Luke xxii. 29.

Luke xxii. 30.

Luke xxii. 31.

Luke xxii. 32.

Luke xxii. 33.

Luke xxii. 34.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Fa- Jerusalem. ther hath appointed unto me;

m

That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve m Matt. xix. tribes of Israel.

28.

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, " Sa- n 1 Pet, v. 8. tan hath desired to have that he may sift you

as wheat:

you,

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted 28, strengthen thy brethren.

And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34.

And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall o Matt. xxvi. not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

Luke xxii. 35. P And he said unto them, When I sent you with- p Matt. x. 9. out purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Luke xxii. 36.

Luke xxii. 37.

Luke xxii. 38.

John xiii. 36.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

For I say unto you, that this that is written
must yet be accomplished in me, And he was q Isa. liii. 12.
reckoned among the transgressors: for the things
concerning me have an end.

And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords.
And he said unto them, It is enough ".

29

Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

28" When thou art converted;" when thou hast recovered from that fall which I foresee.

29 This part of Christ's address to his disciples has been much misunderstood. From ver. 35, our Lord's intention may be supposed to be, to remind them that all their wants had been hitherto supplied. But now, as he was about to be removed, he forewarns them that it would be hereafter necessary for them to act for themselves, and to provide against danger and difficulty. The disciples interpreted this literally, as appears from ver. 38, when our Lord slightly censures their misapprehension, by "it is enough," and so closes the conversation. He was about to enter the scene at Gethsemane, and had not time then to listen to, or correct their erroneous inferences, ikavóv ist, absurdum est, quod profertis, desinite tam anilia profari. 'Ikavóv ist, eadem est cum 77, sufficit tibi, quæ a Judæis adhibetur, quoties ab altero absurdum quid profertur, qui tacere debebat, &c. &c.-See Lightfoot and Schoetgen, vol. i. p. 313.

Jerusalem.

Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow John xiii, 37. r Matt. xxvi. thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.

33.

Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life John xiii.38. for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

81 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25.

SECTION XXXIV.

Christ institutes the Eucharist 1o

MATT. XXVI. 26–30. MARK xiv. 22-26. LUKE Xxii. 19, 20.

S

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, Matt. xxvi.26. Many Greek and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the gave thanks: disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

copies have,

see Mark vi.

41.

30 ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST.

A few hours only before his death, our blessed Saviour instituted the holy Eucharist. He knew that the long and progressive series of prophecies, visions, types, and figures, which had predicted his incarnation and sufferings, were now on the point of being accomplished. He knew that the Mosaic dispensation was on the point of being completed, with all its typical ceremonies and observances. A new and spiritual kingdom was to be engrafted on it, with other rites and other sacraments. The holy of holies was soon to be thrown open; and man, sinful man, through the atoning blood of a Redeemer, was to be permitted to hold there the highest communion with his Maker, in commemoration of the exceeding great love and all-sufficient sacrifice of his only Son. That we may endeavour to arrive at a clearer comprehension of this great mystery, and those holy memorials, which our Lord instituted "for the continual remembrance of his death," it will be advisable to refer to the Jewish feasts in the Levitical law, which evidently prefigure the great sacrifice of Christ, which was to be offered as an atonement for the sins of man. In pursuance of this plan, we will consider the nature of the Jewish feasts, and the analogy which the Christian feast of the Lord's Supper, in which we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, bears to the ancient rite among the Jews of feasting upon things sacrificed, and eating of those things that were offered up to God. The Jewish sacrifices are generally divided in the following manner.

First, Such as were wholly offered up to God, and burnt upon the altar; these were the holocausts, or burnt offerings. Secondly, Such as were not only offered up to God upon the altar, but of which the priests also had a part to eat; and which were again subdivided in the sin offerings, and the trespass offerings. Thirdly, Such as were not only offered up to God, and a portion bestowed on the priests also, but of which the owners themselves had a share likewise: these were called bw, or peace offerings, which contained in them, as the Jewish doctors speak, byab phn man phm owb pbn, "a portion for God, and the priests, and the owners also."

The first of these, perhaps, to signify some especial mystery concerning Christ, were wholly offered up to God, and burnt upon the altar; yet when they were

Luke xxii. 19. which is given for you: this do in remembrance Jerusalem. of me.

not ap, offerings for the whole congregation, but for any particular person, there were always peace offerings regularly annexed to them, that the owners, at the same time when they offered a sacrifice to God, might feast upon that sacrifice.

The second of these were not eaten by the owners, but by the priests; to shew that the owners, being for the present in a state of guilt, for which they now made atonement, being not worthy, the priests, acting as their mediators to God, and as their proxies, did eat of the sacrifice for them.

Thirdly, in the peace offerings; because such as brought them had no uncleanness upon them, (Levit. vii. 20.) and so were perfectly reconciled to God, and in covenant with him; therefore they were in their own persons to eat of those sacrifices, which they had offered unto God as a federal rite between God and them. These sacrifices were considered to bring peace to the altar, to the priests, and to the owners; as they each separately partook of them. Throughout Scripture we find that the eating of the sacrifice was a due and proper appendix unto all sacrifices; and that it is mentioned continually as a rite belonging to sacrifice in general; see Exod. xxxiv. 15. Numb. xxv. 2. Psalm cvi. 28. Exod. xxxii. 6. 1 Sam. ix. 13. and xvi. 2-11. with many others. Profane writers likewise frequently mention this custom, as being always observed by the Heathen in their sacrifices. Homer alludes to it. Plato, in his second book de Legibus, calls these feasts 'Εορταὶ μετὰ θεῖον, feasts after divine worship offered up to the gods. Plutarch also reports of Catiline and his conspirators, ὅτε καταθύσαντες ἄνθρωπον, ἐγεύσαντο τῶν σαρκῶν, that sacrificing a man, they did all eat somewhat of the flesh; using this religious rite as a bond to confirm them together in their treachery. From the universal prevalence of this rite, then, we have every reason to consider it as having been, from the very earliest period, divinely appointed, and originally a part of the primæval religion; typifying the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah, who expressly declares, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," John vi. 51-56. "Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, (that is, the paschal feast, upon this sacrificed Christ,) with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth," 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. Wherefore I conclude that the LORD'S SUPPER is a feast upon a sacrifice, or Epulum ex Oblatis, in the same manner as the Jewish feasts upon sacrifices under the law, and the feasts upon 'EIAQAYTA, (things offered to idols) among the Heathens. And this I think will be proved by a reference to the tenth chapter of 1 Cor. from the 13th to the 22d verses, where St. Paul supposes these three are parallels, and that a perfect analogy exists between them, or else the whole strength of his argument fails.

1

Again, under the law, the eating of the feasts upon God's sacrifices, was considered as a federal rite between God and those that offered them, in the same way as the ancient Hebrews and other Eastern nations ratified and sealed every covenant by eating and drinking together; and, among them, it was accounted a most heinous offence to be guilty of the breach of a covenant thus confirmed. Salt, as the natural appendix of all feasts, was always put upon every sacrifice, and was regarded as a symbol of friendship and kindness; from whence the

ancients called it Amicitiæ Symbolum. And from this custom the proverbial
expression among the Greeks originated—"Αλας καὶ τράπεζα,
"salt and the
table;" and among whom the violation of a covenant of salt was considered as
the violation of the most sacred league of friendship. Several passages of Scrip-
ture are illustrated by the application of this custom, Lev. ii. 13. Num. xviii. 19.
2 Chron. xiii. 5. Further, when God delivered the Israelites from the bondage
of Egypt, he manifested himself in a peculiar manner among them: and while
they sojourned in tents in the wilderness, He commanded a tent, or tabernacle,
to be built, that he might sojourn with them also. But when the Jews took
possession of their land, and built them houses, God would have a fixed dwelling
place; and his moveable tabernacle was turned into a standing temple. And,
to make the analogy more complete, it was furnished with things suitable to a
dwelling place-a table, with a candlestick: the former always furnished with
bread, having dishes, spoons, bowls, and covers, belonging to it; and the can-
dlestick having its lamps continually burning. There was also a continual fire
kept in the house of God upon the altar. And, to carry the resemblance still
further, meat and drink were brought into the house of God; for besides the
flesh of the beasts offered up in sacrifice, which were partly consumed on the
altar, and partly eaten by the priests, as a portion of God's family, and so to be
maintained by him, there was a mincah, or meat offering, and a libamen, or
drink offering, which were always joined to the daily sacrifice.

The sacrifices, then, being God's feasts, they that did partake of them must
be considered as his convivæ, and in a manner to eat and to drink with him.
That sacrifices were thus regarded as a federal rite in Scripture, is proved in
Levit. ii. 13. in Num. xviii. 19. and 2 Chron. xiii. 5. where it is called "the
salt of the covenant," and "a covenant of salt," to signify that as men ratified
their covenants by eating and drinking, to which salt was a necessary appendix,
so in the same way God, by these sacrifices and feasts upon them, did ratify
and confirm his covenant with those that were partakers of them; who, as it
were, might be considered as eating and drinking with Him-God's portion of
the covenant being visibly consumed by his holy fire on the altar, which was
always kept burning there.-See Levit. ix. 24. 2 Chron. vii. 1. Fire likewise,
the symbol of the Lord's presence, fell frequently on the victims offered to the
Lord, as a visible demonstration of his acceptance of his portion, and of his en-
tering into covenant with the offerers.-See Gen. iv. 4. xv. 17. Judges xiii. 19,
20, &c.

As we have now shewn that the sacrifices of the Levitical law, with the feasts upon those sacrifices, were regarded as federal rites between God and men, in like manner the Lord's Supper, under the Gospel dispensation, which we have already proved to be Epulum Sacrificiale (a feast upon a sacrifice,) must also be considered as Epulum Fœderale, a federal feast of reconciliation and amity between God and men, by which we are taken into a sacred covenant, and an inviolable league of friendship with Him. In comparing this account of the ancient mode of celebrating the Jewish feasts with the institution of the Holy Sacrament given by the inspired writers, it is to be remarked, that when Christ

1

Mark xiv. 23. and when he had given thanks, he gave it to Jerusalem.

them,

Mat. xxvi. 27. saying, Drink ye all of it;

instituted the eucharistical feast, he said, "This is my blood of the New Testament"-"This cup is the New Testament in my blood;" that is, not only the seal of the old covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and of goats, (Exod. xxiv. 5. and Heb. ix. 19.) because blood was still to be shed. The confirmation of the new covenant was by a cup of wine; because under the New Testament there is no further shedding of blood, Heb. xii. 26. x. 18. Again, our Lord says of the cup, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood;" in the same way as the cup of blood in the Levitical law (Exod. xxiv. 6.) was the Old Testament in my blood. There all the articles of that covenant being read over, Moses took half of the blood and put it in basons, and sprinkled all the people with it, and said, "This is the blood of the covenant which God hath made with you;" and thus that old covenant or testimony was established. In like manner Christ, being now about to bring in another and more perfect dispensation, having published all the articles of the new covenant, confirms it by the breaking of bread, saying, "This is my body in the New Testament, or covenant, in the same sense as the paschal lamb has been hitherto my body in the old dispensation, Eat ye all of it." He then takes the cup, saying, "This is my cup in the new covenant, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats have been my cup in the old covenant, Drink ye all of it; having your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience," Heb. x. 22.

The legal sacrifices were but types and shadows of the true Christian sacrifice; and were, therefore, with their feasts, constantly renewed and repeated: but now that Christ, as a lamb without blemish, and without spot, fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, (1 Pet. i. 20.) has been sacrificed for us, there remain no more typical sacrifices, but only the feasts upon the One Great Sacrifice, which are still, and ever will be, symbolically continued in the Lord's Supper. "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him," John vi. 5, 6.

There are still many other resembling circumstances between the Jewish Passover and the Christian Eucharist. The Passover was of divine appointment, and so is the Eucharist. The Passover was a sacrament, and so is the Eucharist. The Passover prefigured the death of Christ before it was accomplishedthe Eucharist represents, or figures out, the death now past. As he who in the Jewish law did not keep the Passover, bore his own sin, and was to be cut off from Israel, Exod. xii. 15. Num. ix. 13. so he also who neglects the Holy Eucharist in the Christian dispensation, renounces all interest and benefit in the atonement and sacrifice of Christ, and shall also bear his own sin. As the Passover was to continue as long as the Jewish law was in force, so the Eucharist is to continue till Christ shall come to judge the world. The same forms and expressions were likewise observed in both institutions.

In the paschal supper the master of the house took bread, and gave thanks to God; so did Christ. It was customary for him afterwards to break it, either before or after the benediction, and to distribute it to his family, as it does not appear they were permitted to take it themselves. That these forms were ob