peated some of the same expressions which he had used when he had washed their feet.

On these accounts, and also because it does not appear from the structure of Luke's narrative of what passed at our Lord's last passover, that this Evangelist intended to confine himself to the order in which the several incidents took place; it appears to me that we are at liberty to suppose that a more accurate arrangement as to time and order may be found and adopted.

If these observations shall be deemed satisfactory, there can be no farther difficulty in determining the question whether Judas Iscariot was present at the institution of the Lord's supper. Matthew and Mark agree in placing the disclosure of the treachery of one of the apostles, before the institution of that ordinance. This agreement is worthy of special regard, for Matthew, being one of the twelve, was an eye and ear witness of what passed; and Mark, according to the concurrent testimony of ecclesiastical historians, wrote his gospel under the superintendence of the apostle Peter, who was not only present, but must have been deeply impressed with the recollection of the scenes. and events connected with the sufferings of his master. Comparing the narratives of Matthew and Mark with the 13th chapter of John's gospel, after correcting the translation so as to read, "supper being come," we shall be justified, according to my view of the matter, in asserting, on the authority of three evangelists, that Judas Iscariot went away before the institution of the ordinance of the supper.

As his departure was occasioned by an intimation of his intended treachery, and that this was well known to his master, a question may arise as to the reason

which induced our Lord to give that intimation. If we confine ourselves to what scripture contains, we shall be at no loss for the proper reply. It has been furnished in the words which follow the first intimation given by Jesus of the treachery of Judas. John xii. 19. "Now I tell you before it.come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he." Nothing, it would seem, could have induced Jesus to speak on a subject so revolting to his feelings, but the persuasion that the delivery of a prediction, the accomplishment of which, although certain, was apparently very improbable, would powerfully tend to establish the faith of his eleven sincere disciples.

This view of the matter presents a striking proof of the great love of Jesus to his apostles, and of his disregard of his own feelings in his solicitude to promote their welfare. It was not hostility to Judas that caused his master to expose his dark and treacherous purposes. Even while speaking of his crime, the language of commiseration for the unhappy traitor dropped from the lips of the meek and magnanimous Saviour.

Occasion has often been taken, from the assumption of a fact which it has been my endeavour to establish, viz. that Judas Iscariot did not receive the Lord's supper, to justify the setting up of a line of separation between those who receive the Lord's supper, and those who statedly attend public worship, but do not come to the Lord's table. It has been strongly urged that, because Judas found it necessary to retire before the supper, as instituted on account of what had been said respecting him by our Lord, therefore christian ministers in the present day are authorised to exclude from the Lord's table all persons who do not afford satisfac

tory evidence of their conversion, although they would by no means prevent such persons from attending every other religious service.

As it is not proposed to enter into a formal confutation of this opinion, I will only remark that our Lord's object, in speaking of the evil purpose of Judas, was not to drive him from the table, and that his withdrawing from it was his own voluntary act; for aught that appears, he might have remained. Again, there is no parallel between our Lord, who knew what was in man, and persons who have no such access to the hearts of their brethren. Every faithful minister, and every pious and discreet private christian, may warn the thoughtless, and much more the irreligious and prophane against engaging in any religious duties with levity or bad intentions; and may strongly set before them the guilt of hypocrisy; but who, without an intuitive knowledge of the heart, can undertake to pronounce with what intentions this or that person enters a house of worship, or places himself at the communion table? Most undoubtedly, no one ought to come to the Lord's table with a wicked heart, while harbouring bad intentions; it is equally true that no such person ought to engage in any religious service; on this point, Scripture is explicit and decided-Prov. xv. 8. "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord." See also Psalm 1. 16, &c. What then, it may be asked, is to be done? Act in regard to the Lord's Supper, as you ought to act in regard to other offices of worship. Exhort, admonish, warn, intreat, and in a word, perform every office of christian fidelity and love. With regard to those persons, whose conduct is manifestly in opposition to their profession, withdraw

from them, afford them no countenance in their bad practices, but do not shut against them the doors of the church, when they are entering these doors with decorum and apparent seriousness.

It ought greatly to abate the requisitions often made of candidates for communion, that when the eleven apostles were first invited by their Master to partake of it, they were all wanting in christian fortitude-the desertion of Jesus by every one was known to him; and as for Peter, our Lord's language to him when speaking of his denial of him three times, if literally taken, will preclude the idea that he was then a converted person. See Luke xxii. 32. "When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." On the whole, it does not appear that any inquisition ought to be held on those who wish to partake of the Lord's Supper; though, as well in reference to that exercise as to the other duties of religion, each person will act wisely in strictly examining himself. There is no precedent to authorise any person to require that the faith of communicants shall correspond with his views of gospel truth; nor is it necessary for holding the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, that this unity should be any other than unity of affection and purpose. The apostolic formula of faith ought, in every case, to be deemed sufficient, to confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; were this the case, we should no longer hear of different communions, of schisms, and heart burnings among the followers of Jesus Christ; but all his followers would regard each other as holy brethren, partakers of the same heavenly calling, and heirs of the same grace of life.

J. T.

Unitarianism in South Carolina.

[IN several numbers which we have seen of the Cheraw Intelligencer, a newspaper published in Cheraw, South Carolina, the editor has complimented us by making extracts from our work;-the Dialogue on Unitarianism, and the Dialogue on Atonement, we particularly remember; to one of which articles were subjoined some editorial remarks, on the duty of exercising a spirit of charity toward those whose religious opinions had been so much misrepresented, and who certainly had a right to think for themselves. These indications of a free and liberal spirit not only pleased but surprised us; because, though we knew that there was a flourishing society of unitarian christians in Charleston, under the pastoral care of the Rev. Mr. Gilman, we were not aware that unitarianism had been considerably diffused in the interior. But we were now convinced that rational religion was better received in that quarter than we had imagined or hoped; for if it were not so, an editor of a paper, independent enough to admit into his columns defences of an unpopular faith, would soon be reduced to the necessity of stopping his printing presses, and seeking some other employment.

In the number of this paper for the fourth of last month, we observed a new proof of the editor's spirit and perseverance, in an article which is of so amusing a nature, that we are tempted to lay it before our readers.]

"WHAT IS AN EDITOR TO DO?-Within a few days the editor of this paper has received the two following letters;