final explanation of the nature and intention of His Death an hour of pathetic solemnity. The explanation was not drawn from Him by any request of His disciples or by any taunts of His enemies: it came altogether from Himself, and as the result of a deliberate purpose. It was veiled under no metaphor. It was expressed plainly, directly, explicitly. As if to save it from all the chances and perils which are inseparable from the transmission of thought to remote countries and remote generations, He connected it with the institution of a new and peculiar sacred rite, which was to be celebrated by His disciples to the end of time.

We have four accounts in the New Testament of the institution of the Lord's Supper, St. Matthew's, St. Mark's, St. Luke's, and that given by St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The variations between them are neither uninteresting nor unimportant, but it is unnecessary that I should discuss them.

It was the night before His Passion, the night, as St. Paul reminds us, in which He was betrayed. Our Lord and His disciples were celebrating the Passover,1

1 The force of the argument in the text is not really affected if it is contended that the Lord's Supper was celebrated on the night before the true Passover night. I believe, however, that the traditional view of the Church is sound, and that our Lord celebrated the Passover with His disciples at the time appointed by the Law, and that during the celebration He instituted the great feast of the Church, which has taken its place. The question is discussed at length by all the critical commentators. There is a useful summary of opinions in LANGE'S Commentary on St. John's Gospel, vol. iii. p. 347, and an elaborate discussion of the subject in WIESELER'S Synopsis of the Four Gospels, p. 308, seq.

and as they were eating, Jesus took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, "Take eat, this is My body which is given [or broken] for you this do in remembrance of Me." 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 [or covenant], which is shed for many [or for you] for the remission of sins: this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of Me." It appears, therefore, that our Lord declared that His Death is in some way related to "the remission of sins."

I

He declared, indeed, that it was for the remission of sins that He was about to die. Other ends might be accomplished by His Death, but at a time when we might reasonably suppose that His mind would be filled with the chief and direct objects of His Passion, this is the only one of which He speaks. His blood was shed "for the remission of sins."

He never says that He was tempted "for the remission of sins;" or that He endured hunger, thirst, weariness, and poverty, "for the remission of sins;" or that it was for this that He was transfigured, or that it was for this that He endured the agony of Gethsemane, or that it was for this that He spoke to men about the powers and laws and mysteries and glories of the kingdom of heaven. The whole of His ministry is a revelation of the righteousness and of the love of God, an authoritative appeal to the heart and con

1 Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. In the text the four narratives are combined.

science of the human race, a mighty force constraining men to repent of sin and to trust in the infinite love of the Father. And if His Death contributed to our eternal redemption only by producing in us those dispositions which render it right and possible for God to forgive us, it would be no more intimately related to the remission of sins than every part of His public ministry. Men have been filled with terror by His awful declarations concerning judgment to come and the final doom of the impenitent, and have entreated Him to deliver them from "the worm that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched." The parable of the Prodigal Son has broken their hearts with sorrow for sin, and inspired them with trust in the Divine mercy. I suppose that there is hardly a word of His recorded in the four Gospels that has not drawn some man nearer to God. His miracles, His tears-tears shed at the grave of His friend and over the city of His murderers-all the incidents of His earthly life, are charged with the same wonderful power. In an indirect way, it might be said that His teaching from first to last, all that He did, all that He endured, was intended to secure for us the remission of sins. But never, even incidentally— never, even by implication-does our Lord affirm that it was for this that He wrought miracles, or revealed truth, or submitted to the sorrows and pains which preceded the cross. He does affirm that it was for the remission of sins that He died. He must have believed that the relation between His Death and the remission of sins is different in kind from that which exists

between His teaching or His example and the remission of sins.

There is another peculiarity in our Lord's manner of speaking about His Death. As I have said already, the four narratives contained in the New Testament of the institution of the Lord's Supper vary: no two of them have preserved our Lord's words in precisely the same form, but the same fundamental conception of His death appears in them all. St. Matthew and St. Mark do not tell us that when our Lord broke and distributed the bread He said that He was about to die for others; but they both tell us that when He took the cup He said, "This is My blood of the New Testament [or covenant], which is shed for many." St. Paul does not tell us that when He took the cup He said that His blood was to be shed for others; but he tells us that when our Lord took the bread He said, "This is My body which is broken for you." St. Luke alone represents our Lord as declaring that His Death was a death for others, both when He broke the bread and when He passed the wine. The preservation of this central idea, notwithstanding the variations of the four narratives, is very impressive.

This was not the only time that He described His Death as a death for others. That same night, after the institution of the Supper, He said to His disciples, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends if ye do whatsoever I command you."

1 John xv. 13.

I

Three months before, He had claimed to be the Good Shepherd, and in illustration of His claim He emphasised in the most remarkable manner His readiness and His intention to die for His flock. He does not say that He will lead His sheep to the greenest and most abundant pastures, and to streams which are not dried up by the summer's heat or swollen by the rains of winter into dangerous torrents; but He declares again and again that He will die for them. "I am the good Shepherd; the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep." Up to this point, however, it remains uncertain whether He was to die for the flock of God in any other sense than many faithful shepherds have died for it. Jewish prophets, Christian apostles, many reformers and missionaries, and many courageous ministers of the gospel in evil times, have died rather than betray their trust. Had our Lord said nothing more, it might have been possible to interpret His words as meaning that He was to die as they have died. The shepherd may lose his own life while he is struggling with the wolf; the wolf may be killed, or, even if not, the struggle may give the flock time to escape, though the shepherd perishes. To prevent any misconception, He breaks up His illustration. The shepherd that dies defending his flock does not die voluntarily; he dies because the wolf is too strong for him: but our Lord declares that it is not to be so with Him: "I lay down I 1 John x. 11, 15.