69. S. Leo. Passover, while those in the hall of Caiaphas were debating how CHRIST might be put to death, He, ordaining the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, was teaching what sort of Sacrifice should be offered to GOD.” S. LEO, Serm. lix., c. vii., Migne, P. L., tom. 54, col. 341. "Now also, the variety of carnal sacrifices ceasing, the one oblation of Thy Body and Blood supplies the place of all the different kinds of victims, because Thou art the true LAMB of GOD, that takest away the sins of the world; and Thou dost in Thyself perfect all the mysteries, that as there is one Sacrifice instead of every victim, so there may be one kingdom formed out of every nation." 70. S. Gregory S. GREGORY the Great (ob. 604), Hom. in Evang., 1. ii., Hom. xxxvii., n. 7, Migne, P. L., tom. 76, the Great. col. 1279. "From this, therefore, let us consider what kind of a sacrifice for us this is, which for our salvation continually re-presents the Passion of the Only Begotten Son." APPENDIX E. THE REPORTS OF THE OXFORD CONFERENCE ON A CONFERENCE was held at Oxford, December 13 and 14, 1899, at the invitation of the Rev. Dr. Sanday, to discuss different conceptions of priesthood and sacrifice. Dr. Sanday, in his preface to the Report of the Conference, tells us that he aimed at bringing together three groups: a group of high churchmen, a group of nonconformists, and an intermediate group of churchmen who could not be called high; that in filling up a vacant place at the last moment, this condition was not strictly observed, but that, roughly speaking, the conference fell into three equal groups of five. Conference held at Oxford, Dec. 13, 14, 1899. ten churchmen and five There were present Father Puller, Dr. Moberly, It consisted of Canon Gore, Canon Scott Holland, Rev. C. G. Lang, Archdeacon Wilson, Dr. Ryle, Canon E. R. Bernard, nonconform Rev. A. C. Headlam, and Dr. Sanday. The noncon- ists. formists were Dr. Fairbairn, Mr. Arnold Thomas, and Dr. Forsyth (Congregationalists), Dr. Salmond (Presbyterian), and Dr. Davison (Wesleyan). A preliminary paper was circulated among the members some time before the conference, asking each to answer certain questions bearing upon the general sub The question of the E. S. only incidentally touched upon. Father Puller's ject; and there were besides three meetings for discussion. A stenographic report of the speeches and conversations (corrected by the speakers) has been published under the editorship of Dr. Sanday. It is scarcely necessary to say that it will be found of great interest to all who are studying the questions of priesthood and sacrifice. In this conference the question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was only incidentally touched upon, but one speaker, the Rev. Father Puller, put forth a view almost precisely similar to that expressed in Mr. Brightman's view similar to pamphlet, The Eucharistic Sacrifice. Mr. Bright man's. This view sup- ber, but con- While this theory was not definitely discussed, the grounds on which it was based were condemned by certain obiter dicta of various speakers. The majority, however, passed it over in silence, and the only one who expressed any sympathy with it was Mr. Lang; but his endorsement was limited to a statement which was really inconsistent with Father Puller's theory, namely, that while the act of death was the completion of the Sacrifice in time, its significance and efficacy were to be eternal. No Catholic of course doubts either that the Sacrifice was completed in time or that the significance and efficacy of it are eternal, since the significance and efficacy of a completed sacrifice can not be the sacrifice itself; the basis, however, of Father Puller's and Mr. Brightman's view is, that the Sacrifice was not confined to the act of death or to the Cross, and therefore was not completed in time, and that it is not the significance and efficacy, but the act of sacrifice which is eternal. We shall, however, give in this Appendix Father Puller's speeches in full and those portions of the other speeches which show agreement or disagreement with Father Puller's views, and then we shall conclude with FATHER PULLER." The point on which I wish to Father Puller's lay stress is the fact that in the Old Testament sacrifices speech at the are represented to us as processes consisting of various first discussion. 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 constituted it as his representative. The victim was next 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 catch the blood which flowed from the victim, and then to offer the blood on 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 out 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 of 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 burntoffering 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 Father Puller's 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 nonsacerdotal 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 offerers. The priestly part in the work of sacrifice consisted 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."-Pp. 69-70. In the next discussion Father Puller said : "I will take up the line I suggested this morning in second speech. 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 fundamental 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 |