added, a full persuasion and lively conception of his love and here is the proper meetness for an enjoyment of his presence, and a reception of his heavenly grace and blessing. Do we approach his table, and receive from the hands of his minister the sacred elements representing his body and his blood,-what is to be our object in doing so? Not, surely, to make a show of our devotion before our fellow-Christians, or to cherish, by any such show, vain confidence in ourselves. But to be washed by Christ, to have "our sinful bodies made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood," to the end that, thus washed, we may so intimately have part with him, as "that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.” One more remark remains to be made. It is a inelancholy one. It relates to the case of Judas. "And ye are clean (said our Lord, ver. 10) but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore; said he, Ye are not all clean." By the outward washing of Christ, Judas was outwardly as clean as any of the rest,-but not clean within, not clean in heart. That only could have been our Lord's meaning too significant an intimation this to be misunderstood, that no external washing, though by the hands of Christ himself, is necessarily connected with that inward purity of which it is such an appropriate sign. True, indeed, was our Lord's

declaration to Peter,-"If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me," and who can doubt its spiritual application to every one calling and professing himself a Christian? And yet Judas, partaker as he was in common with Peter and the others in that bodily washing, had properly, "no part with Christ." This awful exception, dear brethren, it surely becomes every one of us to lay well to heart, in a holy fear of the possibility of finding ourselves typified in it. The other disciples, sincere as they were in their love to Christ, were not above this fear. On the contrary, it took serious hold of them. Judas was, in all apparent respects, near enough in his resemblance to them for his own purpose. His personal communion with Christ was hitherto as reputable as theirs. Nor was he suspected by any of them of faithlessness, much less of treachery. No: it was each one for himself, that they were all afraid, lest he should be the unclean one. Like them, dear brethren, let us look each one to himself, closely and fearfully to himself. Am I inwardly and spiritually clean by the washing of Christ? cleansed from guilt by his atoning blood, effectually applied for that purpose; and from spiritual pollution by his Spirit? What is the best proof of this purity? Is it too much to say that it is that which arises from a heart too well acquainted with its own

natural deceitfulness to indulge in any thing like self-confidence; relying exclusively on the atoning sacrifice and sanctifying grace of Christ for being made clean and kept clean; and disposed to pray continually, with David, "Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts, and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Psalm cxxxix. 23-24. In confirmation of this last remark, observe the difference between Judas and the other desciples. When they all said to Jesus one after another, on his predicting his betrayal by one of them, "Lord, is it I?" the question was dictated by a holy self-suspecting fear. Whilst the same question from the lips of Judas could be nothing but a covering for his hypocrisy and his treachery. He knew himself to be the man.

DISCOURSE III.

Institution of the Lord's Supper.

MATTHEW XXVI. 26–30.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the 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.”

THE institution of the Lord's supper is the next scene depicted in the chancel window calling for our attention. And what an interesting, what an affecting, and at the same time what a simple, account is that which is given in the text by St. Matthew, and in like manner by the other evangelists, of this sacred ordinance as instituted by our Lord himself on the evening before he suffered!

Alas! how did the gold, in this case, become dim? how was the most fine gold changed for the dross and tinsel of human device and artifice? Who would have supposed it possible that this Christian ordi

nance, equally simple and sacred in its original form, should have been so grievously misunderstood and misrepresented as it has been ?-so that, instead of serving to fulfil the design of its author, the commemoration of his dying love, to the great and endless comfort of his believing people, it should have been prostituted to the service of idolatry and superstition, oppression and extortion, false doctrine and heresy, with all their abominable concomitants, in connection with the great Romish imposture? Who, in reading the account of the institution of this sacrament by our Saviour in such simple form and manner as is recited in the text, would imagine that it could ever have become, as it has, the principal instrument for the depravation of his religion and darkening the whole face of Christendom with worse than heathen ignorance and superstition? How did this impious profanation of the Lord's supper arise? From a substitution of the vain, and vicious, and vitiating, devices of man for the plain instructions of holy scripture. To the setting aside of the word of God written, and teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, was all the mischief in question owing. By this antiscriptural proceeding it was that a religious ceremony requiring nothing more for a right understanding and pious use of it than simplicity of faith, and love, and obedience, toward our Lord Jesus

D