CHA P. III.

The Writers of the Gospel-Hiftory did not intend or obferve the Order of Time in their Writings. This proved particularly of St. Luke by feveral Inftances. The Phrafe, write in order, Luc. i. 3. discussed.

WHETHER the writers of the Gofpel-history did de

fign to relate the several acts and circumstances of our Saviour's life, according to that order of time, in which each of them came to pass, is a question of very confiderable importance. Mr. Whifton very earnestly contends for the affirmative ; which indeed if it be true, it is very certain, that not only that part of St. Matthew's Gospel, which he supposes, but alfo feveral parts of the other Gospels, are in our present copies very much mifplaced, confused, and disordered. I rather think, the Evangelifts had not any fuch regard to that order, but were principally concerned in relating the feveral matters of fact truly and faithfully. This has been the opinion of, I think, almost all those who have confidered this matter, both antient and later writers. The truth is, (fays a learned writer b) that the Apoftles (he means all the Evangelifts) had not properly any defign in writing, but to inform us, of the doctrine and miracles of our Lord; not much regarding thefe things, which may be thought requifite to an exact and methodical history. I do not fuppofe, that the Evangelifts had no regard at all to the order of time, in compofing their Gospels. The contrary is very certain; and a bare view of Mr. Whif ton's Harmony, will fufficiently convince any one, that, for the most part, each of these sacred writers, not only intended to observe, but do exactly agree in obferving, this order. All

that I contend for, is, that they do not always confine themselves to this method, but very often for juft and good reasons infert several particular tranfactions, not in that order in which they were done. This might be proved, beyond doubt, of every one of the Evangelifts. But it will be sufficient to prove it, only concerning St. Luke; because his Gospel is by Mr. Whiston supposed to be perfectly in this order of time, and therefore he corrects St. Matthew's by it. The following instances will abundantly evidence the truth of what I say.

St. Luke, ch. iii. ver. 19, 20. relates the history of John's imprisonment by Herod, before the account of our Saviour's baptifm, ver. 21, &c. which certainly is contrary to the order of time; Chrift being no doubt baptized long before John's imprisonment; fee Matt. iii. 13, &c. and iv. 12. Hence Mr. Whiston himself has taken the liberty here to transpose these verfes in his Harmony, although he tells us, (pag. 100.) that he had ventured but in one instance (viz. that of our Lord's mother and brethren coming to him), to change the order of St. Luke.

Ch. iv. 33, &c. St. Luke relates the hiftory of the unclean Spirit being caft out of the man, in the fynagogue at Capernaum, and v. 38, &c. the account of Peter's mother in law being cured of a fever, and after thefe, ch. v. 1. The calling of Peter and the other Apoftles by the fea fide; whereas it is very certain, that these Apoftles were called before these miracles. And fo this hiftory ought, if the order of time had been obferved, to have been placed fooner, as both the other Evangelists have placed it, Matt. iv, 18, &c. compared with ch. viii. 2, &c. and 14, &c. and Mark i. 16, 30. This is fo undeniable a proof of St. Luke's fometimes leaving the order of time, that nothing can reasonably be urged or objected against it. Indeed Mr. Whif ton, finding this fo directly overthrowing his scheme, which he had before formed, was resolved to say something against it, and therefore he supposes, that the history here recorded by St. Luke, is quite different from that recorded by St. Matthew,

P. 123, & 125.

and,

4

and St. Mark. But I cannot think any one, who confiders the matter without prejudice, can be of that opinion. The circumstances are fo very like, that I believe every one that reads those two hiftories, concludes them to be the fame. I own indeed, there are fome different circumftances in the hiftories, and fo there are in almost every one of the ftories, which are related by two Evangelifts. But those here are very inconfiderable, and very eafily to be reconciled. Mr. Whifton however has made them fo many arguments to prove the story in St. Matthew and St. Mark, and that in St. Luke to be different. I need not be at the pains diftinctly to confider them; Dr. Whitby has in a few words fufficiently fhewed, that they do not prove the two different callings of thefe Apostles, which Mr. Whiston contends for. The four first reasons, by which Mr. Whifton endeavours to prove these two ftories different, are only additional circumftances, mentioned by St. Luke, and not by St. Matthew nor St. Mark. The other two are really not different at all. A bare cafting the eye upon them will evidently fhew it:

St. MATTHEW and St.

MARK.

a

Follow me, and I will make

you fishers of men.

They left their nets, and fol

lowed him.

St. LUKE.

From henceforth thou shalt catch men.

They left all, and followed

him.

Are these fuch differences, as to prove the hiftories to be different? One would rather think thefe very circumstances to be the fame; and if fo, it is plain, that St. Luke did not always defign to obferve the order of time in his history.

Another inftance to the fame purpose, (viz. of St. Luke's not observing the order of time in the ftories which he relates) we have, ch. viii. 19, 20, 21. where he places the hiftory of our Lord's mother and brethren, after the parable of the fower, which begins at ver. 4. of that chapter, but according to the

* Annot. on Matt. iv. 18. vid. & Spanheim. Dub. Evang. tom. 3. Dub. 72.

M 4

other

other Evangelifts, viz. St. Matthew and St. Mark, it is evident this account should have been before this parable, if the order of time had been obferved; fee Matt. xii. 46, &c. and xiii. 1, &c. and Mark iii. 31, &c. and iv. 1, &c. Hence Mr. Whifton has in this instance also, receded from St. Luke's order in his Harmonya.

Thefe, were there no other, feem to be fufficient arguments to prove, that St. Luke did not confine himself always ftrictly, to relate the acts and circumftances of our Saviour's life, in the fame order, in which they came to pass. That which induced Mr. Whifton', as well as many others, to the contrary opinion, are those words in St. Luke's preface, c. i. ver. 3. where he fays, he defigned, xadis year, to write in order. But to this it may be answered, that it is not at all neceffary this word fhould be thus tranflated; it may be as well rendered particularly, ferie perpetua; so it is certain the word commonly fignifies, and the beft criticks have taken it in this sense. "They are mistaken (fays Grotius), who con"clude from this word, that St. Luke defigned more closely cc to observe the order of time, than the others had done be"fore him; for on the contrary it is evident, that he more "than once relates things of the fame nature together, though "they were done at different times. Kadis means nothing

more than particularly, as is plain from the use of the word "Acts xi. 4. and xviii. 23. So that St. Luke's meaning here is no more than this, My defign is to write to thee a particular account of the things done by Chrift. But if after all nadens ypatas fhould be tranflated to write in order, why muft it needs regard the order of time more than any other order? Are there not feveral other orders and methods of writing made ufe of by historians, befides this? viz. such as placing actions and difcourfes of a like nature together, or things which were done at the fame place, though not at the

a P. 287, & 289.

P. 97. & 114.

← Falluntur, qui hinc colligunt propofitum Lucæ temporum ordinem preffius fequi, quam alii ante ipfum feciffent; nam contra apparet,

illum non femel ob rerum cohærentiam connexuiffe, quæ temporibus erant difcreta. Sed nadens nil aliud eft quam figillatim, ut videre eft A&t. xi. 4. & xviii, 23. Grot, ad Luc. i. 3.

Jame

fame time. An hiftorian may be very properly faid to write in order, who does not exactly obferve the order of time.

But if we fuppofe further, that St. Luke by the word xadiñ did intend the order of time; why muft he be supposed to limit and confine himself to it in every particular branch of his history, so that he could not, when he saw a juft occasion, recede from it? He may be well faid to write in the order of time, who doth fo for the most part. And hence it is excellently obferved by our late English critick; that, " It being "certain, that St. Luke in his Gospel doth not give us "Christ's miracles, fermons, and journeys, in that order of "time, in which they were done and spoken: it remains, "that, when he promised to write nadıgns in order, we under"ftand this of Chrift's conception, birth, circumcifion, bap"tifm, preaching, death, refurrection, and afcenfion, of which "he truly writes in order." Upon the whole, then, I conclude, that St. Luke in writing his Gospel did not design exactly to obferve the order of time, and confequently also, that St. Mark did not; because, according to Mr. Whifton", he every where agrees with St. Luke: and fo Mr. Whiston's argument, to prove St. Matthew originally observed the order of time, viz. because other Gospel writers did fo, is plainly infufficient.

Dr. Whitby, Annot, on Luc. i. 3.

P. 114

СНАР.