"In this view of the apostacy of our first parents— which is not essentially affected, whether you regard it as a literal narrative, an oriental allegory, or a philosophical fable-the consequences of the Fall on their posterity are represented to be toil, pain, and death. I beg you now to read over the sacred history, and convince yourselves, that not a hint, not a word is to be found, which implies that the nature of man was cursed for the sin of Adam, and his heart tainted and blackened to the very core. If we were not accustomed to such an idea in infancy, I am persuaded that every feeling of our souls would revolt from it, and that we should wonder that every christian does not regard it as a libel on the infinite benignity of our just and merciful Creator."

We believe that the above specimens will justify our high praise of Mr. Thacher's Sermons; and we are sure that the whole of the volume is equal in merit to the small portion of it which we have placed before our readers.

Was Judas Iscariot present when the Lord's Supper was instituted?

IF considered merely as an abstract question, this inquiry may not be deemed of much importance; but, when viewed in reference to our Lord, it cannot be regarded with indifference; the interest excited in relation to the actual fact is heightened and preserved in consequence of the diversity of usages which have been adopted by the various sects of christian professors in

relation to the admission of persons to the Lord's table. On these accounts, an attempt will now be made to answer the question at the head of this article; and as the subject is involved in some degree of obscurity, the candour, as well as the attention of your readers, is respectfully solicited.

The institution of the Lord's supper has been recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but neither of these Evangelists has mentioned the departure of Judas Iscariot from the supper table; if therefore we had no other history of what then took place, the inevitable conclusion would be, that Judas Iscariot did partake of the Lord's supper, as well as of the Paschal supper. This, however, is not the case; for the Evangelist John has given a more circumstantial account of what passed at the supper table than either of the other Evangelists had done; it is from him we learn that Judas Iscariot abruptly left the company, but as John has neither mentioned the institution of the Lord's supper, nor made any reference to its institution, the time of the withdrawing of Judas Iscariot can only be ascertained by a comparison of John's account with the narratives of the other Evangelists. Had these writers been uniform in relating the order of events at the last passover which our Lord celebrated with his apostles, no difficulty could have arisen-but this is not so. It therefore becomes a question, which of the differently arranged narratives we are to adopt; and all seriously disposed persons will feel it to be their duty to form their opinion, with a due respect to the sacred historians.

John has sufficiently intimated the cause of the departure of Judas Iscariot. Previously to this, our Lord

told his disciples that one of them would betray him. Such an intimation was received with astonishment and concern; and, with the exception of Judas, each of them was anxious to ascertain that he was not the person implicated; meanwhile, Peter, whose ardent disposition could ill reconcile him to a state of suspense, and whose curiosity to discover who was meant, induced him to request, by a private signal, that John, who was nearest to our Lord, would ask the question; had ascertained this fact through the medium of that apostle for thus we read, see John xiii. 25-28. "He," i. e. John, "then lying on Jesus' breast, saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it; and when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot the son of Simon. And after the sop, Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, that thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him." We may therefore conclude, that although Judas could not help perceiving the agitation of his companions while they were in a state of uncertainty whether one of them might not prove treacherous to their master, yet assuming confidence from the guarded conduct and ambiguous language of Jesus, and ignorant of the disclosure privately made to Peter and John-he now ventured to ask, "Master, is it I?" and when our Lord replied, "Thou hast said,"—that is, it will be so-you are the person who shall betray me-he could stay no longer, but went immediately out.

In Luke's narrative, it is stated, that Jesus, previously to this occurrence, had instituted the ordinance of the Lord's supper; for, according to that Evange

list, it was after he had taken the cup, that he said, "the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table." That evangelist also states that the cup was taken by our Lord after supper; and, according to the common translation of John xiii. 2, supper was ended; it was subsequent to this Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, and before he intimated that one of their number was insincere and treacherous. On the other hand, Matthew and Mark place the institution of the Lord's supper after the disclosure made of the treachery of Judas Iscariot; so that Luke, apparently countenanced by John, seems to be in opposition to Matthew and Mark.

With regard to the expression, "supper being ended," this translation is manifestly incorrect, for supper was not ended when Judas left the table-the fact that Jesus had, iminediately previous to this, given Judas a sop, proves that they were then eating supper. The original word has been translated "come," by Archbishop Newcome and other learned translators-so that if we read, "supper," i. e. the time of supper "being come," John's narrative will be rendered consistent and intelligible. Besides, this will account for our Lord's chusing to wash the feet of the disciples; a ceremony performed among the Jews before their meals-perhaps, the disciples had been contending for precedence at the supper table; and, most probably, this was the strife to which Luke refers, and which he mentions as existing after the institution of the supper, and the intimation given of the treachery of Judas.

As respects Luke's narrative, there is no reason to suppose that he intended to be very precise in relating the order in which the incidents took place which he

has recorded; although, as regards the language used by our Lord at the institution of the supper, there is a striking similarity between what Paul and he have written. This may, probably, be accounted for from the fact that, during a considerable time Luke and Paul were associated together; so that he may have taken down our Lord's words from Paul, who received his information by immediate revelation from his master so far as was necessary for him. as a preacher of the gospel; but it does not appear that this revelation extended to circumstantial matters, the knowledge of which was by no means essential.

Again, Luke was not present at the institution of the supper, for he was not one of the twelve; neither does he lay claim to inspiration; he only professes to have had more perfect understanding of what things Jesus did and taught than many preceding writers of the life or memoirs of our Lord; it is, therefore, no impeachment of his veracity, to transpose his account of the strife among the disciples, so as to make it harmonise with John's narrative; especially as it is highly improbable that any strife for precedency would have existed immediately after Jesus had discoursed on the duty of mutual condescension, and had enforced his instructions by his own example in performing towards them the menial office of washing their feet; this improbability will be still more apparent when it is recollected, that, according to Luke's account, our Lord instituted the ordinance of the supper, and invited them to partake of it, while they were engaged in strife; and that he did not even allude to his own condescension and their forgetfulness of the lessons so recently given them, when he reasoned with them; although he re