to have escaped their notice, if it had been at all considerable."

Remarking on this passage, your Lordship says, “ Apply this mode of arguing to the earliest testimonies which the Baptist gave Jesus, to the miracle at Cana, and particularly to Jesus's attendance and miracles at the first passover, and then judge of its conclusiveness." +

I answer, that I am very willing to apply this mode of reasoning as your Lordship directs, and to the same particulars. The earliest testimonies which the Baptist gave to Jesus are recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What your Lordship bere refers to in the margin, viz. John i. 26-28, I find in your Lordship’s own Harmony placed after them, just as they are in my Harmony. I therefore do not see the propriety of the instance, at all. It is no case of any thing considerable omitted by the three first evangelists, before their account of our Saviour's preaching in Galilee.

The miracle at Cana, of turning water into wine, besides being of a private nature, known only at first to the servants of a single family, does not appear to have been accompanied with any preaching ; so that the use of it, as a confirmation of our Lord's mission, was not very apparent. And as to the miracles performed at Jerusalem, till we know what they were, it is impossible to know whether they were considerable or not, or whether they were accompanied with preaching.

The preaching in Judea, subsequent to this, your Lordship supposes not to have been accompanied with miracles; and by this you seem to allow all that I contend for, viz. that our Lord did nothing so considerable there as to be heard of at a distance, in Galilee for instance, where the apostles then resided, in their several private capacities ; so that, to every great purpose, and even according to your own account, our Lord may, with propriety enough, be said to have opened his commission in form, that is, attended with its proper testimonials and evidence, in Galilee, where Matthew says, (iv. 17,) that he “began to preach," and where the Gospel is always said to have originated.

I had observed, that the great fame of Jesus in Galilee secms to have been occasioned by the miracles he wrought after his appearance in that country. And if, as your Lordship says, “it be doubtful whether our Lord wrought any miracles during this stay of his in Judea,” I nothing that he did there could have greatly contributed to it.

Supra, p. 125.

+ Reply p. 41. (P.)

1 Reply. p. 39. (P.)

The people of Galilee are represented, (John iv. 45,) as “having seen” what Jesus had done “at the feast” only, and not any thing subsequent to it.

The expression your Lordship quotes from Luke iv. 14, as a proof that his great fame in Galilee was occasioned by what he did in Judea, appears to me easily to admit of a contrary interpretation, and to refer to the fame he acquired after his arrival there. The words of this evangelist are as follows: “And Jesus returned in the 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 synagogues, being glorified of all.” Here his great fame is evidently subsequent to the mention of his arrival in Galilee, and therefore was probably occasioned by something done by him in Galilee, particularly by his preaching in their synagogues ; which was the scene of his first cure of a demoniac, and was at Capernaum.

There is another argument against this long stay of our Lord in Judea, which, though I do not think decisive, I think deserving of your Lordship’s consideration.

Jesus says to the apostles, (John xv. 27,) “ And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning ;" the most natural interpretation of which is, that they had attended him, not perhaps as apostles, but as disciples, from the commencement of his public ministry, and that they had continued with him ever since. This is perfectly 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 Matthew, attended him constantly, and probably Mat. thew himself occasionally, (as he lived at Capernaum, especially when he delivered the Sermon on the Mount, of which he gives so large a detail,) though they were not separated from the rest of the disciples till some time afterwards; whereas your Lordship makes our Saviour to have preached publicly some months in Judea, also in a leisurely journey through Samaria, and at Cana, and to have preached and been rejected at Nazareth before he reached Capernaum, that is, before the call of Peter and Andrew, James and John to a constant attendance upon him. And according to the plan of your Lordship’s Harmony, the apostles were not separated from the rest of the disciples till more than a whole year after the commencement of his ministry. The wisdom of this conduct is certainly not very apparent.

SECTION XII. of the Journey from Judea to Galilee. On this subject your Lordship’s disposition to extend, and mine to shorten, are sufficiently apparent. The whole journey was about three days according to our Lord's own way of travelling, and I give six days to it, allowing for a stay of part of two days at Sychar, and other unknown interruptions. Whether there be any thing in this to clog my scheme, I leave to the impartial to judge. Your Lordship, however, as usual, disputes every inch of this ground with me, and first with respect to the distance being a journey of three days.

“ When you assert that the whole journey,” your Lordship says, “ from Jerusalem to Galilee was but of three days, according to our Lord's own mode of travelling, I suppose that you have in view John ii. 1.

But here it is probable that Jesus set out from Bethabara, and not from Jerusalem, which affects the distance to Cana one half; and the words may mean on the third day after Jesus's arrival, or on the third day of the marriage-feast.”*

Now when I supposed † that Jesus might take three days to travel from Judea to Galilee, I alluded not to John ii. 1, but to Luke xii. 33, where we find that Jesus, being in Galilee, says he must travel three days before he can reach Jeru. salem, or rather that he could not reach Jerusalem till the third day from the time that he was speaking ; “I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

With respect to the passage in John, your Lordship says, , that “ Jesus probably set out from Bethabara," I which might be the case. But in the latter case he was actually in Galilee, though it is not said where ; so that the distance must be reckoned from thence to Jerusalem. Lord, is the distance so great, but that persons used to walking might very well perform the journey in the time our Saviour mentions. For from Jerusalem to Capernaum, situated at the northermost part of the sea of Galilee, does not seem to have been more than sixty or seventy miles, that is, little more than twenty miles per day.

Your Lordship says, “this journey from Judea to

Nor, my

Reply, p. 60. (P.)

+ Supra, p. 129.

Reply, p. 60. (P.

Galilee was about equal to that from the neighbourhood of Caperuaum to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, for which I allow a fortnight or three weeks, and less than that from the neighbourhood of Bethsaida to the town of Cæsarea Philippi, for which I allow a fortnight.” *

But, my Lord, I did not suppose that the three weeks, or the fortnight, in these cases, were wholly spent in travelling only ; for then it would have been a sauntering business indeed; but in preaching, in a country which Jesus had never visited before, and did not intend to visit again ; and for this purpose he probably made many deviations from the direct road. Whereas in his journey from Judea to Galilee, it does not appear that he stopped at any place besides Sychar, and, as I observed, he might set out from Bethabara, which, as your Lordship observes, is about half-way to Galilee. For, after leaving Jerusalem to go probably to the neighbourhood of Jordan, he would naturally recede farther and farther from the capital; so that his journey to Sychar might not be more than half a day, arriving there, as he probably did, the first day about noon.

To enlarge our Saviour's business on this journey, your Lordship speaks of his “ teaching and converting the Sa. maritans during two days, and of bis preaching the gospel of the kingdom as he journeyed.”+ But, my Lord, nothing of this is related in the history. Our Lord does not appear to have had the least intercourse with any Samaritans, except those of Sychar; and nothing is said of his preaching to Jews till he came to Capernaum, according to my plan of the events, or to Nazareth, according to your Lordship’s.

Mark i. 14, to which your Lordship refers, only says that “ Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.” But this expression would be justifiable, though he did not stop to preach as he travelled, at all, but only on his arrival in Galilee ; and this I really think was the meaning of the evangelist.

Our Lord, indeed, cured a nobleman's son of Capernaum, while he was at Cana; but nothing is said of his preaching there, any more than when he turned the water into wine, at the same place. I do not say that he did not preach, but that nothing is said of his preaching; and he might choose to work that miracle, in order to raise the expectation of the people of that country concerning him, without giving them any farther satisfaction. And till long after this time, our Lord's preaching seems only to have been similar to that of John, the purport of which was, “ Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The generality of his discourses, as they were only occasional, seem not to have been of great length.

Reply, p. 60. (P.)

Ibid. p. 62. (P.)

Your Lordship speaks of some stay that our Lord made at Cana, and you suppose it to have been four days ; * but nothing is said by the evangelist of any stay, or of any preaching that would require a stay. I therefore conclude that, excepting his stay at Sychar, which there is no reason to suppose was more than one whole day, our Lord kept travelling on till he arrived at Capernaum.

As to the time of our Lord's stay at Sychar, I said, † that, though it is called two days, it might not, according to the Jewish phraseology, mean more than part of two days, so that he might leave the place on the second day. This you do not deny ; but you say, that “it appears from Matt. xvii. 1, compared with Luke ix. 28, that the words may also signify two complete days.”

What these two historians speak of, is the interval between the time of a particular discourse of our Lord's, and his transfiguration ; which Luke says was “about eight days after,” and Matthew “after six days.” But in this your Lordship supposes what I do not, viz, that these two writers were equally well informed with respect to that interval, and had the same idea of it; whereas it appears to me that Luke, who was not present, was not quite certain about it, and therefore he says it was “about eight days after;" but Matthew, who was present, says positively, that it was “after six days," or, as I interpret it, on the sixth day from the time of the discourse.

SECTION XIII. Whether Jesus visited Capernaum or Nazareth first. Your Lordship says that I “ contend for it, that the visit to Nazareth followed that to Cana," # meaning that it preceded the visit to Capernaum; and, in reply to what I had advanced on the subject, $ you say, “St. Luke directly asserts this fact; and I believe him.”||

But, my Lord, Matthew is just as express in asserting the contrary. He says, (iv. 17,) that after his arrival at Caper

Reply, p. 63. (P.)

Supra, p. 130.

Reply, p. 73. (P.)

Supra, p. 199. # Reply, p. 76. (P).

« ElőzőTovább »