ence to Christianity. The evidence of the evangelical history is concerned in it, in a variety of respects. If the different histories of the life of Christ be utterly irreconcileable in things of consequence, that is, in things of such a nature, as that persons who lived in those times, and who undertook to write an account of them, could not but be well acquainted with, and have attended to, they will none of them be credible. On the other hand, if they agree in every minute particular, and arrange every incident in the same order, they will be suspected of having written in concert; and all their credit, as independent evidences, will be lost.

I flatter myself that the result of my observations will exhibit the evidence of the Gospel history in the clearest and strongest point of light; as they will shew such an agreement of the four historians in things of consequence, and at the same time such a variation and disagreement in things of little or no consequence, as are, in fact, found in all the most credible histories; so that an unbeliever will see, that the evidence of the history of Christ is exactly of the same nature with that of Julius Cæsar, or any other person of antiquity, the particulars of which are never called in question. I very much approve of the observations of your correspondent Paulinus on this subject.

I may add, that this subject of the Gospel harmony cannot but interest the curiosity of every Christian, and especially of persons who have a taste for criticism and antiquities. What pains have been taken, by classical critics, to ascertain the exact dates of the most trivial incidents in the life of Cicero, and other persons of eminence, in ancient or modern history! The motive to all this pains could be nothing but the interest they took, and which they imagined their readers would take, in the lives of those heroes, and the desire that unavoidably results from it, of having as precise and definite an idea as possible, of every thing in which they were concerned. †

And are not Christians particularly interested in the history of Christ, whose life we consider as of infinitely more consequence to us, and to all mankind, than that of any other person that ever figured on the theatre of the world? If we really think, and feel ourselves thus interested in the life of our Saviour, and consequently frequently reflect upon it, we cannot help wishing to come at the most satisfactory knowledge of every thing related of him, whether it be of more, or of less consequence; and it will give us pleasure to be able to fix the time and place of the most minute incidents

* See supra, p. 97, Note. The following introductory paragraph does not appear to have been copied in the Observations:

“It has been, almost universally, the endeavour of the friends of revelation, to demonstrate the perfect harmony of the Scriptures, and to account for every seeming contradiction in those writings, without admitting any difference of opinion, or conceptions of things in the authors. In general, they appear to me to have succeeded pretty well in their attempts; but I cannot help thinking, both that they have failed in some instances, and also that they have endeavoured to carry this circumstance of agreeing, farther than their professed object, the defence of revelation, requires; nay, so far as is really unfavourable to its defence, in the minds of men who duly consider the nature of historical evidence." Theol. Repos. I. p. 141. ↑ See supra, pp. 6, 7.

relating to it. I appeal to the feelings of all those who interest themselves in the history of the dead.

It may recommend this subject to scholars and philosophers to observe, that it affords as much room for the display of critical sagacity, as any other subject whatever.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your constant Reader,

LIBERIUS.

No. III.

MR. MANN ON THE DURATION OF CHIRST'S MINISTRY.

(See supra, p. 17.)

THE prevailing opinion for many ages, among the men of letters as well as the vulgar, has been, that the preaching of our Saviour extended to four passovers, that is, three complete years, and some added a few months. But questions of this nature are not to be determined by plurality of voices, but by weighing of reasons. The arguments which induce us to think that Christ appeared in public but a year, or very little more than a year, are these:

1. That Luke professing to give the history of the life of Jesus, and especially of that most precious part of it, when he went about his Father's business, teaching and doing good, assigns but two epochs of it in all; that of his birth, (ii.) and the other of his baptism, (iii.) and, mentioning no more, has with reason been commonly understood to comprehend, in the second epoch, his death too with his baptism, and both within the compass of the same year, or but few months more. For it seemed absurd to imagine, that Luke would have taken so much care to signalize his baptism only, with adding the reigns of the Roman Emperor, and of all the neighbouring princes in being, when that ceremony was performed, and at the same time pass in silence, without any such characterisms, his most important passion, of which otherwise Luke, as well as the other evangelists, recites all the most minute circumstances. To which may be added the probability above-mentioned, that Luke named Annas and Caiaphas both for the high-priests, for no other reason, but because Annas was in that office for the year P. J. 4738, in which most of the preaching and of the miracles past; and Caiaphas for the year 4739, in the first quarter of which Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, and afterwards suffered, and rose himself.

2. Luke says the baptism, as well as the death of Christ, was in the time of Pilate's administration. Let it be supposed then, only for the present, what will be afterwards more fully proved, that his death was at the passover of the year P.J. 4739, as Daniel's prophecy requires it should be: in that case, the baptism cannot have been twenty months before the crucifixion, because Pilate came

* Extracted from his "True year of the death of Christ," pp. 147-165.

not to Judea before the 11th of Tiberius's reign, which began Aug. 19, An. P. J. 4737, and he was not there probably full eighteen months before the final passover. Indeed the words of Josephus, * do not allow Pilate's government to have commenced even so soon as P. J. 4737; but that his predecessor Gratus continued during the whole eleven first years of Tiberius, which ended Aug. 19, P. J. 4738, U. C. 778. But Josephus, as well as most of the ancient historians, does so often speak of the last year as complete, when it was perhaps only begun, that there is good reason to interpret him so likewise in this passage. A multitude of instances of this sort might be easily produced, but one may be sufficient. In the 14th Book of his Antiquities, he relates the first taking of Jerusalem, by Pompey, naming the consuls of the year U. C. 691; and the second taking of it by Herod and Sosius, on the same day of the month, naming the consuls of the year U. C. 717, which, he says, was 27 years after the first; and yet, by his own account, it could not have been more than 26 years and one day. Nay, Petit quotes it for a maxim of the Rabbies, "Dies unus in fine anni pro anno nu

meratur."

3. That passage of Isaiah, (lxi. 1, 2,) which Christ himself read in the synagogue at Nazareth, and notified it to be then fulfilled, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he hath anointed me-to preach the acceptable year of the Lord," was anciently thought, and seems now to signify, that Christ was to preach but that one year, in which God would accept of the Jewish nation, if they would repent. It is confessed, that some interpret this acceptable year, of all the time that passed from his death to the destruction of Jerusalem. But, though the execution of the wrath of heaven was so long delayed, the condemnation and rejecting of the nation appear to have been decreed, upon the close of this "acceptable year," and their refusal of the grace then offered to them. God had declared, (Deut. xviii. 19,) that whosoever would not hearken to what that prophet should speak in his name, he would require it of him, and that soul should be destroyed from among the people. The Baptist had strongly intimated, that the time of acceptation was exceedingly short, by saying, "The axe is laid to the root of the tree." And Messiah himself passed a terrible sentence on those towns of Palestine, that did not receive the disciples he sent; but expressly on Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 12,) on Jerusalem, (Matt. xxiii. 37,) of which he pronounced at last with tears of compassion, (Luke xix. 42,) that the things which belonged to her peace, were then hid from her eyes; and on the whole nation, a little before his passion, for killing the Son of the Lord of the vineyard; (see Matt. xxi. 41, and xxiii. 35, 36;) from all which declarations it may be concluded, that the time of acceptation given to the Jewish people in general, (though some would afterwards be saved out of that perverse generation, Acts ii. 40,) was therefore called "the acceptable year," because it was only that year in

* Antiq. L. xviii. p. 873. (Mann.)

which he preached remission of sins, and God's acceptance, and which ended with his crucifixion.

4. The most learned of the primitive writers of Christianity, and who lived nearest to the age of the apostles, were mostly persuaded, that the publication of the gospel by Christ, and confirming it with miracles, lasted but one year.

5. If we ascend one step higher, and consult the oldest writers, the evangelists; in three of them, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the course of the narration will not allow us room to suppose, that Jesus passed much above one year on earth after he began to teach, or that he saw more than two passovers after his baptism: the other is not mentioned expressly by any of them, perhaps because our Lord, not having then begun to manifest his mission and his doctrine in Judea, made that journey privately, and without any incident of great fame: but it must be understood in them all, about three months after the baptism, if that was in January. So that, if St. John's Gospel had not been thought to say more, we should never had reason from the other three historians, one of which was an eye-witness, to extend the preaching of Christ beyond one year.

Nay John's relation, if read with attention, will be found to comprehend the public ministry of Jesus in little more than the space of one year. For he certainly supposes no more than one summer, and one winter; he describes the passages of no more than two passovers, (and in all probability his original text mentioned no more than two,) no more than one pentecost, one scenopegia, one encœnia; that is, all the great feasts of one year, and those too in their natural order, as our Saviour assisted at them, excepting only that the 6th chapter seems to be transposed from its proper place, and should precede the fifth. The learned Petit has taken notice of this disorder, or sεpov wрoτepov, as he calls it, in the course of the narration; but believes it to be want of method in the author. † We are rather inclined to think that the two chapters, beginning both with the same words, were anciently misplaced; and found this opinion on these considerations:

1. The last words of ch. v., are spoke by Jesus in Jerusalem; the words immediately following, (in vi. 1,) without any introduction or preparation, represent him passing out of Galilee to the eastern side of the lake of Tiberias; here is then no connexion at all with the 5th chapter; but a natural and evident sequel of the end of the 4th chapter, which left him in Galilee. Again, the 5th chapter has the same coherence with the 7th, as the 4th with the 6th. For in

* Clemens of Alexandria, (Stromat. L. i. p. 340, and L. vi. p. 658,) Tertullian, (contra Judæos, C. viii.,) Origen, (wεpi Apxwy, L. iv. C. i.,) Africanus, (apud Georgium Syncellum, p. 322, &c.) Lactantius, (Instit. L. iv. C. xiv.,) and before them all in time, Valentinus, the learned heretic, for he was contemporary with Justin Martyr (in Epiphanius, Hær. li.). And other testimonies probably might be added to these, if we would inquire; for the great Scaliger acknowledges, "Vetustissima est opinio," (Can. Isagog. p. 309: and Petavius,) "neque paucorum, neque plebeiorum scriptorum fuit hæc sententia, sed doctrinâ et autoritate præstantium, et sanè vetustissimorum." (Mann.)

↑ Eclog. Chronol, L. i. C. xii. (Mann.)

ch. v. 16—18, &c., Jesus in Jerusalem is reasoning with the Jews, who seek to kill him: the 7th chapter opens with his going thence into Galilee, because those of Judea seek to kill him. But as the chapters stand at present, the 6th represents him teaching at Capernaum, in Galilee and yet the 7th chapter begins, "After these things, Jesus walked in Galilee," as if he were just arrived there from another province.

2. The passovers, as the chapters are now ranged, are multiplied beyond all probability. For ch. iv. 45, Jesus appears newly returned from the first passover, and cures the nobleman's son of Capernaum: at the end of nine verses more, (v. 1,) he is gone back to the second passover, (as some reckon it,) and nothing more is reported of him during all the remainder of that first year. From this imaginary second passover, (v. 1,) when Jesus healed the cripple at the pool of Bethesda, in Jerusalem, to the feast of tabernacles, (vii. 2,) that is, according to the modern account, during all the second year, the third passover, and half the third year, he is said to have worked a miracle, the next day taught in Capernaum, and no more is said of him for all the rest of the supposed eighteen months. Now does it seem at all probable, that John, if he professed to write the history of Christ's public ministry during the space of about three years, should have omitted near two years and a half of that time?

:

3. It appears from Matt. xiv. 13, Mark vi. 31, Luke ix. 10, that Jesus, immediately upon the news of the Baptist's death, retired out of Galilee, which was Herod's dominion, to the desert of Bethsaida, on the east side of the Lake of Tiberias, which was under Philip his brother, but a man of more justice and humanity; and that the multitudes following him thither too, he multiplied five loaves so as to feed 5000 men. This same miracle is related in John vi. 5. So that here comes in the first notice of the Baptist's death and yet in v. 35, Jesus is at Jerusalem, speaking of the Baptist, as of a person known to be dead some time before; "He was a burning and a shining light." These apparent inconsistencies and improbabilities, are not to be supposed to come from St. John himself, but from the negligence of those who had the first keeping of his writings, or those who copied them: since all of them, but one, are at once rectified by replacing the 6th chapter before the 5th. But one difficulty even then remains, which has produced many more. The 4th verse of the 6th chapter, in our present copies, stands thus, Ην δε εγίυς το πασχα, ἡ ἑορξη των Ιεδαίων. “ And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.' "" But it is hard to think that John writ thus: he had spoke of the passover, in ch. ii.; if he mentioned it here again, would there be any need of his adding an explanation of the word? Therefore, the judicious Gerard Vossius* would read it, Hy de eyЛus koply Twy Iedaiwy," and a feast of the Jews was nigh," leaving Ην δε εγίυς ἑορ7η των Ιεδαίων, out To warya: and with great reason. For, certainly all the ancient writers who thought that Christ preached but one year, (and they are the ancientest and most eminent of all,) never read to warya in this verse. If they had, they must have reckoned this for a third

Hy

* In his dissertation De Annis Christi. (Mann.)