Mark 14:12-25 - Homilies By J.j. Given

Parallel passages: Matthew 26:17-19 , Matthew 26:26-29 ; Luke 22:7-13 , Luke 22:19 , Luke 22:20 ; 1 Corinthians 11:23-34 .—

The old dispensation merging in the new.

I. THE PASSOVER AND THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER .

1 . Comparison of the records . The memorial Passover differed from the Egyptian or original Passover in several points. A still greater change is now made. The substance now takes the place of the symbol. The antitype supersedes the type. The true Paschal Lamb—Christ our Passover, about to be sacrificed for us—being come, the Jewish Paschal lamb disappears. The unleavened cakes and wine, formerly only secondary and subordinate, now become the primary and principal elements of the feast, as representing the body and blood of the Lamb to be slain. The idea of Christ's sacrificial death, previously intimated with more or less clearness, is now fully exhibited. In the fact of the particulars being foretold there is a close resemblance to that prediction which preceded the triumphal entry. The record of the Lord's Supper is fourfold. It is, recorded by three evangelists and by one apostle. These are the evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke; with Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Some points are brought out more fully or distinctly in one, and some in another, of these; accordingly, a brief comparison of their respective records with each other helps to a better understanding of the whole.

(a) St. Matthew and St. Mark say simply, "This is my blood of the new testament, St. Luke and St. Paul introduce the word "cup," and alter the arrangement of the sentence, in this way rendering the whole clause clearer and more explicit; thus, "This cup is the new testament [more correctly ' covenant,' Revised Version] in my blood." Mark alone

(b) supplements the accounts of the other evangelists by stating the fact, "They all drank of it."

2 . The Author of this ordinance . The Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of this solemn institution; both evangelist and apostle refer its appointment to him. He is sole King and Head of his Church. His kingship is the result of a Divine decree. "I have set my King," says Jehovah, "on my holy hill of Zion." The government, both legislative and executive, is in his hand, as the prophet had foretold, "and the government shall be upon his shoulders." He is also "Head over all things to the Church." Not only so; this ordinance in particular is his special appointment, for it is the memorial of his death, and keeps the memory of his dying love green in the Christian's soul. To him, therefore, we owe its institution, the manner of its observance, the time of its continuance, and the persons admissible to its enjoyment. Nor is there any ordinance more closely identified with the Savior than this ordinance of the Supper. He is its "all in all," its Alpha and Omega. The words are his, and speak of him; the symbols are his, and point to him; the blessings embodied are his, being the purchase of his blood; the praise is his, for "unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,… to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." The new covenant, with all its benefits, present and prospective, is his, for he ratified it.

3 . Abuses . Little more than a quarter of a century had elapsed when human abuses were beginning to overlay this holy ordinance in the Church of Corinth, so common is it for man to leave an impure print on all his hand doth touch. A reformation of the holy rite had become necessary, and a republication followed. The abuses removed, and the ordinance restored to its original simplicity and sanctity, St. Paul received it by revelation, and republished it in his First Epistle to the Corinthian Church, as he says, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." With this fresh publication of it, we have a fuller exposition of its nature, and increased obligation for its observance; while it is restamped, as it were, with the seal, and resanctioned by the signature of the Church's Head.

4 . The time of its appointment . The time of its appointment was "the same night in which he was betrayed." This of itself, apart from all other evidence, is proof positive that Jesus was more than man. It was the night when the Jewish Sanhedrim concerted measures for his apprehension; when chief priests and scribes and rulers were planning his condemnation and plotting his death; the night when one of his own disciples played the part of traitor and betrayed him into the hands of his deadliest foes; when another disciple denied him, and all forsook him; the night when he was to be delivered to his persecutors—to their malice and mockery and the worst tortures that their malevolence could devise.

"'Twas on that night, when doom'd to know

The eager rage of every foe,

That night in which he was betray'd,

The Savior of the world took bread."

It was the eve of his crucifixion; nor were the events of the coming morrow unknown to him. From the unrelenting hatred of his enemies, and the steady purpose of their persecuting fury, he might have anticipated them; he might, without much risk of error, have forecast them. But with him it was no forecasting of probabilities; he clearly foresaw all, and consequently in a measure foretasted all. Had he been a weak mortal and nothing more, the certainly approaching danger and disaster must have occupied his thoughts and oppressed him with grief. In this case he would have been insensible to the wants, and incapable of administering to the comforts, of others; he would have been too much occupied with himself and his own position to spare any thought for the concerns, or make any provision for the consolation, of his friends. On the contrary, instead of concentrating his thoughts on himself and the crisis just at hand, his thoughts were engrossed with his followers then, thenceforth, and onward for ages yet to come. All his thoughts, all his feelings, all his sympathies, were enlisted on the side of his disciples, and exercised for their benefit. The self-abnegation that had characterized the whole course of his life became yet more conspicuous, if that were possible, at the period when he came within measurable distance of death and dissolution. Self was absolutely lost sight of, the interests of his people bulked so largely that they occupied the whole field of vision.

5 . A comparison . A comparison has frequently been instituted between the life and teaching of the Savior and Socrates-between the Prince of peace and the prince of pagan philosophers. Their respective sentiments on the eve of execution may for a moment be compared, or rather contrusted, here. On the part of Socrates we find a sort of posthumous ambition, present doubt, and practical indifference. There was posthumous ambition; for he allowed his vanity to be flattered by reckoning on the praises of posterity, and referred, with a feeling half of self-gratulation and half akin to revenge, to the false position in which his death would be sure to place his enemies, and especially his accusers. There was present doubt; for beautifully as he reasoned on the subject of immortality and a future state on previous occasions, now, in the presence of the great change, he doubted whether he himself or his friend Crito, who was to survive him, were likely to fare better. There was practical indifference; for the interests of his family and the upbringing of his children appear to have cost him little or no concern. With our Lord, on the other hand, there was no borrowing of comfort from the praises of posterity; his chief concern was for the well-being of posterity. There was no shadow of a cloud upon futurity; all was bright and blissful there. There was, instead of indifference, the deepest and most absorbing concern for the spiritual well-being and everlasting welfare of his friends and followers through all coming time. Far be it from us to undervalue the sage of Athens—he was one of the lights of heathendom; but we find him to the last human, intensely human; while Jesus was both Divine and human—unmistakably Divine, and yet truly human.

6 . Use of monuments . Monuments draw attention to the facts of history and to the incidents of biography. How many thousands there are who would never have heard of Nelson, or Wilberforce, or Wellington; or who would have remained ignorant of their great achievements, and of the stirring times in which they lived, were it not for the monuments erected to their memory! How many have had their minds directed by some monument or other memorial to the life and times of men of whom otherwise they would never have heard even the names, or studied the history, or reflected on the lives however eventful! Thus it is, in a higher sense, with the institution of the Supper; it is a monument to Christ, and helps to keep up the remembrance of him, which would else have been more or less forgotten. It reminds men of his death, and shall continue to do so till he come again; it reminds us of the debt of obedience we owe to his dying command, "Do this in remembrance of me;" it reminds us, too, of a day when he will come "to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believe."

II. THE NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE . A sacrament, not a sacrifice. The Lord's Supper is a sacrament, not a sacrifice. We reject and reprobate the teaching of those who regard the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice—the so-called sacrifice of the Mass or the offering up of the bread and wine converted into the flesh and blood of Christ; and who represent it as a bloodless, yet true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for both the living and the dead. Nothing could be more contrary to or contradictory of the Word of God. In forming a correct notion of this ordinance, of which the passage before us contains the institution, it may be helpful to clear away the rubbish which, in the course of time, accumulated round it. In doing so it may be well to state what it is not , and then what it is —to exhibit the negative side of this sacrament, and then the positive .

1 . In the first place, then, we reject the doctrine of transubstantiation held by the Latin Church. This doctrine, first formulated by the Abbot of Corbey, Paschasius Radbert, in the beginning of the ninth century, first denominated transubstantiation by Hildebert of Tours in the beginning of the twelfth century, and made an article of faith by the Lateran Council in the beginning of the thirteenth century, means the conversion or change of the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of our Lord. We repudiate this dogma

2 . In the second place, we reject the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation, which teaches that though the substance of the elements is not changed, yet the body and blood of Christ are mysteriously but really and corporeally present in, with, and under the elements, and are received corporeally with the mouth by communicants along with the symbols. Though this opinion is rather speculative than otherwise, though it does not convert the sacrament into a sacrifice, though it does not lead to the adoration of the elements, and though it does not impart to the sacrament a physical virtue apart from the dispositions of the recipient, yet it involves several grave difficulties. It necessitates a literal interpretation of the words of institution, and so a substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in this sacrament. The Lutherans are at pains to define this presence. It was not a change of one substance into another ( μετουσία ), nor the mixing of one substance with another ( συνουσία ), nor the inclusion of one substance in another ( ἐνουσία ), nor the absence of substance ( ἀπουσία ); but the real coexistence or presence ( παρουσία ) of the one substance with the other, that is, the earthly with the heavenly. For this purpose, however, a communication of properties is requisite, so that the humanity of Christ shares the omnipresence of his divinity. The Lutheran doctrine, it is true, makes the ubiquitous presence of the body of Christ unique and peculiar to the Lord's Supper. It is further alleged that the humanity of Christ is at the right hand of God, and that the right hand of God is everywhere; therefore Christ, as to his humanity, is everywhere present. It is plain, however, that this omnipresence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Supper is contrary to the nature of a body, and thus self-contradictory. Besides, this omnipresence of the body and blood of our Lord would imply their presence in every ordinary meal as well as in the Lord's Supper. Neither is it a sufficient or at all satisfactory answer to this to say, as Lutherans do, that omnipresence in this case means no more than accessibility, that is, the fact of being everywhere given, for the body and blood, if thus given and received everywhere, would be everywhere operative.

3 . In the third place, we do not agree with the Zwinglians, including Zwingle himself, Carlstadt, Myconius, Bucer, Bullinger, and the reformers of Zurich, who went to the opposite extreme from the Lutherans. They regarded the elements as signs or symbols, and nothing else and nothing more; these they held to be memorials of the absent body of our Lord. The tendency of the Zwinglian doctrine was to lessen the efficacy and lower the character of this sacrament. Looking upon the elements as mere signs, viewing them as memorials and not means of grace, denying the special presence of the Savior, they made the sacrament of the Supper little, if anything, more than a bare act of commemoration or a mere badge of profession. And so it happens that the doctrine of the Supper, as set forth by Zwingle himself, is that still held by Remonstrants and Socinians to the present day. Here we are reminded of the memorable conference that once took place on this subject. For a full account of the discussion, the district where it was held, and the disputants on the occasion, we must refer the reader to the description by D'Aubigne, which, as usual, is at once picturesque and instructive. We can only notice the fact in its bearing on the subject of the Supper. On an eminence overlooking the city of Marburg stands an ancient castle. Away in the distance sweeps the lovely valley of the Lahn. Further still, the mountain-tops rise one above another till they are lost in the clouds or disappear in the remote horizon. In that old castle was an antique chamber, with vaulted roof and Gothic arches. It was called the Knight's Hall. There, more than three centuries and a half ago, a conflict took place, not with carnal weapons, but intellectual and spiritual. Princes, nobles, deputies, and theologians were there. The combatants were the mighty Luther and the mild Melancthon on the one side, with the magnanimous Zwingle and the meek OE colampadius on the other. It was this very subject that formed the ground of debate. Luther held by the literal sense, dogmatically repeating "This is my body," while his opponents urged the necessity of taking the words figuratively. And here, in passing, it may be observed that much as both Romanists and Lutherans insist on the literal sense of the words, they are figurative even according to their interpretation. As used by the Romanists they are an instance of the figure synechdoche, as used by Lutherans they are a metonymy, while as used by Protestants in general they are admitted to be metaphorical.

4 . Now, in the fourth place, and in opposition to all these, we give in our adhesion to the creed of the great majority of the Reformed Churches on this doctrine. Here it is necessary to bear in mind that, among the Reformed themselves, Zwingle occupied one pole, Calvin held the opposite, while the form of the doctrine ultimately agreed on and acquiesced in by the great body of Reformed communions was intermediate. Zwingle's view, as already seen, made the sacrament of the Supper symbolical and commemorative, reducing it to a mere sign; Calvin, on the other hand, held that believers receive an emanation or supernatural influence from the glorified body of Christ in heaven. The illustration he employed made his meaning plain: it was to this effect, that the sun is absent and distant from us in the heavens, but his light and heat are present with us and enjoyed by us on earth. The Reformed, however, maintained that believers received the sacrificial virtue of Christ's atoning death. Eventually the Consensus Ligurinus was drawn up by Calvin. The immediate object was to harmonize the Zwinglians and Calvinists; but it accomplished much more than this. It embodies the doctrine of the Supper which is held by all the Reformed Churches. The various Reformed Confessions are in harmony with it. The second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, which constitute the doctrinal standards of the Reformed Churches of the Continent; the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England; the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, are in full accord with it. The doctrine of these Churches and Confessions may be expressed in, or rather compressed into, the following brief statement, slightly modified from the Westminster Confession:—"The body and blood of Christ are as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in this ordinance as the elements themselves are to their outward senses." Hence it comes to pass that while we outwardly and visibly partake of the sensible signs, which are bread and wine, we inwardly and faithfully receive Christ and him crucified with all the benefits of his death. The real presence of Christ is enjoyed by his people in this sacrament; but that presence is not bodily, it is spiritual. His body broken and blood shed are present, not materially, but virtually; by this we mean that the beneficial effects of his sacrificial death upon the cross are conveyed to the faithful recipient. These benefits are received, not by the mouth, but by faith. The whole is made effectual by the Holy Spirit to our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.

III. THE DOCTRINES MADE VISIBLE BY THE SUPPER . Nature of a sermon . A sermon is intended to explain some doctrine, or enforce some duty, or both. The great object to be attained is the glory of God in Christ and the Christian's good. The sacrament of the Sapper has often been compared to a sermon; but it is a sermon to the eye—a visible sermon, if the expression be allowed. It is a sermon, too, that thus visibly sets forth several of the leading doctrines of our holy religion.

1 . The first doctrine visibly exhibited in the Lord's Supper is the Incarnation . The Incarnation, or Christ's coming in the flesh, was the great event of the ages; for "when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman." "The everlasting Son of the Father," when he took upon him to deliver man, "did not abhor the Virgin's womb;" and so, in the language of one of the Church's creeds, he "was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." Now, the bread symbolizing the body, and the wine the blood, both together set forth the body of flesh with the living fluid that circulates through it; and thus the elements of bread and wine teach the doctrine of the Incarnation, speaking to us the same language as the Evangelist John, when, in the first chapter of his Gospel, he tells us, at the first verse, that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" and then adds, at the fourteenth verse, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The bread and wine, therefore, inculcate the same sacred truth as the inspired writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."

2 . The second doctrine visibly taught in the Supper is that of the Atonement , or the setting-at-one of persons alienated. The parties in this case are God and men, the latter alienated, and enemies in their minds by wicked works, the carnal mind being enmity against God; while "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." This setting-at-one is the work of reconciliation, from which, however, atonement only differs as being the more comprehensive term, and including not only the reconciliation itself, but the means by which reconciliation is effected. The atonement, then, or those sufferings of the Savior by which reconciliation is accomplished, in other words, the bruising and breaking of Christ's body and the shedding of his blood, are set forth visibly by breaking the bread and pouring out the wine in the Lord's Supper.

"Bread of the world, in mercy broken,

Wine of the soul, in mercy shed,

By whom the words of life were spoken,

And in whose death our sins are dead;

"Look on the heart by sorrow broken,

Look on the tears by sinners shed;

And be thy feast to us the token

That by thy grace our souls are fed."

III. The third doctrine presented to the eye in the sacrament of the Supper is that of Faith , by which we feed on Christ to our spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. The exercise of faith on the Son of God is symbolized by our eating the bread and drinking the wine. These same acts of eating and drinking are employed by our Lord in the sixth chapter of John to symbolize and signify the exercise of faith. Thus he says in the chapter cited, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you;" and again, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day;" still further it is added, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." Thus the most intimate fellowship with Christ, the closest union and communion with him, life spiritual here and everlasting hereafter, together with part in the resurrection of the just, are conditioned by and connected with that faith of which eating and drinking are the symbols.

"Sweet feast of love Divine;

'Tis grace that makes us free

To feed upon this bread and wine,

In memory, Lord, of thee.

"Here conscience ends its strife,

And faith delights to prove

The sweetness of the bread of life,

The fullness of thy love."

4. The fourth doctrine thus visibly taught in the Lord's Supper is the Communion of saints. The word communion" implies our discharging some duty together ( munus )—doing something in common. At the Lord's table we partake of bread in common and of wine in common—the same bread and the same cup; and this common participation is a visible manifestation of the doctrine of the communion of saints. Hence the apostle says, "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 bread." This communion of saints is based on union to Christ. As branches, we are grafted into the living Vine, and thence draw life and strength and nourishment; as living stones, we are built up into a spiritual temple, the foundation being apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the chief Corner-stone; as members of his mystical body, we are knit by joints and bands to him as the living Head. By virtue of this union of all true Christians with Christ, they have communion each with the other. We have common privileges, common benefits, common blessings, and common duties. We have hopes and fears in common, joys and sorrows in common, trials and triumphs in common; and all these not merely in connection with the same congregation or the same Christian communion, but to some extent "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Oh that Christians realized this more in their own souls, and exhibited it more in their lives, and manifested it more to the ungodly world around! Oh, when shall the great intercessory prayer be fulfilled: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"! Oh, when will that proof of the divinity of our Lord's mission be given to an unbelieving world and a misbelieving age! Oh, when shall the holy Church cease to be rent asunder by schisms, distressed by heresies, and oppressed by the scornful!

"Elect from every nation,

Yet one o'er all the earth,

Her charter of salvation

One Lord, one faith, one birth;

One holy Name she blesses,

Partakes one holy food,

And to one hope she presses

With every grace endued."

5. The fifth doctrine is that of the glorious second Advent —that advent which the Church is looking for and hasting to. But this doctrine is presented in the communion, not visibly, but orally; not to the eye, but to the ear, in the words, "Ye do show the Lord's death till he come ."

IV. THE SACRAMENTAL SIGNS ; THEIR SIGNIFICANCE .

1 . The sacramental elements . These are two in number—bread for nourishment and wine for refreshment. One of these might serve the purpose; then why are two employed? Two are employed instead of one

2 . The sacramental actions . Some of these are performed by the administrator, others by the recipient. On the part of the former they are taking, blessing, breaking , and giving . The taking symbolizes the assumption of our nature, "the mystery of the holy incarnation." The blessing signifies separation from a common to a special purpose, from an ordinary to a sacred use, as also thanks-giving to God for the unspeakable gift of his Son, for the means of salvation thus made available, and for this solemn ordinance itself as a sign and seal of the benefits bestowed—in a word, for all the mercies of his covenant, for all his love to our souls, for all his faithfulness to his promises, for all he has done, is doing, and has promised to do. The breaking is expressive of the breaking and bruising of his body; that is, the painful death on the cross, the pouring out of his life unto death, the making of his soul an offering for sin to satisfy Divine justice, to pacify Divine wrath, and purchase salvation for us. The giving denotes the gift of the Father, who "so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life;" the gift of the Son, of whom the believer can say, "He loved me, and gave himself for me;" every needful gift, for "he that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, shall he not with him also freely give us all things?—the gift of all things, for "all things are yours, because ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." The Christian's inventory is as follows:—"Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come;" all are yours, because Christ is yours—Christ, in the glory of his Godhead, in the dignity of his person, in the suitability of his offices, in the perfection of his work, in the sufficiency of his atonement, in the power of his resurrection, in the prevalency of his intercession, in the preciousness of his promises, in all the blessedness of his benefits; no benefit kept back, no blessing withheld, and no promise excepted. Thus he is "made of God to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;" and thus we are "complete in him." There are also sacramental actions on the part of the recipients— taking, eating and drinking, dividing . These also are significant. Our taking implies intelligent acceptance of Christ and cordial reception of him. We embrace him fully as he is offered freely. We take him in all the capacities pertaining to his person or identified with his work. We take him as our Teacher, to be taught to know and believe and do the truth; as our Sin-bearer, who bore our sins in his own body, suffering, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God; as our King, to rule in us and over us and for us. We take him as our Savior and Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob, that we may be saved from the guilt and filth of Sin, from the pollution and power of sin, from the defilement and dominion of sin; we take him as "the Lord our Righteousness" and Strength; as the Beloved of our soul—the chief among ten thousand in our esteem. We take his laws for our direction, his love for our consolation, his precepts to guide us, his promises to gladden us; his cross in time, his crown in eternity; for if we bear the cross now, we shall wear the crown hereafter. Thus St. Paul says, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ;" and again, "Henceforth is laid up for me a crown of glory, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me at that day." By eating and drinking we understand the necessary application. Bread must be eaten in order to nourish, and wine drunk that it may refresh. The elements thus entering our bodies incorporate with our system and become part of our frame. As the application of Christ by faith unites us with Christ, so by this symbolic application of his body and blood that union becomes still closer. By such sacramental action, too, we profess publicly our union with Christ, and proclaim to the Church and to the world that Christ is one with us and we with him—Christ formed in our heart the hope of glory, and our life hid with Christ in God. By eating and drinking we say in action what Thomas said in words, "My Lord and my God;" we claim sacramentally that mutual relationship which the Spouse in Canticles claims verbally when she says, "My Beloved is mine, and I am his." The dividing , according to the direction in St. Luke, "Take this and divide it among yourselves," is expressive of practical communion with each other in the charities and amenities of life; consequently of hallowed fellowship, Christian affection, and brotherly love; of the widest, yet tenderest, sympathies with all followers of our common Lord, with all fellow-travelers to the heavenly home, and with all fellow-heirs of the future glory in our Father's house above.

3 . The sacramental words . These comprise an injunction , an explanation , and an obligation . The injunction or command is comprehended in the following terms:—"Take, eat;" This do in remembrance of me; Drink ye all of it;" "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." The explanation consists of the two following sentences:—"This is my body, which is broken for you;" "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Here there is an obvious reference to the words of Moses, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you" ( Exodus 24:8 ). The obligation or enforcement applies to the whole, and is contained in the single sentence, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show ['ye proclaim,' Revised Version] the Lord's death till he come."

4 . Concluding observations . The Lord's Supper is thus not a sacrifice, but a feast after a sacrifice, and a feast upon a sacrifice. It is a wellspring in the wilderness, a green spot in the desert, a feast to refresh us on our pilgrimage, and a foreshadowing of that feast above, where "many shall come from the east, and west, and north, and south, and sit down [recline] with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." We are constrained, somewhat reluctantly, to pass over several interesting topics in this connection—the reasons for partaking of this sacrament, the uses to be made of it, the benefits to be derived from it, as also the qualifications for worthily observing it. Here we may just notice in regard to the latter