suffering condition of a crucified Master, and the terrors hanging over all who should confess him, are sufficient to account for the fact; which, however we may lament, we have not the least reason to disbelieve. Indeed, from the despondency of his immediate followers after his death, we could not expect to find so many, were it not for the resurrection which revived their hopes, and changed their views; and this mighty event we know was not shewn openly to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen of God. But to proceed

"Men and brethren, says St. Peter, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. For it is written in the Book of Psalms, let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take." I have brought these passages together, though not in exact order, because they bear upon one and the same point, the fulfilment of prophecy in the person and character of Judas. The first of them relates to a passage in the 41st psalm, 9th verse, "yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did cat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." St. John alludes to it in most explicit terms in his gospel, citing even the very words.

It is probable that David meant in the obvious and immediate sense, to describe some baseness, treachery, and breach of faith on the part of some confidential friend, perhaps Achitophel, who had played the traitor by him, as Judas did by his Master. But yet, like many other expressions in the first covenant, it had a farther view to the second, in which the more sublime and perfect accomplishment was designed to take place. And such manner of interpretation is quite agreeable to the divine œconomy connecting the Jewish and Christian dispensations. For as most of the rites and ceremonies of the former were evidently types of better things to come, nothing is more natural to suppose, than that many prophetic declarations relating to the temporal state of the Jews, were likewise signs of greater and more important events, which should be consummated in the times of the Messiah. Accordingly all the sacred writers. with great freedom and confidence, apply ancient events and sayings to the Christian dispensation. Can we possibly have better guides? Let us not presume to be wiser in these matters than they. For if there be every reason, as there certainly is, to believe their narratives honest and sincere, a moment's doubt cannot be entertained, that men so highly gifted were faithful and just expounders of Scripture. We are beyond all question perfectly safe in submitting our weak and fallible judgments

to their authority, even though we should not suppose them under the particular guidance of the Holy Spirit: for it is not conceivable, that God Almighty should suffer any errors in his religion to be propagated by the first teachers; which must necessarily confirm those errors, to all future times. Receive their doctrines, therefore, and instructiens, with grateful humility and pious confidence.

The other prophecies here applied to Judas are found in different places, where the Psalmist imprecates judgments upon his enemies as being the cnemies of God; or rather prophetically denounces those judgments against them; which latter construction the idiom of the Hebrew language justifics; and it is more agreeable to the disposition of an humane and good man. As if he had said, his habitation shall be desolate, and no man dwell therein; and his bishopric shall another take; not praying that such evils might befal him, but in the spirit of prophecy declaring that they should. Upon these prophecies I have nothing more to add to the observations already stated. They were fulfilled in the fate of Judas, as the foregoing was in his character. We may therefore conclude, that the holy Psalmist under a superior direction used such language as suited at once his own case, and was applicable to that eminent person, of whom he was a striking type.

In the 18th verse we have an account of the mise rable end of Judas, recorded differently from that in St. Matthew, who says, that he hanged himself; whereas we are told here, that falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Without entering into the various methods of reconciling these, I will give you two explanations of the difficulty-either of which will, I trust, satisfy you. First, the word in St. Matthew, translated "he hanged himself," may also signify was suffocated. Now, if we suppose this to have been the sudden effect of extreme anguish and distraction of mind, (which is very far from being an impossible thing) a considerable part of the difficulty is removed; I mean that which arises from its appearing in St. Matthew to be his own act, contrary to what is clearly the case in the passage before us. Whether so violent an effect, as bursting asunder, can be produced in the natural. course of things, by the utmost horror and despair, (of which Judas was no doubt the most sad and terrible example that ever lived) I cannot take upon me to decide; certain it is, that instant death sometimes follows such emotions, and in different ways; such as the accumulation of blood upon the brain, the bursting of an artery, and so forth. But if such a thing be possible, then the suffocation and bursting asunder might both be instantaneous effects, and either of them be called the cause of death.

But secondly, Let us suppose that he hanged himself; yet I see no reason why the other event might not also have taken place, either in the course of nature, or, as I should most incline to think, by the judgment of God. Fór surely it is reasonable enough to suppose, that beside permitting him to take away his own life, God would mark the fate of such a monster with some signal vengeance. We might naturally expect something unlike the common death, even of those unhappy men who lay violent hands upon themselves. And as there is nothing forced in this supposition, so you will find it extremely well suited to the different accounts of the sacred historians, according to their different views. What was the design of St. Matthew? Evidently to describe the remorse and anguish of soul which the unfortunate man suffered. It became therefore an essential matter for him to record the last fatal consequence to which it drove the guilty wretch. St. Peter, speaking of him, rather alludes to his detestable treachery, and to the utter ruin and desolation reserved for him. The judgment of God therefore naturally fell in with his design, and this part of the transaction he has recorded. Every thing here, is natural, easy, and consistent. Who then can presume to say, that it did not so happen merely for the purpose of charging a contradiction on the Holy Scriptures ? Woe be to that man, who sets about the study of