“Twas on that night, when doom’d to know The eager rage of every foe, That night in which he was betray’d, ¥ The Saviour 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
rsecuting fury, he might have anticipated them ; he might, without much risk of error, i. 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 8 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 dissolu- tion. 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 Saviour and Socrates— between the Prince of peace and the prince of pagan philosophers. Their respective
282 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [ou. xiv. 1—72.
sentiments on the eve of execution may for a moment be compared, or rather con- trasted, 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—unmistak- ably 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.”
Il. THE NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE. A sacrament, not @ 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 sacri- fice 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 con- tradictory 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 zé ds not, and then what tt 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 Lurd. We repudiate this dogma (1) as opposed to Scripture ; for St. Paul calls the elements after blessing by the same name as before, saying, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup;” thus they are still bread and wine as much and the same as ever. It is (2) contradicted by the evidence of the senses ; for handle them, and they remain the same; taste them, they are the same ; smell them, they are the same; they are still bread and wine, with all their sensible qualities or accidents, as they are called, unchanged. Now, the testimony of the senses ranks the highest—the testimony of the most credible witnesses cannot over- throw it, and to refuse the information of the senses overturns the certainty of all knowledge ; while one of the acknowledged tests cf Scripture miracles is an appeal to ‘ne senses. It may fairly be admitted that one single sense may, under certain circum-
oH. xIv. 1—72.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 283