silent concerning the end of Judas. But in the Acts of the Apostles (1 ch. 16 v.) Peter is made to contradict Matthew very essentially: according to this new statement it is not the chief priests and elders who buy the field with the money when Judas has returned it and gone to hang himself---but Judas himself purchases the field with 'the reward of his iniquity.' And again, Judas is not said to hang himself at all---but falls headlong, bursts asunder in the midst, so that all his bowels gush out---and from this being known in Jerusalem, the field is called 'the field of blood'---not because it was bought with the blood-money' which the traitor returned to the priests and elders! Matthew makes Judas a suicide: Peter is made to describe his death as a kind of divine visitation. In brief, the divarication is glaring ; nor have all the thousands of pages which have been written with the endeavour to reconcile Matthew and the Acts, tended to smooth the difficulty. It remains---and where then again is the plenary inspiration' of the writers of the New Testament. ?---and which account is the true one? If we are to be sentenced to eternal perdition for not believing the narratives---how can we avoid asking "For not believing which ?"

Even the Last Supper itself is surrounded with difficulties in these narratives. John not only knows nothing of Jesus sending any of his disciples to bespeak a place where they might keep the passover, and of the man they would find 'bearing a pitcher of water'-but he differs entirely from the other evangelists, both respecting the meal, and the time at which it took place. According to John, Jesus was crucified on the day in the evening of which the Passover was held, and the Last Supper was on the evening before. According to the first three evangelists, the Last Supper is the Passover itself!

Let no one suppose that I am representing this divergency between the Fourth and the other Gospels to be greater than it is. Take the case in the three gospels, first :

The day on which the disciples were directed by Jesus to prepare for the meal was 66 the first day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed" (Matthew, 26 ch. 17 v.) The disciples ask Jesus "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover ?" (Matthew, 26 ch. 17 v.) Then it is said of the disciples, " And they made ready the passover;" (19 v,) and of Jesus, "Now, when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve." (20 v.) Luke, also, makes Jesus open the repast with the words, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you;" (22 ch. 15 v.) and Mark, in his narrative, repeats the word "passover," in describing the Last Supper, and the preparations for it.

John, on the contrary, commences his narrative of the Last Supper with the words, "Before the feast of the passover ;" and when he says to the traitor Judas, "What thou doest do quickly"—and this is after the meal-the words, the Fourth Evangelist tells us, are misunderstood by the rest of the disciples to mean, "Buy those things that we have need of against the feast" —that is to say the paschal meal, or passover. Then, it is said, (John 18 ch. 28 v.) that, on the following morning, the Jews would not enter the Gentile prætorium "Lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover"—so that he means the passover was yet in prospect. And this day, on which he says Jesus was crucified is-still more pointedly-called by him, "the preparation of the passover."

The passover then, according to John, was on the evening of the day on which Christ was crucified; the Jews were eating the paschal lamb at the

time of his burial. But, according to the first three Evangelists the passover was on the evening before, and Christ partook of the feast with his disciples. There can be no mistake about the identity of the meal, as the Last Supper-for the incidents of Christ's announcement of the treason of Judas, and of Peter's denial, occur in each description of the meal.

Commentaries without number have been written with the intent to clear up this difficulty-but no one can answer us whether John, or the first three evangelists, be the proper authority-whether Christ ate the Last Supper on the evening of the passover, or the evening before-whether he was crucified before the passover evening, or after. Can inspiration' contain contradiction ?—or which is the 'inspired' authority-the authority that we are bound to believe on pain of eternal perdition?

But it is not only in relation to the time of the last meal of Jesus, but in the narrative of what passed on that occasion, that there is considerable divergency between the Evangelists. The chief difference here, lies again between John and the first three evangelists; but, on a closer scrutiny, it is found that only Matthew and Mark closely agree ;-and that Luke diverges from these two considerably, though he is more accordant with them than with John. John, only, has long very long discourses-pronounced by Jesus, at the meal; and he, alone, has the incident of Christ washing the disciples' feet. Luke differs from Matthew and Mark in making Christ institute the supper, as a commemorative feast, before the betrayal by Judas, instead of after; and in making Jesus announce Peter's denial in the supper room, instead of on the way to the Mount of Olives. In the last circumstance he agrees with John; but John has not any mention of the institution of the supper. And is not this strange that this Evangelist omits an incident so vitally important in the whole scheme of Christianity-according to orthodoxy? Are we to understand that he corrects the other three writers-and that Christ did not institute the Sacrament' as we popularly, and by pre-eminence, term it, in Protestant England-but that the real incident was the washing of the disciples' feet? Who shall determine this difficulty for us? Can this be 'inspiration' which speaks in puzzles ?

The Agony in the Garden is a picture which we approach with the greatest solemnity of feeling-both from its awful character and our early associations; -but again we are startled with difficulty, for the Agony is not in John, nor does he leave any room for it,-since he makes the arrest of Jesus follow immediately on the arrival in the garden! Read the first dozen verses in the 18th chapter of our translation of John's Gospel-and you will see that he leaves no room for the Agony-nor ever gives the slightest intimation that it occurred.

But the narratives of the Agony, by the first three Evangelists are not in unison. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus takes the three favourite disciples with him, and three several times retires from them to repeat the prayer that the cup of suffering may pass from him: according to Luke (who has not this double figure of three) Jesus retired from all the disciples, and but once. Luke, however, has one most marvellous feature, peculiar to himself— that while Jesus prayed an angel appeared to strengthen him; and that, during the Agony, "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." Even with the orthodox belief of the union of divinity and humanity in Christ, we feel shocked with the statement that it was necessary for Christ to have a strengthening angel sent to him. Without any belief in orthodoxy, we ask-What an angel is? Where is the witness for

the angel's apearance? How the disciples saw the angel if they were asleep? How it happens that neither Matthew nor Mark say one word about the angel's appearance,-nor, especially, John who is described as one of the three (by Matthew and Mark) chosen by Jesus to accompany him in the garden ?

Concerning the bloody sweat' orthodoxy herself, according to Epiphanius, had very early doubts. And, even now, the "as it were" is laid hold of by many to shew that blood was not mingled with the sweat. If so, as Strauss observes, it would have been “ 'drops," simply, in the text. The possibility, however, of a bloody sweat is confirmed by many authorities, from Aristotle to our own times-but it can only occur in extremely rare cases, and in disease. But whether drops of blood, or drops like blood-where, again, is the witness for such an occurrence? If the disciples were asleep they could not see it; and even if they awoke, how could they, at a distance and in the night, discern the falling of the drops? Who cán imagine that Jesus himself detailed all these circumstances of horror, with minuteness, to his disciples? If Luke received the details by inspiration,' how is it that neither Matthew, Mark, nor John were favoured with the same supernatural communication? (To be continued in next number.)

This Day is published No. I. of a new monthly Journal, entitled,
THE FREETHINKER'S MAGAZINE,

AND REVIEW OF THEOLOGY, POLITICS, AND LITERATURE. Edited by Friends of Truth and Progress. Price Twopence. 32 pages. London: Published by JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster-row.

WORKS OF THOMAS

COOPER,

To be had of JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row.

THE BARON'S YULE FEAST. A Christmas Rhyme. In 1 volume, sewed,..

THE PURGATORY OF SUICIDES. A Prison Rhyme. In 10 Books.
(To be had also in 18 numbers, at 2d each; or in 6 parts at 6d.)
WISE SAWS AND MODERN INSTANCES. A series of Tales illustrative of Lincolnshire and
Leicestershire Life. In 2 vols., neat cloth_boards,...

s. d.

3 6

5 0

Two Orations against taking away Human Life under any circumstances,.
Eight Letters to the Young Men of the Working Classes. (Collected from the 'Plain Speaker,')

THE MINSTREL'S SONG AND THE WOODMAN'S SONG. The Poetry and the Melody by
Thomas Cooper. Piano-forte Arrangement by S. D. Collett,..

1 6

0 6

1 0 06

PART 5 of " COOPER'S JOURNAL," containing 4 Numbers, in a Wrapper, Price 44d., is now ready.

Also, Parts 1, 2, and 3, containing 4 Numbers each, Price 41d. each; and Part 3, containing 5 Numbers, Price 5d.

66

Parts 1 and 2, Price 6d. each, (each containing 6 Numbers,) are now

OR

ready, of

CAPTAIN COBLER; LINCOLNSHIRE INSURRECTION:"

An Historical Romance of the Reign of Henry VIII.

Also, now Publishing in Weekly Numbers, at One Penny.
Thirteen Numbers are now ready.

London: Printed by WILLIAM SHIRREFS, 190, High Holborn; and Published by JAMES WATSON, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row.

OR, UNFETTERED THINKER AND PLAIN SPEAKER FOR TRUTH, FREEDOM, AND PROGRESS. dou baumsh jol ton : don ob yodi Jeddw.

"AND though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, sơ Truth be in the He field, we do injuriously to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple! Who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"-Milton's Areopagitica: vol) Segh! W odt

No. 23.-Vol. I.] FOR THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1850. [Price One Penny,

THE DUTY OF THE HOUR.odd, mert so obizib 392001 941 6 sodront levibell, a “I, for one, am sick and weary, tub ell ei sad son Of these everlasting prigs; tamko odw retainia Quite disgusted with the shuffling bar lo enoll ofT

Of the miserable Whigs;

With their impudent averments, & tuodtiw esdanslod And their flagrant thimblerigs!" brodog odwirodi.I mnmont Hoses Blackwood's Magazine.} 91 THE time is come when those who are real democrats, both in and out of the House, should stand resolutely by their principles, and unflinchingly follow out their convictions. Reformers have dallied quite long enough with the Dalilah of expediency. They have sacrificed to satiety at the altar of compromise! They have worshipped, too long for their moral and political health, before the idols of Parliamentary parties. It is time now to break the images before whom they have bowed, and to stand erect in their simple faith in the truth of democracy, and the conviction that it must prevail. .kanssɔnow rabror vrat zoul out eit mors and .vtimelco

&

The question for discussion, and for action after discussion, is, How long shall we sendure the Whigs? To my thinking, the Whigs, and Whiggism, are the great obstacles to progress. The Whigs are the mo derate men. They do not believe that honesty in politics is even the best policy. They conciliates that is, they believe that the best mode of advancing true principles, is to cleverly adulterate them with false princi♪ plesThey have the knack of stump-oratory; and, what is worse, their oratory of the stump inspires their legislation with its own windiness and falsity. Yet we tolerate the Whigs! Radical members vote with them, or do not vote against them; and we are told to respect them as Whigs and as 'gentlemen.'

Far be it from me, to breathe one word against the private character of any member of the Whig party. I have only to speak of them, only to deal with them, only to denounce them as Whigs. They may be 'gentlemen I know them not as such. I only know them as a party existing on false pretences, and who throw dust in the eyes of John Bull before they ease him of his purse. I only know them as the advocates of political purity, and the maintainers of electoral corruption." I only know them as the reformers who emasculated the Reform Act, as the cunning intriguers who taxed the Newspaper Press so as to strangle the people's journals in their birth. I only know them as the economists who would, if they could have imposed a fixed duty on corn, as they imposed a fixed duty on news papers. I only know them as the employers of spies with a free commis sion to traffie in the blood of the people; I only know them as the secret ed corell quilost bus dgrodt to moieliyor Imuted & aid ai botodito bas

354

bachers of the Pope and the Austrian; the tolerators of the Irish iniquity landlordism; and the sworn foes of democracy. Are these titles to Fonfidence, or recommendations to reprieve? Let the Whigs stand condemned, not for what they do not believe, but for pretending to believe what they do not; not for what they have done, but for what they have wilfully failed to do and mos

ch as it

go

Jug Under these circumstances what is the duty of the hour with respect to the Whigs? Clearly, come what will, to oust them. Let the popular agitation, is, manifest itself in this form:-hostility to the WHS 300 Wig Let the Parliamentary opposition manifest itself in this formdivision against the Whigs; or, by reversing the present rule, never divide for them, though you may not divide against them. For what does a Radical member to the House of Commons if not to oppose Government? What is his duty there as a Radical, if it be not to vote against the people, and refuse parliamentary reform? The House of is a usurpation. A Whig is any liberal who tolerates, without a protest the present system. A Radical is any Liberal who pretends to be not a Whigh What particular mission has he to suve Lord John Russell from Mr. Drummond or Mr. Henley, from Mr Disraelior Colonel Sibthorp? Clearly name. The time is fast approaching when a Radical inember who does not go to reform parliament, and stick to it will not be a member long. auoits

ministers who came

The motives are urgent for action.We are imow in the middle of a period of commercial prosperity.A great portion of the people get some food not wholly unfit for menom But how long will it continue, and the next crisis of commerce, the next season of starvation for the masses, what may it not bring forth? balfitois answered Revolution that would be a calamity. But even this the Whigs may render necessary. We have now time to planje organise, and agitate. Therinthuential classes have thus much, grace/allowed them before the fatal period of distress arrives. The duty of the hour is then to drive thedo Radical members into direct and unfailing hostility to the Whigs. Let the Tories come in if need be.boThe Tories canitot do worse; and really one set is as good as the otheralt di modt etaotlubs yherolo ot ei eofgioning sunt gais Tiedt oow ei tad bus vroto-qnute to do GEORGE HOOPERS bas ɛɛsaibaiw mno eti dtiz noitaleigal right ariqani qoute odd to prot£10 modt ddiw otov anodmom [ssibeЯ Tegid W odd strelot ew t97 dialet egid W 20 REMINISCENCES OF EBENEZER ELLIOTT Jou ob 10 '.usmelting' es bas

80

་་།

9

to notoriedo steving odd THE CORN-LAW, REIMER of most ti ed I of yao went to Anoge Condtitled from last number, jd W odt to rednem yas -eltnog od ve vode de commons of vino modt diw ligh noWhen the poet first appeared like a twinkling star above the clouded horizon, some sueered, some laughed, some deemed him mad. And indeed what atmosphere could possibly be thought to be more uncongenial, in which, to successfully woo the muses, than the din and smoke of his, daily pursuits? In the latter part of his trading career, he might have been found surrounded by the hard material in which he was a dealer a material, almost as impenetrable as the skulls of those with whom he daily converged At one time to have even named Ebenezer Elliott with approbation, a man would have been treated as if he had partaken of his hypothetical maladre This no doubt had a great influence upon the sensitive mind of the poţia and effected in him a natural revulsion of thought and feeling. Hence he