What did the Institution really mean, and what does it mean to us? We cannot believe that it was intended as merely a sign for remembrance of His Death. Such remembrance is often equally vivid in ordinary acts of faith or prayer; and it seems difficult, if no more than this had been intended, to account for the Institution of a special Sacrament, and that with such solemnity, and as the second great rite of the Church - that for its nourishment. Again, if it were a mere token of remembrance, why the Cup as well as the Bread? Nor can we believe, that the copula is' - which, indeed, did not occur in the words spoken by Christ Himself - can be equivalent to signifies.' As little can it refer to any change of substance, be it in what is called Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If we may venture an explanation, it would be that this,' received in the Holy Eucharist, conveys to the soul as regards the Body and Blood of the Lord, the same effect as the Bread and the Wine to the body - receiving of the Bread and the Cup in the Holy Communion is, really, though spiritually, to the Soul what the outward elements are to the Body: that they are both the symbol and the vehicle of true, inward, spiritual feeding on the Very Body and Blood of Christ. So is this Cup which we bless fellowship of His Blood, and the Bread we break of His Body - fellowship with Him Who died for us, and in His dying; fellowship also in Him with one another, who are joined together in this, that for us this Body was given, and for the remission of our sins this precious Blood was shed. [5714]
Most mysterious words these, yet most blessed mystery this of feeding on Christ spiritually and in faith. Most mysterious - yet he who takes from us our mystery takes from us our Sacrament.' [5715] And ever since has this blessed Institution lain as the golden morning-light far out even in the Church's darkest night - not only the seal of His Presence and its pledge, but also the promise of the bright Day at His Coming. For as often as we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we do show forth the Death of the Lord' - for the life of the world, to be assuredly yet manifested - till He come.' Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!' __________________________________________________________________
[5635] Ex. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii.5; Numb. ix. 3, 5.
[5636] Acts xii. 12, 25.
[5637] St. John ii. 13.
[5638] St. Matt. xv. 21, &c.
[5639] We prefer retaining this in the text.
[5640] Such would still be the meaning, even if the accusative it' were regarded as the better reading.
[5641] Wünsche (on St. John xiii. 2) refers to Pes. 108 a, and states in a somewhat general way that no order of rank was preserved at the Paschal Table. But the passage he quotes does not imply this - only, that without distinction of rank all sat down at the same table, but not that the well-established order of sitting was infringed. The Jerusalem Talmud says nothing on the subject. The Gospel-narrative, of course, expressly states that there was a contention about rank among the disciples. In general, there are a number of inaccuracies in the part of Wünsche's Notes referring to the Last Supper.
[5642] St. John xiii. 2
[5643] B Bathr 57 b.
[5644] Ber. 46 b; Tos. Ber. v.; Jer. Taan, 68 a, towards the bottom.
[5645] St. John xiii. 26.
[5646] St. Matt. xxvi. 25.
[5647] It seems almost incomprehensible, that Commentators, who have not thought this narrative misplaced by St. Luke, should have attributed the strife to Peter and John, the former being jealous of the place of honour which the beloved Disciple' had obtained. (So Nebe, Leidensgesch.; the former even Calvin.)