Suppose that the bread and wine mentioned in the account of Luke, to be the first cup and the first bread, then the traitor Judas was exposed after supper, according to his account. This method effectually harmonizes the evangelists, in that it shows, that Judas-was exposed before Matthew's and Mark's account of the supper; and after the account of Luke: This shows us, that the exposure of Judas, took place before the account of one, and after the account of the other; and that he was exposed in the midst of the supper, and perfectly agreeing with the account of John, who was laying on Christ's bosom at supper time, (see John, xxi. 20,) when Peter beckoned to him to know who it was that should betray him. When John had asked, saying, "Lord who is it?" Judas was then made known by a sop as they sat at the supper table.

Because the bread and wine mentioned by Matthew and Mark, is the last bread and wine in the passover, it will be seen that they have mentioned the singing of the hymn which always followed the last bread and wine, and with which ended the passover supper. Because the bread and the wine mentioned by Luke, was the first in the passover, Luke has not mentioned the singing of the hymns at all. Because the evangelists, in their relation, did not think of giving laws to the church, their whole account is put down promiscuously, and John has not pre

sumed to say much, but what relates to Judas.

Without making any alterations in the account of the evangelists, I will here show in a form, the order in which the account really stands.

In the preceding form,the twenty-first verses stand as parallel one with the other, and all have a special reference to Judas, who was exposed whilst they were eating supper. We see that in the account of Luke, 17th and 19th verses the wine is mentioned before the bread, perfectly corresponding with the first bread and wine mentioned in the historical account, given us of the passover. But the last bread and wine mentioned in the account; the bread is mentioned first and the wine next; and corresponds with the account of Matthew and Mark, in the 26th and 27th verses. And we see, that the wine and bread mentioned by Luke, is not that bread and wine mentioned by Matthew and Mark. But as the account of Luke is the most full, tho' he has not mentioned the bread which is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, yet he has noticed the wine, saying, "Also the cup after supper."

Now if we notice the remarkable words, "do this in remembrance of me," they must stand connected with the first mentioned wine and bread. So then, as it is impossible to separate the first cup and bread from the passover, the words, "do this," &c. does but enjoin the passover, if they enjoin any thing at all.

The above method of treating our subject, serves to cast much light in our way, and perfectly harmonizes with the scripture, and

seems also to reconcile the scripture account too, but it much confounds the notion of the sacrament, for it so completely blends all things in the passover, that they cannot be separated from the passover itself.

My reader may give what credit he pleases, to the little I have related of the history of the passover, but notice, I have not disputed any part of the scripture, by contesting with any word or text. But I have been able to shew from the scripture all I have related, so that when we consider the matter from first to last, the particular time, the thing inquired for, and the thing set down to, was the Jew's passover. If we notice the bread and the wine, and the ceremonies which attend the administration of them, the bread and the wine were the same for kind, and the ceremony that which always attended that feast. If we notice the manner of sitting at the passover supper, (resting one upon the bosom of the other) and that the supper ended by the singing of a hymn, it all corresponds with the passover, as given in the history of the passover, and in the scriptures too. MATTHEW, XXVi. 30.

And when they had sung a hymn they went out unto the mount of Olives.

MARK, XIV. 26.

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.

Luke, and John, both agree, that Christ,

went to the mount of Olives, but they do not mention the hymn. "As to the hymn itself," says ADAM CLARKE, "we know from the uni versal consent of Jewish antiquity, that it was composed of Psalms, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118, termed by the Jews halel, from HALELU-JAH."—It is remarkable to me, that this author did not discover, that there was not any thing done at the supper, more than what was done by the Jews, on all their passover occasions. After relating the subject himself, and found that John had mentioned nothing about the supper, (save that which relates to Judas,) says he, "It is remarkable that St. John says nothing about the institution of the Holy Sacrament, which Matthew, xxii. 19, &c. Mark, xiv. 22, &c. and Luke, xxii. 19, &c. describes so particularly." Now I leave my reader to judge whether, Matthew, Mark, or Luke, either of them, say any thing about the Holy Sacrament. For this omission of John's, he pretends to say, that no other reason can be assigned, than that, he found it so completely done by the others, and that "he only designed to supply their defect." Now the man is wrong in that, that he says no other reason can be assigned for the omission of John ;-the reason I offer is another, (to wit,) That there was no such thing instituted as the Holy Sacrament, (as he is pleased to call it,) and John did not think it worth while to record the particulars of a Jewish passover a ceremony which