DISCOURSE XXVI.

USES OF THE COMMUNION.

THEY MADE READY THE PASSOVER. AND WHEN THE HOUR WAS COME, HE SAT DOWN, AND THE TWELVE APOSTLES WITH HIM. AND HE TOOK BREAD, AND GAVE THANKS, AND BRAKE IT, AND GAVE UNTO THEM, SAYING, THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. LIKEWISE ALSO THE CUP AFTER SUPPER, SAYING, THIS CUP IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU. - Luke xxii. 13, 14, 19, 20.

THOUGH Jesus was a religious reformer, and a propounder of principles designed ultimately to subvert the ceremonial religion of his nation, yet he was always a respectful observer of the customs and timehonored emblematic rites and appointments of that religion. Thus we find, that among the very last acts, previous to his violent death, is that described in these simple words: "They made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him." There is nothing in his language on this occasion, which indicates his design either to abolish, or essentially to change, the manner of observing this Hebrew celebration of grateful memory. He says nothing as to the day of the

week, or the place, or the number of times this rite or supper should be observed. All these have been determined by the subsequent consent and custom of the early Christians.

He designed, evidently, to associate this supper in their minds with other events than those in which it originated. These new associations, constituting all the change which he proposed, he summed up in these simple, but comprehensive and expressive words, "This do in remembrance of me." Not once every year, not once every month, not once every week, not only on the seventh day, nor on the first day of the week,- time or place he did not specify, -but, "as oft as ye do it," where, or whensoever ye do it," do it in remembrance of me."

It forms no part of my present purpose to enumerate the various and strange opinions which may have existed, or may now exist, as to the signification of this observance, commonly designated the Lord's Supper. To give a history of its past uses and abuses, through eighteen centuries, would exhaust your patience, without compensating by any valuable information. It has, from an early period in the Church, been styled a Sacrament. Looking over past Church history, it is much to be regretted that this term has become in so many pious minds devoutly associated with this observance. Sacrament is a wholly unscriptural term, and originally refers to the oath of allegiance taken by Roman heathen soldiers to their emperor or sovereign. While it may, though a heathen term, be metaphorically appropriated by Christians, and employed to signify a pledge of loyalty or fidelity to Christian

truth, yet such have been its sad misuses, and the misapprehensions to which it has conducted, that I cannot but regard it as a most serious misfortune to Christendom and Christian truth, that the Latin converts to Christianity ever introduced the word into Christian theology.

Whilst in a figurative sense this observance may be, and while to some perhaps it is, and should be, a sacrament, a repeated or perpetual pledge of loy alty or allegiance to Christianity, or the Sovereign of Christianity, yet its primary, most proper and comprehensive meaning, as it appears to me, is expressed by the simple word communion, or, as the New Tes tament still more simply expresses it, a "breaking of bread." By the breaking of bread, and tasting from the cup, together, is signified a communion, — a communion of memory and of hope, — a communion of faith and sympathy;-memory of the past, hope of the future, faith in truth, and sympathy in benevolence. It is thus that we respond to the tender and touching request of Jesus, "This do in remembrance of me";-remembrance of his character and his teachings, remembrance of his principles and precepts, remembrance of his life and of his death, consummating in its results his beneficent and heavenly ministry to man.

-

But how completely, throughout a large portion of the Church, for ages, has the naturalness and beautiful tenderness of this sentiment of remembrance been submerged in a sea of speculative mysticism! What should have been the recognition of ever-enduring and world-embracing truths, revealed to the mind and heart of man, has been changed into

the inexplicable mark of an awful and profound mystery. That which should have been a perpetual bond of union to the whole great brotherhood of Christendom, has been changed into a badge of sectarian, doctrinal, and personal distinctions. That which should always have been the emblematic, but simple, expression of fraternal sympathy, has been changed into an expression of divine favoritism, a rite of repulsion, and a cause of disaffection and estrangement. When we view the small proportion, even of the regular worshippers of Christian congregations, who participate in this observance, the inquiry is irresistible: Why should this be more repulsive or more mysterious, or why should it be less inviting and less useful, than other celebrations or occasional observances, which are commemorative, sympathetic, and suggestive?

Moved by the Christian spirit of humanity and progress, you dedicate a seminary for the instruction and education of human minds. And why? In what consists the general interest of the occasion? It is a fresh starting-point for effort and improvement,— a new centre of ceaselessly widening influences for human good. And who are present to celebrate the occasion? Only the few who designed and contributed to the erection of the structure? No! But all who are interested in the development of mind, the intellectual elevation of society, and the moral welfare of the world. You found an asylum for the bereaved, the destitute, and the unfortunate, and publicly dedicate it to its benevolent uses. And why this celebration? Because you wish to express gratitude, and hope, and sympathy. Each annual

return of that occasion brings a fresh celebration, and who are present, who are invited to rejoice in it? Only those who prepared the plan, or who contributed to establish the institution? No! but all who feel the common infirmities of our mortal nature; all who are exposed to the common vicissitudes of life; all who have sympathizing hearts, and who desire to mitigate the sorrows of suffering humanity. You build a monument to perpetuate the virtues of a nation's benefactor, and publicly celebrate the day of its completion, because you would not-no! you will not permit the memory of excellence to fade away, nor of goodness to die. An annual offering of grateful recollections marks the anniversary of the birth of one known as the saviour of his nation, the father of his country. Who celebrate the occasion? The inhabitants of a city, or the citizens of a state? A whole vast people commemorate the day, a thrill of sympathy vibrates through the nation. Not a few rejoice, but all,—all who admire patriotic devotion, who love incorruptible integrity, who honor self-sacrificing magnanimity. The old delight in recollections of the past, and the young are pointed to the obelisk, or tower, or pyramid, which speaks of the great man's excellence, and they read new lessons, inspire fresh courage, and breathe lofty resolutions.

Now, fellow-worshippers, and lovers of all that is good and true, momentous and enduring, does this simple Christian celebration recall a less important character, and does it commemorate less important events in the world's history, than those to which we have referred?

Is the occasion less inspiring in its