into it. And there cannot be any probable reafon affigned, why it should be placed any where else; for

1. It is a history not mentioned by either of the other Evangelifts. St. Luke indeed (ch. ix. 57, &c.) has an account exceedingly like this; but Mr. Whifton himself (as well as feveral other harmonizers) fupposes these to be two different histories; and confequently the order of time, in this instance, is not to be proved from either of the other Evangelifts.

2. The circumftances of the hiftory are all fuch as agree very exactly with that part of St. Matthew's history, in which it is placed in our prefent copies. At what time is it more likely to suppose, that persons should come to Christ, and declare their willingness to go along with him, than just then, when they had heard him give orders to get a fhip ready, to go to another country? And when could our Saviour more properly make the answer, which he here does (viz. The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head), than at this time, when he was leaving his own habitation and city, and going to travel in a ftrange country? There cannot be any place in the whole Gospel history, where it will be more agreeable to the context, than here. Mr. Whiston has however placed it after this voyage to the Gergefenes, which as, I think, no one befides him has done, fo no good reason can be affigned for his doing fo. The reafons which he offers for his placing it thus,

are,

1. That these accounts are, in our prefent copies, interpofed between two verses, which are perfectly coherent, and have a manifest connection without them. This is indeed true, but does not imply the least abfurdity in St. Matthew's present order. This branch is only a relation of fomething, which came to pass between our Saviour's ordering his disciples to get a fhip ready, and his going into it. It is true, if it had been entirely omitted, and St. Matthew had told us of our Saviour's entering into the fhip, immediately after he had given orders to prepare it, the connection had been very good and juft: but if a story be told of fomewhat, which happened in the mean time, it does not at all spoil the connection, as evidently

dently appears by confidering it. Ver. 18. our Saviour gives commandment to fome of his difciples, to go down out of the city to the fea-fide, to prepare a veffel to carry them over to the other fide: when they were gone, and while the Ship was getting ready (as Dr. Wells rightly paraphrases the place), or preparing for their departure (as Dr. Whitby), these perfons came to our Saviour; he gave them their answers; and then went on board ".

2. Mr. Whifton further argues, "that the nature of our "Saviour's answer to the Scribe, ver. 20. (The foxes have "holes, and the birds of the air have nefts; but the fon of man "hath not where to lay his head) plainly fhews, that these ac

counts ought to follow the voyage to the Gergefenes. For "fuch an answer (fays he) there could be no occafion before "this voyage; but after it, when he had been juft expelled "by the Gergefenes, there was the fitteft opportunity ima"ginable for fuch a complaint." Mr. Whifton will excufe me that I am forced to obferve, that he has not been fo cautious, as he is wont to be, in this matter. The place, which he affigns to this branch of the history in his Harmony, does moft evidently overthrow his own argument for placing it as he does. This will undeniably appear, if we confider, that the place (according to our present copies of St. Matthew) where our Saviour had this conference with the Scribe, was Capernaum, which is called Christ's own city, and lay close by the fea-fide. This is manifeft by the context. Now, fays Mr. Whiston, at the place, where it is faid to be in our prefent copies of St. Matthew, i. e. at Capernaum, there could be no occafion for that anfwer, The foxes have holes, the birds &c. (the reafon of which must be, because our Saviour was then in his own city, where his habitation was); and yet in his Harmony he has himself placed this very fame history at Capernaum, when our Saviour was returned home. A plain

Dumque alii ex difcipulis artis nautica periti præeunt, ut navem parent, atque Dominum venientem fufcipiant, in viâ ipfum fcriba, et imus ex difcipulis adeunt, animi fui

voluntatem ipfi proponentes, et quifque eorum feorfim fuum refponfum a Domino accipit. Chemn. Harm. Evang. cap. 63.

b P. 301.

instance,

inftance, how far the minds of the most learned men are biaffed by their favourite and preconceived opinions. I conclude therefore, that this branch alfo of St. Matthew's hiftory is fo far from being misplaced, that it is in its proper order of time. It would be tedious to prove this of all the other inftances. A due application of the rules laid down in the beginning of this chapter, will fhew us, that there are feveral of the other branches, that are in the order of time in which they came to pass, which are not only by Mr. Whiston, but some others, fuppofed not to be fo.

CHA P. XIII.

None of those Branches, which are not according to the Order of Time, in this Part of St. Matthew's Gospel, are misplaced. This evidenced by confidering several of them.

II.

11. A

LTHOUGH there are feveral paragraphs or periods

in this part of St. Matthew's hiftory, which are not according to the order of time; yet it does not appear, that any of them are misplaced, or put into an order, different from that originally intended by the Evangelift. It having been already proved, that thefe facred writers did not always intend ftrictly to obferve that order, in which the facts they relate came to pass; it follows, that we are not haftily to conclude, that a hiftory is mifplaced, because it is not in that order. This is for the most part Mr. Whifton's argument, there being in feveral of the particulars, which he afferts to be misplaced, not so much as an attempt to prove any more, than that they are not in the true order of time; though, in other inftances, there feems at the first fight to be something more.

For the clear difcuffing of this matter, I must observe, that the almoft only method, by which it is poffible to difcover whether aftory be misplaced or not, is by confidering the notes of its coherence with the context. If it be apparent, by comparing any

period of the hiftory with the other Evangelifts, that it is not in its proper order of time, and if it have fuch a note of coherence, as neceffarily joins it with the foregoing or following ftory (as it ftands in our prefent copies); we must conclude, either that the Evangelist was miftaken in writing, or that our copies are corrupted and altered, fince he wrote. The queftion then in this matter lies principally in this, viz. whe'ther in this part of St. Matthew's Gospel, there are any periods of the hiftory, which are not in the order of time; and yet, as they fand in our prefent copies, are neceffarily connected, either with the foregoing or following part of the history. Of this fort there is not one; but, on the other hand, all those that are really out of the order of time, are laid by the Evangelist in his hiftory, in fuch a manner, as plainly evidences that he had no defign that we should believe, that he intended to place them in that order.

I do not think it neceffary, diftinctly to confider all these particular branches, because, in fo doing, I fhall be obliged to a dull repetition of the fame things again and again; I shall only mention fome, and, among them, thofe which feem moft confiderable.

The cure of Peter's mother-in-law, ch. viii. 14, &c. is placed by St. Matthew after the Sermon on the Mount; whereas it is plain, from the other Evangelifts, that this miracle was wrought a confiderable time before. But then it is introduced by St. Matthew, and laid in his history in such a manner, as makes it plain, that he had no defign we should think it was in the order of time. He begins it thus, Kai ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησᾶς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Πέτρε, &c. and when Jefus was come into Peter's houfe, &c. But on the other hand, St. Mark and St. Luke have fo connected this ftory with the former, that it is impoffible to separate the one from the other. They both agree that our Saviour went from the fynagogue immediately to St. Peter's houfe, and there wrought this miracle: fee Mark i. 29, &c. and Luke iv. 38, &c. *

a Marcus certiorem notationem temporis et ordinis fervat.-Mani

The

feftum eft Matthæum-non fervaffe ordinem-unde et tali ufus eft locu

The fame may be argued in respect of the other branches, viz. the mission, and inftruction of the twelve Apoftles, chap. x. I, &c. and the fending of John's difciples to Chrift, chap. xi. 2, &c. which, being out of the order of time, are not connected to the context, by any notations of that order.

Of the other feven branches, there are two, or perhaps more, that seem to be in the fame order, in which they came to pafs; though I muft own, there are alfo two, which feem not to be in the order of time; and yet have such notes of time prefixed to them, as feern to imply immediate fucceffion. It is necessary that both these instances be particularly confidered.

1. The first is the cure of Jairus's daughter, ch. ix. 18, &c. "This (fays Mr. Whifton) fo immediately follows the "discourse at Levi's feaft, and with fuch an express notation " of the very moment of time, as is peculiarly remarkable, “ Taûra aůtě daħění© avroîs, &c. as he was speaking, or while "he fpake, these things unto them, behold a ruler, &c. So that "no unbiaffed reader could imagine the leaft fpace poffible "interpofed between them; whereas above a half a year was gone, after the feast of Levi, before the healing of Jairus's 66 daughter. An undeniable inftance of the diflocations be"fore-mentioned in this Gofpel; and I think I may well "call it an undeniable one, fince truly it was fo to me. For "though, at the first, I durft not fo far depend upon the other (( notes of time, as to believe the prefent order of this part of "St. Matthew to be different from the original one; yet "when I came to this, after a little attempt, I found it impof"fible to be got over, &c." This inftance therefore is plainly the main fupport of Mr. Whifton's hypothefis; and I own indeed it seems very much to his purpose, though, upon a close examination, I find it will not prove what he defigns it fhould. There are feveral more probable methods of accounting for the difficulty, than by fuppofing a diflocation; but

tione, quæ non neceffario exigit ordinem confequentiæ eorum, quæ narrantur; dicit enim, Et cum ve

niffent in domum Petri, &c. Chemnit. Harmon. Evang. cap. 38.

before