A> IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V A {■/ :a i/i 1.0 I.I 1.25 >» III 2.8 112.5 j50 "=^ lllll^ •^ IM 122 ^ S^ 2.0 1^ ^^= 1 = 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation m iV ^^ '^rSV :\ \ ^9) .V ^^^ <5 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.V. 145B0 (716) 873-4503 ^ V^ % v^ /. ^^Si . id^ i/i \ "O ■?> CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 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. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a §t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee □ Cov Cou V D D D Covers restored and/or laminated/ verture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added tiur ng restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. D D D y D n n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colordes, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages detachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualit^ in^galr de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure he best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6td filmdes d nouveau de faqon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X plaire es details liques du int modifier ixiger une de filmage sd/ qu§es taire I by errata med to nent une pelure, fapon d 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University 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. 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 with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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 manv frame::, as required. The following diagrams iliu^irate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grace d la g6n6rosit6 de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont film^s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^ signifie "A SUIVFiE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux etc., peuvent Stre film^s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche S droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 o .ffy H i 'M A 2.4 i'. 3 THE " LORDS suppi:k" As He Instituted it. in- 4 A RirirKI I) |[ STICl-: OF II. M. sil'k|.:.\||.: ( oCKT ny .\,,\ V SCo'IIA. i\ (ANA DA. HAl.ll'AX. \. s W.M. MACXAH, PRIN'TKR, Xo. ,0 |'kl\ iSSi. ('!•: siki;i;r i *1 U J) Til "The Lords Supper," as He instituted it. /. Car. xi. 20. " Rcligio mihi csl (:iiti)uo contra torrciitem oiniiiuni I'airuin S. Scripluras inter- prc-tan, nisi quaiuii) inc ar<,ninnTita CDguiU cidcDlissinia— (luui! nuiKiuain cvon- Uiruni cretlo."— />VjV/^/ /i'////, /)cf. /-/,/. .V/V, The coarse of reasoning by whicli my mind has been led to tlu! conclusion it lias reached, makes it nnnecessary for me to notice, except cursorily, patristic literature or modern opinions, although I am t>^P«»d&j»«.convei-sant with b(.)th. Justin Mar- tyr, who wi-otc about the middle of the second century, in the earliest account we have of the mode of administration of this rite, without r oticing any tiadition, refers, as his only authority for all lie knew of the institution, to " Memoirs writ- ten by the Apostles, whicli are called Gospels." Down to hia time from the moment of our Lord's appointment, the Apostles, save as to mention of " breaking bread," are silent on the sub- ject of en(|uiry. with the exception of St. Paul, who enlightens it both by what he has, and by what he has not wi'itten. The wor*'^ fiiH lH'IK'iM ( 1, m pr()l)ai>ly print it, for private eireniation. Tile fallowing- prineiples I postulate, wliile pmsuadi'd tlwit I slinll We eiiaMcd to sliow tliem to be warranted by tlie nari'a- tives: (1). If tlu' words, " Tliis is my body wliieli is broken for vrm," nic e()nstnit'd as refcrriii''' to 'the bread" in any other sense than «^s i-'itfiscninKj h;/ llnif clcinrnt ''(III' body," d'c, then, unless a supernatural iiiHueiiee was operated on the visible substanee to make it the Lord's l>ody, cVc, in sonie sense other than suoh representative one, the woids irtrr not tnic in. t}n(t o/At'/' Nr//.s< : and, inasmueh as they proct cdtd from the lips of Him who is '" the 'rruth," and as no such intlueiice was even intiniate(l by Him, at the time id' institution or at any otlier time, eitln'i' by his own mouth, or by the pen of an Apostle, it follows that the words, "This is my Ijody," kc, even snpposinL;' them to ha\'e referred to the l)read, were not used li} Him in lefeicnee to it in any other than sueh repre- sentative sense. (2). The institution was an adaptation to a new ordinance of eiutain features of tlie Paschal Feast. (3). It was an onlinanee of a s(jeial, as well as of a ivlieious character. (4). It has no ndation to any saciifice tliat marked tlie Jewish solemnities, except to thc-Tiivat Sacrifice to whicli tliey point- ed, and to its archetype — the Passover. (')). An assertion of "a real objective presence'" in relation to this rite, supposes a stupendous miracle, which is assume deal o[)in in !' in' '■ lU'iasy f HUi -'siriii;^- tluii miicatfd to t, and shull atlt'd tlint I ' the nan-a- ll is biokon n any otlier bochj," cf-c. ;ed on tlif some .sense uot true in. 1 fioin the liience was 1 or at an\- pt'n of an Jody," ^:c., I, were not iiL'h repre- ation to a ^st. (3). It chai'actei-. ihe Jewish hey point- ^sertion of , supposes 'vei- been, lien oriitsrd hif the i uh' r/iVt'fi' r fu /ni rr hen iiih inhd Inj h'l in ii'}i()Sf> J(liiijiiii(ji is i/ir .^iihji'ct of fl" i nl''r/inf'ifi(n). Tliis iiile is the more neeessaiy to !••• thus notici'il, because, as 1 pm[>ose to show, it lias been [)lainl\ \ ioiatfd by thos»' intdjiretrrs of the Words rn iustitiititin wliose iutei|»n'tations, ipn'stioncil by me, will uot stand with mint', which kt-epN within the [)iinciple referred to. 'J'le field of in([uiiy i^n which I enter is limitf«h Exej^esis in this case to lie .sound, must l)c ItaNcd on Scripture, and the statt^ of Jewisli cererjionial at tln-tiun'of tho institution. In dealing with my sidiject 1 am not to acce[)t as infallible the opinions of even the wisest of the anci-'Ut fathers, irln'r<\ (^^• iv fills cast', f/nist' cii iiiml hi sliDii'i) in hf I'o ii lli'i'h'd hi/ h'udil ion i>r iitlii' rii'isv With Ilic oiHiKons (t lid iirdcficrs of l/ir inspired Aj,(>stlt's. As Kcchsiastical histoiy m'^ativrs that e<)nnexion, hi >'.<(' opinions [)osses-> no mcue wi-i^ht, than beh^ngs to the views and connuents of the enliyhtcne.l of our own day. Tlte institution, while from its very nature it implies a pledge of the love f»f .Tesus for his faithful followers, teaches nothiuL'' --promises nothing- — save only that our Lord's body was, when He spoke, in intention being broken ami liis blood being shed foi- tliose to wliom Fb- spoke — a teaching that was, on the morrow, confiinied by the Great Sacrifice itself. This j)rpeak, with womlrmis siijjniticancy, at tile Kueiiari^t, of a ■' Coniinunion of liie iiody and lilood of Christ." to faithful (■onuuunicanl>, wiio "eat llisllesh" and "(hink His Mood" in the true sense in which He, at ("a|)ernauni, iiuHcnted a necessity for their iloing so. They, when gathered, in hap])} social and spiritual intercourse, at the Lord's Table, feel that they are, indeed, nicuiber.-. of "the nn-tical l>odv' of which Christ is "the Head." There would bo no prosinnption in propounding any pecMiliai- view of this (jiirstion, if a reasonable one, Ijecause, among Christians of tlio various existing denominations, in all of which are men .-minent for learning and mojal excelK'nee — all acknowledging one onl}' Saviour— diversities of opinion, at this liour, prevail, as to the meaning of the words " This is my body "—words that hav(! been a subject of controversy for ages,— words respecting wliieli liUtlu-r, when pressed by argu- ments that he could not answei", used to reiterate " Hoc est coi'pus meum," as many now do, without leflecting ilmt fhosc U'onh of St. Mufthciv awl St. Mad-, intJivxt fhr t Kxangclisls, if tlicy stocul iilon. . wouhl thu> without more, - present Christ"-- words ami acts : •• Take, Kal "' llhe ^iveii l>rfail) : '• I'hi^ is niy boily :" And so no purpose of I lie coutmaiid :^'ould I'c declared, and no ckaiaclcf -iC'oit/d l>e ^i^h'en to the Institution ! See note a paj^e 20. y peeiiliaj- in all of Iciice — all pinion, at ;"T]iis is )vorsy for I bv ar not con - istitiition, Is, consist 'lunch, of ice a mis- tliat has source of juiiy the lio woi'ds king His aditional nt. The I cotis'nt- him who )Ui' Loid, to, other I'se, pi'e- at speak vhatevor purnanni ninie, ' ii> i-. my 'liaracU-r (lid not point to the institution wouM sutliciently appear, ♦•von from the 'JTrii verse of Jolm vi. th(! koy-no*"e of the whole «liseourse : " Ljiltour not for tlu; meat tliat pt risheth, hut for tlw itii'iif (Jki/ i'ihI 'I r'fli null) rtcriiiil lit)' n'hich thi' Soil of iiutn Hholl ijire (I iili) //'>"." The institution, then undeclared, could not possihly ha\'e heen the desiL;iied fthject to he laboured foi' by those to whom the piecept wrt< addi-essod. The exponent of the preee[»t was to be tin' Cross, and the object of ihe labour was to be He who dieil upon it ! N(j ground whatever exists iov ^}\)posh\<^ SI i)rof('i>tlco/ iiifi iii'if'nni in the synagogue of the institution tluit was to he ! That is a mere conjecture ! At ( "apei naum, the Atonement, however, was dindy sha- dowed foith ilius : — " '{'he l)i('ad (hat T will give you is my flesh, whicli I will give for the life of the world." Respecting thi■^. I )r. Waterland well icmaiked, Our having a part in reconcilement to (Jod by the death of lii^ Son, is, in strictness, ' eating and diinking his tlesh and blood ' in St John's pinase, and ' eating of the altar' in St. Paul's. " Jesus Christ in the fifty-fourth and fortieth verses of vi. John did, indeed, ex])lain to those to whom it was given to understand him. the words in ([uestion, and tJnit in no mystic or dubious sense. When he said in che former " Who- so cafefh myjtri<]i oik/ driiikilh dij blood hath eternal life," &c. He spoke tiguiatively : Hut, when he sai5, 47, t)3 ; shows conclusively, when viewed in the light of sultseouent events, that in o^iv Lord's mind at ('apei naum to "eat his flesh " and " drink his blood " was ti> helieve in tin' <'tfieacy of his atoning sacrifice, and that ^ach hefief was, in effect, such eating and such drinking. Il is hi|^hly luoliaUli- iIku, wlini our J.nnl ^[)ukv tin u in (|UL■^lil)n, the institiilion. then future, was in his coMtemplaiion ; hut, to show ///a/ He did not impliedly irjti- to il, conclusive wouhl seem to l)e the tact, that, when the institution ceased to l)e future, the words " iiody " and "blood," ised at il, pre- sented nu retrospective asjjcct in relation to the ("apernaum utterance respecting "fti'sh and blood," but referred, prospcctii'cly, to his own body and blood to be sacrificcrl. lo a covenant in the latter, ami to iiothiii^ r/.u- .' 6 Christ said in the Synagogue, " E\c.']>t ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' kc, "ye have no life in you : " So, in a like spiritual sc'ns(\ and in like figurative language, He said to Petei- at the supper of John xiii., " If 1 wash tliee not thou hast no pai-t in uic" The cases arc parallel. Christ cannot literally wash any one of us ; He e;iimot liferally give to any one of us his flesh to eat ; but he who believes in Christ is Avadied by him, and eats liis flesh. All that our Lord was pleased to withhold at Capernaum was a distinct enunciation of His Passion as an element in tlie belief of wh.ich He spoke. Tlie o'ucifixion and its consequents at last fullv revealed that truth. Now. we know, (jr ought to know, that heart belief in His saci'ifice, n'liliotif ^hall the Lord of H(jsts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees ; " "0 God, my soul thirsttith foi' Thee in a dry and barren land where no water is;" " My soul sliall be satisfii'd as \vi(h inarrow and fatness;" "Eat ve that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." Through a cloud of mystification, wheiewith man has shroud- ed this great discourse, it stands out to those who havi; eyes to discein it, as tiue to nature as it is siin})le and sublime. It gJt'W out of the occasion which suggested it. It I'epeated or anticipated words spoken by our Lord elsewhere. (Jlirist said, in "fleet, Ye follow me from a mere instinctive cravin<»' foi- food rcquiii'd to support the life that now is; but labout- for spirit I work '' Let them wrote cravin hlooil ber at I say Here the flesh So, in a >'e, He Scaid 1 thee not el. Christ "erally give believes in 'apernanm iient in tlie onsequents )V oun'lit to ''f'df'ntf/' ())• 'cllecing, is — John vi., Chiistiiin, I liis futuie ting eating •cs heconu^ pe to tliat wliich tlu; II tlie Loi-(l a feast of Thee in a III si 1 all be it which is las shroud- have eyes blinie. It i'])i'at('(l or 'lirist said, ig for food al»our for spiritual food necessary to sustain your ininiortal souls. " Afy ■nit'df is to incs>^! " Then your spiritual cravings shall Imj satisfied with n hanqucf on Hit-! jie>^h oad hlooiV to be provide(l for you heieaftei', not iji a guest cham- ber at Jerusalem, hat ait a Cross crcrtnl on Cdfrori/. " Labour,'' I say, " for that food wliich endureth unto everlasting life." Here is 'the hard saying"' Avitli its solution! The Jews, and among them some of the disciples, could not "hear it." Many learned men. n(jt as wis*.' as learm-il, have misapprehen"il ">i" <•"' ''''"id, wliii'h liad cDurBed thruUKh Ids veins wh<»ii lfi> spoke, bi'caino the outimurcd blood ot t,he now eovenaitt and id' his Saeriiieo. liel'oie that event, his bod\ did not ho- coine tiesh in tliHt hi»rrible sense, in wldch "ealin^i his lledi" be lore hix body hi'- paino a deiid bodv, svonjd have t" l>e nnderslnod ! 1«K>7<.. I' 8 uninspired source. To any text of Scripture tliat is doubtful in point of exegesis, or as to infei'ences warranted by it, I sliall not refer, and, therefore, I do not notice the following, on which some, in discussing this question, rely: 1 C*o/'., ix, 18 ; xi, 27 ; v, 18 to 22 : Gci). xiv ; as compared with Hebr. v- vii. These, however satisfactory to those who lest upon tliem, have no logical force to operate on the mind that has taken a ditterent view of them, Jesus Christ, at his last entry into Jerusalem, reminded his disciples that " the Passover," by which He could not but have meant the regtdav Feast, was the appointed time when He was to be "delivered up to be crucified." On the evening which was the commencement of that dav, He sat down to supper with the Twelve. St. John, in the much misunderstood passage (c. xiii, Ij, states that Jesus, liiowing Ijcfore the Passover that His " houi" when he should depart out of this world " would be at that fes- tival, was conscious, on that very Jewish day on which the Last Supper was eaten, that that hour was come. Befon* the dawn of it He was " delivered up," in precise fulfilment of the Divine preannouncement recorded in Matt, xxvi, 2.* Now if, in the light of this, we try to tliscover how our Lord was intiuenced in what He said and did at the time in question, we find motives and purposes indicated that may be thus expressed: He had looked forward with ardent desire to that Feast — so full of solemn intei-est in relation to type and prophecy that it was to fulfil — which was to be the last occa- sion on which He should meet the Apostles in calm seclusion. He foresaw that the period of exeitement that would inter- vene between His arrest and His crucifixion, marked, as it was to be, by the dispersion of His disciples, would be unsuit- able for the accomplishment of three great objects purposed by Him, viz: (1.) ^V proximate coincidence of His sacrifice with Festi ■' wIm Cm com]! ion. Ae iili>sfli's of Hii Passioji.^ tvliicli nuiH to hr a I'tiil'itji oil the folloii'iiKj (/ii^/, \\c being, it may be. mo\ed to tliat pui'pose by tlie co)isideration f/n/t thoMi v:Jio Wi'VP ii^llll Ilitit (it till' tilhtr iroiitit 111' " seottrt'CilJ' US pl'i'dxtud (Jolni. xvi. o2). iriiit none of ttirin, sure ott<\ n'onlil ■•itnini hi/ tjit' cross (I lid /rifiitss Ins (tcilt/i. We liaveSt. Paul's authority for asserting that He pn^sented himself there as "(-lirist. our /\/.sso'V'/-, sacrificed for us." x\c- cordingly, at the Su[>per, lie said (and he may ]ia\e pointed to Flis l)ody as He spoke): " Tliis is mij body wliich is IxMug given for you," — "This cup is tlie new covt^iant in my blood, wldeh is being sheii for you," adiling in rxclasive reference to eating the bread and drinking tlu' wine, as an appointed memorial ceremon}', "'riii> do in lememhrance of me." * Until the Last Supper, tin; disciples, altliough tliey had bt^en often told by Christ that He was to sutler, had remained blind to the fact. Once moi'e He was pleased to sigidfy it to them on that occasion, *rs //' ttie sacrijlce of tJir fotlowiug d(iy Ixid heeii an event of tJad 'v/// vigld. It is inferable, perhaps, from the repoi'ts, in view of tlie pr(.'Ceding considerations, that tlu; words and the acts of institution liad t/ntt specud purpose in retoflon to tlic Aiiustles ir/,icli I Iniri supposed. This is the moi'e jJiohaMi', because the proleptical character of " the Last Supper" is clear froui tlu- fact that tiie words of institu- tion, which refer to the Passion, are in the present tense. * "At Jesus, cunsilii sui cfilus, i^ in u\wiv I'ntc'ina- ilispositi(jnis inlrepidus, Votus Testamcntuni consuniiiiabat. el iio7'ttui /'asclin coudi'lmt. I)isouml)(.'nlilius cnini Discipulis ;\(1 (.'ilciiiiaiu in)>iiioaiu r.iinim, cum in ("aiaph;v atrio tractarotur iiuomodi) (.'lirisiUN posset occiili, illr, ( orpniis el Sanguinis sui (jidinans Saera- nuntuni. (/('(V'/'i// (/;c(;//V Di-o hosiia Jchcrii o[U'rri,''" - S. Leo. (Semi, Ivi, p. 126). 4rw{ 10 As to intorprotation, 1 base luy aiguineiit mainly ^m the more complete narratives of St. Luke and St. Paul. For purpose of exe^-esis there is no necessity for connecting "Do this" with "This is." 'IMie only words, save tlie couiniejnora- tiVe ones, tliat involve a command are, 'Take, Eat." As such they operate at the present hour. Not so witli vcgnrd to tlu' woi'ds, "This is," e'tc, wliich spoke of a thi'ii proximate condition of our Lord's Ijody, as if it had been a pie-^ent one. It is not, perhaps, too much to say of tlieni that they have, since the E^assion, ci-ased to sijeak, t^an as an (ijijitdl to sacred history and. to faith. Tlie conui.antl to takeantl eat lias no nece.ssaiy relation to the Loid's l>ody, exce|)t as to commemoration of tl. ; sacrifice of it. Tlie Bread and the Wine aie, re.spectively, tile .cram mat leal obircrts of the two active \eibs just mention- ed, and of " .Diink '" when it is u.'-ed relatively to the cup. "This is,'" tVc, is merely demonsiratix e, but n«)t nece.ssarily of the " P.read." Luther is said to have remarked that we naturally use the neuter gender when .speaking of a thing before us. Thus he would dispose of the Turo ; but here a ditficulty pi'csents it- self : Although in classic Greek a demonstrative pronoun neuter is sometimes used to indicate a sul»stautive, masculine or feminine, yet no instance oi' such a use in such a case as this can be adduced. What takes this ea>e out of that classic usage, and (jut of all New Testatneut uses of that pronoun, is, that here we have as a possible noun to which the pronoun miglit bf hrld to apply, not one certain thing only, but tiro fhi-iigs e(|ually ])resent to the Apostles wlien Christ uttered the words in (luestion, viz: "the Iiod>/ of our Lord" and "the Brea«l" — the foriiKM in the Greek beino- of tlie same nfeuder with the [U'onoun, and thr latter (»f a ditfi.uvnt gender. Surely this featuic of tlie (piestion demaiuls s.rious consideration from an inteipreter ! An accomplished Greek sehohu, holding a high position in a gi'eat University of the American ridon. who has done me the lionor to read this paper, lefers me to the passages in oui' Gi-e. cal r iieut to tl "th ^lff^'<0mX' on thc^ inectirifr ncinora- ich they ' words, ition of t is not, incu the /list 011/ 3ce.s.sai V Uion of ■ctivcly, lontion- ho cup. a lily of ISC tlie "hus he onts it- )ronoin) isculine case as classic •onoLin, njnoLin )iit tiro red the Bi-ead" itli tile, ]y this' loni an on in a 'ne nie in oui' 11 (jieek Scriptures noticed below, as illustratin<( tlie Grannnati- cnl rule of " Attraction," under which he seems to think this neuter pronoun should he rangtMl, as to its j^ender relatively to the antecedent which, as then advised, he considered to be "the Breae copula alike o f tl le sellteliCe This is mv hcdv," kc, and of th.it which expivssis, 'This cup IS the new i: d venant " (fee. Both sentences, too, must he construed on the same piieci|>le. Thdf will he perfectly practical)]e if a llfcnil construction hi its fi'iic si'nsi^ which T shall indicate presently, he ailopted. Observe, also, in view (jf thest- miscalled interpretations, that the words. "This is my body, ^c./ had their full effect at the instant of delivery of the t»read ; therefore our Lord's body, a pi'est'iit lii'iiijj body, was, at that momeiir.tlie bicaihand the bread was then the living body, which is impossible. Was " the 1 'lead " the I'ody " u'iveii " on the cross ? Mon- strous, as a ])roposition frauied in the atHrmative of this (pies- tion would be; it Would necessarily be true if our Jjord, when He said "This is my body which is y/^V'/^" k,c., did iread." On that hypothesis, to deny that proposition would be to contradict the very words of Christ. Tliat consequence reininds me of the historical fact, that Ccrin- thii> maintained ///(// // m-ws nol f'lr rad hoili/ Unit uuis cnwi- fi <',i !. whWv it suii'u'ests that, if St. John had asseited to the Gnostic, the couvci'^ioii b\' our Lord of the living' bodv into a fragment of bread, I'-ifh'nit a h// iM-rci'iiflhlr vliaiKje Itcliv) ('jft'c- t<'(l ill IIk hiff( i\ or ill its coinlitidiis, the assertion miii'ht not * These are words of Bishop Cosin : C'/ninientitig on St. Paul's words, "The l)rcail which we l)reak i> ihe ooninuinion,"" Cvc, lie writes -■" Certain it is tiiat the " Bread is not tlie ISody of Christ any otiierwise than as the cu]) is tlie N'ew Test- " tanienl ; and (Htlerenl (•on>e(|Ui'nces cannot l)e drawn from these two not difterent " expre-.?.ions. Therefore, as the i 'p cannot he the N'ew Testament but by a "sacramental figure, no more can the Bread l)e tlie Body of Christ but in the " same sense.'' unil bh n.it| 11(11 \h pre stal ind thi: j/o/ .So, th,' This view must be rei^arded as unanswerable by every mind except that which can seriously hold, //in/ ' ^7 ,7// ' mn ^' ^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^Hj^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H i ■IP, l.S i iinreasonalily lia\e been tlioiight to Icml )>I;ni.siliility ti) tlie blasplieinous heresy I Tlie truth is, tliat no interpretation wliicli is contrary to nj,tural reason can he a true interpictation, unless flic .>w'y>/'r- nafitral l»e expi'essed in the case, or he necessarily implieil. Here, tlie niii'aclt' assumed by eithei of tlie interpreraiions opposed is suppoi'ted by no tndtU'nce, ;ind. tlieret'ore, the inter- pretation, based oil the assumption, is witliout support. This state of tlie case is uiMleniablc, and the logical conse([uence indicated follows, unless, indeed, loi;ic is to have no plac(! in this en(]uiry, and a decision is t(j depen^ referred to, do present their views of i nferiirelol'iDu ! The miracle impliedly athrmed by those who suppose bread and wine, at the institution, to have become, in any sense, save a fiuuiative one, (*hrist's bodv, is distinguished from all the ante-resuricction ndi'acles of our Lord in this respect, viz : — Krrrii one of these, lost a'os marked by u, sujjeriiaticral result perreivi'i! I>i/ n huimtn sense. But, of the alleged con- secpience (tf our Lord's woids and acts in relation to bread and wine, no such evidence can be adduced. If has vo one cJiariieferistic in corivnioi} irith the Script nridly decUivcd su- perrmfurid f Ch rlsf. Our Lovd per nil tted Judas to partake of the oovimemora- tire .symbols ; but, ditl He, who, Himself, said of the traitor, " It were better for tliat man if Ik; had not been born," com- nuind the A[)Ostle, so feai'fully denouncd, to eat the Lord's body in tlie sense of any of the theologians wdiose views of interpretation I question ^- He, then, ivto whom " Saturn had entered,'' (Luke xxii. ll.) eat the Body of (Tirist Jesus, by his Lord's comDuriid ! There are, beside tin- grammatical dithcidty, sti'onger rea- sons for considering the words " This is my body " to refer to our Lord's body, than then; are for supposing any connection ._ _^ (a) Some conimfimries infer the contrary from the narratives ; but these last do not appear to me to warrant the inference. 14 <;f tliein witli " tlie bread" axcejd <( irj>rt'serif((t(ve sense of the latter iti relafioi) to them. Bt'foiv coJisidoriiiLf the I'casoiis ivft'-rcil to^ I invite attention '() J(»]in ii. I!), respcetii)*,' wliieli Sclileiisner, when voc. Ovroc, he Holes the words " Dt'stroy ihis temple," I'eniarks : " viz., of my l)0(ly ivhich Christ mast iiecessari'i/ have indicated with h.lsji tajer." Jesus (.lirist, being in tlie temple, and. being asked by tlie Jews foi' a sign, said " Destroy tliis temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews thereupon said " P^orty and six a wilt tliou ?" kc. Then follows, " Bu.. he years, \:e., an spoke of the temple of his hody^ That He had spoken with that reference, His disciples did not know until after His re- surrection. Up to that time they, if they did not conclude the allusion to be t(j the sanctuaiy, must have felt as much doubt as to what He referred to in that discourse, as can be felt by any one as to the antecedent that was in His mind when in the words of institution Ble used the pronoun in question. 7'he parallel between Luke xxii. 19 : and .John ii. 19, is remarkable, although there is not a question of syntax com- mon to both Scriptures. If Christ did n(jt, wiien He used the pronoun in the former case, indicate His Body i)y Jiny action, nevertheless, He did not, ivith more certaintij, in (hat case declare tin hrcad to he the antecedent, than He, in the latter case, declared the Jewish Sanctiutrij to he what He meant ; and yet we know, that, in John ii. 19, He intended His Body, that was present, but had not b"en expressly referred to- In that case the language of Christ in terms denoted the material temple in which He stood ; but it meant that the temple figinv.l His body. Therefore, even if in Luke xxii. 19, the words pointed to the material bread, as His body. Why may he not hove meant that the bread jigwred His body ? There can be no reason, except that to a.ssiune a miracle, furnishes what otir Lord rc(juir»'tl to he done was confined to * Apostles, and ceased to operate at tlie deatli of tlie suivi »f them. It is only on the ground that the Twelve were spoken to, ((.s rcpvcuenihig flu' Xascenf Uvl- uersal Church, that all the inemhers of that church were then, and now are, intei'ested in the rite, and objects of ('liiist's command to observe it. Contrast the express conniiand to the A{)ostles to " bapti/e all nations:" Matt, xxviii. 19. There is not a word, nor a circumstance which indicates an appeal to the Apostles, as such. Moreover, it is certain, that the ear- liest practice affords no intimation that they so understood the words of institution. It is, therefore, easy to understanil why no priest appears in connection with a celebration of the Euchaiist during the two first centuries. But furthei' in 1 Cor. x. l(i. 17, we read, "The cup of blessing which we" — thr inhole hodij of the communicants — ■' bless, is it iiot tlie communion of the blood of Christ ; the bread which we " — the cJioh' hodjj of the coriimanicants — " break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? " The Apostle thus shows the then existing mode of celebration to have been by all, «« dhclph'x, in accordance with his and St. Luke's reports of its oi-iginal. The verb in both verses is in the first person plural, aud can only indicate plurality in either. The simple phrase " bieaking of bread," which — let it be noved ! — is never found used in relation to an Apostle, as done hy him for otJicr dii^c'q}les,\^ in harmony with the view just presented of the institution, and with St. Paul's words just considered. The notion of an official consecrator being in our Lord's intention when He spoke, or in the mind of St. Paul when he wiote to the Corinthians, is negatived by the nature of the institution and by the scriptures of St. Luke and St. Paul. St ) " I th. br th th; A < '. Ir oi 17 It is Well known tlwitat flu- PMsclial Feast, tlif ilrws hlcs^cl (iml for till' Idcad nri'l winr ; ami wlirn St. Paul says " 'V\\o CU|> iif lilfssinLf wliif'li We hh-ss" — the \ciy cui) wliicll tin- .lews so hU'sscil — \vt' imist imdcrstaiid liiiii, unless lie used tlie word " l)less " in the sense of setting apait fur a sacred use. to nuan tlie cup of iiN.'ssinu- for wliicli we iJmvl: (iossed hy ('hi'ist of/irrii'i.sc f/t(i II 1)1/ lliii itj,-^(j'ii'iiuj. St. Matthew fwvi. 27 ) shows tliat Jesus, wlit'ii lie t(tok tlii! cup, did not hless /7, hut " <,'ave thaidr this, gltrn in viv)v of tin' Innitllh oj tln- love of Chriyf, ru'CosMjuily su;,';;«'sts tlir iinsacfnlotal cliaiafter of the institution. It n»ay be a-*k(Ml, what does the spintnal element, wlien it is present in liniiianity, *;aiTi by the siij)ei- stition tliHt represents the «,dori(ietl Inidy of tlie Loid to be present in or vvitii the consecrated t^lenients ? Kvery h)n liavc thoiiijlit if wo liad fonntl those words in tlir RcvisiMl Voifiion ? Atul yt't, if the fia]L,nnent of the hjaf must nrnossarilv he rt'^anhMl as the antcccMh'iit, the phras(! '" tliis thin<;" shouM liave appoared in the text, with " thiiij,^' ill italics, or in the margin without tiiat distinction. This part of my process of reasoning, tlicn, may he put shortly thus : — («) [f the view of Greek syntax, ahove stat<'d as applicable to the tii-st " Tliis," which occurs in I..uke xxii. 1!), be sound, there is no precedent for such a use as is implied, in the inter- pretations that I <(uestion, of a (Jreek deiiionstrutivo pronoun in riilation to a noun unexpressed of a i I) agreeing with it in gender, (d) If " the bread " was iiit(!nded, tlu' use of the noun that signifies it with a pro- noun of corresponding gender would have obviated ambiguity. ((') Adopt an exegesis based on p, reference to His body, and interpretation is clear, and haiiuony of type with antitype and circumstances perfect ! Refeii ing to (c), it may be inquired : Why is the noun ex- pressed there, ami omitted in tlie case under enquiry ? That question may be answered, as 1 think, thus: Pecause, in the case in question, there was before the Twelve the very Body of "the Lamb of God" — the Great Antitype of the Paschal lamb, >jlwK ^«k)Mi* — and because the mute eloquence of that sacred Bodf/, then pre.sent, virtually broken on the Cross, and strikingly contrasted with the body of the Paschal lamb xTikil^ i>^ kn^ ]llivi:ivi)ij'' was uuuh,' hv thi; utterance in prayer, was sent hy tlie deacons to absent VM*U*wft fvod ^tffl» who had not joined in tin' }trayiis and thanks" — an nnsciiptnral jnactice — thefehy showin;^- that supuistitii^ii. when he wrote, had already I'ouml its wa\ into the post- Apostolic church '. But hi' tells us soii)uthinij;-ol:' far i;-reatei' importance, viz.: /lovj lie (I'ds tt(}i,(jlit. He says, " b'or tlie Apostles iti the niemoirs they wr(jte, which arc called (Jospels, transmitted to ns, that Jitsus Chiist thus charged theui, that after taking- l>i-ea(l and giving thanks. He said " Do this in /'fmemhrance of me ; This is my htxiy." &c, Fi'on^ which it ajipears, with certainty, that all he knew uf the institution, he ilrii\L'd from what he suj)posed to Ik- the words of (Jhi-ist as rejtortcd in the " n\omoirs." Hi.s ''Apology" which is, e.\ asseiisu omnium- the rdrlicsi ex- tant |)ost-A]M)stolic auth(ji'ity — thus piesents two facts, viz : (1). His only .>ource of informatiou was what he considereil to he " f/tc iryilfcn vro/v/.s'." (2), He possi's-;cil no Apostolic tra dition. Ri'ader, mark well th.'^e facts, hecause they show that his whole soui'ce of information was (he sdiiir ivith oii.i;^! ()ii the hypothesis of a l)i\iii.- foundation of tlie doctrine that theiv is in thr i^^ichai'ist an olijcclive real pri.'seuce of our Lord, there is something;' ine.\plical)li'izes tle'ir ministrations, and may 1)1' pi'rei'ix cd in tin' po^tuns ami moN fnicnt^ of the worship- pers, ()ut iif the hands of a \rv\ yoiiui; eaiidiitril (.'hri^l's words ami acts ill llic fnllow itiL;M.'<|UcnrL', \ i/ : w) " Do liii.s in ri'iiiemi)raiU'L' ol nu'." (2) " This is my body.'" (j) " Ami lie ili'livi:it.'d to thciu alone. "' This is very ditVoienl, in forni and ffl'tii, honi any one ol the accounts /;/ our X. T. nmon. Xii«,»W6> i»'JB*,.«v. * 21 in tliein by lier teacher, in wliich slie is tlins instnictod : — " Receive tlie Blessed Sacrament witliout gloves ; cross the right hand over the left, holding it o[)en, and let the priest place tlie Holy pjread in your palm." We shall see, presently, how ditlferent from the doctrine thus imi)liedlv tauoht to this i'.liild, is tlie view of the natuii' of tlu- ordinance in(imatf«l hy St. Paul to his adult disciples, at Corinth ! Veiy recently, I listened to a sermon preached at continuation l»y a learned dignitary, ii; which, referring to Holy Communion antl ad- dressing the younu' who had been conHrmed, his ovni nt'nid pldinln pervi'iic:' J))/ the Cdpfnuni/nt laisoonception, he char- acterized the Sacrament thus: "O mysteiy of mysteries ! To <'at the fiesli and driid-c the blood of the Son of Man 1" and this, witlu)ut evi'u noticing to the young persons Ijcfoi'c him tlie explanation conveyed by these words of his Master :" 'i'lie words that I speak unto you — they are spirit, and tliey are life ; " or even tiiat so clearly afforded by the " Order" of the Any,'lican ('hurcli, on wliicli I shall observe hereafter. And yet, in tlie whole of the interval subse(|uent to the in- stitution (lining which the gospels, acts and epistles were written, theie is no Sei'iptuial notice of tlie ordiiumce having btHMi observed otherwise than bv mere mention of "breaking bread "" in a private house ; and there is no Scriptural allusion to an objective, real juesence; nor is there a reference in Scripture, or hi early church ])ist( I'v, to any administrators of the rite, savt; a President and Deacons! It may be mjticed, also, that, when our Lord in his last ad- dress conso'ed the hearts of his disciples by promise of the Paraclete, He did not r(3iiiiud them of an assured presence in tht! liucharist of His gloiitied body ! He could scarcely have faileil, then, to relieve their atllicted spirits by a tender allu- sion to till' ordinance, if h«' had intended so ^reat a rtisult of the observa!ice of it ' That there could have been an Apostolic silence, so strik- inu'ly contrastelood of Jesus, hut) "ye do show the Lord's death till he come." No unprejudiced mind can conceive of an intelligent (Chris- tian, living at any time between the death of St. John and our day, and belie' ving in an objective real presence — say St. Ohrysostom in the fourth centuiy', or Dr. Pusey in the nine- teenth — professing to explain to a collective body of Christians the character of tlie Eucharist, and omitting an explicit refer- ence to the doctrine in question. And yet, that is precisely what St. Paul did, if he knew it to be ti'ue I He, on the as- sumption of its having been revealed to him, knew, first, that at every celebration of the Lord's Supper, the Lord's body was * There never was stronger negative evidence in any case tlian tliere is in this, to show tliat the rite, in re>pecl of which the Corinthians offended, was t-ckl>>ate(i l)y all the comnumicants alike, and in connection with, <>r as a common meal ; and without an official consecrator. obj was con stu tue mei ma bet An ab of ; ;, I so. lev 23 objectively present ; he knew, secondly, that the ordinance was desii^ncd to proclaim the Lord's death till Pie should come. Nevertheless, he declares to the Corinthians, with studied particularity and precision, the less of the two consti- tuents of the Sacrament, and oniits adejinite notice of the im- measurahhj greatci'. That, I say, when prerlicated of such a man, is inconceivable ! This argument, in truth, never has been, and never can be answered ! Dr. Vogan, the latest interpreter of the Eucharist in the Anglican Church, in a learned work,* discusses with great ability, and, as many will think, invalidates the interpretations of all the objective real presence schools, and states, but with less force, as many will judge, his own conclusion thus: — " The literal interpretation is that the elements remain bread and wine ; but that the bread is, also, the body of our Lord which was given for us, and that the wine is, also, his blood, which was shed for us. Thev are both these. The b>'ead is bread liter- ally, it is the body of Chiist ■•spirit luilly and inystlcoMy. This interpretation makes the elements bread and wine in fact ; it makes them the body and blood of Christ in <'ff>'ct, hut not in fact ; the body and l)lood of Christ as mvxh as one thing can be another ; the body ank;c. Ijut that sentence does not import the same thing as does "This bread is sptr'diudlu and mijdicall j my body," ».Vc. Dr. V^ogan liad no authority for thus (jualifying Ixj foi'ds of his (nun the woids of Christ ! It is, as has been stated, a fundaniental pi'inciple of inter- pretation, tliat whei'e a sensible eM'ect can be given to words they shall be construed n'ttJunU adding otiier words. This learned autlioi- lias plainly violated tliis rule, because the words, as reported, aie capable of a sensible inteipretation. They, in fact, on the assumption made, raise one only ques- tion of construction, viz : — What is tlie meanini"- in the sentence of the word " (s T' It eitlier, (Ij inq^orts absolute identity bt^tween subject and ])redieate ; or (2) it means " re- presents " — that is sinq^ly o!' figuratively. Any essentially different third meaning camiot possil)ly attach to tlu^ word.* [f the limits of the construction of it be, as I am sur»^ they are, thus accurately detiaed, then all the intei'prr*-ations that i challenge inq)liedly when I strive to nuiintain my own, are indefensible, inasmuch as every one of them is, not only not * This is not ilic le^^. true hocaiisc, ;is in ihr ix inaikaMo words of Christ re- ported in John si. 25. n ihl' of iIk' vcrli in cnu'stion is prcsentecj. in exceptional eases, to indicate thai 7(i///\'i /V /// /7.\- iYiy L'sxt'itrr and 0/ Hmsn'ty sii.^triiattiniL *Iii Luke xxil. 10 we read "This is uiy body, ipfiirh is (jivcn for i/oii.-^ Tlie body of our Lord, then present , was given, on the Cross. uu llic morrow. Ls il loo late to ask, in this nineteenth century, — Is identity of (if>(i(jmeiit ol' brrad with tlic tioilij "«<» ijii'fn," ronccii'dlile b]l It XDUiid (iiid soliP.r liunian iitliid .* 'I'he only exegesis possible is ab- solute ideiiiitv or inert^ timire. 25 Dr. h Is warranted by, but in direct contravention of tlic very words of our Lord, Those words say "This is my body." All the interpretations questioned make our Lord to say — " This is not my body." One of them makes Him say, " This " lias under its form the presence of tny body. Another makes Him say, " This" has under its species my body. Another makes Him say " This" lias with it my body. Dr. Vogan, understanding " This" to refer to " the bread," makes our Lord say of " This," It is my body, in effect, but not in fact — It is my body spiritually and mystically. The interpreter of the sentence in question wlio rejects construction (2) cannot adopt construction (]), because the identity wdiich it supposes is not presented in the case, with- out assuming a supernatural influence exercised by Christ on or in relation to a fragment of bread on the one hand, and His Body on the other — not only at the institution, but at every subsequent Eucharist — to cause the bread to become, or to be mystically connected with, His Body, and F*- Body to become, or to be mystically connected with the bread. No scriptui'e even intimates, relatively to the institution, a character of it such as is indicated, in relation to the Resur- rection, by St. Paul's words " Behold, I show you a mystery ;" So that, in truth, an interpreter of the words of institution has no mystery to deal with ; and as a necessary consequence, ho must interpret the words in their plain sense- If his interpretation is based on the conception of a mystery ^ of which the existence is purely conjectural, the interpreta- tion must necessarilv be unreliable. It is a mere o-uess at meaning. Why has not the won] " is," in the connection in which it occurs, been construed by those who hold the bread to be the antecedent of " This," in the obvious sense of construction . (2) The answer is not far to setd^ ! It is because the pro- cess of reasoning adopted by some of the earliest, as well as by Dr. Vogan among the later post- Apostolic interpi-eters, has been this, viz: The Incarnation is a mystery ; our Lord, at mi I !■ 20 Capernaum, spokt of " uatiiii,' liis Hesli, aiul d linking his blood" as necessary to salvation : — Tlwrefore l)otli of these mysteries must be discoverable in the Institution. This is the lo'dc of the theoloc vine, is I. There are learned iiK-n who, while admitting that the verb ' 'i'o be ' in the form in which it occurs in b) must necessarily be taken to have been used in a representative or figurative sense, main- tain that the same verb as presented in (a) /8 not to he so con- strued. They ui'ee and truly, that the circumstances in which (b) was spoken, with the antecedents and conserpiences, so explain the verb, that a figurative meaning of it is n-.^ci'ssi- tated : but an object of this paper is to show, as T am per- suaded it does show, that the same reasons lead to the same conclusion, relatively to the meaning of the v^erb in (a) — i.e. if the ])rea(l be the antecedent. The mere fact of the existence of foui' different views of interpretation of schools of thought that assuiRc the snper- uataral — held, as they are now, after a lapse of eighteen centuries — suggests that the one supposed niysticid pr'nifiple on which all of them are based, must necessarily be an unsoun'eu ami eaten, according to the law of Moses. He is this day sacrificed on the cross for vou. The bread which von at vour feast ai(» accustomed to break, give thanks for, take and eat, for a Paschal purpose, is now appointed by Him to be heiicefortli, in this Christian Passover, m broken, given thanks foi-, taken and eaten, as and foi' a memorial of the sacrifice of that Body of which Htj has just spoken. Thus, then, Ele communicates to you His dying desire and command : — Respecting my veri/ hodij, now before you, I say unto you, "This is my body which is given for . J&a**»t' 28 you." (Luke xxii, 19) Respecting: this fragment of a loaf, now brolcen, iriven tlianks for, and handed to vou in the fannliar manner, I say unto you, " Take, Eat: Tl)is thing is my body " fMatt. xxvi., '2i]). ft is my body in tliat same sense in which tlie Passover laml) has been liitherto the body taken and eaten by you as my body. " Tliis " (the act just done by me) "do, in remeuibrance of me" (Luke xxii., 19). Thus spoke our Lord " as they were eating." After supper, He, in ''fleet, added: iiesj)eeting this "cup" for wliich I liave just given tlianks,and which I liave lianded to you, in the usual mann J itistheNewTestf it blood wliich is shed amei for you " (Luke xxii., "20). It is the blood of the New Coven- ant, in the same sense in which tlie blood of beasts under the Old Covenant dispensation was my blood, which is now being poured forth for you. " This " (that whicli you have just seen me do, in relation to the cup) " do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (I Cor. xi., 2.5). Heie we ^^.. /e, as I be- lieve, the Christian Festival, as Jesus Christ instituted it ! In thus interpreting Him, effect is given to every word of each Synoptic narrative, and of that of St. Paul, while nothing is added to our Lord's words reported, the addition of which is not either His own veiy' words, or words wan-anted bv the circumstances that surrounded Him when He spoke, and were familiar to those whom He addressed. The foregoing views consist with the teaching of the Angli- can Chui-ch of the Reformation. In its OfBoe of the " Lord's Supper," our Lord's words of institution, and the remarkable words spoken by Him at Capernaum, are wisely left to speak for themselves, without man's comment. Notably so in the prayer that precedes the " Prayer of consecration : " " Grant us, therefore. Gracious Lord, so to 'eat the flesh of thy dear Son, Jesus Christ and to drink His blood,' that our sinful bodies maij he viade clean by His body, and, our souls washed- throagJf His most precious blood." Thus we have happily introduced the utterance in the synagogue, 'nd our Lord's interoreta.tion of it afterwards fjiven at and b he, eriipifivin^-^ f a. As it'giuds .ill thai in tlic institution ixMlains to an indi- cation of tiic iniptindiny saoiilicc, iind to an orduincil coninuMnoration ol' it, the declaration of our Lord is completely made in Luke XXII. T.>, itiasiiiurli tis the badij iiifhtildl the hlood. Verse L'O lias another aspect ; and Christ, wiiile in that vers(> — read with 1. (-'or. XI. 25 — dciclaring 'the lunv coven.ant in his blood,' appoints a symbol of that covenant, and commands tlie wine to be drunk as such, and ii; remembrance of him, "Is." in tliis verse, unlike the siiiiic Ke.i'h hi the p>ee(''ti^elf, a present sacritice or an olilation, never. It is declared to be a " saciifice of praise and thanksgiving," and a presentation of the soul and body of the coniniunicant to be a "reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto God." Bread and wine, when " consecrated," or " bios* sed " — '. e., set apart for the sacramental purpose, after prayer and praise, and use, by all the coiimunjicants of Christ's words, are " H<^ly mysteries," (in no mystical sense but) as pledges of H is love, and f 01' a continual remembrance of His death." So speaks the "Order" in explanation of them ! The words put, into the celebrant's mouth to say to the communicant are " Take and eat this," vdz : — broken bread — " in remend)rance that Christ died for thee, and feed" (not on the bread, nor even on the bread as representing Him, but) " on Him." This is, in the language of the " Exhortation," to "feed on the banquet of that most Heavenly Food" by " receiving the Comninnion in reniembrance of the Sacrifice of his death." This passage characterises the whole office ! The Order " declares that we spirit italhj eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood " — sliutting out thus a mystical sense of eating the bread and drinking the wine ! The words used by the ministering clergyman at the delivery of the elements, exclude from the intention of a reflecting celebrant or communicant, who respects the plain sense of language, the notion of there being, at the time of observance, any then existing sacrifice, except of "praise and thanksgiving," or an oblation, save of "souls ami bodies." The language is, "The budv, vl'cc., which ivas given" — ^" The blood whicii VJas shed." The glorified body — the only Iwdy of Jesus that now exists — therefore, is not within the intention of the " Order," much less on the communion table ! (see Acts iii. 21). The very "ordei'" supposes the bread to be used in a comniemora- tive character, atui in no other character ivhatever. In no other sense is the bread once referred to therein ! The minister is rf^nnirpH to sa.v of it. "Eat this, in remembrance that Christ Si. MattluMv relates that Christ, after ho had si)f)keii of theeiip as "' his hlood of ll»e covenant."— whicli. tlierefore. in a certain sense it was— and ]iad thus to tr lusniit tons the very words of our Lord, iu order to ob»'ate tJie J'o.-esecti fyuijerntitions that have iiiark-ed the future, hititory of hUi dmrchf Cf. Mi ■ '■fik^imiim^. ■ —- ^"•fiiH-r'fYliwtritin'liiW .10 rfinl for tTi('(;." Tliiis, tlic only piop'Tfy ascM-nictf ttt tfie Itreai is to coninipmoi'iift' lh<' ^(ii-iifivr itf (^!i rlst ! Tiic Order, tlicre- forc, iii(lis|tiitnl)ly cxcludi's a notion nf the Invati feceivecT Iji.'in" in (Hill s( list' tin- Rodv of oiir Lord ! Do all uiiiUHters consider tliis, as tlii'V oui^lit to do ^ A result of my sludy of rlio " ( )rder " just noticed, lias bfon a sentiment of adnui'ation foi- tlie nn'nds that fiamed it, so as to j^ive it its Sci'i[)t\iral cliaract) change breail and wine into "the Lord of (jllory," was too valuable not to be tui'ned t(j account of piiestly ambition. That its value to that end was not over-looked, hei'(.' ai'e sonu' pioofs atibrded by the eaily fathers :— ' Those at whose praytTs the body and lilood of ( 'hrist is made." St. Jerome. "We are entrusted ^vit•h the body and bhiod of Christ." St. Basil. " To whom hast thou committed the conseciated Idood of Christ r" St. Lawrence the Maityi'. "Those who are to be over the people, and handle tlie mighty b(»dy of ("hrist." St. Gregorv Nazian/.cn. What do the millions of our dissent- ing fellow Christians say to these high, and, of course, exclusive pretensions ? at .fii w tr. ■>i I- th sii m: co (,iy Cliii^i^ very wnd-, •' Take. e;U." \c. arc rcf'catcd : l)iU ///<■ Clitiych'x into ■ pn-tiitioii of I hem if llie "cIIu'l'" iutcipiLi:. ihcm al all i.s. at the delivery of the lireail, o\i.re>se(l dearly llnis : "Take and eat this, in rcmcmhramc that Christ died lot thi-i, and feed on flim in thy hca)t ." He has read liistorv in^u^K(!it'lltly who lias not learned from it lioNV easily eiToi', esix-cially if it take ti)» form of a mystery, finds a lod^niuMit in the laimajt mind, and liow tenacious it h wlien it has fixed itstdf theic With tlie oj'ii-inai simplieit\ '>f the in"~titutif tht- 'ijperstitiun <<« llicy itrr (iffordril />y (i.nJhc iitlc It'iAtorif ! We cannot chjnbt that tilt' Apostolic mode of aduiinistration was conformable to the simplicity of the Apostolic chara«fter. No apostolic hand, we may he sure, planted the germ of the peculiar doctrine. It could not have been a matter of concein to any one of the Apostolic band, wliether a partaker of the Enchai'ist had the bread put into his mouth, ordro])ped into his right hannt.s in support of tiiai simple cliarnct«^r of the institution which I havo ciKlcavouii'd to establish, as thn true one. The nascent fibres of tlie obj(!ctive presence doctrine, as we have seen, first struck into the soil of the church in post Apos- tolic times ; but there it (liart-l»('lief in th(? Saci'ifice of the Body and IMood of Christ — as indeed, St. Paul teaclies, Rom. x. II, 10 — is the Divinely appointed condition on which eternal life (k^pends ; or they iinport that of "eating tlie flesh of Christ and loo(l," in, atonic otJu'v i^ninc 'intended hy our Lord when He xpokf (it (Jnfernduiti, the effect was to be and is, " eternallife," as I'espects him who so eats and di'inks. They who rest tlieir view of inter{)retation of the words of institution— as many of those do who hold the doctrine of an objective real pre- sence* — on the effect of the words in question reported by St. Jolui, insist, that those woids were proleptically spoken, and referred to the Institution. If that was so, mark the inevi- table ('(»iist.Mpience. It would be, that faithfully to eat bread and drink wine, accoi'ding to Christ's appointment in the Eucharist, is til)S()hitely to Jnive eternal life. Our Lord, if such was his meaning, and su.ch his i-eference when He spoke the words in the synagogue, declai'ed that coiD^eqaenee, without any (jualirtcation or limitation, wdiatever. Thu.s He would be * I )r. \'(ii;an. ;it |i, 115 of hi^ wurk writes llius : " Tlu- words of iiislilulion wcri' ns liicral as ilio-c lie (Christ) had sjiokon once Ijclore : ' Whoso catclh my lloh and drinkelh my Mood hath eternal life ;' and I'V t/u: ail of histi/ii/ioii He Ljave His llesh and lii-> iilood, as really and as truly, iis /'/ 'uuis necessary to receive Ihciii." The learned author, of course, meant necessary /// o)-dcy to ctcrtta! life. It is to lie rei^relled that he did not indicate the mea>ine of that necessity I 35 made in (jfiVct to exclude his Passion from any efficiency in the work of Man's redemption 1 I have failtMl of my purpose if I have not sliown that the institution is, in its true character, commemorative ; and that, while to a faithful communicant " Christ crucified " is truly present, because that communicant cannot partake of the ordinance without .leriving life-giving sustenance from the infiuences of the Paraclete— Christ's Representative on earth —operated within his soul, as he devoutly observes a rite of which the symbols appointed by his Lord present his Lord's Passion to his mind and heart with solemn tenderness,— yet, the efficient, procuring cause of the gift of eternal life, inde- pendently altogether of the Institution, is the Sacrifice of (^hrist iJoiu~-tha.t Sacrifice being, of course, regarded in con- nection vvith its incidents recorded in Holy Scripture. LEWIS MORRIS WILKINS. WinrUor, Nova Scotia, Canada, Ckristniae Day, A.D.,18SI. NOTB: b. REFERRED TO ON PAGE It is .'^mumm- APPENDIX. The learned American Professor to whom I have referred thought my pecuHar view inadmissible, because the Greek words were not sufficiently emphatic to support it ; while I considered emphasis supplied by the presence of our Lord's body. To an eminent English theologian I submitted my reading of Luke xxii. 19. His duties did not leave him leisure to give much considera- tion to the subject; but, thoroughly conversant with it, he, on-- rente calamo, thus answered my appeal :_"But. I find myself un- able to take your view of Luke xxii. 19. Mv reason is' this. 1 should have expected 'My body' (Hin Lordship used the Greek words) to form part of the subject, not of the predicate, if the meanmg which you put upon the words had been intended ■ Would not our Lord then have said, This my body is given for you ?' 1 am unable to understand how the truism -This is my body' should have been allowed a place, it being then equivalent to 'This body IS my body.' " He- a champion of the truth- will, for Its sake, ask himself, if his cbjections mav not be met b-- these arguments which are presented with much deference If St. Matthew's 'This is my body' were the onlv words, and the body the antecedent, the words would express a truism. But I do not deal with those words alone. I trather the utterance from all the narratives. Thus I have before me the sentence submit- ted, in which 'This'(with bodyimderstood) is 'the subject,' 'is' the copula, 'my body ichich is given for ,ioiC the predicate. That sen- tence, so far from declaring a truism, asserts in its predicate, ./ Me 6-wZyW, the act of self-sacrifice that punhased our Redemp- tion. Again, the difference between 'This my body is given for you' and 'This is my body which is given for you' is one of form only. In substance the propositions are the same. Again to the question ^U our Lord meant to refer to his body, would he not have .said 'This my body is given for you r a dialectic answer is, as I think, furnished by my question, put above, viz.: 'If Christ had intended to refer to the "bread" which was before him,' in familiar use, and to indicate a miraculous purpose in relation to lii //. uoiild he not have specified it and said 'This l,rc(t,l is my body, etc.? He most certainly \\oiild not have said 'This ihlNij is my body, etc./ if he had intended to iilcrdifij tlir hrcad irUI, /i/f< doif//. Yet. that 's precisely what the Greek pronoun makes him say. if it does not mean 'the body.' On this point read note (a) p. iS. As the paterfamih'as, at the Paschal Feast, was wont to say 'Eat the body of the 'Passover,' so our Paterfamilias niigiit be ex- pected in effect to say to Jewish guests, 'You have been hitherto reminded of the irrcji'iurlnr) hod;/ of the lundt ;' but, now, itnt fliof Ixtdij, but 'This body, is my body given for you.' Christ's body would thus be made emphatically the xid/}<'i'f of the sentence. Moreover, the body and the bread being alike present, the i/mdcr of the pronoun consjiires with the reason of the thing, to fix (diKo- luteh/, relation of the pronoun to f/ic hiidij. It is certain that, but for what is peculiar in the reports of St. Luke and St. Paul, we should have now no Eucharistic rite. The two lir-I I^an^uli;-!'-. if ilic_\ stuod a/iui:. wouM tluis wiilidnt incuc. Ini'Ntut 'hrisi's winds .ind ;ict> : "• Take, l\al "" (tlie f^'ivcii Ineaill : " Tl)i> i^ my lituly :" Jiiii so no purpose of the lOiiiniand -^'oulil he dcclarci. anJ n.< rhiUafU-r '.■o/t/i/ he x-i7'f>/ to the lustiliitioii ! St-e note a jiai^e 20. 'd I juMin'^ " Memoirs" (whatever tliey went rejioiled ChiiNt's words and acts in the fnllowin- scMineiue. vi/: (1) " I )o this in leiiieiMliranre ot nie."' {2) "Thisis '">■ hody. ■ (31 -'An.! lie delivered to liieui alone." Thi.s is \fry dilVcrent, in form and , ii'd,^ coitstnilncd, to <(i>i>l!l the pro- noini to t/ic hri'ody of Christ! As I have shown, that suljject, unexpressed, was as certainly referred to by the first pronoun in Luke xxii. 19, as unexpressed, also, it was, as St. John tells us, meant by our Lord s words reported in John ii. 19 ! In the words of appointment 'Do this, etc.,' has, so far as ex- egesis is concerned, no connection with 'This is, etc' In rela- tion to the former, if it be asked, 'Do tvhat V The answer is 'Break bread'— 'Thank God for it'— 'Eat it.' To a question, ^For what purpose T the answer must be, 'Christ has declared — and therefore Vnnited ("Expressum facit cessare tacitum,") the purpose, by saying 'Do this m reuunnhranee of me.' In reference to the other distinct words, 'T/iw is my body which is given for you,' if it be asked, 'What means ^This f the mute eloquence of the presence of the sacred /^r^rZ//, of which "suffering,'' then im- minent, became a fact on the morrow — gave, and gives now, the onhj an^fwer, to irhich there will not attach a possihility of dis- lionorinij Christ, and of Impairinij the di(jnifi/ (f "The Lord^s Slipper,*' as II< instituted it." (tl !-**|,ii, Til It' autliuls peculiar rc:iilili;^f or tliusc wumIs i nut l('(|U fth ivi'd t( sui>])uit his main coiitciitiun ; but, if llic.y tlo .-wiuiilv iiitlicatf tin sHcriticii ol <'liiist's Itody and its [)urpust'. jscc \kv^>' '.tjtliat view ac ('<']it('d. ail cuutiuNXTsy as to the riti' is at an en 1. That i'Xoj;;('sis winch sn|>]iosfs a real ultjt'ctivt! ])rc.S('ii('t' at tlie institution and at all fulurc cclcijiations. maizes uur i/.ud in circct say : • I In'ad— -//'// iidir r.fixtiiiif — lirhl ill tln' hand of a crlcltrant. twenty centuiiefi henoe, i-t really and olijeet'vely my l)ody wliicii, />• on this Paschal diiy, 'ijln'n firr ijcn! Anotlier such u.se of a form of the vorb 'io be' has not yet been fuund in lit( raturt:, sacred oi' secular. This in- tev]ji'et;ition ]iecossitates controversy, and will be, as it is, rejected by millions, exercising' reason ani^waiiid Inj siii:(:i:1nral characler of the ordinance. \ *««4:«'T:'f*;i*i