before I come particularly to confider any, I think it necessary a little more clearly to ftate the cafe.

St. Matthew, ch. ix. 9. gives us an account of his call by our Saviour to follow him; ver. 10. he tells us of a feaft at his house, where many publicans and finners were also present; ver. II. he informs us of a queftion, put by the Pharifees to our Saviour's difciples, concerning his eating with finners; and ver. 12, 13, our Saviour's anfwer; after this, ver. 14. we have an account of John's disciples coming to Chrift, and asking him, why his disciples did not faft? and ver. 15, 16, 17. our Saviour's answer to their queftion, which whilst he was giving, Jairus came, ver. 18. But, fays Mr. Whifton, there was half a year's space between the feast of Levi, and Jairus's coming to Christ. This is indeed easily afferted; but not the leaft reafon offered for the affertion. It were to be wished, that in this, as well as other inftances, he had told us, for what reasons he supposes them to be out of the order of time. A bare afferting that a story is so much too soon, or so much too late, or a referring us to his Harmony, where he has fo placed it, cannot be thought sufficient; and indeed, this is all that Mr. Whiston has done in this, and several other inftances. But this is too confiderable a point to be given up so easily. For the fake of ftating the cafe more fully, let us confider the reason of this affertion. It is in fhort only this, that St. Mark and St. Luke place a great many of our Lord's difcourfes and miracles, between this feaft of St. Matthew and the difcourfes which follow it, and the coming of Jairus to our Saviour. The former is placed by St. Mark, ch. ii. 14, &c. and by St. Luke, ch. v. 27, &c. The latter by St. Mark, ch. v. 22, &c. and St. Luke, ch. viii. 41, &c. This is the difficulty, for the solution of which there may be two or three expedients, but I fhall only make ufe of one, which is, that of fuppofing there was fome time interpofed between St. Matthew's being called to be an Apostle, and his entertaining our Saviour at his houfe. This fuppofed, will reconcile the Evangelifts, and make St. Matthew's notation of the time, when Jairus came, to be very juft and proper. Let us then fup

pose,

pofe, that St. Matthew was called at the time, where St. Mark and St. Luke place it, viz. before the fermon on the Mount, and the voyage to the Gergefenes (and this indeed is probable), and that those Evangelifts, having a mind to finish at once and together, all they defigned to fay concerning St. Matthew in particular, mentioned there also his feaft, and the difcourse at it, though they were fome time after his call. On the other hand, let us suppose, that St. Matthew being about to mention his feaft, and the difcourfe at it, in its proper order of time (viz. foon after the return from the country of the Gergefenes), premised there the account of his call, which yet was some time before. If this be allowed, then there is no abfurdity in fuppofing Jairus's coming to Chrift, while he was talking to John's difciples at Levi's feaft. I own indeed the preceding hypothefis is not entirely my own; I received the firft hints of it from Chemnitius and Dr. Lightfoot, and thereupon examined into the matter with the utmost diligence and impartiality; and after having weighed all the several circumftances of the ftories under confideration, I made the following obfervations, which feem to fupport the account that has been given.

1. There are many inftances of a like nature with this, both among the writers of the Gospel history, and other hiftorians. It is a very common thing with all writers, when they defign to fay but little of a person in their history, to join it all together, although what they relate came to pafs at very diftant times. This has been already fhewn a, and is very evident in the case of Shimei, 1 Kings ii. 36, &c. His building a house at Jerufalem, and his being put to death, are connected together (like St. Matthew's call and feaft), though they were plainly three years diftant in point of time. But this is an obfervation, too common and obvious to need any inftances to be

produced to fupport it.

2. The fuppofing St. Matthew's call and feast to have been at two different times, does not make the history of either of the Evangelifts at all the more inaccurate. It is fo far from giving

VOL. III.

a P. 40. R

colour

colour to any fuch charge, that it is really the best method of writing a history, as has been proved above 2.

3. It is very obfervable, that neither of the three Evangelifts do join the account of Levi's call, and his feaft together, by any fuch notes of time or phrafes, as imply the immediate fucceffion of one to the other. St. Matthew and St. Mark, after having related the call, fubjoin the ftory of the feaft, introduced thus, Kal yévero, and it came to pafs. St. Luke only tells us, that Matthew made him a feaft, not at all specifying the time, when it was made.

4. It is alfo remarkable, that St. Mark and St. Luke, when they had finished the account of Levi's feast, and the discourse at it, do not join the following history to this with any note of time, so as to imply that it immediately followed it. But on the other hand, both of them begin the next ftory thus, Kai šyéveto, and it came to pass, Mark ii, 22, 23. and Luke v. ult. and vi. 1. Now hence it follows, according to the corollary above, p. 92. that St. Matthew, who has prefixed a plain note of time to this hiftory, is to be supposed to have observed the right order of time.

5. The ftory of Jairus's coming to our Saviour, cannot be placed any where elfe in St. Matthew's Gospel, but where it is in our prefent copies. This will appear from the phrafe, by which it is introduced, Ταῦτα αὐτῷ λαλέντΘ. αὐτοῖς, while he was Speaking these things unto them. It is plain, that, when St. Matthew wrote this, it immediately followed fome difcourfe of -our Lord's to several perfons. But I affert, upon a close review of all the branches of this part of the hiftory, there is not any one of them, after which St. Matthew can poffibly be supposed to have wrote it, but after the difcourfe, to which it is now fubjoined in our prefent copies. Hence it is very ridiculous in Mr. Le Clerc, and fome other harmonizers, to place this period of the hiftory after that which is not a difcourfe of our Saviour's, but the words of the hiftorian, viz. thofe, Matt. viii. 33. Mr. Whifton indeed has placed it after a difcourfe of our Saviour's to one of his difciples, Matt.

• Ibid.

viii. 22. but it is certain it was not wrote by St. Matthew, immediately after that branch, because that has been proved to be in its proper order of time. Befides, the words immediately preceding, according to Mr. Whifton's Harmony, are, Ὁ δὲ Ἰησᾶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ακολέθει μοι, καὶ ἄφες, &c. But Jefus faid unto him, Follow thou me, and do thou fuffer the dead, &c. Our Saviour is fpeaking to one person in the fingular number; and is it then likely, that St. Matthew's next words should be, Tauta aitě nahor autois, While he was speaking to them, &c. in the plural number? But now as it ftands in our prefent copies, speaking to them (avroîs) very well follows the dif course with John's difciples. All this confidered, makes it, I think, exceeding probable, that Jairus's coming to our Saviour was immediately after the discourse, that immediately precedes it in our prefent copies; and confequently, if that dif courfe was at Levi's feaft, that feaft is now in its proper order and fo, if the call of Matthew was at that other time, where St. Mark and St. Luke do place it, the call and the feaft were at two different times.

6. This will be yet further confirmed, if we confider the place where St. Mark and St. Luke relate this account of Jairus's coming to Chrift. They place it immediately after the hiftory of our Saviour's return from the country of the Gergesenes, and not after any discourse of our Lord's immediately preceding it. Now it is certain by St. Matthew's account, that it was at a time when our Lord was difcourfing with feveral people; it is plain therefore, that, in St. Mark and St. Luke's account, this ftory does not in point of time immediately follow that which it follows in the history, but some difcourfe of our Lord intervened in the mean time. Now either this intervening difcourfe is fomewhere related in these Gofpels of St. Mark and St. Luke, or it is not. If we fay it is, there can be no doubt, but that it is the difcourfe, which now immediately precedes it in our prefent copies of St. Matthew, and fo the difpute is ended. On the other hand, to fay it is not, feems very unreasonable, when we confider that

the discourse, which immediately precedes it in St. Matthew, is in these Gospels; and that a very good reason has been affigned, why they put it in another place, viz. because they had a mind to relate St. Matthew's call and feaft, and the difcourfe at it, all together.

7. It may not be improper to obferve, that in the antient Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius (one of which was made in the second, and the other in the beginning of the third century), St. Matthew's call and feaft were placed at two very diftant times, and many hiftories interpofed between them a. Auftin, in his excellent treatise of the Harmony of the Gofpels, by a very good argument, proved that St. Matthew's call is not in his Gospel in the right order of time, but was before the sermon in the Mount; because, fays he, St. Luke mentions St. Matthew among the rest of the Apostles, that were with our Saviour in the Mount (ch. vi. 15.). He seems indeed to have been inclined to believe, that the feast was some time after the call; and hence Gerfon, Chemnitius, and many others, have imagined this Father of that opinion; but it is very plain to any one, who will confider his words closely, they have mistaken his meaning ".

Thus I have endeavoured, by feveral arguments, to confirm the supposition of Levi's call and feast, being at two different times, and by a great deal of pains have endeavoured to get over a difficulty, which Mr. Whiston, after a little attempt, concluded impoffible to be got over. There is indeed another way of folving this difficulty, proposed by Dr. Wells, in his late paraphrafe on this place. That I may not mifrepre

a

Atque hoc modo vetuftiffimæ etiam Harmonia Tatiani et Ammonii diftincte ponunt, primo vocationem Matthæi, et poftea convivium Matthæi in alio loco Harmoniæ, ut alio tempore poft factum, collocant. Chemnit. Harm. Evang. cap. 43. in princ.

Hinc autem probabilius videtur, quod hæc prætermiffa recordando Matthæus commemorat; quia utique ante illum fermonem in monte habitum, credendum eft vocatum

effe Matthæum: in eo quippe monte, tunc Lucas commemorat omnes duodecim ex pluribus Difcipulis electos, quos et Apoftolos nominavit. Afterwards Speaking of bis feaft he adds; Poffet videri, non hoc ex ordine fubjunxiffe, fed quod alio tempore factum eft, recordatus in. terpofuiffe, nifi Marcus et Lucas, qui hoc omnino fimiliter narrant, manifeftarent in domo Levi difcubuiffe Jefum. &c. de Confenf. Evang. 1. 2. c. 26, 27.

fent