often, then?" Oh! I feel the rising blush-but, the shameful truth must come out: 66 Generally, not more than twice in the year." What astonishment would seize the apostle! He would hardly own us for disciples. Is this, Christian brethren, our kindness to our Friend? This our reverence for his injunction, our return for his love? We are verily guilty concerning our Brother. It becomes us to rouse from our lethargy; to throw ourselves abashed at his feet; to implore his forgiveness; to evince our sincerity by correcting our fault; and no longer disobey him and forsake our own mercies.' NOTE D, PAGE 160. ON THE SIMULTANEOUS OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER BY THE MEMBERS OF A CHURCH. THE simultaneous mode of communicating seems to be favoured by the language of the New Testament in different instances, and especially by the 11th chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. The duty as described by Paul was not to be observed by individuals or companies in succession, but by the society at large; and they who came soonest were to wait for the rest the more to perfect a visible unity. It is true, that all Christians throughout the world cannot communicate together, for no one building could contain them, and no one locality would suit them. Even where a place of worship is sufficiently large and commodious for all the members of a church, the difficulty of securing their joint attendance may justify, in some cases, a repetition of the service. But, since the communion of saints is a leading object of the ordinance, they ought surely to exemplify it on the largest scale, and in the most perfect manner of which circumstances admit, and not to aggravate unavoidable disseverances by dissociating Christians unnecessarily, and exhibiting the church as if it sought rather than shunned a subdivided and fragmentary condition. The members of a church almost never meet for worship, apart from a general audience, except at the Lord's table; and since the feast is restricted to the family, the unity of its own members should be the more cherished and manifested. Seldom does it happen, where months intervene, that all communicating on one occasion survive at the next; and, is it not pleasing, as well as affecting, to display unbroken ranks in the view of possible bereavements, and cheer each other in unitedly testifying that separations are temporary, but fellowship eternal; and that, if we part below, we shall meet above? For some time after the Reformation, the communicants in the Scotch church observed the Lord's Supper simultaneously, and not at a succession of tables. This appears from the Liturgy of the Church of Scotland, or John Knox's Book of Common Order. The order and manner of the administration of the Lord's Supper is thus stated::-'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which is commonly used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient, the minister useth to say as followeth, etc. This done, the minister proceedeth to the exhortation The exhortation ended, the minister cometh down from the pulpit, and sitteth at the table, every man and woman likewise taking their place as occasion best serveth: then he taketh bread, and giveth thanks . This done, the minister breaketh the bread, and delivereth it to the people, who distribute and divide the same among themselves, according to our Saviour Christ's commandment, and likewise giveth the cup. During the which time some place of the scriptures is read, which doth lively set forth the death of Christ, to the intent that our eyes and senses may not only be occupied in those outward signs of bread and wine, which are called the visible word, but that our hearts and minds also may be fully fixed in the contemplation of the Lord's death, which is by this holy sacrament represented; and after this action is done, he giveth thanks . . . The action thus ended, the people sing the 103d Psalm, or some other of thanksgiving; which ended, one of the blessings before-mentioned is recited, and so they rise from the table, and depart.' NOTE E, PAGE 207. DID JUDAS PARTAKE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER? IN connexion with the subject of discipline it has been disputed whether Judas was present when the Lord's Supper was first observed? The answer to this question mainly depends on the interpretation of the 13th chapter of John's gospel. If the supper there described was not the paschal supper, but, as Dr Whitby and others think, an ordinary meal, which was eaten a day or two before, then this chapter gives no decision on the question at issue. But the probability of the paschal supper being intended, is very strong amounting almost to certainty. Mr Scott remarks, in giving a summary of the proof, that 'the hour was come in which the Son of man should be glorified.' Judas was, at this supper, marked out as the traitor; Satan entered into him, and 'he went out immediately.' Before cock-crowing Peter thrice denied his Lord: the subsequent discourse and prayer are continued without the least intimation of an interruption to the end of the 17th chapter; and the 18th begins thus:- When Jesus had spoken these words he went forth with his disciples,' namely, to the garden, where Judas met him with his armed company. So that the whole narrative must be interrupted and disjointed in a most violent manner, to admit of that interpretation. If we admit the 13th chapter of John to speak of the Passover, and allow the second verse to be accurately translated, then Judas was present at the institution of the Eucharist; for, it is said, that 'Supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,' etc. If Judas did not leave till Supper was ended, he partook of the bread which Christ dispensed as an emblem of his body during Supper, and in all likelihood of the wine, which was sent round shortly afterwards. But the phrase, ‘being ended,' is better rendered, 'being come.'* Understanding that the Supper was not then over, but only to begin, at what point of time did Judas leave? He 'went immediately out,' after 'having received the sop from Jesus.' What was this sop? At what stage of the proceedings was it likely to be given? These bitter herbs,' says Dr Godwin, they did dip in a certain sauce, thick like mustard, called Charoseth, which thick sauce, (say they) was a memorial of the clay wherein they wrought in Egypt. This is thought of some to be that wherein Christ dipped the sop which he gave to Judas. Of this sauce the Hebrews write thus:-They used to dip the unleavened bread in that sauce Charoseth, and to eat; then they dipped the bitter herbs in the Charoseth, and did eat them. It was made of the palm-tree branches, or of dry figs, or of raisins, which they stamped and put vinegar thereto, and seasoned it, and made it like clay, and brought it unto the table in the night of the Passover.'† This sauce was eaten along with the paschal lamb and unleavened bread, and formed part of what was 6 See John xxi. 4; Acts xii. 18; xvi. 35; xxi. 40. strictly called the Supper. If it be intended in the evangelical history, Judas could not receive the wine from Christ which he constituted an emblem of his blood, for it was after Supper' that he took the cup. If Judas did not receive one of the elements from Christ, the presumption is that he received neither. Beyond these data we have little to found upon, and it will be seen that our conclusion depends partly on doubtful tradition. Happily the question is of no practical importance. If Judas partook of the Lord's Supper, he did so as a religious professor who, in the sight of men, had sustained hitherto a good reputation, and whose real character was known only to Omniscience. No one pretends that such hypocrites either can, or should, be deprived of discriminating ordinances; and, therefore, the case decides nothing in relation to discipline. Vossius says that the traitor did not partake of the Supper, but adds, 'Very many of the ancients, however, think that Judas had not separated so early, but that he continued while the Supper was being instituted, and that he also received the sacred symbols from Christ, because he was, as yet, unknown to the apostles. Among those of the Greeks who adopted this view were Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Theophylact, Euthymius. Among the Latins, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hieronymus, Augustin, etc. The negative is maintained by Clemens Romanus, Hilary, Rupertus, Innocentius,' etc. * 'The prevailing sentiment in the church has been, that the traitor did partake of the sacred elements in company with the other disciples.'t Very opposite views of this subject have been maintained. Beza, Hammond, Lightfoot, Macknight, and others, contend *Harmoniæ Evangelicæ, lib. |