For

I might, if it were necessary, carry this matter somewhat further, and make it at least probable, that neither of the three evangelists (St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. Luke) had so much as seen the Gospel of the other, when he himself wrote. had either of them seen the Gospel of the other, it is very probable they would not have gone about to write the same things which were wrote before: and hence it is very observable that St. John, who (as will appear hereafter) saw the Gospels of the other three, does not relate the same facts which he saw the other three had done before him. I am partly beholden to Mr. Le Clerc for this observation, and partly to the learned Mr. Dodwell, who endeavours also by several other arguments to prove the point I am now contending for. Upon the whole, that which is most probable is, that the evangelists who were scattered up and down the earth, into very distant countries, to preach the Gospel, by the solicitation and importunity of those whom they converted, were prevailed upon to write down the substance of what they had preached to them; in which good undertaking, God by his Spirit was pleased to assist them, keeping them from all error, leading them (according to his promise, John xvi. 13.) into all truth, and bringing (as our Saviour had foretold he should do, John xiv. 26.) all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them.

CHAP. XI.

If it be allowed that St. Mark did epitomize St. Matthew, it will not from thence follow that our present copies of St. Matthew are misplaced, and contrary to the order originally intended by the evangelist.

SINCE then St. Mark did not make use of St. Matthew's

iQuoiqu'ils n'aient pas vû les écrits les uns des autres: car ils n'auroient pas redit ce qu'ils auroient vû avoir été publié avant eux, surtout par des Apôtres. Aussi remarque-t-on que St. Jean, qui a vû sans doute les autres evangiles, a évité de redire les mêmes choses. See his French Test. at Luke i. 1.

* Sed et reliquos ab invicem non fu

isse visos evangelistas vel exinde suspicio est, quod primo illi prædicationis anno res gestas duntaxat enarrent; reliquorum annorum paschatumque memoriam solus conservavit S. Joannes evangelista unde posset quis fortasse colligere, visa esse ab eo et probata, suppletaque decessorum evangelia. Dissertat. 1. in Iren. §. 39.

Gospel in compiling of his, it is very evident that Mr. Whiston hath failed in his main proof, in what he calls his most authentic evidence, and most convincing argument, to prove, that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel in our present copies is very much misplaced, contrary to the method originally intended by the evangelist. But,

II. If it were to be granted that St. Mark did abridge St. Matthew, yet it would by no means follow, that our present copies of St. Matthew's Gospel are not in their true and first intended order. Let us then suppose St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome, and consider how Mr. Whiston does argue upon that supposition. "If," says he, "St. Mark was the epitomizer “of St. Matthew, and had his history before him when he "wrote his own; it will follow, that either that copy of St. “Matthew, which he made use of, was in a different order "from that which we now have (in the chapters under consi"deration); or else that he knew the order of his copy to be "wrong, and contrary to the original one, and so reduced it in "his epitome to the true and regular series of events, which "he learned from St. Peter. Now either of these is sufficient ❝ for my present purpose; for it is evident that St. Mark does "not observe the order of the present copies of St. Matthew "(whom he epitomizes) in that part we are speaking of," &c.

This is Mr. Whiston's arguing; but, with submission to so great a judgment, I think it is very far from being conclusive, as will very evidently appear by the following consideration; viz. St. Mark making use of a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, which was exactly the same with our present copies of that Gospel, might deviate and recede from St. Matthew's order, and yet not believe that order to be wrong, and contrary to the original one intended by St. Matthew. Mr. Whiston has here very artificially joined two things together, as the same, which are certainly different. To be wrong in respect of the order of time, and to be contrary to the original copy, are certainly two things very distinct. St. Mark's being supposed an epitome of St. Matthew's, proves indeed the former, viz. that he believed St. Matthew not to have observed the order of time in every particular, but not the latter. Why might he not, even Page 102.

having St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, sometimes relate his histories in a different order from that of St. Matthew? He might easily perceive it was not St. Matthew's design (as indeed it was not his own in every particular instance) to relate all things exactly in the order in which they came to pass; and therefore might, if at any time he saw just occasion, recede from his order. Certainly this is a much more reasonable supposition, than that our present copies of St. Matthew are so much confused and disordered. For making the matter more clear, I would illustrate my argument by the following example.

Let us suppose, that, when Lucius Florus made his abridgment of Livy's History, there were several branches of it which were not placed by Livy exactly according to the order of time in which they came to pass, but interspersed up and down in the history, as the circumstances required. Let us suppose further, that Florus in his epitome had taken every one of these particulars, and placed them according to the most exact order of time in which they came to pass. Are we under any necessity of concluding, either that Florus knew his copy of Livy to be wrong, and contrary to the original one, or that the copies of Livy are since corrupted and disordered? By no means. Now this is exactly the case here, and therefore I conclude, that although St. Mark did make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in writing his, yet it does not follow that our present copies of St. Matthew are confused and misplaced.

CHAP. XII.

The particular branches of St. Matthew's Gospel which Mr. Whiston supposes misplaced. Four propositions for the discovering the true order of time in the Gospel history. Several of those branches which Mr. Whiston supposes misplaced, are so far from that, that they are in the exact order of time in which they came to pass. Instances of this produced.

IN the following pages m Mr. Whiston proceeds to shew,

m Page 103, 104, &c.

which those several branches or periods of St. Matthew's Gospel are, which he supposes misplaced in our present copies, and contrary to the order originally intended by the evangelist. They are contained in that part of the history which is from the twenty-third verse of the fourth, to the end of the thirteenth chapter.

For the use of those who may not have Mr. Whiston's book, I thought it proper particularly to set them down; that the reader himself may, from the rules hereafter laid down, judge concerning those which I do not particularly consider.

The periods of St. Matthew's Gospel, which, according to Mr. Whiston, are misplaced in our present copies.

1. The sermon near the mount, in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters; together with some verses at the end of the fourth, and part of the eighth chapter belonging thereto.

2. The voyage to the Gergesenes, towards the end of the eighth chapter.

3. The healing of the paralytic, the calling of Levi, his feast, and the discourse at it, in the former part of the ninth chapter.

4. The healing Jairus's daughter, with the woman that had the flux of blood in the way thither, of two blind men as he went thence, and of a dumb demoniac just afterwards; towards the conclusion of the ninth chapter.

5. The mission and instruction of the twelve apostles, in the tenth chapter.

6. The message from John in prison, with our Saviour's answer, and the following discourses, in the eleventh chapter.

7. The vindication of the disciples plucking the ears of corn, with the healing the withered hand on the sabbath, and Christ's avoiding the designs against him, in the beginning of the twelfth chapter.

8. The healing a blind and dumb man, and Christ's vindication of himself from the imputation of casting out devils by Beelzebub, with many discourses and parables following, in the rest of the twelfth, and almost the whole thirteenth chapter. 9. The cure of the leper, just after the sermon on the

mount.

10. The cure of Peter's wife's mother, towards the middle

of the eighth chapter.

11. Christ's answer to two that were ready to follow him, succeeding the former.

12. His coming the second time to Nazareth, in the end of the thirteenth chapter.

These are the twelve branches of St. Matthew's Gospel, every one of which Mr. Whiston supposes to be misplaced, and put, in our present copies, out of their true and originally intended order. Any one that considers these several branches, their number, size, &c. will be surprised to find such 'disorders here, and not so much as one single disorder in all the other part of this, or either of the other Gospels. But of this I shall say more hereafter. My business now shall be to consider the matter of fact, viz. whether these several periods are misplaced, or not. In order to the more clear discussing of which question, I shall lay down the following propositions.

Prop. I. Sometimes each of the three evangelists, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, have related matters in a different order of time from that in which they came to pass.

That several portions of St. Matthew's Gospel are not now according to the order of time in which the things came to pass, is, I think, agreed by all, except the whimsical Osiander, and after him Molineus, and Codomannus. That St. Luke did not design in all things to observe the order of time has been already proved". That St. Mark did not is also evident, because he in several particular instances agrees with the order of St. Luke, which is not the order of time, as has been already hinted, and will more fully appear hereafter.

II. The principal and almost only methods of discovering whether any particular matter be in its proper order of time or not, in the Gospel history, are these two, viz.

1. By considering the phrases of transition or connection, by which it is joined, either to that which precedes, or that which follows it, or both.

2. By comparing it with the same history, in one or more of the other Gospels.

This is sufficiently evident to any one who has in the least