posed to believe that the original precept of Moses had reference only to the bread of the passover, and not to any drink that might be used. In fact, not one word is said about any drink on that occasion, when it was first instituted. We know not whether wine was drunk at all; although it is not improbable that it might be, at least by many families. But there is no prescription respecting it. When the Jewish custom began of excluding fermented wine from the passover-feast, is not known. That the custom is very ancient; that it is even now almost universal; and that it has been so for time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, I take to be facts that cannot be farly con'roverted. I am aware that Professor Maclean, in his sharp-sighted criticism on some productions of our English brethren respecting temperance, has avowed different convictions on this subject, and vouched for the contrary of these propositions. But I am fully persuaded, that he has, on this point, been misled by partial testimonies, and that only loose and half-Jewish synagogues or societies of Jews, are accustomed to use fermented wine at the passover. I take this to have been as rare among strict and conscientious Jews, for time past indefinite and unknown, as the use of water only at the sacramental table among churches. I do not say this in order to disparage his criticisms; which are ev de tly the fruit of much labour and great acuteness. I say it merely to correct what I must believe to be a mistake, in this part of his critical essay. For the rest, he has shown that not a few errors in both classical and sacred exegesis, have been committed by the English writers in question. Pity that so good a cause had not been more guardedly and skilfully and philologically defended, than it has been by those writers!

I cannot doubt that , in its widest sense, was excluded from the Jewish passover, when the Lord's Supper was first instituted; for I am not able to find ev dence to make me doubt, that the custom among the Jews of excluding fermented wine, as well as bread, is older than the Christian era. am aware that the Rabbins themselves have had dispute at times in respec to th's point. But as the case stands before my mind, it seems quite certain that Jewish orthodoxy demands exclusion of fermented wine.

What then is the natural deduction from this? It must be, that at the institution of t e Lord s Supper newly made wine was em

ployed. We cannot well suppose, that Christ himself would have deemed this important. But when he bade his disciples prepare for the feast of the passover, he gave them no special directions. Of course they would make the usual and common preparations. It follows then, unless I am wholly in error with regard to the Jewish usage, that new wine was used at the original institution of the Lord's Supper. There is no probability that two different kinds of wine were provided for the occasion; for the disciples, who had made the requisite preparation, knew nothing as yet of the Lord's Supper.

There is a passage in Matt. 26, 29 and Mark 14, 25, which seems to me to allude to the kind of wine employed on this occasion; which passage, because this has been overlooked, has long been a crux interpretum. After distributing the cup, the Saviour says to his disciples, that he shall "no more drink with them of the fruit of the vine, until he shall drink it zawór, NEW, with them in the kingdom of his Father." Whether it means to drink new wine in the kingdom of God, is the question before us. Let us hear Kuinoel: Many interpreters explain it by vinum præstantius, excellentius," i. e. wine of the better sort. But, as he well adds: "Vix probari poterit," this cannot well be proved. Indeed there is no foundation at all for such an exegesis. But how shall we expound, if not in this way? "I am more pleased," says he, “with Theophylact's exposition, za ro̟ón, i. e. in another way, under different circumstances; so that aron is put for zarà xairóv, and xavóv means the same as regov, i. e. different." Sic! But the difficulty here is, that xavóv does not stand adverbially, and so cannot stand for xarà xan; but, in Matt. 26, 29, it agrees with αὐτό which refers to γέννημα ἀμπέλου ; that is, new refers to the fruit of the vine, and to nothing else. The question then remains in statu quo: What is new wine in the kingdom of God?

De Wette solves the difficulty, by saying that it is called new here in reference to the future renovation of all things at Christ's coming. It refers to an ideal celebration of the Supper in a glorified state.' This is hitting the point with more dexterity; but still, even this does not quite satisfy the curious inquirer. Why is the wine to be new, on the future occasion suggested, any more than the bread, and all things else which belonged to the apparatus for

the occasion? There seems, then, to be no special point in this exegesis? Such an explanation leaves, after all, the main and distinctive difficulty still untouched.

What now if the wine was made new, on occasion of the passover, and the epithet new refers to this? It is no objection to this view, that the Saviour has said, in Luke 5, 39, that the old wine is better than the new ;' for this has reference merely to the gratification of the taste. It was no object, at the passover-meal, to gratify the taste. Unleavened bread and bitter herbs were the appropriate viands, on that occasion. The sort of wine, therefore, which would least gratify the taste, would seem to be much better in keeping with these. Why may we not understand Jesus then, as saying, that he should no more celebrate a passover or supper with his disciples, until he should sit down with them at the feast which divine love will prepare, in his Father's house which has many mansions? There he is, according to other passages of Scripture (Rev. 3, 20), to sup with his followers. It is not the excellence of the viands to which we ought to suppose a reference here to be made. On another occasion, that might be very appropriate. But here something in the heavenly world is referred to, which bears an analogy to the passover and the supper on earth. And what did these celebrate? The first celebrated the deliverance of God's people from the destroying angel who smote the Egyptians, and their deliverance too from the yoke of bondage; the second the deliverance from eternal death and from the bondage of sin, through the death of Christ. How natural now to refer to the renewal of such a celebration in the world of glory! To speak of the wine exhibited at that feast as new, was as much according to the usages and views of the time when this was uttered, as to characterize the nature and object of the feast to be renewed in the world of light and love. The circumstance that the wine was more or less grateful to the taste, is here left out of the question. It is a renewal of the glorious jubilee of freedomof eternal deliverance, which constitutes the main point in the discourse. And the simple fact of saying that the wine was to be new, at once pointed out to the disciples the nature and object of the future feast.

All literal eating or drinking I understand, of course, is to be

excluded by the nature of the case. But the diction assumes its particular hue, because it is borrowed from literal usages. The whole becomes, when thus understood and interpreted, fraught with significant and beautiful sentiment. Construed in the usual way, it either violates the common principles of philology, or else has but an imperfect and one-sided meaning, which is incapable of any satisfactory explanation.'

So much for the new wine, most probably drunk at the first Lord's Supper. Is it obligatory on Christians to employ it

пого?

The

I think not. I am fully persuaded, that the use of it at first was merely accidental, that is, merely because on that occasion no other was at hand. Any other would have been equally significant, and is so now. Enough, that an element which may fairly and appropriately symbolize the blood of Christ, is used. This is the essence of the celebration by this element. Where the essence is well provided for and fairly exhibited, the Lord's Supper is duly celebrated, so far as its material symbols are concerned. ordinance of the supper is designed to show, that what the bread and wine are to the body for refection and the imparting of strength, the like is the body and blood of Christ to the soul for its spiritual nourishment and growth. This is the sum. It is a great truth which is to instruct, to edify, to exhort, to rebuke, to comfort. It is this, applied by the Holy Spirit, and blessed by him, which makes the sacrament profitable, in a spiritual way, to the worthy partakers.

If any one is still scrupulous about the kind of wine, and thinks that we must copy exactly the original model, because the Saviour has said, "This do in remembrance of me;" then why does he not reason in the same way with respect to the bread? It is clear that unleavened bread only was used in the first celebration. No other could be had. And why does he not extend this to the kind

Perhaps, after all, the curious inquirer might ask, Whether the future new wine here spoken of, may not rather imply distinction and antithesis in respect to that which was then present? Or, he might ask, If the epithet new is to be urged as in

the text, and cannot be understood in some such way as that which De Wette above suggests (p. 509), how are we then to understand the new song of Rev. 14, 3? or the new name of Rev. 2, 17? See above on p. 475. -ED.

of room in which the Supper is to be celebrated, viz. in an upper loft? Why not to the form of the table or triclinium; to the position, lying down on the left arm; to the dress of the guests; to the kind of furniture; to the season of the celebration, at evening? The scrupulous man, who perplexes himself so much about the wine, holds himself quite free and easy in regard to all these things; and yet they belong as much to the This do, as the wine which is to be employed on the occasion.

Of one thing we are certain. Neither Jesus nor his apostles have once made mention of oiros, wine, still less of any particular otros, in any prescriptions concerning this ordinance. It is the fruit of the vine and the cup, of which they have spoken. They have therefore left the churches at liberty to choose the fruit of the vine' in what way they judge best. There is only this implication throughout, viz. that the significancy of the symbol should not be sacrificed nor obscured, and that all should be done decently and in order. More than this cannot be shown. It is out of question. about establishing any certainty, that Jesus and his disciples made use of wine that had been fermented. The probability, at least, is strongly against this. And on the other hand, it is equally out of question about enforcing a strict and literal use of new wine on this occasion; because the use of it, if it was employed at the first institution of the Lord's Supper, was evidently the mere result of their present circumstances, and not of any choice on the ground that one particular species of wine was deemed specially important.

One other question, moreover, intimately connected with this subject, here presents itself. In case the Saviour and his disciples did employ the common fermented wine of Palestine, did they drink it pure, or diluted with water?

As to any decision of this from the New Testament, by any express prescription, or any certain implication, from what is said, it is in vain to look for it. Nothing is said respecting it. Inference from circumstances is all which is left us as a ground of argument. What then is the probability, as gathered in this way ?

It will be conceded by all reasonable interpreters, that it is probable the usual method of drinking wine among the Jews was practised. And what was this? Among sober men in Roman and