fome both to his Lordship and to their readers, he fhall, in this, and all fubfequent letters on the fubject, difcufs the feveral articles comprized in it in feparate fections. The articles fpecified by Dr. Priestley in this letter, and which he has difcuffed in feparate fections, are, The teflimony of the Chriftian Fathersthe conduct of Luke in giving a date to the preaching of John the Baptift-the ignorance of Herod, and of other Jews, concerning Jefus, at the time of the death of John the Baptift-the interpolation of the word Pallover, in John vi. 4.-the tranfpofition of the 5th and 6th chapters of the Gospel of John-journies Jupposed to be omitted in his, Dr. Priestley's, Harmony-the number of miles that Jefus has been fuppofed to travel per day -references to more than two Paffovers in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke-the argument for the probable duration of our Saviour's ministry from the objects of it-the tranfactions of the first Pallover-the fay that Jefus made in Judea after the first Paffover-the journey from Judea to Galilee whether Jefus vifited Capernaum or Nazareth firft -and, the harmony of the Gofpels according to the ancients, efpecially Eufebius and Epiphanius, and fome of the moderns who have moft nearly followed them. To thefe the Doctor has added a fection under the title of Miscellaneous Obfervations, containing the following articles, The first excurfion from Capernaum-the time of the journey to Nain-the fecond Sabbath after the first-and, the difciples of fabn. As it is not in our power to go over all these fections in their order, we fhall felect fuch particulars as may connect with our former extracts and remarks on the fubject, or enable our Readers to form an idea of the ability and spirit with which Dr. Priestley continues to fupport his argument, In order to prove, that the fpace of fifty days was not sufficient for the tranfactions fuppofed to have taken place between the Paffover, John ii. 13. and the Feaft of the Jews mentioned, John v. 1. Dr. Newcome drew out a plan of our Lord's journies during that period; by which it appeared that he must have travelled eight miles a day, including Sabbaths. As Dr. Prieftley's obfervations refpecting this reprefentation contain both his Lordship's plan and his own correction of it, and are followed by fome curious remarks on our Lord's manner of travelling, we fhall give them at length. Having mildly infinuated a charge against his Lordship on account of his mixing their two fchemes together, specifying journies which he, the Doctor, does not allow to be included in the period alluded to, and extending others beyond his idea of their length, he proceeds: That we may examine this bulinefs with more attention, I muft beg your Lordship to turn to p. 93 of your Letter, and we will look over the lift that your Lorufhip has there drawn of our Saviour's journies, and I will point out what articles, I admit, and what I object to. I will then allow the reft in your own numbers, that you may not think that I will contend for trifles; and we fhall fee how the account of his daily progress really ftands upon my hypothefis, unmixed with your Lord fhip's. No. I. 2. 3. Miles. 25.1 Granted. 50." Granted. 30." {Granted in part 1. "From Jerufalem to Judea "From Judea to Cana "From Cana, through Nazareth, to Capernaum because I do not fuppofe Jefus to have paffed through Nazareth; and for this, according to your Lordship's map, I ought to deduct more than I do, when I allow 20 miles. 4. "The circuit about Galilee 70." I deduct from this article at least twothirds, because I confine the circuit to the places in the neighbourhood of Capernaum, chiefly to the north of that town. I therefore call it 30 miles. '5. "From Capernaum to Je-} 65." rufalem With this journey I have nothing at all to do, and I wonder your Lordship should 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." 7. "To Chorafin and Bethfaida 5." This I do not admit, because I fuppofe the vifit to thofe places to be included in No 4: 8. "The fecond circuit about 9. Granted in part. Not granted. Granted. See the reasons in the laft fection. "Teaching and preaching 33." This journey I confine to the neighbourhood of Nazareth, and therefore fhall not allow much more than half the number of miles, or 20. REV. Jan. 1782. C • If ''If' your Lordship will now pleafe to caft up the number of miles, as I have corrected them, you will find the whole amount to be 197, instead 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 fuppofe our Lord to have travelled quite four miles per day; and where is the great improbability in this? Few men of an active life, I believe, walk lefs, and many perfons walk three or four times as much the whole year through. It is, befides, by no means certain, though it seems to be gene ally taken for granted, that our Saviour always travelled on foot. Luke informs us, chap. viii. 2. that in one of his progreffes through Galilee (and it was probably the fame in most of the others), he was attended by "Mary Magdalene, and other women, who ministered to him of their fubftance." Now these women cannot be fuppofed to have travelled on foot, and would they fuffer the perfon on whom they attended, and whose expences they defrayed, to do fo, at leaft always; though this might be the cafe in little excurfions from any more confiderable place, to the neighbouring villages, where the women might not always at end him.' This, I own, is conjecture. But if our Lord was attended by rich women at all, I cannot think the fuppofition, of his not travelling always on foot, to be wholly without probability. The twelve Apostles alfo do not, by any means, appear 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 of fervants, or in the loweft claffes of life.' Thefe obfervations on our Saviour's manner of travelling are ingenious, and may be juft. We leave them, as matter of conjecture, to the judgment of the Reader. With refpect to Dr. Prieftley's remarks on our Lord's journies, it must be allowed that Jefus might travel four, or even eight miles a day, for fifty days together, and deliver all the difcourfes, and perform all the miracies recorded ; but, as we formerly obferved *, we cannot think fuch a rapid progress through the country either probable in itself, or confiftent with the defign of his miffion and miniftry. The Doctor is of a different opinion. The Bifhop had justly observed, that the adopters of an hypothefis, which obliges them to recur to "a fingle miracle publicly performed," or "to as much as was tranfacted at Capernaum in the evening of a fingle day," as fufficient to justify the awful declarations of our Saviour refpecting the cities Chorafin and Bethfaida, must find themselves not a little embarraffed *. To this Dr. Pricftley replies. Now, my Lord, if I may be allowed to judge for myself, I feel no embarraffment at all in this cafe. On the contrary, I think your Lordship will find yourfelf not a little embarrafled in fhewing, that even Capernaum itself, that favoured city, as you call it, enjoyed any more advantage than I fuppofe our Lord had, at least time enough, upon my plan, to allow both to Chorazin and Bethfaida. For all that we know of his performing there was the cure of the demoniac in the fynagogue, with the other tranfactions of that particular Sabbath; his healing the centurion's fervant on his return from his first excurfion, the cure of the paralytic perfon, and the raifing of Jairus's daughter, with the other events of the day on which he called Matthew, and the difcourfe in the fynagogue, related in the 6th chapter of John. Your Lordship may fubpofe much more than this to have been done, but this is all that is related; and, for my own part, I fee no reason for fuppofing any more. Your Lordship may fpeak as flightly as you pleafe of a fingle miracle publicly performed, but certainly if the circumstances were fuch as to leave no doubt but that it was a real miracle, it must have been fufficient to have answered all the proper purpofes of miracles; and any thing farther, of that kind, must have been fuperfluous. What could it have fignified to work repeated miracles before thofe that afcribed all our Lord's miracles to the power of Beelzebub? As to moral inftructions, the delivering of them cannot be faid to have been our Lord's particular bufinefs. He certainly neglected no proper opportunity of giving ufeful leffons to the people, and especially of correcting the abufes which the Scribes. and Pharifees had introduced into the interpretation of the law. But it ought not to be forgotten by us, that our Lord's proper bufinefs (if we may be allowed to form a judgment concerning it from the tenor of the Gospel hiftory) was to exhibit fufficient proofs that he was a teacher fent from God, and the promised Meffiah, and efpecially by his refurrection from the dead.' To the fame purpose, he fays upon another occafion, I must again infift upon it, that unlefs, in any cafe, fo much bufinefs be diftinctly specified, as would neceffarily require more time than my hypothefis admits, fupported as it is by various external and independent evidence, I cannot relinquish it. On a variety of occafions, your Lordship may think that more time than my hypothefis admits would have been better. But it is enough for me if it always allows fufficient time, though it See the paffage at length, Review for June 1781. p. 437. may may now and then be thought fcanty. In general, it gives more time than is wanted.' If the Gospels were complete hiftories of the actions, and contained complete copies of the difcourfes of Jefus, this reasoning might be admitted. To us this does not appear to be the cafe. Frequent intimations are given of miracles and difcourfes not recorded. And with refpect to those which are recorded, they are rather heads, or leading thoughts, or fo much as the writer could recollect, than difcourfes at length. That they are not given verbatim is evident from the variations obfervable in the fame difcourfes as recited by different Evangelifts, and especially from the different ftrain and phrafeology of the difcourfes recorded by John, from any that are to be found in the other gofpels. With respect to moral inftructions, they appear to us to have compofed a more confiderable part of our Lord's difcourfes, and to have entered more into the defign of his miniftry, than Dr. Priestley feems to imagine. The bulk and fubftance of the difcourfes recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke confift of moral inftructions. And even through those which St. John has collected, in which our Lord in a more particular manner calls the attention of the people to him, as a Teacher fent from God, and the promised Messiah, a variety of moral inftructions are interfperfed. Dr. Priestley continues to urge, with great force, the improbability, he would be inclined to fay, impoffibility, that Herod fhould be ignorant of Jefus, if he had preached and wrought miracles in Judea and Galilee almoft two years; he replies with much ingenuity and propriety to the feveral confiderations alleged by Dr. Newcome, for the purpose of folving the difficulty; and justly obferves, that his Lordship has hurt his own caufe, by remarking that fome others, and even many of the Jewish people' as well as Herod, were strangers to Jefus before the death of John the Baptift. Dr. Newcome had obferved, as a difficulty on both fchemes, that John did not fpeak of Jefus to Herod. To this Dr. PrieftJey replies: But, my Lord, it should be confidered that John had two diftinct commiffions, though the one was fubfervient to the other; viz. the announcing the approach of the Meffiah, and the preaching of repentance. We read of foldiers and publicans applying to him, to learn how they fhould conduct themfelves. Now the application of Herod might be of the fame nature, and John might not think it neceffary to fay any thing to him more than to them, about the Meffiah; efpecially as this was fufficiently the fubject of his public preaching. Befides, at the beginning of his preaching, John had not feen Jefus, and probably did not know at what distance of time he was to follow |