V BOOK phrastic. The differences between them are, of course, exceedingly minute; but they exist. As regards the text which underlies the rendering in our A. V., the differences suggested are not of any practical importance,' with the exception of two points. First, the copula ‘¿s' [This is My Body,' 'This is My Blood '] was certainly not spoken by the Lord in the Aramaic, just as it does not occur in the Jewish formula in the breaking of bread at the beginning of the Paschal Supper. Secondly, the words: Body which is given,' or, in 1 Cor. xi. 24, 'broken,' and ' Blood which is shed,' should be more correctly rendered is being given,' 'broken,'' shed.' a St. Matt. xxvi. 26; St. Mark xiv. 22 6 If we now ask ourselves at what part of the Paschal Supper the new Institution was made, we cannot doubt that it was before the Supper was completely ended." We have seen, that Judas had left the Table at the beginning of the Supper. The meal continued to its end, amidst such conversation as has already been noted. According to the Jewish ritual, the third Cup was filled at the close of the 1 Cor. x. 16 Supper. This was called, as by St. Paul, the Cup of Blessing,' partly, because a special blessing' was pronounced over it. It is described as one of the ten essential rites in the Paschal Supper. Next, grace after meat' was spoken. But on this we need not dwell, nor yet on the washing of hands' that followed. The latter would not be observed by Jesus as a religious ceremony; while, in regard to the former, the composite character of this part of the Paschal Liturgy affords internal evidence that it could not have been in use at the time of Christ. But we can have little doubt, that the Institution of the Cup was in connection with this third Cup of Blessing.' If we are asked, what part of the Paschal Service corresponds to the Breaking of Bread,' we answer, that this being really the last Pascha, and the cessation of it, our Lord anticipated the later rite, introduced when, with the destruction of the Temple, the Paschal as all other Sacrifices ceased. While the Paschal Lamb was still offered, it was the Law that, after partaking of its flesh, nothing else should be eaten. But since the Paschal Lamb has ceased, it is the custom after the meal to break and partake as Aphikomon, or after-dish, of that half of the unleavened cake, which, as will be remembered, had been broken and put aside at the beginning of the 2 6 1 The most important of these, perhaps, is the rendering of covenant' for 'testament.' In St. Matthew the word 'new' before covenant' should be left out; this also in St. Mark, as well as the word 'eat' after 'take.' 2 Though, of course, most widely differing from what is an attempt to trace an analogy between the Ritual of the Romish Mass and the Paschal Liturgy of the Jews, the article on it by the learned Professor Bickell, of Innsbruck, possesses a curious interest. See Zeitsch. für Kathol. Theol. for 1880, pp. 90-112. THE WORDS OF THE INSTITUTION AND THEIR MEANING. Supper. The Paschal Sacrifice having now really ceased, and consciously so to all the disciples of Christ, He anticipated this, and connected with the breaking of the Unleavened Cake at the close of the Meal the Institution of the breaking of Bread in the Holy Eucharist. What did the Institution really mean, and what does it mean to us? We cannot believe that it was intended as merely a sign for remembrance of His Death. Such remembrance is often equally vivid in ordinary acts of faith or prayer; and it seems difficult, if no more than this had been intended, to account for the Institution of a special Sacrament, and that with such solemnity, and as the second great rite of the Church-that for its nourishment. Again, if it were a mere token of remembrance, why the Cup as well as the Bread? Nor can we believe, that the copula 'is'—which, indeed, did not occur in the words spoken by Christ Himself-can be equivalent to 'signifies.' As little can it refer to any change of substance, be it in what is called Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If we may venture an explanation, it would be that this,' received in the Holy Eucharist, conveys to the soul as regards the Body and Blood of the Lord, the same effect as the Bread and the Wine to the body-receiving of the Bread and the Cup in the Holy Communion is, really, though spiritually, to the Soul what the outward elements are to the Body: that they are both the symbol and the vehicle of true, inward, spiritual feeding on the Very Body and Blood of Christ. So is this Cup which we bless fellowship of His Blood, and the Bread we break of His Body -fellowship with Him Who died for us, and in His dying; fellowship also in Him with one another, who are joined together in this, that for us this Body was given, and for the remission of our sins this precious Blood was shed.' lessed mystery this of Most mysterious words these, yet most feeding on Christ spiritually and in faith. 'he who takes from us our mystery takes from us our Sacrament.” 2 And ever since has this blessed Institution lain as the golden morning-light far out even in the Church's darkest night-not only the seal of His Presence and its pledge, but also the promise of the bright Day at His Coming. For as often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we do show forth the Death of the Lord-for the life of the world, to be assuredly yet manifested-till He come." 'Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!' I would here refer to the admirable critical notes on 1 Cor. x. and xi. by Professor Erans in The Speaker's Commentary.' 2 The words are a hitherto unprinted utterance on this subject by the late Professor J. Duncan, of Edinburgh. 511 CHAP. X CHAPTER XI. THE LAST DISCOURSES OF CHRIST THE PRAYER OF CONSECRATION.1 (St. John xiv.; xv.; xvi.; xvii.) THE new Institution of the Lord's Supper did not finally close what passed at that Paschal Table. According to the Jewish Ritual, the Cup is filled a fourth time, and the remaining part of the Hallel repeated. Then follow, besides Ps. cxxxvi., a number of prayers and hymns, of which the comparatively late origin is not doubtful. The same remark applies even more strongly to what follows after the fourth Cup. But, so far as we can judge, the Institution of the Holy Supper was followed by the Discourse recorded in St. John xiv. Then the concluding Psalms of the Hallel were sung, after which the Master left the Upper Chamber.' The Discourse of Christ recorded in St. John xvi., and His prayer, were certainly uttered after they had risen from the Supper, and before they crossed the brook Kidron. In all probability they were, however, spoken before the Saviour left the house. We can scarcely imagine such a Discourse, and still less such a Prayer, to have been uttered while traversing the narrow streets of Jerusalem on the way to Kidron. 1. In any case there cannot be doubt, that the first Discourse was spoken while still at the Supper-Table. It connects itself closely with that statement which had caused them so much sorrow and perplexity, that, whither He was going, they could not come. If so, the Discourse itself may be arranged under these four particulars: explanatory and corrective; explanatory and teaching; hortatory and promissory; promissory and consolatory. Thus there is constant and connected progress, the two great elements in the Discourse being: teaching and comfort. k At the outset we ought, perhaps, to remember the very common Jewish idea, that those in glory occupied different abodes, correspond 'As in general, so here especially, the reader is requested to peruse this chapter with the open Bible beside him. It can scarcely be followed otherwise. THE MANY MANSIONS IN THE FATHER'S HOUSE. a 513 CHAP. ΧΙ Baba Mez. from top, 83 b, line 13 and other passages bb St. John ing to their ranks. If the words of Christ, about the place whither they could not follow Him, had awakened any such thoughts, the explanation which He now gave must effectually have dispelled them. Let not their hearts, then, be troubled at the prospect. As they believed in God, so let them also have trust in Him.' It was His Father's House of which they were thinking, and although there were many mansions,' or rather stations,' in it-and the choice of this word may teach us something-yet they were all in that one House. Could they not trust Him in this? Surely, if it had been otherwise, He would have told them, and not left them to be bitterly disappointed in the end. Indeed, the object of His going was the opposite of what they feared: it was to prepare by His Death and Resurrection a place for them. Nor let them think that His going away would imply permanent separation, because He had said they could not follow Him thither. Rather did His going, not away, but to prepare a place for them, imply His Coming again, primarily as regarded individuals at death, and secondarily as regarded the Church -that He might receive them unto Himself, there to be with Him. Not final separation, then, but ultimate gathering to Himself, did His present going away mean. 'And whither I know the way.' go-ye Jesus had referred to His going to the Father's House, and implied that they knew the way which would bring them thither also. But His Words had only the more perplexed, at least some of them. If, when speaking of their not being able to go whither He went, He had not referred to a separation between them in that land far away, whither was He going? And, in their ignorance of this, how could they find their way thither? If any Jewish ideas of the disappearance and the final manifestation of the Messiah lurked beneath the question of Thomas, the answer of the Lord placed the matter in the clearest light. He had spoken of the Father's House of many 'stations,' but only one road led thither. They must all know it: it was that of personal apprehension of Christ in the life, the mind, and the heart. The way to the Father was Christ; the full manifestation of all spiritual truth, and the spring of the true inner life were equally in Him. Except through Him, no man could consciously come to the Father. Thomas had put his twofold question thus: What was the goal? and, what was the way to it? In His ver. 5 answer Christ significantly reversed this order, and told them first what was the way-Himself; and then what was the goal. If they 1 I prefer retaining the rendering of the A. V., as more congruous to the whole context. xiv. 1-4 BOOK V a St. John xiv. 7 b ver. 8 e ver. 12 d vv. 13, 14 had spiritually known Him as the way, they would also have known the goal, the Father; and now, by having the way clearly pointed out, they must also know the goal, God; nay, He was, so to speak, visibly before them—and, gazing on Him, they saw the shining track up to heaven, the Jacob's ladder at the top of which was the Father." But once more appeared in the words of Philip that carnal literalising, which would take the words of Christ in only an external sense. Sayings like these help us to perceive the absolute need of another Teacher, the Holy Spirit. Philip understood the words of Christ as if He held out the possibility of an actual sight of the Father; and this, as they imagined, would for ever have put an end to all their doubts and fears. We also, too often, would fain have such solution of our doubts, if not by actual vision, yet by direct communication from on high. In His reply Jesus once more and emphatically returned to this truth, that the vision, which was that of faith alone, was spiritual, and in no way external; and that this manifestation had been, and was fully, though spiritually and to faith, in Him. Or did Philip not believe that the Father was really manifested in Christ, because he did not actually behold Him? Those words which had drawn them and made them feel that heaven was so near, they were not His own, but the message which He had brought them from the Father; those works which He had done, they were the manifestation of the Father's dwelling' in Him. Let them then believe this vital union between the Father and Him—and, if their faith could not absolutely rise to that height, let it at least rest on the lower level of the evidence of His works. And so would He still lead us upwards, from the experience of what He does to the knowledge of what He is. Yea, and if they were ever tempted to doubt His works, faith might have evidence of them in personal experience. Primarily, no doubt, the words about the greater works which they who believed in Him would do, because He went to the Father, refer to the Apostolic preaching and working in its greater results after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. To this also must primarily refer the promise of unlimited answer to prayer in His Name. But in a secondary, yet most true and blessed, sense, both these promises have, ever since the Ascension of Christ, also applied both to the Church and to all individual Christians. A twofold promise, so wide as this, required, it must be felt, not indeed limitation, but qualification-let us say, definition-so far as concerns the indication of its necessary conditions. Unlimited power of working by faith and of praying in faith is qualified by obedience |