ing out of the nature of things, and the dif ferent ends of the two appointments. It was, for instance, generally, a more obvious and natural appeal to those, of whom baptized persons was a description no less proper, than circumcised was of the Jews, not to disgrace the faith they had professed in Baptism, than not to act inconsistently with their participation in the body and blood of their Lord. The latter might, as indeed we find it did, become, occasionally, the more prevailing topic of exhortation; but it would not be the ordinary resource, nor do we find it so. And the general appeals, in which Baptism was naturally in the first instance resorted to, being necessarily more frequent than the particular occasions, for which a reference to the Lord's Supper would be most appropriate and effectual; this would, of itself, sufficiently account for the notices of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament being fewer, than those of Baptism.

Hence we shall find, that the significancy

a 1 Cor. x.

of the outward action, the language made use of by our Lord in its institution, and the circumstances attending its first appointment, will be, in the case of the Lord's Supper, even more important in determining the nature of the benefits resulting from its use and administration, than we found them in the case of Baptism. While the texts, to which we shall subsequently have occasion to refer, though fewer in number, will be, I should hope, not less clear in their application, nor less determinate in their language.

The primary significaney of the action, in the case of the Lord's Supper, is sufficiently obvious. Eating and drinking, whatever be the viands, can be naturally significant but of one thing, the refreshment of him who participates in them. And eating and drinking together, can convey to the mind, whether naturally or conventionally, but one idea, that of a feast; it matters not for the present of what character; it may be commemorative, it may be federative, it may be simply expressive of general satisfaction or rejoicing for benefits, or blessings,

of the possession of which the partakers in the feast are conscious, and which they have a delight in manifesting openly to others. These are the natural and usual motives of such celebrations, and some of these might therefore be not unreasonably presumed to have influenced, in the appointment of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

But the specific character of the feast, cannot, it is plain, be determined from considerations so general, either alone or principally. This must be ascertained from the declarations of the Founder, or the special circumstances, under which it was appointed. Generally however, and previously to the particular examination of these, we may observe, that the institution of a religious festival directs us at once to look for some spiritual end of the institution; that it would be inconsistent in any case, and impossible in that before us, to imagine, that a rite, enjoined by the Founder of the religion, and peremptorily enforced upon all who should embrace it, should have reference to the support of our outward frame only, or to the mere bodily gratification

P

consequent upon eating and drinking: some further object, and that of a spiritual nature, seems indispensable to give its due importance to an institution professedly divine.

With the leading idea, therefore, always present to our minds, that the rite we are investigating is of the nature of a feast, and with the recollection, that it was instituted for spiritual purposes, let us proceed to ascertain more precisely, from the words and circumstances of institution, the specific character of the sacrament; the more immediate end for which it was ordained; and the particular benefits flowing from its celebration.

The words of institution, as they are very remarkable, so they have been particularly handed down to us, not only by three of the Evangelists, in the regular course of their narratives in the Gospels, but by the Apostle Paul, in correcting some errors of administration into which the Corinthian converts had fallen.

It will be advisable, though generally familiar to us, to state them with such parti

cularity, as may enable us to make use of the whole information conveyed by them. For though there is no substantial difference in their accounts, yet in different parts of their narration some are more explicit than others. I will therefore go through the statement of St. Matthew, as the first occurring, and as coming from an eyewitness of the transaction; and point out, as we go on, any additional or explanatory circumstances detailed to us by the other sacred historians.

St. Matthew says, that as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body; to which St. Luke adds, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. St. Paul agrees with St. Luke, except in substituting which is broken, for which is given for you.

and

St. Matthew goes on, And he took the сир, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the

b Matt. xxvi. 26.

c Luke xxii. 19.

d 1 Cor. xi. 24.