surely they would have noticed, in some way or other, such an extraordinary circumstance, while they were speaking of Judas.

Again, both Peter and Matthew assign different reasons for the fate of Judas. Matthew says that it was to fulfil a prophecy, spoken by Jeremy 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." 16 But Peter says, that it was to fulfil that which the holy Ghost spake, by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. "For [he says] it is written in the book of Psalms, let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick let another take."

First let us inquire how could the Holy Ghost, of whom no mention is made throughout the Old Testament, speak by the mouth of David, when John says that the Holy Ghost was not given till after Jesus was glorified ? 18 Indeed, we find, that many years after his death, there were many of his disciples who did not know that there was such a thing in existence, as a Holy Ghost!19 Neither is there any allusion whatever made in the book of Psalms, nor yet indeed, throughout the whole Bible, prior to these words of Peter, concerning a bishop or a bishoprick; they being things unknown to the Jews in those days. The only similar expression to be found in the book of Psalms, is where David is offering up prayers for the destruction of his enemies; which conduct was quite contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost, if it were he who spoke by the mouth of Jesus, for he commanded them to love their enemies, to do good to those who hated them, and to pray for those who despitefully used and persecuted them.20 Instead of which we find that David uttered the most horrid imprecations against them: the 109th Psalm, to which Peter alluded, being one instance, in which he says, let his days be few, and let another take his office; let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow; let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; and let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places;

let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the stranger spoil his labour; let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children; let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following, let their name be blotted out;* let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sins of his mother be blotted out." And in the 69th Psalm, he says, "let their table become a snare before them, and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate, and let none dwell in their tents." These are the prayers and supplications that are appointed for Christians to offer up, either by singing or reading, every 13th and 22nd evenings of the month, to a throne of grace, whereon sits a God of love and mercy!

Thus we find, that out of these two vengeful and bloody-minded Psalms, Peter has selected a few words from each, in order to form a prophetical passage for Judas. I remember that when I first began to address my letters to you, a fanatic, with whom I had formerly been acquainted, sent me word that I did not treat the holy Scriptures fairly, by selecting a passage from one place and one from another, and then connecting them together, as though they had the same meaning, while they treated upon quite different subjects. I, not deeming it impossible that such an error might have been made, through ignorance or inattention, having no claim to infallability, directly sent to him entreating him to point me out a passage in which I had done so, that I might correct it as early as possible. But for reasons, I suppose, best known to himself, I have since neither seen nor heard from him, nor from any other person, that such is the manner in which I have conducted this review of the life of Jesus. If my old acquaintance had

* We do not read that Judas Iscariot had either wife or children, so that this cannot apply to him. Neither is his name yet blotted out of the book of the Lord!

but noticed the above mentioned quotations by Peter, and a number of others that I could point out to him, he would have found that the inspired writers of these holy Scriptures, were guilty of that fault, of which he only supposed that I had been. Here you find that Peter takes part of one verse from one Psalm, and connects it with part of another from a different Psalm ;2 1 in the same manner as Mark did when he selected one verse from Isaiah, (xl. 3.) and joined it to part of another from Malachi, (iii. 1.) in order to form a prophecy for John the Baptist.22 But what has this prophecy, as Peter calls it, to do with the bowels of Judas tumbling out, or the field of blood? I can perceive no analogy between the two cases.

Again, what has Judas and his thirty pieces of Silver to do with Jeremiah and his field, which he bought of his cousin, Hanameel, for seventeen shekels of silver ?23 If those thirty pieces of Silver, were those which they called Drachms, they did not amount to half the value of seventeen shekels. And if they were those called Staters, they would be more in value than double the number of seventeen shekels: take which you will, neither will assimilate. Then what has this field to do with Judas betraying his master? I wonder that Matthew did not quote the thirty changes of garments, that Samson betted with his friends ;24 or the thirty ass-colts, upon which the sons of Jair rode,25 and make of them a prophecy for Judas, the one being as applicable as the other! O, but perhaps you will say, that Saint Matthew made a mistake when he quoted Jeremy, it being Zachariah that he meant; wherein I shall find that thirty pieces of Silver are mentioned. If this be the case, I must confess that this is a very hazardous book for us to rest our "eternal states" upon, if holy men write one thing while they mean another! However, let us see what Zechariah says upon the subject?

He says, while deploring the destruction of Jerusalem, that the Lord had commanded him to feed the flocks of the slaughter; which literally implies, to teach or preach the law to the miserable inhabitants of Jerusalem. To this, it seems, he agreed, for he says "I will feed the

flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock." Then he says, he took two staves, the one he called Beauty, and the other he called Bands, which probably, alluded to the two men which he had taken to assist him in his work of teaching, for then he says I fed the flock. The word staff, being often applied, by holy men, to symbolize aid and assistance in public matters. 2 6 After which it appears, that he quarrelled with three other shepherds, or priests, whom he was obliged to cut off in one month; which induced him to say that he would no longer feed them, but that they might die, and be cut off, or eat the flesh of one another, if they choose. He then took his staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, or discharged him from his office; (as Samuel did Saul, when he told him that the Lord had rent the kingdom from him,27) in order that he might break his covenant which he had made with all the people. After which he demanded his price, or the arrears that were due to him for his services, according to the covenant which he had made with the people. But knowing that in consequence of his first breaking the covenant, he could have no legal claim upon them, he leaves it to their own generosity, by saying if ye think good, give me my price, and if not, forbear. However, it seems that they weighed him out thirty pieces of silver for his price or wages, which he took and cast unto the potter, in the house of the Lord. He then cut asunder his other staff, even Bands, having no further occasion for him, by which means the brotherhood between Judah and Israel was broken.2 28 After this we read no more of Zechariah; the three remaining chapters in the book, that bears his name were evidently not written by him, but added thereto in after ages.

tr

Now prithee inform me, what has all this to do with either Judas or Jesus? "There is," as Paine observed, no part that has the least relation to the case, stated in Matthew; on the contrary, it is the reverse of it. Here the thirty pieces of Silver, whatever they were for, is called a goodly price; they were 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 his house. In the case of Jesus and Judas, as stated by 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 admittance into the treasury. Everything in the two cases is the reverse of each other." Luke and Mark, though they speak of a covenant being made between Judas and the chief Priests, yet say not a word about the prophecy, or the fate of Judas. And John disregards it altogether!

We are next told by Mark and Luke, that after Judas had bargained with the chief Priests, Jesus bade them go into the city, where they should meet a man bearing a pitcher of water, whom they were to follow, and in whatsoever house he went there they were to bespeak a place wherein they might eat the passover. 29 Matthew says not a word about the man and the pitcher; but instead thereof, says that Jesus told them to go at once to such a man and bespeak the place.30 And John says, not a word about either. However, in the evening when all was prepared, Jesus went there and sat down with his disciples. Is it not strange that the master of the house did not go and give information of him, agreeable to the commandment of the chief Priests and Rulers? But as they were eating, Matthew and Mark say, that Jesus told them that one of them should betray him:31 while Luke and John say that he did not tell them this until supper was ended. 32 If we examine the questions and answers, with the manner in which they were given, we shall find much inconsistency in the several reports.

Matthew and Mark say that when Jesus had told them that one of them should betray him, they began to say unto him one by one, is it I? To which, Jesus answered, according to Matthew, it is he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish. Judas immediately inquired of Jesus whether it was him? and Jesus answered thou hast said. Mark speaks of the dipping in the dish, but says nothing about the question put by Judas to Jesus, nor his answer thereto. Luke says that when Jesus told them that the hand of the men that