upon the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, &c." Exodus, xii. 13. The blood was a token or sign of the covenant or agreement then made between God and them, and ratified partly by pouring out the blood of the Paschal Lamb, and partly by feeding on the flesh of this sacrifice. In the institution of the eucharist our Lord says, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins."* The cup here is put for the wine contained in it,

In this place our Lord terms the cup, the new testament in his blood, by which he means, that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God was now establishing, between himself and mankind, by the passion and death of his Son. Dr. Lightfoot's observations on this passage are worthy of serious notice " This cup is the new testament in my blood"-not only the seal, but the sanction of the covenant under the gospel dispensation; the end of the Mosaic economy, and the confirming of the christian. The confirmation of the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, because blood was still to be shed, the confirmation of the new was by a cup of wine, because under the new covenant Christ having once offered himself, there is no farther shedding of blood.

the token or sign of the covenant. The wine, as representing Christ's blood, answers to the blood of the passover, which was typical of the blood of our Lord, and the remission of sins here, answers to the passing over there, and preserving from death.—6 At the paschal feast, there was a declaration of the great things which God had done for that people, and our Lord makes use of the eucharist, to declare and point out the great mercy of God in our redemption, for it shews forth the Lord's death, (and consequently all the benefits to be derived from it) till his second advent.-7 At the paschal solemnity they were accustomed to sing a hymn of praise to God, and this part of their conduct our Lord and his disciples exactly copiedand when they had sung a hymn, they departed, &c.

The many resembling circumstances, real and verbal, abundantly shew, that this holy eucharist was in a great measure copied from the paschal feast, and was intended to supply its place, only heightening the design, and improving the application.

Having shewn that the eucharist succeeded to the passover, and proved that the passover was intended to typify and point out this new covenant rite, I observe, further, that the Lord's supper was intended to be, like the Paschal Feast, a feast upon a sacrifice.

In those ages of the world, when victims made a principal part of the religion, both of Jews and Gentiles, the sacrifice was followed by a religious feast on the thing offered, called a feast upon or after the sacrifice, the partakers of which, were supposed to become partakers of the benefits of the sacrifice. In allusion to this custom, Jesus was pleased to institute a feast of the same kind. In order of time, indeed, the feast naturally followed the sacrifice. But in this great atonement, where the victim, the offerer, and the priest, were all one and the same person, the feast was of necessity to precede the sacrifice.

The history of this institution is recorded by the evangelists in these words-" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, and

said, take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Now to manifest that I am not mistaken in the idea bere given of this rite, let us reflect on the precise time of its celebration. As Jesus with his disciples (says the text) was concluding the paschal supper, which was a Jewish feast, after the sacrifice, his own approaching sacrifice naturally suggested to him, the idea of this customary feast, but being himself both the victim, and the offerer, the institution of this rite must of necessity, as I observed, precede the sacrifice,

The sacrifice on the cross was the antitype of the Paschal Lamb, and the feast on Christ's sacrifice, was the antitype of the Paschal Feast. So that the properest season we can conceive, for the institution of the last supper, was the instant of time between the celebration of the type, and the offering of the antitype. This time likewise corresponded with Christ's usual practice, who was wont to deliver his instructions, by actions

and expressions bearing allusion to what passed before his eyes, or presented itself in the natural course of things, to his observation.* These considerations shew, that the action in the celebration of this rite, was so strongly declarative of its nature, that had Jesus only broken the bread, and given the cup in remembrance of himself, without adding, this is my body, and this is my blood, no ingenuous reader could entertain a doubt, whether this was designed by him as a feast upon the sacrifice. But when to this, we add the remaining part of the explanatory words in the consecration of the elements-This is my body-this is my blood, what is here contended for, becomes almost self-evident.

In these feasts upon sacrifices, the very body that had been offered, was eaten for the repast. Now as the last supper was to be instituted, and the rite first celebrated, before

*See Sir Isaac Newton's Observations on the Prophecies, p. 148, where he takes notice how Jesus, from the approach of harvest-from the lilies in bloom-from the leaves of the fig-trees shot out-from the sheep kept in folds near the temple for sacrifice, was accustomed to take occasion of inculcating his spiritual doctrines and precepts.