thousand bullocks and seventeen thousand sheep.-(2 Chron. XXX. 22-24.) It was, moreover, the general law, that on this and other great festivals none should appear before the Lord empty.-(Exod. xxiii. 15; Deut. xvi. 16.) Hence, as being a sacrifice connected with a festival, these voluntary offerings were themselves called, at least by the later Hebrews, 2, a festival; a word strictly synonymous with the ealier 7.* Such apparently was the origin and character of the festive Khagigah of the later times of the Jewish people, derived in this manner from the festival sacrifices of the Old Testament. Indeed, the earlier Rabbins, in commenting on Deut. xvi. 2, directly refer the "flock" (NS) to the paschal victims, and the "herd" () to the Khagigah.+ There existed, however, some difference of opinion as to the particular day of the passover festival, on which the Khagigah ought to be offered, whether on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan; but the weight of authority was greatly in favour of the fifteenth day. Still, in certain cases, it was permitted to be offered on the fourteenth day; as, for instance, when the paschal lamb was too small for the number of the family or company, and then the Khagigah furnished a fuller meal. Yet the later accounts of the mode of celebrating the paschal supper seem to imply that a Khagigah was ordinarily connected with that meal. Indeed, mention is made of a "Khagigah of the fourteenth day," so called in distinction from the more important and formal ceremonial Khagigah of the passover festival, which latter was not regularly offered until the fifteenth day, when the paschal supper had already been eaten. The former was then a mere voluntary oblation of thanksgiving, made for the very purpose of enlarging and diversifying the passover meal.§ V. The Paschal Supper. In the original institution of the Passover (Exod. xii.) the lamb, as we have seen, was to be selected on the tenth of Nisan, killed late in the afternoon of the fourteenth, and eaten the same evening after the fifteenth day had begun; the blood having been struck upon the door-posts.-(ver. 3-7, 22.) The flesh was to be eaten roasted, not raw nor sodden, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.-(ver. 8, 9.) None of it was to remain until the morning, or to be carried out of the house, and not a bone was to be broken.-(ver. 10, 46.) It was to be eaten in haste, apparently standing, with the loins girded as for a journey, the shoes on the feet, and staff in hand; and no *See Buxtorf's Lex. sub voc. Pesach. fol. 70, 2; Lightfoot Hor. Heb. ad Joh. 18, 28. § See Lightfoot Ministerium Templi, 13, 4; ibid. c. 14; Reland Antiq. Sac. iv. 2, 2. NO. V. 2 A one was to go out of the door of the house until the morning.— (ver. 11, 22.) Some of these particulars would seem to have been intended only for the first Passover in Egypt, and could not well have had place afterwards. Thus when, in later times, crowds went up to Jerusalem to keep this festival, arriving there a day, or two days perhaps, before the fourteenth, and purchasing their lambs of the traders in and around the temple, a previous selection on the tenth was out of question. As too they were strangers in the city, and the lamb was slain in the court of the temple, the smiting of the blood upon the door-posts of other men's houses could hardly have been a matter of custom. Instead also of eating in haste, prepared as for a journey, the Jews in our Saviour's time, and our Lord with his disciples, ate at their leisure, reclining at table in the Roman manner.* So, further, instead of not going out of the house before morning, which the Hebrews in Egypt were forbidden to do for fear of the destroying angel, the later Jews, inasmuch as no such reason existed afterwards, disregarded the prohibition; and our Lord and his disciples went out the same evening over the brook Kidron. That the Jews, in the course of many centuries, had introduced various additional ceremonies along with the eating of the paschal supper, is evident from the manner in which our Lord celebrated it, as narrated by the evangelists. What all these rites were, we have no specific historical account from any contemporary writer. Yet the precept as to the manner of holding the meal, preserved in the Mishnah and Talmud of Jerusalem, which were compiled in the third century, in the school at Tiberias, from the traditional teaching of earlier Rabbins, and have been illustrated and explained by successive Jewish commentators, although they cannot be depended upon as contemporaneous testimony, do nevertheless serve to throw light upon some of the circumstances connected with the institution of the Lord's Supper, and may therefore properly find a place here.† According to these authorities, four cups of red wine, usually mingled with one-fourth part of water, were drunk during the meal, and served to mark its progress. The first cup being prepared, the master of the family opened the meal with a blessing upon the day and upon the wine, and so the first cup was drunk; apparently the same mentioned in Luke xxii. 17. All now washed their hands, the master at the same time * Pesach. 10. 1; Wetstein in Matt. xxvi. 20; comp. Mark xiv. 18; Luke xxii. 14; John xiii. 12. See the tract Pesach. c. 10; Lightfoot Minist. Templi c. 13; Hor. Heb. in Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; Othon. Lex. Rabb. p. 504 sq.; Werner de Poculo Benedictionis, in Ugolini Thesaur. t. iii.; Wetstein in Matt. 1. c. giving thanks. Then bitter herbs were brought in, dipped in vinegar or salt water; of which they tasted meanwhile, until the proper paschal dishes were served, viz. the unleavened bread and roasted lamb, and further, the Khagigah of the fourteenth day, and a broth or sauce (pin) made with spices. -(Pesach. ii. 8.) The master of the house now pronounced a blessing over the bitter herbs, and ate of them dipped in the sauce, as did also the rest. After this the second cup was filled; the son inquired of the father the meaning of this celebration; and the latter instructed him as to his significancy, pointing out and explaining in their order the lamb, the bitter herbs, and the unleavened bread, &c. Then was repeated the first part of the Hallel or song of praise.-(Ps. cxiii., cxiv.) The second cup was now drunk. The master of the family next took two cakes of the unleavened bread, broke one of them in two, and laid it upon the other, yet unbroken, and pronounced a blessing upon the bread. He then took a piece of the broken bread, wrapped it in bitter herbs, dipped it in the sauce, gave thanks, and ate it. Then followed the blessing upon the Khagigah, of which he ate a morsel; and finally, the blessing upon the paschal lamb, of which he ate in like manner. Thereupon began the actual meal, in which they ate this or that as they pleased, and at their leisure, partaking of the herbs of the bread dipped in the sauce, of the flesh of the Khagigah, and lastly of the paschal lamb; after which last they ate nothing more. The eating being thus finished, the master of the family washed his hands and gave thanks for the meal. Next followed the giving of thanks over the third cup, called is, the cup of blessing, which was now drunk.(Compare the cup in the Eucharist, and also τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλο yias, 1 Cor. x. 16.) Upon this the fourth cup having been filled, the remainder of the Hallel (Ps. cxv.-exviii.) was repeated, and the fourth cup was drunk. This was ordinarily the end of the celebration. But the Jews have a tradition, that when the guests were disposed to repeat further the great Hallel (Ps. cxx.-cxxxvii.), a fifth cup might thereupon be added.* It is obvious that the first cup spoken of above corresponds to that mentioned in Luke xxii. 17; and that the institution of the Lord's Supper probably took place at the close of the proper meal, immediately before the third cup or " cup of blessing," which would seem to have made part of it.-(Comp. 1 Cor. x. 16.) VI. Did our Lord, the night in which he was betrayed, eat the Passover with his Disciples? If we were to regard only the testimony of the first three * See Lightfoot Minist. Templi, xiii. 9; Buxtorf Synagog. Jud. c. xviii. evangelists, not a doubt upon this question could ever arise. Their language upon this point is full, explicit, and decisive, to the effect that our Lord's last meal with his disciples, as recorded by them all, was the regular and ordinary paschal supper of the Jews, introducing the festival of unleavened bread, on the evening after the fourteenth day of Nisan. Matthew and Mark narrate first, that the Passover was approaching after two days; then, that the first day of unleavened bread was come, when Jesus sent two of his disciples into the city to make ready the Passover, of which he and his disciples partook the same evening.-(Matt. xxvi. 2, 17-20; Mark xiv. 1, 12-17.) All this points directly and only to the regular lawful passover meal, as celebrated by all the Jews the same evening. Mark's words are: "Ore rò náoxa dvov, when THEY killed the passover (ver. 12), which, whether the subject of Ovov be the Jews, or be indefinite, implies at least the regular and ordinary time of killing the paschal lamb. Luke's language is, if possible, still stronger and more definite: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, Εν ᾗ ἔδει θύεσθαι τὸ πάσχα, when the passover MUST be killed," i. e., according to law and custom.-(Luke xxii. 7.) It was the first day of unleavened bread, the day on which the passover must be killed, of course the fourteenth day of Nisan ;* and on that same evening our Lord and his disciples sat down to that same passover meal which had thus by his own appointment been prepared for them, and of which Jesus speaks expressly of the passover.(ver. 15.) Philologically considered, there cannot be-and I presume is not, and has not been, in the minds of the great body of commentators-a shadow of doubt, but that Matthew, Mark, and Luke intended to express, and do express in the plainest terms, their testimony to the fact that Jesus regularly partook of the ordinary and legal passover meal on the evening after the fourteenth of Nisan, at the same time with all the Jews. If, however, we turn to the Gospel of John, we seek in vain in this evangelist for any trace of the paschal supper in connection with our Lord. John narrates indeed (chap. xiii.) our Lord's last meal with his disciples, which the attendant circumstances show to have been the same with that which the other evangelists describe as the Passover. But on that point John is silent. Does this silence of itself imply that it was not the Passover, and thus contradict the other evangelists? To admit this would prove far too much; for John in like manner says not a word respecting the Lord's Supper, and yet no one doubts the testimony of the other evangelists as to its institution during this meal. John, as is admitted by all, obviously wrote his Gospel as a supplement to the others. Hence, * See pp. 355, 356, above. in speaking of this last meal he does not mention the previous contention among the disciples, because Luke had sufficiently described it (Luke xxii. 24-30); but he does narrate in addition the touching act of our Lord in washing his disciples' feet, which evidently arose out of that same contention. John narrates, indeed, like the rest, the pointing out of Judas as the traitor; but he does it in order to add the further circumstance of his own particular agency in the matter. He omits, it is true, all mention of the Lord's Supper, because the other evangelists had fully described it; but he gives in full what they had not preserved, the affecting discourses of our Lord held in connection with it, and his pathetic final prayer with his disciples.-(Chap. xvii.) The silence of John, therefore, does not in the case before us imply even the slightest contradiction of the other evangelists; while all the above circumstances, and the subsequent going out to the Mount of Olives, related also by John, where Jesus was betrayed, serve incontestably to mark this supper in John as identical with the passover-meal of the other evangelists. They also sufficiently account for the difference between the two reports of the same occasion. But there are a few expressions in John's Gospel, in connection with this meal, and especially with our Lord's Passion, which taken together might, at first view, and if we had only John, seem to imply, that on Friday, the day of our Lord's crucifixion, the regular and legal passover had not yet been eaten, but was still to be celebrated on the evening after that day. The following are the passages: (α) John xiii. 1, Πρὸ δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα. This phrase introduces the account of our Lord's last meal; and the form of expression, it is said, shows that this meal took place before the passover, and could not, therefore, itself have been the paschal supper. (6) John xviii. 28, " And they themselves [the Jews] went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled,” äxx' ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα, "but that they might eat the passover." Taking this last phrase in its ordinary acceptation of the paschal lamb, as in Matt. xxvi. 17, &c., it hence follows, as is averred, that the Jews were expecting to partake of the pas chal supper the ensuing evening, and of course had not eaten it already. (e) John xix. 14, "Hy ds Tagaσneu) TO Tάoxa. This "preparation of the passover" being the day on which Christ suffered, necessarily implies, it is alleged, the day before the passovermeal, which of course was to be eaten that evening. (α) John xix. 31, *Ην γὰρ μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνου τοῦ σαββάτου. The next day after the crucifixion being the Jewish Sabbath, |