(Continued from page 408.)
THE Bishop of Carlisle, in the address to which we have already referred, asserted that Christ “never once, either directly or indirectly, called Himself a priest,” but that “the personal terms in which He delighted to style Himself were such as ‘Prophet,’ ‘Good Shepherd,’ ‘Son of Man,’ ‘Minister.'” Now, we readily admit that Christ never once directly called Himself a priest, but that he did so several times “indirectly” seems to us as plain as anything can possibly be. And let it be remembered that indirect testimony is frequently as powerful as direct. For example, it might be pointed out that Christ never once directly said, “I am God over all,” but He made nevertheless many statements that immediately implied His claim to be divine. “Before Abraham was, I am”; “I and my Father are one.” There are deep and wise reasons oftentimes for the absence of direct statements in Holy Scripture about truths of the greatest importance. The Lord will have us to “search the Scriptures” in a deliberate, intelligent way, under the guidance of His Spirit, and not to catch at things on the surface. The valuable treasure is hid in the field, and men must be at pains to seek for it and find it.
Let us briefly notice some of Christ’s statements which set forth His priestly work and imply His claim to be the High Priest of the New Testament. “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life (or his soul) a ransom for many” (Matt. xx. 28). Here is a statement of Christ’s priestly work in connection with one of those names by which the Bishop says He delighted to style Himself—”The Son of Man.” Notice the voluntariness of Christ’s action; He came for the very purpose of giving Himself a ransom. Observe, further, that the language is that of atonement taken from the Old Testament ritual. “For the life (or soul) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Levit. 16). Christ clearly asserts His priesthood when He declares that He came to give His life in the room of many. His life was sacrificed in the room of others who deserved to die. His blood made an atonement for their souls. Again, we find Him saying in His discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel: “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Is not this the voice of “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” declaring His intention to offer Himself a sacrifice, in order that sinners might be saved from eternal death? He is speaking to those who were about to celebrate the passover, and He proceeds thus to exhort them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,” thus leading them to understand (though they were slow to do so) that He was the reality of which the paschal lamb was the figure and shadow. Then we have striking statements of His priestly work in connection with His title “the Shepherd.” “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep . . . and I lay down my life for the sheep . . . Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” Can anything set forth more vividly that Christ was shepherd, priest, and sacrifice in one? These words seem to be the basis of that great supplication by the Apostle at the end of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 20, 21) in which all these ideas are combined. “Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will,” etc. In fact, it appears very clear that the statements of Christ Himself and of the Epistle to the Hebrews are in perfect harmony with one another, both as to thought and expression. Professor Smeaton says very fitly in his excellent work on “The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself,” that “He, beyond question, supplied the germs of all the copious sacerdotal phraseology which we find, applied to Him in the Epistle to the Hebrews.”
The Bishop of Carlisle, further, seems to think that it is an argument against the use of the title priest as applied to Christ, that it is only applied to Him in “one letter in the New Testament, the letter to the Hebrews.” Doctors of divinity differ in their judgments. That great divine, Dr. John Owen, praises the Most High for the Epistle to the Hebrews as a book specially devoted to setting forth, with wonderful fulness, the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, both on earth and in heaven. What Dr. Diggle of Carlisle seems almost to regard as a matter of criticism and apology, Dr. Owen esteems to be matter of praise and thanksgiving to God for the whole Church. But although the name “priest” does not happen to be applied to Christ by the other witnesses of the New Testament, still the substance of the name is applied, and that is the all-important thing. Consider the memorable testimony of the fore-runner, John the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!” (John i. 29.) Here is a distinct reference to Christ in His character as the sacrifice of which the sacrificial lambs of the old dispensation were the prefigurement and the shadow—a clear carrying forward also of the words of the prophet Isaiah (chap. 53) concerning the Messiah. “The Lamb of God,” however, was not an unconscious, unintelligent agent like the former lambs. His voice is, “I delight to do thy will, O my God”; so that He was priest at the same time as He was sacrifice. This Divine Lamb “offered himself without spot to God.” Wherever, indeed, the inspired writers describe the Lord Jesus as giving Himself unto death for the redemption and salvation of sinners, there they describe Him as priest and sacrifice, and that, distinctly and intelligibly, on earth. Witness the Apostle Paul: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. v. 6). “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement” (v. 11). “Christ also hath loved us and hath given himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour” (Ephes. v. 2). “And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death” (Col. i. 21, 22). “Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity” (Tit. ii. 14). Witness the Apostle Peter: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter i. 18, 19). “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree . . . by whose stripes ye were healed” (ii. 24). And lastly, witness the Apostle John in the closing book of Holy Scripture: “And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain . . . And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev. v. 6, 9). Though the title priest does not occur, the united testimony of these holy and inspired Apostles is that Christ was both priest and sacrifice for the remission of the sins of many. The voice of the passages just quoted is the same as that which issues from the Epistle to the Hebrews.
It would seem, however, that the Bishop has a view of the teaching of this great Epistle, distinct from the commonly received orthodox interpretation. He maintains that “its author has taken care to point out that in every possible way God had safeguarded the priesthood of Jesus Christ so as to render it altogether dissimilar in character and purpose from, because altogether loftier than, any priesthood which had preceded it.” Now, we cannot enter at present fully into the field of discussion here opened up. Suffice it to say that while we admit that the priesthood of Christ is loftier than any priesthood that preceded it, it was not, in our judgment, altogether dissimilar in character and purpose from the Old Testament priesthood. That ancient priesthood was appointed of God to set forth the solemn facts that man had separated himself from his Maker by sin, that “without shedding blood” there could be no remission of sins, and that God had opened up a way by which access was attained to His favour and fellowship through an atonement. The priesthood and the sacrifices of that economy were designed to point forward to Christ and His sacrifice. The former could not take away sin of themselves, but they described how sin was to be taken away by Christ. Thus they could not be, as the Bishop holds, “altogether dissimilar in character and purpose.” If there was dissimilarity in respect of efficacy, there was similarity in respect of teaching. The same important and saving truths were taught by the ancient sacrifices as by Christ’s sacrifice. They were signs by which the believing worshippers got at the thing signified. They delineated the “character and purpose” of Christ’s sacrifice, and so could not be “altogether dissimilar,” but were in important respects, eminently similar to His. It appears to us that underlying this whole discussion the Bishop has some view of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice dissimilar from that which has been hitherto received among us. In all probability, he does not accept the recognised doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice as a satisfaction to divine justice for sins. The doctrine of satisfaction to justice is the doctrine of the Old Testament priesthood; it is also, in the judgment of all the Reformed Divines, the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood. In our humble opinion, “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” as an atoning priest and sacrifice, is the very marrow of the Gospel of salvation. Take this great truth away, and there is no righteous ground on which a sinner can stand with acceptance in the presence of a holy and just God. God is just, and the justifier of him only who believeth in Jesus as the propitiation for sins—the glorious person who was delivered for His people’s offences and raised again for their justification (Rom. iii. and iv.). We fear that the Bishop is in bad company in his views of the priesthood of Christ. The Socinians of old time did not believe that Christ was a priest on earth, and the popular theology to-day in many circles of unsound doctrine is that Christ’s sacrifice was no satisfaction to justice, but only an expression of self-sacrificing love. This gives a wrong view of sin, and flatters the self-complacency of the carnal heart; this presents a wrong view of God—it leaves out His punitive justice. It places the sinner on a false foundation for eternity. The claims of justice must be met and satisfied, otherwise the sinner continues in an estate of condemnation. But Christ has satisfied all these claims for His people, and they who believe in Him as their Great High Priest and all-sufficient sacrifice, build upon a rock that cannot be moved, against which all the gates of hell shall not prevail.