tion," Acts x. 41. But it is no where said that he drank wine; but rather water, their ordinary beverage at meals; for this was sufficient to establish the reality of his corporeal presence. It remains therefore to be fulfilled at his second coming in glory, as more explicitly stated in the sequel.

"After the paschal supper," (devov yɛvoμevov,) or when the first course was ended, JESUS arose from table, and departing from the usage, prepared to wash the Apostles' feet himself, to set them an example of humility to their inferiors; that as He, whom they justly and emphatically styled "THE TEACHER," and "THE LORD t," washed their feet, so should they likewise wash each other's feet.

Offended at what he deemed a degradation of his LORD, Peter at first refused to let JESUS wash his feet, until JESUS declared that otherwise he should be rejected as a disciple. After this ceremony, our Lord said that "they were pure, but not all," alluding to the traitor Judas, whose intention to deliver him up he knew; and in reference to him, he cited a Scripture prophecy, He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me, Psalm xli. 10, as an aggravation of his treachery; stating further, that he foretold this, before it happened, for the confirmation of their faith afterwards, John xiii. 2-19.

This significant lesson of humility, might have been suggested by the recent ambitious contest between the disciples for precedence; in reference to which, he warned them not to imitate. the pride and arrogance of the kings of the Gentiles, who lorded it over their subjects, and assumed the pompous title of benefactors; but rather to imitate his example, who, though their LEADER, now acted as their attendant at table, Luke xxii. 24-27.

To encourage them for their perseverance in adhering to him. during his trials, he promised them a glorious future reward: 66 As my Father hath granted unto me a kingdom, even so, I grant unto you, to eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom; and to sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel;" (as this important passage may be more correctly translated,) Luke

&c.

See Judg. iv. 19, 1 Kings xiii. 9-19, xvii. 6, xix. 6, Amos viii. 11, Matt. x. 42,

† Ὁ διδασκαλος, και, ὁ Κύριος, distinct titles of CHRIST. Middleton, p. 369. articles are therefore injudiciously omitted in the English Bible, John xiii. 13.

The

xxii. 28-30. This was foretold to be "in the regeneration," Matt. xix. 28.

But to correct the worldly-minded notions of them all, and especially of Peter, he addressed this emphatic warning to them, through him: "Simon, Simon, Lo Satan hath sought to sift you, (vuas,) as wheat; but I prayed for thee in particular, (TEL oov,) that thy faith fail not; and thou, when converted, confirm thy brethren." But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee both to prison and to death." To check his over confidence, our Lord foretold, "this night the cock shall not crow twice, until thou shalt deny Me thrice," Matt. xxvi. 34, Mark xiv. 30, Luke xxii. 31-34, John xiii. 36-38 *.

2. After they had placed themselves again at table, to eat the second course, JESUS was troubled in spirit, and again testified more plainly than before, "Verily, verily I say unto you, that one of you shall deliver me up. Lo, the hand of him that is to deliver me up, is with me at the table. And they were greatly grieved, and began each of them to say unto him, one by one, Is it I, Lord? and another, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish [of sallad,] the same shall deliver me up. The SON OF MAN indeed departeth, as it is written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is delivered up: it had been well for that man if he had not been born," Matt. xxvi. 21-24, Mark xviii. 21, Luke xxii. 21, 22.

Judas now asked, in turn, Is it I, Rabbi? and Jesus answered in the affirmative, Thou hast said †. But this was in a low voice, unheard by the rest, Matt. xxvi. 25.

Meanwhile the disciples looked at each other, doubting of whom he spake. Then Peter, the most inquisitive, nodded to John, who reclined on Jesus' bosom, next to him at table, to enquire whom he meant; and Jesus answered John in a low

It is not easy to harmonise the four Evangelists in the precise time of this transaction. From Matthew and Mark, we should conclude, that Peter was forewarned, on the way to Mount Olivet, after they had left the Cœnaculum, or supper room, Matt. xxvi. 30-33, Mark xiv. 26-29. But Luke gives the warning in the room, and before the institution of the Lord's Supper, Luke xxii. 14-31; whereas John, although he gives it in the room, yet places it before the institution of the Lord's Supper, and the ensuing discourses; and long before he went out to Mount Olivet, xviii. 1. I have followed John therefore, the latest, and, as to the order of time, most exact of the Evangelists.

This phrase implied a decided affirmation. See Matt. xxvii. 64.

voice, He it is, to whom I shall give the morsel, after dipping it [in the sauce.] And when he had dipped it, He gave it to Judas Iscariot. And after the morsel, Satan * entered into lim again, and took full possession of his heart: for finding that he was now detected by JESUS, and marked out to the whole company, by that significant act, rage and fear prompted him to put his premeditated treachery into instant execution, lest he should be prevented from "earning the wages of iniquity." So he rose from table, as we may collect from our Lord's saying aloud to him, "What thou doest, do quickly." Thereupon he immediately went out, and it was night. But none of the company knew why JESUS spake thus unto him: for some thought, because Judas held the purse, that JESUS had commissioned him to purchase necessaries for the feast, or to give somewhat to the poor, John xiii. 23—30.

The departure of the traitor at this stage of the entertainment not only gave him full time to concert matters for apprehending his Lord with the chief priests; but also excluded him from the Eucharist, of which he was unworthy to partake.

INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

3. When Judas had departed, (John xiii. 31 †,) instead of the third course of the entertainment, OUR LORD substituted his supper, as it is styled by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 20, of which, indeed, that third course was typical, as the shadow of a new," and "a better covenant," Jer. xxxi. 31; Heb. viii. 6—13.

66

The following is the substance of Bishop Hall's awakening contemplation hereon. "Favours ill used make the heart more guilty, and capable of further evil; that wicked Spirit commonly takes occasion, by any of GoD's gifts, to assault us the more eagerly after our sacramental morsel, if we be not the better, we are surely the worse. Thus Satan took advantage by the sop, of a further possession, who had twice before made a palpable entry into his false heart; first in his covetousness and theft, and next in his damnable plot of conspiracy against CHRIST: as in every gross sin which we entertain, we give harbour to that evil one, so at every growth in wickedness, new hold is taken by him of the heart. At first Satan entered, to make the house' of Judas' heart 'his own:' now he enters it as being 'his.' The first purpose of sin opens the gates to Satan; consent admits him into the entry; full resolution of sin gives up the keys into his hands, and puts him into absolute possession. What an awakening consideration to every serious heart. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.'

↑ John entirely omits the institution of the Lord's Supper, as being already detailed by the other Evangelists, and proceeds immediately to the discourses that followed it at the Conaculum and at the Mount of Olives.

The form of the institution is thus collected from the joint accounts of the Evangelists and St. Paul.

After the [Paschal] supper*, JESUS took the bread [that had been reserved at the second course, and covered with a napkin,] and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my body, which is to be broken ↑ and given † for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

Likewise, he took the cup, and blessed, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Covenant, or the New Covenant [ratified] in my blood, which is to be shed + for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this,

* METα TO SELπvnoαι. This character of the time of the institution is attached by Luke, xxii. 20, to the administration of the cup, but it "likewise" applies to the administration of the bread in the preceding verse 19, as signified by woavтws, connected with μerα To dεπvŋoal. And indeed it appears, from the whole tenor of the history, (as recorded also by Matthew, Mark, and Paul,) that both were administered, in uninterrupted continuation, at the same time; like the bread and wine at the third and last course of the Jewish passover, on which this rite was founded.

Not sufficiently adverting to this apparent transposition of the time, Archbishop Newcome, in his Harmony, has separated the institution of the cup from that of the bread; and arbitrarily inserted between them OUR LORD's consolatory discourse, John xiv. 1-30, cutting off its conclusion, ver. 31, essentially connected therewith, by the particle ada, which was spoken, after all was over, in quitting the Conaculum.

† These participles, κλωμενον, διδομενον, εκχυνόμενον, though in the present tense, are to be understood in the future, for μελλον κλασθαι, διδοσθαι, εκχύνεσθαι, according to the frequent usage of the Evangelists, and the best classic authors. The propriety of this reasoning is confirmed by the Romish Antwerp Missal of 1626, "published according to the decree of the Council of Trent, by command of Pius V. and revised by authority of Clement VIII.," which thus renders the words of consecration of the elements into Latin:

Hoc est enim corpus meum- -et hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi [et æterni] testamenti, [mysterium Fidei] qui, pro vobis et pro multis, effundetur, in remissionem peccatorum.

Here the expression qui effundetur, "which shall be shed," critically renders the Greek of St. Paul, to eкxvvoμevov, incorrectly rendered in our English Bible, “which is shed."

This authority, the very highest in the Church of Rome, is decisive against the monstrous tenet of transubstantiation, or "change" of the elements "into the substance" of the body and blood of CHRIST, by the priest, in the sacrifice of the mass, by virtue of the words of consecration. For surely these words, uttered by the priest, can signify no more than when uttered by CHRIST; and He evidently alluded to the approaching sacrifice of himself on the cross; on which his body was to be broken, or pierced, and his blood shed by the nails and by the spear.

Her sacrament of the mass is also contrary to Scripture, and to primitive usage, in withholding the cup from the laity, which she inconsistently grants to the priest. This innovation, introduced by the Council of Constance, and sanctioned by the Council of Trent, was early censured by Pope Leo, in 440, as a deviation from primitive usage, borrowed from the Manichean Heretics." And by Pope Gelasius in 492, who prohi

as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me, [after my departure.] For I say unto you, that I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you, new, in my Father's kingdom; or in the regeneration, as observed before, Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23–25.

The Lord's Supper, therefore, was instituted for a solemn memorial of " the sacrifice of the death of CHRIST, and of the benefits we receive thereby," if we participate worthily, with hearty repentance and true faith. "Do this in remembrance of me." And it was to subsist until his next advent in glory, at the regeneration. "For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the LORD's death, till He come," 1 Cor. xi. 26.

4. To mark the analogy between the two institutions, the Jewish and the Christian, more strongly, OUR LORD concluded this by singing a hymn with his disciples, (vuvnσavres,) Matt. xxvi. 30; Mark xiv. 26. And the same expression for the Great Halleluiah, is used in the Midrash Tillim, p, Himnum. Lightfoot.

When the whole was ended, JESUS said, "Now is the SON OF MAN glorified," (do§ao0n) [by the discharge of his ministry.] And GOD is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, GOD shall also glorify Him in himself, and shall glorify him speedily, [at his resurrection, Psalm ii. 7, cx. 1; Rom. i. 4; Phil. ii. 8, 9 ;] John xiii. 31, 32.

This speedy glorification and exaltation in heaven, at God's right hand, he thus more fully expressed.

Dear children *, I am to be with you but a little longer: ye

bited it as "a sacrilegious communion," violating our Lord's positive command, “Drink ye all of it;" and he thus well explained the true nature and design of the institution : "The sacraments of the body and blood of CHRIST are a divine thing, because by them we become partakers of the Divine nature, (2 Pet. i. 4,) and yet, the substance of bread and wine does not cease to exist: and the image and resemblance of the body and blood of CHRIST are celebrated in holy mysteries." De duabus naturis Christi.

N. B. The Antwerp Missal, by the explanatory clause, mysterium Fidei, like Pope Gelasius, evidently considered the mysterious words of consecration to be meant figuratively; as they were also understood by the primitive fathers of the Church, especially Origen and Augustine, the latter, the oracle of the Romish Church. See the Doctrine of Transubstantiation examined, in the Ninth of my Letters to Dr. Troy, published in the Antijacobin Review, September, 1807.

• The diminutive Teкvia is expressive of fondness. iv. 19; and John the Christians, to whom he wrote, v. 21, &c.

So Paul calls the Galatians,

1 John ii. 12, iii. 17, iv. 4,