The Greek was the most common language, and, for that reafon, that Gospel was most likely to be useful therein. Suppofing it a tranflation, makes its infpiration dubious. It is not probable, that the original Hebrew would ever have been loft. The Hebrew one we have now, is certainly a tranflation out of Greek. CHA P. XX. Though St. Matthew's Gospel be fuppofed a tranflation out of Hebrew, yet it was not, for that reafon, more liable to dislocation or diforder. CHA P. XXI. Several arguments to prove, that our prefent Greek copies of St. Matthew are not at all tranfpofed or dif ordered, fince that Evangelift's first writing. No book ever was thus difordered. It does not feem agreeable to the care, which Divine Providence always exercised towards the facred books, to permit this to have happened to St. Matthew's Gospel. No other part of St. Matthew's Gospel difordered, and therefore not this. The dislocations, which Mr. Whiston fuppofes, could not happen to this Gospel in the Apoftles' time. CHA P. XXII. The diforder Mr. Whiston fuppofes in the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, could not poffibly happen after the Apostles' time, becaufe of the great number of copies, that were spread abroad in the world in their time. The time when St. Matthew wrote, and the distance between that time and St. John's death, death, confidered. That the Gofpels were very much difperfed in the Apoftles' time, largely proved. Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Toland, and Mr. Dodwell's notion of the Gofpels being a long while unknown and concealed, confuted by feveral arguments. CHA P. XXIII. St. Matthew's Gospel, in our prefent copies, was not difordered and mifplaced fince the Apostles' time, because the Syriack Verfion, which was made in the Apoftles' time, is in the fame order with our prefent copies. An attempt to prove, that the Syriack Verfion was made in that time. Syriack was the language of the Jews, in the Apoftles' time. Great numbers of Jews were converted to Chriftianity, and therefore needed a Verfion in that language. CHA P. XXIV. The Syriack Verfion, which we now have, is the fame which was made in the Apostles' time. This proved by three arguments. The Syrians, from whom we had it, believed it to be the fame. It is improbable the antient Verfion fhould be loft: it wants the parts of the New Teftament, which were laft written. A VINDICATION OF THE FORMER PART OF St. MATTHEW's GOSPEL, &c. CHAP. I. The Defign and principal Authors of Gospel Harmonies. The Defign of the following Difcourfe. HE difference which there is between the Evangelifts, THE in relating several circumftances of the Gospel-history, and particularly their disagreement as to the order of time, in which the things they relate were done, has in all ages of Christianity been objected as an argument against the truth of the hiftory itself. Porphyry, Celfus, and many others, have for this reafon reviled both the Gofpels, and the religion which they contain. Hence it has been judged neceffary by many pious and learned men, to employ themselves in endeavours to reconcile the feeming contradictions of thefe facred writers, and to reduce the Gofpels to a perfect Harmony. Among the antients, Tatian, the scholar of Juftin Martyr, composed a Harmony in fome part of the second century 2, and after him Ammonius, of Alexandria, in the beginning of the third com Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 4. c. 29. pofed pofed another, and after him Eufebius, in the beginning of the fourth. In the laft age great pains was taken in this work, by Chemnitius, Gerhard, Calvin, Dr. Lightfoot, and many others. Mr. Le Clerc, Mr. Whiston, and Mr. Toinard, are (I think) the only perfons, who have done any thing confiderable in this matter of late years. To fay nothing of the others, the world is exceedingly obliged to Mr. Whiston, for the many curious and ufeful difcoveries he has made in his performance on this subject; the propofitions he has advanced, are certainly, for the most part, very ingenious and happy expedients, to folve the difficulties they are defigned for. There are however fome of them, that do not seem to be fo very evident and so fully proved, as others; and in this number is that which I have now undertaken to difcufs, viz. That the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, in our present copies, is very much misplaced, contrary to the method and order originally intended by the Evangelift. That part of this Gofpel, which Mr. Whifton fuppofes difordered and misplaced, is from the middle of the fourth, to the end of the thirteenth chapter; in which small portion of the history there must have been, according to his supposition, at least twenty feveral disorders and misplacings. However good Mr. Whiston's defign might be in advancing so strange a propofition, I cannot but think he has failed in his proof of it. My bufinefs therefore in the following difcourse will be, first, To fhew the invalidity of Mr. Whiston's arguments, and then offer fome reasons, by which it will appear, that no such disorder can, without the greatest absurdity, be supposed to have happened to this, or any other part of this Gospel, A fpecimen of which is to be feen in Sixt. Senenf. Bib. Sanct. 1. 3. b P. 100. CHAP. CHA P. II. Mr. Whifton's Proof confidered. The Question thereupon stated. N order to establish this new and frange propofition (as IN 1. That St. Matthew appears originally to have obferved the order of the time, through his whole Gospel, as well as the rest of the Evangelifts. 2. That from the fourth to the fourteenth chapter, the feveral branches of St. Matthew's hiftory are not according to the order of time. These two things, could they be fufficiently proved, do evidently demonstrate the truth of the propofition; for if St. Matthew wrote his Gospel according to the, order of time, and it is not now according to that order, it is plain it is misplaced fince it was first wrote. The latter of these two, viz. whether these branches of St. Matthew's Gospel are according to the order of time in our present copies, or not, I will not now difpute. It feems it was believed in the first ages, that St. Mark, and confequently St. Luke (for it is certain that, for the most part, they obferved the fame order, and Mr. Whifton's Harmony evidently fhews it), did not follow that order. So we are informed by that very antient account of Papias, viz. "That St. Mark, being the interpreter of St. "Peter, very carefully wrote down all the things he could re"member, but not in that order, in which the several things "were faid or done by Christ." To the fame purpose St. Jerome b. "That St. Mark, the interpreter of St. Peter, who "himself did not fee our Lord, but wrote the things which he 1 |