says:

bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." And why retain the memory of that event? Because it was "for you :" "This is my body, which is given for you,"—"This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." The personal interest of the communicant in the sacrifice of Christ is the reason for preserving the memory of "the Lord's death." The author of Ecce Homo "It is precisely this intense personal devotion, this habitual feeding on the character of Christ, so that the essential nature of the master seems to pass into and become the essential nature of the servant-loyalty carried to the point of self-annihilation-that is expressed by the words 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ'" (p. 176). We think there is some confusion of idea here. Men could have "fed on the character of Christ" without having a sacrament, so to speak, imposed on them; but they could not "show forth" the Lord's death without a sacrament, the very idea of " idea of "showing forth" requiring visibility and symbolism. "Feeding on the character of Christ" is purely a mental act, but a club dinner is more. And, again, if eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ expresses "intense personal devotion," where is the idea of "ratifying the relations of friendship"? It can only come in secondarily, not primarily as it did in the first part of the argument.

The Lord's Supper is a memorial. It does not necessarily imply the joint act of a number of persons. A single man may show forth his "Lord's death." The club idea is not in the nature of the service at all. Men stand in a personal, not in an associated relation to that death, and the communion must be personal, not one

with another, but each with the Lord. The club idea is more pertinent to the church coming together to feed on the divine Word as it may be read and expounded publicly. In the Old and New Testament men are often represented as eating and drinking the word of God, and as speaking to one another about the bounty and goodness of the feast. Job said, "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." The Psalmist said, "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth;" and Jesus himself said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." Men are invited to "eat and drink abundantly," and to let their "soul delight itself in fatness," and God is proclaimed as making "unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." There is much in this imagery to favour the idea of a club dinner, and to give a meaning to the expression, "feeding on the character of Christ." If it be suggested that each man should partake of the Lord's Supper privately, the suggestion would involve the cessation of all public service; men can pray alone, sing alone, read alone; but Christ called men to himself, constituted those who came into a church, and that church is to-day his representative and the treasurer of his testimony.

With regard to the expression "eat my flesh and drink my blood," it should be noted that it was not used in connexion with the Supper. It forms part of an appeal to the general multitude which pursued Christ after the distribution of the loaves and fishes. He knew that the people sought him because they "did eat of the

loaves and were filled," and thereupon he discoursed concerning himself as "the living bread which came down from heaven." His method of putting the case was likely to create strife among the literalists who heard him ; and as the Jews "strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus answered, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you: whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him." The circumstances clearly show that the expression did not relate to the Supper, but was part of what we should now regard as a sermon or a religious address. In this sense there is no incongruity in rendering it as equivalent to "feeding on the character of Christ." The hearers had eaten of the natural bread, and as usual Christ conducted them to a spiritual interpretation of natural circumstances, and so put himself before them as the living bread, a strong figurative representation of his person and work. It is as though he had said—You have eaten of the bread that perisheth; as that bread nourishes the body, there is another bread which nourishes the mind; as the body could not exist without the former, so the mind must die without the latter; I myself am the living bread, the mind must feed upon me as specially provided for its quickening. In so addressing the people, Christ elevated a fact into a figure; he took the circumstance of the hour and hung upon it lessons of eternity; he did not import the figure as an original conception, but found it in the passing event. To press the allegory further would be unjust, and would bring other allegories under an interpretation which would be absurd. Also to associate the expression with the Supper is to put it

out of place, and to force upon the Supper violent and untenable meanings. That points of analogy may be discovered is clear enough, but what two things are there in the world which do not bear some resemblance and relation to one another?

The argument which we have sought to establish, is that Christ founded his church upon a common faith and a common philanthropy; that the church is one and indivisible; that the sect is not to be confounded with the church; that the church is immortal, though the sect is temporary; that entrance into the church is purely a transaction between Christ and the individual; that within the church there is a sacrament called the Lord's Supper, a sacrament which is not a dispensation, but a communion; a sacrament which may be approached without official examination, but not without severe self-inquest; that the Supper is a memorial and a hope, not a club dinner, even in its most refined and legitimate sense, but a special communion between the communicant and his Lord.

CHAPTER X.

NOW

THE CHURCH LEFT IN THE WORLD.

OW that men have been called and united, it may be time to inquire into the laws by which they are to be personally and relatively governed. Life is continually presenting new aspects; and a widening civilization is perpetually throwing up questions which challenge the consideration of men who profess to go beyond "the world" for their doctrine and policy. Side by side with the Christian organization, called the church, many a powerful rivalry has been growing up, so that a persistent competition has been brought to bear upon the interests, real or supposed, of the whole community. We have seen that Christ regarded his disciples as "not of the world," yet to-day "the world" is setting up a claim for the suffrages of the disciples. The line of separation is supposed by some observers to have faded much. Is it so in reality? It may be worth while to inquire how Jesus Christ, simply regarded as a bold and far-sighted propagandist, proposed to keep vast masses of men in permanent union--in other words, to consider how men can be in the world, yet not of it; can live in it, and yet be above it; can be united with one another, yet separate from sinners. No imperium in imperio is so great a mystery as the church in the