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