brance of him, and still less, in remembrance of that sad event, which removed him from their eyes. The words are necessarily prospective, they have nothing to do with the present, and regard the future alone; and if they do not mean, that the twelve were to repeat the form prescribed, I am wholly unable to discover any design or meaning in them. It is not even going too far to say, that if the disciples did not eat bread, and drink wine, in remembrance of their Lord, after his death and ascension, they never could have obeyed the command, "This do in remembrance of me," because they could not have obeyed it at the time when it was given, when he was alive, and in their company. The conclusion is inevitable, that a form was then instituted by our Saviour, which his disciples were afterward to repeat.

That the repetition of this form was not to be confined to one observance, or to any particular period, is manifest from a clause in Paul's account, by which we are informed that when Jesus gave the cup, he said, "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." The phrase "as oft as ye drink it," implies that the disciples were to continue the rite indefinitely, and perform it frequently; while at the same time it leaves them at liberty to determine how frequently the performance should take place.

I shall now proceed to consider the question, in which we of the present day are more especially concerned. Was it the design of our Saviour, that the observance of this rite should be extended beyond his immediate disciples, and regard all who should ever be, or become his followers? Are we, are all Christians, required, or are we not required, to eat bread, and drink

wine, at successive and discretionary periods, in remembrance of our Lord? In determining this, as well as the former question, we must refer to the Scripture histories.

In the accounts of Matthew and Mark we are informed, that the reason which Jesus gave for commanding his disciples to drink wine in remembrance of him was, that his blood, of which it was the representative and symbol, was to be "shed for many;"-not for them alone, but for many, that is, for all who would make use of the inestimable advantages, which the death of Christ places within our power of application. This reason addresses itself to us, with as much force as to the apostles. The blood of Christ was shed for us, as well as for them. The just one expired on the cross, and descended into the tomb, that he might secure, by his resurrection, for us, as well as for them, the hope, and the pledge, of immortality. Now, if we will reflect, that the above mentioned reason applies equally to all Christians, and that the celebration of the Supper is not, by the least word or intimation, limited to the apostles, the result of our reflections must be, that all of us, who call ourselves Christians, are required, as positively as they were who sat at the table with their master, to eat bread and drink wine, as symbols of the body which was broken, and the blood which was shed, for all.

This result will receive confirmation, when we consider, that our Saviour blessed and distributed the bread and wine, while he was keeping the Jewish Passover with his disciples. This festival commemorated the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt; and as that event was an occasion of lively gratitude to the

whole Jewish nation, every individual was required to celebrate it, and one generation handed it down to another. There is every reason to suppose, from the coincidence of circumstances, that Christ in like manner intended, that every Christian should commemorate the event, which to every Christian was of infinite concern; and that no age should cease to commemorate it, since to all ages it was to extend its influence and blessing.

I regard the foregoing considerations as sufficient proof that the Lord's Supper is an instituted rite of our religion. But if any doubt on the subject should remain, it ought to be dispelled by two indisputable facts. The first is, that the Christians of the primitive age, the cotemporaries, companions, and converts, of the apostles, did actually put the same meaning on our Saviour's words, which I have supported as the only true one; and that they frequently met together to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of him, and in obedience to his command. The second is, that the apostle Paul unequivocally asserts, that he was instructed by Jesus himself in the origin and design of this ceremony.

Ample evidence of these facts may be found in the tenth and eleventh chapters of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. They plainly show, in the first place, that the primitive Christians did really consider the form of eating bread, and drinking wine, in remembrance of Christ, an established rite of the religion which they professed, and that they were, accordingly, in the constant habit of performing it. What inference can be drawn more plainly from the following

words;* "The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one blood." Here we have an unquestionable allusion to the sacrament of the Supper, as an acknowledged, undoubted, and universally celebrated, ordinance of Christianity. And all the instructions and rebukes of the apostle, in the succeeding chapter, go upon the constant supposition, that they to whom he was writing had been long accustomed to the performance of the rite, and that they considered it as much a command of the Saviour, as they did the injunction to love one another. If it was a command to them, it is a command to us; for it has been abrogated by no subsequent command, or circumstance.

In the second place, we have, in the eleventh chapter, the assertion of an apostle, that Jesus himself taught him the manner and the object of this institution. "I have received of the Lord," says he, "that which also I delivered unto you." This assertion ought to be completely satisfactory and conclusive. If the primitive Christians had been mistaken in the meaning which they attributed to the words of Jesus, those words would never have been repeated by Jesus himself, without an explanation of them, and a correction of the If Jesus had intended that the twelve disciples alone should remember him in the rite of his Supper, he would not have enjoined its performance on St. Paul, as that apostle was not one of the original disciples. If St. Paul had "received of the Lord" the ordiChap. x. verses 16, 17.

error.

nance of the Supper, as one which was to be limited to any particular number of communicants whatever, he would not have delivered it again to the whole body of his converts.

Let me now bring together into one view the conclusions which I have attempted to establish. First, it is apparent from the words of our Saviour, which have been quoted, that he expected his twelve disciples to eat bread and drink wine, at stated periods, purposely in remembrance of him, when he should be no longer with them. Secondly, there are expressions used by our Lord, which obviously intimate his design, that this observance should become an established rite of his religion, and be celebrated by all his future disciples. Thirdly, the coincidence of the transaction in season and circumstances with a Jewish festival warrants a similar inference. Fourthly, the fact that the early Christians did really perform such a rite is full confirmation of its universal authority. Fifthly, if further confirmation were wanted, it would be furnished by the declaration of the apostle Paul, that he received the institution from the Master himself, who confirmed from Heaven what he had pronounced while on earth.

Before dismissing this division of our subject, however, it will be proper to notice, and to answer, the objections, which have been made to the authority of the Lord's Supper.

It has been asserted by those who deny that Jesus had any intention of instituting such a rite, that the first Christians were mistaken in their interpretation of his words. This assertion, as it stands by itself, unconnected with any arguments, has been already sufficiently answered by the fact, that our Saviour, in his