the whole course of his ministry? Indeed, I have observed in my Dissertations, that Matthew himself expressly says, (speaking of Jesus' arrival in Galilee, iv. 17,) "From that time began Jesus to preach." Now what is there to oppose to all this substantial evidence, but John's saying that our Lord tarried, that is, that he made some stay in Judea before he set out for Galilee, which, circumstanced as he then was, could not, I think, have been more than a few days?

I wish your Lordship would also consider another inconvenience attending this supposed long stay of Jesus in Judea, and his making so many disciples there, which I urged very strongly in my Dissertations, † but of which I do not find that your Lordship has taken any notice at all. You suppose Jesus to have exercised his ministry in Judea so long, and with so much success, as to have gained a decided superiority over John, which must of course have been a thing of great notoriety. You also suppose him to have preached long after this, viz. according to the plan of your Harmony, till near the third passover, which is, in all, almost two years before the death of John, and yet Herod is plainly supposed by all the evangelists not to have heard any thing of him in all that time, insomuch that after the death of John, he really entertained the notion that Jesus must have been John himself risen from the dead; and as he then worked miracles, which he had not done before, having greater powers than he was invested with before his decease.

From the manner in which the evangelists Matthew and Mark introduce this account of the conjecture of Herod, it is evident that they had no idea of his having so much as heard any thing about Jesus before the death of John. Matt. xiv. 1: "At that time" (not before) "Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus." Mark vi. 14: Mark vi. 14: "And king Herod heard of him, for his fame was spread abroad." thought it necessary to assign some reason why Herod might be supposed not to have heard of Jesus during the few weeks that, on my hypothesis, he had preached, before the death of John, ascribing it to his being probably engaged in a multiplicity of business, or pleasure. How your Lordship will be able to account for Herod's not having heard of him, preaching in public, and working miracles, as you suppose him to have done, for the space of near two years, I have no idea. All that you say at present, is that "Herod first

doubted who Jesus was; but at length resolved that he was John the Baptist risen from the dead;" a very extraordinary doubt, in the circumstances in which your Lordship places him, but a more extraordinary determination, after, what we must suppose, some deliberation and inquiry.

This argument is not a reductio ad absurdum of the same kind with those of Euclid, but let any person consider all the circumstances of this case, especially that Herod was not a Roman, but a Jew, surrounded by Jews, and not unattentive to his religion, who had even taken some pleasure in hearing John preach; for we read, (Mark vi. 20,) that "he did many things," (probably things that John had recommended,)" and heard him gladly;" that this preaching of Jesus had been always near his own dominions, (for it was probably in his way to Galilee,) and that the whole country of Judea at that time, including all Galilee, was not much larger than Yorkshire; and I think he must pronounce that the thing is hardly, in fact, less credible, and that a plan of a Harmony labouring under this difficulty, (and in fact every Harmony except that of Mr. Maun is thus circumstanced,) cannot deserve much attention. I think I may venture to challenge any person to draw out a plan of a Harmony that shall extend the public ministry of Christ to more than one complete year, in such a manner as that this one difficulty, not to mention many others, shall not be insuperable. But perhaps what strikes me so much may not strike your Lordship at all. I wish, however, your Lordship had attended to it, and given us your thoughts upon it.

3. The journey from Judea to Cana you suppose "not to have occupied less than six or seven days," + whereas his stay at Sychar is limited to two days, which, according to the Jewish phraseology might mean no more than part of two days, and the whole journey from Jerusalem to Galilee was but of three days, according to our Lord's own mode of travelling; and as the part of Judea from which our Lord set out for Galilee was probably the most remote from Jerusalem, the place he had left, (and he would naturally recede farther and farther from it,) the journey might not be more than two days. Now in my computation, I have allowed four days for it, and could have taken another day, or more, if I had thought it necessary. Surely, my Lord,

VOL. XX.

• Notes, p. 26. (P.)

K

↑ Ibid. p. 17. (P.)

there can be no great improbability in this. Let us now proceed to Galilee.

4. To invalidate my computation of time, you suppose what the evangelist does not mention, and what appears to me to be by no means necessary. "Jesus," you say, "must have remained at Cana a few days, let us say four, because Jesus's presence at Cana was notified at Capernaum before the nobleman set out to meet him."* Now John, who is the only evangelist that mentions the transaction, only says, (iv. 47,)" When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee" (not to Cana). Now as Jesus had taught at Jerusalem, made some disciples in Judea, and stayed two days at Sychar, it might very well be known at Capernaum, a place of great resort, that he had left Judea, was travelling towards Galilee, and even that he would certainly go to Cana, and the nobleman might set out before it was known that Jesus was actually arrived at Cana. It is not impossible, therefore, but both of them might arrive there the same day. Besides, you make the distance between Capernaum and Cana no more than twenty-three miles, which is so small, that Jesus might have arrived at Cana in the evening, and it might have been known at Capernaum the next morning; and the nobleman did probably set out in the morning, because we find that Jesus pronounced his son cured at the seventh hour, or an hour after noon.

5. Your Lordship lays great stress on the stay that you suppose Jesus made at Nazareth and its neighbourhood, before he arrived at Capernaum, allowing eight days for his preaching before his arrival at Nazareth, and four days at Nazareth. But I think I have shewn, unanswerably, that this visit to Nazareth was subsequent to his preaching at Capernaum, and therefore shall not argue it in this place.

6. But the argument on which your Lordship seems to lay the greatest stress is drawn from what is said (Matt. iv. 23) of our Lord's going "about all Galilee," after his arrival at Capernaum, subsequent to his curing the demoniac in the synagogue there. A month, you say, is a moderate space of time for these transactions; whereas I allow no more than a week to them.

*Notes, p. 17. (P.) "Jesus's presence in Cana is notified at Capernaum, distant about twenty-three miles. One of Herod's court attends Jesus, requests that he would heal his son, receives assurance that his son should live, about one in the afternoon according to our computation, and the next day meets his servants coming from Capernaum to inform him of his son's recovery. Jesus therefore must have remained at Cana a few days, let us say four." Ibid.

Surely, my Lord, in this, as in a former case, you lay too great stress on general expressions, which, after all, you yourself cannot suppose to be understood quite literally; for all Galilee cannot mean here every town and village in Galilee and if it must be restricted, why may it not be to the places in the neighbourhood of Capernaum, especially Chorasin and Bethsaida, which were probably within a few miles of Capernaum. Our Lord himself seems to lead to this construction, by saying, after he had left Capernaum, (Mark i. 38,) "Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for therefore came I forth." And as it is evident that a single day had sufficed him at Capernaum, so that he was obliged to depart, on account of the crowds that resorted to him, less than a day might well suffice for any other place.

Had our Lord's perambulation been particularly described, so that you could have written a complete itinerary of his journey, this argument would have deserved more attention; but phrases so indeterminate as these, and by writers who are known and acknowledged to use other phrases of the greatest extent in very limited senses, surely will not bear so much stress. Your Lordship supposes that this progress through Galilee was about seventy miles. But the supposition is altogether arbitrary. To have visited every place he must have travelled seventy times as far; to have walked the boundary would have answered no purpose; but to visit a few of the principal places in the neighbourhood of the town from which he set out, might not require a journey of more than a few days. And, as I have indeed already observed, it is after this very journey, that he is said by Mark (ii. 1) to have "entered into Capernaum after some days" only, and according to the Vulgate translation, it is after eight days, and yet this very evangelist says, (i. 39,) that on this journey "he preached-throughout all Galilee.' Your Lordship says, that "before the embassy from John, Jesus had actually wrought a great proportion of his miracles in Chorasin and Bethsaida:" and that, "allowing time for these miracles, and sufficient ground for so solemn a denunciation, must create an embarrassment to the adopters of Mr. Mann's hypothesis." Now, really, my Lord, I feel no kind of embarrassment on the occasion; when even a single miracle, publicly performed in each of those places, and especially as much as we know to have been transacted at Capernaum in the evening of a single day, when our

*Notes, p. 21. (P.)

Lord cured all the sick that were brought to him, would abundantly justify all the denunciations, solemn as they are. In fact, his repeating the same thing day after day in the same place, for a month together, would not have produced any more effect, probably even less, than his doing it in one day, provided the miracles he wrought there were publicly known and universally acknowledged.

The preaching of our Saviour is not to be compared to that of Christian ministers at this day, when no miracles are wrought, but only truths laid down, and motives inculcated, which require time to produce any considerable effect. The proper subject of his preaching lay in a small compass, viz. the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel, or something else to the same effect; and all that he had to do was to confirm this assertion, and enforce this belief, by well-attested miracles. His moral instructions were given only occasionally, as he found opportunity. He had, therefore, no long sermons to make, but only to say and do what might leave an impression on the minds of his auditors, that he came with a commission from God, and especially enable them to infer that he was the person foretold by the prophets under the character of their Messiah. Considering our Lord's business in this view, I cannot help thinking one year, in so small a country as Judea, a much more natural and probable period for his public ministry, than three or four.

7. Your Lordship maintains the reading of xarxa in John vi. 4, though Mr. Mann supposes it to be an interpolation, * and Bp. Pearce conjectures that the whole verse may be so. This is an instance in which the minds of different persons are very differently impressed by the same thing. I think it certain that Irenæus had not this word in his copy of the gospel, whereas your Lordship thinks, "he might wholly overlook this passage," notwithstanding it made so much for his purpose to have discovered and noticed it. As to Mr. Mann's argument, that the early Christian fathers could not have supposed, as they did, that our Lord preached only one year, if, in their copies of the gospel, this text had been the same that it is in ours, you content yourself with saying, that "too strict attention and accuracy in the ancient fathers are here supposed." Now I will allow, with your Lordship, that with respect to justness of reasoning, and some other matters, extreme accuracy is not to be expected of them; but in a thing so palpable as this,

* See supra, p. 51. t Notes, p. 27. (P.)

Ibid.