ページの画像
PDF
ePub

a

"A confi

fent him, I fhall fet it down in his own words. "derable time after what is related in the foregoing para"graph, namely, when Jefus was juft come back from the "country of the Gergefenes (as was related chap. viii. 28. " and ix. 1.), fome others seem to have come to Jefus about the same subject; whereupon he gave them the fame reafons, why it was not proper for his difciples to fast yet. « And now it was, that while he spoke these things unto them, "behold there came a certain ruler, &c." In his annotations on the place, he tells us ; "This feems the beft, because the "moft natural and easy, way to reconcile this, raura airê λa"λourTos autoïs, idoù exur, &c. of St. Matthew, with Mark v.22. " and Luke viii. 41." This opinion fuppofes the call of Levi, his feast, and the discourse that followed it, to be in our prefent copies of St. Matthew out of its proper order of time; and also that our prefent copies are exactly in this place, as St. Matthew wrote at firft, viz. that after the discourse with John's difciples, St. Matthew immediately wrote, raûra aiTê haλertos avtoïs, while he spake these things to them. Now according to the Doctor, this aurois, them, must not refer to those to whom our Saviour was talking at Levi's feast, but to fome others that he had discoursed with about half a year before. Is it credible that St. Matthew would write thus ? Chrift fpake fuch and fuch things to John's difciples; and while he was speaking to them, i. e. according to the Doctor, while he spake to fome other perfons. This is far from being natural and eafy; it makes the Evangelift write not only inaccurately, but to a high degree abfurdly ". But this is no new thing with Dr. Wells.

2. The other inftance which feems to be out of its due order of time, and yet to have a note of immediate fucceffion prefixed to it, is that of the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, chap. xii. 1, &c. As it lies in our pre

a Matt. ix. 18.

Le Clerc, in his Paraphrafe upon the Harmony of the Gofpels, is the only perfon that I know of (befides the Doctor), who has taken this method of reconciling the Evan

gelifts; and I cannot but think, when the Doctor comes to confider this matter again, he will not be afhamed to own, that he borrowed his opinion from Le Clerc.

-R 3

fent

fent copies, it follows the meffage of John the Baptift out of prifon to Chrift, with this notation of fucceffion, 'Ev ixsívy T xcepi, At that time, Jefus went out on the Sabbath-day through the corn, &c. whereas, fays Mr. Whiston, this plucking of the ears of corn, was fome months before the meffage of John the Baptift. For the proof of this, Mr. Whiston thinks it enough here, as well as in most of the other inftances, to refer us to his Harmony; As, fays he, will be evident in the Harmony. He attempts no other proof than this; and this really amounts to no more than if he had faid, I have placed it fo in my Harmony, and therefore St. Matthew wrote fo. It is true St. Mark and St. Luke have placed this matter a great deal fooner in their history, viz. before the fermon on the Mount; but then it does not appear, that they defigned to connect it to the preceding history by any express notation of the time. But though we take this for granted, and suppose that in our present copies of St. Matthew, this ftory of the disciples plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath-day, is not in its proper order of time; yet it does not appear to be misplaced fince it was firft wrote, because it is not connected to the preceding part of the hiftory by a phrase, that neceffarily implies immediate fucceffion in point of time. The phrase here made use of by St. Matthew is, i xiv T napa, at that time, or about that time; which phrafe is undoubtedly made ufe of in Scripture chronology in a very large fenfe. So in the inftance above-mentioned out of the Old Testament, viz. that of Judah's going down to his brethren, Gen. xxxviii. 1. the story is introduced with the very fame phrafe, nn ny At that time; whereas that hiftory, to which it is prefixed, happened a confiderable time before that, which it immediately fucceeds. This phrase therefore is not, as Mr. Whifton calls it, a notation of fucceffion, and consequently does not prove a diflocation in this part of the Gospel hiftory. Mr. Whiston does indeed in another book (viz. his Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies, p. 71.) make use of this fame note for the fame end, viz. to prove the tranfpofition of the fixth and seventh verfes of the

[blocks in formation]

tenth chapter of Deuteronomy. But I need take no more: pains to fhew, that this phrafe does not imply immediate succeffion; Mr. Whifton himself, in his Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 73, in direct contradiction to himself in these two places, has very well proved it, by the fame instance which I juft now mentioned out of Gen. xxxviii. 1. His words are; "But then we must remember, that although the "words, at that time, seem to refer us to the foregoing hif "tory of Jofeph, yet the expreffion is of a much larger ex-* "tent in the language of Scripture, and includes a great space "of time, as will appear by a view of the inftances in the "margin, of that and the like ways of speaking, both in the "Old and New Teftament. Nay indeed, it seems to be little <c more than a particle of transition, or common way of intro❝ducing and beginning a new branch of an history; juft like "the English particle, Now, as it is ufed at this day; which "though at firft it might infer a connection, in point of time, "with what went before, yet now it is plain it is frequently (C no more than a particle of transition, to introduce a new << period, after we have made a full end of that which went "before." It is well obferved by Mr. Whifton here, that this phrafe is often used thus in Scripture. Dr. Wells has obferved, that this phrafe is used three times in St. Matthew, in this lax fenfe. "The Greek expreffion aforementioned (viz. 'Ev T xαip Exe) is not to be understood in a "ftrict sense, or fo as to denote, that the particulars which "they usher in, were done or fell out in that point of time, "which followed next in order to the time wherein came to "pass the particulars next afore related by St. Matthew; but "the faid Greek phrase is to be understood in a large fenfe, fo "as to denote a confiderable interval or space of time, in, or (6 during, which the feveral particulars, which are ushered in "by the faid Greek phrase, did come to pass, &c." Thus rightly has the Doctor explained this phrafe. The observa

a Deut. x. 8. 2 Kings xx. 1. 2 Chron. xxxii. 24. Ifai. xxxviii. 1. Matt. iii. 1.

b See his Paraphrase on Matt. ii. 25.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

tion is indeed very trite and common; Ufher, Spanheim, Dr. Lightfoot, Chemnitius, and many others, have made the fame remark. I rather chose to cite the Doctor's words on this head, because he seems in them to have had a direct design to confute Mr. Whifton's hypothefis; for he adds, "Hereby are "eafily folved all objections urged against St. Matthew's "Gofpel, as being faulty as to wrong dating of feveral par❝ticulars of our Saviour's hiftory, without having recourse sc to fuch notions, as that St. Matthew writ on loofe papers, "which have not been put together in their due order." I was the more willing to mention this, because I know not that any one befides has taken the leaft publick notice of this propofition of Mr. Whifton's, which feems fo injurious to the honour of this part of the facred volume.

CHAP. XIV.

Mr. Whifton's Method of accounting for the Disorder he fup. pofes in this Part of St. Matthew's Gospel, viz. that St. Matthew wrote it on fmall Pieces of Paper; that these were confusedly put together by thofe, who did not perfectly underftand the true Series of the Hiftory. Mr. Toinard of the fame Opinion. The Improbability of it, proposed to be shewn from the antient Way of writing. The most antient Methods confidered.

HAV

AVING confidered thus far Mr. Whifton's proof, that the several periods of the history in this part of St. Matthew's Gospel are misplaced, I proceed now to confider the following fection. The defign of the fection is, to ob

Serve what might be the

a

probable occafions of the present mistaken

places of thefe feveral branches. Now in order to this, Mr.

a P. 108.

Whifton

Whiston is forced to a very odd and strange fuppofition, such as I am very much inclined to believe he never would have espoused, had he sufficiently weighed, and been aware of, its confequences. "I muft," fays he, "here take it for granted, "that the feveral parts or periods of this former part of St, " Matthew's Gospel, were written at firft feparately, and upon " several distinct papers; which papers (or whatever they were "written upon) were put together into their present order by "thofe, who did not perfectly know the true feries of the " history."

[ocr errors]

I have more largely obferved in the Preface, that Spinoza and Father Simon have taken this method to depreciate and vilify the facred volume, fuppofing that feveral parts of it were confufedly put together, by thofe who did not know the right and true order of the hiftory. It is indeed a very eafy way of accounting for many of the difficulties of Chronology in the Old Teftament, as well as in the Gofpels, if the matter of fact could be made certain. If there are indeed feveral parts of the history transposed and misplaced, I cannot conceive any other way fo probable, by which the fuppofed diforders can be accounted for, as this; I must therefore do Mr. Whifton that justice to own, to his honour, that he has hit upon the only poffible method of accounting for the dislocations he supposes to have happened to this part of St. Matthew's Gospel. In the next fection he tells us indeed, "that he once de"figned to have attempted to offer fome conjectures, how "so many of these sections came to be fo ftrangely trans"pofed;" but this, I confefs, is what I am not able to underftand. He fays here, "that he fuppofes the feveral difordered

[ocr errors]

parts or periods were wrote at first separately, and upon "diftinct pieces of paper, and placed in this wrong order by "thofe, who did not know the true series of the history;" and then adds," that he will obferve, what were the probable "occafions of their prefent miftaken places." And is not this offering conjectures, how they came to be transposed? I afk Mr. Whifton's pardon, if it appear that I am mistaken in

* Pag. 110.

faying,

« 前へ次へ »