TEXT: BIB   |   AUDIO: MISLR - DAVIS - FOCHT   |   VIDEO: BIB - COMM

HELPS: KJS - KJV - ASV - DBY - DOU - WBS - YLT - ORIG - BBE - WEB - NAS - SEV - TSK - CRK - WES - MHC - GILL - JFB

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

CHAPTER XXVI

Christ predicts his being betrayed and crucified, 1, 2. The chief priests, scribes, and elders consult about his death, 3-5. A woman anoints his head at Bethany, at which the disciples are offended, but Christ vindicates her conduct, 6- 13. Judas, for thirty pieces of silver, engages with the chief priests to betray him, 14-16. He eats a passover with his disciples, and assures them of his approaching death, and that one of them would betray him, 17-21. On each asking, Is it I? Christ asserts that Judas is the traitor, 22-25. Having eaten his last supper, he institutes the eucharist, to be observed in his Church as a memorial of his sacrificial death, 26-29. They sing a hymn, go to the mount of Olives, and he again announces his approaching death and resurrection, 30-32. Peter asserts his resolution to be faithful to his Master, and Christ foretells his denial and apostasy, 33-35. He goes to Gethsemane; the transactions there, 36-46. Judas comes with the high priest's mob and betrays him with a kiss, 47-50. Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant; Christ discourses with the multitude, 51-55. The disciples flee, and he is led to Caiaphas, 56, 57. Peter follows at a distance, 58. They seek false witnesses, and question our Lord, who declares himself to be the Christ, 59-64. They accuse him of blasphemy, and abuse him, 65-68. Peter's denial and repentance, 69-75.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXVI

Verse 1. When Jesus had finished all these sayings] He began these sayings on Mount Olivet, chap. xxiv. 1, and continued them till be entered into Bethany, whither he was going.

Verse 2. The passover] A feast instituted in Egypt, to commemorate the destroying angel's passing over the houses of the Israelites, when he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians. See the whole of this business largely explained in the Notes on Exodus xii. 1-27. This feast began on the fourteenth day of the first moon, in the first month, Nisan, and it lasted only one day; but it was immediately followed by the days of unleavened bread, which were seven, so that the whole lasted eight days, and all the eight days are sometimes called the feast of the passover, and sometimes the feast or days of unleavened bread. See Luke xxii. 1-7. The three most signal benefits vouchsafed to the Israelites were, 1. The deliverance from the slavery of Egypt; to commemorate which they kept the feast of unleavened bread, and the passover.

2. The giving of the law; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of weeks.

3. Their sojourning in the wilderness, and entrance into the promised land; to commemorate which, they kept the feast of tabernacles. See these largely explained, Exod. xxiii. 14; Lev. xxiii. 2-40.

The Son of man is betrayed, (rather delivered up,) to be crucified.] With what amazing calmness and precision does our blessed Lord speak of this awful event! What a proof does he here give of his prescience in so correctly predicting it; and of his love in so cheerfully undergoing it! Having instructed his disciples and the Jews by his discourses, edified them by his example, convinced them by his miracles, he now prepares to redeem them by his blood! These two verses have no proper connection with this chapter, and should be joined to the preceding.

Verse 3. Then assembled together the chief priests] That is, during the two days that preceded the passover.

The high priest, who was called Caiaphas] Caiaphas succeeded Simon, son of Camith, about A. D. 16, or, as Calmet thinks, 25. He married the daughter of Annas, who was joined with him in the priesthood. About two years after our Lord's crucifixion, Caiaphas and Pilate were both deposed by VITELLIUS, then governor of Syria, and afterwards emperor. Caiaphas, unable to bear this disgrace, and the stings of his conscience for the murder of Christ, killed himself about A. D. 35. See Joseph. Ant. b. xviii. c. 2-4.

Verse 4. And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty] The providence of God frustrated their artful machinations; and that event which they wished to conduct with the greatest privacy and silence was transacted with all possible celebrity, amidst the thousands who resorted to Jerusalem, at this season, for the keeping of the passover. It was, doubtless, of the very first importance that the crucifixion of Christ, which was preparatory to the most essential achievement of Christianity, viz. his resurrection from the grave, should be exhibited before many witnesses, and in the most open manner, that infidelity might not attempt, in future, to invalidate the evidences of the Christian religion, by alleging that these things were done in a corner. See WAKEFIELD in loco.

Verse 5. Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar] It was usual for the Jews to punish criminals at the public festivals; but in this case they were afraid of an insurrection, as our Lord had become very popular. The providence of God directed it thus, for the reason given in the preceding note.

He who observes a festival on motives purely human violates it in his heart, and is a hypocrite before God. It is likely they feared the Galileans, as being the countrymen of our Lord, more than they feared the people of Jerusalem.

Verse 6. In Bethany] For a solution of the difficulties in this verse, about the time of the anointing, see the observations at the end of this chapter.

Simon the LEPER] This was probably no more than a surname, as Simon the CANAANITE, chap. x. 4, and Barsabas JUSTUS, Acts i. 23, and several others. Yet it might have been some person that Christ had healed of this disease. See chap. xi. 5.

Verse 7. There came unto him a woman] There is much contention among commentators about the transaction mentioned here, and in John xii. 3; some supposing them to be different, others to be the same. Bishop Newcome's view of the subject I have placed at the end of the chapter.

Some think that the woman mentioned here was Mary, the sister of Lazarus; others Mary Magdalene; but against the former opinion it is argued that it is not likely, had this been Mary the sister of Lazarus, that Matthew and Mark would have suppressed her name. Besides, say they, we should not confound the repast which is mentioned here, with that mentioned by John, John xii. 3. This one was made only two days before the passover, and that one six days before: the one was made at the house of Simon the leper, the other at the house of Lazarus, John xii. 1, 2. At this, the woman poured the oil on the head of Christ; at the other, Mary anointed Christ's feet with it. See on Mark xiv. 3, and see the notes at the end of this chapter.

Verse 8. His disciples] One of them, viz. Judas. This mode of speaking was common among the Hebrews. So, chap. xxvii. 44, the thieves also, i.e. one of them. So, chap. xxviii. 17, some doubted, i.e. one, Thomas. See also Gen. viii. 4; Judg. xii. 7; Neh. vi. 7, &c. By a figure called among rhetoricians enallage, the plural is put for the singular; it is, however, possible that Judas, who made the objection, was followed in the sentiment by the rest of the disciples.

Verse 9. And given to the poor.] How often does charity serve as a cloak for covetousness! God is sometimes robbed of his right under the pretense of devoting what is withheld to some charitable purpose, to which there was no intention ever to give it.

Verse 10. Why trouble ye the woman?] Or, Why do ye put the woman to pain? See this sense of kopouv parecein, established by Kypke in loco. A generous mind is ever pained when it is denied the opportunity of doing good, or when its proffered kindness is refused.

Verse 11. Ye have the poor always with you] And, consequently, have the opportunity of doing them good at any time; but me ye have not always; my bodily presence is about to be removed from you for ever. The woman, under a presentiment of my death is preparing me for my burial.

Verse 12. She did it for my burial.] Or, She hath done it to embalm me-entafiasai me. The Septuagint use entafiasthv for the person whose office it was to embalm, Gen. l. 2, and entafiazw for the Hebrew fnh which signifies to prepare with spices, or aromatics, Gen. l. 3. Our Lord took this opportunity to tell them, once more, that he was shortly to die.

Verse 13. Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached] Another remarkable proof of the prescience of Christ. Such a matter as this, humanly speaking, depended on mere fortuitous circumstances, yet so has God disposed matters, that the thing has continued, hitherto, as firm and regular as the ordinances of heaven.

For a memorial of her.] As embalming preserves the body from corruption, and she has done this good work to embalm and preserve this body, so will I order every thing concerning this transaction to be carefully recorded, to preserve her memory to the latest ages. The actions which the world blames, through the spirit of envy, covetousness, or malice, God takes delight to distinguish and record.

Verse 14. Then-Judas] After this supper at Bethany, Judas returned to Jerusalem, and made his contract with the chief priests.

Verse 15. Thirty pieces of silver.] triakonta arguria, thirty silverlings; but stathrav, staters, is the reading of the Codex Bezae, three copies of the Itala, Eusebius, and Origen sometimes; and stathrav arguriou, silver staters, is the reading of the famous Basil MS. No. 1, in Griesbach, and one copy of the Itala.

A stater was the same as the shekel, and worth about 3s. English money, according to Dean Prideaux: a goodly price for the saviour of the world! Thirty staters, about 4l. 10s. the common price for the meanest slave! See Exod. xxi. 32. The rabbins say, thirty y[lo selain of pure silver was the standard price for a slave, whether good or bad, male or female. See tract Erachin, fol. 14, and Shekalim, cap. 1. Each selaa weighed 384 barley-corns; the same number was contained in a shekel; and therefore the shekel and the selaa were the same. See the notes on Gen. xx. 16, and Exod. xxxviii. 24.

Verse 16. He sought opportunity] eukairian, a convenient or fit opportunity. Men seldom leave a crime imperfect: when once sin is conceived, it meets, in general, with few obstacles, till it brings forth death.

How deceitful, how deeply damning, is the love of money! Well might a heathen exclaim, while contemplating the grave of a person who was murdered for the sake of his wealth:- - Quid non mortalia pectora cogis AURI SACRA FAMES? VIRG. AEn. iii. 56 "O! cursed lust of gold! what wilt thou not compel the human heart to perpetrate?." Judas is deservedly considered as one of the most infamous of men, his conduct base beyond description, and his motives vile. But how many, since his time, have walked in the same way! How many, for the sake of worldly wealth, have renounced the religion of their Lord and Master, and sold Jesus, and their interest in heaven, for a short-lived portion of secular good! From John xii. 6, we learn that Judas, who was treasurer to our Lord and his disciples, (for he carried the bag,) was a thief, and frequently purloined a portion of what was given for the support of this holy family. Being disappointed of the prey he hoped to have from the sale of the precious ointment, Matthew xxvi. 9, he sold his Master to make up the sum. A thorough Jew!

Verse 17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread] As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month, Lev. xxiii. 5, 6; Num. xxviii. 16, 17, this could not have been, properly, the first day of that feast; but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth, Exod. xii. 18, this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. The evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name. See Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.

Where wilt thou that we prepare] How astonishing is this, that HE who created all things, whether visible or invisible, and by whom all things were upheld, should so empty himself as not to be proprietor of a single house in his whole creation, to eat the last passover with his disciples! This is certainly a mystery, and so, less or more is every thing that God does. But how inveterate and destructive must the nature of sin be, when such emptying and humiliation were necessary to its destruction! It is worthy of note what the Talmudists say, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem did not let out their houses to those who came to the annual feasts; but afforded all accommodations of this kind gratis. A man might therefore go and request the use of any room, on such an occasion, which was as yet unoccupied.

The earthen jug, and the skin of the sacrifice, were left with the host. See Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 21.

Verse 18. Go-to such a man] ton deina It is probable that this means some person with whom Christ was well acquainted, and who was known to the disciples. Grotius observes that the Greeks use this form when they mean some particular person who is so well known that there is no need to specify him by name. The circumstances are more particularly marked in Luke xxii. 8, &c.

My time is at hand] That is, the time of my crucifixion. Kypke has largely shown that kairov is often used among the Greeks for affliction and calamity. It might be rendered here, the time of my crucifixion is at hand.

Verse 19. And the disciples did] The disciples that were sent on this errand were Peter and John. See Luke xxii. 8.

They made ready the passover] That is, they provided the lamb, &c., which were appointed by the law for this solemnity. Mr. Wakefield justly observes, "that the Jews considered the passover as a sacrificial rite; Josephus calls it qusian, A SACRIFICE; and Trypho, in Justin Martyr, speaks of probaton tou pasca quein, SACRIFICING the paschal lamb.

But what comes nearer to the point is this, that Maimonides, one of the most eminent of the Jewish rabbins, has a particular treatise on the paschal sacrifice; and throughout that piece, speaks of the lamb as a victim, and of the solemnity itself as a sacrifice. And R. Bechai, in his commentary on Lev. ii. 11, says that the paschal sacrifice was of a piacular nature, in order to expiate the guilt contracted by the idolatrous practices of the Israelites In Egypt." It was highly necessary that this should be considered as an expiatory sacrifice, as it typified that Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. For much more on this important subject than can, with propriety, be introduced into these notes, see a Discourse on the Eucharist, lately published by the author of this work.

Verse 20. Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.] It is a common opinion that our Lord ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate it; for the Jews, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ ate his the preceding even, which was the beginning of the same sixth day, or Friday; the Jews begin their day at sunsetting, we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover on the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day and hour in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt. See Exod. xii. 6-12. And in the same part of the same day in which the Jews had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, about the ninth hour, or 3 o'clock, Jesus Christ our passover was sacrificed for us: for it was at this hour that he yielded up his last breath; and then it was that, the sacrifice being completed, Jesus said, IT IS FINISHED. See Exod. xii. 6, &c., and Deuteronomy xvi. 6, &c. See on John xviii. 28, and the Treatise on the Eucharist, referred to ver. 19; and see the notes on ver. 26 and following verses.

Verse 21. One of you shall betray me.] Or, will deliver me up. Judas had already betrayed him, ver. 15, and he was now about to deliver him into the hands of the chief priests, according to the agreement he had made with them.

Verse 22. They were exceeding sorrowful] That is, the eleven who were innocent; and the hypocritical traitor, Judas, endeavoured to put on the appearance of sorrow. Strange! Did he not know that Christ knew the secrets of his soul! Or had his love of money so far blinded him, as to render him incapable of discerning even this, with which he had been before so well acquainted?

Verse 23. He that dippeth his hand] As the Jews ate the passover a whole family together, it was not convenient for them all to dip their bread in the same dish; they therefore had several little dishes or plates, in which was the juice of the bitter herbs, mentioned Exod. xii. 8, on different parts of the table; and those who were nigh one of these, dipped their bread in it.

As Judas is represented as dipping in the same dish with Christ, it shows that he was either near or opposite to him. If this man's heart had not been hardened, and his conscience seared beyond all precedent, by the deceitfulness of his sin, would he have showed his face in this sacred assembly, or have thus put the seal to his own perdition, by eating of this sacrificial lamb? Is it possible that he could feel no compunction? Alas! having delivered himself up into the hands of the devil, he was capable of delivering up his Master into the hands of the chief priests; and thus, when men are completely hardened by the deceitfulness of sin, they can outwardly perform the most solemn acts of devotion, without feeling any sort of inward concern about the matter.

Verse 24. The Son of man goeth] That is, is about to die. Going, going away, departing, &c., are frequently used in the best Greek and Latin writers, for death, or dying. The same words are often used in the Scriptures in the same sense.

It had been good for that man] Can this be said of any sinner, in the common sense in which it is understood, if there be any redemption from hell's torments? If a sinner should suffer millions of millions of years in them, and get out at last to the enjoyment of heaven, then it was well for him that he had been born, for still he has an eternity of blessedness before him. Can the doctrine of the non-eternity of hell's torments stand in the presence of this saying? Or can the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked consist with this declaration? It would have been well for that man if he had never been born! Then he must be in some state of conscious existence, as non-existence is said to be better than that state in which he is now found. It was common for the Jews to say of any flagrant transgressor, It would have been better for him had he never been born. See several examples in Schoettgen. See the case of Judas argued at the end of Acts 1.

Verse 25. Judas-said, Master, is it I?] What excessive impudence! He knew, in his conscience, that he had already betrayed his Master, and was waiting now for the servants of the chief priests, that he might deliver him into their hands; and yet he says, (hoping that he had transacted his business so privately that it had not yet transpired,) Master, is it I? It is worthy of remark, that each of the other disciples said kurie, LORD, is it I? But Judas dares not, or will not, use this august title, but simply says rabbi, TEACHER, is it I? Thou hast said.] su eipav, or wtyrma wta atun amaritun, "Ye have said," was a common form of expression for YES. IT IS so. "When the Zipporenses inquired whether Rabbi Judas was dead? the son of Kaphra answered, Ye have said," i.e. He is dead. See Schoettgen. Hor. Hebr. p. 225.

Verse 26. Jesus took bread] This is the first institution of what is termed the LORD'S SUPPER. To every part of this ceremony, as here mentioned, the utmost attention should be paid.

To do this, in the most effectual manner, I think it necessary to set down the text of the three evangelists who have transmitted the whole account, collated with that part of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians which speaks of the same subject, and which, he assures us, he received by Divine revelation. It may seem strange that, although (John xiii. 1-38) mentions all the circumstances preceding the holy supper, and, from chap. xiv. 1-36 the circumstances which succeeded the breaking of the bread, and in chapters 15, 16, and 17, the discourse which followed the administration of the cup; yet he takes no notice of the Divine institution at all. This is generally accounted for on his knowledge of what the other three evangelists had written; and on his conviction that their relation was true, and needed no additional confirmation, as the matter was amply established by the conjoint testimony of three such respectable witnesses. ver. 26. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it (euloghsav and blessed God) and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

Mark xiv. 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread and blessed (euloghsav, blessed God) and brake it, and to them, and said, Take, eat, this is my body.

Luke xxii. 19. And he took bread and gave thanks, (eucaristhsav, i.e. to God,) and gave brake it, and gave unto them, saying: This is my body which is given for you: This do in remembrance of me.

Cor. xi. 23. The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; V. 24. And when he had given thanks (kai eucaristhsov, i.e. to God) he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After giving the bread, the discourse related, John xiv. 1- 31, inclusive, is supposed by Bishop Newcome to have been delivered by our Lord, for the comfort and support of his disciples under their present and approaching trials. ver. 27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks (eucaristhsav,) and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it. V. 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many or the remission of sins. V.

29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark xiv. 23. And he took the cup; and when he had given thanks, (eucaristhsav,) he gave it to them; and they all drank of it. V. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many. V. 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke xxii. 20. Likewise also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Cor. xi. 25. After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

After this, our Lord resumes that discourse which is found in the 15th, 16th, and 17th chapters of John, beginning with the last verse of chap. 14, Arise, let us go hence. Then succeed the following words, which conclude the whole ceremony.

Matt. xxvi. 30. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.

Mark xiv. 26. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.

Luke xxii. 39. And he came out, and went as he was wont to the Mount of Olives. And his disciples also followed him.

John xiv. 1. When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kedron.

From the preceding harmonized view of this important transaction, as described by three EVANGELISTS and one APOSTLE, we see the first institution, nature, and design of what has been since called THE LORD'S SUPPER. To every circumstance, as set down here, and the mode of expression by which such circumstances are described, we should pay the deepest attention.

Verse 26. As they were eating] Either an ordinary supper, or the paschal lamb, as some think. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

Jesus took bread] Of what kind? Unleavened bread, certainly, because there was no other kind to be had in all Judea at this time; for this was the first day of unleavened bread, (ver. 17,) i.e. the 14th of the month Nisan, when the Jews, according to the command of God, (Exod. xii. 15-20; xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 25,) were to purge away all leaven from their houses; for he who sacrificed the passover, having leaven in his dwelling, was considered to be such a transgressor of the Divine law as could no longer be tolerated among the people of God; and therefore was to be cut off from the congregation of Israel. Leo of Modena, who has written a very sensible treatise on the customs of the Jews, observes, "That so strictly do some of the Jews observe the precept concerning the removal of all leaven from their houses, during the celebration of the paschal solemnity, that they either provide vessels entirely new for baking, or else have a set for the purpose, which are dedicated solely to the service of the passover, and never brought out on any other occasion." To this divinely instituted custom of removing all leaven previously to the paschal solemnity, St. Paul evidently alludes, 1 Cor. v. 6-8. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the UNLEAVENED bread of sincerity and truth.

Now, if any respect should be paid to the primitive institution, in the celebration of this Divine ordinance, then, unleavened, unyeasted bread should be used. In every sign, or type, the thing signifying or pointing out that which is beyond itself should either have certain properties, or be accompanied with certain circumstances, as expressive as possible of the thing signified. Bread, simply considered in itself, may be an emblem apt enough of the body of our Lord Jesus, which was given for us; but the design of God was evidently that it should not only point out this, but also the disposition required in those who should celebrate both the antetype and the type; and this the apostle explains to be sincerity and truth, the reverse of malice and wickedness. The very taste of the bread was instructive: it pointed out to every communicant, that he who came to the table of God with malice or ill-will against any soul of man, or with wickedness, a profligate or sinful life, might expect to eat and drink judgment to himself, as not discerning that the Lord's body was sacrificed for this very purpose, that all sin might be destroyed; and that sincerity, eilikrineia, such purity as the clearest light can discern no stain in, might be diffused through the whole soul; and that truth, the law of righteousness and true holiness, might regulate and guide all the actions of life. Had the bread used on these occasions been of the common kind, it would have been perfectly unfit, or improper, to have communicated these uncommon significations; and, as it was seldom used, its rare occurrence would make the emblematical representation more deeply impressive; and the sign, and the thing signified, have their due correspondence and influence.

These circumstances considered, will it not appear that the use of common bread in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is highly improper? He who can say, "This is a matter of no importance," may say with equal propriety, the bread itself is of no importance; and another may say, the wine is of no importance; and a third may say, "neither the bread nor wine is any thing, but as they lead to spiritual references; and, the spiritual reference being once understood, the signs are useless." Thus we may, through affected spirituality, refine away the whole ordinance of God; and, with the letter and form of religion, abolish religion itself. Many have already acted in this way, not only to their loss, but to their ruin, by showing how profoundly wise they are above what is written. Let those, therefore, who consider that man shall live by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God, and who are conscientiously solicitous that each Divine institution be not only preserved, but observed in all its original integrity, attend to this circumstance. The Lutheran Church makes use of unleavened bread to the present day.

And blessed it] Both St. Matthew and St. Mark use the word euloghsav, blessed, instead of eucaristhsav, gave thanks, which is the word used by St. Luke and St. Paul. But instead of euloghsav, blessed, eucaristhsav, gave thanks, is the reading of ten MSS. in uncial characters, of the Dublin Codex rescriptus, published by Dr. Barrett, and of more than one hundred others, of the greatest respectability. This is the reading also of the Syriac and Arabic, and is confirmed by several of the primitive fathers. The terms, in this case, are nearly of the same import, as both blessing and giving thanks were used on these occasions. But what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many think the contrary, being deceived by the word IT, which is improperly supplied in our version. In all the four places referred to above, whether the word blessed or gave thanks is used, it refers not to the bread, but to God, the dispenser of every good. Our Lord here conforms himself to that constant Jewish custom, viz. of acknowledging God as the author of every good and perfect gift, by giving thanks on taking the bread and taking the cup at their ordinary meals. For every Jew was forbidden to eat, drink, or use any of God's creatures without rendering him thanks; and he who acted contrary to this command was considered as a person who was guilty of sacrilege.

From this custom we have derived the decent and laudable one of saying grace (gratas thanks) before and after meat. The Jewish form of blessing, probably that which our Lord used on this occasion, none of my readers will be displeased to find here, though it has been mentioned once before.

On taking the bread they say:- Årah m µjl axwmh µlw[h ûlm wnyhla hta ûwrb Baruch atta Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, ha motse Lechem min haarets.

Blessed be thou, our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth bread out of the earth! Likewise, on taking the cup, they say:-: pgh yrp arwb µlw[h ûlm wnyhla ûwrb Baruch Elohinoo, Melech, haolam, Bore perey haggephen.

Blessed be our God, the King of the universe, the Creator of the fruit it of the vine! The Mohammedans copy their example, constantly saying before and after meat:- [-Arabic-] Bismillahi arahmani arraheemi.

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate.

No blessing, therefore, of the elements is here intended; they were already blessed, in being sent as a gift of mercy from the bountiful Lord; but God the sender is blessed, because of the liberal provision he has made for his worthless creatures. Blessing and touching the bread are merely Popish ceremonies, unauthorized either by Scripture or the practice of the pure Church of God; necessary of course to those who pretend to transmute, by a kind of spiritual incantation, the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ; a measure the grossest in folly, and most stupid in nonsense, to which God in judgment ever abandoned the fallen spirit of man.

And brake it] We often read in the Scriptures of breaking bread, but never of cutting it. The Jewish people had nothing similar to our high-raised loaf: their bread was made broad and thin, and was consequently very brittle, and, to divide it, there was no need of a knife.

The breaking of the bread I consider essential to the proper performance of this solemn and significant ceremony: because this act was designed by our Lord to shadow forth the wounding, piercing, and breaking of his body upon the cross; and, as all this was essentially necessary to the making a full atonement for the sin of the world, so it is of vast importance that this apparently little circumstance, the breaking of the bread, should be carefully attended to, that the godly communicant may have every necessary assistance to enable him to discern the Lord's body, while engaged in this most important and Divine of all God's ordinances. But who does not see that one small cube of fermented, i.e. leavened bread, previously divided from the mass with a knife, and separated by the fingers of the minister, can never answer the end of the institution, either as to the matter of the bread, or the mode of dividing it? Man is naturally a dull and heedless creature, especially in spiritual things, and has need of the utmost assistance of his senses, in union with those expressive rites and ceremonies which the Holy Scripture, not tradition, has sanctioned, in order to enable him to arrive at spiritual things, through the medium of earthly similitudes.

And gave it to the disciples] Not only the breaking, but also the DISTRIBUTION, of the bread are necessary parts of this rite. In the Romish Church, the bread is not broken nor delivered to the people, that THEY may take and eat; but the consecrated wafer is put upon their tongue by the priest; and it is generally understood by the communicants, that they should not masticate, but swallow it whole.

"That the breaking of this bread to be distributed," says Dr. Whitby, "is a necessary part of this rite is evident, first, by the continual mention of it by St. Paul and all the evangelists, when they speak of the institution of this sacrament, which shows it to be a necessary part of it. 2dly, Christ says, Take, eat, this is my body, BROKEN for you, 1 Cor. xi. 24.

But when the elements are not broken, it can be no more said, This is my body broken for you, than where the elements are not given. 3dly, Our Lord said, Do this in remembrance of me: i.e. 'Eat this bread, broken in remembrance of my body broken on the cross:' now, where no body broken is distributed, there, nothing can be eaten in memorial of his broken body. Lastly, The apostle, by saying, The bread which we BREAK, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? sufficiently informs us that the eating of his broken body is necessary to that end, 1 Cor. x. 10.

Hence it was that this rite, of distributing bread broken, continued for a thousand years, and was, as Humbertus testifies, observed in the Roman Church in the eleventh century." WHITBY in loco. At present, the opposite is as boldly practised as if the real Scriptural rite had never been observed in the Church of Christ.

This is my body.] Here it must be observed that Christ had nothing in his hands, at this time, but part of that unleavened bread which he and his disciples had been eating at supper, and therefore he could mean no more than this, viz. that the bread which he was now breaking represented his body, which, in the course of a few hours, was to be crucified for them.

Common sense, unsophisticated with superstition and erroneous creeds,-and reason, unawed by the secular sword of sovereign authority, could not possibly take any other meaning than this plain, consistent, and rational one, out of these words. "But," says a false and absurd creed, "Jesus meant, when he said, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM, This is my body, and HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, This is the chalice of my blood, that the bread and wine were substantially changed into his body, including flesh, blood, bones, yea, the whole Christ, in his immaculate humanity and adorable divinity!" And, for denying this, what rivers of righteous blood have been shed by state persecutions and by religious wars! Well it may be asked, "Can any man of sense believe, that, when Christ took up that bread and broke it, it was his own body which he held in his own hands, and which himself broke to pieces, and which he and his disciples ate?" He who can believe such a congeries of absurdities, cannot be said to be a volunteer in faith; for it is evident, the man can neither have faith nor reason, as to this subject.

Let it be observed, if any thing farther is necessary on this point, that the paschal lamb, is called the passover, because it represented the destroying angel's passing over the children of Israel, while he slew the firstborn of the Egyptians; and our Lord and his disciples call this lamb the passover, several times in this chapter; by which it is demonstrably evident, that they could mean no more than that the lamb sacrificed on this occasion was a memorial of, and REPRESENTED, the means used for the preservation of the Israelites from the blast of the destroying angel.

Besides, our Lord did not say, hoc est corpus meum, (this is my body,) as he did not speak in the Latin tongue; though as much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate as if the original of the three evangelists had been written in the Latin language. Had he spoken in Latin, following the idiom of the Vulgate, he would have said, Panis hic corpus meum signficat, or, Symbolum est corporis mei:-hoc poculum sanguinem meum representat, or, symbolum est sanguinis mei:-this bread signifies my body; this cup represents my blood. But let it be observed that, in the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, as used in the Bible, there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, denote, though both the Greek and Latin abound with them: hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say, it is, for, it signifies. So Gen. xli. 26, 27. The seven kine ARE (i.e. represent) seven years. This IS (represents) the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt. Dan. vii. 24. The ten horns ARE (i.e. signify) ten kings. They drank of the spiritual Rock which followed them, and the Rock WAS (represented) Christ. 1 Cor. x. 4. And following this Hebrew idiom, though the work is written in Greek, we find in Rev. i. 20, The seven stars ARE (represent) the angels of the seven Churches: and the seven candlesticks ARE (represent) the seven Churches.

The same form of speech is used in a variety of places in the New Testament, where this sense must necessarily be given to the word.

Matt. xiii. 38, 39. The field IS (represents) the world: the good seed ARE (represent or signify) the children of the kingdom: the tares ARE (signify) the children of the wicked one. The enemy IS (signifies) the devil: the harvest IS (represents) the end of the world: the reapers ARE (i.e. signify) the angels. Luke viii. 9. What might this parable BE? tiv eih h parabolh auth:- What does this parable SIGNIFY? John vii. 36. tiv estin autov o logov: What is the SIGNIFICATION of this saying? John x. 6. They understood not what things they WERE, tina hn, what was the SIGNIFICATION of the things he had spoken to them. Acts x. 17. ti an eih orama, what this vision MIGHT BE; properly rendered by our translators, what this vision should MEAN. Gal. iv. 24. For these ARE the two covenants, autai gar eisin ai duo diaqhkai, these SIGNIFY the two covenants. Luke xv. 26. He asked, ti eih tauta, what these things MEANT. See also Luke xviii. 36. After such unequivocal testimony from the Sacred writings, can any person doubt that, This bread is my body, has any other meaning than, This bread REPRESENTS my body? The Latins use the verb, sum, in all its forms, with a similar latitude of meaning. So, ESSE oneri ferendo, he is ABLE to bear the burthen: bene ESSE, to LIVE sumptuously: male ESSE, to LIVE miserably: recte ESSE, to ENJOY good health: EST mihi fistula, I POSSESS a flute: EST hodie in rebus, he now ENJOYS a plentiful fortune: ESt mihi namque domi pater, I HAVE a father at home, &c.: ESSE solvendo, to be ABLE to pay: FUIMUS Troes, FUIT Ilium; the Trojans are EXTINCT, Troy is NO MORE.

In Greek also, and Hebrew, it often signifies to live, to die, to be killed.

ouk eimi, I am DEAD, or a dead man. chap. ii. 18: Rachel weeping for her children, oti ouk eisi, because they WERE MURDERED. Gen. xlii. xx16: Joseph is not, wnnya Powy Yoseph einennu, iwshf ouk estin, Sept., Joseph is DEVOURED by a WILD BEAST. Rom. iv. 17: Calling the things that ARE not, as if they were ALIVE. So Plutarch in Laconicis: "This shield thy father always preserved; preserve thou it, or may thou not BE," h mh eso, may thou PERISH. ouk ontev nomoi, ABROGATED laws. eimi en emoi, I POSSESS a sound understanding. eiv patera umin esomai, I will PERFORM the PART of a father to you. eimi thv polewv thv de, I AM an INHABITANT of that city. 1 Tim. i. 7: Desiring to BE teachers of the law, qelontev einai nomodidaskaloi, desiring to be REPUTED teachers of the law, i.e. ABLE divines. ta onta, the things that ARE, i.e. NOBLE and honourABLE men: ta mh onta, the things that are not, viz. the VULGAR, or those of IGNOBLE BIRTH.

Tertullian seems to have had a correct notion of those words of our Lord, Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, HOC EST CORPUS MEUM dicendo, id est, FIGURA corporis mei. Advers. Marc. l. v. c. 40. "Having taken the bread, and distributed that body to his disciples, he made it his body by saying, This is my body, i.e. a FIGURE of my body." That our Lord neither spoke in Greek nor Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof. It was, most probably, in what was formerly called the Chaldaic, now the Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his disciples. Through the providence of God, we have complete versions of the Gospels in this language, and in them it is likely we have the precise words spoken by our Lord on this occasion. In ver. 26, 27, the words in the Syriac version are, hanau pagree, This is my body, hanau demee, This is my blood, of which forms of speech the Greek is a verbal translation; nor would any man, even in the present day, speaking in the same language, use, among the people to whom it was vernacular, other terms than the above to express, This represents my body, and this represents my blood.

As to the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast, it is a fact that it never held the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor does it appear that it was ever heard of in that Church till the year 1599, when Don Alexis Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, and the Jesuit Fransic Rez, invaded that Church, and by tricks, impostures, and the assistance of the heathen governors of Cochin, and other places, whom they gained over by bribes and presents, overthrew the whole of this ancient Church, and gave the oppressed people the rites, creeds, &c., of the papal Catholic Church in its place. Vid. La Croz. Hist. du Ch. des Indes.

This was done at the Synod of Diamper, which began its sessions at Agomale, June 20, 1599. The tricks of this unprincipled prelate, the tool of Pope Clement VIII., and Philip II., King of Portugal, are amply detailed by Mr. La Croze, in the work already quoted.

But this form of speech is common, even in our own language, though we have terms enow to fill up the ellipsis. Suppose a man entering into a museum, enriched with the remains of ancient Greek sculpture: his eyes are attracted by a number of curious busts; and, on inquiring what they are, he learns, this is Socrates, that Plato, a third Homer; others Hesiod, Horace, Virgil, Demosthenes, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, Caesar, Nero, Vespasian, &c. Is he deceived by this information? Not at all: he knows well that the busts he sees are not the identical persons of those ancient philosophers, poets, orators, historians, and emperors, but only REPRESENTATIONS of their persons in sculpture, between which and the originals there is as essential a difference as between a human body, instinct with all the principles of rational vitality, and a block of marble.

When, therefore, Christ took up a piece of bread, brake it, and said, This IS my body, who, but the most stupid of mortals, could imagine that he was, at the same time, handling and breaking his own body! Would not any person, of plain common sense, see as great a difference between the man Christ Jesus, and the piece of bread, as between the block of marble and the philosopher it represented, in the case referred to above? The truth is, there is scarcely a more common form of speech in any language than, This IS, for, This REPRESENTS or SIGNIFIES. And as our Lord refers, in the whole of this transaction, to the ordinance of the passover, we may consider him as saying: "This bread is now my body, in that sense in which the paschal lamb has been my body hitherto; and this cup is my blood of the New Testament, in the same sense as the blood of bulls and goats has been my blood under the Old: Exodus 24; Hebrews 9. That is, the paschal lamb and the sprinkling of blood represented my sacrifice to the present time this bread and this wine shall represent my body and blood through all future ages; therefore, Do this in remembrance of me." St. Luke and St. Paul add a circumstance here which is not noticed either by St. Matthew or St. Mark. After, this is my body, the former adds, which is given for you; the latter, which is broken for you; the sense of which is: "As God has in his bountiful providence given you bread for the sustenance of your lives, so in his infinite grace he has given you my body to save your souls unto life eternal. But as this bread must be broken and masticated, in order to its becoming proper nourishment, so my body must be broken, i.e. crucified, for you, before it can be the bread of life to your souls. As, therefore, your life depends on the bread which God's bounty has provided for your bodies, so your eternal life depends on the sacrifice of my body on the cross for your souls." Besides, there is here an allusion to the offering of sacrifice-an innocent creature was brought to the altar of God, and its blood (the life of the beast) was poured out for, or in behalf of, the person who brought it. Thus Christ says, alluding to the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, This is my body, to uper umwn didomenon, which IS GIVEN in your stead, or in your behalf; a free GIFT, from God's endless mercy, for the salvation of your souls. This is my body, to uper umwn klwmenon, (1 Corinthians xi. 24,) which is broken- sacrificed in your stead; as without the breaking (piercing) of the body, and spilling of the blood, there was no remission.

In this solemn transaction we must weigh every word, as there is none without its appropriate and deeply emphatic meaning. So it is written, Eph. v. 2. Christ hath loved us, and given himself, eper hmwn, on our account, or in our stead, an offering and a SACRIFICE (qusia) to God for a sweet-smelling savour; that, as in the sacrifice offered by Noah, Gen. viii. 21, (to which the apostle evidently alludes,) from which it is said, The Lord smelled a sweet savour, jjynh jyr riach hanichoach, a savour of rest, so that he became appeased towards the earth, and determined that there should no more be a flood to destroy it; in like manner, in the offering and sacrifice of Christ for us, God is appeased towards the human race, and has in consequence decreed that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Verse 27. And he took the cup] meta to deipnhsai, after having supped, Luke xxii. 20, and 1 Cor. xi. 25. Whether the supper was on the paschal lamb, or whether it was a common or ordinary meal, I shall not wait here to inquire: see at the end of this chapter. In the parallel place, in Luke 22, we find our Lord taking the cup, Luke xxii. 17, and again Luke xxii. 19; by the former of which was probably meant the cup of blessing, hkrbh owk kos haberakah, which the master of a family took, and, after blessing God, gave to each of his guests by way of welcome: but this second taking the cup is to be understood as belonging to the very important rite which he was now instituting, and on which he lays a very remarkable stress. With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body; but concerning the cup he says, Drink ye all of this: for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, viz. the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it; therefore he says, Drink ye ALL of THIS. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people sin against God's institution; and they who receive not the cup are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could without mortal prejudice be omitted, it might be the bread; but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, i.e. the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a priest under heaven, who denies the cup to the people, that can be said to celebrate the Lord's Supper at all; nor is there one of their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange is it, that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of this is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all meaning to drink YE ALL of this cup, in this verse! And though Christ has in the most positive manner enjoined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it! O, what a thing is man-a constant contradiction to reason and to himself.

I have just said that our blessed Lord lays remarkable stress on the administration of the cup, and on that which himself assures us is represented by it. As it is peculiarly emphatic, I beg leave to set down the original text, which the critical reader will do well minutely to examine: touto gar esti to aima mou to thv kainhv diaqhkhv, to peri pollwn ekcunomenon eiv afesin amartiwn. The following literal translation and paraphrase do not exceed its meaning:-For THIS is THAT blood of mine which was pointed out by all the sacrifices under the Jewish law, and particularly by the shedding and sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb. THAT blood of the sacrifice slain for the ratification of the new covenant. THE blood ready to be poured out for the multitudes, the whole Gentile world as well as the Jews, for the taking away of sins; sin, whether original or actual, in all its power and guilt, in all its internal energy and pollution.

And gave thanks] See the form used on this occasion, on Matthew xxvi. 26; and see the MISHNA, TRACT twkrb Beracoth.

Verse 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament] This is the reading both here and in St. Mark; but St. Luke and St. Paul say, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This passage has been strangely mistaken: by New Testament, many understand nothing more than the book commonly known by this name, containing the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, apostolical Epistles, and book of the Revelation; and they think that the cup of the New Testament means no more than merely that cup which the book called the New Testament enjoins in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. As this is the case, it is highly necessary that this term should be explained. The original, h kainh diaqhkh, which we translate, The New Testament, and which is the general title of all the contents of the book already described, simply means, the new COVENANT. Covenant, from con, together, and venio, I come, signifies an agreement, contract, or compact, between two parties, by which both are mutually bound to do certain things, on certain conditions and penalties. It answers to the Hebrew tyrb berith, which often signifies, not only the covenant or agreement, but also the sacrifice which was slain on the occasion, by the blood of which the covenant was ratified; and the contracting parties professed to subject themselves to such a death as that of the victim, in case of violating their engagements. An oath of this kind, on slaying the covenant sacrifice, was usual in ancient times: so in Homer, when a covenant was made between the Greeks and the Trojans, and the throats of lambs were cut, and their blood poured out, the following form of adjuration was used by the contracting parties:-zeu kudiste, megiste, kai aqanatoi qeoi alloi, oppoteroi proteroi uper orkia phmhneian, ode sfÆ egkefalov camadiv reoi, wv ode oinov, autwn, kai tekewn? alocoi dÆ alloisi migeien All glorious Jove, and ye, the powers of heaven! Whoso shall violate this contract first, So be their blood, their children's and their own, Poured out, as this libation, on the ground And let their wives bring forth to other men! ILIAD l. iii. v. 298-301 Our blessed saviour is evidently called the diaqhkh, tyrb berith, or covenant sacrifice, Isa. xlii. 6; xli10: 8; Zech. ix. 11. And to those Scriptures he appears to allude, as in them the Lord promises to give him for a covenant (sacrifice) to the Gentiles, and to send forth, by the blood of this covenant (victim) the prisoners out of the pit. The passages in the sacred writings which allude to this grand sacrificial and atoning act are almost innumerable. See the Preface to Matthew.

In this place, our Lord terms his blood the blood of the NEW covenant; by which he means that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God was now establishing between himself and mankind, by the passion and death of his Son, through whom alone men could draw nigh to God; and this NEW covenant is mentioned in contradistinction from the OLD covenant, h palaia diaqhkh, 2 Cor. iii. 14, by which appellative all the books of the Old Testament were distinguished, because they pointed out the way of reconciliation to God by the blood of the various victims slain under the law; but now, as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, was about to be offered up, a NEW and LIVING way was thereby constituted, so that no one henceforth could come unto the Father but by HIM. Hence all the books of the New Testament, which bear unanimous testimony to the doctrine of salvation by faith through the blood of Jesus, are termed, h kainh diaqhkh, The NEW covenant. See the Preface.

Dr. Lightfoot's Observations on this are worthy of serious notice. "This is my blood of the New Testament. Not only the seal of the covenant, but the sanction of the new covenant. The end of the Mosaic economy, and the confirming of a new one. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Exodus 24, Hebrews 9, because blood was still to be shed: the confirmation of the new was by a