stated in Matthew; on the contrary, it is the reverse of it. Here the thirty pieces of silver, whatever it was for, is called a goodly price, it was as much as the thing was worth, and according to the language of the day, was approved of by the Lord, and the money given to the potter in the house of the Lord. In the case of Jesus and Judas, as stated in Matthew, the thirty pieces of silver were the price of blood; the transaction was condemned by the Lord, and the money when refunded was refused admitance into the treasury. Every thing in the two cases is the reverse of each

other.

Besides this, a very different and direct contrary account to that of Matthew is given of the affair of Judas, in the book called the Acts of the Apostles, according to that book the case is, that so far from Judas repenting, and returning the money, and the high priests buying a field with it to bury strangers in, Judas kept the money and bought a field with it for himself; and instead of hanging himself as Matthew says, that he fell headlong and burst asunder-some commentators endeavour to get over one part of the contradiction by rediculously supposing that Judas hanged himself first and the rope broke.

Acts chap. 1, v. 16. "Men and brethren, 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. (David says not a word about Judas) v. 17, "for he (Judas) was numbered among us and obtained part of our "ministry.

"v. 18. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, " and falling headlong he burst assunder in the midst, and his bowels "gushed out." Is it not a species of blasphemy to call the NewTestament revealed religion, when we see in it such contradictions and absurdities?

I pass on to the 12th passage called a prophesy of Jesus Christ, Matthew chap. 27, v. 35. "And they crucified him and part"ed his garments casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was "spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This expression is in the 22d Psalm v. 18. The writer of that Psalm, (whoever he was, for the Psalms are a collection and not the work of one man,) is speaking of himself and of his own case and not of that of another. gins this Psalm with the words which the New-Testament writers ascribe to Jesus Christ. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsa“ken me”—words which might be uttered by a complaining man without any great impropriety, but very improperly from the mouth of a reputed God,

He be

The picture which the writer draws of his own situation in this Psalm, is gloomy enough. He is not prophesying, but complaining of his own hard case. He represents himself as surrounded by enemies and beset by persecutions of every kind; and by way of shewing the inveteracy of his persecutors, he says at the 18 verse, They part my garments among them and cast lots upon my vesture. The expression is in the present tense; and is the same as to say, they pursue me even to the clothes upon my back, and dispute how they shall divide them; besides, the word vesture does not always mean clothing of any kind, but property, or rather the admitting a man to, or investing him with property; and as it is used in this Psalm distinct from the word garment, it appears to be used in this sense. But Jesus had no property; for they make him to say of himself, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, "but the son of man hath not where to lay his head."

But be this as it may, if we permit ourselves to suppose the Almighty would condescend to tell, by what is called the spirit of prophesy, what would come to pass in some future age of the

world it is an injury to our own faculties, and to our ideas of his greatness, to imagine it would be about an old coat, or an old pair of breeches, or about any thing which the common accidents of life, or the quarrels that attend it, exhibit every day.

That which is within the power of man to do, or in his will not to do, is not a subject for prophesy, even if there were such a thing ; because it cannot carry with it any evidence of divine power, or divine interposition. The ways of God are not the ways of men. That which an almighty power performs, or wills, is not within the circle of human power to do, or to controul. But any executioner and his assistants might quarrel about dividing the garments of a sufferer, or divide them without quarreling, and by that means fulfil the thing called a prophesy, or set it aside.

In the passages before examined, I have exposed the falshood of them. In this I exhibit its degrading meanness, as an insult to the creator and an injury to human reason.

Here end the passages called prophesies by Matthew.

Matthew concludes his book by saying, that when Christ expired on the cross, the rocks rent, the graves opened, and the bodies of many of the saints arose; and Mark says there was darkness over the land from the fixth hour until the ninth. They produce no prophesy for this. But had these things been facts, they would have been a proper subject for prophesy, because none but an almighty power could have inspired a fore knowledge of them, and afterwards fulfilled them. Since, then, there is no such prophesy, but a pretended prophesy of an old coat, the proper deduction is, there were no such things, and that the book of Matthew is fable and falsehood.

I pass on to the Book, called the Gospel according to St. Mark.

The Book of Mark.

THERE are but few passages in Mark called prophesies, and but few in Luke and John. Such as there are I shall examine, and also such other passages as interfere with those cited by Matthew.

Mark begins his book by a passage which he puts in the shape. of a prophesy. Mark, chap. 1. v. 1." The beg nning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.-As it is written in the "prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall "prepare the way before thee." Malachi, chap. 3. v. 1. The passage in the original is in the first person. Mark makes this passage to be a prophesy of John the Baptist, said, by the Church, to be the fore-runner of Jesus Christ. But if we attend to the verses that follow this expression, as it stands in Malachi, and to the first and fifth verses of the next chapter, we shall see that this application of it is erroneous and false.

messenger

at the

Malachi having said at the first verse "Behold I will send my and he shall prepare the before me," says way second verse, "But who may abide the day of his coming? and who “shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and "like fulier's soup."

This description can have no reference to the birth of Jesus Christ, and consequently none to John the Baptist. It is a scene of fear and terror that is here described, and the birth of Christ is always spoken of as a time of joy and glad tidings.

Malachi, continuing to speak on the same subject; explains in the next chapter what the scene is of which he speaks in the verses above quoted, and who the person is whom he calls the messenger.

Behold, says he, chap. 4. v. 1.-" The day cometh that shall j' burn like an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wick

edly shall be stubble; and the day cometh that shall burn them “up saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root "nor branch.”

Verse 5.-" Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before "the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.”

By what right, or by what imposition or ignorance, Mark has made Elijah into John the baptist, and Malachi's description of the day of judgement into the birth day of Christ, I leave to the bishop

to settle.

Mark, in the second and third verses of his first chapter, confounds two passages together taken from different books of the Old Testament. The second verse, "Behold I send my messenger "before thy face, which shall prepare the way before thee,” is taken, as I have before said, from Malachi. The third verse which says "The voice of one crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the "Lord, make his paths straight," is not in Malachi, but in Isaiah, chap. 40, v. 3. Whiston says, that both these verses were origin. ally in Isaiah. If so, it is another instance of the disordered state of the Bible, and corroborates what I have said with respect to the name and description of Cyrus being in the book of Isaiah, te which it cannot chronologically belong.

The words in Isaiah, chap. 40. v. 3.-" The voice of him that cryeth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his "path straight," are in the present tense, and, consequently, not predictive. It is one of those rhetorical figures which the Old Testament authors frequently used. That it is merely rhetorical and metaphorical may be seen at the 6th verse. "And the voice said

"cry, and he said what shall I cry? All flesh is grass." This is evidently nothing but a figure; for flesh is not grass otherwise than as a figure or metaphor, where one thing is put for another. Besides which, the whole passage is too general and declamatory to be applied, exclusively, to any particular person or purpose.. pass on to the eleventh chapter.

I