صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

stitution of the Lord's supper, is contained in the twenty-sixth chapter; but attended with so many different and contradictory cir cumstances, that it is absolutely irreconcilable to Luke's history of the same things. For Luke informs us, that, according to the universal practice of the Jews in celebrating the Passover, our Lord began with taking a cup of wine, which, after thanking God for the mercies recorded in that festival, he handed round to the Apostles, with an apology for his own non-observance of the custom of drinking of it first himself, as every master of a family did on the same occasion; that next, as was customary also, he took a loaf of bread, and, having offered up the usual thanksgiving to God, brake the bread, and distributed of it to each of them, bidding them consider that bread as an emblem of his body, which was given for them, and to observe a similar ceremony amongst themselves in remembrance of him; that he then partook with them of the Paschal supper; and that, after supper, he distributed to them in the same manner, the grace-cup, with which that festive meal was always closed, bidding them to consider the wine also as an emblem of his blood, which was about to be

shed, to ratify the New Covenant, which God now made with them; that, immediately after, as if it were by way of contrast to that affectionate, grateful remembrance of him, which he had just enjoined them practically to retain, he exclaimed, “ But, bc"hold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, "is with me on the table:" that so extraordinary a declaration set them to enquire amongst themselves, which of them could be meant: as the annunciation of his approaching death made them contend, which of them should be accounted their chieftain after that event; that, to put an end to a strife so unbecoming the spirit of his unassuming religion, he told them, no one of his disciples, as such, should arrogate a superiority over his Christian brethren; and that they were to expect no other authority or pre-eminence, besides what they were destined to partake of, in some degree with himself, after their death, at the final, complete establishment of his kingdom, or the kingdom of God, upon earth: but, according to Luke, he did not interpose one word to settle their doubts about the person of the traitor. The writer, called Matthew, on the contrary, who, instead of being a Jew himself, appears to have been very

s

imperfectly acquainted with either the prophecies or customs of the Jews, takes not the least notice of the cup preceding the supper, and in telling us that the apology for his own not drinking of the wine, was made by Jesus at the grace-cup, when he ordained the ceremony of the Lord's supper, he really betrays his own ignorance, by teaching us that he did not begin the feast, as was customary, with the cup; for if he did, and the apology for his not drinking of it himself was given then, there could be no propriety in his repeating it so soon after, at the grace-cup; especially when we consider, that the latter was proposed to them, as a commencement of that commemorative rite of which he was to be the object, not the partaker: whereas, the participation of the cup before the before the supper was the common form of beginning the Paschal feast, which, as a Jew, concerned him as much as his disciples. In contradiction also to Luke, who tells us, that what was said of the traitor, was said after the supper was ended, and the commemorative observance instituted-and plainly intimates, that he did not explain whom he meant-this writer informs us, that it passed whilst they were eating the supper, and, what is singularly un

P

accountable, even before the breaking and distributing the unleavened bread; and says, that every one of the Apostles asked him, whether it was he, and upon Judas's asking him the same question, he declared before them all, that he was the person; yet he immediately proceeded to institute, what we call, the Lord's supper, and enjoined it upon Judas equally with the rest. One of these two histories, therefore, must be false; and which it is, another very remarkable difference, concerning the express terms, in which that part of the Lord's supper that regards, the wine, was instituted, will perhaps help us to determine; for this author tells us, our Lord's words were, This is my blood of "the New Covenant, which is shed for many,

66

for the remission of sins;" words which have proved the source of that fatal inefficacy of the moral influence of the Gospel, occasioned by representing the death of Jesus as

propitiatory sacrifice, and a satisfactory atonement for the sins of the whole world; whereas, Luke mentions nothing of the remission of sins; but says, his words were, "This cup is the New Covenant in my "blood, which is shed for you." And that Luke's account is the true one, we have the

most convincing evidence from Paul, who, 1 Cor. c. xi. v. 25, assures us, that he received the account of this institution from our blessed Saviour himself; and that his words were, as Luke has recorded them, "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood," without one syllable of the remission of sins.

VII. FROM hence, to the conclusion of this Gospel, the differences and contradictions, between this writer and Luke, are so numerous and so great, that it appears asto. nishing, notwithstanding Paul's early prediction to the Thessalonians, that so it would be, that the inhabitants of Christendom, of every intellectual degree, should, for so many centuries, have received, for the word of truth itself, the most gross and palpable falsehood, which, of two contradictory histories, one of them must certainly be. But it is well worth our while to consider, with all our attention, that Paul tells us, that, even under the influence of this predicted, strong delusion, men would stand condemned in the sight of God; because the real, though unavowed reason of their rejecting truth for fables and fictitious falsehood, has been their taking pleasure in

« السابقةمتابعة »