to make all the members of a family enemies to one another. If this is like the work of the Son of God, we may well say, Great is the mystery of Godliness!

According to Matthew* and Mark,† while Jesus and his disciples did eat supper, he told them that one of them should betray him; but we find in Luke and John, that it was after supper was ended when he told them this. The method of inquiring who it was should betray him, and the words and manner in which he answered the inquiry, are also very differently reported. Matthew and Mark inform us, that when Jesus told them that one of them should betray him, every one began to inquire is it I. Matthew relates, that when Judas asked that question, Jesus answered thou hast said. Mark says, he answered it was one of the twelve that dipped with him in the dish. Luke gives no answer at all; but according to John's narrative, Peter beckoned to one who was leaning on his breast, to ask him who it was; which that disciple did, and Jesus answered, he it is to whom I shall give a sop (or morsel) when I have dipped it; this he then did, and gave it to Judas: all these questions and answers are different; some of them must be inaccurate. John tells us, ,** that after Judas had received the sop, Satan entered into him, and he rose and went out! This was serving him like the herd of swine. If Jesus made Satan to enter into Judas with the sop, he was to blame for the consequences. We are made to understand by John's narrative, that Judas then went to the Chief Priests and agreed to betray Jesus; but according to Matthew, Mark,‡‡ and Luke, §§ he had bargained with them to betray him before supper altogether; which of these accounts

is true?

John relates that after supper, Jesus and his disciples went out and over the brook Cedron, into a garden, which they had often resorted unto; according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they went out to the Mount of Olives, and then to a place called Gethsemane; they all seem to say that he went to a secret place, apparently wishing to conceal himself, and anxious to avoid his enemies. According to all the accounts, he seems to have been in fear and great trouble, like an ordinary man, nor would any person wonder at this, if his followers had not taught that he was the Son of God, who came to suffer for mankind; consequently he ought to have been void of fear, and steadfast to fulfil the purpose for which he came. If they had not taught that he came for the express purpose of suffering, he would have been entitled to much sympathy and compassion, as a reformer suffering under a cruel and tyrannical priesthood; but since they say it was his own will and decrees, they

ch. 26, v. 21.-t ch. 14, v. 18.-‡ ch. 22, v: 20, 21.-§ ch. 13, v. 2 and 21. ch. 26, v. 25.-¶ ch. 13, v. 24.-** ch. 13, v. 27.-tt ch. 26, v. 15.—‡‡ ch. 14. v. 10.- ch. 22, v. 3.—II ch. 18, v. 1.

have stifled compassion, as he could expect nothing else and if he came for the purpose of suffering, why did he pray, "O my Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me;" was this prayer earnest? If he was not earnest, why did he make this prayer? If he was earnest, why was it not granted? And if it had been granted, for what end did he come to the earth? There are surely inconsistencies in his conduct; but a man with two natures, and speaking every sentence with double meaning, will settle all difficulties.

John, who was present, and reports his words at this time very fully, has not taken the smallest notice of this prayer; neither does he agree with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in his account of the manner in which Jesus was taken: he relates* one circumstance concerning it which is very improbable, and seems to contradict their accounts of it entirely; he says that Jesus went forth to Judas, and the band who came to take him, and asked whom seek ye; and when they answered Jesus of Nazareth, he said I am he; at which they went backward and fell to the ground! If Jesus had really given such a mighty display of power, it is not likely that they would have attempted again to take him? According to the other Evangelists, he was so far from making an open declaration of himself, that Judas alone could distinguish him from his followers; and they say, that Judas had given the company that came with him a sign, that "whomsoever he would kiss, that same is he; hold him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus and said, Hail master! and kissed him." But according to John's account, there was no need of such a sign, nor any room for it, when Jesus presented himself to them, declaring that he was the person they sought for, and gave such a display of power as could not be mistaken. Are these inconsistent stories like truth?

When the band laid hands on Jesus and took him, all his disciples forsook him and fled, although there was no apparent danger to them at the time: this was extremely selfish and cowardly, and proves that they had very little true affection for him, and as little faith in his power for protection. Had they been equal in honour and character, to many of those who admire the principles of Thomas Paine, or Richard Carlile, they would not have deserted their leader in a manner so disgraceful; but Peter, who was one of the most zealous among them, behaved worse; he denied with oaths that he was one of his followers, or even knew him! was this man entitled to credit in preaching up his divinity afterwards?

According to Mark's narrative, when Jesus was taken, a very important person made his appearance among the multitude; a young man with a linen cloth cast round his naked body, and when they scized him, he left the cloth in their handa

Ch. 18, v. 4. 8. † Matt. ch. 26, v. 48 ➡‡ ch. 14, v. 51.

and ran off stark naked! This was a gallant exploit, and well worth recording among such adventures. These weak and inconsistent stories are quite undeserving of the veneration in which they have been held; believing them for divine truths, can have no influence in promoting our happiness in a future state, nor disbelieving them, have any in consigning us to misery.

CHAPTER V.

Remarks on the testimony concerning the trial and crucifixion of Christ.

When Jesus was brought before the High Priest and Council, their conduct towards him was extremely villanous and unprincipled; but they were much like the rulers of all corrupt establishments, enemies to all reform, and to every reformer; and as the doctrines which Jesus taught, and the practice which he recommended, though in many respects extravagant and impracticable, were likely to lead to a radical change, they had determined to crush him, whether he was guilty of any crime

or not.

Jesus had acted through life with great caution, even with timid respect to the Jewish laws and religion; and though he had often blamed the villanous hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees, and declaimed against riches, yet he never openly blamed the laws, nor pointed out any imperfections in the national religion; nor said that he meant to change either of them, and establish a new system in their stead; he had said little or nothing on the subject, consequently they had hardly the shadow of a crime to charge against him when he was in their power; but as his directions, if generally followed, would have brought about a thorough revolution, they had resolved to destroy him; and to accomplish their purpose, they raised the convenient charge of blasphemy, which superstition readily furnishes, at all times, to bigots aud hypocrites, and often enables them to ruin reformers.

Their conduct towards him, as reported by Matthew, was base and tyrannical; but the assertion,* that these priestly accusers sought for false witnesses against him, is rather improbable; we can hardly believe that any accuser would seek for false witnesses to ruin his victim, if true witnesses would do his business. Jesus had indirectly said, on several occasions, t that he was the Son of God; this was enough to condemn him, if tried by the Jewish law, and established religion, (which taught that their God was but one Lord,) in the hands of such

Matt, ch. 26, v. 59-tJohn, ch. 9 v, 35, 37-t ch. 10, v. 30.

partial and bigoted judges; any of the witnesses who heard him use, these expressions, would have furnished them with a sufficient pretext, for accomplishing their cruel purpose.

Matthew informs us, that at last two false witnesses came, who testified, that Jesus said he was able to destroy the temple of God, and to raise it in three days; but according to John's narrative,† Jesus did express himself nearly in these words, so that these were not false but true witnesses, if we are to believe his evidence; but whether true or false, the saying was foolish, and the use they made of it was cruel and unjust; for this poor man deserved compassion and support, rather than abuse and calumny, when persecuted by such powerful adversaries.

The accuracy of the Evangelists is obvious in every thing they relate, whether words or deeds; their accounts of Peter's denial of Jesus, is equally consistent with the rest of their story. John relates, that he denied him the first time to the damsel who kept the door, as he went into the place of the High Priest; but according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was after he was in the hall, as he sat and warmed himself by the fire among others, that he first denied him. The answers which they say he gave in the denial, are also different in them all.

Matthew and Mark inform us, that the second denial was to a maid; Luke says it was to a man; according to John it was to them who stood by the fire! Matthew and Mark inform us, that the third denial was to those that stood by; Luke says it was to a man, and John says to the High Priest's servant. Such is the harmony of the Gospels.

Matthew relates,** the following history of the fate of Judas, after he had betrayed his Master into the hands of his enemies; he says, when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, "he re pented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the Chief Priests and Elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood; and they said, what is that to us? See thou to that; and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." But Peter is made to giveff another account of his end, which is very different from this; Matthew relates here, that he cast down the money in the temple; but Peter says, in his speech, that he purchased a field with it: Matthew relates, that he then went and hanged himself; Peter says, he fell headlong and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out! These accounts, contradict each other in every point, and cannot both be true. Peter says that his story was know to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called, in

66

*Ch. 26, v. 60.-t ch. 2, v. 19.- ch. 18, v. 17.- ch. 26, v. 69.—I ch. 14, . 67.-¶ ch. 22, v. 55.-** ch. 27, v. 3, 6.-tt Acts, ch. 1. v. 18.

their proper tongue, the field of blood;" but according to Matthew, the reason why it was called by that name was, because the Chief Priests bought with the money the potter's field to bury strangers in; such is the consistency of this revelan, which we are required to believe under pain of damnatich.Peter's flaming story is very unlike truth, it is evidently inven ted either by himself or the author, to impose on the ignorant; Matthew's account is probable, but by recording,* that this ground was called the field of blood unto this day, it proves that his account has been written long after this event is said to have taken place; and, if so with his story, what credit is due to Peter's?

Matthew says, then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, " and they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me;" what are we to think of this precious quotation? There is not such a passage in all Jeremiah; this is another specimen of the accuracy of this revelation, and a proof how well the Evangelists were acquainted with the Bible; they appear to have quoted any particular passage that came into their minds, quite at random, without taking the trouble to examine whether it was correct or not. There is a passage which resembles this in Zechariah;† but the quotation is quite inaccurate, the words are completely altered, [for sense it is so sublime, that it has none in translation,] and it is quite inapplicable to this case. No profane writer would be believed if he made such mangled quotations and forced applications of passages to support his theory; but inspired writers are allowed privileges which are not accorded to ordinary authors.

When Jesus was examined before the High Priests and Council, and also before Pilate, his behaviour and his answers were very singular; though asked particularly by the High Priest if he was the Christ, he gave no direct answer; in like manner, when asked by Pilate if he was the King of the Jews, or whence he was, his answers were quite evasive, he would tell nothing, although he could scarcely have had a better opportunity of declaring who he was, and what was the object of his mission. If he had convinced the High Priest and Council, or Pilate, that he was the Son of God come to redeem mankind, and converted them to be his disciples, this would have had important effects, their example would have converted many others; but it pleased God to prefer foolishness before wisdom!

One of his answers to Pilate, which John reports, deserves some attention: he said, "thou couldst have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above; therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." This

* Ch. 27, v. 8.—t ch. 11, v 12, 13.—‡ ch. 19, v. 14.