>

racles, of Jefus Chrift. Now St. Matthew having, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, collected a very early, full, and authentick account, both of the doctrines and miracles of Chrift, there can be no doubt but the Apoftles would make use of it themselves, and recommend it to the use of others. Not to have done this, would have been to caft that contempt upon the work of one inspired Apostle, which we cannot fuppofe another would do; befides not to have made ufe of this, would have been to neglect one likely means of obtaining the ends of their apostleship. Hence Eufebius tells us, that when the pious Pantænus (who lived in the time of Irenæus and Origen) went to preach the Gospel to the Indians, where St. Bartholomew had been preaching the Gospel before him, he found there the Gospel of St. Matthew. No doubt the Apoftles, when they went abroad to preach the Gospel, did take both this and the other Gofpels along with them, and left copies of them, when they were gone, for the use of their converts, as I fhall fhew more fully hereafter. Hence it seems very reasonable to conclude the Apostles made use of this Gofpel; which if they did, they being eye-witneffes to the hiftory, could not but perceive fuch dislocations and misplacings, as those which we are treating of, and fo, no doubt, would have corrected them. This argument is abundantly confirmed by a teftimony of Eufebius, viz. that the three former Gospels were perufed by St. John, and that he approved them. Now if St. Matthew's Gospel had been fo confusedly fet together, as Mr. Whifton fuppofes, St. John would certainly never have approved of it. Mr. Whifton cannot question this teftimony of Eufebius, having himself used it on another occafione. conclude therefore, that this diforder did not happen to this Gospel in the Apostles' time.

a Hift. Eccl. 1. 5. c. 10. Vid. Valef. ad loc.

1 Tar πрoavayfa CevTOV Tp tis πάντας ἤδη καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν (fc. Ἰωάννην) διαδεδομένων, ἀποδέξασθαι

I

CHAP. XXII.

The Disorder Mr. Whiston fuppofes in the former Part of St. Matthew's Gospel, could not poffibly happen after the Apostles Time; because 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, confidered. That the Gospels were very much difperfed in the Apostles' 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.

A

II. AS this diforder did not happen in the time of the Apostles, fo it neither did nor poffibly could happen afterwards. Mr. Whifton does not any where hint to us, at what time he fuppofes thefe diflocations made; nor does Mr. Toinard fay any more in this refpect, than that they were done, antiquiffima fchedarum tranfpofitione, by a very antient confufion of the papers, on which they were wrote. It was not without reafon that they thus left the time undetermined, being well aware of the difficulties that would attend their hypothefis, if they had determined it. As fuch diflocations could not happen in the Apoftles' time, fo it was morally impoffible they should have happened afterwards: to mention no other arguments, this will fufficiently appear by the two following confiderations.

1. That there were a very great number of these Gospels, fpread up and down in the world before the Apostles' death.

2. The Syriack Verfion, which seems to have been made in the Apoftles' time, has the feveral branches or periods of this hiftory in the fame order with our prefent Greek copies.

1. The diforder or diflocation, which Mr. Whifton fupposes in St. Matthew's Gofpel, could not poffibly happen after the Apostles' death; because between the first writing of it

and

b

and that time, there were a very great number of true copies spread in different parts of the world, which would certainly prevent it. It is not very eafy, indeed, precisely to determine the time, in which either this, or any of the Gospels, was wrote. The most antient account, which I have met with, about the time of St. Matthew's writing, is in Irenæus, viz. that he wrote it, when St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome 2. When St. Peter was at Rome is not very certain; Irenæus tells us here, it was the fame time that St. Paul was there, viz. in the third year of Nero (according to Eufebius, in his Chronicon), and the fifty-ninth of Chrift; and to this moft chronologers agree. Now according to this account, this Gospel was not written till about twenty-fix years after our Lord's afcenfion. But this feems very improbable, because the Chriftian converts cannot be supposed to have been fo long a time deftitute of any written account of our Saviour's miracles and doctrines. It is much more likely, that this Gospel was wrote at the time, when Eufebius has placed it in his Chronicon, viz. in the third year of Caligula, and the forty-firft of Chrift. To this agrees the account of Theophylact, that St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel about eight years after our Lord's afcenfion. The fame is affirmed at the end of several antient manufcripts. So, for inftance, in that of Beza (which he gave to the University of Cambridge, and is reputed the most antient manuscript of the Gospels in the world), there is written; The Gospel of St. Matthew was published eight years after our Lord's afcenfion. The fame is written at the end of an antient manufcript in Mr. Colbert's library. To the fame purpofe, at the end of the old Arabick Verfion of this Gofpel, it is written f; St. Matthew wrote eight years after our Lord afcended, in the first year of Clau

CHAP. XXII. dius. Now if we take this laft account, and reckon from St. Matthew's writing eight years after our Lord's afcenfion (in the last years of Caligula, or the first of Claudius) to the death of St. John, we shall find the intervening space to be about fixty years; for St. John lived till the reign of Trajan, as Irenæus, who lived not long after him, and Clemens Alexandrinus, inform us. Now Trajan, according to Eufebius, began his reign in the year of Chrift 101; fo that from St. Matthew's writing in the year of Chrift 41 to the death of St. John in Trajan's reign, must be at least fixty years; and, in this long interval, there were undoubtedly great numbers of copies of this Gospel difperfed in all thofe diftant countries, where the Gospel was preached. Very probably many thousand copies were made, and fent into all those places, where Christianity prevailed. Eufebius, fpeaking concerning the Evangelifts in the apoftolick times, fays, They travelled up and down in the world, preaching the Gospel, and very indufrioufly endeavoured, τὴν τῶν θείων Εὐαγγελίων παρα Adóvæs ypæ¶úr í. c. to difperfe abroad copies of the holy Gofpels. And in another place he affures us, that, before St. John wrote his Gospel, the other Gofpels were in the hands of all men. If this be true, is it a thing credible, that of all the copies that have been known in the world, not oné fhould be derived from any of thofe vaft numbers of copies that were made, and spread abroad in the world, in the Apoftles' time? Can it be imagined, that all the manuscripts in the world are derived from one confused, mifplaced copy, that was made after the Apostles* time; and hot so much as one from any of thofe innumerable copies, that were in their right order till the Apostles' death? This, I think, cannot without manifeft abfurdity be supposed.

It will not be at all foreign to my present purpose, to confider a little more particularly, what a great number of copies of the Gospels, and particularly of St. Matthew's, were spread abroad in the world in the Apostles' time, at least before the death of St. John. I am the more inclined to confider this matter, because, I find, a very learned writer has taken fome pains to perfuade the world, that the Gospels, and other writings of the New Teftament, lay for a long time concealed and unobferved in the world. The perfon I mean is Mr. Dodwell, who in his elaborate Differtations upon Irenæus 2 tells us, That the Canonical writings of the New Teftament lay concealed and unknown in the coffers of fome private churches, or perhaps fome private perfons, till the later times of Trajan, or perhaps of Adrian (i. e. till the year of Christ, 120, or perhaps 130.); fo that they were not at all known by the Catholick Church. He proceeds for a page or two, in saying things much to the fame purpose. Mr. Toland, obferving how much this paffage would ferve his purpose, to render the Canon of Scripture uncertain, tranfcribes it at large in his Amyntor, and declares his affent to the truth of it. Mr. Hobbes, in his Leviathan, is very much of the fame opinion; he fays, The copies of the books of the New Teftament were, not many That the Council of Laodicea is the first we know of, that recommended the Bible to the then Chriftian Churches-That the copies of the books of the New Teftament were then only in the hands of the ecclefiafticks, &c. I do not defign particularly to difcufs this whimsical and groundless opinion. Mr. Nye, in his Answer to Amyntor, Mr. Le Clerc, in his Reflections on these two Sections of Mr. Dodwell ©, and Archbishop Tenifon, in his Answer to Leviathan, have fufficiently done this already. I fhall only endeavour by two or three arguments to