and also to be as misleading as 
 they are inappropriate. 
 
 But I understood Canon Moberly to say further, that 
 it was a mistake to distinguish between Christ and the 
 Church, because the Church has the Spirit of Christ. 
 Now in this there is something that I could at once and 
 most cordially accept, but it would be with the explana- 
 
 L
 
 146 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 11 
 
 tion that it is not in the sense of such an identification 
 between Christ and the Church as is sometimes meant 
 by it. And this brings me to the immediate questions 
 What is the mystical union, and what is the point of the 
 phrase ' the body of Christ ' ? 
 
 Now there is no doubt that the idea of the mystical 
 union, and the description of the Church as ' the body of 
 Christ,' have a large place in the New Testament. But 
 what is meant by them ? Do they lend any support to 
 the sacerdotal conception of the Christian minister and 
 to the various things connected therewith ? 
 
 If we go back to our Lord's own discourses we find in 
 them much that relates to the question of unity. In His 
 *words unmistakable and varied expression is given to 
 the great truth that there is a oneness between Him and 
 His disciples. He speaks of it also in more than one 
 aspect. He speaks of it as a union which is not realized 
 at present, but which is to be aimed at now, and to have 
 its complete fulfilment hereafter (John xvii). He speaks 
 of this oneness also as a relation of life (John xv), on the 
 believer's side a relation of dependence so vital that apart 
 from Christ he can do nothing. Paul takes up these 
 truths and unfolds their meaning and applications in the 
 light of his own knowledge of Christ and his own experi- 
 ence of the Christian life. In his writings this idea of 
 oneness between Christ and His disciples is set forth at 
 large, in various forms, and, in especial, in its relations to 
 Christ's death and resurrection. He speaks of a union 
 with Christ to moral effects (Rom. vi. 1-6 ; Col. iii. i, 2 ; 
 Eph. ii. 5, 6) ; of a union with Him to legal effects, or 
 effects of standing and relation (Rom. v. 12-19 ; viii. i ; 
 2 Cor. v. 21) ; of a union with Him in life (Gal. ii. 20). 
 All this with much else is said with reference to the 
 individual believer. But in Paul we have also the larger 
 conception of a oneness between Christ and the Church
 
 III. 12] THIRD DISCUSSION 147 
 
 the Church as a whole. This is what he illustrates by 
 the figure of the ' body ' of which Christ is the ' Head ' 
 (Eph. i. 23). It is a great and singular conception, of 
 which my time permits me to say but one or two things, 
 and these very shortly. In the first place it should not 
 be forgotten that this is only one of various figures under 
 which Paul expresses the relation between Christ and 
 His people, or His Church. It is not to be pressed, 
 therefore, to the neglect of others. If we wish to get 
 a correct and complete view of Paul's idea of the Church 
 and its relation to Christ, we must take all his different 
 figures and forms of statement together. In the second 
 place, it is to be noticed that the particular respect in 
 which this great figure of the body and the head is 
 introduced in Eph. i is that of dependence on Christ, 
 subjection to Him as Lord of and over all. And in the 
 third place it seems to me to be very evident that by the 
 Church^ which is called Christ's body, Paul does not mean 
 a visible society or organization, but the general body of 
 believers, the totality of those, wherever found, who are 
 described in the preceding verses as ' chosen,' ' fore- 
 ordained unto adoption as sons,' ' holy,' ' believing,' ' for- 
 given,' ' sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.' 
 12. CANON GORE. In my opinion the very essence of 
 Christianity is the conception that Christ is realized in 
 the visible body of the Church, and everything that 
 weakens that conception is to be deprecated. It is in 
 and through corporate fellowship that we realize all that 
 is possible for us as individuals. I was rejoiced to find 
 in 'the catechism of the Free Churches' a recognition 
 of the doctrine of the visible body, the importance of 
 which it was hardly possible to exaggerate. Christ lives 
 as a quickening Spirit in the body in order that the 
 whole body may become a great priestly race. If the 
 Levitical priesthood is abolished it is that the funda- 
 
 L 2
 
 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 12 
 
 mental or Christian priesthood that priesthood which 
 the whole of the New Testament exists in order to 
 express may be found through Christ in the Church, 
 and I would ask whether it is not in that truth that 
 lies our best hope of being drawn together. I agree 
 with what Dr. Moberly said about the mystical union, 
 and I would say in public what I have already said 
 in private to some members of the Conference. It 
 appears to me that the difficulty about ' sacerdotalism ' 
 would be best met if the opponents of ' sacerdotalism/ 
 instead of introducing the idea of the priestliness of the 
 whole body as a mere repartee or foil to the priestliness 
 of the ministry, would agree to emphasize this priest- 
 hood of the whole body in its rich positive meaning. 
 I think we all on this side of the table are conscious 
 of the perils of ' sacerdotalism,' which history has only 
 too abundantly illustrated and which we all most 
 earnestly desire to counteract. It is the same idea of the 
 priesthood of the whole body which is our best antidote 
 to any false emphasis on the priesthood of the ministry. 
 I believe, then, we could make one important step 
 towards agreement if we all realized that the true way 
 of counteracting the evils of a false sacerdotalism lies 
 in emphasizing and not minimizing the priestly character 
 of the Christian life and society as a whole. Arch- 
 deacon Wilson has referred to the Eastern and Western 
 theologies. I think that you will never acclimatize the 
 type of doctrine which is identified specially with Clement 
 of Alexandria and Origen, in England ; but if you want 
 a man whose doctrines are best calculated to undermine 
 mistaken ideas of sacerdotalism, you will find him in 
 the Western Saint Augustine. In his doctrine of the 
 eucharist you have that which counteracts all that is 
 mistaken in sacerdotalism. Again, I cannot easily con- 
 ceive any human composition which expresses the
 
 III. 13] THIRD DISCUSSION 149 
 
 ethical character of Christianity more completely than 
 those liturgies in which the first Christian company 
 expressed their ideas about the eucharist. That is my 
 point let the true sacerdotalism expel the false the 
 broader conception the falsely narrow the ethical the 
 mechanical. 
 
 13. CANON BERNARD. Something has been said about 
 dying with Christ as bearing on the thought of our 
 joining in Christ's sacrificial act. But is it not the case 
 that St. Paul (as in Rom. vi. 4) associated this thought 
 of dying with Christ with the sacrament of baptism, and 
 not of the eucharist ? No view of the ' mystical union ' 
 ought to be taken which evacuates the meaning of a 
 personal, independent existence of each soul, and any 
 system which overlooks that in any way cannot be 
 brought home to the people generally. There has been 
 mention made in this Conference of convictions which lie 
 deep in human nature, which must be taken account of in 
 all attempts to bring religion home to men ; and this 
 conviction of separate individuality is one of them. It is 
 extenuated and disregarded when we look at the indi- 
 vidual exclusively in the light of his relation to the 
 Church or even of his relation to Christ. The great steps 
 which were made towards individualism under the 
 guidance of the prophets, and particularly Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel, were not retraced under the Gospel. I know 
 that the question between the Church and the individual 
 as to which is the proper subject of justification is sup- 
 posed to be left open in the Epistle to the Romans, but 
 for myself I believe that the important conception always 
 will be that of the individual human soul over against 
 Christ, devoted to Christ, inspired by Him, and in com- 
 munion with Him : Christ alone atoning once for all, and 
 the believer apprehending the atonement more and more. 
 I should also like to protest that the idea of offering to
 
 150 THIRD DISCUSSION [HI. 14-16 
 
 God the elements in consecration, is a matter entirely 
 distinct from the early Christian conception of offering 
 alms and food, prayer and thanksgiving, and I believe 
 that the date of the new conception can be fixed by 
 Church historians with tolerable clearness. 
 
 14. DR. SANDAY. Would you say when ? 
 
 15. CANON BERNARD. About the time of Cyprian, I sup- 
 
 pose. 
 
 With regard to the use which was made at the 
 beginning of the discussion, of dra/izn/o-is as suggesting 
 with other things a sacrificial idea of the eucharist, it 
 is hardly necessary to remind the Conference that St. Paul 
 
 explains dva/AVTjo-iy, in I Cor. xi. 25, by KarayyeAAere 
 in ver. 26, and that that word is always used in the New 
 Testament of proclaiming to men, and never of setting 
 forth to God. 
 
 When St. Paul (i Cor. x. 1-4) wished to produce 
 parallels from the wilderness-history for the two sacra- 
 ments of the Gospel, why did he choose manna and 
 water from the rock, instead of sacrifices, as a parallel for 
 the eucharist, if the character of the latter was primarily 
 sacrificial ? 
 
 16. DR. DAVISON. It appears to me that the position the 
 discussion has reached is this. There is a general agree- 
 ment, I am happy to think, that our Lord's sacrifice and 
 priesthood are unique, that there is a piacular element 
 which constitutes that a work by itself, and we proceed 
 this morning to ask whether it is desirable to emphasize 
 that part of our Lord's work in which the Church may 
 claim some share under the style and title of Priesthood 
 and Sacrifice. 
 
 I think we must all agree with most of what has fallen 
 from Dr. Moberly and Canon Gore, and I at least was 
 glad of an indication such as they furnished of a common
 
 in. 17, 18] THIRD DISCUSSION 151 
 
 ground upon which we might meet together. Agreeing 
 as I do, with them on what has been said concerning the 
 mystic union, may I say now why I cannot go further 
 with them? It is because of the very nature of the 
 subject that has called us together, viz. sacrifice and 
 priesthood. The mystic union does not join Christ and 
 His followers together in this respect. I know that the 
 word ' sacrifice ' covers a wide area, and that is the very 
 reason why I do not think it desirable that it should be 
 emphasized to describe the work of the Church or of an 
 order in the Church. In this I am following the New 
 Testament, whether we take St. Paul, or the Hebrews, or 
 other Epistles. 
 
 17. CANON GORE. My object was to begin at the other end, 
 with St. Paul's conception of our Lord's priesthood. 
 
 1 8. DR. DAVISON. I know that there is a line of continuity 
 between Christ's work and that of His Church, and 
 I value it highly. But is it not clear that the attempt 
 to preserve it down the line of priesthood and sacrifice 
 has brought in disputable and even mischievous 
 elements ? 
 
 We must remember, too, that we cannot take 'sacri- 
 ficing priesthood ' without ' absolving priesthood.' Very 
 little has been said about that to-day, but it is an integral 
 part of the subject. And in coming to what are called 
 the ministerial ' organs ' of this priesthood in the Church, 
 does not all history show how easily and imperceptibly 
 these tend to fill the place of Christ Himself? It is for 
 this reason that, while holding a continuity on certain 
 lines between the work of Christ and that of His Church, 
 yet on the subject of Sacrificing Priesthood I think the 
 most important thing is to preserve the contrast between 
 the two. 
 
 I have not time to speak of what is called ' the eucha- 
 ristic sacrifice,' but I find in the New Testament no
 
 152 THIRD DISCUSSION [HI. 19 
 
 warrant for speaking of the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice 
 a mode of speech which properly begins in the Church 
 about the time of Cyprian. The ' offerings ' spoken of 
 in Clement of Rome, the Didache, Ignatius, and the 
 earlier Fathers, are capable of, and demand, a different 
 explanation. 
 
 19. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. Dr. Fairbairn has alluded to 
 the rarity of reference to the priesthood in the Epistles. 
 But I cannot help recalling what was said once by the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury in St. Paul's, that, in reading 
 the Bible, we must remember that the most important 
 things were often what it left out. We want to know the 
 habitual and everyday facts of the early Christian life ; 
 and these are just what are omitted as not worth notic- 
 ing. So, in the Epistles, the points of the Creed that 
 were in dispute occupy the main bulk ; while if we desire 
 to know the deep elemental verities about which every 
 churchman was agreed, we have to unearth them from 
 casual and passing references to them in the Salutations 
 or Benedictions with which St. Paul opens or closes an 
 Epistle. 
 
 Now the references to the eucharist may be rather 
 rare ; but, when they occur, they obviously refer to some- 
 thing that everybody is bound to know and understand 
 to some recognized and indisputable ground of belief 
 and conduct common to the whole body. The rehearsal 
 of the matter in i Cor. ix and the appeal to it in 
 chap. x. 1 6 make this absolutely certain. 
 
 As to the sacrifice of Christ, I want still to plead what 
 I have said before, that the inward motive is not, in 
 itself, sacrificial until it has obtained an outward 
 realization until it can succeed in making an offering. 
 The ' Lo ! I come to do Thy will ' becomes sacrificial 
 when it has completed its intention in the offering of 
 the body prepared for it. The will that is to be done
 
 III. 19] THIRD DISCUSSION 153 
 
 is that He should have a body to present in sacrifice. 
 And so it is that our own offerings of spiritual thanks 
 and praises only gain the right to use sacrificial lan- 
 guage through the sacrifice, present in their midst, of 
 the body and blood. It is this that constitutes them 
 sacrifices. 
 
 We have all agreed that the sacrifice and priesthood 
 of Christ are absolutely unique and alone effectual. 
 There is no other sacrifice ; there is no other priesthood. 
 The only question is how do they reach and touch 
 this or that soul across the centuries? What is their 
 mode of arrival ? Canon Bernard says, they arrive at 
 each soul individually, by the direct and hidden action 
 of God upon the individual. We say, they arrive at 
 each soul through its membership in the body. The 
 body, the society, the Church, is the scene of the action 
 is the organ of contact. The body mediates the sacrificial 
 life. The contact with the eternal offering of Christ 
 is a social act. It happens to the soul through its 
 place in the fellowship. We plead that this tallies with 
 all St. Paul's language. 
 
 If so, then it arrives through man to man. Men are 
 the material of the body. For the law of ' through man 
 to man ' is the primal law of the Incarnation. To fulfil 
 its necessities, Christ became a man. Everything that 
 we know of Christ is mediated through men to us. 
 We have no single phrase or word of His that has not 
 reached us through another man's memory and mind. 
 Christ chose this method of making Himself known, 
 when He abstained from all writing, and gave us no 
 means of knowing what He said, except by the im- 
 pression conveyed through another. 
 
 In everything, salvation uses man to bring God to 
 man. Why not in the sacrament ? 
 
 And does not this thought open out into criticism
 
 154 THIRD DISCUSSION [in. 20 
 
 upon a phrase that has been used of ' Every man his 
 own priest'? Is that not a contradiction in terms? 
 A priest is one essentially who acts on behalf of 
 another. 
 
 The priesthood of the layman lies in his power to 
 put out his powers to succour another, to plead for 
 another. We have confined our talk very largely, in 
 these Conferences, to the nature of the soul's own salva- 
 tion. But the soul's capacity for priesthood begins at 
 the point where, being already saved, it can lend itself 
 out to the redemptive purposes of the body. It is when 
 it has become capable of service, that it can claim to 
 be priestly. Every Christian is a priest, so far as he 
 il not saved alone, to and for himself, but is incorporated 
 into a brotherhood to which he can contribute force, 
 as well as receive force from it. 
 
 ao. DR. SANDAY. This has been the most important of 
 our meetings. It was, of course, to be expected that as 
 we became used to the method of proceeding we should 
 go more directly to the point. The speeches of this 
 morning are of extreme value, equally those of both 
 sides. I would say just one word as to the annulling 
 of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. Might we not 
 say that they were only annulled qua Levitical not qua 
 sacrifice or priesthood ? 
 
 Then as to the mystical union, I feel that I am not 
 arguing with any one I am arguing only with myself. 
 I appreciate very strongly both sides of the question 
 which have been put before us. It has been present 
 to my mind just as has been stated. We have the 
 mystical union applied in a number of ways in Scripture ; 
 but is it not the case, that just the way in which it does 
 not seem to be applied in Scripture is in connexion with 
 these two ideas of sacrifice and priesthood ? That is my 
 difficulty. The question is can we generalize the idea ?
 
 III. 20] THIRD DISCUSSION * 155 
 
 I feel very strongly the arguments that have been put 
 forward for generalizing it. 
 
 Another question of fundamental interest has been 
 raised with reference to the doctrine of Personality. 
 Some years ago I took a certain view which was entirely 
 due to that doctrine ; but I have been shaken as to the 
 validity of the conclusions I then drew. That has come 
 to me, I may say, partly because it has been my duty in 
 the last year or two to lecture upon the doctrine of the 
 Holy Trinity, and so to reconsider the whole question as 
 to the nature of Personality. 
 
 Another point upon which, if there were time, I should 
 be glad to hear a little more said would be as to the 
 question of the ministry under the form of organs of the 
 body. There again I face both ways. On the one hand, 
 with reference to the way in which the question has been 
 presented to us by Archdeacon Wilson, I suspect that 
 my friends on the right could not accept a good many 
 of the terms in which he described the relation of the 
 organs to the body. On the other hand, I should very 
 much like to know from my friends on the left what 
 exactly is their view in regard to such relation. Do 
 they think that these particular organs are interchange- 
 able with other organs, with the members of the body 
 generally? Do they think that it is open to any 
 member of the body to undertake those functions which 
 are specially appropriated to a particular organ ? I am 
 not putting it very well, and they will do it much better. 
 I should like to ask for some sort of answer to that 
 question. 
 
 The third point was in relation to Transmission. I 
 must confess that I appealed to Dr. Driver with the 
 view of getting an expert's account of the real meaning 
 of the ' laying on of hands ' in the Old Testament, but 
 strange to say, just the one passage on which I had been
 
 156 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 21 
 
 in the habit of laying most stress myself (Gen. xlviii. 14; 
 see pp. 38, 40), was the one that he ruled out of court. 
 It is, of course, not ultimately ruled out of court because 
 the word used was a different one in Hebrew to that 
 which was used in other connexions ; still the fact must 
 be noted. I confess that I was taken quite by surprise. 
 I have not yet got my ideas quite in order. I suspect 
 that the fundamental passage, so far as the transmission 
 of office in the Church is concerned, has been that which 
 relates to the laying on of hands of Moses upon Joshua. 
 I share the feeling which is strong on my left that we 
 should guard against the idea of magical effect in 
 ordination, if I may use the word for want of a better. 
 ai.*THE REV. ARNOLD THOMAS. It has been a pleasing 
 and surprising thing to me to find how much I am in 
 sympathy with gentlemen on the other side. Scarcely 
 a sentence has been said to which I could not cordially 
 assent, though of course it is possible that I should not 
 interpret some terms which have been used quite in the 
 way in which they would be interpreted by the speakers. 
 Still, it is one of the happiest results of this Conference 
 that we find ourselves so near to one another in things 
 that are most essential and most sacred. 
 
 I am glad of all that has been said by Canon Scott 
 Holland who appears to be three parts a Congre- 
 gationalist on the subject of the Church. I do not 
 think we can make too much of the Church, and its 
 claims, and functions, and privileges ; and I may say 
 that one reason why some of us value Congregationalism 
 is that it attaches so much importance to the idea of 
 the Christian fellowship, and affords its members such 
 large opportunity of mutual and common ministries in 
 spiritual things. While claiming independence of secular 
 control we recognize in the most practical way our depen- 
 dence on each other for the mutual society, help, and
 
 III. 21] THIRD DISCUSSION *I57 
 
 comfort, that we feel one ought to have of another in 
 the family of God. 
 
 But is it not possible, in laying so much stress on the 
 relation of the individual to the society, to be too little 
 mindful of the personal relation of the soul to God? 
 One speaker said, I think, that the Christian life begins 
 in the Church. But is that quite so? 'The life,' says 
 St. Paul, 'which I now live in the flesh I live by the 
 faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself 
 for me.' There is something intensely individual in that 
 confession. The Apostle's Christian life had a beginning, 
 it would seem, that was not related to the Church, but 
 directly to Christ And while we may, no doubt, carry 
 individualism too far, may we not also err in the opposite 
 direction, and give too little heed to the responsibilities 
 for the exercise of the faculties of thought, and feeling, 
 and faith, which rest on the individual soul? 
 
 Much has been said on the priesthood of the whole 
 Church, and I am thankful for it. But how is this 
 priesthood to be exercised by the laity, if their priestly 
 functions are delegated to special officers ? Is there not 
 danger that this delegation will come to mean practical 
 surrender ? Will not the layman, though de jure, perhaps, 
 still a priest, cease to be one de f octal That is my fear 
 whenever an order of priests is instituted. What is the 
 prerogative of the Christian priest? It is, I suppose, 
 to enter into the Holy of Holies, to have access to 
 the Father, and to offer the spiritual sacrifices of the 
 new dispensation. But must not every Christian do 
 these things for himself? can such offices be discharged 
 by proxy ? and if we transfer these rights to others, do 
 we not part with a privilege which we are not at liberty 
 to part with? When the spirit of adoption is crying 
 within me 'Abba, Father,' a human mediator would 
 seem to be superfluous. There is no need for him.
 
 158 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 22 
 
 There is no room for him. The child, accepted in 
 Christ, is face to face with his Father. 
 
 It is true, of course, as has been most justly said, that 
 God uses men in the fulfilment of His redeeming and 
 reconciling work. But my brother's function is to bring 
 me, by instruction and persuasion, into the holy presence, 
 and when he has done that his work is accomplished. It 
 is not for him then to stand in any way between the 
 soul and the Saviour. That intercourse must be personal, 
 immediate. So I interpret the New Testament. As 
 I have heard it put : ' When a man walks with God, 
 there is no room for the priest between them.' 
 
 A word on the meaning of the Church. I understand 
 * Canon Moberly to say that it is the indwelling of the 
 Spirit of Christ that is the making of the Church. 
 But can we say, then, of any community in which this 
 Spirit is manifestly dwelling that it is no part of Christ's 
 mystical body ? And if we find, as I think we do find, 
 that the gift and operations of His Spirit and grace are 
 limited to no one form, or polity, or means of communi- 
 cation, can we say that these saintly people are ' of the 
 body,' but that those other people, equally saintly, are 
 not 'of the body'? Are not all 'of the body' who 
 are filled with the Spirit? There are differences of 
 opinion among honest and learned men as to what 
 our Lord did, or intended, in regard to the constitution 
 of the Church, and what was left thus doubtful can 
 surely not be of the first importance. But has He 
 not made it clear by the evidence of indubitable facts 
 that His Spirit is bestowed on all alike who trust 
 Him fully, and serve Him faithfully with the surrender 
 of the heart and will, and do not these facts suggest 
 a larger conception of the Church than that which 
 has frequently prevailed? 
 22. THE REV. C. G. LANG. There is no one in this room
 
 III. 22] THIRD DISCUSSION 159 
 
 who can better appreciate the force of Mr. Arnold 
 Thomas's words or those of Dr. Fairbairn than I do. 
 It is known to mos*t of you, I suppose, that if I had 
 followed the way of my birth and early training, I should 
 have been sitting on the opposite side, and not where 
 I am now. No one who has had, with Dr. Fairbairn, the 
 experience, graven into his life by his very blood, of the 
 singular piety, devotion, and nearness to Christ of genera- 
 tions of the Scottish Presbyterian ministry, can allow any 
 view that he may come to take, to narrow his sense of the 
 bond which unites all to the one Christ through the one 
 Spirit of God. Let me say a very fragmentary word in 
 regard to this point of the mystical union with our Lord, 
 and how we are to connect it with our share in His 
 sacrifice. Surely it all depends upon the conception we 
 have of the office and work of our Lord in the eternal 
 sphere. It is impossible to dissociate that conception of 
 the office of the living and eternal Christ from the sacri- 
 fice which He has achieved once and for all. With Father 
 Puller I am still feeling that that sacrifice is not a thing 
 completed in the sense of being past in time, and therefore 
 ended. It is completed in the sense that it is perfect 
 there is nothing to be added to it it is eternal. That is 
 why I cannot quite agree with Professor Ryle's words ; 
 because I feel that in some deep mysterious sense 
 a sense which it is hardly possible to express in lan- 
 guage, for language is of things in space and time the 
 function, so to say, of that sacrifice is not ended, but is 
 eternal as itself. I can imagine nothing that speaks to 
 one's life's need more than the conception of being asso- 
 ciated with the perpetual pleading of the eternal sacrifice ; 
 it is there that the importance of the eucharist comes in. 
 In the eucharist, we have the assurance of the Divinely 
 appointed pledge and symbol of being identified with the 
 eternal sacrifice of the Lamb of God. And so I cannot
 
 160 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 23, 24 
 
 conceive it as being a mere commemorative rite. It is in 
 some mysterious sense a real sharing of the body and 
 blood of a living Christ, who is the eternally perfect 
 sacrifice. The symbolic act is not in itself expiatory. It 
 is nothing in itself apart from Christ, through whom it is 
 offered. It is not, therefore, to my mind expiatory, but 
 it associates us with the eternal presentment by our Lord 
 our eternal High Priest of His sacrifice for the sins 
 of the world. It is an act by which we are permitted, by 
 Divine condescension, in some degree to share in what 
 Christ is doing. 
 
 One word only as to the conception of priesthood. 
 I feel very strongly that the point of real importance 
 ts the priestliness of the whole body. It is the one 
 thing which it is necessary to contend for. The special 
 priesthood of any class within the body is derivative 
 from the priesthood of the body itself, and that is deriva- 
 tive from the priesthood of its head. It is more or less 
 a matter of history as to how that priesthood has been 
 exercised. Such an historical investigation is beyond 
 our present purpose. 
 
 23. THE REV. A. C. HEADLAM. So much has been already 
 
 said on either side that perhaps there is little left to 
 emphasize. First of all I should like to associate myself 
 with Dr. Moberly's phrase, ' the ministerial organ of the 
 Church's priesthood,' and secondly, I should like to 
 associate myself, as far as transmission goes, with what 
 Archdeacon Wilson has written (see p. 57 f.). I will now 
 pass on to a point touched upon by Archdeacon Wilson 
 and Canon Gore the Eastern Church. I suppose that 
 what Archdeacon Wilson desired to draw our attention 
 to and to emphasize was the survival in the Eastern 
 Church of certain aspects and traditions of the primitive 
 Church which have been lost or obliterated in the West. 
 
 24. CANON GORE. I quite agree.
 
 III. 24a-26] THIRD DISCUSSION l6l 
 
 24a. MR. HEADLAM. This is, I think, particularly important 
 with reference to the subject we are now discussing. The 
 Eastern Church brings out much more clearly than the 
 Western not only the Roman, but also the Anglican 
 that sacraments are not the work of the priest, but through 
 the priest. ' The seven sacraments,' a Russian writer 
 tells us, ' are in reality not accomplished by any single 
 individual who is worthy of the mercy of God, but by 
 the whole Church in the person of an individual, even 
 though he be unworthy 1 .' So in the East, they do not 
 say, ' I baptize,' but ' So-and-so is baptized.' I think 
 I am right in saying that until the sixteenth century, 
 when it came under Roman influence, the Eastern Church, 
 like the primitive, had no form of absolution which was 
 not a prayer. And, to give one more illustration, in the 
 Coptic liturgy it will be noticed how the people generally 
 by their responses are clearly shown to take a part and 
 share in the whole consecration prayer 2 . 
 
 Turning to the question of the eucharistic sacrifice, I may 
 say that I am not particularly anxious to call it a sacri- 
 fice, my point is that it has been so called from the 
 beginning. It seems to me that those who explain away 
 the sacrificial language of St. Paul in the Corinthians on the 
 institution of the Last Supper, can explain away anything. 
 
 25. DR. RYLE. What kind of sacrifice ? 
 
 26. MR. HEADLAM. I merely refer to the word sacrifice. 
 
 What I mean is that we should develop a wholesome 
 idea of eucharistic sacrifice, as against one that is unwhole- 
 some. I do not like the phrase ' sacrificing priesthood ' 
 at all, and I think that the way in which we should 
 guard against erroneous ideas, and the way in which 
 English Nonconformists could help us, is not by con- 
 tinually attacking the use of the word sacrifice or priest, 
 
 1 Khomiakoff in England and the Russian Church, by Birkbeck, p. 306. 
 a See Brightman's Liturgies, pp. 176, 177. 
 
 M
 
 162 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 27-31 
 
 but by joining us in developing the real sacrificial ele- 
 ment. If we do not do that, we put a strong weapon 
 into the hand of those whom we should both alike be 
 glad to correct. With reference to what Dr. Sanday 
 said, I find in reading carefully the writings of the early 
 Church from the fourth century backwards, that two 
 elements come out strongly the idea of the congre- 
 gational element, and the idea of the theory of trans- 
 mission in the ministry, and we have to keep both these 
 elements clearly before us. In the Church of England 
 we want to emphasize the congregational element, and 
 perhaps in other Churches there is the necessity of 
 getting a clearer hold of the element of transmission. 
 37. DR. FAIRS AIRN. Would you use or substitute the word 
 ' continuity ' for the word ' transmission ' ? 
 
 28. MR. HEADLAM. I use 'transmission' in the sense of 
 transmission of authority, as it was used by Archdeacon 
 Wilson. 
 
 29. DR. SALMOND. You say continuity as a means of trans- 
 mission ? 
 
 30. MR. HEADLAM. Yes. 
 
 31. DR. FORSYTH. I value all continuity. Everything 
 
 depends on the nature of the continuity. Let it only be 
 a continuity of ministerial office and not a continuity of 
 a distinct and separate order. I would lay stress on the 
 continuity of sacrifice in man's relation to God, and 
 I would go further than some by adopting the word 
 ' associated ' in connexion with the eucharist that there 
 is active association of us with the sacrifice of Christ, and 
 more than a mere commemoration. Of course, we must 
 take care that our identification is not with the primary 
 atoning work of Christ, as was made clear yesterday, but 
 with what I may call the inferior and ministering aspect 
 of Christ's work, which we may participate in. I should 
 fully agree that what the Church is, the priest is. The
 
 III. 31] THIRD DISCUSSION 163 
 
 priest is the expression of the Church's priestliness. 
 I think we might regain and perhaps Dr. Moberly 
 may help us to regain or to restore the sense of the 
 Church's inherent priestliness, using it more than we do 
 as a positive principle rather than a weapon of war ; only 
 we should take more care than he has always done to 
 confine it to the ministering aspects of Christ's work, and 
 not to its piacular aspect. The true nature of the Church 
 is priestly. The priest is what the Church is. He is 
 representative, not imperial. But I cannot follow 
 Dr. Moberly when he goes on to say in his fine book 
 that the Church is what Christ is. That means an 
 ecclesiastical pantheism. The Creation is not the 
 Creator. With reference to what Mr. Arnold Thomas 
 said as to the Christian beauty and power of indivi- 
 duals in bodies in which the sacraments were not 
 observed, I would observe that we cannot, in the face 
 of facts, say that sacraments are absolutely necessary 
 for individuals. But such people have been reared often 
 in a sainted home or body, whose traditions and sacra- 
 mental influences they unconsciously inherit and carry 
 on. In my judgement, sacraments are essentially cor- 
 porate acts, and they are necessary for the continued 
 existence and power of a corporate body like the Church. 
 The question to consider really is how, on the Catholic 
 theory, we can explain the growth, both in extent and 
 energy and sanctity, of those Churches which have 
 repudiated utterly the Catholic ideas of the sacraments, 
 some of them having reduced the sacrament of the 
 eucharist almost entirely to a commemorative act. 
 I would also ask whether the continual and fertile 
 presence of the Holy Ghost in the long history of the 
 non-episcopal Churches is not a surer fact than any 
 exclusive commission from Christ to a ministry of a 
 particular kind. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 THIRD DISCUSSION [m. 32, 33 
 
 [At this point the general discussion began^\ 
 
 32. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I fear it would be very inconvenient 
 were we to spend any of the little time remaining to us 
 in breaking fresh ground, but we have reached a point 
 where we might very profitably deal with some questions 
 which have emerged in the course of the discussion. 
 We have made manifest our belief in the truth and 
 reality of the Church, in the continuity of the Church, 
 in its being our common mother, as it were, in whose 
 bosom we were born, through whose gracious influences 
 we were reborn, and within whose sacred precincts lived 
 those who brought us into holy and real communion 
 with God and His Son. But three ideas which have 
 played a great part in our discussions, ought to be most 
 carefully analysed and clearly defined: first, what do 
 we mean when we speak of the Church as ' the mystical 
 body of Christ'; secondly, what does its priesthood 
 mean ; and thirdly, what do we intend the phrase ' the 
 ministerial organs of its priesthood' to signify? We 
 have the more need to be here explicit and distinct, as 
 it is evident that while we are all agreed as to the priest- 
 hood of the Church, we are yet by no means agreed as 
 to what that priesthood is and involves. In order to 
 make a beginning with the first of these ideas, may I put 
 this question to Canon Moberly? If, as he said, the 
 Spirit of Christ constituted the Church, would he con- 
 vert that proposition and say : Where the Spirit of Christ 
 is, there is the Church ? 
 
 33. CANON GORE. When Dr. Sanday was saying that it 
 was exactly to the particular point of the sacrificing 
 priesthood that the doctrine of the mystical body was 
 not so conspicuously applied, I felt that I should like to 
 bring to his mind a few sentences from his own printed 
 ' answers ' : and that I should find in these sentences
 
 III. 34, 35] THIRD DISCUSSION 165 
 
 exactly the answer which I think should be given to 
 Dr. Fairbairn's questions. " St. Peter doubtless meant 
 by UpcJreujua not a mere aggregate of individual priests, 
 but a priestly community. ' Such a priesthood is doubt- 
 less shared by each member of the community in due 
 measure, but only so far as he is virtually an organ 
 of the whole body, and the universality of the function 
 is compatible with variations of mode and degree as to 
 its exercise' (Hort, i Pet., p. 126). The last sentence 
 appears to mean that though all are priests, some may 
 be priests in a fuller and more special sense than others." 
 I should have thought that expression could not have 
 been improved upon ; and Dr. Sanday further says 
 (on p. 27) 'it may be observed that the idea of the 
 Church as the body of Christ is correlative to the idea 
 of its members as fiyiaa-pdvoi, &yioi, KATJTOI &ytoi. This 
 character comes to them through the sacrifice of Christ.' 
 I think those words exactly express what the 'mystical 
 body of Christ ' means on its priestly side. 
 
 34. DR. FAIRBAIRN. We owe the phrase ' the Church is the 
 
 body of Christ ' to St. Paul, and it is a sure as well as 
 a simple lesson of exegesis that the phrase ought to be 
 interpreted in the terms and through the usage of the 
 man who coined it. Now while he uses terms of the 
 Church that signify that its members are ' holy,' ' called,' 
 and ' beloved,' he nowhere describes them as priests ; 
 while he speaks of its ministers as ' Apostles,' 'prophets' 
 * pastors,' ' teachers,' or ' evangelists,' he does not ascribe 
 to them sacerdotal acts or functions. And so I do not see 
 how it is possible to extract from the phrase, as it stands 
 in the original and authoritative source, the ideas either 
 of a priestly body or a ministerial priesthood. 
 
 35. CANON GORE. St. Paul's metaphor of the body expresses 
 
 a truth which St. John and St. Peter teach as well as 
 he the truth that the ' saved ' relation to Christ is only
 
 166 THIRD DISCUSSION [in. 36 
 
 realized in the community. And St. Paul, like St. Peter 
 and St. John, holds that the community of the redeemed 
 is a priestly body, i. e. one existing to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices (Rom. xii. i) which are more than individual 
 which have a corporate reference (Rom. xv. 16, 
 Phil. i-i. 17, iv. 1 8, Col. i. 24, i Tim. ii. i). Is there any 
 other sense in which St. Peter or St. John held the 
 Christian community to be priestly ? 
 
 36. DR. SALMOND. I should like to say a word or two on 
 this point. If I understood Canon Gore aright, he begins 
 with the idea of a corporate society. Now we have a 
 corporate society and we have the individual member, 
 and everything hinges on the place which we would 
 give to each of the two. Canon Gore's view appears 
 to be this, that the corporate society is the prior thing, 
 that it is in virtue of our entering it that we become 
 individually members of Christ's body, and that it is 
 through that corporate society we get all that we have 
 and need in the Christian life. That is his view, and 
 he argues that Paul's words could be interpreted in no 
 other light than that. Now I wish to say that I take 
 absolutely the opposite view, and hold that we must 
 begin with the individual believer. I cannot say, in the 
 sense apparently intended by Canon Gore, that the 
 Church makes the individual member. I say rather 
 that the individual members make what we call the 
 Church that body of Christ, which consists of all those 
 lovingly subject to Him. I cannot read Paul's language, 
 even in the great passage to the Ephesians, in any other 
 way, because I find that there, as everywhere else, he 
 is speaking of persons chosen of God in Jesus Christ, 
 not of persons chosen of God or sanctified in the Church ; 
 and it is these persons that he speaks of as forming that 
 great whole, the totality of all believing and separated 
 ones, of which Christ Himself is the head. Any other
 
 III. 37-42] THIRD DISCUSSION 167 
 
 view than that seems to leave us with an idea of Christ's 
 Church which identifies it with some particular organiza- 
 tion. With that I disagree, believing it to be far short 
 of the spiritual view of the Church which appears in 
 Paul and all through the New Testament. In Paul's 
 Epistles certainly I find nothing to bear out the idea 
 that the Church in its ultimate definition is an organiza- 
 tion, far less an organization of one, fixed, essential form. 
 
 37. CANON GORE. St. Paul speaks of being ' baptized into 
 Christ.' He says also ' by one Spirit we were all baptized 
 into one body.' That which brings a man ' into Christ,' 
 brings him also ' into the body ' or community. There 
 is no being in Christ, except as a member of the com- 
 munity. I quite admit that those who become Christians 
 in the belief of the heart are at first outside the body. 
 And the faith that leads them into the body comes to 
 them through the Spirit of Christ. No doubt it was 
 the awakening of the consciousness of the individual 
 that led him into the body, and that awakening was 
 outside the body. But its end was to lead him into the 
 body. I feel that the more you go into St. Paul, the 
 more convincingly anti-individualistic he becomes. 
 
 38. MR. ARNOLD THOMAS. It may be that a man is asso- 
 ciated with the Church, although he has no relation 
 to the internal body. 
 
 39. DR. FAIRBAIRN. May I now repeat the question which 
 
 was before asked of Canon Moberly : If it be true that 
 the Spirit of Christ constitutes the Church, is it also true 
 that where the Spirit of Christ is, there is the Church ? 
 
 40. MR. HEADLAM. That expression occurs in Irenaeus. It 
 means that wherever the Church of Christ is, there 
 also is His Spirit. 
 
 41. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I have nothing to do with Irenaeus. I 
 
 am dealing with Dr. Moberly (laughter). 
 
 42. DR. SALMOND. It will be remembered, at any rate, that
 
 l68 THIRD DISCUSSION ^ [III. 43, 44 
 
 in Irenaeus we have both terms, not only 'where the 
 Church is, there is the Spirit of God/ but also 'where 
 the Spirit of God is, there also the Church and every 
 grace exist.' 
 
 43. DR. MOBERLY. I am quite ready to answer Dr. Fair- 
 
 bairn to the best of my power. I must answer by 
 declining to accept the simple conversion of my pro- 
 position. I do not think it would be right to say 
 simpliciter, or in the way of definition, upon earth, that 
 where the Spirit of Christ is, there is the Church. In 
 other words, I believe that, while the whole meaning 
 of the Church is Spirit, there is, none the less, such a 
 thing as a true and proper outward organization of the 
 (Church; and that in the orderly continuity of that 
 organization is the due historical expression of the 
 Spirit on earth. In respect of the status of those who 
 are separated from it, and otherwise organized, I do not 
 pronounce anything. I do not define that their position 
 is exactly this, or is exactly that. But so far as they 
 are sundered from the true historical order, I should 
 certainly not be willing to make the assertion that they 
 were, or were a portion of, the Church. At the same 
 time, I freely recognize the working of the Spirit amongst 
 them ; I do not dream of denying spiritual reality in 
 their ministries, and have, indeed, no basis for delimiting 
 the methods or possibilities of the working of the Spirit 
 amongst those whom I must still consider to be, in 
 respect of their refusal of the true organization of the 
 body, irregular. 
 
 44. DR. FAIRBAIRN. May I call Canon Moberly's attention 
 to this fact, that in all the reformed confessions from 
 Augsburg down to the XXXIX Articles, the definition 
 of the Church is one and the same: 'A congregation 
 of saints in which the Gospel is purely preached and 
 the sacraments rightly administered.' There is nothing
 
 III. 45-47] THIRD DISCUSSION 169 
 
 said as to any special organization or forms of ceremony 
 being necessary to the existence of the Church ; but 
 they are most explicit on these three points, the saint- 
 liness of its members, the true preaching of the pure 
 word, and the due or right administration of the 
 sacraments. Am I correct in inferring that Canon 
 Moberly does not accept this definition, and that he 
 holds that, apart from a special kind of organization, the 
 Church cannot be, nor as a consequence can there be due 
 administration of the sacraments? 
 
 45. DR. MOBERLY. I conceive that due administration is 
 
 not really separate from the conception of due organiza- 
 tion of the body, or from that coherent history of the 
 Church, which runs back to the very beginning. 
 
 46. CANON GORE. May I ask Dr. Fairbairn whether the 
 
 salvation of the individual is not necessary just in 
 order that he may become a part of a living and active 
 body? 
 
 47. DR. FAIRBAIRN. No doubt I believe that the 'saved 
 man ' is ipso facto a member of Christ's mystical body, 
 or conversely, that that body is a body composed only 
 of saved men. But the question before us is, what do 
 we mean when we speak of its priesthood and the priest- 
 hood of its ministerial organs ? We have been hindered 
 from reaching this point by the attempt to discover what 
 the Church, the mystical body, is in order that we may 
 find out what we understand its priesthood to be. Now 
 if we go back to St. Paul, to whom we owe the phrase, 
 we find that he never predicates priesthood of the body, 
 and that though he enumerates its organs he never 
 attributes to them the priestly office, least of all the 
 great priestly functions of expiation and absolution. 
 Now what I wish to have explained is this : Whether, 
 and in what sense, priesthood was incorporated into the 
 mystical body of Christ as Paul conceived it? And
 
 170 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 48-51 
 
 whether he conceived its ministerial organs to be priestly, 
 when he attributes to them neither the priestly name nor 
 any special priestly functions ? 
 
 48. DR. MOBERLY. The question should be not as to the 
 priestly character of the ministerial organs, apart from 
 the body ; but whether the body itself has a priestly 
 character. The ministerial organs are not priestly in 
 detachment from, or antithesis against, the body, but 
 because the body is priestly, they are the organs of its 
 priestliness. 
 
 49. DR. FAIRBAIRN. I do not wish to put the question of 
 the ministerial organs apart from the mystical body; 
 they were not held apart by St. Paul. But if we can 
 interpret the organs through the body, we can also 
 interpret the body through the organs, and these 
 St. Paul describes as ' Apostles, prophets, teachers, 
 miracles, gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds 
 of tongues.' 
 
 The point that needs to be elucidated is this : Since 
 the Apostle does not predicate either of the body or of 
 its ministerial organs, priestly functions, on what grounds 
 do we attribute to them a character which they had not 
 in his mind ? 
 
 50. DR. MOBERLY. I am expressing no view as to the precise 
 
 condition in which those ministries stand, which are not 
 organized in the way which I hold to be right. All that 
 I positively insist upon is the character and privilege and 
 secure validity of the Church and her ministries, as 
 they are organized (as I should say) apostolically and 
 historically aright. As to any definition of the precise 
 status of those Christian ministries which are organized 
 otherwise, I should, if pressed, decline, and decline on 
 principle, to pronounce one. 
 
 51. DR. FAIRBAIRN. That is not my point at all ; nor does 
 it in the least concern me. We have not met to discuss
 
 III. 52-57] THIRD DISCUSSION 171 
 
 or revise our judgements of each other's commissions, 
 though it is a matter of cordial and common con- 
 gratulation that we have so much community in the 
 possession of fundamental truth. But what I am 
 concerned about is Canon Moberly's interpretation of 
 St. Paul. He is the apostolical authority as to what the 
 phrase means. 
 
 52. CANON GORE. We know that on this point we shall not 
 wholly agree. Our purpose in being here is not to 
 emphasize differences, but rather to remove them. 
 
 53. DR. FAIRBAIRN. Allow me to restate the reason for 
 this emphasis on St. Paul. The term and the idea are 
 his, through him they come into the Church, and there- 
 fore his usage is determinative of the apostolical idea. 
 
 54. CANON GORE. I cannot isolate St. Paul in that way 
 from St. Peter and St. John. I think, as I have said, 
 that St. Paul held in substance what they held about the 
 priestly community or body. 
 
 55. DR. FORSYTH. How would it affect the organization or 
 the definition of the Church if it were made out that the 
 Church of the New Testament was congregational in 
 its form of organization in opposition to the historical? 
 
 56. CANON GORE. It would make the vastest difference. 
 
 I think that all New Testament considerations lead not 
 to the congregational but to the other view. 
 
 57. ARCHDEACON WILSON. I now think that something 
 should be decided with reference to the nature of the 
 report which is to be published, because some of our 
 members will not be able to remain till after the lunch. 
 Business arrangements will be discussed this afternoon, 
 and it will be necessary to share the expenses of the 
 printing, &c., and I have no doubt that those who are 
 absent will agree with the majority in carrying out what-
 
 172 THIRD DISCUSSION [III. 58 
 
 ever may be now decided upon (hear, hear). But at this 
 moment it only remains for us to express our gratitude to 
 Dr. Sanday and I must associate with him Dr. Moberly 
 and Dr. Fairbairn for the great hospitality they have 
 shown to us, and particularly to Dr. Sanday for the 
 courtesy with which he has arranged our meetings, and 
 also for the manner in which he has occupied the chair. 
 We owe him, and I am sure I speak for all who are 
 present, the very deepest gratitude for having given us 
 this unique opportunity of meeting one another and 
 getting to the bottom of some of our differences. To 
 myself, it has been a most instructive and profitable 
 Conference, for it has shown me how much there is in 
 common between us all. I have therefore much pleasure 
 in proposing a very hearty vote of thanks to Dr. Sanday. 
 58. DR. SALMOND. I suppose I have travelled the longest 
 distance in order to attend this Conference, and I take it 
 upon myself very much for that reason to second the 
 motion which has been made by Archdeacon Wilson. 
 I cannot express for myself how great is my sense of 
 obligation to Dr. Sanday, Dr. Moberly, and Dr. Fairbairn 
 for having given me an opportunity of being present. 
 I should have been well satisfied to have travelled three 
 times the distance in order to attend this Conference 
 (laughter), not only because it has given us an opportunity 
 of becoming acquainted with each other, which I feel 
 indeed to be itself a great pleasure and a great boon, 
 but also because we have gained not a little by our 
 discussion. I think it is something to look back upon 
 with satisfaction and thankfulness that we have had on 
 all sides so frank a recognition of the all-sufficiency and 
 alone-sufficiency of Christ's work. It is quite possible 
 that some who are associated with us on this side may 
 have felt at times a little dread lest the particular doctrine 
 of the Church with which others are associated might not
 
 III. 58] THIRD DISCUSSION 173 
 
 be quite consistent with that. Now I am here to say 
 that if any such fear has been entertained it has been 
 a groundless fear, so far as this Conference is concerned. 
 I will go further and say that there is absolutely no 
 difference between us on what is the fundamental 
 matter, viz. the absolute completeness and uniqueness 
 of Christ's work and our entire dependence on it. 
 I am sure I am right also in saying that we on this 
 side heartily and thankfully welcome the full recognition 
 which those in this Conference who do not see eye to eye 
 with us in all things have made of the great truth of the 
 priesthood of the Christian people, and for myself I wish 
 1 to say further how grateful is the statement made by 
 Canon Gore that he is prepared to place that in the 
 forefront. Another thing that has impressed me greatly 
 is this, that there has been such agreement as to what 
 makes the real essence of the unity of the Church, 
 whatever else may be associated with it. I mean the 
 fact that the Spirit of Christ is in the Church. Now 
 when we come to confess together these three great 
 fundamental truths, I think we may say that we have 
 not travelled here and talked with each other in vain. 
 We have exchanged opinions and looked into each other's 
 views of New Testament truth to some good purpose. 
 I thank God for it. I thank Dr. Sanday for all that he 
 has done, and I venture to throw out the suggestion that 
 he might add to the debt under which he has laid us 
 by arranging another series of Conferences in which we 
 might deal with the whole theory of the Church, its 
 ministry, and its sacraments at some future time. I 
 
 . 
 
 desire in the strongest possible manner to express my 
 own sense of obligation and my thankfulness, and I finish 
 by praying that we may all be filled with the grace 
 that is given to all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ 
 in sincerity.
 
 174 THIRD DISCUSSION [ELL 59-61 
 
 59. CANON SCOTT HOLLAND. I rise to add my tribute to 
 that which has already been said. The gentlemen with 
 whom I am associated know a good deal about the 
 subjects with which we have been dealing, but I know 
 nothing whatever. Therefore I have particular reason 
 for thanking Dr. Sanday for inviting me here, and I do 
 thank him from the bottom of my heart. I should like 
 to say, with reference to the points which have been 
 raised at this Conference, that the idea of a priest coming 
 between me and Christ is so inconceivable that the 
 moment of the priestly offering at the altar is the special 
 moment of most direct contact with the personal Christ 
 I have always felt that everybody who is in Christ has 
 that in him which constitutes him a Churchman. 
 
 60. DR. DAVISON. I should just like to express my sense 
 of obligation to Dr. Sanday. I have travelled a con- 
 siderable distance during the last two days in order to 
 be present, and I have greatly profited by what I have 
 heard ; and although perhaps I have not altered my 
 opinions very much in consequence, I am deeply indebted 
 to Dr. Sanday, Dr. Moberly, and Dr. Fairbaira for their 
 kindness and hospitality. 
 
 61. DR. SANDAY. I thank you from my heart for what has 
 been said. The Conference has been of great interest to 
 me, and it has also caused me some anxiety, but the 
 result has far exceeded my expectations. I have been 
 more than repaid for anything that I may have done to 
 bring the conference about. 
 
 The sitting then terminated.
 
 OXFORD HORACE HART 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY