ing his master-Jesus need not have asked 'Whom seek ye ?' and have said 'I am he.' And if Jesus had already made the declaration, Judas's kiss was not needed as a sign. We cannot pronounce which is the true account: we can only observe that John's is in keeping with his high doctrines of the nature of Christ,-and is plainly what metaphysicians term dogmatical. But how strangely vacillating in feeling---from confidence to terror---from terror to confidence---these narratives, blended together, would represent Jesus to have been; and how unlike, if separated! We will not delay to gaze at Peter cutting off the high priest's servant's ear; but only remark that Luke alone relates that Christ healed the ear. In the first three gospels Jesus remonstrates with those that took him not so in John; but he says something similar to Annas. Luke, as if he had gathered from Matthew and Mark on the one side, and John on the other,-by a strange blunder,-brings the chief priests into the garden of Gethsemane with the band of officers, and makes Jesus address the remonstrance to them there! In John, Jesus obtains leave for his disciples to retire when he is taken: in Matthew and Mark, the disciples, forsake him and flee; and graphic Mark says that a young man with a linen cloth cast about his body, when he was in danger of being seized, left the linen cloth, and fled naked!

From the place of arrest, the first three evangelists state that Jesus was led to the high-priest,--whose name, Caiaphas, is only mentioned by Matthew; while the Fourth Evangelist states that Christ was led, first to Annas, the father-in-law of the high-priest, and afterwards to Caiaphas-but of the trial before Caiaphas, John gives no particulars. That there is a mistake somewhere, is evident, from the fact that the first three evangelists make Peter deny Jesus during the trial before Caiaphas; while John makes the first denial take place during the trial before Annas. But, between Luke and the first two evangelists there are also divergencies. According to Luke, Jesus is merely kept under guard throughout the night, in the high-priest's palace, and maltreated by the underlings; and when, at the break of day, the Sanhedrim assembles, no witnesses appear, but the high-priest precipitates the sentence by a decisive question and Christ's answer. According to Matthew and Mark, when Jesus was brought into the high-priest's palace, the scribes and elders were already assembled, and while it was night, proceeded to hold a trial, in which witnesses appeared; and then, the high-priest addressed to him the decisive question, on the answer to which the assembly declared him worthy of death. It is remarkable that in John, also, the trial goes forward in the night; only, he does not say that the Sanhedrim, or great council, was present. Now we might be inclined to reject the authority of Matthew and Mark, (strengthened by that of John,) and declare for Luke at once, seeing that it looks improbable for the council to have assembled in the night, while Judas was gone out with the guard to apprehend Christonly, Luke himself baffles us by making the high-priests and elders present at the arrest in the garden!

In the relation of the maltreatment of Jesus, there is some little divergency. It is not so great, however, as to lead us to suppose that there is not a fact at the bottom of the narrative. Doubtless the great and holy sufferer was vilely misused; but, in their descriptions, the evangelists were evidently led by the wish to shew that Messianic prophecies were fulfilled in this revolting occurrence-such as those in Isaiah (50 ch. 6 v., and 53 ch. 7 v.)

Again, in the relation respecting Peter, divergencies occur. He, only, according to the first three evangelists, gives the proof of his courage and attachment to Jesus, by following him into the court of the high-priest's palace. But in the Fourth Gospel, John is stated to have been his companion; and, indeed, to have been the means of procuring Peter's admission. The very striking tendency of the Fourth Gospel to exalt John above Peter, we shall have to notice more particularly, in considering the narratives of the Resurrection, &c.---and we, therefore, pass on without further remark on this statement of the Fourth Gospel. We have already mentioned the difference between the first three evangelists and John, respecting Peter's denial; but in the description of the three several instances of his denial, there is considerable variance. The first denial, according to John, is uttered on the very entrance of Peter into the court of the palace, to a damsel that kept the door; according to Matthew, to a damsel, while Peter'sat without in the palace'; according to Mark, to a damsel, while he was 'beneath in the palace,' and 'warming himself'; according to Luke, also to a damsel, as he sat by the fire.' The second denial takes place, according to John and Luke, also by the fire in Matthew and Mark, after Peter had gone out into the porch. Further, in John, the second denial is made to several persons; in Luke, to one person; in Matthew, to another damsel than the one to whom Peter made the first denial; in Mark, to the same damsel. The third denial happened, according to Matthew and Mark, in the porch; according to Luke and John, undoubtedly in the inner court, at the fire---for none of the evangelists mention a change of place after the second denial. Further, in Matthew and Mark, the third denial is made to many bystanders; in Luke, to one; in John, to one who is a relative of the servant who had been wounded in the garden.

We will not pursue the criticism more minutely by noticing the different motives attributed to the parties who suspect Peter, nor the difference in the accounts of his swearing. Indeed, this criticism may already be deemed too minute. It may be said that variations in a narrative of what took place amidst distraction of mind are only to be expected. Just so we fully agree there. But then the orthodox do not allow us to judge these accounts as we judge other books: we are told they are 'inspired.' That term must be repeated, because the orthodox repeat it; and yet this 'inspired' account is so perplexing that some critics argue that no less than eight denials of Peter are evidently related, and the term 'thrice,' in Christ's declaration is only to be taken as a round number! One other remark, and we will leave the case of Peter. Luke alone says that, on the crowing of the cock, Jesus turned and looked at Peter. But, according to Matthew and Mark, this could not be, since Peter was not in the same locality with Jesus-being 'without' (Matthew) or 'beneath' (Mark), 'in the court:' it thus being implied that Jesus was in an inner, or upper apartment of the palace.

To proceed: When Jesus is led before Pilate, the trial, according to John, takes place in the interior of the Prætorium,-and the Jews, from fear of levitical defilement, remain without. Pilate, of course, has to come out when he would speak to the Jews. The representation is different in the other Gospels; but if John's account be the true one, who then heard the conversation of Jesus with Pilate, and especially the famous question of the latter, 'What is Truth? Who is the witness?-for we cannot admit the solution of the older commentators, that Jesus himself narrated these conversations to his disciples after the resurrection. The greater probability is, that the

writer of the Fourth Gospel has himself put the question into the mouth of Pilate for the conception is quite in his style.

Before the introduction of Barabbas, which in all the other evangelists comes next in order, Luke has an episode, the omission of which by the three we must term surprising: he makes Jesus be led before Herod; tells us that Herod questioned him, but that Jesus was silent; and that after Herod's soldiers had derided him, and arrayed him in a mock robe, he was led back to Pilate. If this statement be not wholly legendary-why is it not found in the other Gospels. How often we have to repeat this question-only to receive some apologetical theory for an answer, but which really leaves us answerless!

After Pilate has presented Barabbas and Jesus to the Jews, that they might make choice of one to be released to them, we have, in Matthew only, the relation of the message of Pilate's wife about her dream; and when the choice is made, the incident of Pilate washing his hands. Dreams are favourites with Matthew, and we cannot be surprised that that feature is peculiar to him. That the latter incident is altogether a legend, becomes evident, not only from its total omission by the other evangelists, but from the improbability that Pilate should use the words, "I am innocent of the blood of this just man," while he was delivering Christ to death, and that the Jews should cry out "His blood be on us and on our children"-a sentence obviously spoken from the Christian point of view, when they had seen the miseries which fell on the Jewish nation shortly after the death of Jesus.

The Scourging, Luke makes Pilate propose as a substitute for crucifixion, with the hope the Jews will be satisfied with it, and it does not actually take place; John makes it take place, but in vain; while Matthew and Mark describe it as performed preparatory to crucifixion-which was in reality a Roman usage towards condemned slaves. With the scourging is connected the maltreatment and mockery of Jesus, by all the evangelists except Lukewho had transferred these incidents to the interview with Herod: thus Luke is here doubly at variance with the other evangelists. While in Matthew and Mark the trial concludes before the scourging, and after the rejection of the proposal to scourge, in Luke,-in John, the trial goes on after the scourging, Pilate is indignant with the Jews, leads Jesus once more into the Prætorium, questions him again, again tries to release him, is intimidated by the saying of the Jews that he cannot be 'Cæsar's friend,' mounts the tribunal, derides the Jews by asking them if they wish that he should crucify their 'king'and, receiving their answer, delivers him to be crucified. We repeat, that if

we are allowed to judge of these narratives as we do of other books-that irregularities in the relation of events so distracting to the observers do not seem strange; but they are absolute difficulties if we are to regard the writings as produced under supernatural direction.

The Cross, according to John, was borne by Jesus himself: according to the other three writers, by Simon the Cyrenian. It is easy, again, if we are to eschew the 'inspiration' doctrine, to account for John's omission: the fact was not known in the Greek circle where the Fourth Gospel was written. In describing the circumstances of the Crucifixion, Matthew and Mark have a different order to Luke and John: not to mention minor circumstances, the two former describe the sharing of Christ's clothes among the soldiers, &c., and relate the crucifixion of the two malefactors as a succeeding event: the two latter reverse this order. Mark says 'wine mingled with myrrh' was first offered to Jesus on the cross; Matthew mentions vinegar mingled with gall'—doubtless, having the 69th Psalm (v. 21.) in his mind; John and Luke

mention 'vinegar,' and so does Mark, after his first statement. Luke alone has the incident of the 'Penitent Thief'-which, with all our unwillingness to destroy a beautiful and touching legend-we are compelled to reject as one. That a thief' (so in Matthew and Mark) should entreat Jesus to remember him when he should come into his kingdom,' should manifest a conception of the whole system of the dying Messiah, while the very disciples. themselves could not yet comprehend it-is too extravagant a statement. But, if any orthodox believer should say 'How dare you impiously question Luke's statement?—I can only ask in return if Matthew and Mark be also 'impious' when they directly contradict Luke by saying that both the thieves reviled Jesus? They know nothing of the Penitent Thief:" no more does John.

The Fourth Gospel has a striking difference in describing the spectators of the Crucifixion. It brings John and the mother of Christ close to the cross-for it represents Jesus as addressing them from thence; while all the other gospels describe Christ's acquaintances as standing 'afar off. Neither do the other gospels make any mention of Christ's mother as being present at the Crucifixion.

The words uttered by Christ on the cross,---in addition to his address to his mother and John, just alluded to,---are, in Matthew and Mark, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" According to Luke, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," and, finally, "Father, into t ly hands I commend my spirit"; according to John, I thirst," and, finally, "It is finished." Now, neither these varied relations,-nor the difference in the four statements of what was the inscription over the cross,---nor the difference in the account of the sharing of Christ's garments,---nor the difference in the narratives as it regards the persons who derided Jesus while he hung on the cross,---appear very startling to us, if we---I am compelled again to repeat--are allowed to dismiss the idea of 'inspiration,' and to consider these as, simply, human accounts of a dread transaction, witnessed by some who were terrified, distracted, and, as we say, broken-hearted,---and who therefore handed down their accounts with the diversity of terror, distraction, and poignant sorrow. Such differences are human, are natural reason makes no demand for perfect congruence in such relations---though it does when a violation of the natural laws is affirmed, and credence is expected. (To be continned in next number.)

CONVERSATION.-The laws of conversation are, in general, not to labour over any subject, but to pass over it easily, without effort or affectation, from one to another; to speak occasionally on frivolous as well as on serious subjects: to remember that conversation is a relaxation, and not a fencing school, nor a game of chess; in a word, to allow the fancy to range at freedom, You are not to engross the discourse to yourself, nor to deliver your opinions in a magisterial tone; as this must be very disgusting to the hearers, and prepossesses them against you. There can be no situation in which we are less able to conceal our self-love than in conversation; and we are always sure to lose by mortifying the pride of others, who will naturally be desirous of revenging themselves; and their ingenuity seldom fails instantly to discover an opportunity. Another defect to be shunned is, speaking like one reading, and having what is called a well-written conversation. A conversation ought no more to be like a written discourse, than the latter like a conversation. What is pretty singular is, those who fall into the former blemish, seldom escape the other; because being in the habit of speaking as they would write, they imagine they ought to write as they speak. It should be a rule, that a man cannot be too much on his guard when he writes to the public, and never too easy towards those with whom he converses.-D'Alembert.

IMAGINARY WANTS.-If we create imaginary wants, why do we not create imaginary satisfactions? It was the happier phrenzy of the two to be like the mad Athenian, who thought all the ships that came into the harbour to be his own; than to be stil tormenting ourselves with insatiable desires.-Bulstrode's Essays.

RECENTLY PUBLISHED.

Cause and its Cure. A Tract for the Times.
ALEXANDER Q. G. CRAUFURD, M.A., of Jesus Col-
lege, Cambridge, formerly Curate of St. Mark's
Church, Woodhouse, Leeds. Post 8vo. 1s.

A DISCOURSE ON MATTERS
PERTAINING TO RELIGION. BY THEODORE
PARKER. Post 8vo. 7s. cloth.

THE CRITICAL AND MISCEL-
LANEOUS WRITINGS OF THEODORE PARKER.
Post 8vo. cloth, 6s.
London: JOHN CHAPMAN, 142, Strand.

On Saturday, July 6th, 1850, wil be published, Price One Penny, (to be continued Weekly, and republished Monthly in Parts,) No. I. of

HE PRESS; a Family Literary Journal of Amusement and Instruction. "The Press," will contain original contributions in every department of Literature, and Leading Articles on every topic of general interest, by eminent writers. Its price will be as low as the cheapest of the existing cheap publications; and, as a Literary organ, not inferior to the first-class high-priced periodicals of the day. It will be universal in its sympathies, maintaining a position unbiassed either by class-interests or sectarian prejudices.

Also, on August 1st, 1850, as a Monthly Supplement to THE PRESS, and to be published with the Magazines, Price One Penny, or Stamped to go free by Post, Price Twopence, No. I. of

THE HISTORIC

Containing all the current news of the month, Domestic, Colonial and Foreign, together with a concise epitome of Literature, the Fine Arts, the Progress of Science and Art, Useful Discoveries and Inventions, the Annals of Industry, carefully and systematically arranged and condensed, at a cost of time and money, within the reach of every class of readers.

LONDON: Published by W. HORSELL, 13, Paternoster Row; and sold by all Booksellers. PART 5 of" COOPER'S JOURNAL," containing 4 Numbers, in a Wrapper, Price 44d., is now ready.

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

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

ready, of

CAPTAIN COBLER; THE LINCOLNSHIRE INSURRECTION:"
An Historical Romance of the Reign of Henry VIII.
Also, now Publishing in Weekly Numbers, at One Penny.
Fourteen Numbers are now ready.

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