^ •.-,

b if la 4

,. *'

-"c'a''>_"' '

-it>«

.<.»:
-'- ¦-« ^'^^ '?«•', -'>•'*•'' ^^'^'jTt ' '*
'j ¦*¦»¦'** >
;s>;.;Cr7?5
V - \
¦ ¦^'*"*-; - Js
-- c"-.?'^5=t'''« "V^i
¦—  -— ' '— -T . i . ,_,^ . ' t . . >.
¦ _ 1* T -
::'J.S'
. -rC i. r . . .
1 ^ "i:gLut the/t Books _

TWO

LETTERS

T O

DR. N E W C O M E,
BISHOP OF WATERFORD.

ON THE

DURATION

OF OUR

S A V I O U R's MINISTRY,

By JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, LL.D. F.R.S.

MuLTA RENASCENTUR QJ! M JAM CECIDERE; CADENT^U*
Qu.ffi NUNC SUNT IN HONORE

HORACE.

BIRMINGHAM:
PRINTED BT PEARSON AND ROLLASON, FOR J. JOHNSOWj
No. 72, ST. Paul's church-yard, London,
M,DCC,LXXX.
(Pri« TWO SHItLINGS AND SIX-PENCE.)

ADVERTISEMENT.
THE former of thefe letters is contained in my
Englijk Harmony ofthe Evangelifls; but not being
large, it is now reprinted, that the whole conefpon-
dence might be before the reader in a more convenient
form. It was the more expedient to do this, as my cor-
refpondent has fet me the example of quitting the form
of his iHarmony, in printing his Letter, and as it is ua-
certairj how far this amicable controverfy may ex
tend. When the whole is completed, thefe Letters may
make a volume of themfelves.

P33-3

Contents ofthe second letter.

,S E C T I O N I.
0F the tefiimony of the Chriflian Fathers 29

fagi

SECTION II.
Of the conduEl of -Luke in giving a date to the
¦preaching of John the Bapifl  45
SECTION III.
Of the ignorance of Herod, and df other Jews,
' concerning J ejus, at the time of the. death of
John the Bapifl  — 48
SECTION IV.
Of the interpolation of the word paffover in
John vi. 4. — ¦  57
SECTION V.
Of the tranfpojition of the ^th and 6th chapters
of the gofpel of John — — 70
SECTION VI.
Of journey s Juppofed to be omitted in my Harmony 7 5
- SECTION ¦ VII.
Of the number of miles that Jefus has beenjup-
pofed to travel per day —  • 78
SECTION vm.
Of references to more than two pajfovers in the
gojpels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke — 82
SECTION"

CONTENTS.
SECTION IX.

tag,

Of [be argument for the probable duration of our
.'.'•;' vioui-'s minijiry from the obje£ls of it — 8j
SECTION X.
Gf the tranfdStions at the firfi Paffover — 92
SECTION' XL
Of thr. flay that Jefus made in Judea after the
fir ft pafjover — —  IQO
SECTION xn.
Of the journey from Judea to Galilee — 104
SECTION XIU.
Whether Jefus vifited Capernaum or Nazareth
firfi —   109
SECTION XIV.
Of theharmony of the gofpels according to th£ an-
¦ tients, efpecially Eufebius and Epiphanius,
and fame of the Moderns who hate mofi nearly
folkwed them  . — 115
SECTION XV.
MISCE-LLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS.
I. Of ihe firfi excurfion from Capernaum -— 123'
IL Of the time of the journey to N'ain  1 24
IJL Of the fecondfablath after the firfi — 125
IV. Of tlie dif ciples of J ohn — — — 127
The Conclufion — — '- — — 125

A letter

A
L E T T E R
T O
Dr. N E W C O M E,
BISHOP OF WATERFORD.
MY LORD,
I Think myfelf honoured by the notice your
Lordlhip "has thought proper to take of nay
Harmony of the Gofpels, in the notes annexed
to your own j and as the greateft candour is con-
fpicuous in every thing your Lordlhip advances
in oppofition to my hypothefis, you will, I doubt
not, receive what I Ihall now urge in defence
of it with equal candour.
Our fubjeft is not, indeed, of the firft im
portance to us as Chrifiian Divines, but it is a
matter of fome moment to us as Critics. On
both lides, our objedt, I am confident, is truth,
and that we (hall equally think we have gained
an advantage, if any thing fhould be advanced on'
either fide that fhall contribute to the difcovery
of it.
With this full confidence I take the liberty to
addrefs to yourfelf what has occurred to me in
confidering your objeftions to my hypothefis, or
rather that of Mr. Mann, but more truly ftill that
of the Antients. For there is np doubt that our
,B Lord's

2 A LETTER TO THE
Lord's public miniftry having extended no far
ther than one complete year was the opinion of
the earlieft chriftian Fathers who have mentioned
the fubjeft, and that, with -very few exceptions,
it continued to be fo till the time of Eufebius.
The oppofite opinion, therefore, being the novel
one, may rather feem to require fomething that
Ihould be called an apology. However as the
lefs antient opinion (viz. that of our Lord's mi
niftry having continued two, three, or four com
plete years) has long been the prevailing one, and
vi^as, I believe, univerfally fo before Mr. Mann
revived that of the antients : I who have adopted
it am content to call myfelf an apologift on this
occafion; and, as one of this clafs, T beg your
Lordlhip's attention to the following replies to
your remarks ; and very happy ftiould I think
myfelf if your Lordfliip would condefcend to en
ter into an amicable difcuflion of the queftion
with me.
Hackneyed as the fubjecl has been, there is
much new matter before us -, and if, by this or
any other means, a general attention could be-
drawn to fubjedts of chrifiian literature, it would
(as, I dare fay, your Lordlhip will be of opinion)
be a confiderable advantage, in an age in which
every thing relating to religion is manifeftly get
ting out of fight, even with refpeft to the gene
rality of thole who do read and think j which
was by no means the cafe formerly.
Not a century ago, there was, I believe, hardly
any man of letters, who did not read and ftudy, fo.

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. s
fo as to pretend to have fome opinion or other
on almoft every theological queftion. Whether
they liked or difliked, theological writings were
intereftjng to them; whereas at prefent every
thing that favours of theology is by the generality
treated with indifference, if not with contempt.
I flatter myfelf, however, that the prevailing
indifference to thefe fubjefts is not even now fo
very great, but that if divines of your Lordfhip's
rank and charafter would follow the example of
'your Lordfhip, and fliew that they have the fub-
j e6t of religion fo much at heart as to wnVi? about
it, it would again become a fubjeft of general
attention ; and from fpeculative religion ( and
fuch inconveniences as, withfuch beings as men
are, muft be expefted to arife from the difcuffi6n
of it) fome praSlical good will not fail to accrue.
In all controverfy, let who will be the combat
ants, the chances muft, in the end, be in favour of
truth, and religious truth has numberlefs con
nexions with virtue. Bp. Pearce's Commentary,
and Bp. Lowth's Tranflation of Ifaiah, together
with your Lordfliip's Harmony of the Gofpels,
already give us fome prolpeft ofthe revival of a
more general- attention to theological ftudies.
All your Lordfliip's objections to the hypo
thefis I have endeavoured to, fupport are drawn
from internal confider ations, exclufively of all fo
reign evidence ; and though I cantiot help wilh-
ing your Lordfliip had entered into a free difcuf-
fion df the whole, I have no great objeftion
%o ^[efting the evidence on internal arguments $
B 2 thinking'

4 A LETTER TO THE
thinking the opinion of our Lord's public mini
ftry having continued only one coimplete year
much more agreeable to what appears on the face
pf the hiftpry itfelf than any other.
The circumftances that your Lordfliip thinks
bear the hardeft on my fcheme are the following.
The ftay that you fuppofe our Lord muft have
made at Jerufalem and in Judea, at and immedi
ately after the firft paflbver, the time that muft
have been taken in his journey from thence tq
Galilee, and his travels about that country. AU
thefe articles I fliall, therefore, confider in. the
firft place, and then make a few other obferva-
tions. 1. Your Lordfliip fuppofes, that Jefus conti
nued at Jerufalem at leaft during all the eight days
pf the feftival, whereas I do not find that any thing
is faid to have been performed by him at that
paflToyer that requires more than the few days that
I have fuppofed him to have ftayed there at that
time, efpecially as on my fcheme (and I have no
thing to do with any other) he did not cleanfe
the temple at that time. But admitting this, it
could not be the bufinefs of more than an hour
or two; and both that tranfaftion, and the mira-
cles.he is faid to have wrought there at that time,
which are only mentioned in general, and not
fpecified, mightj for any thing that we kno-w tq
the contrary, have been difpatched, even in one
day, and Nicpdemii^s mighfvifit him the evening
of the. day following,, or even of the fame , day.
For that vifit is full as likely to haVe followed the;

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, §
^he firft hearing of the miracles a.S' not ; and in a
crouded city, as Jerufalem was at that time, it
pannot but be fuppofed that t^e news of a thing
fo new and ejftraqrdinary v?ouid Ipread through
the whole in a fingle day. ,
As tq what your Lordfliip obferves about the
rime of Jefus deanfing the temple, in reply to
Mr, Mannas arguments, Bp, Pearce's, and my'
pwn, I fliall only fay that, after giving the clofeft
attention to your remarks, I do not fee that it by
any means amounts to a fufficient anfwer, I am
therefore ftill decifively of opinion, that thi^
tranfafibion, perhaps the holdeft, and the moft
provoking of any thing that he ever did, refpeft-
ing the Jewifli rulers,.is to be referred to the' laft
paflfover, when he had no' farther meafures to ob;'
ferve with refpeft to them. This, however, not
being" effential to my hypothefis concerning the
duration of our Lord's miniftry, I fliall not entef
into a particular difcuflion of it.
Alfo with reipedl to the tranfpofition of the
lifth and fixth chapters of John's gofpel, I ana
fully fatisfied withrefting it on the evidence that
has already been advanced in fupport of it.
2. On our Lord's being faid' to tarry in Judea,
and to make more difciples than John, before
his return into Galilee (John iii. 22. iv. i.) you
lay very great ftrefs; But how. the .word crza;7p/fa'
fliould neceflarily inriport a confiderable Ipace of
times when you' acknowledge^ p. 9. that in the
book of A(5tsi it is fometimesreftrifted to ten or
ifven days, I do not fee. Indeed^ I fee no reafon why>

P A LETTER TO THE
why, if the context will admit of it, rt might
not be reftrained to a fingle day, or even a few
hours, juft as we actually ufe the word tarry or
fiay ; longer or ftiorter being only terms of com-
parifon, what is long in one refpeft' being fliort
in another.
' But what you lay the moft ftrefs on is the
circumftance of Jefus making more difciples
than John in this interval, interpreting this,
p.ii. to mean that he made more difciples at
that time than John had ever made. Your Lord
fliip, however, muft allow me to fay, that I
find no authority whatever for this interpreta
tion, in the evangelical hiftory, the whole te
nour of which appears to me to be evidently
contrary to it. It is not even at all probable
that Jefus made fo many difciples as John^ did
by all his preaching, of whatever extent you
rnake it. John appears to have been almofl.
univerfally well received; but Jefus, for rea-
fons that I have no occafion to enlarge upon
here, ¦was by no means fo.
All that can be meant, therefore, is that Je
fus, at this'opening of his miniftry, made more
difciples than John did at that particular time,
which is altogether indefinite. And after the
miracles he had begun to work, and efpecially
in Jerufalem itfelf, in the neighbourhood of
which he then was, it can' be no wonder that
more attention fliould be given to him at that
time than to John, who never pretended to work
miracles, whofe preaching was not then new to
themj^

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. ^
them, and whofe miniflry was then nearly ex
piring; having indeed, according to every thing
that appears, few new difciples to make. Our
Lord may, therefore, well be. fuppofed to have
made more difciples than John did in thefe cir
cumftances, and yet not have made very many.
But admitting that he made difciples iu fome
confiderable number, let it be confidered how
many converts Peter made by one difcourfe,^
and it cannot be thought very extraordinary,
that the fuccefsful preaching of a few days, ac
companied, as his preaching was, with the work
ing of miracles, at that time a new and aftonilh-
ing thing, and the advantage he derived from
the immediately preceding teftimony of John,
who was held in univerfal efteem, and the ge
neral expectation of the Mefliah, fliould be fuf
ficient to account for all that the evangelift. has
faid on this occafion ; efpecially confidering that
the thing was not fo confiderable as to have
been even noticed by any other evangelift than
John, though it was prior to any thing that;-
they have related of the niiniftry of Jefus, when
it was leaft likely to efcape their notice, if it
had been at all confiderable.
Your fuppofing, p. 17. that, upon this occa
fion, " our Lord proceeded with^ that referve
*' and circumfpedtion which his vicinity to the
" Jewifti rulers feems to have required," is hard
ly confiftent with the fuppofition of his making
fo many difciples.' John appears to have preach
ed without any referve at all, indeed with gene^
xal approbation. Befides

S A LETTER TO THfi
Befides this indefinite expreffion of tarrying
in Judea, and the circumftance of our Lord's
making more difciples there than John, you urge
our Lord's faying, John iv. 35. Say ye not after
four months and then cometh the harvefi, as if this
muft have been pronounced at the time of fow-
ing barley ; and therefore you fix this journey
in November or December, and confequently
you make our Lord's abode in Judea after this
firft paflfover about eight months ; though after
wards you content yourfelf with faying it could
not be lefs than one month.
But is not this, my Lord, laying a great ftrefs ^
upon a very precarious foundation. By our
Lord's introducing this obfervation with fay ye
not, I fliould rather conclude that he was quoting
a known proverbial exprefiion, which might
therefore be ufed as well at one time of the year
as another. And furely his refting himfelf at
the well at fix o'clock, or noon, rather leads us
to imagine that he was fatigued and thirfly with
travelling in the heat of the day, a fliort time af
ter the paflbver, when alfo water could not be
very plentiful, than that it was in the winter
feafon. You do not feem, my Lord, to have confider
ed fufficiently the feveral inconveniencies that'
muft arife to your fyftem from this ftay of eight
months in Judea, and of Jefus making fo many
difciples at that time. It is exceedingly evident
that the great fame of Jefus in Galilee was fub-
fequent to the miracles that he wrought after his
arrival

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 9
Strival there, and that it was more efpecially oc-
Gafioned by his curing the demoniac in the fyna-
gogue at Capernaum, and all the fick perfons
that were brought to him on the evening of the
fame day. Now is this eafily confiftent with
our .Lord's having made more difciples than
John had ever done, when he may be faid to
have difcipled and baptized the great mafs of
the Jewifli nation ? The report of miracles
¦Wrought fo publickly, as thofe of Jefus fubfe-
quent to the paflbver generally were, could not
but have fpread very faft in that ftate of the
Jewifli nation, in a general expeftation of the
Mefliah, heightened by the preaching of John.
Notwithftanding the great omifllons that your
Lordfliip obferves there are in fome pqrts of the
gofpel hiftory, it muft certainly be thought very
improbable, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke
Ihould have known of this long ftay of Jefus
in Judea, and not have noticed it. Other omif-
fions are generally of fuch things as were fimi-
lar to fuch as they had noticed before, or of
what, or fome other account, they might deem
unneceflary after what they had related. But
here would be an omifllon of what may almoft
be called the very firft open publication of the
gofpel, and of the firft public miracles, and of
the greateft number of difciples that Jefus ever
made, and likewife of the falling off^ of thofe
difcipks, which to me is altogether unaccount
able. For on our Lord's appearance in Galilee
we find him almoft without attendants, and no
C crouds

10 A LETTER TO THE
crouds about him till after the .cure of the de
moniac at Capernaum.
Many things could not but have happened in
thefe eight months, both difcourfes and miracles,
that could not have failed to engage the peculiar
attention of any perfon who fliould have been
informed of them, and have undertaken to write
our Lord's hiftory; and yet the hiftory of his
appearance in Galilee is fo written by three of
the evangelifts, as if they had no idea of any thing
very material having been done by him before.
This circumftance, confidering the nature of
the human mind, and the ufual manner of writing
hiftory, I deem to be almoft a demonftration,
that nothing, at leaft nothing comparable to
what followed, had then happened.
According to my difpofition of thefe events,
the whole, as I cannot help thinking, muft ap
pear quite eafy and natural. Before the paflbver
our Lord had wrought a fingle miracle at a pri
vate marriage in Cana. It is probable he had
not at that time preached in public at all, or
wrought any miracle of a more public nature.
The firft of this kind appear to have been thofe
performed at Jerufalem during the feaft; and
yet becaufe they are not diftinftly mentioned,
even by John (who knew that no notice what
ever had been taken of them by any of the other
evangelifts)' it is probable they fell far fliort of
the magnitude of thofe wrought -afterwards in
Galilee; and indeed it might naturally be ex-
pedted that fome kind of gradation would be ob-
ferved

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. n
Iferved in thefe things, and that our Lord would
not pafs without any interval from fuch a mira'-
cle as that at Cana, which was not known, in the
firft inftance, but to the fervants of a private fa
mily, to thofe of fuch eclat as he performed af
terwards. In Galilee alfo the gofpel is always faid to
have begun. Thus the Jews before Pilate accuf-
ing Jefus, fay, Luke xxiii. 5. He fiirreth up the
people teaching through all Jewry, beginning from
Galilee to this place. Peter alfo preaching before
Cornelius, fays, A<9:s x. 37. "That word you
know, which was publifhed throughout all Judea,
md began from Galilee, after the baptifm which
John preached ; and he exprefsly fays afterwards,
ver. 39. and we are witnefies of all things which
he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerufa
lem. Could he with truth have faid this, if he
had known of Jefus's having preached eight
months in Judea before he had preached in
Galilee at all, and of his having by that preach
ing made more difciples than John had done in
the whole courfe of his miniftry ? Indeed, I
have obferved in my Difl'ertations, that Matthew
himfelf exprefsly fays (fpeaking of Jefiis's arrival
in Galilee, ch. iv. ver. 17.) From that time be
gan Jefus to preach. Npw what is there to op-
pofe to all this fubftantial evidence, but John's
faying that our Lord tarried, that is, that he made
Jome ftay in Judea before he fet out for Galilee,
which, circunpftanced as he then was, could not,
J think, have been more than a-few days.
C 2 , I wifli

,2 A LETTER TO THE
I wifti your Lordfliip would alfo confider ano
ther inconvenience attending this fuppofed long
ftay of Jefus in Judea, and his making fo many
difciples there, which I urged very ftrongly in
my Diflertations, but of which I do not find that
your Lordfliip has taken any notice at all. You
fuppofe Jefus to have exercifed his miniftry in
Judea fo long, and with fo much fuccefs, as to
have gained a decided fuperiority over John,
which muft of courfe have been a thing of great
notoriety. You alfo fuppofe him tp have preach
ed long after this, viz. aceording to the plan of
your Harmony, till near the third paflfover,
which is, in all, almoft. two years betbre the
death of John, and yet Herod is plainly fup
pofed by all the evangelifts not to have heard
.any thing of him in all that time, infomuch that
after the death of John, he really entertained the
•notion; that Jefus muft have been John himfelf
rifen from the dead ; and as he then worked mi
racles, which he had not done before, having
greater powers than he was invefted with be
fore his deceafe.
From the manner in which the evangelifts
Matthew and Mark introduce this account of
the conjefture of Herod, it is evident that they
had no idea of his having fo much as heard any
thing about Jefus before - the death of John.
Matt. xiv. 1, At that time (not before) Herod
the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jefus. Mark vi,
14, And king Herod heard cf him, for his fame ivas
fpread 'cibroad. I tliought it necefl*ary to aflign fome.

¦BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 15
fome reafon why Herod might be fuppofed not
to have heard of Jefus during xhe few weeks that,
on my hypothefis, he had preached before the death
.of John, afcribing it to his being probably en
gaged in a multiplicity of bufinefs, or pleafure.
How your Lordfliip will be able to account for
Herpd's not having heard of him, preaching in
public, and working miracles, as you fuppofe
him to have done, for the fpace of near two year's,
I- have no idea. All that you fay at prefent, p. 26.
is that " Hjcrod firft doubted who Jefus was,
*' but at length refolved that it was John th^e
*' Baptift rifen from the dead;" a very extraorr
dinary doubt, in the circumftances in which your
JLordfliip places him, but a more extraordinary
determination, after, what we muft fuppofe, fome
deliberation and inquiry.
This argument is not a reduSlio ad abfurdum^
pf the fame kind with thofe of Euclid, but let
any perfon confider all the circumftances of this
cafe, efpecially that Herod was not a Roman,
but a jg.'jg. furrounded by Jews, and not unat-
tentive to his religion, who had even taken fome
pleafure in hearing John preach, for ¦we read,
Mark vi. 20, that he did many things (probably
things that John had recommended) and heard
hm 'gladly, that this preaching of Jefus had been
always near his own dominions (for it was probably
in his way to Galilee) and that the whole coun
try of Judea at that time, including all Galilee,
was not much larger than Yorklhire, and I think
|ie muft pronounce that the thing is hardly, in

14 A LETTER TO THE
in faft, lefs credible, and that a plan of a Har
mony labouring under this difficulty, (and in faft
every Harmony except that of Mr. Mann is thus
circumftanced) cannot deferve much attention-
I think I may venture to challenge any perfon to
draw out a plan of a Harmony that fliall extend
the public miniftry of Chrift to more than one
complete year, in fuch a m.anner as that this one
difficulty, not to mention many others, fliall not
be infuperable. But perhaps vdiat ftrikes me fo
much- may not ftrike your Lordfliip at all. I
wilh, however, your Lordfliip had attended to
it, and given us your thoughts upon it.
3. The journey from Judea to Cana you fup
pofe, p. 17. to have taken fix or feven days;
whereas his ftay at Sychar is limited to two
days, v/hich, according to the Jewifli phrafeo-
logy might mean no more than part of two days,
and the whole journey from Jerufalem to Ga-
lileee was but of three days, according to our
Lord's own mode of travelling; and as the par^
of Judea from which our Lord fet out for Gali
lee was probably the moft remote from Jerufa
lem, the place he had left (and he would natu
rally recede farther and farther from it) the jour
ney might not be more than two days. Now iq
my computation, I have allowed four days for
it, and c6uld have taken another day, or more,
if I had thought it neceflaiy. , Surely, my Lord,
there can be no great improbability in this.
Let us now proceed to Galilee. 4. Tx^

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. i;
4. To invalidate my cdnnputation of time,
you fuppofe what the evangelift dqes not men
tion, and what appears to me to be by no means
neceflfary. *' Jefus," you fay, " muft have re-
" mained at Cana a few days, let us fay four,
" becaufe Jefus's prefence at Cana waji notified
" at Capernaum before the nobleman fet out to
" meet him." Now John, who is the only evan
gelift that mentions the tranfaftion, only fays,
chap iv. 47. When he heard that Jefus was come out
of Judea into Galilee {not to Cana) Now as Jefus
had taught at Jerufalem, made fome difciples in
Judea, and ftayed two days at Sychar, it might
very well be known at Capernaum, a place of
great refort, that he had left Judea, was travelling
towards Galilee, and even that he would cer
tainly go to Cana, and the nobleman might fet
out before it was known that Jefus was adtually
arrived at Cana. It is not impoflible, therefore,
but both of them might arrive there the fame
day. Befides you make the diftance between Ca
pernaum and Cana no more than twenty three
miles, which is fo fmall, that Jefus rpight have
arrived at Cana in the evening, and it might
have been known at Capernaum the next morn
ing; and the nobleman did probably fet out in
the tnorning, becaufe we find that Jefus pro
nounced his fon cured at the feventh hour, or
an hour after noon.
5. Your Lordfliip lays great ftrefs pn the ftay
that you fuppofe Jefus made at Nazareth and its
neighbourhood before he arrived at Capernaum, allowing

16 A LETTER TO THE
allowing eight days for his preaching before his
arrival at Nazareth, and four days at Nazareth.
But I think I have fliewn unanfwerably, that this
vifit to Nazareth was fubfequent to his preaching
at Capernaum, and therefore fliall not argue it
in this place,
6. But the argument on which your Lordfliip^
feems to lay the greateft ftrefs is drawn from
what is faid of our Lord's going about all Galilee,
Matt. iv. 23. after his arrival at Capernaum, fub
fequent to his curing the demoniac in the fyna-
gogue there. A month, you fay, is a moderate
fpace of time for thefe tranfaftions ; whereas I
allow no more than a week to then>.
Surely, my Lord, in this, as in a former cafe,
you lay too great ftrefs on general expreffions, whichj
after all, you yourfelf cannot fuppofe to be un-
derftood quite literally; for all Galilee cannot
mean here every town and village in Galilee;
and if it muft be reftridted, why may it not be to
the places in the neighbourhood of Capernauniy
efpecially Chorafin and Bethfaida, which were
probably within a few miles of Capernaum.-
Our Lord himfelf feems to lead to this con-
ftruftion, by faying, after he had left Capernaum^
Mark i. 38. Let us ga mto the next towns, that I
may preach there alfo, for therefore came I forth
And as it is evident that a fingle day had fufficed
him at Capernaum, fo that he was obliged to
depart, on account of the crouds that reforted to
him, lefs than a day might well fuffioe for any
other place. Had

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 17
Had our Lord's perambulation been particu
larly defcribed, fo that you could have written
a complete Itenerary of his journey, this argu
ment would have deferved more attention ; but
phrafes fo indeteraiinate as thefe, and by writers
who are known, and acknowledaed, to ufe other
phrafes of the greateft extent in very limited
fenfes, furely will not bear fo much ftrefs. Yoiir
Lordfliip fuppofes that this progrefs through Ga
lilee was about feventy miles. But the fuppofi
tion is altogether arbitrary. To have vifited
every place he muft have travelled feventy times
as far, to ha-ve walked the boundary would have
anfwered^^no purpofe, but to vifi^ a few of the
principal places in the neighbourhood of the
town from which he fet out, might not require a
journey of more than a few days. And, as I have
indeed already obferved, it is after this very jour
ney, that he is faid by Mark to have returned to
Capernaum after fome days only, Mark ii. i. and
according to the Vulgate tranflation, it is after
eight days, and yet this very evangelift fays, that
on this journey hd preached throughout all Galilee,
Mark i. 39.
Your Lordfliip fays, p. 21. that "before the
*' embaflfy from John Jefus had adlually wrought
" a great proportion of his miracles at Chorafin
" and Bethfaida, and that, allowing time for
" thefe miracles, as a fufficient ground for fo
" folemn a denuncation, muft create an em-
" barraflinent to the adopter of Mr. Mann's hy-
" pothefis." Now, really, my Lord, I feel no
D kind

iS A LETTER TO THE
kind of embarraflfment on the occafion; when
even a fingle miracle, publickly performed in
each of thofe places, and efpecially as much as
we know to have been tranfadted at Capernaum
in the evening of a fingle day, when our Lord
cured all the fick that were brought to him,
would abundantly juftify all the denunciations,
folemn as they are. In fadt, his repeating the fame
thing day after day in the fame place, for a month
together. Would not have produced any more effedt,
probably even lefs, than his doing it in one day,
provided the miracles he wrought there were put^-
lickly known, and univerfally.acknowledged.
The preaching of our Saviour is not to be
compared to that of Chriftian minifters at this
day, when no miracles are wrought, but only
truths laid down, and njotives inculcated, which
require, time to produce any confiderable effedt.
The proper fubjedl of his preaching lay in a fmall
compafs, viz. the kingdom of God is at hand, repenfl
and believe the gofpel, or fomething elfe to the
fame effedt ; and all that he had to do was to con
firm this affertion, and enforce this belief, by well
attefted miracles. His moral inftruSlions were
given only occafionally, as he found opportunity.
He had, therefore, no long fermons to make,
but only to fay, and do what might leave an im-
preflion on the minds of his auditors, that he
came with a commifllon from Gpd, and efpecially
enable them j:o infer that he was the perfon fore
told by the prophets under the charadter of their
Mefiiah. Confidering our Lord's bufinefs in this
view.

BISHOgP. OF WATERFORD. 19
view, I cannoc'help thinking one year, in fo fmall
a country as Judea, a much more natural and
probable period for his public miniftry, than
three or four.
7. Your Lordfliip maintains the reading of
TM-xa. in John vi. 4. though ^r. Mann fuppofes
it to be an interpolation, and Bp. Pearce con-
jedtures that the whole verfe may be fo. This
is an inftance- in which the minds of different
perfons are very differently impreffed . by the
fame thing, I think it certain tliat Ireneeus had
not this word in his copy of the gofpel, whereas
your Lord,fliip thinks, p. 27. he might have over
looked it, notwithftanding it made fo much for
his p.urpofe to have difcovered and noticed it.
As to Mr. Mann's argument, that the early chrif
tian Fathers f ould not hav€ fuppofed, as they did,
that our Lord preached only one year, if, in their
copies ofthe gofpel, this text had. been the fame
that it is in ours, you content yourfelf with fay
ing that " too ftridt attention and accuracy in the
" ancient fathers are here fuppofed." Now I
will allow, with your Lordfliip, that with relpedt
to juftnefs of reafoniilg, and fome other matters,
extreme accuracy is not to be expedted of them,
but in a thing fo palpable as this, not to have
difcovered this circumftance n?}uft Imply greater
inattention, and ftupidity, than alncioft any man,
and much more a body of men, and a feries of
writers, can poflibly be fufpedted of I cahnot
help thinking therefore, that the diftindt mention
pf th? three paflovers which we now find in the-
' D 2 gofpel

20 A LETTER TO THE
gofpel of John would neceffarily have precluded
any fuch opinion a§ that our Lord's public mi
niftry did not continue more than one complete
year; whereas, excepting the cafe of Irenasus on
ly; who,^ however, does not pretend to have had
this fupport of his opinion, and whofe prejudices
may well enough be accounted for, this was the
ppinion of all the learned Fathers for feveral cen
turies. After the time of Irenseus, if not before,
the fubjedt was certainly attended to, and even
then both Auftin and Jerom, two of the moft
learned men of their time, evidently confidered
pur Lord's public miniftry as included within the
ipace of little more than two years.
That even Eufebius, who probably firft adopt
ed the hypothefis that has prevailed ever fince,
had not, however, this reading (on whatever elfe
he might ground his opinion) I ftill think very
probable. For confiftently with/ this I do not
fee how he could' maintain, as he does, that the
three firft evangelifts have recorded the adtions of
our Saviour for one year only, viz. after the im
prifonment of John the Baptift; fince events that,
1 believe, all Harmonifts refer to periods before
|;hls paffover are noticed by the other evangelifts^
as having happened after the imprifonment of
John; and a whole year at leaft muft neceffarily
have intervened between this paffover and that
in which our Lord fuffered. According to your
Lordfliip's own- arrangement of the fadts, ' a very
great part of the evangelical hiftory belongs to
the time before this paffover. For you rnake it
the

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, ?i
the -third of our Lord's miniftry, and you place
the imprifonment of John prefently after the firft
paffover. Confequently your Lordfliip's idea of
the diftributlon of events in the gofpel hiftory is
Widely different indeed frortnthat of Eufebius.
Nor do I think it poflfble to form a Harmony
agreeable to his Idea of all the events recorded
by IVIatthew, Markj and Luke falling within 6ti6
year, and retain this reading.
Having now replied to all your Lordfliip's 6b-
jedtlons to my hypothefis, yoti will allow me to
exprefs my regret that y<iu fliould feve reprobated
it without confidering all the arguments by which
it is fupported. I fliould have been particularly
glad to have known in what light fevferal, at feafl:,
of the moft confiderable of them appear fo the.
mind of a perfon fo Ingenuous as your Lordfliip,
I fliall take the liberty on this occafion to recall
fome of therh to your Lordfliip's attention, and
I wifh that if you fliould think proper to reconfi-
der this fubjedt; you Would make fome . obferva
tion with refpedt to them.
If the internal evidence had been all that we
could have accefs to," we muft have been obliged
to acquiefce in it, and have been.content to make -
the moft of it. But it appears to me Very ex^
traordinary that when pofitive external evidence
is adlually within our reach, no regard whatever
Ihould be paid to it. Now it happens that many
pf the moft refpedtable of the early chnfluan
writers have given their declfive evidence in fa
vour of our Lord's public miniftiy having con
tinued

22 A LETTER TO THE
tinued Only one complete year ; and their bein^
ever fo fanciful and weak in fome things cannot
affedl their teftimony to fuch z.fa£l as this, which
muft have been within the knowledge of their
immediate predeceffors ; and their mentioning it
without the leaft doubt or hefitatlon on the fub
jedt, implies that they had no idea of there be-
ing any other opinion about it. The earliefl:
writers were certainly the moft likely to have the
beft inforrnatlon concerning this fadt ; and if any
rnifapprehenfion fliould arife about jt, it is^ moft
likely to have arifen in later .ageS;
; Your Lordfliip, I obferve by the way, dates the
firft year pf .our Saviour's miniftry by A. D. 30.
Now it is, I believe, the unanimous opinion of
the antients that our Lord was crucified when the
Gemini were confuls, which was A. D. 29. \^ by
A D. your Lordfliip means not the year of the
vulgar aera, but the true year of the life of Jefus,
befides its being a fingular rAethod of notation,
it will, I think, involve your Lordfliip in great
difficulties with- refpedt to the'received chrono
logy of other capital events of thofe times.
Negledting the proper external evidence, I
wifli your Lordfliip had attended more particular
ly to the condudt of Luke compared with itfelf'
pnly. He dates, with remarkable cirCumftan-
tiality, the beginning of the preaching of John,
fromwhich it is almoft a certainty that it was
A, D. 28, or j:he fifteenth year ofthe proper reign
of Tiberius, after the death of Auguftus ; and,
according to the courfe of his narrative, asi aU
perfons

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 23
perfons muft have concluded if no other gofpel
had been extant, it was in the year immediately
following this that Chrift fuffered. This there-
Tore midft have been A. D. 29. the very year in
which the Gemini were confuls. Now would he
not have prevented this neceffary inference, if he
had been aware that it was not agreeable to the
truth ; having, according to your idea of his con
dudt, omitted every note of time that could pof-
fibly diftinguifli the three or four years which
you fuppofe to have intervened between thefe
events. On the hypothefis that I have adopted his con
dudt is quite natural. For he gives a precife date
for the preaching of J'ohn, but does not give any
date for the death of Chrift, becaufe, according
to his narrative, it evidently happened the year
following. Surely he who has dated with fo
much precifion the lefs important event of the
preaching of 'John, would not have failed to
fix the date of the more important event, the
death of Chrift, if he had not taken jt for grant
ed, that it might be eafily and certainly inferred
from the courfe of his narrative.
With refpedt to the omiffion of any mention
of our Lord's attendance at the public feafts of
the Jews, which is certainly a difficulty on your
Lordfliip's hypothefis, you are pleafed to fay,
p. 15. that "from his baptifm to the fecond
" paffover, Jefus was fo employed in the great
" work of his miniftry, that he went not up to
« Jerufalem at any Jewifli. feaftr except that re
corded

34 A LETT£R to THK
corded in John. ch. ii." Now fiirely he Who ex
prefsly faid. Matt. iii. 1 5. that it became him to
fulfil all right eoufnefs, would not negledb fo im
portant a, part of the duty of a Jew. Atfd if his
miniftry lafted, as you fuppbfe, three years and
a half, he had furely time enough to attend to
the proper duties of it, without omitting others
which were acknowledged to be of univerfal obli
gation. Befides, his appearance at the public
feafts muft have been of particular confequenee
to the publication of his credentials as the Meffiah,
and indeed of his preaching in general ; becaufe ,
€yery male Jew was- obliged to attend at ail thofe
feafts, fo that there would- have been no body left
in the country, with whom -he could exercife
whatever it is that you mean by the great work
af kis miniftry, but the women and children, the
pld and the infirm.
Befides thefe articles, I hope your Lordfhip
will not fail particularly to confider the extreme
iipnprobability pf Herod's not being able to dif-
tinguilh between John and Jefus on the fuppofi.-
tion of our Saviour having preached fo long as
you make him to have done before the death of
John, viz. two years and a half, and two whole
years of it after his imprifonment.
Your Lordfliip will alfo pleafe to attend to the
very remarkable omiffion of all notes of time for
fo many years as you fuppofe to be omitted in the
gofpels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and give fome
attention to the other articles advanced by me in
my eighth fedtion, p. 48, &c. But without con
fidering

BISHOP OR WAT-ERF ORD. 25
lijdering the plan of my Harmonyi or the argu
ments that I have advanced: in favour of it, I
wifh your Lord&ip would caft your eye delibe
rately over your own, and confider how very lit
tle of the gofpel hift-ory you include in the tranf-
adtlpns of' the firft year of our Lord's public mi
niftry. You fuppofe him to work fome miracles,
not fpecified, at Jerufalern, and to difcourfe with
N'lcodemus,; to make difciples In Judea, but
without fpecifying either difcourfes o^ miracles,
in a refidence of 'fe^^^eral months. You farther
make him travel- through Samaria, cuire the no
bleman's fon at- Cana, preach one fabbath at Na
zareth, call Simon and 'Andrew, cure the demo
niac at Capernaum,' a leper in the neighbouring
country, ahd alfo a paralytic perfon-, and finally,
tb. call Matthew to attend him. This is all that
is recorded in the firft year.
Compare this with the bufinefs which you
thrpw into the fecond, and efpecially the third
year, and I cannot help, thinking that the diftribu
tlon will appear to your Lordfliip's attentive re-
confideratloh exceedingly unnatural. The firft
events wpuld neceffarily, ma.1^^. the- greateft im-
preffion on the minds of our Saviour's followers
and hiftorians, and fubfequent tranfadtlons of a
fimllar nature would be thofe that would be
paffed pver in filence ; a condudt which the firft
view of my calendar appears to be adlually ob
ferved, according to me hypothefis that I have
adopted. E I fliall

26 A LETTER, Sec.
I fliall not here enter into any difcuffion of
other incidental points of difference between
your Lordfliip and myfelf, as that of the infpira-
tion of the evangelifts as writers, which you adopt,
and which I confider as nothing lefs than a mill-
ftone about the neck of Chriftianity, and from
which I would, therefore, willingly difengage it.
With refpedt to the fubjedl of this letter, I am
happy in agreeing with your Lordfliip, that " all
" the real difficulties in harmonizing the gof-
" pels, will at length yield to the efforts of ra-
" tional criticifm," and, notwithftanding my at
tachment to other purfuits, I hope I can alfo with
truth, fay with your Lordfliip, that " the advance-
" ment of facred literature is the end of my ftu-
" dies, and the objedl of my ambition."
With the greateft refpedt for your lordfliip's
charadter, I am, ,
My Lord, \
You Lordfliip's
Very humble Servant,
And Fellow-labourer in the Gofpel of Jefus Chrift,
Calne, Auguft 1779..
J. PRIESTLEY.

A SECOND

A
SECOND LETTER
TO THE
BISHOP OF WATERFORD,
LATE OF OSSORY.
MY LORD,
IT is with fincere pleafure that I find your
Lordfliip has entered fo largely into the dif
cuflion of tht* queftion concerning the dura
tion of our Lord's miniftry, as I flatter myfelf
that fome new light will, by this means, be
thrown upon it, whether it be decided to general
fatisfadlion or not. I fliould halve made this re
ply much fooner, had not a tedious illnefs, from
which I feveral times had little hope of recovery,
and likewife a total change in my fituation and
affairs (which left me no opportunity of confult-
ing books, or writing any thing) intervened.
But as fpon as ever I found myfelf in tolerable
health, and fufficiently at leifure, I fat down to
read your Lordfliip's letter to me with care, and
to write what 1 now prefent to your Lordfliip,
and our readers, in reply to it.
If my addrefs to your Lordfliip be not in a
very high degree refpedtful, I do affure you it
¦ does not by any means correfpond with my feel
ings and intentions. The difcyffion of this quef-
S « tion.

,28 ¦ A LETTER TO THE
tion, which I find is ihtereftjng to many chrif
tian critics (and this is, I believe, the firft time
that it has ever been properly difcuffed) is of It
felf highly agreeable to me, who love thefe
ftudies ; and to difcufs it with a perfon of your
Lordfliip's learning, and moft amiable candour,
I confider as highly honourable to me.
Confidering this bufinefs as one that neceffarily
draws my attention to the facred writings (which,
with whatever view we look into them, with due
attention, cannot fail to re-Ward our fearch) this
amicable controverfy has charms for me as well as
for your Lordfliip. And fince, as you juftly-
obferve, p. 1 6. " ftudying the fcriptures may be
*'^ compared to repeating phllofophlcfal experi-
" ments, in the courfe of which the moft unex-
*' pedled difcoveries are often made," I hope we
fliall neither of us defift from this in^veftigation,
till nothing more fliall remain that we fliall be
able to advance in order to cornplete it.
To be as little tedious as poffible, -I fhall touch
but fllghtly, if at all, upon any topics on which
I fliall be able to advance nothing that fliall ap
pear to myfelf to be new, or materially to affedl
what your Lordfhip has advanced on the fame
fubjedl. By this means the whole of the evi
dence on the. greater part of the feveral topics
will foon be produced, and the controverfy will
pretty quickly come to its proper termination ;
at leaft all thfc evidence that each of us fliall be'
able to coUedl will be before the public, whofe
decifion will follow in due time.
To

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 29
To introduce as much diftitidtnefe as lean into
the condudt of this argument, and thereby to
make it lefs tirefome to your Lordlhip, and to
'our readers, I fliall, in this, and all the fubfequent
letters, difcufs each article in a feparatc fedlion.

SECTION I.
Of the teftimony of the Chrifiian Fathers.
TN the firft place, I wifh your Lordfliip to re-
confider the teftimony of the early chriftian
Fathers, which appears to me to be more declfive
•than you feem to be aware of, and to attend to
fome circumftances relating to it, which you
feem to have overlooked.
Notwithftanding you endeavour to qualify
fome of my authorities, you do not deny, that
it was a received opinion with feveral of the
chriftian Fathers, and efpecially fome of the ear
lieft of them, that our t-aviour's miniftry did not
extend much beydnd a year. Your Lordfliip
thinks you can account for this ; but when you
fliall reconfider the reafons you have produced,
I cannot help thinking you will be fenfible that
they are 'altogether infufficient for the purpofe.
You fay, p. 1 30. " They thought that the
*' three firft evangelifts recorded only our Lord's
" adtions for one year, after John's imprifon-
5* ment; and they feem to have put the more
" public

JO ALETTERTOTHE
" public part of Jefus's miniftry for the whole
« of it."
Now I wonder yOur Lordfliip fliould not have
confidered both how they came to do this, and
likewife what is the neceffary confequenee of fup
pofing even, thus much. Even Eufebius, the
firft who extended our Lord's miniftry beyond
two years and a half, and, as far as appears, all
Other writers, till the very moderns, fuppofed that
the three firft evangelifts related only the events
of one year ; that is, they go upon the idea, that
only one year intervened between the imprifon
ment of John and the death of Chrift. But
this fpace, by your Lordfliip's own confefllon,
includes all the events that Mr. Mann and my
felf' efideavour to bring within the compafs of a
year. So that whatever the ancients thought of
that part of our Lord's- miniftry which preceded
the imprifonment of John the Baptift (which
they fuppofe to be recorded by John) they all
agreed with me 'in every thing that your Lordfliip
finds the hardeft to be reconciled to in my hy
pothefis. I
Whatever journeys your Lordfliip puts to my
account, the fame you muft put to theirs; and
every mile you make our Saviour to walk per
day affedts them juft as much as myfelf. We al
fo perfedtly agree in the time allowed for the
inftrudllon of the apoftles, and every thing elfe
that you can fay was of much importance
to our Lord's great objedt; nor is it poffible'
your Lordfliip can make us differ much with
^efped^

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. jt
refpedt to the various perambulations of all Ga
lilee, the time taken up by the miffion of the
twelve, or the feventy, &c. And yet all the ab-
furdity and embarraffment that you imagine you
find in the fcheme is put to the account of us
poor moderns only. This is, indeed, very hard,
when all the ancients to a man, of whatever du
ration they made the whole of Chrift's miniftry,
are equally chargeable with It, and led us into it.
Your Lordfliip fays, p. 125. " It is unknown
" to us what events Eufebius ranged between
" the imprifonment of John and the miraculous
" feeding of the five thoufand, and therefore his
" diftributlon of them may have been indefen-
" fible." But it cannot be unknown to us what
events he ranged between the imprifonment of
John and the death of Chrift, becaufe it is all
that is related by the three other evangelifts,
and all that your Lordfhip particularly objedls
to in my hypothefis.
In fadt, your Lordfhip differs more from thofe
of the antients whom you quote againft me than
I do, and much more materially. I agree with
them with refpedt to all the bufy part of our
Lord's life, that is, every thing in which your
Lordfliip can pretend to find any difficulty, and
I differ from them only with refpedl to a period
in which there are few or no proper events re
corded. Whereas your Lordlhip agrees with
them with refpedl to neither.
Admitting what Eufebius, and all the antients,
fuppofed (and on what good authority can we
difpute

gji A LETTER TO THE
difpute it) that the three firft evangelife related
the events of only one year of our Lord's life,
can your Lordfliip think it credible, that they
Iho.uld all confine themfelves to the lafi oi three
or four, when the whole was equally before them*
Was there no eyent in the whole cornpafs ofthe
two or three preceding years that they thought
worth fingling out and recording ? This would
be more efpecially extraordinary in the cafe of
Luke, who relates the circumftances of our Sa
viour's birth fo very minutely, and his vifit to "
Jerufalem at twelve years of age. A. total filence
in fuch a writer as this, to the two or three firft
years of the opening of our Lord's miniftry, is
altogether unaccountable.
Your Lordfliip fliould likewife have better cori;^
fidered how thefe antient writers came to adopt
this opinion, fuppofing it not to be true; for
the account your Lordlhip gives of it has not,'
in my opinion, a fufficient appearance of protja-"
blllty, and is not countenanced by the only evi
dence you have produced, in favour of it.
Your Lordfliip fays, p. 130. "It is likewife
" clear that- their notion was founded on a mlf-
" taken interpretation of a paffage in Ifaiah;"
meaning what he fays of the acceptable year of
the Lord. Now, a priori, it is much more proba-
ble that a particular text fhould be aecomme-
dated to a well known fadl, and be imagined to
refer to it, than that a fadl, which could not but
have been well known in the apoftolical age,
^ould, in the age immediately fucceeding, coroe to

BISHOP OF V/ATERFORD. 3j
to be difbelieved on account of the interpreta
tion of a particular text^ and a text which muft
have been grofsly miftaken before it could have
been imagined to bear fuch a fenfe. When all
the prophetical language is highly f^urative,
who would have thought of interpreting fuch an
expreffion as the acceptable year of the Lord lite
rally, if it had not been countenanced by an opi
nion -preVioufly eftablifhed ^on better authority,
viz. that our Lord did not preach publickly more
than one year ?
Your Lordfhip produces two authorities in
proof of the opinion having been derived from
the prophecy, and not the interpretation of the
prophecy from the opinion. The firft is that of
Clemens Alexandrinus, who himfelf maintained
the opinion. His words, as your Lordfhip quotes
them, p. 130. are "That he muft preach only a
" year is thus written. He fent me to preach the
" acceptable year of the Lord." Now in this I
am far from feeing any proof that the interpreta
tion of the prophecy gave rife to the opinion.
On the contrary, the conftrudlion that I Ihould
put upon it would be, that itwas an attempt to
accommodate a particular, text to a received
opirtion. Your Lordfhip's other authority is from Ire-
nsEus who combats the opinion, and fpeaking of
the Valentinians, who held it, fays Duodecimo
menfe dicunt eum paffum — et ex propheta tenfant
hoc ipfumconfirmare. Scriptum enim e&:,vocare an
num dei acceptum — Uli autem ut figmentum fuum
F de

34 A LETTER TO THE
de eo quod fcrlptum eft, vocare annum dei acceptum^
affirment, dicunt eum uno anno prsedlcaffe. "That
" is, that he fuffered in the twelfth month they en-
*' deavour to confirm from the prophet, for it is
" wrlttHi to proclaim the acceptable year of God,
" For they, to fupport their imagination from
*' the preceding words, fay that he preached one
" year." This I even think lefs to your Lord
fhip's purpofe. This writer is fo far from faying
that the Valentinians derived their opinion from
the prophecy, that he evidently fuppofes the
opinion to have had an exifte'nce previous to
their interpretation of the prophecy, and only
charges them with an endeavour to ftrengthea'
their opinion by the prophecy.
In fhort, my Lord, every thing at which your
Lordfliip revolts in the fyftem that I contend for
appears to have been univerfally received among
chriftians In the primitive times ; and Valentinus,
who was a man of learning, but, like too many
others of that age, deeply tindtured with the '
phllofophy of Plato, adopted it, not as having
any connedtion with his herefy ; but only mak
ing a bad ufe of his ingenuity, as Origen did af
terwards, and giving a whimfical reafon for an ac
knowledged fadl. But, my Lord, what Is there
in the fcriptures themfelves for which whimfical
reafons have not been given ? And if every thing
was to be rejedled becaufe fome have argued
weakly in fuppprt of it, nothing of the moft ge
nuine fcripture hiftory would be left. After

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, 35
After your Lordfhip's general conceffion, and
the preceding remarks upon it, I have' no occa
fion to fcrutinize every particular evidence. I
Ihall therefore only make flight remarks on a
few of them, and then proceed to other general
obfervations relating to the fubjedl.
I wonder your Lordfhip fhould fo much as
mention the epiftles of Ignatius, as if they could
add any ftrength to your argument with critics
of the prefent age, when your Lordfliip muft
know that fuch eminent critics as Salmafius;
Blondel and Dailie contend, not that the larget
epiftles, only, but the lefier alfo are fpurious.
The candid Mofheim fays " The whole queftion
" relating to the epiftles of Ignatius in general
" feems to me to labour under much obfcurity,
** and to be embarraffed with many difficulties."
As to the larger epiftles, which your Lordfhip
quotes a:fter M. Whifton, p. 133, I believe that
even the Papifts in general rejedt them. ¦, . i
Dr. Lardner fays that, " whether the frUaller
"epiftles themfelves of Ignatius be genuine is
" a difficult queftion ;" tho', upon the whole, he
is of opinion that they "are genuine, with fome
interpolations. Credibility, P. 2, vol, 1. p, 153.
It is true that Tertullian, in one place, fays
that " our Lord was revealed in the 1 2th year of
" Tiberius," tho' in another place he determines
the death of our Lord to the 15th of Tiberius.
But to make this writer confiftent with himfelf^
and with all the other chriftian fathers, who uni
formly mention the 15th, and never the 12th of
F 2 Tiberius

56 A LETTER' TO TH^
Tiberius in any view, I would conjedlure that,
inftead of XV, fome tranfcriber feparated the
parts of the V, and thereby made them into II,
which would make the reading XII. inftead of
XV. This is a mere conjedlure, but I think not
an unnatural one.
Since Ladtantlus places the death of Chrift on
the i5th pf Tiberius, juft like Clemens Alexan
drinus, and this was the year in which Johi^
preached (it is plain enough, tho' as your Lordi
Ihip obferves, p. 133, " he no where informs us
•' how long he thought the miniftry of Chrift
*' lafted i") that he co,uld not give much more
than a year to it. Indeed, it feems to have been
taken fo much for granted, that the gofpel hiftory
was comprized within the fpace of a year, thatjj
"Without due confideration, the early Fathers in
clude all the preaching of John in the fame year.
And in this we cannot blame them much, fince
the whole was not two cpmplete years.
''¦¦ In the preface to my EngliJh Harmony, I quoted
the tefiimony of Archelaus Bifliop of Mefbpota-
mia, in the reign of Prdbus, about A. D. 278;
This teftimony, I would obferve by the way, be?
ing that pf an eminent bifhop in the Eaft, is cer
tainly of more value than that of Irenjeus in Gaul,
or any pf the Weftern Fathers. After his time,
Jerom, who irefided much in the Eaft, does not
pretend to make the duration of Chrift's miniftry
more than two years.
Valefiu.s, as quoted by Lardner {CrediUlHyi
P. 2. vol. 5. p. 109.) fays, that " all the Antients
*^ compute

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 57
'* compute no more than one year in Chrift's
f' miniftry."
Chemnitius, who recites all the opinions he could
colledl of the Antients, and who himfelf fuppofed
¦Chrift to have preached three years and a half^
begins with faying, P- 9* " Vulgaris opinioi
" etiam apud Vetuftiffimos, fuit, omnia ilia didla
*' et fadla, quae in Ev-angliea hiftoria a baptifmo
" Chrifti ufque ad paffionem ejus defcribuntur,
" unius tantum anni fpatio comprehendenda effe."
I fliall now proceed to remarks pf a more ge*
neral nature relating to this fobjedl.
Your Lordfhip has made no obfervation on the
general teftimony pf the Antients in favour of
Jefus having been crucified when the Gemini
were confuls, which was A. D. 29. This I think
cannot well be invalidated ; and tho' you fay,
p. 135, you do not propofe to '? difcufs points of
" chronology, which reft on authorities beyond
^' the compafs of the gofpels themfelves,'' I dq
not fee how we can help confidering them wherji
they may be of real ufe to fettle a point of contro*
yerfy, fuch as we are now dlfcuffing. Now this
year, A. D. 29, immediately following the pro
per 15th of Tiberius (reckoning from the time
that the years of Auguftus ended. Which I think
muft be the only proper method) the year in
which John began to preach, is certainly an argu
ment for the fhort duration of our Lord's mi
niftry that well deferved your Lordfliip's atten
tion. With me, I own, it weighs confiderably,
as I think it muft do with others, untefs your
Lordfhip

jS ALETTERTOTHE
Lordfliip fhall take fome- method to invali
date it, ' '
It is obffrvabk, that long after the opinion be
gan to be formed, that dur.^ Saviour's miniftry
muft have continued at leaft two years, all the
Fathers, even fo late as Jerom, ftill fpeak of our
Lord's fuffering in the 1 5th of Tiberius, which
is really inconfiftent with it. For what could be
meant by chriftian writers, by the 15th of Ti
berius, but the fame year that Luke meant by-it.'
In fadl, it muft have been copied from Luke.
But this is the very year in which that evangelift
fays that John began to preach. There is no
room, therefore, for the extenfion of our Lord's'
miniftry beyond one year. '
It cannot indeed be ftridlly true, that our
Saviour died in the fame year in which John be-'
gan to preach. But the early chriftians, having-
a general idea that the whole fubjedl of Luke's
gofpel, beginning with the preaching of John, was'
comprized within the fpace of little more than a
year, they might, writing not as chronplogers,!
but only mentioning fadts incidentally, give the''
date that Luke begins with to all the events
Comprized within it promifcuoufly.
Or, fince all the moft early writers who mention'
any date of the death of Chrift according to the
confuls fay that it happened when the Gemini
were in that office ; and their confulfhip was the
fifteenth of the complete years of Tiberius, they
might omit that part of the year after Auguft
in which Auguftus died, and give it to Auguftus. That

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 39
That fome of them did compute the years of Ti
berius in this manner will appear prefently.
Either of thefe fuppofitions will tolerably well
account for the flight inaccuracy. But on no
confideration can the fixing of the death of Chrift
to the fifteenth of Tiberius be confiftent with the
opinion of our Lord's preaching much more than
a year, except that of reckoning the years of Ti
berius In a manner different from that of Luke,
for which none of thefe writers makes any apolo
gy, as might have been expedted, confidering
how much better Luke's gofpel was known to
Chriftians than any other writings in which the
years of Tiberius could be mentioned. Indeed
that any hiftorian properly dates the .years of Ti
berius fo that any of them fhall fall within
the life of Auguftus, Is, I think, not probable.
If, however, your Lordlhip can produce any
evidence of It from hiftory, I fliall ftand corredl-
ed. Notwithftanding Auguftus's delegation of
the rights of empire to Tiberius, In order to
eafe himfelf of the trouble, he was evidently fu-
preme In the empire to the very day of his death.
Epiphanius makes the 15th year of Tiberius
coincide with A. D, 28, fo that he reckoned the
years of Tiberius from the death of Auguftus.
Opera, vol, i, p. 442.
Eufebius did the fame, for he makes the year
in which Tiberius was conful the fourth time,
whlGh was A. D. 21, to be the 7th of his reign.
He therefore reckoned the whole year in which
Auguftus died to, belong I to him, and did not
make

40 A LETTER TO THB
make the years of Tiberius to commence till
the year following. Confequently, A. D. 29, in
which the Gemini were confuls, and in which
according to the Ancients Chrift fuffered, was
the 1 5th of Tiberius. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. i . Cap. lo.
Profper, as quoted by Valefius, in his notes
on Eufebius, (Hift. Eccl. Lib. i. Cap. 10.) who
agrees with Epiphanius in making the duration
of Chrift's miniftry two years and a half, alfo
reckons the years of Tiberius from the year after
the death of Auguftus; and therefore he fays that
the 15th in which the Gemini were confuls, tho'
faid by fome to be the year in which Chrift fuf
fered, could not be the year for that event, fince
that was the year in which he was baptized.
It is true that Clemens Alexandrinus, after fay- :
ing, p. 339, that Tiberius reigned 22 years, fays
that according to fome he reigned 26. But it is
plain, from his manner of expreffion, that himfelf,
and probably all other chriftian.s, fuppofed Tibe
rius to have reigned only 22 years, and therefore ,1
computed them from the death of Auguftus.
The other opinion is evidently fpoken of by him
as held only by a few perfons, and this I believe
is the only notice that is taken of that opinion.
But let fome paffage in any hiftorian be pro
duced, in which fome particular year of Tiberiusj
as the firft, the fecond, or the third, &c. is men
tioned, when it fliall appear that the years muft
be reckoned from Tiberius being made partner
with Auguftus in the empire. Le Clerc, whofe
hypothefis ftood in need of it, only proves that
Tiberius

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 41
Tiberius was admitted to imperial honours and
rights before the death of Auguftus; but he
brings no proof that the years of his reign were
ever dated from that term.
On this fubjedt, of the opinion of the antient
chriftians, I would beg leave to make one remark,
which appears to me to be of confiderable con
fequenee. The opinion that Chrift's miniftry
was only of one year's duration goes,fo far back
into antiquity, that the origin of it cannot be
.traced. It was not pnly held by the Valentinians
^(who feem only to have diftingulflied themfelves
by giving whimfical reafons for it, as they did for
other things relating to Chrift and the gofpel
hiftory) but alfo by thofe to whom Epiphanius
gave the name o( Alogi, becaufe, as he fays, they
i.queftioned the authority of John's gofpel, be
lieving Chrift to be a mere man, and afferting
that this was the dodtrine of the apoftles, and
of the generality of chriftians till the time of
Vidlor. As thefe people had no name by which they
were diftinguifhed from other chriftians before
the . time of Epiphanius, which was late in the
fourth century, it may be concluded that till that
„time they were confidered as a part of the body
lof chriftians In general, and that they were not
deemed to be heretical till the general prevalence
,of other opinions, introduced from heathenifm,
igradually diminifhing their numbers, made it
jneceffary to diftinguifh them from the now more
numerous body by fome peculiar appellation.
G Had

^j A LETTER TO THE
Had the peculiar opinions, as they are now
confidered, of thefe Alogij as well as thofe of
the Nazarenes, or Ebi'onites (Who likewife held
that Chrift was a mere man) had an origin
after the times of the apoftles, it would hot
have been difficult to trace it; and like othfef
fedts, they would immediately have got fori*
diftinguifliing denomination, either affumed by
themfelves, or given them by others ; , wheitaS
thefe Ahgi paffed undiftlnguifhed in the comrriofi
mafs of Chriftians till the fourth century. I
therefore think their opinions highly refpedtai^,
and not to be rejedled without good aufhdrity, '
Ivvill allow your Lordfhip, however, to fup'
pofe that it may bias me in favour of this parti^
cular opinion of the Alogi, that they were uTiki-
riansi as, on the other hand, the fame circum
ftance may contribute a little, without being per
ceived, to give your Lordfhip, who is a trinita-
rian, fome little prejudice againft it. Being ma
we are all fubjedl to thefe influences, arid if we
are not aw^are of this bias ourfelves, others- will
fuppofe it for us.
Your Lordfhip fays, p. 134, that "by A. D,
"you mean the true year of Chrift's life." This
certainly required fome explanation, becaufe, as
far as I know, it is a mode of notation that has
iibt been Ufed before. But I wifh your Lordfliip
had confidered how the date you affign to tht
commencement of Chri'ft's preaching would haye
iagreed with any particular date of the birlii or
death of Chrift. I do not, however, wifh to draw yourl

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 43
your Lordfliip into any chronological difcuffion, for
which you may have no tafte, or which you may
think unneceffary. I only mention the eafy agree
ment of the different dates of the birth and death
of Chrift, ¦with, the duration of his miniftry on
my hypothefis, as an argument in its favour. I
indeed make Chrift to have died in the thirty-fixth
year of his age, and therefore to have been near
thirty-five when he began his miniftry ; but this
correfponds fufficiently well with an hiftorian.
obferving, in general, that he was about thirty.

SECT ION II,
X}f the'candu£i of Luke in giving a date to the
preaching of John the Baptift.
.T HAD laid confiderable flrefs on the inference
which i faid was neceffarily drawn from the
date that occurs in , the gofpel of .Liuke, who
fixes -with remarl^abje circumftantiallty the time
of the conirnencement of John's preaching, but
affigns no date to the death of Chrift, an event ojf
much more confequenee, I therefore fay, that
his fiQndudl is not confifl^ent, but on the fuppo
fition of, one of thefe events being, in his idea,
fo conhedted with the other, in the courfe of his
(narrative, as that the date of it might eafily be
inferred frojn the date of the other, w.hich I af-
G2 * - - feyt^

44 A LETTER TO THE
fert, from the tenor of. his gofpel, to be the
cafe; and in this, as your Lordfhip muft, I think,
acknowledge, I have the fandlion of all the an
tients. It was their unanimous opinion, that only one
year intervened between the imprifonment of
John and the death of Jefus. And^what is there
in the hiftory of Luke, from the commencement
of the preaching of John to his imprifonment/
that is, to Jefus's journey to Galilee, which fol
lowed immediately upon it, that can be fuppofed,'
by any reafonable conftrudlion, to take up more
than a few months ? It is all related in his third
chapter, and the thirteen firft verfes ofthe fourth,,
which contains an accqunt of nothing more than
the preaching of John before the baptifm of Je
fus, and the temptation.
Now certainly my Lord, whatever might really
be the cafe, Liuke relates nothing of the events
of this interval that can be fuppofed to take up
a year ; and this I fee, by your Harmony, is your
Lordflhip's own idea of the fadt. You date the
beginning of John's preaching in A. D. 29.
and Jefus's journey tp Galilee confequent on the
-imprifonment of John, about eight months after
the paffover, in the year following, including'
your own eight months ftay of Jefus in Judea.;
And as your Lordlhip is difpofed to Ihorten that
ftay to about four months, you can hardly make
it a year in all.
In your Lordfliip's letter to me you ffeem to
comprize all the events from the beginning of
John's

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 45
John's preaching to the firft paffover, in the fpace
of albout fix months, p. 163 ; which with the four
more for the ftay of Jefus in Judea, make but
eight in all. It will, therefore, follow from the
teftimony of the antients, ahd your Lordfhip's
own conceffions together, that Luke has given a
date by which the death of Chrift may be fuffici
ently determined, viz. to the year immediately
following that in which John began to preach.
Your Lordfliip fays, p. 1 37, " I rather think
^' that St. Luke furnifhed fuch circumftantial
" dates to fhew in what remarkable period of
" the world, in how very fit a time, the gofpel
'* began to be preached. This fufficed for the
" great purpofes of chriftianity, without preci-
*' fion as to other events."
But, my Lord, Luke himfelf fays nothing of
all this. And confidering how very cirumftan-
tid the date is, I cannot think it at all probabje
that he had any fuch idea. If he had thought
that precife year fo proper for the beginning of
John's preaching, and he had mentioned it with
that view, he muft either have fuppofed it to be
obvimfly fo, and therefore that it did not require
to be pointed out, or he would have informed us
wherein the propriety lay. Now can your
Lordfliip fay that the gofpel might not as proper
ly have begun to be preached in the 14th or i6tli,
as in the 15th of Tiberius, or when Lyfanias had
not been tetrarch of Abilene ? &c. It is plain
your Lordfhip has no idea of the importance of
that particular year,^ becaufe you fay you cannot
determine

^ ALETTERTOTHE
determine whether it was the 15th, reckoned from
the time when Tiberius was admitted partner in
the empire, or from his being fole emperor.
Had this evangelift contented himfelf with
faying that the gofpel was firft preached in the
reign of Tiberius, or w'hen the world was at
peace, &c. $cc. &c. there might have been fome
colour for your Lordfhip's conjedlure. At pre
fent I fee none at all. Befides, there are different
epocha's with refpedt to the preaching of the
gofpel, and the firft, or the preaching of John,
does not feem to be of more importance than
others that fucceeded.. Was not the beginning
¦of the preaching of Chrift himfelf, or at leaft his
death, of as much confequenee ? And was not the
defcent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecoft as import
tant as any of them all ?
In fadt, my Lord, Luke appears evidently to
have given a date to his hiftory juft as other hifto
rians have done to theirs, without any particular
regard to the importance of one event more than
another, but merely to fhew its place in univerfal
time, and its relation to other events. But one
date would not have been fufficient for this pur
pofe, if, in his own idea, the whole narrative had
not been fo clofely connedled, that the place of
all the important events might be determined
from the date that he had given.
Without this idea, and efpecially on the idea of
his having omitted whole years without any note
to indicate the omiffion, the whole compafs and
termination of his hiftory would be altogether
undefined,

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, 4^
undefined, and one of the moft important events
in it would have no date at all. Confequently
his giving fo circomftantial a date to the be
ginning of it would be very imperfedlly an-
fwered, and he would therefore be inconfiftent
"with himfelf.
Your Lordfhip fays, from Newton (tho' Ido
not fee its perfedl confiftency with what you had
jtjftobferved t)efore) that " the times ofthe birth
" and paffion of Chrift were not material tp re-
** Ulgion"; but they were as material as the com»-
menCement of John's preachings and if fome
*' remarkable period" was requiute for the one,
I fhould expedt periods as remarkable for the
other. .Upon your Lordfliip's idea of Luke's
hiftory, then, he muft either have thought them
not equally material, or he muft have dated the
one for fome other reafons than its being fo very
material.

SECTION

4» A LETTER TO THB

SECTION IIL
Of the igmrmce of Herod, and of other Jews, con
cerning Jefus, al the time of the death of John the
BaptiJli
T HAD reprefented it as a great difficulty on
your Lordfliip's fcheme, that Herod feems
not to have heard of Jefus till after the death of
John ; though, according to your Lordfhip's hy
pothefis, he had preached publickly almoft two
years, and the greateft part of the time alone,
John being in prifon. Upon my hypothefis, Je
fus had not been fo much expofed to public no
tice more than between four and five weeks ; and
therefore I fuppofe, that being, probably, like
other kings and great men, engaged in a multi
plicity of bufinefs or pleafure, he might not have
heard of Jefus.
This your Lordfhip, p. 104, is pleafed to call
" a loofe and topical argument," that at beft it
is no more than "a negative argument," and that
" it is a maxim laid down in books on the art of
" reafoning, that Argumentum non valet negative."
That the argument is topical, that is, relating
to the fubjedl or topic, is certain ; but that it is
therefore loofe, or of little moment, does not fol
low. And your Lordfliip muft know that, what
ever may be laid down in books on the art of rea
foning, a negative argument may be fo circum
ftanced,

BlSH,OP OF WATERFORD. 49
ftanced, as to be fairly intitled to more regard
than fome pofitive ones*
In another place, page 9 8^ your Lordfhip vouch-
fafes to call It " an ingenious argument," and
acknowledges that it points to a difficulty in your
Lordfhip's fcheme. But I conceive yoUr Lord
fhip did not fee it in It's full force, when you faid,
p. 101, "it may be fairly aflced, whether my
*' fcheme is not as ftrongly affedled by this diffi-
" culty as your Lordfliip's." But if an interval
oi five iHeeks, and one of almoft two years, makes
no real difference in this cafe, I am unable to
conceive what can. It Is true, it is not a diffe
rence, as it is called, in kind, but it is fuch a dif
ference in degree as, in this cafe, is almoft as de
clfive. But I will confider more particularly all the
circumftances in which you fay our two fchemes
agree in this refpedl ; and I fhall, at the fame
time, point out to your Lordfliip the circum*
ftances in which they differ.
It is true, as your Lordfhip fays, that We muft
both fuppofe that Jefus wrought miracles at the
firft paffover, which muft have contributed to
make him known. But I do not fuppofe, with
your Lordfliip, that he cleanfed the temple at
that time, and as we are not informed what the
miracles were, we cannot judge of the greatnefs
or notoriety of them.
It will certainly be fomewhat favourable to
my hypothefis, as well as your Lordfliip's, that
Herod fliould not have been at Jerufalem at this
paffover. But, my Lord, the chance of his being
H ' abfenc

50 A LETTER TO THE
abfent irom feven fuccefjive feafts (when, like e\ery
other Jew, he was under obligation to attend
them all) or only from one particular feafi, is much
more than feven to one. We know he did at
tend at that on which our Lord was crucified.
We both fuppofe that Jefus made difciples in
Judea after this paffover, and for that time to
have made more difciples than John. But I fup
pofe him to have fpent only zfew days there, and
Rot feveral months; and as no particular miracles
are mentioned, thofe difciples might be the effedt
of John's preaching in thofe parts, as much as of
his own preaching and working miracles.
We t>oth fuppofe Jefus to have preached and
worked miracles in Galilee, Herod's own king
dom. But 1 leave out at leaft two ofthe circuits
that your Lordfhip fuppofes Jefus to have made
thro' all the cities of Galilee; I reduce the term
of them from months to days, and the whole pe
riod of this preaching in Galilee from near tW9
years, to about three weeks. And certainly the
probability of Herod's having heard of Jefus wilt
depend much upon the time that thefe tranfac-
tions took up.
Had Herod been abfeiit, as your Lordlhip
conjedtures, on an expedition againft Aretas, it
would certainly have taken up a few weeks, am}
would probably have been at this very time of
the year, when Jefus was in Galilee, viz. from the
paffover to Pentecoft. But it is very improbable
that an expedition againft fo neighbouring a
prince would extend thro' a winter, the territories of

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, 51
©f both being very inconfiderable. This expe
dition, therefore, might have been very conve
nient to my hypothefis, but cannot at all ferve
your Lordfhip's.
But, in fadt, we read of no more than one expe-
dition that Herod made againft Aretas, and this
followed the death of John. For according to
Jofephus, the Jews thought that his defeat in that
expedition was a judgment from God upon him
for purring John to death. Ant. Lib. xviii. Cap. 7;
This fingle expedition againft Aretas feems to
have been the only one in which he ever engaged ;
and Jofephus exprefsly fays, {Ant. Lib. xviii;
Cap. 9.) that Herod was a great lover of his eafe,
and that he had no great opinion of the court of
Rome ; fo that it was with difficulty that his wife
prevailed upon him to undertake that voyage
thither which proved fo fatal to him.
Had Herod made a journey to Rome at this
time (as your Lordfhip likewife conjedtures might
have been thd cafe) it would probably have been
noticed by Jofephus, who mentions two of his
journeys thither. So very circumftantial is Jo-
fephus's hiftory of this period, and journeys to
Rome, by fovereign princes, were undertaken fo
very feldom, and then upon fuch urgent bufinefs,
of a political nature, that I think we may pre=-
fume, that Jofephus not mentioning this journey,
which would have been fo very, convenient to
your Lordfhip's hypothefis, is a proof that ntf
fuch journey took place. We read of one jour-
¦ney that Herod made to Rome before, the laft fa-
H « tal

52 A LETTER TO THE
tal one. But it was at his return from this jour^
ney that he married Herodias. This, therefore,
muft have preceded his interview with John.
Confidering, therefore, that this journey to Rome
was prior to Herod's acqu.alntance with John,
and his expedition againft Aretas after the death
of John, it is almoft a certainty that, In all the
interval between the imprifonment and the death
of John, Herod was in his own dominions. T he
preparations, however, for this fingle campaign,
which might take place in the autumn of thi.s
year, immediately following the death of John,
will help my hypothefis, tho' it cannot ferve that
of your Lordfliip.
What Jofephus fays of Philip, Herod's bro
ther, which your Lordfhip quotes, p. 105, viz,
" That he lived wholly in the country tributary
" to him," is mentioned by the hiftorian as a
proof of his moderation, and of his love of eafe
and quiet, and therefpre probably refers to his en
gaging in no wars, and making no journeys to
R.ome, as other princes did; but cannot imply
that either Herod, or any prince in thofe times,
lived much out of their own countries. Herod,
¦I doubt not, excepting his journeys to Rome,
and the expedition againft Aretas, neither of
which, as I have fliewn, could have happened in the
interval in queftion (and this expedition could
not carry him far fronri his own territories, or be
of long continuance) lived in general at home,
the duties of his ftation neceffarily requiiing it,as

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 5,3
as thofe of the Roman governor required him tq
be at Jerufalem.
Your Lordfliip conjedlures, p. 100, that He
rod might refide chiefly at Peraea. But this was
in the near neighbourhood of the very country
where your Lordfliip fuppofes Chrift to have
preached publickly for feveral months, before
^nd after the imprifonment of John.
Your Lordfhip fays, p. 102, that "a fhort in-
<" terval, very thick fown with uncommon events,
*' feems more remarkable than a long one, thro*
" which the fame events are difperfed. And
" when the attendance of multitudes on an emi-
r nent perfon is hardly intermitted, a jealous
" governor, and his adherents throughout his
" dominions, are more likely to be alarmed with
^' apprehenfions of tumult and fedltion."
But your Lordfliip cannot fuppofe that our
Saviour either refided at any place, or travelled
from one place to another, without preaching,
working miracles, ^nd confequently drawing
multitudes after him. And fince John fays that
" the world itfelf could not contain the books
f that fhould be written," if every thing that
our Lord did or faid fhould be recorded, we are
naturally led to think that he fpent the time of
his public miniftry in a pretty uniform manner,
pxcept when the crouds of his hearers occafion
ally obliged him to withdraw himfelf from pub
lic notice for 3 few days. This, at leaft, appears
to have been the plan of his condudt, till it was
generally kngwn that be affumed the charadter of
the

54 A LETTER TO TH^
the Meffiah, which was not till fome time after
the death of John.
We do not find that our Lord ever omitted an
opportunity of working any benevolent miracle,
though he difappointed the Jews of their fign
from heaven. Though " he did not do many
" mighty works" at Nazareth, he, neverthelefs,
" laid his hands on a few fick perfons, and cured
them;"' Probably no more were brought to him.
Confidering, therefore, that fo many more mira
cles muft have been wrought in the interval be
tween the imprifonment and the death of John
on your Lordfhip's hypothefis than upon mine,
the notoriety of them muft, upon the whole,
have been greater. Befides they were all of fo
extraordinary a nature, that certainly the chance
of fome of them, at leaft, reaching the ear of
Herod muft have been greater, in the fpace of
two years, than in that of three or four weeks.
To what I fay of the fmall fize of the country
of Judea and Galilee, as favourable to the com
munication of intelligence, your ,Lordfliip fays,
p. loo, "It Is not merely the fize of a country,
^^ but the intercourfe between the places, that
*' muft be confidered, when the queftion is whe-
" ther the knowledge of a fadl is likely to be pro-
'' pagated throughout it."
But, my Lord, a country fo exceedingly po
pulous as, by the account of Jofephus, Galilee
was, cannot but be favourable to the propaga
tion of intelligence. Its feveral towns refemMl
the different parts pf one extenfive metropolis, each

fBISHOP OF WATERFORD. sj
each of which is almoft within the hearing of the
next. And as your Lordfhip acknowledges, the
public feafts of the Jews were fuch a means of
communication as ho other country in the world
was ever poffeffed of. Now in this very interval
between the imprifonment and the death of John,
there was not, according to my hypothefis, fo much
as one of thefe public feafts ; whereas, on your
Lordfhip's, there were no lefs than feven. How
much more eafily then m.ay it be fuppofed, that
the fame of Jefus might not reach Herod on my
hypothefis than on that of your Lordfhip.
To make your hypothefis more confiftent with
the ignorance of Herod concerning Jefus, your
.Lordfhip fpeaks, p. 109, of our Lord's "lowli-
" nefs and prudence." But I do not fee that this
is very confiftent with your Lordfhip's fuppo
fition of his cleanfing the temple at the firft, paff
over. But let it be as great as your Lordfhip
pleafes, the object of his withdrawing himfelf from
public notice was only to avoid occafional in
conveniencies, and was often ineffedtual. For
we read that the more he enjoined filence on par
ticular perfons, the more induftrloufly they pub
lifhed his benevolent miracles in their favour.
Your Lordfhip obferves, p. 113, that "fome
" others, and even many of the Jewifh people,"
as well as Herod, thought that Jefus might be
John rifen from the dead. But this obfervation.
is certainly unfavourable to your Lordfliip's pur
pofe. For though you fay, p. 114, that you
" attend to the tenor of the gofpel hiftory, and
" follow

56 A LETTER TO THE
" follow wherever it leads," and, that you are
" little concerned about the inattention or avo-
" cations of Herod and his friends, about the
" ftrange doubts of caprice, or the flrange re-
" folves of a guilty confclence," it cannot fure
ly be a matter of indifference to this queftion,
that many of the Jewifh people as well as Herod,
entertained doubts whether Jefus might not be
John rifen from the dead.
All thefe doubters cannot be fuppofed to have
been abfent from their country on expeditions to
Rome, or againft Aretas, or to have negledled
their attendance at the public feafts for the fpace
of near two years. Whereas In a populous country
great numbers may be fuppofed to have been fo
.inattentive to what paffed in the Ihort interval
that on my hypothefis there was between the im
prifonment and death of John, in which no pub
lic feaft intervened, as, for a fliort time, to enter
tain fome doubts about the matter.
Your Lordfhip fpeaks of it as a difficulty on
both our fchemes, that John did not fpeak of
Jefus to Herod. But, my Lord, It fhould be
confidered that John had two diftindt commif^
fions, tho' the one was fubfervient to the other/
viz. the announcing the approach ofthe Mefliah,
and the preaching of repentance. We read of
foldiers and publicans applying to him, to learn
how they fliould condudt themfelves. Now the
application of Herod might be of the fame na
ture, and John might not. think it neceffary to fay
any thing to him more than to them, about the
Meffiahi

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 57
Meffiah; efpecially as this was fufficiently the
fubjedt of his public preaching. Befides, at the
beginning of his preaching, John had not, feen
Jefus, and probably did not know at what dif
tance of time he was to follow him; fo that his
having feen Jefus might have been after his in
terview with Herod.
I think it no difficulty on either.of our fchemesj
tho' your Lordfhip confiders it as one, p. 103,
that John in his prifon fhould hear of the works
of Jefus, tho' Herod did not hear of them in his
palace; The difciples of John were much rnore
likely to be attentive to Jefus, than any perfon
belonging to the court of Herod. .

SECTION IV.
Of the interpoi^ation of the word paffover in
John vi. 4.
"IN the preceding, fedtions I have chiefly endea
voured to fuppprt the arguments for my own
hypothefis againft the attacks of your Lordfhip.
In thofe that immediately follow, I fhall endea
vour to defend myfelf againft your Lordfhip's
arguments. You are not fatisfied with what, it muft be
acknowledged, the hypothefis I contend for &\>io-
I lutely

<c

5? A LETTER TO THE
lutely requires, viz. the interpolation of the word
'jdffx'^ in John vi. 4. becaufe all the prefent ma„
nufcripts have that reading. You add, p. i i ^,
Shall we then oppofe to thi^ the conjedlure of
G. J. Voffius, Mr. Mann, Bp. Pearce, and
*' Dr. Prieftley, fome of whom have been imper-
" ceptibly led to view this matter thrO' a me-
" dium unfavourable to the difcbvery bf truth."
Bifhop Pearce, hpWever, cannot be faid to havd
been of this number; and a liberal and judicious
critic, tho' he will not be is^aating in a due refpedl
for <manufcripts, will not be a flave to them; and
it is of .itfelf, indepertdfently of any hypothefis
concerning the duration of Chrift's miniftry, e:?-*
ceedingly improbable that the prefent Ihould
have been the original reading. This, however,
has been fo fully ftated already, that I fhall no^
urge it any farther. But as your Lordfliip gives
me a quotation from Voffius on this fubjedl, I
fhall in return refer your Lordfhip to the late
Mr. Bowyer's obfervations on this text, in which
he approves of the omifllort of the word iniLtrya.
and adds other things in fupport pf Mr. Mann's
hypothefis in general, which I did not know that
be was ahy favourer of before.
Your Lordfliip fays that the grmmefs of the grajs
at the time tp which the events mentioned in
this chapter belong, is an argument that it was
immediately before a paffover, and therefore that
the prefent was protaably the true reading.^ I
readily acknowledge that this is a circumftance
in your Lordfliip's favour. But thp' the grafs in

BiSriOP 01^ WATERFORD. 59
¦Jti general be burned up in May, in the country
of Judeaj there might be particular places in the
belghbpUrhood of "a frefh water lake Where it
y/f^ not lb ; ' and befides I have a refource which
your Lprdfliip has not in this cafe. For I can
eafily fuppofe that Mark, who is not knowh to
have been prefent at the tranfadlion, and who is
the only b'fforian that mentions this Circum
ftance, pnight be mifl:aken with refpe^. to it,
Ypu ^dd? p. i2|, th^tif we expunge this verfe,
there will be a want of forci^ in the obfervation
John vij.i. After thefe things Jefus walked i^Ga'
like.; for he would not palk in Jewry, h§(ajtfi thte
Jfws fought to killhf^. J, Now, befides that I tranf-
-poie the 5 th and j6th chapters, and therefore your
Lord^ip's argument may perhaps not affedl me
at all, I -really dp opt apprehend wherein the force
of this obfervation Ijesj as you do not explain it.
I rpuft, therefore, wait fpr your Lprdfoip's :next
letter before I reply tp it. I fuppofe the feaft
of Pentecoft to have preceded wha.t is . related in
tjils yrh chapter,, andiit was at. this feaft that the
Jews fqught; to kill Je/yA* as wc are inforrpedin
fhe.fiffh chapter* whi^ij malte to ^precede thisi;
and this circumftance is an argyrn'ent in favour
of th^t .;ranfpofitipn. ob .. ..->
^ ,_,I,h»a4,pfc|ferved that Jrenseus cannot, be ;fuppofei
tp have had the reading of this,T*«'x,.a in his copy
of. Jdl)n!s gofpel, becaufe he does not iayail.hi%
fcjlf qf, if in ,hjs .anfwfr tP the'Valendnians;!. lin
reply tq th^, your Jlxirdfliip fays, p. 121, "Jrc'-
" njeus onW prnpofed to mention hoW often,
: ' ¦ ' I 2 "at

6o A LETTER TO THE
" at the feafort of the paffover, our Lord, aft^
" his baptifm, went up to Jerufalem ; and therd-
" fore the menrio'ft of John vi. 4. was hot to
" his immediate purpofe ; becaufe this very evan-
« gellft 'informs us that Jefus did not attend' that
" feftival."
But, my Lord, whaE was the reafon for this
writer's entimeradng the paffovcrs at which our
Lord gave his attendance at Jertrfalem, but on%
to fhew that there wereio many paffovcrs in the
courfe of his miniftry. I wifli your Lordfliip
would reperufe what Irenaeus fays on this fubjedl,
and confider his immediate objedt. You muft
then perceive, that our 'Lord's attendance • at the
paffover Is of no confequenee at all to-his pur
pofe, which was fimply (as he wa's profeffedly
^combating the Valentinlan opinioft at large)
to note all the paffovcrs that occurred in the
"courfe of our -Lord's public miniftry. Confider-
inar, therefore, -how intent be manifeftly was to
colledt aW the evidence he could againft the opi
nion of Valentihm, arid that be neither in this
place, nOr any other, makes the leaft mention of
it, it mdy, I think, be fafely prefumed that he
found no fuch reading.
Your Lordfliip cannot deny but that the urging
of this paffover would have been greatly to his
purpofe. Why elfe does your Lordfhip make fo
great accountof it, in maintaining the fame argu
ment ? You are fenfible that it is the moft de
clfive circumftance that can be urged in the cafe.
Had Mr." Mann admitted this 'paffoyer, there;
> would

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 6i
would not have been the leaft colour for his hypo
thefis. He could never have entertained the idea
of it. Account then, if you can, for the filence of
Irenseus with refpedl to this paffover, when it
could not but have been of as much ufe^ to his
argument as to jraur Lordfliip's, for they are the
very fame.
Your Lordfhip fays, that he only enumerates
the paffovcrs at whichpur Lord attended, but why
did he not think of enumerating thofe at which
he did not attend; when, if he was capable of
thinking and writing at all, he could not but fee
that thefe would have been juft as much to hia
purpofe as the pthers ; ' becaufe every paffover,
whether Jefus attended at it or not, adds a year to
the duration of his miniftry, to extend which was
his' only and immediate objedl. I muft therefore
conclude that, as he ha.s not noted this paffover,
though he profeffedly went over the gofpel hifto
ry,' and efpeciaily that of John, with that view,
he found no fUch reading in his copy, and con
fequently that the prefent reading is an interpo
lation fince bis tltne,
¦ The enumeration of the different paffovcrs
(though he does not pretend to find any fo called
by 'ahy evangelift befides two) Is at the very be
ginning of Lib, ii. Cap. ix. the title of which is
Oftenjio quod uno anno non praconcionaverit dominus.
poft baptifmum, fed omnem habuijfe istatem ; that is,
io fhew that our Lord did not, after his baptifm,
freacU mly gne year, but employed every age in it.
And therefore, after "the enumeration of all the
paffovcrs

63 A LETTER JO THg"
paffovcrs he proceeds to give reafons why Chrill
muft have preached in every ftage of life, even
- to advanced years {proveSlior atas) Which he
ftates as conamenciing at forty or fifty years. And
this age, meaning probably the latter, he afferts,-
from the teftimony of thofe who converfed with
them, that John and the other apoftles adlually
gave to Jefus.
But none of this good man's Ctfmmentators
pay any. regard to this account, but cdnfidgr the
whole ^s proceeding from his exceflSve zeal to
confute the Valentinians, Candlde' auteni (fays
Feuardentius, as quoted by Grabe on the plape) de
beatifftmo Mar tyre fentiendum, quod impetu ipfo re-
fellendi Gnofiicos, qui annum trigejfin^um primum lllu,Vk
non exceffiffe dicebant, in partem contrariam delcituf
eft. SanStiJJlmls enim et doSiiJfimls hoe non raro con-
tigifci ipfa luce manifeftlus eft.
That our readers may judge for themfelves, I
fliall tranflate the whole paffage from Irensus.
" , It is very extraordinary, that they who pre-
1' tend to have penetrated into the deep things of
.," God, fhould not have fearched the gofpels, to
" find at how many paffovcrs Jefus, after his bap-
*' tifm, went up to Jerufalem, as it is a cuflom-.
" with the Jews to'affemble at Jerufalem fro.r^
" all countries every year for this purpofe. Firfi
" he went to this feaft of paffover after he baif
" changed the water into wine at Cana in GaU-
" lee ; when, as it is written, many believed on.
" him, feeing the inlracles that he ild, as is related
** by John the^ difciple of our Lord^ ^ " Then,

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 63
¦** Then, withdrawing himfelf, he retired to Sa-
*" maria, when he held the converfation with the
'' Samaritan woman, and being abftnt cured, by
" a word, the fon of the Centurion, faying, Go,
" thy fon liveth."
. *' After this he went a fecbnd time up to Jeru-
^' falem at the feaft of paffover, when be cured
f the paralytic perfon who had Idin at the pool
^' thirty eight years, bidding him rife and take
" up his bed. Then, retiring over the fea of
f Tiberias, ahd being followed by a great mul-
f' titude, he fed them with five loaves, fo that
f twelve Ijafkets of fragments remained,"
*' Again, when he had raifed Lazarus from the
f* dead, and the Pharifees laid Wait for him, he
^' retired to the city of Effrem, and thence com-
f ing to Bethany fix days before the paffover,
" and going frorn Bethany to jerufalem, and
?' there Having eaten the paffover, the following
" day he fyffered. That thefe three feafons of
?' paffpver cannot be comprized In one year muft
*/ be aclinpwledged by every body. And that
•" the month in which the paffover is celebrated
^' is the firft month, and not the twelfth, they
" who boaft that they know all things might
" have learned from Mofes."
" Their interpretation therefore of the one year,
" and of the twelfth monih, is proved to be falfe, .
*f fo that thpy muft either abandon this interpre-
?' tation, or the gofpel. Otherwife, how did our
" Lord preach only one year." What

64 A LETTER TO THE
What can be more evident from this, than that
our Lord's attendance at the paffover here men
tioned was a circumftance of no moment 'what
ever to this writer's argument; fince he only
means to fhew that there were, at leaft, three paffor
•vers in the courfe of his miniftry, and therefore
that It muft have extended beyond one year.
It muft alfo, I think, be very evident, that if
this writer had fpund any mention of another
paffbver In John vi. 4, he would not have failed to
note it. For his hypothefis was not that Chrift
preached only two years, but that be continued
preaching to an advanced age.
Grabe's note- bpon this paffage is as follows,
" Irenfeus is miftaken when he fuppofed the feaft,
" ofthe Jews mentioned John v. i. to be a paff-
" over. But a little after, in the fij^th chapter,,
" which our author alfo cites, there is, at the
" fourth verfe, exprefs mention of the approach)
" of another Jewifh paffover, from which the fe-»
" cond year of Chrift's preaching is clearly col-
" ledled," In my opinion Irenzeus would have
been as quick fighted in difcovering this paffover
a.s Mr. Grabe, being much more interefted to do
if; and his 'not noting It is a proof with me that,
in his copy of that gofpel, and probably In all the
copies of his time, there was no fuch paffover
mentioned. Your Lordfliip fays farther, that " another rea-
" fon for Irenaeus's filence may be affigned. He
" might poffibly think that the paffover alluded
" to was that at which Chrift fuffered." I ackriowledge

fiiSHOP OF WATERFORD. , 6j.
1 Acknowledge that Irenseus has fhewn himfelf
Capable of fuppofing very ftrange things, efpe
cially that Chrift preached till he was of ad
vanced age ; yet I do not think he was capable
of taking the paffover in John vi. 4. to be that at
which Chrift 'fuffered, becaufe feveral other Jew
ifh feafts are diftindtly mentioned between this
and the laft paffover. John vii, 2. Now the Jews
feaft af tabernacles was at hand^ x. 22. And it
was at Jerufalem, the feaft of Dedication, and it was
imnter: xi. ^c^. And the Jews Paffover was nigh
at hand.
This laft was evidently that at which our Lord
fuffered. Could it be fuppofed^ thenj that this
writer fliould mention the fame paffover fo long
bfefore, as a feaft at hand, when a feaft of Taber
nacles, and 'another of Dedication, intervened
(our Lord's attendance at each of which are dif
tindtly mentioned, and his converfation with the
Jews at each of them recited) and fo long after
fpeak of it again as a feaft at hand? This is a
fuppofition fo very improbable, that I really think
even Irengeus incapable of it. I therefore ftill
conclude that Irenseus found no paffover men
tioned in this place. His want of paffovcrs was
fuch, that he ¦would Certainly have catched at it.
I was far from denying, as your Lordfhip teems
to fuppofe, p. 124, that Eufebius extended the
miniftry of Chrift to three years. I have always
confidered him as the firft 'known author of that
opinion. But this he might think to be confift
ent with what, he alfo fays, that the three firft
K evangelifts

(£ A LETTER TO THE
evangelifts record the adtions of our Saviour for
one year only, viz, after the imprifonment of
John the Baptift ; fince he might think that he
preached more than two years before the impri- ¦
fonment of John. But I fay he could not have
fuppofed this, and at the fame time have bad the
reading of nroLr/jt in his copy of the text in dif
pute, or have given that attention to the gofpel
of John which he feems to have done ; becaufe
this paffover muft neceffarily fall between the
imprifonment of John and the death of Chrift.
It muft have done fo according to the gofpel
of John himfelf. For we learn from Matthew
and Mark, that Jefus left Judea to go into Ga
lilee on his hearing of tbe imprifonment of John
the Baptift, and John mentions this leaving of
Judea, Chap. iv. 3 ; and it is not till after relat
ing the particulars, of this journey, and, as your
Lordfliip fuppofes, his return to fome other feaft-
at Jerufalem, and back again to Galilee, that
this other paffover^ is men.tioned. Tbis opinion
therefore, of Eufebius, viz. that the preaching of
Chrift after the imprifonment of John was com
prized within the fpace of a year is inconfiftent
with bis having the word 'Kitaya- in his copy of
John vi. 4. It was not therefore till after the
time of Eufebius that the interpolation of that
word came to be general in the copies of John's
gofpel. You fay. Notes p. 27, that " the quotation
" from Dr. Lardner, in your preface, fhews that,
" upon re-examination Eufebius, did not over-
• ^' look

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, , 67
** look the word nra-sya. in John vi. 4." The
whole paffage from Dr. Lardner {Supplement, vol.
L p. 444) is as follows " Eufebius fays. The
"other three evarigelifts have recorded the ac-
*' tions of our Saviour for one year only, after
" the imprifonment of John the .Baptift. Jerom
*' fpeaks to the like purpofe, in his book of il-
" luftrious men ; but it fliould ha-ve been faid one
" year and fomewhat more, meaning- the time
" and adlions of our Lord's moft public miniftry.
" For it feems to me, that the antients fuppofed
" our Lord's miniftry to have lafted in the whole
'" fomewhat more than two years. Eufebius,' in-
" deed, computed our Lord's miniftry to have
" 'confifted'of three ye'ars' and a half, and fuppo-
" fed John's -gofpel to have in it fot/r paffovcrs.
" He feems to have been' the firfi Chrifiian -who
" advanced that opiniorf, and he is now general-
** ly followed by barmonlzers of the gofpels, ^an'd
** by ecclefiaftical hiftorians." '\'
In bis Credibility, (part 2, vol. 8, p. 138) he
fays of Eufebius that according to him "our
" Lord's miniftry was above three years,' and hot
" quite four years complete. But his argument
" there all edged for that opinion from the num-
" ber of Jewifh high priefts ;' during the period
" of Chrift's preaching, is abfurd, and ground-
" lefs; as appears from Jofephus, though Eufe-
" bins endeavours to fupport his opinion from
" that Jewifli author."
I muft however obferve, that it does not ap
pear that Eufebius read vntirx'^ in tbe paffage
K 2 in

68; A LETTER TO THE
in queftion. For though be makes fo many
paffovcrs in our Lord's miniftry, he does not
quote this as his authority for any of therri; ho\y
difficult foever we may imagine it to be to make
out fo many paffovcrs without that. And, jis.I
have obferved, his faying that frorn the imprifon
ment of John to the laft paffover^ was only pne
year, is plainly inconfiftent with' his fuppofing
that there was any paffpver mentione.d in ph*t
place. - , ; >
jy Dr. Lardner fays^ {Credibility -^^rt i, vpl. 8.^
p. 316) that ."Epiphanius fays there were two
" paffovcrs in our Lord's miniftry according to
" St. John, and that he fuffered in the thi*d
" paffover. Therefore he did not think the
" feaft of the Jews mentioned John v. i.tobe
f^ a paffpver.'' He fhould rather have faid, that
" two paffovcrs are mentipned in the beginning
f' of the fjrft part of John's gofpel, and that he
" fuffered in a third." And I rather think fince
Fipiphanius makes no mention pf the paffover In
John vi. 4, though it would have been as much
to his purpofe as to that of Irenaeus, and he
writes much mo,re largely on the. fubjec^t, that,
like Iren^us, he did co'jpfider the feaft meritione^ .
John V, X, to be the fecond paffover.
, It muft be impoffible to trace the precife time
when any particular interpolation was made, in
JDOoks of which there were, fo many copies and
tranflations, as there were of the New Teftament;
as it would firft be inferted In the margin of fome
one copy, then get into thp text of pnq that was
taken

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 69
iaken frorn it, and would probably ^^e a long
jtlrae before it became general.
That this word '^¦^'^r/j^ in John yi 4 wa« fub-
fequenp to the time of Irenasus, I think iridJlpu-
table, , and prpbably top that o( Eufel?ius anji
Epiphanius ; but I find it quoted, as we now
have it, by Chryfoftom., In bis homily on the
.7th bf John, vol. 7. p. 245, In the edition of
Fronto Ductus andCommelin.
Indeed it is moft natural to fuppofe that this
feaft would begin to be confidered "as a paffover
after it was generally fuppofed that fome paffover
jdid intervene, before the firft, mentioned by John,
and the laft in which Chrift fuffered. And though
^renseus confidered the feaft mentioned John v. i,
to be a paffpver. Dr. Lardner obferves that after-
terwards it was generally thought to be the Pen
tecoft, after which the fufplcipn of a paffover fell
naturally on the fe.aft mentipned John vl, 4,
It fhoujd feetti that whatever time any of the
Antients gave to the duration of bur .Lord's rfii-
niflry above one year and a few mpnths, they
fuppofed the whole of it to have preceded the
bufy part of it related by the three firft evange
lifts, and confequently to have preceded the im
prifonment of John the Baptift, And therefore,
on whatever other reafons their opinion was fup
ported, it . did not require the feaft mentioned
John vi, 4, to be a paffover, nay was inconfi.ftent
with it J fince as I have obferved already thi^ feaft
muft have fallen in the very bufieft part of the
miniftry^ In this your Lordfliip muft agre? with
me.

TO A LETTER TO THE
me, for you make it the third paffover in our
Lord's miniftry, and to have happened after" the
death of John the Baptift, and the return of the
twelve from their miffion, which is a difpofitidh
effcntially different from that of the Antients.

SEC T I ON V.
Of the tranfpofition df the i,th and 6th chapters of the
gofpel of John.
"^ OUR Lordfliip cannot be reconciled to the
tranfpofition of the 5 th and 6th chapters of
John's gofpel, tho' I think it very probable in it
felf, as well as agreeable to my particular hypo
thefis; I fhould even think that the bare read
ing of the feveral chapters in the connedtion pro-^
pofed (in the manner that Mr. Mann has exhi
bited them) might be fufficient to fatisfy any im
partial perfon.
According to our prefent copies, the end of the
4th and the beginning of the 5th chapter connedt
very ill. For at the end of the former chapter
Chrift is at Jerufalem, and the next begins with
thefe words. After thefe things Jefus went over the
fea of Galilee, as if he bad been fomewhere in
Qalilee immediately before, and had only that,
fea to crofs, which will be the cafe if we connedt the

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. jx
the end of the 6th chapter with the beginning of
the 5th; for he was then at Capernaumi dofe by
the fea of Galilee.
As ill do the end of the 6th and the beginning
of the 7 th chapter connedt, as they now ftand.
At the end of the 6th chapter Chrift is in Caper
naum in Galilee, and in the firft verfe of the 7th
chapter we read After thefe things, Jefus walked in
Galilee, for he would not walk in Je'u ry, becaufe tbe
Jews fought to kill him. This furely implies that
he was In judea immediately before, as he is at
the end of the 5 th chapter, which I would connedt
with the 7th.
If omiffions, interpolations, and tranfpofitions,
had been things unknown, or very rare, in our
prefent copies of antient writings, there would be
fome difficulty in admitting this. But we know,
. my Lord, they are common things, and that the
facred writings are by no means exempt from
them, in whatever manner they have happened.
I think it very eafy to account for them.
But your Lordfoip fays, p. 116, "The an
" tient manner of writing, on flcins of patch-
" ment, joined together and rolled up, is unfa-
" vpurable tb the idea of tranfpofition In gene-
" ral ; and as the divifion into chapters is of rno-
" dem date, the particular tranfpofition, of one
" chapter into the place of another carries lefs
" plaufibility with it."
Now it appears to me that tranfpofitions might
:much more eafily be made by the antients, who
wrote only on one fide of the different fkins ot
parchment

71 A LETTER TO THE
parchment, &c. and afterwards faftened theni to^-
getherj than by the nnoderns, who write on both
fides of the paper. After an antient book was
completely written, and put together, it was eafy
to tranfpofe any part of it, if a different arrange
ment fliould have been thought preferable ; but
the thing Is. impoffible with a modern book.
Though the original copies of the gofpcB
Were not' divided into chapters, arid numbered
as they are now, they were neceffarily divided
into different parts, probably in the form of pa
ragraphs, as other antient books often are. And
I think it very propable, that different difcourfes'.
and tranfadtlons in the gofpel hiftory were com-
pofed at different times by the original writers,
and put together afterwards. Indeed, it is hardly
poffible to write any thing at firft exadlly as it is
intended to go into the world.
Now by fome overfight, petbaps in the firlJ
putting together of the gofpel of John, or by
fome very early tranfcriber having, by miftake,
begun to write out .the fubjedl of the fixth chap
ter, and chufing to finlfh it before he went back
to the fifth, or in fome other way, aga,infi which
tliere might be a priori many chances, thefe two
chapters might happen to be tranfpofed; and the
copy in which this tranfpofition was made might,
on other accounts, have acquired fuch credit, as to
be generally followed afterwards. However, an
argument from the ftate of the text itfelf is a po
fitive proof of a tranfpofition, whether we caa
fatisfy ourfelves about the manner in which it,
rnighc

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 73
might have happened or not. Here I will fay
with your Lordfhip, p. 114, " I attend to tbe te-
" nor of the, gofpel hiftory, and follow wherever
" it leads."
Your LjOrdfliip thinks, p. 1 3, the fifth chapter
of John muft precede the account of the raifing
of Jairus's daughter, and ofthe widow of Nain's
fon, becaufe " v. 21 and 25 of this chapter con-
" tain a predidtion that Jefus would fhortly raife
" fome from tbe dead, and thus , imply that be
" bad not yet performed a miracle of tbis kind."
The verfes I find as follows. V. 21. For as the
Father raifeth up the dead, and quickenetb them, even
fo the Son quickenetb whom be will.' V. 10. Ve
rily verily I Jay unto you, tbe hour is coping, and
now is ; when tbe dead fhall hear the voice of tbe
fon of man, and they that hear fhall live. Immedi
ately after which follows .v. 26. 27, For as the Fa
ther hath life In himfelf, fo hath he given to the Son
to have life in himfelf, and bath given htm authority
to execute judgment afo, becaufe be is tbe Jon of man.
Now I am fo far from feeing tbis paffage in
the fame light in which your Lordfhip fees it,
that I think it much more natural to fuppofe that,
in the verfes I have quoted, our Lord rather al
luded to fomething already done, than to fome
thing he had never done at all. He feems to be
fpeaking to iperfons who had heard that he bad
raifed fome from the dead, and he affures them,
that, in like manner as he bad raifed to life fome
that had been dead, he would in due time, raife
L W/

^4 A LETTER TO THE
all the dead> and alfo judge them according td
their works. This I am inclined to think frotri
the dead being mentioned' in the plural number,
and in general, and from the intimation of the fu
ture judgment following this refurredlion ; where
as the perfons that he had raifed to life on earth
were not raifed to an immortal life, and therefore
their judgment did not immediately follow their
refqrredtiori. I do not, however, deny that our
Lord might allude to the raifing of others from
the dead in bis life time, and he might perhaps
allude to the cafe of Lazarus and others not men
tioned in the gofpels; butwhat be fays by no means
implies that he bad wrought no miracles of this
kind beforie, and therefore we have here no reafon
for fuppofing that tbe difcourfe in thc fifth chap
ter preceded the raifing of Jairus's daughterj or
the widow of Nain's fon.

SECTION

c<

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 75
SECT ION. .VL
Of journeys fuppofed to be omitted in my Harmony.
PROCEEDING with my defence, I find your
Lordfhip charges me with a confiderable over-
fight indeed, nothing lefs than tha.tof an in;tire cir
cuit performed by Jefus through Galilee, attended
by^he twelve apoftles. " A fecond circuit, you fay,
p. 90, through Galilee followed, in whicb the
Twelve, were with: Jefus j and pf this I think
you take no norice, either in your lytb fec-
" tion, or in your calendar." .^ j^^;^. ,; _ s- ,' r
But fo far, my Lord, is this, from ^eing the
cafe, that I have riCcIted the p^piculars of this
very journey, for; which , -ypur Lprdftip,^ flods no
particulars at all. : ppr l^uke hiqnfelf, after qien-
.tjpnjjig,,^his, journey in general,.,and thofe.wbo ac
companied our Lord in it, particularly ;t|iqTwelve,
and certain womenwhoiTiiniflered to hij^fiof. their
fubftance, proceeds,' according tp, the Tgppft. na
tural interpretation of bis narrative, -.to recite
fome of the particuliars ; and they gre^the di/"-
courfe containing the; parable of ;the^^yy,er,| ^e
cure ,pf the^denjpniac .at Gadara, the .f^jfingof
Jairus's daughter, &c. in which, -accorcling to t^e
tefldniony pf the pther-)^yangelif|s, be;wf s^attend-
ed by.the. twelve appl^-les. They only refer this
part of the gofpel hiftory to an earlier period.
-¦.'¦¦.; ' ' ' ¦ ~^ To

y6 A LETTER TO THE
To pretend that tbe journey was one thing,
and the particulars^ recited irnmediately after
wards, another, when the "writer himfelf makes
no difference, muft be void of all foundation ;
and to fuppofe that the parable of the fower was
repeated, and that the cure of tbe demoniac at
at Gadara, &c. happened twice, merely becaufe
Matthew and Mark place them in different pa^ts
of their hiftory (and indeed exprefsly affert that
they happened in a different order) would be
to load the hiftory with tbe greateft improbabili
ties. For it can never be believed that fo many
things, attended with fo many of the famej cir
cumftances, ever happened to any man, as muft,
upon this plian, be believed of Jefus. If your
Lordfhip's idea of the infpiration of the facred
¦writers obliges you to maintain tbis, I am thily
forry for it. You ought then to have done as Dr.
Mackriight has done, maintain that all the evanr
gelifts relate eVery thing in the order in which
they happened, and thereby make the whole hif
tory abfolutely incredible.
In your margin, your Lordfhip likewife refers
nie to Matti ix; 35, and Mark vi. 6, as authori
ties for^the fame circuit.' But this, my Lord, is
evidently a very different journey from thit Which
is mentioneSd by Luke. '!And yet it is one that I
have not overlooked, for it was that in' which Je
fus vifited Nazareth. '
The cafe feems to have been thus. ' Our Lord
had in a former excurfion vifited the places in thc
neighbourhood of Capernaum, probably to the
north

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, ^ 77
north of that city, and among others Chorazin
and Bethfaida, and he was now aboUt to vifit the
places to the Weft. But he had not made much
progrefs before he perceived that, travelling' in
this manner, he could not do fufficient juftice to
them all ; and therefore he fent the twelve to the
mote diftant places, while he confined himfelf to
Nazareth and its neighbourhood. 'That our
readers may judge for themfelves how far this
Recount is fupported by the evangelifts, I fhall
quote their own words on the occafion.
After the events of the day on which our Lord
calleu Matthew to attend him, this evangelift
fays, Ch. ix. 35, Jefus went about all the cities and
villages, teaching in their fynagogues, and preaching
the gefpef of the'kingdom, and beating every ficknejs
and every dif eafe 'among the people. But when befaw
the multitudes, he was moved with compaffion on
them, becaufe they fainted and were fcattered abroad,
as fheep having no fhepherd. Then Jays he to bis dif
ciples, 'Tb.eb.arveft truly is plenteous, but the labourers
are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvefi,
that be will fend forth labourers into his harvefi.
And when he bad called to bim his twelve difciples, he
gave them power againft unclean Jpirits, ^.c. :T:heJe
twelve Jefus Jent forth, &c. I
According to Mark, after the events of the
fame day at Capernaum, vi. i, Jefus went out from
thence, and came into his own country, and his -dif
ciples followed him: He then arrives at Nazareth,
where being rejedled, v. 6. be went about the vil
lages teaching. And be called untu him the twelve, and

^8 A LETTER TO THE
(tnd began to fend them forth by two and two, and
jrave them power over unclean fplrlts, fsfc.
There are fmall variations in thefe accounts,
for which reafon your Lordfhip may be difpofed'
,to make ana^:her journey out of them, and by this
means load and embarrafs my fyftem more thai;i
.you have already done. But I fhall not think it
,at all affedled by any thing of this kind.

SECTION VIL
Of the number of miles that Jefus has been Juppefed
to travel per day.
."IN order to reprefent the hurry and fatigue that
you fuppofe I make our Saviour to have
been in, on my hypothefis, your Lordfhip like Mr.
tWhifton, draws a plan of all his journeys, from thc
firft paffover to the next pentecoft, and then com
putes the number of miles he muft have travelled
per day* But, my Lord, when any fcheme is
reprefented, it fliould be exhibited in all its farih
aild not mixed with any other ftiieme. In this
cafe, therefore, the /M»f fhould not be mine, and
the journeys your Lordfhip's. And yet this is thf
manner in which your Lordfhip has treated me.
This makes a mixture of the two fcheraesjcand
fotething agreeable to neither d" them.. I am
. , really

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, 79
really not a little furprized that the manifeft un-
fairnefs of tbis treatment fhould not have flruck
your Lordfhip, Had I treated your Lordfhip in
the fame manner, you would have felt the im
propriety of it in a moment.
That we may examine this bufinefs with more
attention, I muft beg your Lordfhip to turn to
p. 93 of your letter, and we will look over the
lift that your Lordfhip has there drawn of our
Saviour's journeys, and I will point out what arti
cles I admit, and what I objedl to. I will then
allow tbe reft in your own numberis, that you
may not think that I will contend for trifles, and
we fhall fee bow the account of his dayly progrefs
really ftands upon my hypothefisj unmixed with
your Lordfhip's.
No. Miles.
I. " From Jerufalem to Judea 25." Granted.
2. " From Judea to Cana - - 50." Granted.
3. " From Cana thro' Nazareth 730." Granted
to Capernaum" - - I in part only.
Becaufe I do not fuppofe Jefus to have
palTed thro' Nazareth ; and for this, ac
cording to your Lordfhip's map, I ought , ' '
to dedufl more than I do, when I al
low 20 miles.

f 70 "
4. " The circuit about Galilee < '
I deduft from this artick at leaft two
thirds, becaufe I confine the circuit to
the places in the neighbourhood of Ca
pernaum, chiefly to the north of that
tovyn. I therefore call it 30 miles.

Granted in part.

From

8o A JLETTER TO THE
Miles. . •
5. " From Capernaum to Jeru- 7 65." Not
faiem  5 granted.
With this journey I have nothing at
all to do, and I wonder your Lordfliip
ftiould not have put to my account the
journey back again as well as the journey
thither, as one of them could not have
been made without the other.
6. " From Capernaum to Nain 20." Granted. Not granted.

" To Chorafin and Bethfaida"!

This I do not admit, becaufe I fuppofe
the vifit to thofe places to be included in
No.4- 8. " The fecond circuit about 7 70." Not
Galilee" - - - - ^ granted.
See the reafons in the laft feftion.
9. " Croffingthe lake in a fhlp? „ p ,
to Gadara, and back to Capernaum S
10. " To Nazareth - - - 20." Granted.
II. " Teaching and preaching 13 3." Granted
in the cities of Galilee J in par|.
This journey I confine to the neighbourhood of Nazareth,
and therefore ihall not allow much more than half the number
of miles, or 20.
If your Lordfhip will now pleafe to caft up the
number of miles as 1 have corredted them, you will,
find the whole amount to be 197, inftead of 400,
that is, not quite half as much travelling. And
dividing this number by 50, you will, find that
there is no occafion, on my hypothefis, to fup
pofe our Lord to have travelled quite four miles
per day ; and wrhere is the great improbability in
this. Few men of an adlive life, I believe, walk lefs,

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, 8t
lefs, and many perfons walk three or four times
as much the whole year through.
It is, befides, by no means certain, though it
feems to be generally taken for granted, that our
Saviour always travelled on foot, Luke informs
us, Ch. viii. 2, that in one of his progreffes thro'
Galilee (and it was probably the fame in moft of
the others) he was attended by "Mary Magdalene,
" and other women, Who miniftered to him of
" their fubftance." Now thefe women cannot
be fuppofed to have travelled on foot, and would
they fuffer the perfon on whom they attended,
and whofe expences they defrayed, to do fo, at
leaft always ; though this might be the cafe in
little excurfioHs from any more confiderable place,
to the neighbouring villages, where the women
might not always attend him ?
This, I own, is conjedlure. But if our Lord
was attended by rich women at all,, I cannot
think the fuppofition, of his not travelling always
on foot, ro be wholly without probability. The
twelve apoftles alfo do not, by any means, ap
pear to have been poor, or unable to provide.
mules for themfelves. Peter, Andrew, , James,
John, and Matthew, it is pretty certain, had
fome property, and none of, the apoftles were in
the capacity pf fervants, or in the loweft claffes
of life.

M SECTION

A LETTER TO THE

SECTION VIII,
Of references to more than two paffovcrs in the gof
pels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
T Muft now attend to another of your Lordfhip's
arguments for extending the time of our Lord's
miniftry, beyond the year and a few months that
, Mr. Mann affigns to it. It is indication of other
pajfovers Intervening between the two that are al
lowed to. be ejfprefsly mentioned by John. Every
additional paffover undoubtedly adds a year to
the duration of our Lord's miniftry, but your
Lordfhip muft allow me to require fufficient evi
dence for fuch paffovcrs.
You i^y, p. 139, that "all. the evangelifts,
" though they do not exprefsly mention dny
" paffover to have intervened between the impri-
" fonnjent of John and the death of Chrift, im-
" ply one when they mendon the plucking the
" ears of corn."
, But thi3 event I placebefore tbe pentecoft after
the firft paffover, the moft proper time of the year
for that tranfadlion. It is only the long ftay that
your Lordfhip makes in Judea that obliges you to
defer it till after another jiaffover.
" St. Luke," you fay, p. 139, "refers to fome na-
" tional feftival between the fecond and third paff-
" over." when he fays, Ch. xiii. i . There were prefent,
fome that told him of (he Galileans, whofe blood Pilate: had

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. Bj
had mingled with theirfaerifices. But it is by nd means
certain that tbis event happened during the courfe
of our Lord's miniftry. It might not be ^t a pub
lic feftival, or that feftival might not be a paff
over. " There is alfbi" your Lordfliip fays, p. 139,
" another implication of the pafchal feafon when
" St. Mark fays, Ch. vi. 39, that the five thou-
" fand, when they were miraculoufly ie6. bjr Je-
" fus, fat down on the green grafs." Tbis I
think I have fufficiently accounted for before.
" St. Luke," your Lordfhip fays, p. 159,
" alludes to one or two of our Lord's journeys
"to Jerufalem befides his laft. "Ch. x. 3S," No-ai
it came to pafs as they went, that be entered ttits
a certain village, and a certain woman, named Mar
tha, received him into her houfe. And alfo xvii. 11.
And it came to pafs as he went to Jerufalem, that he
pafied through the mtdft of Samaria and Galilee.
With refpedl to thefe journeys, I can only fay that
they appear to me to be the fame, viz. that which'
¦preceded the laft paffover, thbugh there is evi
dently a good deal of confufion in this part of
Luke's hiftory. The fprmer is not faid to' be
any journey to Jerufalem at all, or it might be at
fome other public feaft, and not a paffover.
" St. Luke," your Lordfliip fays, p. 140, "re-
" cords a reference to bis preaching in Judea and'
" Jerufalem, Ch. xxiii. 5." And they were more
fierce, faying, be fiirreth up the people, teaching
throu^out all Judea, beginning from Galilee, to this
place. Now it is not denied, but fuppofed by me,
M 2 that

84 A LETTER TO TH^
that all the latter part of our Lord's miniftry was
employed in Judea, after he had fpent the firft
part of it in Galilee.
You fay, p. 140, that "both Luke and Mat-
" thew fuppofe our Lord to have been often at
" Jerufalem," referring to Luke xiii. 34, and
Matt, xxiii. 2>T- The paffage from Luke is, Oh
Jerufalem Jerufalem, that kiliefi the prophets, and'
ftonefi them that are fent unto . thee ; How often
would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen
doth gather her chickens under her wings, and ye
i&ouldfiot. The paffage from Matthew Is to the
fame purpofe, and almoft in the fame words. To
this I think it fufficient to reply, that, in my
opinion, the preaching of Jefus in Jerufalem
at four public feafts, and in Judea all the laft half
year of his miniftry, abundantly juftifies the
language. " The aftonifoment and fear of the twelve, de-
*'^ fcribed by Mark, Ch. x, 32." your Lordfhip
fays, *' imply that Jefus had before incurred danger
at Jerufalem." The paffage is. And they were in
the way going up to Jerufalem, and Jefpis went before
them, and they were amazed, and as they followed
they were afraid.
Now this amazement feem.s to rae to have been
occafioned by tbe idea of the difficulty our Lord
had juft before expreffed, of rich men getting into
the kingdom of heaven, when to be rich and great
was their original view in following Jefus. And
their fear might have been occafioned by the in
timation our Lord had juft given them of the
perfecutions

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. gj
perfecutions they were to expedi in his fervice.
Nothing is there faid of any danger to Jefus him
felf in particular. However, it Is well known
that Jefus had been in danger at Jerufalem, and his
difciples exprefsly referred to it, when they would
have diffuad^d him fronri going to fee Lazarus.
In the laft place your Lordfoip fays, p. 140,
that " our Lord's words, from the days of John
¥ the Baptift until now. Matt. xi. 12." are better
fuited to tbe opinion " that the Baptlft's impri^
" fonment had taken place eight or ten months
" before, than about four weeks."
I anfwer, that they would have fuited better ftill
if the interval had been, eight or ten years; but
better, as I fuppofe it, to have been four weeks,
than four days. But, my Lord, from the days of
John the Baptift, certainly means the- beginning of
his preaching, which I fuppofe to have been
feven or eight months before this difcourfe of
our Lord's.
After reciting thefe and other arguments, by
your Lordfliip's own confeffion ftill weaker than
thefe, and on which therefore I do not animad
vert, you very properiy add, p. 144, " Still I be-
" lieve that the fagacity of critics would have
'' been frultlefsly employed, hiut for John's fop-
" plemental hiftory," Much, indeed, my Lord,
are the favourers bf your Lordfhip's hypothefis
iridebted to that one word wAdy^a. in the fixth
chapter of that gofpel. It is the corner ftone ofthe
whole fyftem. But it feems now to be fo much
loofened by the repeated pufliing oi feveral able
critics.

86 _ ALETTERTOTHE
critics, that I cannot help thinking it will foon
be forced out of the place it has fo long occu
pied ; when all that has been fo long and fo la-
borioufly built upon it will fall to the ground.
There are arguments of a different complexion
derived from the gofpel hiftory, favourable, as
your Lordfoip thinks, to the fuppofition of our
Lord's miniftry having continued more than a
year and a few months ; but I think I need not
reply to them, as you fay, p. 143, you " men-
" tion them merely that you might fomewhere
" take notice of all the marks of time refpedling
*' the length of our Lord's miniftry, or fuppofed
" to refpedl It," I foall however juft repeat them
after your Lordfoip, that they may have an op
portunity of making what impreffion they can
upon our readers.. They are the following^'
The parable of the fig tree, that was barren three
years ; Luke xiii. 6 : our Lord's faying I do cures
to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I fhall be
perfeSed, Luke xiii, 32 : Herod having defired to
fee Jefus of a long feafon, Luke xxiii. 8 : our
Lord's faying to Philip, John xiv. 9, Have I been
Jo long time with you ? and laftly his faying to his
difciples, Matt, xv. 16, Are ye alfo yet without
underftanding. I can freely fay of fuch arguments'
as thefe, Valeant quantum valer epoffunt.

SECTION

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 87

SECTION IX.
Of the argument for the probable duration of our
Saviour s miniflry from the objeS of it.
'T^HIS topic, my Lord, is, in its own nature, a
very vague one. For, leaving faSls, we are
too much at liberty to conje£iure what we pleafe,
and therefore judge varioufly. On this account
I had intended not to have troubled your Lord
foip, or our readers, with any thing farther on this
fubjedl, but to leave what we have both advanced
to make what impreffion it will. But there are
fome obfervations of your Lordfoip on this fub
jedl, in reply to others of mine, that I think
you will expedt that I foould take fome no
tice of.
I foall firft make one general remark, which
is, that your Lordfoip and myfelf, biaffed per
haps by our different hypothefes, are apt to attend
to different things, your Lordfoip more efpecial
ly to what you fuppofe our Lord had to do, and
I to what he adlually did. Your Lordfoip, for
inftance, confiders the bufinefs of inftrudting the
twelve apoftles, p. 1 70, as requiring a long fpace
of time ; whereas I attend m'ore to what they ac
tually learned ; and finding it to be very little,
foppofe It to have required but little time. And
your Lordfoip muft acknowledge that their full
inftrudtions were not given. before the defcent of
thc

a? A LETTER TO THE
the Spirit, after our Lord's afcenfion. After his
death and refurredlion, they were as full as eVer
of their ideas of a temporal kingdom. They
had acquired. Indeed, a rooted affedllon and ve-v
neratlon for him, on account ofthe perfedl inno
cence and great excellence of his charadter, a
convidlion that he was a teacher fent from God,
and the Meffiah, and confequently a thorough
perfuafion that he was incapable of deceiving
chem. But furely a year's intimacy was fuffi
cient for thefe purpofes.
Your Lordfliip fpeaks, p. 169, of " a long
" feries of propliecles having preceded our Lord's
*' coming, and that every former difpenfation
" had a manifeft fubferviency to his." But I
confider the gofpel difpenfation as only opened by
Chrift himfelf, and therefore that thofe prophe
cies equally refpedl all that was done by the apof
tles, and indeed what Is doing to this day.
Your Lordfoip fay.s, p. 172, that on my hy
pothefis " it might have been objedled in all
" ages, that our Lord's miracles and dodlrines
" had not been fubjedted to due fcrutlny." . I an
fwer, that this might have had fome weight if
no more miracles had been wrought in defence of
chriftianity, befides thofe that were wrought by
Chrift himfelf; but it has no weight at all when
it is confidered, that the power of working mira
cles did not ceafe with our Lord, but continued
in equal if not greater vigour with the apoftles,
and others to whom they communicated fpiritual
gifts. Our Saviour himfelf fays, John xiv. 12,
that

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 89
that they foould do greater things than he had done.^
Accordingly, our Saviour's miracles did not ex
ceed thofe of the apoftles in magnitude, and they
certainly fell far foort of them in number ; and
the latter continued through the whole apoftoli
cal age ; fo that all the effedt that the befl atteft
ed miracles could have, was produced.
On one occafion your Lordfoip feems to write as
if you thought that even fewer miracles than our
Savjour himfelf wrought might have been fuffi
cient. Forj after reciting the particulars of what
you fuppofe bim to have done in one year only,
and tliat into which you throw the leaft bufinefs
you fay, p. 166, *' Tbis is the fubftance of all
" that is recorded between tbe firft and fecond
" paffover ; and I think it amounts to a very full
" promulgation of tbe gofpel, and affords a very
^* -iatisfadlory proof of its divine origin."
As it has a near connedtion with this fubjedl, I
fhall here introduce what your Lordfoip fays of the
time that our Lord muft have fpent at Chorazin
and Bethfaida, in order to juftify the vehemence
of , his denunciations againft thofe cities. " From
" our Lord's mention of Chorazin," p. 94, " and
" ^ethfaida, as the fcene of moft of bis mighty
. " works, and of fuch as would have convinced Tyre
".^nd Sydon, I conclude that they had repeated,
" as well as ample means of convidlion."
" There is only one miracle recorded as
" wrought hear Bethfaida, and whoever has at-
" tended to our Lord's manner will difcover
" traces in this relation, that, the inhabitants of
N " that

50 A LETTER TO THE
" that place were deemed by him unworthy Of
" his farther interpofition to convert them."
" I think that Jefus often vifited thefe places
" from Capernaum, and that he both taught in
" their fynagogues, and wrought miracles in
'' their ftreets,. Cities twice mentioned with Ca-
" pernaum feem to have enjoyed like means of
" reformation with that favoured city ; and the
" adopters of an hypothefis foew themfelves em-
" barraffed, who mUft almoft neceffarily recur
" to a fingle miracle publickly performed, or to
" as much as was tranfadted at Capernaum in the
" evening of a fingle day, as fofficient grotrnds
** for fuch awful declarations concerning the im-
" penitence andpunifoment of thefe cities."
Now, my Lord, if I may be allowed to judge
for myfelf, I feel no embarraffment at all in this
cafe. On the contrary, I think your Lordfoip will
find yourfelf not a little embarraffed in foewing
that even Capernaum itfelf, that favoured city, as
you call it, enjoyed any more advantage than I
fuppofe our Lord had, at leaft tim.e enough, upon
my plan, to allow both to Chorazin and Bethfaida.
For all that we know of his performing there was
rhe cure of the demoniac in the fynagogue, with
the other tranfadtlons of that particular fabbath ,•
his healing the centurion's fervant on his return
from bis firft excurfion, the cure of tbe paralytic
perfon, and the raifing of Jairus's daughter, with
the othefr events of the day on which be called
Matthew, and the difcourfe in the fynagogue,
related in the 6th chapter of John. Your

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. gt
Your Lordfoip rnay Juppoje much more than
this to have been done, but thjs is all that is,
related ; , and, for my own part, I fee. no reafon
for fuppofing any more. Your Lordfoip may
¦fpeak as fllghtly as you pleafe of a fingle miracle
publicly parformed, but certainly If the circum
ftances were fuch as to leave no doubt but that
it was a real miracle, it muft have been fufficient
to have anfwered all the proper purpofes of mi
racles; and any thing farther, of that kind, muft
have been fuperfluous. What could it have fig-
nified to work repeated- miracles before thofe
that afcribed all our Lord's miracles to tbe power
of Beelzebub ? -.»
As to moral infiruSiions, the delivering of them
cannot he faid to have been our Lord's particu
lar bufinefs. He certainly »negledled no pro
per opportunity of giving ufeful leffons; to. the
.people, and efpecially of corredting jthej abufes
which tbe fcribes and pharifees- had introduced
into the inrerpretation of the Law, , But it ought
not to be forgotten by us, that our Lord's pro
per bufinefs (if we may be allo\yed to form a
Judgment concerning it from the! tenor of the
gofpel hiftory) was to exhibit fufficient ; proofs
that he was a teacher fent frorp God, and th?
promifed Meffiah, ^nd efpecially by hjis refurrec-
tion from tbe dead, ¦ ^- :
Every thing elfe, fuch as the. pradllca'l .ufe of
tbis, was the bufinefs of ;the ordinary preachers
ofthe gofpel. And, if we fuppofenour. Lord's
proper bufinefs, that^i-s, fuch as no other perfp;*
"K 2 could

92 A LETTER TO THE
with propriety do, to have been any thing more
than this (for which one year was abundantly
fufficient) three years, or thirty years, would not
have' fufficed. Nay he mqft have preached in
perfon to the end of the world.

SECTION X.
Of the tranfaSllons at tbe firft Paffover.
TLTAVING confidered every thing of a more
general nature felating to the duration of our
Lord's miniftry, I am now ready to attend to what
your Lordfoip has obferVed relating to fome more
particular incidents in our Saviour's hiftory; efpe
cially what you fuppofe to have paffed at Jerufa
lem during the firft paffoveir, in Judea afterwards^
and then in Galilee.
Your Lordfoip objedls to my fuppofing that our
Lord did not ftay at Jerufalem during the whole
eight days of the feafl of paffover, p. 1 9 j obfer
ving very juftly from Grotius, that it vvas ufual
with devout Jews to continue there during the
whole ofthe feaft. This, hoWever, your Lordfoip,
who fuppofes our Saviour to have been abfent from
Jerufalem many entire feafts, cannot fay was ab
folutely neceffary j tb? evangelift does not fay that
• he

BISHOP OF WATERFORD.

9$

he attended the whole feaft, and the fame writer
eicprefsly fays, that be did not g6 up to another of
the feafts, till the middle of it.
But your Lordfoip (2^r/j, p. 17, that at .this
particular time Jefus did not leave Jerufalem be
fore the expiration of the eight days of the feaft.
'" My reafons," ybur Lordfoip faysj " for this af-
" fertidn are, becaufe our Lord wrought miracles
f during the feafty becaufe he did, not then truft
." himfelf to the miny who believed in him, and
ff becaufe at that time a Jewifo ruler vifited him
.*' by night, and referred to bis miracles, as fuf-
" ficient to prove him a teacher fent from God."
But, as your Lordfoip acknowledges, part of
this bufinefs, viz, the preaching, working mira
cles, and confequently gaining difciples, might
have been done before the feafi, and a very foort
time will fuffice for the reft. I am fenfible, how-t
ever, that the antecedent probability is that, likd
other pious Jews, he would cbntihue at Jerufaierit
fhe whole eight days ofthe feaft. But fince, as your
Lordfoip acknowledges, this was not abfolutely
neceffary, where can be the great improbabrlity of
his leaving Jerufalem about the middle; of this firft
feaft. When he might have found himfelf expofed
to fo much notice from tbe miracles he had
Wrought, as might be inconvenient to him,
efpecially at the opening of his nrriniftry.
" Another probable argument," your Lordfoip
fays, p. 19, "forthe continuance of Jefus at Je-
" fufalem all the time ofthe Paffover is this, that
" it feems fuitable to his wifdom and goodnefs, as

94 , A LETTER TO THE
" a heavenly meffenger." But,- then, why did
he not attend all the feafts, and every day belong
ing to them ? Your Lordfoip, however, refers to the
propriety of bis intimating his commlffion at this
firft paffover. " At this feaft," you fay, p. 19,
* our Lord gave a plain intimation of his Meffiah-
" foip, by calling the temple his Father's houfe."
You add, "the bolder his adlion of purging the-
" temple was, the greater is the praife of his
5' fortitude." But then, the lefs muft have been
bis pruddn.ce, which, according to the whole tenor
of his condudt, was equally diftinguifoed, efpeci-
klly at the opening of his miniftry.
It is, I think, extremely improbable that our
Lord foould chufe to give any fuch plain intima
tion of bis being the Meffiah fo early ; though he
did there things from which, affifted by the tefti
mony John, they might have inferred that he muft
be the Meffiah. It is faid indeed, John ii. 23.
that many beUeved on bim, when they Jaw tbe miracles.
which he did. ' But it is not faid that they believed.
him to be the Mefliah, but only, in general, a
teacher Jent from God. This is all that Nicodemu*
intimates^ John iii. 2. We know that thou art a
teacher come from God, becaufe no man can do thefe
miracles which thou doefi, except God be with bim.
And what our Lord fays of his pretenfions to this
Jewifo ruler is very obfcure and referved. ,
¦ We deceive ourfelves, and are apt to be; mifled
in the interpretation of the gofpel hiftory, by not
fufficiently confidering what kind of a Meffiah the
the Jews expedted. Now our Saviour, notwitb-' ftanding

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 95
ftanding bis working miracles, was a perfon fo
exceedingly unlike him that they expedted, that
it was not at all probable that they would
foon fuppofe him to be the Meffiah. It does
not appear that even John tbe Baptift ever ex
prefsly called bim the Meffiah. He only fpoke
of him as one greatly his fuperior, and who
would baptize them with the Holy Spirit and
with fire.
Our Lord himfelf appears to have been re
markably cautious on this fubjedt. Indeed, there
is no evidence of bis giving any plain intimation
that he was tbe Meffiah till much later in his
miniftry; and the firft open declaration he made of
it was to the apoftles only, accompanied with an
exprefs charge, that tbey foould not make it
¦ known. It is indeed remarkable that be exprefsly
told the woman of Samaria, John iv. 26. that be
was the Meffiah, and confequently, we may fup
pofe all the people of Sychar. But from a town in
¦ Samaria it was not likely to fpread, and gain much
credit among the Jews.
Is this condudt, my Lord, confiftent with bis
having given a plain intimation of his Meffiahfoip
to all the Jews fo early, and fo openly as at the
firft Paffover, or, as your Lordfoip expreffes it,
p. 45, with his having publicly declared his oflice at
the firft paffover.
Your ' Lordfoip, in giving reafons why you
fuppofe our Lord wrought no miracles in Judea
(tho'' I can fee no reafon why he foould not, after
having wrought many in Jerufaleni immediately before)

96 A LETTER TO T'HE
before) in order to account for the three firft
evangelifts not noticing this period of our Lord's
preaching, fays, p. 49, djat " tho' the Jews had
" no prejudices about the forerunner of their
" Meffiah; the true Meffiah, of humble birth
" and ftation, the eredtor of a fpirjtiral kingdom
" in the hearts of ipen, could not have run his
<^ deftined courfe without the bigheft degree of
«' prudence."
Now, my Lord, I do not fee the perfedl con-
fiftence of his publicly declaring himfelf to be the
Meffiah at the Paffover, vvhich muft have been
the extreme oi boldnefs (Ifoould think of ind ifcre-
tion) and his paffing immediately after to fuch an
extreme of caution, as to preach during his long
flay in Judea without working any miracles ; a
thing very unufual, to fay the leaft, with our Lord,
whenever an opportunity offered. Indeed, my
Lord, the methqds you take to make this long
ftay and preaching of Jefus in Judea pafs unno
ticed by the three firft evangelifts, is not, I think,
fufficiently confiftent with what you fuppofe to have
been tranfadted at tbe paffover immediately pre
ceding ; and it fatisfies me that his preaching in
Judea could not have taken fo much time as your
I^ordfoip imagines.
Your L ordfoip conjedlures, p. 17, that " the-
" miracles wrought at Jerufalem during the firft
r?' Paffover were of that moft benevolent concllia-
" ^ing kind, which confifted in removing human
" fickneiTes and infirmities," which I think very
probable.

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 97
probable. But were not thefe of a very different
nature from his violent cleanfing of the temple ?
How is this confiftent with what your Lordfoip
fays, p. 40, of " his not chufing, during bis con-
" tinuance in Judea, to attradl general notice, and
" to gather multitudes about him." The buy
ing and felling in the outer court of the temple,
for the convenience of thofe who came to facri-
fice, was probably an immemorial cuftom, and
had the fandlion of the fcribes and pharifees;
and therefore could not have been interrupted,
in fo violent a manner as that in which our Saviour
did it, w-ith a whip, and overturning of ihe tables and
feats, &?f . without fetting all the then fubfifting
authority at defiance. Mr. Mann therefore thinks
that this cleanfing of the temple (which none of
the evangelifts fays was done more than once)
was done by our Lord only at the laft paffover,
immediately after his entering the city in triumph,
and with fiich a popularity as no power of the
Jewifo rulers could oppofe.
Your Lordfoip infifts upon it, that this re
markable adlion was performed at the firft paff
over, as well as at the laft ; and you think, p, 24,
that you can obferve fome difference between
the firft cleanfing mentioned by John, and the
fecond, of which there is an account in the other
evangelifts ; becaufe on tbe former occafion the
Jews only fay. What fign fheweft thou Jeeing thou
doefl theje things, and on the latter occafion they
fought bow they might deftroy him.
O Now

9« A LETTER T,0 THE
Now, confidering that our Lord, at the time
that I lay tbe fcene for this tranfadlion, entered
Jerufalem with, a crowd of attendants, finging.
Hofanna, blefled is he that cometh in the name ofthe
Lord (i, e, the Meffiah), it may eafily be con
ceived that the pharifees and high priefts durft
not openly oppofe him ; fd that, tho' they con
fidered him as affuming a high tone of authority,
.they did not venture, at that time, any farther
than to aflchim by what authority he adled. But
how is this Inconfiftent with their privately re-
folving, from that moment, to cut him off? In
all other refpedls, the tranfadtlqn, as defcribed by
all the evangelifts, is the very fame ; and I can
not help thinking the fcene of it to be, ^on many
accounts, more properly laid at the laft, than at
the firft paffover.
\. Befides, if our Lord had adted with this, autho
rity at the firfi paffover, he would have been .un
der a kind of neceffity of (enforcing his orders
every time that he had gone to Jerufalem ; and
if.it had been repeated with. proper effedt, as we
may be well affured It would have been, if it had
been done l)y our Lord at all, the cuftom woiTld
have been difcontinued, and it would not have
been to do again at the laft paffover. At leaft,'
if the Jews had ventured to refume the cuftom,
we might expedt fome reference to former injunc
tions, and to a fimilar condudt of his own, the
next time that our Lord adled the fame part over
again. But all the evangelifts relate the tranfac- tions

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. g?
tion without giving the leaft intimation that it
had ever been done before.
Some commentators have given fo little atten
tion to the nature of this remarkable tranfadlion,
as to imagine that our Lord performed it both on
the evening of the day in which he entered Jeru-
falen^ in triumph, and again the next morning ;
becaufe Matthew fays it happened on one of the
days, and Mark on the other. - But is it not
more probable that one of thefe hiftorians, and
efpecially Mark, might be miftaken witb re
fpedl to the particular day, than that the fame
perfons who quietly fubmitted to a violent ex-
pulfion in the evening, Ihould have fo far reco
vered themfelves as to have replaced their feats^
&c. and have, rfefumed their bufinefs early the
next morning, the populace at the fame time
favouring our Lord, and his authority?

O 2 SECTION

loa A LETTER TQ THE

SECTION XI.
Qf tbe flay tbat Jefus made in Judea after the firft
paffover, , ,

QN the fubjea of tbis fedlion I do not intend
to trouble your Lordfoip long, You do
not pretend, p, 26, that my diftributlon of the
events relating to our Saviour's tarrying in Ju
dea before his journey to Galilee is pbyfually im
poflible, and the probability of it muft be deter
mined by an attention to all the circumftances.
The circumftance on which I. laid the princi
pal ftrefs, in urging the foortnefs of that ftay,
was the total filence of the three firft evangelifts
refpedling it, and their uniformly reprefenting the
preaching of the gofpel as having begun in Galilee,
and afterwards to have extended to Judea. I
therefore faid, *^ the thing was not fo confiderable
" as to have been even noticed by any other
^' evangelift than John, though it w;as prior to
*' any thing that they (the other evangelifts)
?' have related of the niiniftry of Jefus, when it
" was leaft likely to have efcaped their notice,
" if it had been at all confiderable."
Remarking on this paffage, your Lordfoip fays,
p. 41, " Apply this mode of arguing to the ear-
" Heft teftimonies which the Baptift gave Jefus, to
" the miracle at Cana, and particularly to Jefus's
" attendance

BISHOP OF WATERFORD, loi
*^ attendance and miracles at the firft .paflbver,
" and then judge of its conclufivehefs."
1 anfwer, that I am very willing to apply this
mode of reafoning as your Lordfoip diredis, and
to the fame particulars. The earlieft teftimonies
which the Baptift gave to JefuS are recorded by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What your Lordfoip
here refers to in the Margin, viz. John i. 26, 27,
28, 1 find in your Lordfoip's own Harmony placed
after them, juft as they are in my own Harmony.
I therefore do not- fee the propriety ofthe inftance
at all. It is no cafe of any thing confiderable
. omitted by the three firft evangelifts, before their
account of our Saviour's preaching in Galilee.
The miracle at Cana, of turning water into wine,
befides being of a private nature, known only ac
firft to the fervants of a fingle family, does not
appear to have been accompanied with any preach
ing ; fo that the ufe of it, as a confirmation of our
Lord's miffion, was not very apparent. And as to
thp miracles performed at Jerufalem, till we know
what they were, it is impoffible to know whether
they were confiderable or not, or whether they
were accompanied with preaching.
The preaching in Judea, fubfequent to this,
your Lordfoip fuppofes not to have been ac
companied with miracles; and by tbis you feem
to allow all that I contend for, viz, that our
Lord did nothing fo confiderable there as to be
heard of at a diftance, in Galilee for inftance,
where the apoftles then refided, in their feveral
private capacities ; fo that, to every great purpofe, ,
. and

102 ¦ A LETTER TO THE
arid even according to your own account, ourLord
may, with propriety enough, be faid to have opened
his commiflion in form, i, e. attended with its proper
teftimonials, and evidence. In Galilee, whefe Mat
thew fays that he began ta preach, and where the
gofpel is always faid to have originated.
I had obferved that the great fame of Jefus in
Galilee feems to have been occafioned by ' the
miracles he wrought after his appearance in tbat
country. And if, as your Lordfoip fays, p. 39, ,
" it be doubtful whether our Lord wrought any
" miracles during this ftay of his in Judea,"
nothing that he did there could have greatly con
tributed to it. The people of Galilee are repre
fented, John iv. 45, as having heard what Jefus
had done at the feafi only, and not anything fub
fequent to it. .
The expreffion your Lordfoip quotes from
Luke iv, 31, as a proof that his great fame in
Galilee was occafioned by what he did in Judea,
appears to me eafily to admit of a contraiy inter
pretation, and to refer to the fame he acquired
after his arrival there. The words of this evan
gelift are as follows : And Jefus returned in tbe power
of the Spirit Into Galilee, and there went out a fame
of him through all the region round about ; and he
taught in their fynagogues, being glorified of all.
Here his great fame is evidently fubfequent to the
mention- of his arrival in Galilee, and therefore
was probably occafioned by fomething done by
him in Galilee,, pardculariy by his preaching in
their

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 103
their fynagogues ; which was the fcene of his firft
cure of a demoniac, and was at Capernaum,
There is another argument againft this long
ftay of our Lord in Judea, which, though I do
-not think declfive, I think deferving of your
Lordfoip's confideration.
Jefus fays to the apoftles, John xv. 27, And ye
alfo fhall be^r wltnefs, becaufe ye have been with' me
from the beginning ; the moft natural interpretation
of which is, that they had attended him, not per
haps as apoftles, but as difciples from the com
mencement of his public miniftry, and that they
had continued with him ever fince. Tbis is per
fedtly agreeable to .my idea of our Lord's not
having properly begun to preach till he came to
Capernaum, from which time it is probable
enough that all the twelve, except, perhaps Mat
thew, attended bim conftantly, and probably
Matthew, himfelf occafionally (as he lived at
-<^apernaum, efpecially when he delivered the fer-
mon on the Mount, of which he gives fo large
a detail) though they were not feparated from the
refl of the difciples till fome time afterwards;.
whereas your Lordfliip makes our Saviour to have.
preached publickly fome months in Judea, alfo
ia a leifurely journey through Samaria, and at
Cana, and to have preached and been rejedled at
Nazareth before he reached Capernaum, that is,,
before the call of Peter and Andrew, James and
John to a conftant attendance upon him,, And ac
cording to the plan of your Lordfoip's harmony,
the apoftles were not feparated from the reft of
the

104 A LETTER TO THE"
the difciples till more than a whole year after the
commencement of his miniftry. The wifdom of
this condudt is certainly not very apparent.

SECTION XII.
Of the journey from Judea to Galilee.
/^N this fubjedt your Lordfoip's difpofition to
^"^ extend, and mine to fhorten, are fufficiently
apparent. The whole journey was about three
days according to our Lord's own way of travel
ling, and I ^v^fix days to it, allowing for a ftay
of part of two days at Sychar, and other unknown
interruptions. Whether there beany thing in this
to clog my fcheme, I leave to the impartial to
judgeJ Your Lordfoip, however, as ufual, difputes
every inch of this ground with me, and firft with
refpedl to the diftance being a journey of threedays.
" When you affert that the whole journey,"
your Lordfoip fays, p. 60, " from Jerufalem to
*' Galilee was but of three days, according to our
" Lord's own mode of travelling, I fuppofe that
*« you have in view John ii, i. But here it is
*' probable that Jefus fet out from Bethabara,
" and not from Jerufalem, which affedls tbe dif-
" tance to Cana one half; and the words may mean
" on the third day after Jefus's arrival, or on the
" third day of the marriage feaft."
Now

BISHOP OP WATERFORD. lo;
Now when I fuppofed that Jefus might take
three days to travel from Judea to Galilee, I al
luded not to John ii; i. but to Luke xiii. 33.
where we find that Jefus, being in Galilee, fays
he muft travel three days before he could reach
Jerufalem, or rather that he could not reach Jeru
falem till the third day from the time that he was
fpeaking ; / muft walk to dayj and to morrozv, and
ihe day following ; for it cannot be that a prophet
perifh out of Jerufalem.
With, refpedl to the paffage in John, your
Lordfoip fays, p. 60, that " Jefus probably fet out
" from Bethabara," which might be the cafe^
But in the latter cafe he was adlu-ally, In Galilee,
though it is not faid where ; fo that the diftance
muft be reckoned from thence to Jerufalem.
Nor, my Lord, is the diftance fo great, but that
perfons ufed to walking might very welfperform
the journey in the time our faviour teieptions.
For from Jerufalem to Capernaum, fituated at
the northermoft part of the fea of Galilee, does
not feem to have been more than 60 or 70 miles,
'that is, little more than twenty miles per day.
Your Lordfoip fays, p. 60, that " this jour--
" ney from Judea to Galilee was. about, equal to
" that from the, neighbourhood of Capernaum to
" the coafts of Tyre knd Sidon, for which I allow
," a fortnight or three weeks, and left than that
" from the neighbourhood of Bethfaida to the
" town of Caefar-ea Philippj, for which I allow a

fortnight."

But,

io6 A LETTER TO THE
But, my Lord, I did not fuppofe that the three
weeks, or the fortnight, in thefe cafes, were wholly
¦fpent in travelling only ; for then it would have
been a fauntering bufinefs indeed, but in preach
ing, in a country which Jefus had never vifited be
fore, and did not intend to vifit again ; and for
this purpofe he probably made many deviations
from the diredt road. Whereas, in his journey
from Judfea to Galilee, it does not appear that he
ftopped at any place befides Sychar, and, as I ob
ferved, he might fet out from Bethabara, which,
as your Lordfoip obferves, is about half way to
Galilee. For, after leaving Jerufalem to go pro
bably to the neighbourhood of Jordan, he would
naturally recede farther and farther from the capi
tal ; fo that his journey to Sychar might not be
more than half a day, arriving there, as be pro
bably did, the firft day about noon. ~
To enlarge our Saviour's bufinefs on this jour
ney, your Lordfoip fpeaks, p. 62, of his " teaching
" and converting the Samaritans during two days,
" and of his preaching the gofpel ofthe kingdom
" as he journeyed." But, my Lord, nothing of this
is related in the hiftory. Our Lord does not ap
pear to have had the leaft intercourfe with any
jSamaritans, except thofe of Sychar ; and nothing
is faid of his preaching to Jews till he came to
.Capernaum, according to my plan of the events,
or to Nazareth, according to your Lordfoip's.
Mark, in Ch. i. 14, to which your Lordfoip
refers, only fays that Jefus came Into Galilee, preach
ing the gofpel of fhe kingdom of God. But this ex
preffion

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 107
preffion would be juftifiable, though he' did not
ftop to preach as be travelled at all,, but only on
his arrival in Galilee ; and this I really think was
the meaning of the evangelift. "
Our Lord, indeed, cured a Nobleman's fon of
Capernaum, while he was at Cana; but nothing is*
i^faid oi his preaching there, anymore than when he
turned the water into wine, at the fame place,
I do not fay that he did not preach, but that no--
thing is faid of his preaching ; and he might chufe
to work that miracle. In order to raife the expec-
tadonof the people of that country concerning
him, without giving them, any farther fatisfadlion.
And till long after this time, our Lord's preaching
feems only to. have been fimilar to that of John,
the purport of which was. Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand. The generality of his dif
courfes, as they were only occafional, feem not to
have been of great length.
Your Lordfoip fpeaks, p. 63, of fome ftay that
our Lord made at Cana, and, you fuppofe it to
have been four days ; but nothing is faid by the
evangelift oi any ftay, or of any preaching that
would require a ftayj I therefore conclude tbat,
excepting his ftay at Sychar, which there is no
reafon to fuppofe was more than one whole day,
our Lord kept travelling on till be arrived at
Capernaum. As to the time of our Lord's ftay at Sychar, I
faid, that, tho' it is called two days, it might not,
according to the Jewifo phrafeology, mean more
thiinpart of two days, io that he might leave the
P 2 place

io8 A LETTER TO THE
place on the fecond day. This you do not deny ;
but you fay, that " it appears from Matt. xvii. i,
" compared with Luke ix. 28, that the words may
" alfo fignify two complete days."
What thefe two hiftorians fpeak of is the inter
val between the time of a particular difcourfe of
our Lord's, and bis 'transfiguration ; which Luke
fays was about eight days after, and Matthew after
fix days. But in this your Lordfoip fuppofes what
I do not, viz. that thefe two writers were equally
well informed with refpedl to that interval, and
had the fame idea of it ; whereas it appears to me
that Luke, who was not prefent, was not quite cer
tain about it, and therefore he fays it was about
eight days after; but Matthew, who was prefent, fays,
pofitively that It was after fix days, or, as I interpret
it, on tbe fixth day from the time of the difcourfe.

SECTION

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 109
SECTION xni.
Whether Jefus vifited Capernaum or Nazareth firfi,
"VTOUR Lordfoip fays,p, 73, thatyou " contend
" for it, that tbe vifit to Nazareth followed
" that to Cana," meaning that it preceded the
vifit to Capernaum ; and, in reply to what I bad
advanced on the fubjedl, you fay, p. 76, " St,
*' Luke diredlly afferts the fadt, and I believe
" bim."
But, my Lord, Matthew Is juft as exprefs in
afferting the contrary. He fays, Ch. iv. 17, that
after his arrival at Capernaum, Jefus began to
preach; and he does not fpeak of his rejedlion
at Nazareth till long after, viz. Ch. xiii, .5^. And
that this was the fame rejedlion with that of which
Luke fpeaks, is as evident as a thing of this nature
can well be; beCaufe they are attended with feveral
ofthe fame circumftances. In both the people are '
offended at the meannefs of his parentage, and in
both he replies that a prophet Is not efteemed in
his own country. Matthew fays exprefsly, that
be did not many mighty works thpe, and Luke
does not mention any.
Mark is as exprefs in placing the vifit to Na
zareth, and 'tis rejedlion there, attended alfo with
the fame remarkable circumftances, long after his
preaching at Capernaum, in ch. vl. i. Now as
all thefe evangelifts are equally exprefs, is not
the teftimony of two preferable to that of one, and

no A LETTER TO THE
and that one the leaft likely to be exadlly inform
ed of the fadt ?
As to the two vlfits to Nazareth, which your
Lordfoip fuppofes, and two rejedtions there, I
muft fay that I fee no evidence whatever for it.
For it can never be probable that two vlfits to the
fame place foould have been attended with the.
fame fcircumftances. Even Epiphanius, who makes
fo many vlfits to Nazareth, fuppofes only one re
jedlion there.
All the difference your Lordfoip pretends to
find between the two fuppofed journeys, p. 70, is
that in the firft, mentioned by Luke, you fay
" it feems probable that Jefus wrought no mi
racle ;" whereas on the fecond, mentioned by
Matthew and Mark, he did not many mighty works
there, only laying his hands on a feiz) fick perfons,
and healing them. But, my Lord, Luke does not
fay exprefsly, that be wrought no miracle at all.
You can only infer from his account, that he did
nothing fo extraordinary as he had done at Caper
naum, which is not inconfiftent with his curing a
few fick perfons, which Mark evidently fpeaks
of as a thing that was inconfiderable.
If, my Lord, a variation fo very trifling as this
will authorize us to fuppofe a repetition of any
tranfadlion in the gofpel hiftory, I will venture to
fay, there is no incident in the whole compafs of
it that muft not be doubled, if it has been re
lated by two evangelifts, and trippled if related
by three. No hiftory can bear to be treated in
this manner, and retain its credibility. It has
been

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. rfi
been in this way, viz. by contending for the moft
minute agreement in the different accounts of the
fame thing, that much Injury has been done to
the evidence of chriftianity already.
I am, if poffible, ftill lefs fatisfied with your
Lordfoip's reply to my principal argument for
the vifit to Capernaum' preceding that to Naza
reth, viz. from the leference to miracles performed
at Capernaum while our Lord was at Nazareth
in Luke iv. 23. Whatfoever we have heard done
in Capernaum do alfo here in thy country, which I
think clearly irnplfesi'that he bad wrought many
extraordinary miracles there.
To this your Lordfoip fays,' " This is a diffi-
" culty which well deferves our attention, as
" chriftian, critics. T' haVe (in the notes to the
" Harmony) thus- e'ndeavoured' to obviate it.
" Off-* may folely refer' to the rtilracie recorded
" John iv; 46, and the fcene of which was at Ca-
" pernaum, as 0>-«, Luke viii, 39,- refers only to
" a fingle tranfadlion, I add, and as ^>i']m', John
" V, 26, refers only to the healing ofthe man
" who^hadbeen infirm for thirty-eight years."
How this folution of tbe difficulty may ftrike
other perfons I cannot tell. To me it feems very
unnatural. A fingle miracle, the fcene of which
was at Capernaum, when Jefus himfelf had 'not
been there, applies but very imperfedtly, to fay
the beft, to things that he had done In Caper
naum. In thefe circumftandes, I foould rather
expedi that the reference would have been to
the things he had done in Jerufalem, or Judea. Befides,

112 A LETTER TO THE
Befides, Luke does not affert it as a point oi
chronology, of which he had taken pains to be
particularly well infornied, that the vifit. to Na
zareth preceded that to Caperrtaum, He only
.fays that, paffing thro' the mldfi of them (the people
of Nazareth) he went bis way, and came down to
Capernaum. And Matthew and Mark, as I ob
ferved before, are equally exprefs in noting a
great number of events, which they relate as tak
ing place between the vifit to Capernaum and
that to Nazare.th; fo that. all the difference is that
Matthew and Mark make it to be much longer
after our Lord departed from Capernaum and
went to Nazareth, than Luke does from his leav
ing Nazareth to go to Capernaurti.
With refpedt to the time of the day when our
Lord entered Capernaum, on which your Lord^-
ftiip makes an obfervation p. 82, I am ready to
acknowledge, that from Luke's account only it
would be moft natural to conclude that Jefus met
Peter and Andrew in the morning, immedi
ately after they they had been toiling all night, I
doubt not: Luke himfelf thought fo. But his
account of this tranfa^Stion is fo different from
that of the other evangelifts, that many commen
tators have thought them to be quite .diftindt
from one another, and to relate to Incidents that
happened at different times* I think it moft
probable that Luke was' not fo well informed
of fome of the circumftances of this tranfadlion^
SECTION

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. "3
V
SECTION XIV.
Of the harmony of tbe gofpels according to the Anti'-
ents, efpecially Eufebius and Epiphanius, and fome
of tbe Moderns who have moft nearly followed
Jhem.
T TT would, I doubt not, be a great fatisfadlion
to your Lordfoip, as well as to myfejf, to
trace the whole progrefs of harmonizing the
gofpels from the earlieft times. But this, I ap
prehend, it will not be poffible for us to do com
pletely. It may be of fome ufe, however, to col
ledt a few hints to this purpofe, from the works
of fuch of the early Fathers as have beftowed the
moft pains upon the fubjedl, as Eufebius and
Epiphanius. As for the Harmonies of Ammonlus
and Tatian, it is very doubtful whether the works.
which go under their names be theirs, and if they
be, it is generally acknowledged they are much
altered and interpolated. Such ^s they are, I muft
content myfelf with referring our readers to Lard-
ner's Credibility, part 2, vol. 5. p. 140 &c. for an
account of them, having never had an opportu
nity of confulting them myfelf.
It feems to be fufficiently acknowledged, that
the earlieft general opinion concerning our Lord's
miniftry was that of its being confined to one
year; but ofthe manner in which any perfon who
held that opinion diftributed the particular events
Q^ of

114 A LETTER TO THE
of the gofpel hiftory we have no kriowledge.
However that a proper diftributlon of them on
this plan Is very eafy and obvious, I hope I have
fufficiently foewn In my own arrangement of
them,, within the fame limits. That confufion
and embarraffment have been the confequenee of
extending the miniftry of Chrift beyond the
term abovementioned, I think I have alfo fuf
ficiently foewn. And it will be no lefs apparent
to us in the very firft attempts to explain the
hiftory of Chrift upon this plan, if we confider
the hints that have been given by Eufebius and
Epiphanius, the only writers among the Antients
who appear to have given much attention to the
fubjedt. The Harmony of Tatian, the difciple of Juftin
Martyr, is faid by Chemnitius to have comprized
the whole hiftory of the gofpel from the baptifm
to the fuffering of Chrift within one year (Pro
legomena p. 9.) but according to Dr. Lardner, it
included the fpace of two years.
Leaving this uncertain, the next opinion on the
fubjedt is that of Irenasus, in which I believe he
always was, and ever will be, quite fingular; viz.
that Chrift, beginning at thirty years of age,
preached till he was forty or fifty. All that we
know of his arrangement is, that he made tbe feaft
mentioned John v. i, to be a paffover, in which
alfo, according to Dr. Lardner, be was not gene
rally followed. But it feems, tho' on what au
thority does not appear (that it was from
the reading of wa.ax'^ in John vi. 4, is by no
means

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 115
means certain or probable) to have been after
wards ¦ generally believed^ that our Lord's mini
ftry extended to two yedrs. We have no hints,
however, given us bf the arrangement of rhe
events ofthe gofpel hiftory according to this plan
tlir after the rime of Eufebius, who concluded-,
but from no good reafon that appears, that out
Lord's preachirig extended to three years and an
half He fays it may be eolledled from John's gof
pel ; but he does hot fpecify the paffovcrs men
tioned in that gofpel; and that the paffover in
John vi. 4, was not one of them, is, I think,
probable, for the reafon alledge'd before.
His argument from external hillorical confi-
derations is deemed by Dr. Lardner, and muft
be by every body, extremely weak and inconclu-
five. Becaufe Luke fays that Chrift preached in
in the bighprlefthoods of Annas and Calaphas,
he concluded that he muft have begun in that of
Annas, and have ended in that of Caiaphas ; and
becaufe, according to Jofephus, the bighprleft
hoods of Ifomael and Eleazar came between
themj be, without any authority from JofephuS;
fuppofed that they all held tbis office an intire
year. He muft confequently have fuppofed that
Chrift died in tbe firft year of the highpriefthood
of Caiaphas. But according to Jofephus this
muft have been pretty early in the government
of Valerius Gratus, and confiderably before the
time of Pontius Pilate, evidently contrary to
the gofpel hiftory. Ci.2 Notwith-

u6 A LETTER TO THE
Notwithftanding this, he reckons the years of
Tiberius from the death of Auguftus ; fo that
bis fifteenth year was A. D, 29, Confequently
John, according to hirn, beginning to baptize
in that year, be muft have concluded that Chrift
fuffered A. D. 2:}y which was probably the fifth
or fixth of Pilate.
Eufebius fuppofes (Hift- Lib. i cap. 10. 11)
that prefently after his baptifm, our Lord began
to preach, and called the twelve apoftles ; and
that prefently after this event John was beheaded.
And yet, notwithftanding the rapid fucceffion of
thefe events, he preached fo privately and inof-
fenfively, as to have done nothing that is recorded
by the three firft evangelifts for two years and an
half, all which two years he elfewhere fays was
before the imprifonment of John. Whereas, by
the clear teftimony of all the evangelifts, our
Lord did not chufe the twelve apoftles till a
confiderable time after the imprifonment of John,
and in the midft of the moft adlive part of bis
miniftry. That an opinion fo weakly and inconfiftently
fupported foould become tbe prevailing one, and
continue fo to this day, is not a little extraordi
nary. And indeed, notwithftanding the great reputa
tion of Eufebius, efpecially as an hiftorian, and tho'
his opinion concerning the whole time of our Lord's
miniftry be now generally received, it was by no
means the cafe witb thofe who immediately follow
ed bim. For we find the opinion ofthe two years •
and half's duration of Chrift's miniftry in, I be
lieve.

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. n;
lieve, all that we properly call the i^a/^^j who
fucceeded. him, efpecially in Epiphanius,
, From this writer, in his account of the Alogi,
who believed that the whole of Chrift's miniftry
was confined to little more than one entire yeari
we learn more diftindtly what were the ideas of
Chriftians of his age concerning the manner in
which our Lord paffed his time before that year,
the events of which, as they all agree, are related
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, viz, in preaching
without any oppofition, fo that nothing is related
by thefe three evangelifts but the laborious and
contentious part of his rhiniftry.
His general pofitlons are, that, Chrift was born
on the eighth of the Ides (that is the fixth) of
January, in the 4?d year of Auguft:us (reckoning
from the death of Julius Caefar) that is, two years
before the vulgar Chriftian £era; that he was bap-/
tized on the fixth of the ides (that Is the eighth)
of November, in the fifteenth of Tiberius, reckon
ing from the death of Auguftus; making it to
correfpond to A.D, 28, and that he died A. D. 30,
-^when Venutius and Caffius Longlnus were confuls,
haying preached thro' the whole year 29, in which
the Gemini were confuls. Opera, Vol, 6. p, 446.
Placing the baptifm of Jefus a little after the
feaft of Tabernacles, ^ he fuppofes him to have
preached from that time, without any oppofition,
a whole year, which he weakly enough calls the.
acceptable year ; and then from the feaft of Taber
nacles. following, thro' the whole of the enfuing
year, to have been violently oppofed; and that In
th©

n8 A LETTER TO THE
the paffover after that complete year of oppofition
he fuffered, • .1.
, But I foall give our readers abetter idea of this
harm.onlzerj if I partly tranflate and partly abridge
a few paffages from him. He fays. Vol. i, p. 449,
*' After the expiration of his thirtieth year,
*' Chrift came to be baptized, and after the famd
*' thirtieth year he preached the whole acceptable
« year ofthe Lord, without any oppofition, He
" afterwards went thro' a year of oppofition from
*' the Jews, in which he fuffered much from their
*' vexation and envy, and moreover entered upon
*' a third year; fothatinallhelived32yearsand 74
f days." Inthls we fee how little regard was paid
to the fancies of Irenseus, by a writer who lived
about two centuries after him, and indeed to the
opinion of Eufebius, Who flourifoed about half a
century before Epiphanius, But to proceed with
my extradls.
*« At his baptifm," be fays, (Vol. i, p. 439,)
" Chrift was 29 years and 10 months old. After
" this followed the forty days temptation, then a'
" ftay of about two weeks at Nazareth, then a day
" or two with John. When he had left John, we
" reckon two days more for the call firft of An-
" drew and then of Peter. In another day Philip
" and Nathanael were called. The third day after
*' thefe two laft was the marriage feaft at Cana,
" where he performed his firft miracle, being then
** exadtly thirty years old.
" The difciples above-mentioned having then
^ left him, he was joined by others, witb whom " he

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. 119
" he went to Capernaum, afterwards to Nazareth,
f and then again to Capernaum, where he per-
" formed fome miracles, as the cure ofthe wither-
" ed band, and of Peter's wife's mother. Then
" returning again to Nazareth, he read in the
" prophecy of Ifaiah and was rejedled. From
" thence he fled for fear of Herod, and after his
" flight remained at Nazareth. He then 'retired
" to the defert, and returning from thence begatT
" to preach."
Afterwards, p. 447, he fays, " It is plain that
" Chrift preached the acceptable year in which no
" perfon oppofed him. For the firft year after
" the thirtieth of bis incarnation he preached with
" univerfal approbation, fo that neither Jews,
" Heathens, nor Samaritans oppofed him, but all
" beard him gladly. In this year he went up
" to Jerufalem, afer he had been baptized, and
" paffed thro' the forty days temptation,- and Chofe
" his difciples. Flaving returned from the tempta--
" tion to Jordan, and travelled to the fea of Tibe*
" rias, and to Nazareth, he went up to Jerufalem,
" and in the midft of the feaft cryed, faying,
" If any one tbirft, let him come to me and drink,
" (John vii, 37) and then be returned to Naza-
" reth, and Judea, and Samaria, and the country
" about Tyre.
" The firft year being accomplifoed he again
" went up to Jerufalem, and then they 'fought to
" apprehend him In the feaft, but were afraid.
*•' At this feaft he faid Ido not yet go up to tbe feafts
*' And they faid (John vii. 25, &c.) Is not tbis
" he

120, A LETTER TO THE
" be whom they fought to apprehend, and behold be
" Jpeaketh boldly."
" After thefe things, two years and fome months"
(which he particularly fpeclfies) " being elapfed
" he fuffered In the month of March, in the year
after the confulfoip of the Gemini."
What little countenance thefe notions, and this
arrangement, have from rhe fcriptures I need not
tell your Lordfoip. We find no hint there of any
period in our Saviour's miniftry in which he was
not oppofed. The jealoufy of rhe bigh-priefts was
excited at the very firft paffover, before any men
tion Is made of his preaching. It was on their
bearing of his making more difciples than John
that he thought of retiring from Jud^a Into Gali
lee. In the feaft mentioned John v. i, we read
ver. 1 6, that the Jews perfecuted him, and fought
to flay him. And this feaft, whatever it was, muft
have been a confiderable time before the feaft men
tioned in the viith chapter, at which he dates thc
oppofition to Chrift's miniftry. Nay the paffover
in John vi. 4, as your Lordfhip fuppofes, muft have
intervened between it, and that in the viith chap
ter, which is exprefsly faid to be the feaft of
Tabernacles. I therefore think that, fince all the antients^
were agreed that the a£live part of our Lord's mi
niftry, all that part in which they fay he met with
any oppofition, and all that is related by the three
firft evangelifts, was confined to one year, we are
fufficiently authorized by this tradition, and the
plaineft fenfe of fcripture together, to rejedt all
that

BISHOP OF WATER.FORD, . 121.
that fuppofed part of our Lord's miniftry vvhich
paffed without oppofition, and limit the whole to one
year. So little attention, we fee, had Epiphanius given
^ven to John's gofpel, where only this pretend
ed acceptable year is to be found ; that, if I under-
ftand him at all, he makes two feafts of what John
makesSaut one, and a long journey to come be
tween them. And what is ftill more extraordinary,
the incident mentioned as belonging to the firft
feaft is fubfequent to thofe which he mentions as
belonging to the latter, as will appear by compa
ring the quotations in the paffage recited above.
His account of our Lord's vifits to Nazareth, and
his journeys from that place to Capernaum and
back again, is exceedingly confufed.
I much fufpedl the account he gives of the ob-
jedlions that the Alogi made to John's gofpel.
They found fault, he fays, p. 444, with the gofpel
of John becaufe he relates the attendance of Chrift
at two paffovcrs ; whereas the other evangelifts
only mention his attendance at one, viz. the laft;
tho' he adds they might have obferved a third
paffover mentioned in John's gofpel, viz. that at
which he fuffered. But how does Chrift's attend
ance at two paffovcrs affedl their hypothefis, when
they fuppofed that his miniftry lafted at leaft a
whole year; and confequently there muft have beea
two paffovcrs, at which he might have attended.
I cannot help expreffing my furprize that Dr.
Lardner foould incline to the opinion of Eplpha-
ilius, and others of that age, of Chrift preach-
R ingj

Hi A LETTER TO THE I
ing a year without oppofition. He fays {Credibility
Part 2, vol. iii, p. 137.) " In John's gofpel there
" are three paffovcrs, and our Saviour's miniftry
" has two years and a part; but the former part
" of bis miniftry there related was not fo public
" as that afer John's imprifonment. In the other
" three evangelifts, who relate chiefly our Lord's
" moft public preaching, after John's imprifon-
" ment, is the hiftory of only fomewhat more than
*' the fpace of one year. How much more is not
" very eafy to fay."
Dr. Lardner, however, does not fuppofe thc
feaft mentioned John v. i. to have been a paffover;
and he fays it is a mark of the antiquity of the
Harmony afcribed to Tatian, that it is there fup
pofed to be Pentecoft, he himfelf finding no inti
mation of any paffover between the firft mentioned
by John and the laft at which our Lord fuffered,
but that in John vi. 4. It is plain, however, that
IrenfEus confidered the feaft mentioned, John v. i,
as a paffover, and fo I think muft Epiphanius and
Eufebius have done.
- Of all the modern profeffed Harmonizers Lamy
is the only one that I know who has followed the
plan of thofe of tbe fathers who diftributed the
bufinefs of our Lord's miniftry into two years ; but
his arrangement of tbe events is fuch, as I imagine
will not give much fatisfadlion, fince the lights that
have been thrown upon the gofpel hiftory of late
years, and efpecially in this country.
Before the paffover in which our Lord had thc
interview with Nicodemus, he places a great part of

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. ..k^
^of Chrift's preaching in Galilee, and even the
miffion of the twelve, and the upbraiding'of the
ciues in whidh the chief of his mighty works were
done. He alfo places the fcene of Jefus preach
ing in Enon, while John was baptizing there in the
Auguft after this paffover. Then comes the jour
ney thro' Samaria, the converfation with the woman
of Sychar, and the rejedlion at Nazareth. In the
January following he places the imprifonment of
John, in the month following his death, and in
March after this Herod hears of Jefus, and fup^
pofes him to have been John rifen frorn the dead.

SECTION XV.
MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS.
I. Of tbe firft excurfion from Capernaum.
XT' OUR Lordfoip contends, p. 77, that our
Lord's firft excurfion from Capernaum muft
have required more than a week. But, except
the general cxprefBon oi going about -all Galilee,
&c. on which certainly no-great ftrefs can be laid,
your Lordfoip cannot find any particulars of that
excurfion, that can be fuppofed to have required
a week. AU'that I find are his vifiting fome un
named towns, with which Galilee^ was very thick
' R 2. fowa

J24 A LETTER TO THE
fown, the fermon on the mount, and the cure of a,
Leper. And I muft again infift upon it, that un-
lefs, In any cafe,, fo much bufinefs be diftindtly
fpecified, as would neceffarily require more time
than my hypothefis admits, fupported as it is by
various external and independent evidence, I can
not relinqulfo it. On a variety of occafions, your
Lordfoip may think that more time than my hy
pothefis admits would have been better. But it Is
enough for me if It always allows Juflicient time,
tho' it may now and then be thought fcanty. In
general, it gives more time than js. wan ted.
II, Of the time of the journey to Nain.
TO lengthen out the time of our Lord's jour-^
neying, your Lorfoiip appears to me to put a
harfo and improbable conftrudlion on the words
of Luke, in defcribing the journey to Nain.
After mentioning the cure of the centurion's fer
vant In Capernaum, fie fays, ch. vii, i r. And it
came to pafs, the day after, that he went into a city
called Nain. With refpedl to ¦which your Lord-
foijp fays, p, 89, " It is by no means neceffary to
" fuppofe. that he performed this journey in onp
"day, accompanied as he was by many of -Ins
" difciples, and much people. The evangelift
," may mean- that he undertook the journey on
" the next day, not that he finlfoed it."
Now adn[iittii)g that the .words of the evange
lift may bear this conftrudlion (though I do not
think

BISHOr OF WATERFORD, u-
¦think' that they will) I foould not have recourfe to
it without fome more urgent occafion than merely
to gain a- fingle day, .and a day that I can very
well fpare your Lordfoip. On a former, occafion
your Lordfoip faid that <".becaufe Luke afferted a
" thing you believed it." I foould think, there
fore, that in this cafe, rather than depart from
the obvious meaning of his words, you might fup
pofe with me, that, on this and fome other oc
cafions, our Lord j might, not travel on foot.
Not that a walk of twenty miles appears fo formi
dable a thing to all perfons as it may, to your
Lordfoip. And perfons ufed to walking, as our
Saviour and his apoftles probably were, do not
find it very fatiguing, unlefs unfavourable circum
ftances relating to the weather or the roads, Sec*
contribute to m.ake it.fo,'

III. Of the Jecond Jabbatb after tbe firft.
AS to the difficult phrafe of J'i-Jliporj'fJIos, Luke
vi. I, which we render the Jecond Jabbath after the
firft, your Lordfhip knows that codim"^ ^tors are
by no means agreed about it, and-tk.. ^ ire there
carl.be no apparent, difficulty in my placing the
tranfadlion of plucking the ears of corn, as I do,
after the paffover, and confequently after the obla
tion of the firft fruits, or v/hile any corr^ may be
fuppofed to have, been ftanding. in the fields.
Your Lordfoip thinks, p. ii, "with many
** commentators, tl^at by this expreffion Luke
'< means

isS A LETTER TO THE
*' means the firft fabbath after the fecond day of
" the pafchal feafL" But to this I think there
are feveral obvious objedtions. Confidering that
the feaft of Paffover lafted eight days, the firft
fabbath after the fecond of thofe days might be
the third day of the feaft, and would generally fall
before the expiration of it, Suppofing what is
moft favourable to your Xordfoip, and againft
which there is juft feven to one, that the fabbath
preceding this foould have been the vcty fecond
day of the feaft, this J'ivV-fovfoloi, or firft fabbath
after it, would be the firft day after the complete
expiration of the feaft. And if our Lord conti
nued at Jerufalem the whole eight days of the
feaft (and whenever your Lordfoip thinks me
ftraitened for time you do not allow me a fingle
day in this cafe) he could not have been in Ga-
ll]ee> the fcene of this tranfadlion, in time for it.
Befides, I cannot think that corn was in general
ready to pluck and eat fo foon after, or rather in
the paffover ; tbe Jewifh calendar being fo ad-
jufted, that the firft corn in the countty, gene
rally, I believe, unripe, was prefented at that
time ; thjN/feaft of Pentecoft, which was fifty days
after th^iz^r^o^r, being called the feaft of harveft.
By making this fabbath tbe fourth after the Paff
over, or in the year I have pitched upon, on tbe
firft of April, I believe I have, without intending
it, hit upon a day as proper for tbis tranfadlion as
any whatever ; whereas your Lordfoip has been
rather unfortunate in this refpedl.
IV. 0/

BISHOP OF WATERFORD-

IV. Of tbe difciples of John.

>a?

In confidering whether John the Baptift or our
Lord made more difciples, which I foall not
pardculariy difcufs, your Lordfoip, p. 31, omits
the circumftance on which, in my own mind, I
laid the greateft ftrefs, which is that at the laft
paffover, long aft^r the death of John, our Lord
lilenced the Jewifo dodlors by aflcing them, whe
ther tbe baptifm of John was from heaven or of
men ; when it appeared that they did not ven
ture to fay openly that it was of men, becaufe
tbey feared the people, all men holding John for
a prophet. IVJatt. xxi. a6. Mark xi. 32. Luk©
XX. 6.

rhe

12$ -A LETTER TO tHB

the CONCLUSION.
T Have now urged all that occurs to me for the
prefent on the fubjedl of our amicable debate,
and I hope I foall foon have the pleafure of hear
ing from your Lordfoip again. And having
now, I thank God, recovered in.a great meafure,
my former health and fpirits, and being at length
completely fettled in my new fituation, I foall be
able, if nothing unforefeen prevent me, to give
a more fpeedy reply to your next letter than I
have done to the laft, and fo the controverfy will
fooner come to its proper termination.
Your Lordfoip is pleafed to fpeak of our "dif-
" fering in fome conclufions of greater impor-
" tance than thofe we are now controverting."
Of this I am fully apprized, the articles of your
Lordfoip's faith, as a member of the church of
England, being upon record, and mine being
fufficiently known by my writings, as aUb the
ftrefs I lay upon them, as oppofed to the te
nets of all the eftabllfoed churches in the world.
Yet, my Lord, it gives me more pleafure to re-
fledt that, notwithftanding thefe very confiderable
differences, there are ftill greater things in which
we both agree, and on which we both, I hope, lay
ftill greater ftrefs ; and they are things in which
^11 perfons who call themfelves chriftians are
agreed.
Wc

BISHOP OF WATERFORD. tag
We both believe in a God, the intelhgent au
thor of nature, in his conftant over-ruling pro
vidence, and in bis righteous moral government.
We both believe in the divine origin of the Jew
ifo and Chriftian revelations, that Chrift was a
teacher fent from God, that he is our mafter, law
giver and judge, that God raifed bim from the
dead, that he is now exalted at the right band of
God, that be will come again to raife all the
dead, and fit In judgment upon them, and that
he will then give to every one of us according to
our works.
Thefe, I need not tell your Lordfoip, are, pro
perly fpeaking, the only great truths of religion,
becaufe they are thofe which have the greateft in
fluence on our condudt ; and to thefe not only
the church of England, and the church of Scot
land, but even the church of Rome gives it's
affent. If we fufficiently attend to the impor
tance of thefe great truths, and give ourfelves up
to the full influence of them, we foall all love as
brethren, notwithflanding all leffer differences,
aijd efpecially fuch as we are now dlfcuffing.
Whether our Lord preached one year or three
years, three years or thirty years, we are perfedtly
agreed with refpedt to the great objeSl of his
preaching, and the obligation we are under to
regulate our lives according to it ; and from" the
catalogue of proper chriftian virtues, we can
never exclude hurnility, benevolence, or candour.
We muft judge others as we ¦'^Qv\<^ be judged
3 ¦ ourfelves.

130 A LETTER TO THE
ourfelves, waiting for the finalfentence of our
great and common judge Jefus Chrift,
The time is, in reality, not far diftant, when
both your Lordfoip and myfelf foall know, from
the firft authority, which of us, or whether either
of us, is in the right, with refpedt to the fubjedt
of our prefent controverfy ; and, I hope we foall
both in this, and In all other refpedls, fo condudt
ourfelves, as to haVe no reafon to wifo it were
more diftant ; but that when our Lord foall re
turn, and take an account of his fervants, and of
the ufe we have made of the talents with which
we have feverally hieen entrufted, we fhall not be
afhamed before him at his coming.
With the greateft refpedl, I am.
My Lord,
Your Lordfoip's mofl obedient bumble fervant,
Birmingham, J, PRIESTLEY.
December i, 1780.

ERRATA.
Page 9, I, 27, dele and,
36, 1, 10, read, it is plain enough (jho^.
69,' L 13, for before, read betixjeen,
116, 1. 3, for 29, read 28,
\. 6, for 33, read 32,

A CATALOGUE of BOOKS
written by
Joseph priestley, ll.d. f.r.s.

AND PRI, N TED FOR

J. JOHNSON, Bookfeller, No. 72, St. Paiil's Church-
Yardi London.

i.'npHE History arid Present State of Electricity,
X with original E.xperiments, illullrated with Coppei'-
plates, 4th Edition, correfted and enlarged, 4to. il. is. Ano
ther Eflition, 2 vols. 8vo. 12s.
2. A Familiar Iivrt nop uc TION to the Stud-*- of Electri
city, 4th Edition, &vo. 2s. 6d.
3. The History and Present StatS of Discove-ries
relating to Vision, Light, and Colours, 2 vols. 410. -IL-
luftrated with a great Number of Copper-plates, il. lis. 6d.
in boards;
4. A Familiar Introduction to the Theory and Praftice
of Perspective, with Copper-plates, 5s. in boards. ' ¦
5. Experiments andObfenvatioris on Different Kinds Of Air,
with Copper-plates, 3 vols. 18s; in boards. - ¦
6. Experiments and Obfervations relating to various Branches'
of Natural PHlLos'oPHYi with a Continuation ofthe Experi
ments on Ai Rj 6s. in boards. .T i :
7. iPHiLOsoPHiCAL Ri^piRi cism!:,, Containing Remarks
on aCharge of Plagiafifm refpefting Dr." H  s, interfperfed
with Obfervations relating to different Kinds of Air, is. 6d.
8. Direftions for impregnating Water with FixgD AirVii*
Order to communicate to it the peculiar Spirit an^ Virtues of
Pyrmont Water, and other Mineral Waters of a fimilar
Nature, 13. , . : , : '.:;¦¦¦ /*! ¦
N. B. The preceding pmnfhlet is induiedin No. j. '
82 9. A

BOOKS 'written by Ur, PRIESTLEY.
9. A New Chart of History, containing a View of the
principal Revolutions of Empire that have taken Place in the
World ; with a Book defcribing it, containing an Epitome of
Univerfal Hiftory, 4th Edition, 10s. 6d.
10. A Chart of Biography, with a Book containing an
Explanation of it, and a Catalogue of all. the Names inferted in
it, 6th Edition, very much improved, los. 6d. ^
II. The Rudiments of English Grammar, adapted to
the Ufe of Schools, is. 6d.
12. The above Grammar with Notes and Obfervations for
the Ufe of thofe who have made fome Proficiency in the Lan-
' guage, 4th Edition, 3s.
13. Observations relating to Education: more elpe-*
cially as it refpefts the Mind. To which is added, an Effay on
a Courfe of liberal Education for Civil and Aftive Life, with
Plans of Leftures on, 1. The Study of Hiftory and General
Policy. 2. The Hiftory of England. 3. The Conftitution
and Laws of England, 4s. fewed.
14. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criti-v
CISM, 4to. los. 6d. in boards.
15. An Essay on the Firft Principles of Government, and
on the Nature of Political, Civil, and Religious Liberty, 2d
Edition, much enlarged, 4s. fewed. In this Edition are introduced
the Remarks on Church Authority, in Anfwer to Dr. Balguy,
formerl} publifhed fefarately .
16. An Examination of Dr. Re id's Inquiry into the Hu
man Mind, on the Principles of Common Senfe, Dr. Be atti e's
Effay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth, and Dr. Os
wald's Appeal to Common Senfe in Behalf of Religion, zd.
Edition, 5s. fewed.
17. Hartley's Theory ofthe Human Mind, on the
Principles of the' Affociatioh of Ideas, with Effays relating to
the Sutjeft of it, 8vo. 5s. fewed.
18. Dis/yjisiTioNs relatingto Matte* and Spirit. To
which is added. The Hiftory ofthe Philofophical Dodlrine con-
«erning the Origin ofthe Soul, and the Nature of Matter; with its

.BOOKS -written by Dr. PRIESTLEt.
its Influence on Chriftianity, efpecially with Refpedl to tna
Doftrine of the Pre-exiftence of Chrift. Alfo fhe Doctriite
of Philosophical Necessity illuftrated, 2 vols. 8vo, fewed,
'8s, 6d.
19. A Free Discussion of the Doctrines of Mate
rialism and Philosophical Necessity, in a Correljion-
dence between Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley. To which are
added by Dr. Priestley, an Introduction, explaining the
Nature of the Controverfy, and Letters to feveral Writers who
have animadverted on his Difquifitions relating to Matter and
Spirit, or his Treatife on Neceffity, 8vo. 6s. fewed.
20. A Defence of the Doftrine of Necessity, in two Letters
to the Rev. Mr. John Palmer, zs.
21. A Letter to Jacob Bryant, Efq; in Defence of Philofophi
cal Neceffity. Price One Shilling.
2Z. The. Dodlrine of Divine Influence on the Human-
Mind confidered, in a Sejnjon publiftied at the Requeft of
many Peribns who have occafionally heard it, is.
The three preceding Articles may be properly bound up viith tbs
Rluftrations of the Dodlrine of Philofophical Neceffity,
zj. Letters to a Philofophical Unbeliever. Parti. Con
taining an Examination of the principal Objeclions to the Doc-
.tiinesof Natural Religion, and efpeciaily thofe contained' in the
Writings of Mr. Hume, 3s.
24. Institutes of Natural and RevealedReligion,
Vol. I. containing the Elements of Natural Religion ; to which
is prefixed, an Effay on the beft Method of communicating reli
gious Knowledge to the Members of Chriftian Societies, 2s. 6d,
— Vol. II. containing the Evidences of the Jewifti and Chriftian
Revelations, 3s. fewed. — Vol. III. containing the Dodlrines of
Revelation, 2s. 6d. fewjeti. The three Volumes ws. bd. bound,
25. AHARMONYofthe Evangelists, in Greek: Towhich
are prefixed. Critical Dissert at jONs,iiiEngUfti. 4to. 14s,
in boards.
26, AH.ARM0NY of the Evangelists, in EngliJh; with
Notes, and an occafional Paraphrafe for the Ufe ofthe Unlearned ;
to which are prefixed Critical Differtations, and a Letter to the
Bilhop of Offory, 4to, 153. in Boards. N. B. Thofi'u;ho are pof
\ . fjf'^'i

BOOKS -written by Dr. PRIESTLEY.
feJedofthe.GKtk. Harmony may ha-ve this in 'EngMRi -without the
Critical Differtations.
27; A Free Addrrs's to Protestant Dissenters, oil
the Subjedl of the Lord's Supper, 3d Edition, with Additions,-
2s.-  -N. B. The Additions to be had alone, is.
28. An Address to Protestant Dissenters, on, the
Subjedl of giving the Lord's Supper to Children, is.
29. A Free Address to Protestant Dissenters, on
tiieSubjedlof Church Dicipline; with a preliminary Dif
courfe concerning the Spirit of Chriftianity, and the Corrup
tion of it by falfe Notions of Religion, zs. 6d.
30. A Sermon preached before the Congregation of Pro
testant Dissenters, at Mill-Hill Chapel, Leeds, May
16, 1773, on Occafion of the Author's refigning his Paftoral
Office among them, is.
31. A View ofthe Principles and Conduct ofthe
Protestant Dissenters, with Refpedl to the Civil and
Ecclefiaftical Conftitution of England, 2d Edition, is.'6d.
32. Letters to the Author of Remarks on fe-ueral Tate Rub -
lications telati-ue to the Dijfenters, in a Letter to Dr. Priejiley, is.
N. B, The preceding {ix. Pamphlets, No. 26, to 31, may be had
uniformly bound, hy gi-uing Orders for Tit. Prieftley 's larger Tradls,
6 vols, 8vo, los. or bound up-with No. 20, and 21, 13s. '
33. A Catechism for Children and Toung Perfons. 3d Edi
tion 3d.
34. A Scripture Catechism, confifting of a feries of
Queftions ; with References to the Scriptures, inftead of An-
fwers, 3d. ,
35.. Considerations for the Ufe of Young Men, and the
Parents ofYouNG Men, zd Edition, zd.
36. A. Serious Address to Masters of Families, with
Forms of Family, Prayer, zd Edition, 6d.
37. A Free Address to Protestant Dissenters as
luch. By a Diffenter. A new Edition, enlarged and corredted,
IS. 6d. An Allowance is made to thofe who buy this Pamphlet
to give away. 37. An

BOOKS -written by Dr. PRIESTLEY.
38. An A p p E A L to the ferious and candid Profeffors of Chrif^^
tianity, on the following fubjedls, viz. i. The Ufe of Reafon
in Matters of Religion. 2. The Power of Man to do the Will
pfGod. 3. Original Sin. 4. Eledlion and Reprobation. 5.
The Divinity of Chrift : and, 6. Atonement for Sin by the
Death of Chrift, 5th Edition, id,'
39, A Familiar Illuftration of certain Paffages of Scripture re
lating to the fame Subjedls, 4d. or 3s. 6d. per dozen.
40. The Triumph of Truth ; being an Account ofthe
Trial of Mr. Elwall for Herefy and Blafphemy, at Stafford Af
fixes before Judge Denton, zd Edition, zd. ,
41. A Free Address to thofe who have petitioned for the
Repeal of the late Adl of Parliament in Favour ofthe Roman
Catholics. Price 2d. or 12s. per hundred to give away.
N. B..The laft nine Tradls may be had all bound together by
gi-uitig Orders for Dr. Prieftley's fmaller Tradls, 3s, 6d. or 36s.
, 'per Dozen to thofe -who buy them to gi-ve a-ivay.
Alfo Ruhlijhed under the DireSion of Dr. Priestley
THE THEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY:
Confifting of Original Effays, Hints, Queries, &c. calculated
to promote religious Knowledge, in Three Volumes, 8vo,
Price i8s. in boards.
In the Firft Volume, which is now re-printed, feveral Arti
cles are added, particularly Two Letters from Dr. Thomas
Shaw to Dr. Benson, relating to the Paffage ofthe Ifraelltes
through the Red Sea. Among other Articles, too 'many to be
enumerated in an Advertifement, thefe three Volumes wilj be
found to contain fuch original aud truly valuable Obfervations
on the Dodlrine of Atonement, the Pre exiftence of Chrift, and the
Infpiration of the Scriptures more efpecially refpedling the Harmony,
ofthe E-vangelifts, arid the Reafoning ofthe Apojile Paul, as cannot
fail to recommend. them to thofe Perfons who wifti to make a
truly free Inquiry into thefe important Subjedls.

THE END.

3 9002 08561 3579

'-' .^f^ii^^^c^^fi- -¦*'!>%!;•«

^^5^• -'^W^WfW' - ^ '*
fe- ¦••'•• hiU^i-/- ',!,:¦- . . . '
»'i '¦! • . • ¦
"'^''^'li^i'-^i^^fl'^
^ •¦ » ' r^^ ' f ' i '
^SilM®te *¦ ;i '\'-''-'