end of the year. But this was an oversight that does not affect my hypothesis. I thank your Lordship for the notice of it, and I shall not fail to rectify it, if the work should be reprinted.

SECTION VII.

Of the Number of Miles that Jesus has been supposed to travel per Day. *

I COMPLAINED of unfairness on this subject, because, after reciting the transactions which your Lordship says 1 comprise within the compass of fifty days, from the first passover to the following pentecost, you enumerate the journeys in that period; and in consequence of it, find that our Lord must have travelled at the rate of eight miles a day, including the sabbaths. What could be your Lordship's intention by this, but to represent myself as having made our Lord to travel at the rate of eight miles per day, for the space of fifty days together? For, certainly, you did not mean to represent him as having travelled at this rate on your own hypothesis; and I call the representation unfair, because my hypothesis does not suppose Jesus to have made all the journeys you mention, or to have extended them so far. But I am satisfied your Lordship did not advert to this circumstance, but only followed Mr. Whiston, who had treated Mr. Mann in the same manner, assuming his time, and including in it the business that himself, and not Mr. Mann, supposed to belong to it. To make the argument valid, it ought to have been in this form: "You suppose Jesus to have done this business in this time, and the time is not sufficient for it." As it now stands, it is, "I suppose our Lord to have done this business in the time that you mention, and the time is not sufficient, only because the business is more than you suppose to belong to it." When the argument is stated in this manner, it has certainly much less effect than Mr. Whiston meant it to have.

I do not see the force of what your Lordship observes in the last paragraph of this Section. I reject the journey to Jerusalem which you speak of, because I suppose it not to have been made. But I see no reason why you should charge me with the journey thither, and not with the journey back again, I do mention that journey in its due place.

• Reply, pp. 69–73.

in my calendar, and allow, as I think, sufficient time for it.

Having nothing material to observe with respect to the eighth Section, I pass to

SECTION IX.

Of the Argument for the probable Duration of our Saviour's Ministry, from the Object of it. *

On the subject of this Section your Lordship says, "Nor can I persuade myself that our Lord had time enough, on your plan, to dwell in Chorasin and Bethsaida, as he did in Capernaum;"† and you refer to Matt. iv. 13. But in this place our Lord is only said to have dwelled "at Capernaum," and not at either of the other towns; nor do I recollect that this is so much as hinted at, or supposed, by any evangelist. That Jesus visited these two places is certain, and I suppose he did it on his first excursion from Ca

pernaum.

"the

Whether "our Lord's particular business" was delivering of moral instruction," or not, is perhaps a controversy about words. I own he omitted no proper opportunity of doing it; but I conceive the great object of his mission to have been to give proof of his being the Messiah, and an example of a resurrection from the dead in his own person. However, in a sufficiently proper sense of the words, I have no objection to saying, with your Lordship, that every thing that Jesus did was his proper business. All was of great use, and worked to the same end.

SECTION X.

Of the Transactions at the first Passover. §

YOUR Lordship is very large on the subject of this Section, especially on our Lord's having cleared the temple at this time, as well as at the last passover. But as this is of little consequence to my general hypothesis, and I do not think that you have invalidated what I before advanced on that subject, I shall not trouble your Lordship, or our readers, with many more remarks upon it. If our readers

Reply, p. 76. (P.) § Ibid. pp. 81-163.

+ Ibid. p. 78. (P.)

↑ Ibid. p. 79. (P.)

really think that you have answered my objections to the repetition of such a transaction as this, and which no evangelist says was repeated, I am satisfied. You grant, that notwithstanding the differences you had noted in the several accounts of this transaction, they "may be harmonized." * Our difference, therefore, on this subject, cannot be material. You say, your "grand argument" is "the difference of time."† It is evident that in John's Gospel, as it now stands, the transaction is placed in a different time; but then I object to this arrangement, and think, partly from the nature of the transaction, and partly from its being placed differently by all the other evangelists, that it is misplaced here, not perhaps by John himself, (though this might have happened through inadvertence, being perhaps, composed after the rest of the Gospel was written,) but by some very early transcriber, or in whatever manner the fifth and sixth chapters of his Gospel came to be transposed. It may be impossible, in many cases, to determine how a thing was done, though there may be reason enough to think that it was done.

You say, "The silence of the three first evangelists on the early cleansing of the temple, may be accounted for by the just observation of the ancients, that they beginthe acts of our Lord's public ministry after John's imprisonment." But then it is natural to ask, why did they choose to begin to relate the history of our Lord after the imprisonment of John, when so very remarkable and public a transaction as this preceded it? Besides, they all relate the history of John's preaching, and of Jesus being baptized by him. I therefore think it a strong argument against our Lord's cleansing the temple at this time, that the three first evangelists make no mention of it, the transaction being of so peculiarly striking a nature, and what must have been much more so at the opening of his ministry than at the close of it, where they have related it. In all cases it is more natural to relate any transaction the first time it happened, than the mere repetition of it afterwards.

I do not know that John the Baptist "ever expressly called" Jesus" the Messiah;"§ but I own he said what amounted to it; as our Lord also sufficiently proved himself to be the Messiah without directly asserting it.

Reply, p. 91. (P.)

1 Ibid. p. 96. (P.)

+ Ibid. p. 93. (P.)
Ibid. p. 86. (P.)

SECTION XI.

Of the Stay that Jesus made in Judea, after the first Passover.*

"an

I AM content to make very little reply to what your Lordship has observed on the subject of this Section, thinking that what I have already advanced is sufficient for my purpose. You allow, that there was some difference in our Lord's manner of preaching "when he departed into Galilee, which precise period certainly constitutes," you say, æra in our Lord's manner of preaching."† And though I cannot account for our Lord's being said to begin to preach on his arrival in Galilee, if he had preached much and publicly before, (and none of the evangelists mention any particular instances of his preaching before,) I do not deny that, in some sense or other, he must have instructed at least those who applied to him for that purpose; so that Nicodemus could with propriety call him "a teacher,' But his teaching must have been inconsiderable and private, to justify Matthew, Mark and Luke, in passing it entirely over. And this is one reason why I think our Lord could not have made the long stay you suppose him to have made in Judea before his arrival in Galilee. I can, however, make a great allowance for his staying there, and making disciples too, if (which is very consistent with my hypothesis) this preaching and making disciples began some time before the passover.

I admit your Lordship's remarks at the beginning of this Section to be very just, but words that have a relative meaning are applied with great latitude. Thus, when I said that the three first evangelists had omitted nothing that was considerable before their account of our Saviour's preaching in Galilee, I did not suppose that the testimony of John, and the other particulars which you mention, were in no sense of the word, considerable; for I think every particular in the Gospel history to be truly so; but that our Lord had done nothing that was so striking, or that excited so much attention, as what is related after his arrival in Galilee,

I also admit, with your Lordship, that what John says, (iv. 45,) proves that our Lord had reputation in Galilee before his journey thither; but it is expressly said to have been in consequence of what he had done "at the feast," in Jerusa

lem, and therefore is very far from being any proof of his having done any thing very remarkable in Judea afterwards, which is the only question between us. And it is evident, from the accounts of all the evangelists, that the notice our Lord attracted afterwards, was unspeakably greater than what he had excited before.

SECTION XII.

Of the Journey from Judea to Galilee.*

I THINK it needless to observe any thing with respect to the subject of this Section, except that, whether I justly infer from Luke xiii. 33, that "the distance from Jerusalem to Galilee, was a journey of three days" † (which I still think to be the most natural interpretation) or not, the distance itself, which was only about sixty miles, does not admit of its having been more, to persons who professedly undertook a journey, even on foot; and as our Lord set out from the neighbourhood of Jordan, and near to Samaria, he can hardly be supposed to have required so much time.

As the preaching of Jesus is expressly said to have begun after his arrival at Capernaum, I think it is not probable that he had preached much on his road thither, at least so much as could have protracted his journey any considerable time. Besides, I allow six days from his leaving Judea to his arrival at Capernaum; which, considering the little that we certainly know to have passed on the road, is abundantly sufficient for the purpose.

I do, indeed, suppose, that our Lord preached on his journey to the neighbourhood of Tyre, though nothing be said of it in the Gospel history. But then it should be considered, that it does not appear that he visited that country more than once; whereas he passed from Galilee to Judea, and back again, several times during the course of his ministry. As the great opening of the Gospel appears to have been inade after this arrival in Galilee, it is the less probable that he preached in his way thither at this particular time.

Reply, pp. 115-119.

† Ibid. p. 115. See supra, p. 185. “The word walk," says the Bishop, "may and ought to be understood metaphorically: 'Ambulare hic est operari,' says Grotius; Vox ambulare idem hic valet quod operari, quo sensu frequentissime vox ambulans accipitur,' says Wolzogen, and refers to John xii. 35, viii. 12; Rom. viii. 4. Add John vii. 1; Luke i. 6. Nominat perendinum, seu tertium diem,' says the same critic, very justly, quia more Hebraico dixerat hodie et cras. Hoc enim sibi vult, se adhuc ad tempus operaturum.' Whitby favours your interpretation: but the judicious reader must determine." Reply, pp. 117, 118.