These words, fays he, rather shew, that the wretched ignorance and laziness of fome particular perfons was condemned by Chryfoftom, than the negligence of the universal church in his time.

3. If Chryfoftom himself had pofitively afferted, that the Acts of the Apostles were not known and read in his time, he ought not to be believed, because the evidence is fo plain to the contrary from fo many authors.

4. Add to this, that Chryfoftom himself in another place faith, that the Acts of the Apoftles was wont to be read in their churches after Eafter, and before Whitfuntide; for this he affigns this reason, that nothing can more convictively evidence the resurrection of Chrift, which is the basis of all our religion, than the pouring forth of the Holy Ghoft, and the propagation of the Gofpel by their miniftry over the world; all which is recorded in the Acts. Vid. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. N. T. Præfat. in tom. 2. And this, by the way, feems to me no small evidence of what I have above faid, viz. that the book upon the Acts, from whence the paffage under debate was taken, was not made by Chryfoftom; if it was, Chryfoftom muft contradict himself in a plain matter of fact, viz. In one place he afferts the book not to be known; and in another, that it was publickly read in the churches.

Erafmus, though he seems not to give any credit to the paf-fage under the name of Chryfoftom, yet, for another reason, concludes the Acts were not fo much known in the Greek church, as the Gospels and Paul's Epistles, viz. because, as he fays, major erat lectionis varietas, he found more various lections in the MSS. of this, than any other of the facred books. What this learned critic means, I know not; if his argument will prove any thing, it is the direct contrary; for the more various lections there are of any book, the more often it has been transcribed, and confequently the more it appears to have been in use.

Arg. IV. The Acts of the Apoftles are Canonical, because the book is found among those which were received by the churches of Syria as fuch, and which they collected together as Scripture, and tranflated; Prop. XV.

b

From what is faid it appears, that the Acts have as much evidence of their genuineness and Canonical authority, as they need to have, or can be supposed to have, at this distance of time from their writing. I know nothing that has been objected against the authority of this facred volume; nor indeed that can be, unless it should be said, that some of the first and moft early Hereticks of the church did not receive it as Scripture. The fact is indeed certain. The Acts appear to have been rejected by feveral of them. Tertullian tells us, that Cerdo (whofe difciple Marcion was) rejected the Acts as false; and in the fame book disputes against some whom he does not name, who denied this part of Scripture; and in his dispute against Marcion, confutes him and his disciples for their abfurd opinion of rejecting the Acts. Philaftrius informs us, that the Cerinthians alfo did not receive it: as Austin likewife, that the Manichees did not, because they looked upon Manes or Manichæus to be the Paraclete foretold, John xvi. whereas the Acts of the Apoftles exprefsly declare it to have been the Holy Ghost, who defcended upon the Apostles. I have carefully examined the several places, where these Hereticks are faid to have rejected the Acts, but find not any one reafon affigned for their doing fo. But to end in Father Simon's words f; "Let us leave these enthusiasts, who had no "other reason to refuse the books that were approved by the "whole Church, than this, that they did not fuit with the idea, "which they had formed of the Chriftian religion."

Lib. de Præfcript. adv. Hæretic. c. 51. Acta Apoftolorum quafi falfa rejicit. Vid. Pamel. Annot. in loc.

h

Cap. 22. Quam Scripturam qui non recipiunt, nec Spiritum Sanctum poffunt agnofcere, &c.

• Adv. Marcion. lib. 5. c. 2. d Hæref. 26.

De Utilitate credendi, ad Honorat. cap. 3.

f Critic. Hift. of New Teft. Par. I. c. 14. in fine.

A

VINDICATION

OP

THE FORMER PART

OF

ST. MATTHEW's GOSPEL,

FROM

MR. WHISTON's CHARGE OF DISLOCATIONS.

OR

An Attempt to prove, that our prefent GREEK COPIES of that GOSPEL are in the fame Order, wherein they were originally written by that EVANGElist.

IN WHICH ARE CONTAINED,

Many Things relating to the Harmony and History of the FOUR GOSPELS.

By JEREMIAH JONES.

ΤΟ

MR. SAMUEL JONES.

SIR,

Of all thofe various ftudies in which man

OF

F

kind are employed, there are none in which the Christian fhould more heartily engage, than those which have a tendency to advance the honour, and promote the knowledge, of the facred Scriptures.

The understanding the two original languages, in which the Bible was written, an acquaintance with the dialects of the Hebrew, the antient Verfions of the Old and New Teftament, the cuftoms of the Jews, and other neighbouring nations, are means very neceffary for obtaining these ends. By these and some other fuch means, very great advances were made towards the knowledge of the Scriptures, in the beginning of the last century. Difficulties, which before feemed infuperable, were folved, and feeming contradictions, which gave occafion to the enemies of Christianity, to blafpheme the good word of God, were by these means happily and fully reconciled. Grotius,

Scaliger,