IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ >. ^ 1.0 1.1 IttlM 125 ■tt Ui 12.2 lU w ■ 4.0 u& '- lis i^ iii^ ^ 6" ► V I^iotDgFaphic ^ScMices CarporadQii 33 \MIIT IMAM ITIHT VVIMITm,N.Y. 14SM (7U)I73-4S01 ;\ f!^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical MIcroroproductlons / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas :\ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D [Zl Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pellicula Cover titlM missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ D D D D D D Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrAe peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t* filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a microfilmi le meiiieur exemptaire qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sent peut-6tre uniques du point de vue bibiiographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mithode normaie de flimage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes n Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou peilicul^es r~~| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 0^ Pages dicoiories, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ditachies r~7| Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality iniftgale de i'impression Includes supplementary materli Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule idltion disponibie The cor to the fl The imi potslbh of the f filming Origina beginni the last ■ion. oi other o first pa ■ion. ai or illusi rr^ Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partieliement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une peiure, etc., ont At A fiimAes A nouveau de fafon A obtenir la meilieure image possible. The las shall c( TINUEI whicha Maps, I differei entirely beginni right ai require methoc This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiquA oi-dessous. 10X 14X 1IX 22X 28X 30X 7 12X 16X 20X a4x 28X 32X ire details les du modifier ler une filmage The copy film«d hers has bo«n roproduc«d thanks to the gonarosity of: Mttropoli»an Toronto Library Canadian History Dapartmant The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and In keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grAce k la gAnArositA de: Metropolitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department Les images sulvantes ont At* reproduites avec le plus grand soln, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de rexemplaire film*, et en conformM avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impres- sion. or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page whh a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated Impression. 6es Les exemplalres orlglnaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sent fllmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplalres orlglnaux sont fllmte en commengant par la premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impresslon ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre oage qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles sulvants apparattra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon is cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols ▼ signifie "FIN". re Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely Included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams Illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre fllmte k des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un ssui clichA. II est filmA A partir de Tangle supArleur gauche, de geuche A drolte. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'Images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes sulvants illustrent la mAthode. ^ errata id to It ie pelure. f on A n 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 I it f^' \ - XX '!¥: .<^i "a» ''s OHAEQE 4^ TO THl CLBRGT OF THE DIOCESE OF QUEBEC, DELIYERBD AT BISHOP'S OOLLBGB, JULT 1, 1868. i Jy JAMES WILLIAM WILLIAMS, D.D, BISHOP OF QUBBBC. "tU^ \^^i»^ "^ PRINTED BT JOBN LOVBLL, ST. NIOHOLAB STItBBT. 1868, i 1l i |M "J*lg ■■»! ' -. _.-,.^ ■■' a"i '- ■ ; '- ? * iJ I?!« ,w* * '^ K 3U r imi.-i- ' ' ' t V - '^ »* .. CHARGE It is one of the uses, my reverend brethren, and not the least important one, of these periocUcal gatherings, that they bring home to ourselves the great lesson which, in the discharge of our office, we evermore inculcate upon others ; and that we are herein brought face to face with the inexorable fact that life is short, and our tenure of life a frail and uncertain tenure. When we meet, our first thoughts are of the dead. We cannot look round this chapel without noticing the absence of those old familiar faces we used to see here. And we cannot note their absence without glancing on to that time, so soon to come, when we too shall be gone, and others will fill our places. One qf the most eminent of our brethren has been called away since laat we met. Calmly, peacefully, — in a good old age, — in the fear, and the love of the God whom he had served so long, — ^he, whose hoar head was a crown of glory m our assemblies, « like as a shock of com cometh in his season," — full of years, and honoured of all,— has gone down to his grave—*' in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." As we stood, eleven of us, his brethren in the ministxy, at the grave of the Rev. S. S. Wood, a peculiar and pensive sadness touched our hearts. It was no or^Unary funeral. He was the last of his race. Belonging to a bygone generation, — of which he and his dear friend, whom I have been called in the order of God*s providence to succeed, offered to our contemplation types so admirable and so attractive— ho lived on into these more bustling, and, as I sometimes think, shallower times. And, irresistibly, as there we stood, was borne in upon us — upon me at lecst — tiie heartHsearchmg thought : Do you— the men of this generation — walk in the steps — can you be said to fill the plaoos*-of those gc Jly and well-learned men ? I will not linger upon this bought, my brethren, but I am constrained to utter it. The time and the place haye suggested it. I am persuaded that the thought is a wholesome one ; and I trust that the searching of heart to which it must give rise will be fruitful — in all of us — frmtful — ofhumility, of zeal, of prayer, of study. We live in times when, if ever, these quv^uties are needed— espe- cudly the first. Lack of zeal can hardly be called a characteristic of the times ; — (and yet who will say that there is no lack of zeal ? whirh of ?is, when he bares his conscience before God, b.i deplores th dncss, and the faintness, and tiie littleness of the zeal that iQ m own heart ?) Still it cannot be denied that the times, as compared with otiier times, are, times of no inconsiderable zeal. And many there now are who ^ve themselves to prayer ; and some are deeply learned ; but somehow all this does not — ^to make a broad statement — does not issue in humility. The most thorough- going optimist could hardly say that it is characteristic of the men of this our day to esteem others better than themselves. Least of all is this temper to be observed where it most should flourish, in tiie Church of Christ. • . The great danger that we are in by reason of our unhappy division, comes, as it seems to me, out of the obstinate asiHimption, . by individuals, and schools, of their own infallibility; and out of their determination to hear in the authoritative voice of the Church only the echoes of their own private opinions. The dangers, it may be tiiought, do not affect us : our peace has not been disturbed : our house is at unity with itself. . Our house, God be thanked, is at unity with itself. But it woi4d be unwise to suppose that the waves of the storm which now a^tatea. the Mother Church will nut reach our shores. The channels of opmion are open. Thb communi- cations of sympathy ^e swift and subtie, and minds removod are in contact still. It is to be assumed, therefore, that we axe, or shall be, asking ourselves the quMtion? which now stir men^s minds in the great centres of theological thought. . And in entering upon any investigation of this kind, our first question must b^—what, on this particular subject, is the teaching of our own branch of the Chur^. If she speaks explioitly, tiiat settles the j)^i for us, po long Mwe remain in the Church, to ipoak and H teach in her i»:o.e. It is very necessary that we *« 1^ •« ^ should be clear in oar minds upon this point ; because there is a fallacy rife which not only misleads and confuses those under its influence, but eats unperceived into that intellectual integri^ in the defect of which truth is neither discerned nor desired. Men will say, and do say, that this is to take low ground — that the scriptures are above the Church, or that the Catholic Church is above our particulcx Church ; that the first question is not whether such and such a doctrine be taught by the Church of England, but whether it be taught by the Word of God ; or held by the Church Catholic. Such an argument maybe pertinent and valid in Uie mouth of a dissenter. It is not honest in the mouth of a clergyman of the Church, unless the question be whether he shall continue a clergyman of the Church or not. The first question for him is, *^ What is the^ teaching of that branch of the Church whose minister I am ?" If that teaching is plain and explicit, then his first duty is to read it with a fair an(^open mind. And if he is convinced that this teaching is contrary to the Word of God, his duty is under no circumstances to contradict the teacUng of the Church of which he is a minister ; but, if the point be a vital one, upon which his conscience bids him speak, then his only honest course is. first of all, to cease to be a minister of that Church. I speak, you observe, of th^ oMigations morally binding the clergyman. The layman m in a diffe: ant position. If he is wise, he will be diffident where he differs fi om those formularies which sum up the faith and Uie interpretation of ages ; but he is neither excommunicate nor bound to secede because he cannot perceive the correctness of the Church's rule in every particular. I ought, perhaps, to apolo^e to you, my reverend brethren, for seeming to instruct you in the elementary principles of common honesty. I don't suppose you stand in need of this. But I do find it no often assumed—when a clergyman falls back on the plain teaching of the Church, or proceeds to inquire what the mind of the Church is upon any disputed point — that he is taking a low, unworthy^ unspiritual, uncatholic ground — that I am constrained to ask what else can an honest man do ? His first question, so long as he is the Church's minister, must be, what doeb t)ie Church herself say ? And tins course I propose to follow out now, by inquiring what IB the teaching of the Church oonoemmg the Sacraments ; an h 6 inquiiy suitable, as I believe, to the tames— suitable becatue of the Church's language touching one Sacrament novel interpretations have been prq)Oimded ; and because the other Sacrament is still, in places, so huddled mte a corner that the Church's own authentic Voice is but seldom he^rd in the congregation. What is the teaching of that branch of the Church to which we belong, in her own authentic documents ? Let that be the first question. If the Church speaks intelligiblj, explicitiy, the question, of course, may then arise. Is that teaching consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church 1 or of the Scriptures ? Into these questions I do not prqwse now to enter. We shall have done much to-day, if we can, by int*»rrogating the Church herself, ascer- tain what it is we have pledged ourselves to teach. And it will bo convenient, before treating of the Sacraments severally, to make some general observations upon (1) Sacramental grace, and (2) the position which « the Sacraments hold in the Church system. Our Church differs from most bodies of modem Protestants (setting aside the Lutherans) in that, whilst they reject the doc- trine of Sacramental grace, she inaintidns it; whilst they regard the Sacraments as symbolical ceremonies merely, she teaches that they are instrumentB of grace. « Not only badges or tokens of Christian men^s profes^on," but <* sure witnesses and eflfoctual signs ^f grace, (efficaeia Hgna,) Witii tiiis difference respecting the nature of the Sacraments, it is not surprising thftt there should be a diffisrence in their use and eclimation. Whilst the Protestant bodies around us are infrequent in their celebration of the one Sacnunent, and private commonly m their admini'stration, or even .wholly neglig^t of, the ol^er, our Church reqidres tiie publio adnumstration of both, permitting their private administration upon the ground of sickness only. She holds them to be generally necessary to salvation. She brings, both ptoaunentiy forward in her worship ; reqmring all baptisms to be adinii^stered in the face of the congregation — ^in the midst of the mtiming or evening prayers; and providing for the celebYation of Holy Commumon every Sunday; Imd where suitable and oonye- d9M» asin («Oatiiedfals, CoflegMe Churches, and Colleges, wi»re ^trt ^mp^ Priests and Beaoons,*^ by directing that ^ei« thaU .j» he i celebration eveiy Sunday at the least. The Sacraments, in fact, in her qrstem, are not adjuncts, or appendages, they are joints and Eonews. Her whole system is based upon the principle that " Onr Lord Jesus Christ gathered His people into a society by Sacraments." And it were well that the Sacraments occupied the place the Church gives them. I do not want you to be always preaching about the virtues of the 3acraments. But I do wish that from one end of the diocese to the other they were allowed to preach for themselves. For the want of this not a few among our congregations are astomshed when, by chance, a preacher uses tl 3 Church's own language. The Church plunly says that, in hc^ aptism, the child is regenerate — made a chUd of God and a 1 t of Christ. And yet, if a preacher say the same, he will be told 0/ not a few, that he is delivering a " soul-destro]^ug doctrine." Now, if the Sacrament of Baptism were always administered in the congrega- tion, tins could not be. I am aware that those who thus object, mean one thing by regeneration, whilst the Church means anotiier ; but this does not remove the inconsistency of solemnly declaring that the child is regenerate, and then pronouncing this a "sonl- %8troying dootgine," And if the Sacrament were administered in the congregation the incondstency would be forced upon people's attention. They would be compelled either to forbear the use of the words, or to seek in them a meaning that was neither a *^ lie'* nor a " delusion of the devil.'* The Church uses the word regene- ration in its ancient, scriptural, acceptation. The objectors to the doctrine of Baptismal r^eneration asngn to it anotiier meanmg^ and then pronounce her doctrine a *^]ie," not because her own statement, but because the statement they have oonsivucted for her^ and foisted upon her, ynll not square with facts. The word regene- ration occurs only twice in the New Testament. In one place it refers to the life in Heaven— the final state of tiie saved— and this passage may be dismissed f9 obviously irrelevant to the present argument. In the other passage it is usisd, as the .Ohim»h.4Met'it» of the grace of Baptism— whioh is termed the '* laver," or ^< the washing of regeowation." In^he minds of the ofcjeotora regeneh ration is equivalent to tiie renovation and conveiwxa of the soolv Bui the Gliuroh ia not imsoriptival because they are oonfused. 8 This, however, by the by. My present object is not so much to refute objections as to call attention to the Church's own authori- tative declaration. She says, they that receive Baptism rightly *' are thereby, as by << an instrument, grafted. into the Church, the promises of the « for^veness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by " the Holy Ghost, are visibly agned and sealed." Now, when an instrument is signed and seded, the rights and benefits therein con- tained are given and conveyed to the covenanting party. What are these in the covenant of Baptism ? They are here named — (1) Forgiveness of sins. (2) Adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost. Ori^al sin, then, is for^ven to all who rightiy recdve the Sacrament, and actual un to those who have committed it. And who are those who " rightly** receive ? Those who come to receive it in faith. If it be objected that infants cannot come with fiutii, I answer, that may be an argument of some weight if the question be of the propriety and validity of in&nt Baptinn, but it in no wise cUminishes our belief in the grace of Baptism ^^ rightiy** received. The second point is, our adoption to be sons of i(bd by the Holy Ghost. We are placed by Baptism in a state of salvation — ^adopted into God*s fiEunily— surrounded by all the holy helps and influences — made heirs to all the blessmg? and privileges of that famiby— grafted into Christ's body, and made members of Him. If we live to discern between good and evil, to be capable of ri§^t and wtong --there must be the rea]isati<»i of these gifts and privileges in our personal experience. Witii the waking of the will there must be a renewal of the mind in the likeness of Christ. For the soul that has onned there must^e a converuon to God. This is the Church's doctrine concerning Baptismal regeneration. And how a man who believes less than this can " allow" the articles, and use the Bap- tismal Bervice» I am at a loss to concdve. In regard to the Holy Eucharist, amongst those who reject the Romish doctrine of Tnuosubstantiation, there have been sinoe^the Reformation, as you know, and still are^ three main dtvinoni of opinion. Luther maintained that the Lord's body is present {( along with the elements ; Znmgle, that the Saerament is a purely symbolical and conmiemorative . nght ; while Calvin held that Christ is truly, but spiritually, present m the Sacrament. And this is the doctrine of the Church of England. Outside of the Church, amongst the Reformed, (except of course, the Lutherans) the Zuinglian doctrine has, in modem times, overgrown and killed the Calvinistic view. Our Church teaches that the ** Body and Blood of Christ" are " verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;'* but *< only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." What is the meaning of tiiis ? When a man is said to do a thing in a '* spiritual manner," does this mean that he does it in his spirit as moved, or influenced by the Holy Spirit ? We are told not. We are told that this is to a£Sx a '* modem meaning" to the term spiritual.'' I do not quite understand the objection. If, when we are interpretmg the article, we ^ve the word the sense it bore in the minds of those who framed the article, I do not see how this can with any relevancy be called afEbdng to it a '' modem" meaning. And that the sense in which the word " spiritual" is now commonly used, is not different from that in which it was used by those who framed the articles, will appear from the following quotations: — « For there be, indeed, three manners of eating, one spiritual only, another spiritual and Sacramental, and the third Sacramental only; and yet Christ himself is eaten but in the first two manner of ways, aa you truly teach. And for to set out this distinction somewhat more plainly, that plain men may tmderstand it, it may thus be termed, that there is a spiritual eating only when Christ by a true Mth is eaten without the Sacrament. Also there is another eating both spiritual and Sacramental, when the visible Sacrament is eaten with the mouth, and Christ himself is eaten with a true fiuth } the third eating is Sacramental only, when the Sacrament is eaten and not Christ himself." — Crammar't Answer to Oar- diner on th« Lord^s SuppoTf page SX)6. Edition of Pcarker Society. " But all this I understand of his spiritual presence, of the which he saith, I will be with you until the world's end ; and where two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. . . . i . . . . And wheresoever in Scripture it is said that Christ, God, or' the Holy Ghost, is in any man,' the same is understood spiritually hy gtti^,—I^aee h the »ame. 10 And nmilaily in his disputations at Oxford, Ridley* speaks of ^'fpiritoal partaking of the Body of Christ to be communicated and ^yen, not to the bread and wine, but to them which do wor- thily teeeaYQ the Stcrament/* Tho terms " spiritually" and ** by grace" he uses as couTcrtible terms, and ** grace" he defines to be ^* the society or conjunction with Christ through the Holy Ghost." And one of Cranmer'sf opponentSi ia his disputation at Oxford, fata the argument, from the Romish point of view, in this way : " He gave us tLe same flesh whidi he took of the Virgin." But he took not his true flesh of the Virgin spiritually, or in a figure. JBrgo. He gave his true natural fleah, not spiritually. But if it is meant that the Reformer? did not use the word aright, — ^that they gave it a *^ modem meamng," that concedes the po^t, for the question, is not what they ought to ha^e meant, but what they did mean in the Article which they propounded, and we enbioribed. In trutii, however, it will not be so easy to shew that t|ke ordinary use of the word is misuse, a use different from that of tiie word in the New Testament. It i^, indeed, qmte possible that the word, in its widest toid vaguest acceptation, sigmfies '* super- py^ natural ;" bat mostly its use is more restricted — mostly it sigidfies not only an action, or operation, which is from the Spirit of God, but in the spirit of man. When the Apostie writing to the Gala- tia^,sfiya,*^ye whiel^ are ^ritual ;"| and when in his Epistle to tiie Epheaians, he mentions their *^ spiritual songs,"^ and when he tells how he prays that ihe Colossians may have n " spiritual nndelratandixiig,!! in all these passages the word hda its *^ modem" mieamng U.'0>^ iM UCCt^f iU C*^tf a^>»»^ ^ C^O* • This question, however^ tonolunig the force of the word spritual, 18 but a piece of a movement in roHipous thought, which is large in itself, and, ai it vrould seem, pregnant with larger consequences. There has been, during the last few years, a great slide in opinion on a21 mattezs touchiog the Holy Eucharist. Men have moved « Diipatatlom at Oiforfl. Bidlff» Works. Parker So«Mty, t>»g«^40. t ^.orksofOraamer. Pispntatftini at Otford, 4Q8. I Oalatiaiii, tL i. (BphM. ▼. 19. I Ool i. ». 11 ftom the old beliei^the belief of Hooker and of Taylor, and of Waterland, not Bcatteringly, as individuaJs, but, as it seems, in masses. The altered stanza m the Christian Year, forms a compact illustration of this shift in belief. " come to our Commumon Feast, " There present in the hearf^ j • " Not in the hands th' Eternal Priest, << Will fab true self impart." wrote the revered poet in his younger days. "0 come to our Communion Feast, " There present in the heart; " A» in the hands th'Etemal Priest, " Will his true self impart." is the posthumous form which, of ooursO) represents his later belief. The first form of this stanza exhibits the old Church of England doctrine, as thus expounded by Hooker : " The real presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood, is there- fore not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy reoeiver of the Sacrament." And again : " I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when, and where the broad is Hu body, and ih& cup His blood, but only in the yeiy heart and soul of him which reoeiveth them."* ** The real objective Presence'^ is the favourite phrase by which they express their belief who hold that our Lord's body is present in ^e hand as weU as in the heart. In a sense, ho doubt, all who do not regard religion to be a mere moral gymnastic, would say that all Christian graces are objective — they come to us from with- out — ^but regard being had to the very different thing meant by the phrase " real objective Presence," and the aptness of the word *< objective'' to express the meaning of those who so use it, we cannot do better than join issue upon that word, and examine whether the Church of England teaches that Christ is objectively, * For the laDgaage of Bnglish DItIms on this lal J«ct, see nets A Appsndlx. t Book T. Mot. 67., I ■• , .1 12 in that sense of the word, present in the Sacrament, or whether she holds, with Hooker, that His presence is subjective — ^m the heart of the recipient only. We are told that ** the Real Presence takes place before the act of reception." ** Christ is there, and he is received ** by the faithful, good and bad, alike." But ike 29th Article says : ** The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith are in no wise partakers of Christ." We will examine the attempt to reconcile these two statements presently ; and consider nowj the grounds upon which the writer, from whose clever book* I have quoted, bases his statement that Christ *< is received by the" faithful, ** good and bad alike." All turns here upon the word *' futhful," as used in the Catechism, which the writer contends is the Church's final and conclusive interpreta- tion of her formularies. It must explain them. They must not be brought to explain it. This is his dictum. But he is the first to violate his own rule. The Catechism says, the " Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received ** by the faiO^ful " in the Lord'» Supper ;" and forthwith he fetches a meaning from the 19th Article to put it upon ^'faithful" in the Catechism' ; and contends that because the article defines the visible Church to be a congregation of fiuthfttl men ; and since the vimble Church is made up of good* and bad alike ; therefore *< faithful'' in the Catechfsm, must mean good and bad alike. Now, waiving, the inconsistency of this procedure, and granting the reasonableness (and I thmk the readonablenera is very great) of iex^laining the Catechism by the Articles, when the meaning of the Catechism is in dispute, I ask which i» the more reasonable course, when we would fix the m6|mng of the word " faithful" in the explanation of the Lord's Supper in the Catechism, to go to an article un a wholly different subject, or to the articles on the very same subject matter. Well, then ; we turn to the 28th Article **of the Lord's Supper," and we find thia : '^ The mean whereby the body of Christ is received a6d eaten in the Sapper if faith.** And in the 29th Article : *^0f the wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of jr,.. [ • Kin of Pmc*. HB 18 ihe Lord's Supper,*' we find '*The wicked and such at be void of a lively faith, although they do camallj and visibly press with their tee^ (as Si AugusUn saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in nowise are they partakers of Christ" If, the meaning of the Catechism is to be fetched out of the articles, we must conclude that when the Catechism says that the Body and Blood of Christ are taken and received by the ** faithful," fiuthful here signifies those who have that faiih wUoh is " the mean whereby they receive the same"--that " lively futh" of which such ** as be void, are in nowise partakers of Chiist." It should seem then, that no further illustration of the word *^ faithful" as used in the Catoichism, is needed. But if illustration is needed, we have it. The Catechism of Dean Nowell is thus expanded in illustration of the word ^^ faithful :" Jr- -k " An orgo soli fidelos oorpore et sanguine Christi pascuntur 7 Soli omnino— cum quibus enim corpus suum cum iisdem et vitam eetemam communioat. Quamobrem corpus et sanguinem Christi in pane et calici indudi, aut panem et vinum in substantiam corporis ct sanguinis ejus mutari, non fiftteriB? Quia illud esset ^ritatem corporis Chnsti in dubium vocare." Now, Nowoll's Catechism, which received the approval of the Lower House of Convocation, has always been held to be of no small weight and authority in ezpomtion of Church doctrine. At any rate, be the authority of the book what it may upon the question of doctrine, it is evidence incontrovertible as the usus loquendi of our theolo^ans in the time of Elizabeth. Evidence of this use we may iiave also, for the reign of Edward VI., from a sermon preached in Eton College Chapel, during that reign : — " Now carnal and duobedient men do not eat Christ's body ; forasmuch as it is eaten only in spirit and in faith, that is of spiritual and faithM men and women."* Finally, if m the Prayer Book what is predicated of the << faithful" is predicated of all Christians, good and bad alike, then all, good i 'i i * Works of Roger Hutoblaion, p. 243. (Parker Society.) u and bad alike ^ after they are delivered frotn ^ burden of the Itosh'* a» with God <«ra joy and feMoity."* With the faUtire of ilie attempt toprove Hhs/t the word ** faithihl* in &e Gatechism means all Ciffistians, ^)od and bad alike, tiie doetdne of ^e ** objeeiive** presence as a doctrine taught by the Cterch, falls to Ihe ground. There stands in the Catechism an authoritativo declaration insompatible with it. But even if it were shewn (which it is not) that the word in the Catt^clusm has its wider, vaguer use, and is put for Ghxistiaiis generally — supposing it would be a &ir treatment of the CSiureh's words to say ^* whion are verily and indeed taken -and reodved by Chxistkns in the Lord's Supper,*' thdugh this would certainly be compatible with the doctrine of the « objotive" presence, it wodd be very fax firom proving it. Mftuy qualities, actions, and states are sakl to be proper to Christians which certainly are not found in all who bear the name of Christian, good and biBbd alike. In support, however, of the doctrine as assumed to be estab- li^ed by this interpretation <^ the word faithfbl, a distinction is niade beiween '* taking" and '^ receiving." *< They (the Body and Blood of Christ) are in the hand of the commumcant as <* taken" before he receives them."t It so happens that we have the wolrds <* taken'' and *' received^* in this same connexion in the 28tii Article (of which more *' em- phatical'* statement this phrase in the Catechism is said to be *' ^ply a reiteration)"! where the Body of Christ is said to be *c taken** after an heavenly manner, and the means whereby it is *< received" is said to be feith. It so happens too, that we have tiie Articles in a Latin form ; and, when we turn to the Latin, tins oust of ambiguity, so ingeniously oast round the words ** taken and received, clean off at once, for i^e word, in each ease, is one and the same. ** The Body of Christ is g^ven, taken, (aeovpUur) and eaten, in the Supper onl> after a heavenly and spuritual manner, and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received (ampt'tur) is faith." And now, how can that be in a man's hand as ** taken," before he tikes it, <» ** received" before he receives it ? One would have thought that the«etiele was plain ea oi^h. The Body of Christ is • Borldi ivrriw. f Kin of PtMt; p. 60. } Kits of P«*oe, p. 81. 16 only taken — received — ^where there is faith, where it is not taken — received'-:^ is not g^yen. The force of the first clause lies in the wiHrd only, . It is not said that the Body is ffv&tx to all; bat that where it is ^ven, it is ^ven in no other than m a hearenlj and spiritual manner. Well, but in the case of the worthy recipient, who not only receives the elements, but receives Christ, the priest cannot give the body, unless it be m the elements before it is re. ceived ! Why not ? He £^ves absolution though he does not hold it in his hand. And, just as here, the absolution is received where there is the internal condition upon which receptif the article that the *^ wicked and such as be void of a lively faith are in notme partakers] of Christ" — nvlh modo,—^ But the manipolation of the Catechism by which this result was attuned will not bear a moment's eiuaoination. In the Catechism it is asked, " How many parts fvre there in a Sacrament V* And answered ; *^ Two, the outward viable dgn, and the inward ■inritual grace." And this is turned into, '^ I (the Church) keat the Sacrament under three parts !" True-, the benefits of the Sacrament are mode here to stand for the third part. But it is scarcely fair to ma'^e the Church say there are three parts of a Sacrament, when she distinctly and logically says there are only two ; as logjically as distinctly, for the effects of a thing are no part of the t^ng. Health is the effect of food, but it is no part of food. ^ And if the benefits and effects mtut be brought in, and made to stand for parts of the Sacrament, we have in the Catechism four parts, not three. Beside the (1) ret, and the (2) tignumy tiliere is (8) tiie strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood Qi Christ; and (4) the strengthening and refreshing of our bodies by the bread and wine. But even this is not enough. Not only must tbe benefits — the tfiects^of the right reodving of the Sacrament be made a part of the Sacrament, but the words of the Catechism must be distorted. Here are the words : — Quee. — ''What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?" iliM.— " The strengthenmg and refireshing of our seals by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine." And this is turned into ** partakers of the benefits of "* (Christ) ; l^ven as the words of the Catechism, which are then said to be equivalent to *^ partakers of Christ" in the 9x^\e ! ! This is too bad. ** Whereof" can only mean *< of wbiuh lienefits." What are the benefits Of which benefits we are partakers thereby ? And is it fkir dealing to represent this as a statement that we are "partakers of the benefits of" (Christ) ?~-a phrase which sounds sufficiently Uke another, and a very diffi»rent one. to be mistaken for it. * Kill of Pmm, pag* 16, ft ■i: Closely coimeoted mth. the doctrine of the Objective Presence is that of the Euoharistic Sacrifice— a doctrine which is made, to han» mainly tipon the words of institution, " This is my body which is given for you.*' And " Bo this in remembtknce of me." We will take the latter first, tovto ifotiire tia t^ kiif/v avdfivnaiv. Which is rendered, **^ oflfer this as a memorial sacrifice." The Church besides tiie [sacrifice of alms giving in the offertory, makes no mention of any sacrifice offered in the Sacrament save (1) *< the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, (2) the offering of ourselves " to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice." Besides this, the unconsecrated elements, in their dedication for holy use, are called " oblations." " So far, then^ as the language of our oflSoe is oonceraed, it teaches us that the Holy Communion is a commemoration of the sacrifice of the death of Christ, that it is a sacriCoe of praise and thanksgiving, and a sacrifice of ourselves to Gk)d. , "In her Catechism again, it is declared that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained not that we might sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ, but, for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Clurist^ and of the benefits which we receive thereby; but of any act of sarord vrhich occurs (if I have made no nustake in counting) five hundred and sixty-six times, stands in two pusageS; Matt. 3cxv. 18. and Heb. xi. 26, in connexion with the passover, and might, ^:herefore, mean sacrifice ; though our version in each case renders it ^' keep the passover." And in Luke ii. 27, " to do for him after vhe custom of the law,'^ is the translation, or Tov TTotfyreu, &0. &0. ; >os, that the words of insti- tution refer to a sacrifice, we are not baund, we have no reason, to fi)[jid it in the word voaire. But, it is replied, we do know that : we find it in the word &v6ftvt/o.(, which is also a sacrificial word, and meims always somethmg offered to Almighty God, to remind Him of the worshipper himself, or of some other person or object in whom the worshipper takes an inte- rest. The word is so used in Numb^ Xr 10, oh. v. 15, when it is said of the offerings*^" that they may be to you for a memorial b^loreQod." , , ,^ . "But the word in itself,"; (I ag^m quote from the Bishop, of Llan? daff, whose also are the references to Waterlond and M^e, vhiohi I shall presently use,) simply means a record, or memorial, and is .— ^Mi w . w tm um i -^mimmmmt ■ ■ i ii w i a w w — ■■— i —■ ■ m i n i ^ii ■ ■ i iii i i ■ il ■ tp i' . ! i i i ^ KB IPW^^ >■»■>*■ M^W* T^.f!*. -— * 8«« Note B, AppenAis. ■i \it >-• H * k I 19 just as applicable to anything else as to a sacrifice that was to bring sins to remembrance. Neidier is there anything in the passage that conclusively proves it to have been so applied by our Lord in the last Supper. Had it been said, elg t^ k/ifjv avdfiv^tv ivavn rov Btpv ifiov, as it is said in Num. x. 10, or havri Kvpiw, as it is in verse &, we should be bound to accept this special Interpretation, but in the absence of any such limitation^ we are at full liberty to believe that the words may mean '^ in remembrance of all that I have done while coming in and going out among you, and specially of that death and passion which I am about to undergo." But this interpretation, it would be urged, is preducled by the words, * This is my body which is given for you, ** Is given,'* it might; bo contended, is also a sacrificial word, equivalent to "is offered in sacrifice ;" and the form of the word, it might further be contended, requires us to refer it to something done there and then. The words therefore " This is my body," directly, and unmistak- ably, assert, it would be said, the real objective presence, and that then, at the feast, the sacrifice of Himself was begun by our Lord. To this, I answer, (1) that scholars are by no means agreed that the present participle necessarily implies that the action took place there and th*6n ; more especially as the Hebrew language has no future participle ;* (2) that the sacrifice of Christ*s body was fiot made until He was crucified ; the assertion that He then sacri- ficed Himself ^* in will," and so began the sacrifice, bem^; pure assumption ; (3) that our Lord^ as he lived upon earth, could not hold his own body in His hand. What, then, becomes of the Lord*8 assertion, "Qliis is my body? Just what becomes of his other assertions. " The seed is the word" — " The field is the world" — "The reapers are the end of the world"—'* I am the door"— ^" I am the true vine"—" My father is the husbandman."! But we have the beet poiisible illustration of this form of speech in the writings of St. Paul. If we turn to 1 Cor. x, we find it stated in the heading of the chapter, in our version, that *' the Sacratoents of the Jews are types of ours ;" and in the chapter itself we read — " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under a cloud, and all passed through - -'^ — ^-L-.-i — : — . — . — — ^ — Y ,— t-^^i. — ^^.^^_^ — ^ ^^_ _^_,i.^^ ..,_ — , — --— 1-*-! — I T ' — -■- - ■ 11 I - ».u^HMjL-,^a' « Bp^. of LlM4«ft'i «bMrge. t S«« Taylor on Real Presence, vol. iz. p. 482. 20 tbe sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the sea. And did aU eat of the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink of the same spiritual drink) for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them— ani that Hock was Chri»i>" I do not press the word " spiritual" here. It is quite possible that it means miraculous — fumbhed by the Spirit of God. I rely up(m the last sentence to illustrate the form into which the words of institution axe caat.. But this question rsoses another, which needs, strangely enough, to be discussed orer again in these days. First, however, let me say that I would not be misunderstood m what I have said. I hold that, in the words of Waterland,* if ^^ the elements themselves, unconsecrated, were ever called a iacrifiee, or sacrificet, the mean- mg still was tha^ the tervice was the sacrifice ; but when the eonse- etfated dements bore that name it was only a metonymy of the tign for the thing ngvifiedtVAif^ represent, and in effect exhibit, the gtaud sacrifice of the Gross." But I would not speak lightly of the Mpiritual sacrifice. Beliering, with St. Augustin, that " yerum sacrificium est omne opus quod a^tur ut sanctd societate inhrere- amns Deo," I hold that tiie service of the Eucharist ^' is both a truA and proper sacrifice, and the noblest that we are capable of offiaring." The sacrifices of prayer and praise -> the sacrifice of ourselves, and of our substance-*->the offering up of the mystical body of Christ,— that is His C'lurch — the sacrifice of Faith-— and self-humiliation. t - * These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all meet togethor in the one great complicated iaerifiee of ihs Eucharist" which is thus a commemorative saer^oe, *' If that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, commemorating the sacrifice 21 ,. I believe, withMede,* that *' Christ is offered in this sacred Sup- per eommemoratively only — thftt is, by this sacred rite of bread and wine we represent and inculcate His blessed Passion to His Father ; we put Him in mind thereof by setting the monuments thereof before Him ; we testify our own mindfulness thereof unto His sacred Majesty." This is what I have been taught, and what I believe of the spiritual sacrifice. To pass now to that other devel- opment of Eucharistic doctrine of which I spoke. In the 28th Article it is said that *< Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath ^ven rise to many superstitions." In so saying, accord- ing to advanced modem views, the Reformers meant not to denjr Transubstantiation, but trans-accidentation. After quoting the Bubric at the end of the Communion office, and the 28th Article, the clever writer, whose arguments I have been examining, says : *< Now, what I want to prove is, that in the one case the word6 " very natural substances'* mean " very natural properties,** t*. t. ** accidents ; and in the othei^, that *' Trtosubstontiation** re^h^ " means " Trans-accideiltation.** The conception of substance in the minds of the Reformers pb»- eibly differed from the conception which modern thinkers haVe of the same ; but to suppose that they made no disthiotion betw^h *< substance*' and *' accident" is not a little absurd. Their whole language bristles with these technicalities of the schools. To take an instance from Cranmer*s answer to Gardiner : "And where you grant that <9''Jdents to be without substance is against the common course of natuMl things, but it is done by a spiritual miracle/ this is but a cloud to darken the light. For accidents to be without isubstAnoes is not only against the commott course of natural things^ but also against the very nature of aooident* which have xrane other being but in substances (as they be defined, aceidmUs esse est inease) and is .also against all philosophy, reason, and workings of Qod ever since the world began. For God never created nor made, with miracle nor without miracle, substances without accidents nor accidentia without substances, iiA some Vainly phantasy, ({« fnaferiAj»*^^.''t tr * 01»istiaa Sacrifice. t Oranmer's answer to Qardinet's Book on thoBacramoat. Book iL Page 826 of the Parker Soeie^'s ediUon. &ifc f«^»i*»B*n;*UM«a«*fw;s 22 And again, to take anotJier instan The grun of wheat that lies in my hand (to use the illustration of the writer, from whom I have quoted so often, though he is looser than ever here in his hold upon the conception of substance, and confounds it with bulk or quantity) presents to my mind certain sensations of form, colour, density, &c. These I call its attributes qualities, accidents;^ and I cannot help betie^ng that there is a cause outside my own miiid, which brings those sensations to it. So long as the attributes (Which are the sensations objectively considered) remain, I cannot help Relieving that the cause of their continuing to exist continues to exist iJso. When the attributes disappear, and othfer attributes take their places, the cause wUch made and continued the first set of attributes has changed. When tiie yellow compact grain hae become a disintegtttted white powder, the cause widoh made it • Def!»ah» tbUik» aagri who most firmly belteve, that the Body and Blood of Christ is ^\ i 31 4' )•■ truly, really aod substaDtially present and taken in tbe Eacharist, bat in a war which is incomprehensible to the human understanding, and much more beyond the power of man to express ; which is known to God alone, and not revealed to us in Scripture ; a way, not indeed corporeal or by oral reception, but not by tbe mere understanding and simple faith either ; but by another way, known (as has been said) to God alone, and to be left to His omnipotence." And in the next section he quotes, with approval, the words of Philip Melancthon: " Not to depart far from the ancients, I bare placed tbe sacramental presence in the u$e, and have said that iehen then thingt art given, Chritt ia truly preterit and tfficacioue. This, assuredly, is enough. Nor hare I added any such inela^ sion or conjunction by which the Body should be afS^ed to the Bread, or shotlld be soldered to it, or mingled with it Bat I, although, as I hare said, I hold a real presence, do not hold an infilusicn, or a toldering together, but a sacramental pretence, th&p is, that where the signs are, there is Obrist, in a truly efficaeiout manrur. What more would yon ask ? Dr. Thos. Jackson, Works, Vol. x., p. 62; " May we say, then, that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, as well to tbe unworthy as to the faithful receirers ? Yes, this we must grant. . . Really present He is, because vhrtnally present to both, becanse the operation, or ^cacy of His Body and Blood, is not metaphorical, but real in both. Tbui tbe bodily sun, though locally distant for its substance, is really present by Its light and heat Now, when we say that Christ is really present in the Sacrament, our meaning is, that as God He is present in an extraordinary manner, after such a manner as He was present before His Incarnation in His sanctuary ; and by the power of His Godhead thus extraordinarily present. He diffiiseth the power or operation of His human nature either to the rivification or hardening of their hearts who receive the Sacramental pledges." Bp. Wilson, Woxks (Saera Privata), Ed. Lib. A. C. T., Vol. v., p. 889. « Do thit : i.e., This that I do—offbr Bread and Wine as a sacriSce to God (when consecrated). They could not offer His real Body, but only Hiy sacra- mental Body, as a memorial, of His real Rody." It is evident, from the oontext of this passage, that Bp. Wilson &dopta John Johnson's view, as given above, and which exdudea the real objective presence. Bp. Bbvbridqb, on the XXXIX Articles, Art xxviii., Works, Vol. vii., p. 482. Treating of the last clause of the article, he says : " If the bread be not really changed Into the Body of Christ, then the Bodyiof Christ is not really there present." Again, p. 492 : " A itloked loan doth nol only miu of tb« gno« gignified by the Bitad Md i^mimmmmm* 82 Wiae{ bat in caibg and drinkiog the Bread and Wine that lif^ify tbftt grace, th«7 do bat eat and drink damnation to tkemsd Yes.** . . , ti^fot a«tf tbe Sacraments themiBWeg were the eanie of their damnation, bat because tbl^ coming with ainfol hearts to it becomes an i^raration of their sins," Abp. Wake on the Catecliism, Sect. 48. *' Are the Body and Blood of Christ really distribated to erpry Oommunicant ita&is Sacrament? « No, they are not *, for then every communicant, whether prepared or not for ft, wonld alike receive Christ's Body and Blood there. That which is giren by V |he Priest to the Communicant is, as to its nature, tbe same after consecration lfl|» it was before, tIe., Bread and Wine ; only altered as to its use and significa- tion. *Mf the Body and Blood of Christ be not really given, and distribated by the Priest, bow can they be verily, and Indeed, taken and received by the faithful Opmmnaicant? "That which is given by the Priest is, as to its substance, Bread and Wine ; as to its sacramental nature and signification, it is the figure or representation of Christ's Body and Blood, which was broken and shed for as. Tht very Body andJSteoiLo/Oirkt, at yet, it U not. But btiny with faith and piety received by tht Communieaat, it becomtt tit him,, by the UMttng of Ood and tht grace of the . Bplf Spirit, the very Body oiirf Shod of Chritt. As to those who coma anwortbily iiv ttj it is made dunnation; that is, it renders them worthy of it, and without repentance it will certainly consign them over unto it." Nicholson's Ixfosition of the Catecbismi, Ed. Lib. A. C. T., p. 167. " Gfeat dispntea there are how Christ is in the Riicrament. Some conceive timt, foe the preamce there, it is necessary that Christ be incorporated With the sacramental elements. Othon, Uiat the Bread and Wine are cfaangM into Bin Yerj Body. Others, who deny the substantial change, yet acknowledge Bia pirestence, express their meaning in diflbrent terms, thus : corporeally and sub- stantially,, say some ; sacramentally, say others ; typically and figntatively, say a third ; spiritaally, say a Ibarth ; really, say the last. "Mr. Booker's jndgment to me, in this difference of opinion, seems very plonp ; that slnoe that all are agreed that Christ is there, and seals Bis promises to a worthy receiver, and the question is only de modo, of the manner how Be is there, that disputes and diebates, enemies to piety and abatements to devotion, be tigered to take their rest, Ac. " What these elements are in themselves, it skills not ; it Is enough that to me, who take them, they are the Body and Blood of Christ. Bis promise in witness thweof safficeth. Bis word Be know- •th Which way to accomplish. Why should any agitation possess the mind of a faithftal Oommnnleont, bat tbli T 0, my Ood, Tbon art trne 7 0, my soul, thou ftrthai^yr' Thb Bishop of Exbtbr states the doctrine of the Church of Epj^andy with his accustomed precision^ thus: ^fliilf'VthMf iioiAilini teiti oik tke amblgaoitn mtlintng of tb. : \\\ NOTE B. PAGE 13. UmA ziv., 12 When tbey killed (nui^n sa- fire rd ndaxa l6vov. oriflced) tbe Fusover. • Lnkezxu. 7 When the FMSorer most \)e iv y idet Oieafftu rb irdaxa. UUed. Aot».ziy.l8 , Would hare done sMrifiee. ^e\t (tbeiv. -. 18 That they had not done sacri* rov u^ 0('e«'. ** floe. '^ ICor. V. 7 Christ oar raasover is sacri^rd ndox^ ^f^ ^^P W^ ficed for us. irdft? Xptordc. ICor.z.SM) The things which the Gentiles a Bvei rd ^vti dcufiovioic saorifloe, they sacriflTe to 0t)et— (or ^ouri). i devils. Bat. It 14 and ao Things saorifleed into idols. hduXoOira. Maft V. S8 If then bring thy gift to thejav irpoa^pm rb Supov. altar. M Oflbrthygtft. irpoahtyia rb dopov. Yiil. 4 Oftr the gift that Moses oom- jrpoaiveyKe rb iStpov. nuunded. Harki.44 Offer for thy cleansing. irpoaiveYKe irepl rdv Kad- ap.Jftdv. Lakev,14 Oflbr for thy cleansing. irpoaiveyKC irepl rdv Kofl' aptauov. Acts. m. 42 Have ye ollbred to me slain ^^ a^yia koI dwlag irpoa- beuts and saorifloes. ^viy/uari /tot. Acts. XXI. 26 Until that an oftring shonldju; ob irpoar^vixfi^ iirip hbz be oSbred for every one of kK&arov hvrijv i) irpoa^pd. them. Heb.v.l Tliat he may ofllsr both gifts iva irpoai^kpri dupd re Kii and saoriAees. (haioQ. 8 To offer for sins. irpoafipeiv irepl dfMpnav. XIII.8 For every High I'riest is or> eiff rb ir()oa^peiv dupd n dained to oflbr gifts or sa* xdt dvaiaq. crifloes. Somewhat to otfcr. b irpoaeviyKy. 4 Boeing that there are Priests gvrciw (ruv lepiuv,) rav that oflbr gifts according to irpoa^pitvruv Kara vdfwv. the law. IX.7 Which he oUbred for himself, b irpoa^py iirip iavrov. • In which were offered bothS&pd re koI 0wn&i irpoa<^- gifts and sacrifiees. pmroi. 14 Offered himself wlthoat spotiavrdp itpoa^eyKev ifui/iov to God. r^de^. 26 Bhoold oHet himself often. ira\Miug irpoa<^py. 28 So Christ was once offered to in-o^ )rpo(revl;)|0»f. hear the sins of many. Z.1 Those saorifloes which they &a irpo(f(^povaiv. offered yea^ by year. 2 Ceased to be offered. kira{)oavro npoa<^p6ftevat. S Which ate offered by the law. nard rbv v6/un> '^p^'*'i>ipovrai. U Every High Priest atandeth n-tfX^aiuf irpoff^/obn'. daily offMng oftentimes the same lacriflces. 85 ovtolg . KOB- Kofi- Tpoa- tivbc pop6. ov.