The early dispositions of Judas must have been bad, or he would not have proved himself the wretch that he did, so soon after joining himself to such a Master; and a circumstance recorded in the Gospel of John plainly intimates to us what the chief vice of his character was. We are informed that on a visit which Jesus made to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom a little while before he had raised from the dead, a supper was made for him there; that Lazarus, with not one trace of death on his countenance, though but just now brought up from the grave, sat at table; and that Martha, with her usual assiduity, served. "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment." This offering, though it may not have been useful, was certainly grateful and generous, and was beside in conformity with the custom of the country, and deserved, therefore, an approving comment from the friends and followers of Jesus. But what was the sequel? "Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who was to betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" From an honest and really charitable man this remark would have been but a cold one, at such a season; but Judas was

neither; and he said this, proceeds the historian, "not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare off what was put therein." * Thus it appears that the root of all this traitor's wickedness was avarice, and that it had already borne the deadly fruits of fraud and theft. He had the bag. He had been the treasurer of the fraternity; and so strong was his odious passion, and so weak was his principle, that he was unable to resist the temptation, which the trust afforded him, of purloining whatever he could from the common stock, which of necessity must have been a scanty one; and on this occasion he was grievously disappointed that he could not have the handling of the large sum of three hundred Roman denarii, under the pretence of distributing it to the poor. It is to be presumed that his peculiarities were not known to the apostles at that time, but that they came to light afterwards. If they had then been aware of his conduct, they would doubtless have spurned and avoided him.

Their Master, however, was acquainted both with what he did and with what he was; for it was on an occasion previous to this, that, in reminding the disciples of his own strong claims

* In our English Bible it is, "and bare what was put therein," -a translation which does not seem to give the true meaning of the passage, though the Greek verb admits of both senses.

on their attachment, he said, "Have not I chosen you twelve? and one of you is a devil!" Here, too, as we are informed, "he spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." And let it be observed that neither the apostleship of Judas, nor his being the treasurer of the apostles, were causes of his avarice and treachery, and that therefore the knowledge which his Master possessed of his unsoundness is no excuse for it. If he had been a man of common goodness only, the trust which was reposed in him would have prompted him to a worthy exercise of it. Consequently it did not occasion, it only was the means of drawing forth and exposing, his baseness. Why our Saviour, acquainted as he was with the character of Judas, permitted him to hold the office of purse-bearer, or why he ever called him to be an apostle, are questions of a different import. Before we attempt to assign any reason or motive for the course of Jesus in this respect, let us attend for a moment to its consequences, and its bearing on the credibility of his Gospel.

I have already stated, in my introductory remarks, that, among the reasons which existed in the mind of our Lord for calling to himself a company of apostles, one probably was, that his conduct and instructions, being scrutinized by a number of individuals, and continually spread

open to their observation, might be sufficiently attested and vindicated, at first to them, and afterwards to the world. This test was made more perfect by the introduction of one among his attendants whose heart was corrupt, and who would probably turn to as bad account as possible the confidence reposed in him. Thus we see that the inquisition to which the author of our religion was exposed was a complete one. The honest disciples would have published anything which they might have seen inconsistent with rectitude; and the traitor, the unprincipled disciple, would have magnified any fault or misconduct in his Master, if he could have found any there, as an excuse for his treachery. We ought not to be too hasty in ascribing motives to our Saviour in so grave a concern as this; but with the facts before us we cannot but feel satisfied that his character rests on a firmer basis, from having been thus laid open to the search of a wicked spy, and that his religion derives advantage from the scrutiny. And it is to be repeated, that the apostolic call did not make Judas a thief and a traitor; it found him one already; and if ever any man had the opportunity of reformation. offered him, it certainly was he, who daily heard the instructions of Heaven, and beheld the example of perfection. We may conclude, therefore, that it was for the satisfaction of all future ages,

for our conviction of the faultlessness of Jesus Christ, that Judas was made an apostle.

Commentators and harmonists disagree upon the question, whether the supper at Bethany was the same as that mentioned by Matthew as having been given in the house of Simon the leper. There are some circumstances common to both, and some peculiar to each. Macknight is confident that they were two distinct occurrences. A few of these arguments I will here repeat, which may lead the reader to further investigations.

"Although this supper (John xii. 2) is supposed by many to have been the same with that mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 6, upon examination they will appear to have been different. This happened in the house of Lazarus; that, in the house of Simon the leper. At this, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed our Lord's feet, and wiped them with her hair; at that, a woman, not named, poured the ointment on his head. Here Judas only found fault with the action; there he was seconded by some of the rest. It seems all the disciples but Judas had let his first anointing pass without censure. But when they saw so expensive a compliment repeated, and that within a few days the one of the other, they joined with him in blaming the woman, and might think themselves warranted to do so, as they knew that their Master was not delighted with luxuries of