tism John learned farther, that HE was the MESSIAH. He could, therefore, properly say, "I knew him not," (to be the MESSIAH,) "but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I saw" (the Spirit descend, &c.) and bore witness that this (Jesus) is the Son of God" (or the MESSIAH).

After a careful examination, I think, that no person knew Jesus to be the Messiah, till John bore testimony at his baptism; notwithstanding the high terms used in speaking of him. (See Luke i. 2.) So strikingly proper are the words, "John came for a witness of the light, that all men might believe; he was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light." It appears that after the declaration of the shepherds, "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart:" and even after Simeon had spoken (as seems to us now) in the most express terms respecting him, still "Joseph and Mary marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." They still were not certain whether it was the Messiah, or some other inferior deliverer and prophet. I do not in the least wonder at their doubts; for as the Messiah was to be a great temporal prince, according to the prevailing opinion, how could persons of so inferior a station in life expect that he would proceed from their family? We may observe, that when he was "twelve years old," Joseph and Mary did not know what he meant, by "being about his Father's business:" and even then Mary is said to have "kept these sayings in her heart"-still pondering and still doubtful. His own brothers, even after his baptism, did not believe him to be the Messiah; and I do not think this very surprising; for children that are brought up together naturally form notions of equality which are pretty obstinate in maintaining their place. From the uncertainty of Mary, and the infidelity of the brothers, I infer, that those lofty expressions in Luke the first and second concerning Jesus, were not understood as necessarily implying that he was the Messiah; and of course that the application of texts of scripture among the Jews at this time was not descriptive, but merely allusive; which I think it of considerable importance to demonstrate.

If you think these thoughts worth perusing, I will give them some further attention. Several things strike me which make me imagine them of some consequence; though they would not, perhaps, have occurred to me, had not you mentioned your difficulty.

I am, dear Sir, with the highest esteem,

Your affectionate and humble Servant,

JOHN PALMER.

No. VII.

MR. MANN's ARGUMENTS FOR THE OPINION THAT CHRIST PURGED THE TEMPLE ONLY ONCE, AND THAT AT THE LAST PASSOVER.

(See supra, p. 95.)

Ir is observable, that in the week preceding the last passover of Christ, three of the Evangelists, Matthew, (xxi. 12,) Mark, (xi, 15,)

and Luke, (xix. 45,) relate that extraordinary action of his driving the money-changers and traders of all sorts out of the temple, which some ancients took to be one of the greatest miracles of his life: but John alone, (ii. 14,) introduces it in the first passover after the baptism. Some have fancied that Jesus did it twice; others, with more reason; believe it to be misplaced in John. For it seems not at all probable, either that he did this more than once, or at any passover before his last. It was such a vigorous reformation of an abuse, which the greedy chief-priests had permitted and established for some vile profits of their own; and therefore carried with it a severe reproach of their corruption and misgovernment, which they would not easily suffer: it was a high authoritative act of prophetic zeal, exercised upon a multitude of knaves, like which nothing had been seen in the second temple; with an express avowal, which he generally avoided to make, that he was the Son of God. Such a thing, thus published to two or three millions, (for such numbers then came to a passover,) would it have remained a week unknown, or unpunished? Yet it is plain, that till after the death of the Baptist, and consequently after the first passover, neither Herod, nor many of the people had heard of Jesus: for the fame of his preaching induced both to imagine, that Jesus was only John revived. Nor is it likely, if he had thus signally manifested himself, that he should ever after charge all that saw and felt his miracles, and even his disciples, (Matt. xvi. 20,) not to tell, what he had owned, that he was the Christ.

66

Besides, if he had at this first passover displayed his mission with power, by routing that rabble of cheats out of his Father's house; would his own brethren, six months after, (John vii. 3,) insultingly bid him leave Galilee, where he was lost to the world, and go shew himself at the metropolis, and work his wonders upon that great theatre, as if he had never appeared, openly, there before? Would the chief-priests have accused him (Luke xxiii. 5) of having begun "from Galilee," to pervert the people with his doctrine, if he had before that, in Jerusalem, freely censured their mal-administration, publicly called himself the Son of God, which they (Matt. xxvi 65) said was blasphemy, and added those criminal words, Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it up again"? More might be added: but the concurring testimonies of Mathew, Mark, and Luke, do sufficiently authorize us to believe, that this chacing away the traders from the temple, is by John described out of time, and should be inserted in the week of the passion. What follows on this occasion, in John's own history, is a confirmation of this conclusion. The Jews demanding some proof of his being commissioned by Heaven, to correct their disorders; he (perhaps with a turn of his finger pointing to his body) answers, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." But the Jews understanding by this temple the stately fabrick, in which all this past, reply, Forty-six years has this temple been in building, (for so it should be rendered,) and wilt thou rear it up in three days? Now those that returned from the captivity, in the year P.J. 4178, finished the building of the second temple, (according to Ezra, vi. 15,) in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, P. J. 4199, that is, within 22 years

from the beginning of the work, at the utmost computation. The Jews, therefore, could not mean that building of the temple by Zorobabel, but the other great augmentation of the temple itself, and of all its magnificent out-buildings, which was begun by Herod the Great, and though continued at a prodigious expense, with 18,000 workmen, was not finished (says Josephus)* till about 5 years before its destruction. Herod began this work the year that Augustus visited Judea, An. U. C. 734. P. J. 4694, and the 18th of his own reign from the death of Antigonus. † The 46th year, reckoned from this epoch, was U. C. 779, P. J. 4739, the very year in which, according to Daniel's prophecy, the Messiah was to be cut off. This reply, therefore, of the Jews, in John, proves, that these things past, not at the first passover after the baptism of Christ, but at the last, and in the last week of his life, agreeably to the relation of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

No. VIII.

ON TRANSPOSITIONS IN ANCIENT MSS.

(See supra, p. 165.)

Two of my learned friends having favoured me with some observations in support of what I had advanced, Section V. [supra, pp. 164-166] concerning transpositions in ancient MSS. I give them here in extracts from their letters to me.

One of them, I recollected, had some years ago informed me, that he was pretty confident that four lines in Virgil had been transposed, though no MS. of that author indicated any such thing. Thinking the fact curious, and of some use to my purpose, I lately wrote to him on the subject, and he was so obliging as to give me the following answer. The other letter, relating chiefly to the Scriptures, is still more to my purpose.

"6th August, 1781.

-I did not know that I had ever mentioned to you a transposition in Virgil's Eclogues, and had quite forgot that any such idea had passed through my mind. However, in the margin of my Virgil I have found a note that has revived them. The passage is in the 7th Eclogue. The four lines from the 53d to the 56th, which are given to Corydon, I apprehend belong to Thyrsis, and should have been preceded by the four lines from the 56th to the 60th, which, in all the editions, as far as I know, follow them.

"My reasons for this opinion are two: In the first place, Aret ager vitio, &c. suits better with the decent elegance of Corydon, and Stant et juniperi, &c. jacent (an antithesis that does not suit the style of Corydon) and formosus Alexis-videas et flumina sicca, (an unpleasant hyperbolical image, ridiculing, as all along, the more grateful pictures of the opponent) agree far better with the drollery and libertinism of Thyrsis.

"But besides this, in the next place, it deserves to be remarked, that from the 63d and 64th verses it appears that Phyllis (to whom Thyrsis opposes Lycidas in the 67th) is the flame of Corydon, * Antiq. L. xx. C. ix. (Mann.)

↑ Jos. Ant. L. xv. p. 777; Dio, L. liv. p. 602. (Mann.)

whence I infer that the stanza in which Phillydis nostræ occurs, viz. before, at ver. 59, must have been Corydon's, not Thyrsis's; that is, that the two stanzas beginning the one with Stant et juniperi, the other with Aret ager, have changed places. Transpose them back again, and you will get rid of some impropriety and confusion.

"I might add a third reason for giving the stanza, Stant et, &c. to Thyrsis, viz. that from the opposition of Formosus Lycidas in the last stanza, to Phyllis, there arises a probability that the formosus Alexis, was put by the same speaker in an opposition of the same kind."

πασχα,

"11th August, 1781.

"The evidence which you have produced for proving the word in John vi. 4, to be an interpolation, seems to me to amount almost to demonstration. And for the reasons offered by Mr. Mann and you, I have little doubt but that the 6th chapter of St. John hath been transposed, and ought immediately to follow the 4th chapter. You rightly observe in your second letter, [p. 165,] That transpositions are common things, and that the sacred writings are by no means exempt from them;' but you have given no instances of transpositions in any ancient writings. Your argument would, I think, be greatly strengthened by a fair representation of some facts of this kind.

"Dr. Kennicott, in the 22d and 23d Sections of his most excellent Dissertatio Generalis, at the end of his Hebrew Bible, lately published, hath mentioned several remarkable transpositions which have been made in different parts of the Old Testament. The ten first verses of the 30th chapter of Exodus have, he observes, been certainly removed from the end of the 26th chapter; and of this transposition, no person, who gives due attention to the reasons offered by Dr. Kennicott, can entertain the least doubt, although it must have been made, not only before all the Hebrew, MSS. now extant, but also, as it seems, before the version of the LXX., that is, before the year 280 before Christ. That this transposition hath been made is sufficiently clear from circumstances: but it happens that there is direct evidence of the fact, for those ten verses are in their proper place between the 35th and 36th verses of the 26th chapter, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which, however, was not seen in Europe till the beginning of the last century.

"Dr. Kennicott, in the catalogue of the Hebrew MSS. examined for his work, describes one of the Pentateuch, No. 7, which belongs to the Bodleian Library, and consists of three large rolls. Between the first and second rolls, two skins of vellum, containing Exod. xii. 38, -xvii. 9, are omitted, which two skins are found in a separate roll, sewed together in such a manner that seventy-five verses, viz. Exod. xiv. 28,-xvii. 9, stand before Exod. xii. 38,-xiv. 28. This fact is also noticed by Dr. Kennicott, in his second Dissertation on the Hebrew text, (pp. 571, 572,) and it shews very clearly how the transposition for which you contend, might be made by an improper conjunction of the skins of an ancient MS.

"Another very remarkable transposition I will mention, which hath certainly happened in Novatian's book, De Regula Fidei. This book consists of thirty-one chapters; and it was so evident from the

connexion of the sense, that eight of these chapters were misplaced in the old editions, that Mr. Welchman, in 1724, and Mr. Jackson, in 1728, thought themselves justified in rectifying the mistake, without the authority of a single MS. See Jackson's edition, p. 106, and Pref. p. 25, and his reply to Waterland, p. 492.

"These things have occurred to me as material to your argument; and you will be pleased to consider, whether it may not be right for you to give these or some other examples of transpositions actually made in ancient writings.

"As to Mark ii. 1, I will only observe, that in the Vulgate, printed at Venice, in folio, in 1478, the reading is, Post Dies OCTO, and that in Wickliff's New Testament, which is a translation from the Latin Vulgate, it is, Aftir EYGHTE Daies."

No. IX.

THE PREFACE TO THE DISCOURSE ON THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

(See supra, p. 275.)

THE following discourse was composed while I was at Buxton, in the course of the last summer, [1790,] in consequence of being requested to preach to the company in the assembly-room, after the usual morning prayers of the Church of England. Having no sermon with me that I thought so proper as I could wish, for so mixed an audience, I composed this, which I thought would offend no Christian, but tend to confirm the faith of all; and which I also hoped might make a favourable impression on unbelievers, some of whom it was probable would be my hearers. Both these objests I have reason to think were, in some measure, gained; and in compliance with the request of some who were my hearers at that time, and of many others who have heard the discourse, much enlarged and improved, since, I now publish it.

Let any man who is an object of dislike, as I am, to the clergy of the Church of England, conduct himself with ever so much prudence and caution, I do not think it is possible for him to avoid. giving offence. On this occasion, however, I flattered myself that I had succeeded; but I have since found that I did not. A person, who I believe may be styled a dignitary of the Church of England, has been very free with his virulent invectives against me on this most innocent business; asserting, on the authority, he says, of those who were present, and who, it is supposed, were also clergymen, that I, in a manner, forced myself upon the audience, by requesting to preach to them, which he calls "a most indecent intrusion," and that I took the opportunity of "insulting the faith and the service of those who attended it;" that by "desiring to have the Litany omitted on that occasion, I shewed the most pointed disapprobation of the service, and took upon myself to rule and direct the service of the Church of England;" that my discourse "gave great

Vol. XV. pp. 325-348.

+ The passages marked with inverted commas, are from the clergyman's own letter, which was written with deliberation, on purpose to be shewn to me. (P.)