principles; approbation is the source of the former; compassion of the latter.

122. Jesus foretels the fall and recovery of Peter. Matt.xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. John xiii.

PETER wanted to know whither Jesus was going; but he told him that he could not follow him then, though he should follow him hereafter. His work was not accomplished, nor had he yet the martyr's spirit. He then declared that they would all be overcome with temptation that night, and desert him, as Zechariah (xiii. 7.) had predicted; but that after he had risen from the dead, he should go before them into Galilee. Peter, confident in his own strength, persisted in maintaining, that whatever others might do, he would never desert him. Our Lord replied, that Satan had sought to sift them all; but that he had prayed for him in particular, that his faith might not fail, (that is, not finally like that of Judas; for it was overcome for a season,) and admonishes him, when recovered, to strengthen his brethren. He assures him, when he declares his readiness to follow him to prison or to death, that he knew himself so little, that, to avoid the possibility of danger, even that very night he shall thrice deny him. Peter only renewed his asseveration; and this self-confidence was the first step to his fall. He then reminded them all, that when he had sent them out before, he had not allowed them to make any provision for their journey, yet they had every where found an hospitable reception. Now, on the contrary, they must look forward to hardships, and even to persecution; they must take whatever they had, purse and bag, for few would be disposed to assist them, and a sword for their protection would seem even more necessary than a cloak. Upon this they showed him two swords which they happened to have, (arms being probably then carried by travellers for their security,) and he replied, "It is enough."

h Sanderson's Sermon: text, Honour all men, love the brethren.

Two swords were not enough for the approaching attack, if he had meditated resistance; and this we know, from his reproof to Peter for using one of them, was not his intention. It follows therefore that he spoke figuratively; his meaning, however, was not taken, but he did not deem it necessary to explain it. His language is ambiguous; the best explanation seems to be, that he meant to close the conversation, as they had misconceived him, and the event would soon correct their inferences. It is a common Hebrew phrase, when one wishes to stop the unappropriate remarks of another'.

123. Jesus institutes the Sacrament of the commemoration of his death. Matt. xxvi. Mark xiv. Luke xx.

THE paschal supper being finished, Jesus took the loaf, and divided it among them, and commanded them all to drink of the cup, thus instituting the Lord's supper; a name which reminds us both of the person who instituted it, and the hour when it was originally celebrated. It is also called the Eucharist, because the act which it represents above all others demands our gratitude; the Sacrament, from the Latin word for the military oath, which bound the Roman soldiers, because it pledges the participant to allegiance and obedience to his Master, "who has bought him with a price," ""whose he is, and whom he ought to serve ;" and the Communion, because, as St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 17.) expresses it, we are therein partakers of the same loaf; and are so reminded, that all Christians, whatever may be their external differences, should regard themselves as members of one family, of which Christ is the head. His appointment of this solemn commemoration of his death, is in itself a strong presumption that he was the Messiah; for what impostor or enthusiast would wish to perpetuate the memory of the ignominious termination of his life by the decree of the

i This speech is considered by some as justifying self-defence against robbers, though not in opposition to the civil power.

magistrate? It is, however, more than this, for why should not his followers rather commemorate his miraculous birth, or his triumphant resurrection? The mode of keeping it is still more extraordinary, for it is not by a fast but by a feast; not with mourning, but with joy and thankfulness. Deny the atonement and its consequences, and this manner of showing forth the Lord's death is inexplicable; admit it, and the ordinance is natural, and in the highest degree significant.

The institution of this Sacrament has been described by the first three Evangelists; and as it has been passed over by the fourth, we infer from his silence, that they had transmitted all the necessary information. We have another account of it in St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xi. which he received immediately from the Lord; and this special revelation proves both the importance and the perpetuity of the ordinance. His words, "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show forth the Lord's death till he come," demonstrate that this Sacrament was designed not for the Apostles only, but for believers in every age; and, accordingly, with the solitary exception of the Quakers, all denominations of Christians, though some exalt it too high, and others degrade it too low, agree in retaining it as an indispensable part of divine service. It is indeed "a badge of Christian men's profession;" for though we may attend a place of worship, we cannot be considered as members of the Church, unless we sometimes comply with this last command of its founder, who hath been pleased to unite "his people into a society by two Sacraments, most easy to be observed, most important in their meaning; the one of which, Baptism, admits into covenant with Him; the other, a devout commemoration of his death, marks continuance in it." He has left each national branch of his Church to adopt or reject rites and ceremonies, as appears to it most conducive to edification. But the Sacraments being ordained by Christ himself, Christ alone has the power to abrogate. No particular form having been enjoined by him, the manner of administering and receiving, and all that is circumstantial, may vary in

different times and places, but the essential parts, the water in the one, and the bread and the wine in the other, no Church can have a right to omit. And yet that corrupt Church, which arrogates to herself exclusively the title of Catholic, and is distinguished by so many doctrinal errors, had, long before the Reformation, taken away the cup from the laity. It has no custom more difficult to defend; for its divines confess, that they cannot plead antiquity in their favour; and a sufficient confutation is conveyed in the thirtieth Article of our Church, which affirms, that both parts of the Lord's Supper, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christian men alike. It naturally arose out of the doctrine of transubstantiation. To prevent any profanation of what was considered to be the real body of the Lord, small wafers were substituted for bread, which were put at once into the mouth of the communicants by the officiating minister, instead of being delivered into the hand; but no expedient could be devised against the occasional spilling of the wine. The practice of withholding it began in the twelfth century, but it was first acknowledged by authority in 1414, by the Council of Constance. One of its decrees allows, that the faithful in the primitive Church did receive in both kinds, yet the practice of giving to the laity only in one being reasonably introduced to avoid some dangers and scandals, it appoints it to continue. It is remarkable, that Pope Gelasius, in the fifth century, having heard that the Manichæans, who held it a sin to taste wine, partook not of the cup, decreed, that all persons should either communicate entirely, or be entirely excluded, for that such a dividing of one and the same Sacrament could not be done without a heinous sacrilege. In the Council of Trent the power of granting the use of the cup to any nation, and the conditions of the grant, were finally left to the Pope, as a question not of doctrine but of discipline. To meet the objection of Pope Gelasius the modern Romanists assert, that the Apostles partook of the bread as laymen, and were constituted priests by the act of receiving the cup. This gratuitous supposition Bb

is confuted by our Lord's command, "Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins;" for the words show that they were to drink not on account of their office but their sins; and the reason applies in every age to all believers who are sinners. It appears also, that they were not made presbyters till after the resurrection, when their Master breathed upon them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." St. Paul's language shows that the Sacrament is to be received in both kinds; and He himself, in the synagogue of Capernaum, spake as much of the necessity of drinking his blood as of

eating his flesh. To vindicate the practice the Romanist

assumes, that Christ is received whole and entire in the bread alone, so that those to whom that only is given are defrauded thereby of no saving grace; but this argument proves too much, as it would equally answer for withholding the cup from the clergy. Enthusiasm naturally seizes upon metaphor, and gives it a literal sense; and we may easily conceive, that when writers for a succession of ages have spoken in a declamatory way of the necessity of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, and then kept trying to surpass each other in flights of devotion, they might come at last to profess as a doctrine, that the consecrated bread and wine were without a figure converted into what they represent. The doctrine is called transubstantiation, because it asserts, that the bread and wine on consecration lose their own substance, and become the body and blood of Christ; yet, as they still appear to be the same as before consecration, this hypothesis is helped out by another, that though the substance be changed, the accidents or qualities remain. If our Lord had not used the words, "This is my body," preceded sometime before by a discourse, in which he declared that he who did not "eat his body and drink his blood had no life in him;" so extraordinary a notion could hardly have prevailed. And as it is, it is surprising that any should

i Hey's Lectures on Divinity.