The conduct of tlie disciples at the Lord's Supper forbids us to believe that the bread they received was Christ's body, and the wine they received was Christ's blood. They were all Jews, taught from their infancy to believe that it was sinful to cat flesh with the blood. (Dent. xii. 23 — 25.) Yet there is nothing in the nar- rative to shew that they were startled b}^ our Lord's words. They evidently perceived no change in the bread and wine.
Our own senses at the present day forbid us to be- lieve that there is any change in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Our own taste tells us that they are really and literally what they appear to be. Things above our reason the Bible requires us to believe. But we are never bid to believe that which contradicts our senses.
The true doctrine about our Lord's human nature forbids us to believe that the bread in the Lord's Supper can be His body, or the wine His blood. The natural body of Christ cannot be at one time in more places than one. — If our Lord's body could sit at table, and at the same time be eaten by the disciples, it is perfectly clear that it was not a human body like our own. But this we must never allow for one moment. It is the glory of Christianity that our Kedeemer is perfect man as well as perfect God.
here naturally takes the'impress of the Hebrew or Syriac idiom, it is being used for it signifies. Hence the similar use of the verb in vari- ous passages ; '' The three branches are three days." Gren. xl. 12. " The seven kine are seven years." Gen. xli, 26. " The ten horns are ten kings." Dan. vii. 24. '' The field ?5 the world." Matt. xiii. 38. " The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." Eev. L 20. Watson on Matthew, p. 386.
357
Finally, the genius of the language in which our Lord spoke at the Lord's Supper, makes it entirely unneces- sary to interpret His words literally. The Bible is full of expressions of a similar kind, to which no one thinks of giving any but a figurative meaning. Our Lord speaks of Himself as the ^^ door" and the " vine,'' and we know that he is using emblems and figures, when He so speaks. There is therefore no inconsistency in supposing that He used figurative language when He appointed the Lord's Supper ; and we have the more right to say so, when we remember the grave objections which stand in the way of a literal view of His words.
Let us lay up these things in our minds, and not forget them. In a day of abounding heresy, it is good to be well armed. Ignorant and confused views of the meaning of Scripture language, are one great cause of religious error.
The second thing which demands our notice in these verses, is the purpose and object for which the Lord's Sap- per was appointed.
This is a subject again on which great darkness pre- vails. The ordinance of the Lord's Supper has been regarded as something mysterious and past understand- ing. Immense harm has been done to Christianity by the vague and high-flown language in which many writers have indulged in treating of the sacrament. There is certainly nothing to warrant such language in the account of its original institution. The more simple our views of its purpose, the more Scriptural they are likely to be.
The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. There is no