Verse 75. "Peter remembered the word of Jesus" - St. Luke says, Luke xxii. 61, The Lord turned and looked upon Peter. So it appears he was nigh to our Lord, either at the time when the cock crew, or shortly after. The delicacy of this reproof was great-he must be reproved and alarmed, otherwise he will proceed yet farther in his iniquity; Christ is in bonds, and cannot go and speak to him; if he call aloud, the disciple is discovered, and falls a victim to Jewish malice and Roman jealousy; he therefore does the whole by a look. In the hand of Omnipotence every thing is easy, and he can save by a few, as well as by many.
"He went out" - He left the place where he had sinned, and the company which had been the occasion of his transgression.
"And wept bitterly." - Felt bitter anguish of soul, which evidenced itself by the tears of contrition which flowed plentifully from his eyes. Let him that standeth take heed lest he fall! Where the mighty have been slain, what shall support the feeble? Only the grace of the ALMIGHTY God.
This transaction is recorded by the inspired penmen, 1st. That all may watch unto prayer, and shun the occasions of sin. 2dly. That if a man be unhappily overtaken in a fault, he may not despair, but cast himself immediately with a contrite heart on the infinite tenderness and compassion of God. See the notes on John xviii. 27.
I have touched on the subject of our Lord's anointing but slightly in the preceding notes, because the controversy upon this point is not yet settled; and, except to harmonists, it is a matter of comparatively little importance. Bishop Newcome has written largely on this fact, and I insert an extract from his notes.
BISHOP NEWCOME'S ACCOUNT OF THE ANOINTING OF OUR LORD "The histories of Jesus' unction, in Matthew, Mark, and John, are accounts of the same fact. Hoc fixum maneat, eandem ab omnibus historiam referri. Calv. Harm. p. 375.
"The following objections to this position occur in Lightfoot, Whiston, Whitby, and Macknight.
1st. "The unction recorded by St. John happens six days before the passover; but the other unction is fixed to the second day before that feast.
"Ans. The day of the entertainment related John xii. 2, is not restrained to the sixth day before the passover. Quo die factum illi fuerit convivium, in quo a Maria unctus est, Johannes non exprimit. Calv. Harm. Johann. p. 144. John xii. 12, 13, much people are said to meet Jesus on the day after his arrival at Bethany, not on the day after his unction. See John xii. 9. St. John has recorded events on the sixth and on the fifth day before the passover; and then, John xiii. 1, he proceeds to the evening on which the passover was eaten. On this account he anticipates the history of Jesus's unction; and he naturally anticipates it on mentioning the place where it happened.
2dly. "The scene in St. John is the house of Martha, or of Lazarus; in the other evangelists, that of Simon the leper.
"Ans. St. John lays the scene in general at Bethany. "It seems probable that Lazarus would not have been called eiv twn anakeimenwn, if he had been the host.
"Martha, the sister of Lazarus, might show Jesus honour by ministering to him in any house as well as her own. 'She was Simon's neighbour, and perhaps his relation,' Dr. Priestley, Harm. p. 102. Our Lord's affection for Lazarus and his sister, and the recent miracle wrought on Lazarus, were very sufficient reasons for Simon's invitation of such neighbouring guests.
3dly. "St. John mentions the feet of Jesus as anointed by Mary, and wiped with her hair; the other evangelists say that the ointment was poured on Jesus's head.
"Ans. It is no where asserted that the unction was of Jesus's head only, or of his feet only: both actions are consistent; and St. John, in his supplemental history, may very well have added the respectful conduct of Mary, that, after having anointed Jesus's head, she proceeded to anoint his feet, and even to wipe them with her hair.
4thly. "In St. John, Judas alone murmurs: in St. Matthew, the disciples have indignation; or, as St. Mark expresses it, some have indignation among themselves.
"Ans. Dr. Lardner says, Serm. vol. ii. p. 316: 'It is well known to be very common with all writers to use the plural number when one person only is intended; nor is it impossible that others might have some uneasiness about it, though they were far from being so disgusted at it as Judas was.
And their concern for the poor was sincere: his was self- interested and mere pretense.' Grotius's words are: Reprehensa est hoc nomine mulier ab uno discipulorum; nam ita pluralis accipi solet.
5thly. "The vindications of the woman by our Lord differ so much as to show that the occasions were different.
"Ans. St, John's words are indeed thus misinterpreted by Baronius: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial, alluding to, Mark xvi. 1. See Lightfoot, Harm. p. 27. See also Lightfoot, ib. l. 251. 'She hath kept it yet, and not spent all; that she may bestow it on a charitable use, the anointing of my body to its burial.' "Whiston also, Harm. 129, gives a wrong sense to the words. She hath spent but little of it now: she hath reserved the main part of it for a fitter time, the day before my delivery to the Jews; making this a prediction of what passed, ver. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9. It must be observed that John xii. 7, there is a remarkable various reading: ina eiv thn hmeran tou entafiasmou mou thrhsh auto. See Wetstein, and add Codd. Vercell.
and Veron. in Blanchini. Of this reading we have a sound interpretation in Mill, proleg. xlv. Sine eam ut opportune usa hoc unguento, velut ad sepulturam meam, jamjam occidendi, illud servasse ostendatur. And likewise in Bengelius ad loc. who observes that the common reading is, Faciioris sensus causta; and adds, Verbum thrhsh servaret, pendet ex praeterito, cujus vis latet in afev authn, i.e. Noli reprehendere hanc, quoe unguentum ideo nec vendidit, nec pauperibus dedit, ut, &c. And the common reading is thus rightly explained by Lightfoot, 2, 588. 'If Baronius's exposition do not take, then add this clause:-Let her alone; for this may be an argument and sign that she hath not done this vainly, luxuriously, or upon any delicacy spent so costly an ointment upon me; because she hath reserved it for this time, wherein I am so near my grave and funeral, and poured it not on me before.' Lardner's comment, ubi supra, p. 312, is applicable to the three evangelists. If this ointment were laid out upon a dead body, you would not think it too much. You may consider this anointing as an embalming of me. The words are a prediction of Christ's death, which was to happen on the third day after; and they are a prediction beautifully taken from the occasion. She has done this to embalm me, Matthew. She has anticipated the embalming of me, Mark.
She has not sold this ointment, and given it to the poor, that she might reserve it to this day, which is, as it were, the day of my embalming, so soon is my burial to follow, John.
"Dr. Scott, on Matthew, quotes the following passage from Theophylact: eqov hn toiv ioudaioiv meta murwn entafiazein ta swmata, wv kai oi aiguptioi epoioun, dia to ashpta threisqdi, kai aneu duswdiav. It was a custom among the Jews, as well as among the Egyptians, to embalm the bodies of the dead, as well to keep them from putrefaction, as to prevent offensive smells.
The expressions therefore of the three evangelists agree in sense and substance. I have explained the more difficult in St. John; leaving every one to his own judgment whether it be the true one or not; though I incline to think that the unusual phrase ought generally to be admitted into the text.
"6thly. In St. John, Mary anoints Jesus in Matthew and Mark, a woman not named.
"Ans. Lardner says, ubi supra, p. 315. 'St. John having before given the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, it was very natural for him, when he came to relate this anointing of our Lord, to say by whom it was done. But the two former evangelists having never mentioned Lazarus or his sisters in their Gospels, when they came to relate this action forbear to mention any name, and speak only of a certain woman. Luke x. 38-42, has an account of our Lord's being entertained at the house of Martha. But he says nothing of this anointing. If he had related it, I make no question that he, like St. John, would have said by whom it was done.' Upon the whole, there is no solid objection to the hypothesis, that we have three accounts of the same transaction. But it is incredible that there should be two unctions of Jesus, in Bethany, within four days, not plainly distinguished from each other; that the kind and price of the ointment should be the same; that the two actions should be censured in the same manner; and that words to the same effect should be used in defense of the woman who anointed Jesus, within so short a time, in the same place, and among the same persons. See Doddridge on John xii. 1. As to the precise time of this transaction, it is natural to conclude from the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that it happened two days before the passover. I had much pleasure in observing that Mr. Jebb, in his Harmony, assigns it the same order as I do. I likewise find in Ward's Dissertations, p. 112, the following remark.
'John only mentions the day when Jesus came to Bethany, without specifying the time when he was entertained there by Simon the leper; whereas the other two evangelists acquaint us with the day when that was done, and what followed upon it, with relation to Judas.' And again, Wall says, Critical Notes, v. 3. p. l2: 'Wednesday he seems to have stayed at Bethany, and supped there. At which supper, Mary, sister of Lazarus, poured that ointment on his body which he interpreted to be for his burial.' And on John xii. 2: 'This seems to be the same supper which Matthew and Mark do say was at the house of Simon the leper; for there it was that Mary anointed him. But then we must not take it to be the same night that he came to Bethany, but two days before the passover.' "That Judas went to the high priests on the evening or night of our Wednesday, may be collected from ver. 14-17, and the parallel places in this harmony; and he seems to have acted partly in disgust at what had passed. This is a good argument for fixing the unction for Wednesday. As it will appear that the other apostles did not suspect his treachery, we may suppose that Judas withdrew himself clandestinely, probably after our Lord had retired to privacy and devotion. Our Lord's words, chap. x16: 2, may have led Mary to show this respect to Jesus, lest no future opportunity should offer. See Lardner, ubi supra, p. 327. Dr. Priestley thinks that 'if the verses that contain this story in ver. 6-13, be considered, they will be found to stand very awkwardly in their present situation, where they interrupt an account of a consultation among the Jews about putting Jesus to death.' Harm. p. 100. But it seems to me that the story has a remarkably apt connection with the preceding and subsequent history. The Jewish rulers consult how they may take Jesus by craft, and without raising a tumult among the people. An accident happens which offends one of Jesus's familiar attendants; who immediately repairs to Jesus's enemies, and receives from them a bribe to betray him in the absence of the multitude." Newcome's Harmony, Notes p. 39, &c.
I have added the above, not from a conviction that the point is so elucidated as to settle the controversy, but merely to place before the reader both sides of the question. Still, sub judice lis est; and any man may doubt, consistently with the most genuine piety, whether the relations given by the evangelists, concerning the anointing of our Lord, should be understood of two different unctions, at two different times, in two different places, by two different persons; or whether they are not different accounts, with some varying circumstances, of one and the same transaction. I incline, at present, to the former opinion, but it would be rash to decide where so many eminently learned and wise men have disagreed.
The question considered, whether our Lord ate the passover with his disciples before he suffered? Every candid person must allow that there are great difficulties relative to the time in which our Lord ate the last passover with his disciples. In the Introduction to my Discourse on the nature and design of the Holy Eucharist, I have examined this subject at large, and considered the four following opinions, viz. I. Our Lord did not eat the passover on the last year of his ministry. II. Our Lord did eat it that year; and at the same time with the Jews. III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews. IV. He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely differing from that eaten by the Jews. The two first opinions do not appear to be solidly supported. The two last are of the most importance, are the most likely, and may be harmonized. I shall introduce a few observations on each in this place. And I. On the opinion that "our Lord did eat the passover this year, but not at the same time with the Jews." Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the Jewish rabbins, that the ancient Jews, about our saviour's time, often solemnized as well the passovers as the other feasts, upon the ferias next before and after the Sabbaths. And, that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the new moons, not according to astronomical exactness, but according to the fasiv, or moon's appearance: and, as this appearance might happen a day later than the real time, consequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a particular day of the month; the days of the month being counted from the fasiv, or appearance of the new moon. As he describes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract from this part of his work, that my readers may have the whole argument before them.
"In the great or outer court there was a house called Beth Yazek, where the senate sat all the 30th day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon's appearance, and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the 30th day, who could state they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up, and cried ćdqm mekuddash, it is sanctified; and the people standing by caught the word from him, and cried, Mekuddash! mekuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one and thirtieth day to be the calends.
But if, after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the end of the month, respectable witnesses came from far, and testified they had seen the new moon in its due time, the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz. from the thirtieth day.
"As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterwards made a statute to this effect-That whatsoever time the senate should conclude on for the calends of the mouth, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts according to it." This, Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took place in the time of our Lord; and "as it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original custom, and that following the true fasiv, or appearance of the new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the passover on that day; but the Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following." Dr. C. farther shows from Epiphanius, that there was a contention, qorubov, a tumult, among the Jews about the passover, that very year. Hence it is likely that what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews who adopted the true fasiv phasis, was only the preparation or antecedent evening to others, who acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy of note, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the rabbins themselves grant that, where the case is doubtful, the passover should be celebrated with the same ceremonies, two days together; and it was always doubtful, when the appearance of the new moon could not be fully ascertained.
Bishop Pearce supposes that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time between the evening of Thursday, and that of Friday; and that this permission was necessary, because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose: as, in one year there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. vii. c. 9. sect. 3. In ver. 17, it is said, Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, (th de prwth twn azumwn,) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? 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 day, Exod. xii. 18, this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread.
Now it appears that the evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name, see Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.
At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ did eat the passover with his disciples that year, but not in the same hour with the Jews; and that he expired on the cross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, seems the most probable. For it appears, from what has already been remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Friday, for the Jews began their day at sun-setting; we at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt: see Exodus xii. 6-19. And in the same part of the same day in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz. between the two evenings, i, e, between the sun's declining west and his setting, Jesus, our passover was sacrificed for us. For it was the third hour, in the course of between 9 and 12, Mark xv. 25, that Christ was nailed to the cross: and in the course of the ninth hour, between 12 and 3 in the afternoon, chap. xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34, Jesus, knowing that the antetype had accomplished every thing shadowed forth by the type, said, "It is FINISHED," tetelestai, completed, perfected, and, having thus said, he bowed his head, and dismissed his spirit. See on John xix. 14,30.
Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover some hours before the Jews in general ate theirs; which is that, if our Lord did eat the passover the evening before the Jews in general ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the law; nor is it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood was not thus sprinkled by one of the priests, that which constituted the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in that celebrated by our Lord.
To this it is answered:-First, we have already seen that, in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be offered on the paschal solemnity, it is highly probable the Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since they had but that one altar where they could legally sprinkle the blood of the victims.
Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative to the time of the appearance of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the passover both days; and that it is probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. In any of these cases the lamb might have been killed and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the Jewish Church.
Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act as Lord of his own institution in this, as he had done before in the case of the Sabbath. At any rate, as it seems probable that he ate the passover at this time, and that he died about the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully presumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance of the rite which the present necessity required, or the law of God could demand.
The objection that our Lord and his disciples appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time they ate what is supposed above to have been the passover, contrary to the paschal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, though the terms anekeito, ver. 20, and anepese, Luke xxii. 14, are used in reference to their eating that evening, and these words signify reclining at table, or on a couch, as is the custom of the orientals, it does not follow that they must necessarily be restrained to that meaning; nor does it appear that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish Church.
The second opinion which we have to examine is this: Our Lord did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten by the Jews.
Mr. Toinard, in his Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strongly contends that our Lord did not eat what is commonly called the passover this year, but another, of a mystical kind. His chief arguments are the following:-It is indubitably evident, from the text of St. John, that the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that on which the Jews celebrated the passover; but the preceding evening, on which the passover could not be legally offered. The conclusion is evident from the following passages: John xiii. 1.
Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing, &c. John xiii. 2. And supper, (not the paschal, but an ordinary supper,) being ended, &c. John xiii. 27. That thou doest, do quickly. John xiii. 28. Now no one at the table knew for what intent he spake this. John xiii. 29. For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy what we have need of against the feast, &c. John xviii. 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover. John xix. 14. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour. Now as it appears that at this time the disciples thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what was necessary for the passover, and they were then supping together, it is evident that it was not the paschal lamb on which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the unwillingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judgment, that they had not as yet eaten the passover. These words are plain, and can be taken in no other sense, without offering them the greatest violence.
Mr. Toinard, having found that our Lord was crucified the sixth day of the week, (Friday,) during the paschal solemnity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar aera, and that the paschal moon of that year was not in conjunction with the sun till the afternoon of Thursday the 19th of March, and that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the following day, (Friday,) concluded that the intelligence of the fasiv, or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the witnesses to the beth din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morning, the 21st of March. That the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisan, could not continence that thirty-third year sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, March 20th; and, consequently, that Friday, April 3d, on which Christ died, was the 14th of Nisan, (not the 15th,) the day appointed by the law for the celebration of the passover. All these points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronomical calculations, in which he was assisted by a very eminent astronomer and mathematician, Bullialdus. (Mr. Bouilleau.) These two last opinions, apparently contradictory, and which alone, of all those offered on the subject, deserve consideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate the passover with his disciples the evening before the Jews ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved from the text of St. Luke, and the arguments founded on that text.
All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, that the Jews that year held the passover both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned: and that therefore Peter and John, who were employed on this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the legality of the rite.
But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such double celebration took place at this time, and that our Lord could not have eaten the passover that year with his disciples, as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passover, how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease; by substituting a passover for the passover, and simply assuming that our Lord at this time instituted the holy EUCHARIST, in place of the PASCHAL LAMB: and thus it will appear he ate a passover with his disciples the evening before his death, viz. the mystical passover, or sacrament of his body and blood; and that this was the passover which he so ardently longed to eat with his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass: Our Lord did eat a passover with his disciples some short time before he died:-the question is, What passover did he eat-the regular legal passover, or a mystical one? That he ate a passover is, I think, demonstrated: but whether the literal or mystical one, is a matter of doubt.
On this point, good and learned men may innocently hesitate and differ: but on either hypothesis, the text of the evangelists is unimpeachable, and all shadow of contradiction done away: for the question then rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this hypothesis, the preparation of the passover must be considered as implying no more than-1. Providing a convenient room. 2. Bringing water for the baking on the following day, because on that day the bringing of the water would have been unlawful. 3.
Making inquisition for the leaven, that every thing of this kind might be removed from the house where the passover was to be eaten, according to the very strict and awful command of God, Exod. xii. 15-20; xxiii. 15; xxxiv. 25.
These, it is probable, were the acts of preparation which the disciples were commanded to perform, ver. 17; Mark xiv. 13, 14; Luke xxii. 8-11, and which, on their arrival at the city, they punctually executed. See ver. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 13. Thus every thing was prepared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which should, in the Christian Church, take place of the Jewish passover, and continue to be a memorial of the sacrifice which Christ was about to make by his death on the cross: for as the paschal lamb had showed forth his death till he came, this death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision and prophecy.
All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after apprehended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is therefore very likely that he did not literally eat the passover this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable that the passover was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this occasion? The rending of the vail of the temple, chap. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke xxiii. 45, the terrible earthquake, chap. xxvii. 51-54; the dismal and unnatural darkness, which was over the whole land of Judea, from the sixth hour, (twelve o'clock,) to the ninth hour (i.e. three o'clock in the afternoon,) with all the other prodigies which took place on this awful occasion, we may naturally conclude, were more than sufficient to terrify and appal this guilty nation, and totally to prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed, the time in which killing the sacrifices, and sprinkling the blood of the lambs, should have been performed, was wholly occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be absurd to suppose that, under such terrible evidences of the Divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive preparations could possibly have taken place.
My readers will probably be surprised to see the preceding opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the question, I had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many difficulties. These I now feel and acknowledge; nevertheless, I think the plan of reconciling the texts of the evangelists, particularly St. Luke and St. John, which I have adopted above, is natural, and, I am in hopes, will not appear altogether unsatisfactory to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurrection is probably the nearest period in which accurate information on this point can be expected. Je suis trompe, says Bouilleau, si cete question peut etre jamais bien eclaircie. "If I be not mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly understood." It would be presumptuous to say, Christ did eat the passover this last year of his ministry: it would be as hazardous to say he did not eat it. The middle way is the safest; and it is that which is adopted above. One thing is sufficiently evident, that Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed for us; and that he has instituted the holy eucharist, to be a perpetual memorial of that his precious death until his coming again: and they who, with a sincere heart, and true faith in his passion and death, partake of it, shall be made partakers of his most blessed body and blood. Reader, praise God for the atonement, and rest not without an application of it to thy own soul.