the Gospel dispensation, so as to make the evidence of it the most striking and illustrious possible. That, in these circumstances of the Jewish nation above all others, Herod, or any other Jew, the most negligent of his religion, (and with respect to Herod himself I may almost say either in, or out of his country,) should be two years without hearing of Jesus, is altogether incredible. But Herod does not only not appear to have been out of his country any part of this time, but was certainly in it some part of it, and, as we are informed, gave particular attention to John the Baptist. "Our Lord attended," you say, "only two feasts at Jerusalem before the fame of him reached Herod.” * But your Lordship must have meant two passovers, without considering that there were three other feasts in the year on which the Jews of those times statedly attended. According to your own Harmony, there must have been seven public festi vals in that interval. SECTION IV. Of the Interpolation of the word PASSOVER in John vi. 4. † I ACKNOWLEDGE with your Lordship, that the word Taoxa is found in all our MSS. of John vi. 4, and even in Ammonius, which, not having the Bibliotheca Patrum, which you quote for it, § I was ignorant of before. But what is this, compared with the weight of argument which I have produced, || to prove that Irenæus could not have seen any such reading, and the great improbability that even Eusebius had seen it? They had just the same occasion for this word with your Lordship, their hypothesis equally requiring it; and the former, I doubt not, was much more eager in his controversy with the Valentinians than your Lordship is in this with me; and he professes to enumerate all the passovers at which our Lord attended in Jerusalem, merely for the sake of computing the years of his ministry. Would he, in this state of mind, have omitted any passover expressly mentioned by an evangelist, only because our Lord was not said to have attended at it? If, as you say, this writer might think it "an impiety that our Lord should not attend so solemn a Jewish festival as the passover," he would certainly have presumed that he Reply, p. 41. (P.) + Ibid. pp. 43-52. "Post hæc erat in proximo Pascha, dies festus Judæorum. Bibl. Patr. III. 284." Newcome. § Reply, p. 43. (P.) Supra, pp. 58, 54, 132, 133. ¶ Reply, pp. 48, 49. had attended, when the passover had really happened, and his attendance was only not expressed; as, if the evangelist had -said that he did not attend, it would have precluded this writer's opinion of the impiety of such conduct. But this opinion of the impiety of not attending these festivals, in Irenæus is merely conjectural, and I think very improbable. On no account, therefore, can it be supposed that Irenæus would voluntarily have omitted the recital of this, or any passover, expressly mentioned by an evangelist, whether he thought our Lord had attended it, or not. On this I cannot help laying considerable stress, as I think it proves that, whatever be the case with all the MSS. now extant, (which are all comparatively of late date,) those in the time of Irenæus had not the word raya in the place in question, and therefore that it was not in John's original copy. But your Lordship mentions another case which you think parallel to this. It was, it seems, a constant opinion among the fathers, that Elias the Tishbite would make his appearance in person before the second coming of Christ, * and therefore that, arguing as I do, I must suppose Matt. xvii. 12, in which our Lord says, say unto you, that Elias is come already," to be spurious. Now really I do not perceive a shadow of parallelism in the two cases, because these fathers might very well think that John the Baptist might come in the spirit and power of Elias at the first coming of Christ, and that Elias might make his appearance in person at the second coming. This text, therefore, does by no means stand in the way of their opinion. But no person can see the express mention of three passovers in the course of our Lord's ministry, and entertain the opinion that it lasted only one year. This is an absolute impossibility, as your Lordship must feel, in making so much use of this text against my hypothesis; whereas in the other case, there is no inconsistency at all. The opinion that Elias will come in person before the second coming of Christ is maintained by some persons at this day, who are far from thinking the text you have mentioned any objection to it. The learned Dr. Burnet not only maintained the future coming of Elias in person, but even quotes in proof of it the very passage in the Gospels that you think irreconcileable with it, and in another excellent work just published, and Reply, p. 47. (P.)_ "Constans est patrum et totius ecclesiæ sententia,' says Whitby, (Strict. Patr. Præf. xvii.,) Eliam Thisbitam personaliter venturum esse, ante secundum Christi adventum.' Ibid. † De Statu Mortuorum, 1728, p. 395. (P.) “Qui negant Eliam adhuc venturum VOL. XX. P which I am confident your Lordship will read, as I have done, with great satisfaction, I find the same opinion and the same passage, (Matt. xvii. 10-12,) quoted in support of it. * It will hardly be wondered at that, in my former letter, † I did not understand why you supposed there would be any want of force in the observation mentioned John vii. 1, (" After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews, sought to kill him,") if the word passover should be expunged from chap. vi. 4. For certainly the mention of the Jews' feast of tabernacles" in the verse immediately following that in which his determination to continue in Galilee is spoken of, has a much nearer connexion with that observation than the passover which was mentioned so long before; and it is just as much to the purpose. Nay, since the evangelist expressly refers to the feast of tabernacles on this occasion, a reference to another feast, which preceded it near half a year, is necessarily excluded. It was after every thing that is related in the sixth chapter, that Jesus's walking in Galilee, in preference to Judea, is so much as mentioned. SECTION V. Of the Transposition of the 5th and 6th Chapters of the Gospel of John. + I AM far from denying that the transposition of the 5th Joannem Baptistam habent pro solo et unico Eliâ, nec alium putant esse expectandum; sustinuit quidem vices et personam Eliæ Baptista, et muneris ipsius partes pro tempore; at si unicus fuisset Elias, (ex omni parte et tempore,) à Prophetâ præ. dictus, haud negâsset, opinor, explicitis verbis se esse Eliam, cùm de eâ re interrogaretur, Johan. i. 21. Proinde mihi satius videtur supponere, ut supra innuimus, Baptistam fuisse typum Eliæ prophetici, nec illud impedire quo minus veniat suo tempore alter Elias." Appendix, "De Futurâ Judæorum Restauratione." Sect. ii. They who deny that Elias is yet to come, suppose John the Baptist to be the only Elias, and that we ought not to expect any other: indeed the Baptist for a time did sustain the person and discharged the office of Elias; but if he was the only Elias (absolutely and as to all consideration) foretold by the prophet, I think he would not in express words have denied that he was Elias, when he was asked about that matter. (John i. 21.) It seems to me more reasonable to suppose, (as we have before hinted,) that the Baptist was a type of the prophetic Elias, which does by no means hinder the coming of another Elias in his proper time." Foxton's Translation, 1729, pp. 67, 68. *See Thoughts on the Nature of the Grand Apostacy, p. 176, by Mr. Taylor, Rector of Crawley, &c. (P.) "There is one thing which plainly distinguished the first and second Parousias of Christ, from any such visitation, [the destruction of Jerusalem,] and that is, that they are both described as being preceded by a harbinger; the first by John the Baptist, the other by Elias, who was to come before the great and terrible day of the Lord, and restore all things. Matt. xvii. 10, 11; Mal. iv." Ibid. + See Reply, pp. 51, 52. ↑ Ibid. pp. 53-64. and 6th chapters of John's Gospel is essential to my plan; but I contend that, though there is no MS. in this order, the thing is far from being in itself improbable, especially considering the manner in which books were anciently written, and that the connexion is much more natural in the arrangement I propose than in the present. Tatian's, as your Lordship observes, having "transposed these chapters," † does not indeed prove that he found them so transposed; but it shews that the improbability of their present order struck him as it did Mr. Mann, and those other modern critics whom your Lordship quotes. As to this transposition appearing, as you say, "to Dr. Doddridge very unwarrantable and dangerous," I must be allowed to say, that I do not feel myself at all affected by it. Some persons fear where no fear is, and many affect more fear than they really have. Your Lordship, I acknowledge, has helped the connexion between the 5th and 6th chapters; but still it must be allowed to be more natural to say, "After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee," that is, to the eastern side of it, after relating what had been transacted by him in the same country on the western side, than after what had passed in Jerusalem. And though the connexion between the sixth and seventh chapters is mended by observing, that Jesus walking in Galilee more naturally follows an account of transactions in Galilee, than his going into Galilee would do; yet the whole verse (which is, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him") much more naturally follows an account of his being in Jerusalem at the time that a conspiracy was formed against his life in that place; which account is found in the fifth chapter. The only thing that your Lordship now particularly objects to my arrangement is, the reference to the raising of the dead, before the miracles of the raising of Jairus's daughter and the widow's son; and yet when you consider what I say in favour of our Lord's referring to the general resurrection of all the dead, at the last day, and not to that of any particular persons in that time, you only say that the expression refer" to a particular resurrection. § Admitting this, my interpretation is still left the more probable of the two. + Reply, p. 63. (P.) See supra, p. 165; Appendix No. VIII. may ↑ Ibid. p. 64. (P.) "See Fam. Expos. Sect. xlvi. Note (a), lxxviii. Notes (6), (e). $"To our Lord's resurrection-miracles," are the Bishop's words, adding, "That our Lord might well oppose the future general resurrection to the future raising of a few during his ministry, is what, I conceive, none will doubt." Reply, p. 60. The words" and now is," on which your Lordship lays so much stress, do not, when even literally interpreted, refer either backwards, to dead persons supposed to have been raised, or forwards, to any that our Lord might intend to raise. But, of the two, I think they would rather refer to something that his audience could understand, than to something that they could not understand; that is, to something that was passed, rather than to any thing that was future. The word now, in my opinion, very properly expresses the power our Lord had in his then present state, of which he had already given them a specimen, as a proof of his more eminent display of the same power hereafter. Besides, all that my hypothesis wants in this case is, that the two chapters may be transposed without a manifest violation of the order of the history; so that, were the present arrangement even the more natural, it would not overturn my argument. In this respect, therefore, I have been able to advance much more than I had any absolute occasion for, by shewing that the transposition of these chapters would make a more easy connexion than the present. In another place, you say, "The connexion" of chap. vii. 1, “is equally good, whether this verse follows ch. v. or ch. vi." which makes nothing at all against me. SECTION VI. Of Journeys supposed to be omitted in my Harmony. ‡ On the subject of this Section I have very little to add. Your Lordship will find that there is no journey that Jesus is ever said to have taken that I have not accounted for, and for which, I think, I have not allowed sufficient time. The circuit mentioned Matt. ix. 35, and Mark vi. 6, in which our Lord visited Nazareth, and that mentioned by Luke (viii. 1), in which he crossed the sea of Galilee, [ver. 22,] &c. were certainly different; and yet I do not apprehend that by this means, as you say, I "multiply difficulties" on myself, that I have not, in my own opinion, sufficiently cleared up. If I have said, that "all our Lord's journeys to Jerusalem make no more than four," as you observe, || I must have overlooked one of the two passovers at the beginning or the "The hour will come, and is even now on the point of coming." Reply, p. 58. + Ibid, p. 62. (P.) § Ibid. p. 67. (P.) ↑ Ibid. pp. 65-68. |