ment are drawn from the evangelical history; the genuineness of the statements of which must be assumed at present as a preliminary, though, if the limits of this paper admitted, a few pages might not unprofitably be employed in stating some of the many arguments which prove this assumption, For, though it is true, to borrow the words of Mr. Locke," that it happens in controversial discourses as it does in assaulting of towns, where, if the ground be but firm whereon the batteries are erected, there is no farther inquiry of whom it is borrowed" yet the remark applies only where controversialists hold common principles to which each. can appeal as decisive, and not to the argument between Christians and unbelievers, in which the latter do not acknowledge the sacred books appealed to by the former as the repositories of truth. Collateral evidences will have little effect up on men who have purposely steeled their minds against conviction: their chief value, perhaps, is to fortify. those who are inclined to the belief of the truth, and to furnish them with arguments against gainsayers, especially that most subtle and pertinacious of all gainsayers, an evil heart of unbelief.

In establishing the conclusion under consideration, three propositions are necessary to be proved; namely, that Judas Iscariot was a man of ability and discernment sufficient to discover (it is with extreme pain I venture even to pen. such an hypothesis) whether Christ. carried on any plot; that he had sufficient opportunities to detect that plot, if a plot there was; and that he had every possible inducement to make a full disclosure. If these propositions be proved, it irresistibly follows, that, if Judas did not make such a disclosure, there was no plot to reveal; that if he did not unmask an impostor, when he betrayed his Master, the only reason was that he betrayed "innocent blood."

The first point of the argument→→→ namely, that Judas Iscariot was a man of ability sufficient to discover whether Jesus was carrying on any imposture-is established by many circumstances. There seems to have been a general notion prevalent in early times, that the birth and education of Judas made him conspicuous among the Apostles. His fellow-disciples too appear to have respected and trusted him as a man of sense and honesty; for even after many plain intimations of his treacherous character had been given by their Master, we have no hint of any suspicion to his preju dice existing in their breasts. In short, his conduct from beginning to end; the art with which he concealed his true character from every eye but that of his Master, when the other disciples were often-betraying their infirmities and worldly wishes; the time, place, and address with which his base designs were executed, and many minute circumstances accompanying their accomplishment,-all forcibly bespeak that Judas was not a man of dull and inferior capacity, but of cunning, discernment, and sagacity. These considerations are all just and applicable. But the sole fact that Judas was made choice of by Jesus, to be one of his apostles and constant attendants, will of itself sufficiently warrant our concluding him to have been a man of good natural sense and ability. The truth of this inference is manifest upon either of the suppositions; namely, that Christ was an impostor, or that he was not. If he was an impostor, there is no conceivable purpose for which he could choose twelve attendants, but to forward his designs; and to do this successfully, it was requisite that his agents should be men of prudence, activity, and skill. He never would have adopted a weak and foolish man into a society of conspirators; for, while it requires men of ability to plan and execute an extensive plot, the most foolish are able enough, and often the most ready, to reveal.

clearly proved him to be a Divine person, the true Messiah. Whatever was the real state of the case, it was morally impossible that Judas should not know it: he had not merely discernment but also sufficient opportunities to discover any plot carried on by Christ: nay, his opportunities were such as necessarily, and without exertion on his part, to put him in full possession of the whole truth.

The third and concluding step in the reasoning is, that he had every supposable inducement to make a full discovery of the imposture, which, we have seen, he must necessarily have known, if such an imposture existed. If we were to view Judas in a favourable light, and to reckon him a man of conscience, would not respect to the glory of God, and to the Messiah whom he waited for, and whose name, if imposture existed, had been blasphemously usurped; would not a love to the religion of his country, which the pretensions of Jesus seemed to threaten with an overthrow; would not love to his fellow-creatures, who might be miserably deluded as he had been; would not, in short, a regard to his nation, which any thing like a royal claim, on the part of a Jew, would excite the Romans to menace with desolation,-have all concurred in stimulating him to unmask the wicked deceiver to the eyes of the world? But, if we make the supposition that Judas was a wicked and unprincipled man, equal, if not stronger, inducements would have then influenced him to make a full discovery of the imposture of which he is supposed in possession. He would have gained the favour and patronage of the Jewish rulers, whom he knew to be highly exasperated against his Master. The good part of his countrymen would have applauded an action so proper and so beneficial in its consequences. The bad would not have found fault with one who had rid them of a very troublesome reprover. Nor would avarice or the love of praise have been

the only motives to urge him on to a disclosure. His worldly hopes had been cruelly disappointed, and his mortification might have excited him to injure Christ whom he thought the cause of it. Besides all which, we find that Jesus never paid peculiar court to Judas, though he knew his traitorous purposes. On the contrary, his declarations to his disciples, that there was a traitor amongst them, must have rankled in the breast of one who was conscious of being so; and the explicit mention of Judas as the person at the last supper, since it had power to excite him to treachery and murder, must have had power to make him come forth, and in the light of day accuse the impostor to his face, and reveal the imposture to the world.

Since, then, Judas had every inducement to reveal a cheat which he must have known of had it existed, we have only to look to his conduct to collect his unwilling testimony. He went to the Jewish rulers: he agreed with them for the head of his Master; and subsequently headed the band sent out to seize him. But there is not throughout the transaction a whisper against the probity and virtue of our Lord. Nay, there is proof that the traitor did not dare to asperse his character; for, had any intimation of an imposture been given, would not the Jewish rulers have eagerly caught at it, and made it the ground of their accusation? And where would then have been the need of suborning witnesses on the day of trial, when they had the exposure of a scene of fraud and imposture, by one who had been a constant attendant of the supposed impostor, and was privy to all his secrets? The truth seems to be, that though Judas had baseness enough, under the impulse of resentment and covetousness, and in the dead of night, to betray, he could not summon resolution to stand up in the face of day, and, before the Jewish Sanhedrim, charge his Master with a crime of which his

very contrary to all this: but in order to point it out more fully, I shall mention some of those sins which seem most strongly to mark this awful likeness, particularly what are called spiritual wickednesses, which fall in an especial manner within the province of Satan's dominion...

But before we proceed to this enumeration, it will be necessary to make one remark on the textnamely, that it speaks of a wilful and habitual commission of sin, rather than of those frailties and infirmities which remain even with the most consistent Christian. The Apostle John tells us, in this very Epistle, that, "if any man say that he hath no sin, he deceives himself, and the truth is not in him." If, then, we are sincerely and earnestly praying and striving against all sin, we are not to conclude that our efforts are vain, our prayer unheard, and that we are the children of Satan, because we have not yet attained a complete victory. There will continue innumerable blemishes, and too many blots, in the most exalted character. But God can judge where the heart is truly right with him. We have the consolation of knowing, if such be our case, that we have a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; and a gracious Fa ther, who for his sake can and will abundantly pardon them. At the same time, sin retains all its wickedness, by whomever it may be committed. In proportion as the Christian falls into it, he loses the image of God, and acquires that of Satan: the evidences of his conversion are obscured; his peace and hope are clouded; and it is not till he has again turned, by deep repentance and contrition, to his offended God, and sought pardon through the renewed grace of a merciful Saviour, that he has any right to cherish a hope that he is a sincere, however imperfect, follower of Jesus Christ.

First. The first feature of resemblance to Satan which I shall

mention consists in hatred to God, and all that is like God. This was clearly seen in the first temptation in paradise, by means of which the Divine image in the human race was tarnished, and whatever was "earthly, sensual, and devilish," was introduced into the world. Some of the ways in which this hatred of God, and whatever is like God, is displayed, are as follow.

1. In open blasphemy, infidelity, and impiety. It is not always, indeed, that the resemblance is thus plainly marked: it often takes less visible shades of likeness; but where it assumes so clear a character, there can be no hesitation in forming a judgment. Blasphemers are spoken of in the Revelations as members of "the synagogue of Satan:" deliberate unbelievers are said to have "their minds blinded by the god of this world;" and so on of grossly impious persons of every kind.

2. But another way in which hatred to God, and all that is like God, betrays itself, is in a dislike to the character, conduct, and principles of his faithful servants.-We see this exemplified in the persecution our Lord himself met with upon earth: we see it in the conduct of the world towards his saints and martyrs, both before and after his coming: we see it in the opposition made in all ages to scriptural doctrines and a devout self-denying life. Whatever is done to subvert the spiritual kingdom of Christ; to dethrone him in the hearts of individuals; to pervert or ridicule the precepts or doctrines of his word; to throw false colours around what is sinful, or to defame what is holy, is an instance and a proof of resemblance to the great enemy of God and man.

3. So again, loving sin for its own sake is another proof of hatred to God and godliness.-How many persons are there who, like Satan, are pleased at beholding sin in others; who are gratified at witnessing what is wrong, though it brings them neither credit nor pro-.