CHAPTER XII.

OF THE SUPPER.

When our Lord first spoke to his disciples, of their eating his flesh and drinking his blood, it was heard with astonishment, and the exclamation, "How can these things. be!" Their views were then outward, and they construed his words literally, when their meaning was altogether mystical. This has been the case, in relation to the flesh and blood of Christ, from the day that He first mentioned it, down to the present period.

Thus some, taking the words of our Lord in the most literal signification, "This is my body," &c. and "this is my blood of the new testament," &c. and "this do in remembrance of Me," have supposed that they were authorized to repeat this ceremony, and that the bread and wine became the very flesh and blood of Christ. Others, revolting at these gross conceptions, have variously modified their opinions, until they have brought it down to "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." And even thus modified, it is contended for, as a standing ordinance in the church of Christ.

That we may examine how far this idea is supported by the text, I will transcribe the several relations that are given of that transaction, by the four evangelists.

Matthew says: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat: this is my body. And He

took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you, in my Father's kingdom."

Mark's account is almost exactly in the words of Matthew.

Luke says: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”

John passes over the supper, and proceeds to another transaction, thus: "Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come, that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, (the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him,) Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that He was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded Himself; after that He poureth water into a bason, and began to wash his disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith He was girded. Then cometh He to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto Him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet! Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto Him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean

every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew who should betray Him: therefore said He, Ye are not all clean. So after He had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, He said unto them: Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master, and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."

Of the four evangelists, who have recorded the passover that Jesus eat with his disciples, immediately before He suffered, only one says any thing like its being repeated. Can we suppose that, if it was designed as so important an institution, as is believed by some, it would have been thus slightly passed over? Would the institution have been entirely omitted by three out of the four evangelists, and by the fourth just mentioned, in the simple expression, "This do in remembrance of Me."

A question naturally arises, whether the breaking of bread, for the common support of nature, and taking the cup, with the giving of thanks, is not the thing that is to be done in remembrance of Christ. And whether, as often as this is done as often as we sit down to our ordinary meals, under a reverent sense of the goodness of God through Jesus Christ, there is not a memorial of his body that was broken, and his blood that was shed for us; agreeably to the words of the apostle : " As often as ye do this, ye do show forth the Lord's death till He come."

When partaking of the blessings of a bountiful Providence, for the nourishment and growth of our natural bodies, does it not bring to mind the need there is, for the preservation of the Divine life in us, of the bread which comes down from heaven, for the support of the inner man? And as this bread is obtained through the

coming and suffering of Jesus Christ, whose precious blood was shed for us, it is calculated to make impressions of an bumbling nature. It is Christ alone, internally enjoyed, that can nourish the soul up unto eternal life; and hence that mysterious expression of our Lord: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." This, however repugnant in a literal point of view, is one of those precious truths, which the pious soul well understands, and often recurs to, in its progress heaven-ward.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all give the circumstances of the breaking of bread, taking the cup, and giving of thanks. But this was no more than appears to have been our Lord's uniform practice. When He ate, He took the bread, and looking up to heaven, gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples. This is so often recorded, that we may fairly conclude it was his constant practice.

At this last supper that He was to take with his disciples, in order to inculcate the great truths of Redemption, and the benefits derived from his sufferings and death, then soon to take place, He associated that sacrifice of Himself on the cross, with the idea of the nourishment of their bodies. And the calls for food being of a nature so often to occur, and so absolute in its demands, was calculated to fix deeply in their minds, the necessity of that spiritual bread, which they received through Him, who was about to lay down his life, and shed his precious blood for them. Thus far the three evangelists concur; the third adds, "Do this in remembrance of me," which does not materially change the view of the subject. The fourth had his attention directed to another circumstance, which the others had not mentioned, the washing of the disciples' feet. And here let the two accounts of the evangelists,

Luke and John, be compared, and candidly decide, which has most the appearance of a permanent institution, the Supper, or the washing of feet? I hesitate not to say, that the latter has abundantly more of such an appearance than the former. And yet, by general consent of Christians, it is laid aside, or, rather, not regarded as a standing ordinance.

I am not endeavouring to detect discrepances among the evangelists, but only to show, that though four have written on the occasion, so little is to be discovered in the records they have left, like an institution of an ordinance. And this may be regarded as an evidence, that it was not so intended.

That such a ceremony did take place in the Christian church in early times, is no more than happened in relation to many practices and observances, which are now generally considered to have ceased, in point of obligation -even though they were enjoined by the church. Such were those relics of the ceremonial law, which were enjoined in the epistle of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem -though they introduced it by saying, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them. And such was the washing of feet; the practice of which, to some extent, grew out of the example of our Lord, as recorded by the evangelist. John xiii. Such also was the anointing of the sick with oil, as enjoined by the apostle. James v. 14. And we might mention, their having all things in common-in very close connexion with which, was the practice of "breaking bread from house to house." Acts ii. 46.

We therefore believe, that we may safely decline the use of this ceremony, as not essential in itself. That the consecrated bread and wine are not the actual flesh and blood of Christ, is agreed by all Protestants. And if it be admitted as an outward and visible sign of an inward