It is very certain these rolls were of very different fizes; the prophet Ifaiah was commanded to prepare a great roll, chap. viii. 1. and Jeremiah prepared fuch a one, as contained all the prophecies God had spoke by him against Israel and Judah, from the days of Jofiah unto that time, chap. xxxvi. 2. i. e. as many as he had received in the space of twenty-three years, as appears by the chronology, and chap. xxv. 3. Jofephus, when he had finished his history of the Jewish Antiquities, fays, it was βιβλίοις μὲν εἴκοσι περιειλημένην, folded up in twenty volumes or books. The expreffion (if I do not mistake it) feems to imply, that each of these books was a distinct volume; and fo every one of them was of a larger fize, than the whole of St. Matthew's Gospel would have made. He adds further, that these twenty books contained fixty thousand sizo or lines; and fince these books were most of them contrived by the author to be pretty near of a fize, we may conclude that, one with another, each of thefe volumes contained about three thousand lines; and fuch volumes muft needs a contain a great many fkins of parchment.

Maimonides out of the Talmud tells us, that the parchments, on which the Jews wrote their bibles, were to be fix hands in breadth, and fix in length; and fo the present Jews, retaining the old cuftom of their nation, write the law which they use in their fynagogues, in one fuch large volume “. And if Father Simon is to be believed, the Jews have not altered the antient custom, but have just such volumes in their fynagogues now, as formerly they had. There is a controverfy between that Father and the learned Ifaac Voffius on that head; the former contending, that "the Pentateuch, or five "books of Mofes, did all make but one volume;" the latter, "that they were as many volumes as books." The former

After a computation of the number of lines in one of the clofeft of our printed editions in folio, in which the Greek taketh the whole breadth of the page, I find the number of lines in the print, does not amount to very much above a third part of the number of lines, that

were in Jofephus's own manuscript.

Vide Leufden. Differt. 34. de Pentateuch. Manufcriptis, P: 399, and Dr. Prideaux's Connection of the Hift. of the Old and New Test. Part 1. b. 5.

Vid. Leufden. loc. cit.

afferts,

afferts, "they were one volume in the time of Chrift ;" the latter fays; "the contrary is evident from the history of Ari❝ftæas, which mentions the law as written in several vo"lumes;" and adds, " that of the infinite number of books "there are in the world divided into volumes, there is not

a

one in all antiquity which can be evidenced to have been sc as big a volume, as half the Pentateuch would have made." He concludes afferting the present synagogue books to be more for fhew, than for ufe, &c. It does not feem very material, which of these learned gentlemen was in the right: either of their opinions being fuppofed true, fufficiently evidences the abfurdity of imagining St. Matthew to have wrote fo small a part of his Gospel, on fo many pieces of paper as have been mentioned.

Thus I have endeavoured to fhew the unreasonableness of fuppofing St. Matthew to have wrote after that manner, which Mr. Whifton fuppofes: after the clofeft confideration of the matter, I am not able to conceive of any thing, which could be the motive or reason of St. Matthew's writing thus. Perhaps it may be faid, he wrote down his accounts of matters as they came to pafs, left they fhould flip his memory; but this fuppofition is upon many accounts groundless and falfe, feveral of these things having come to pass before St. Matthew was called, and almost all the parts or periods so introduced, as to imply a connection (though not in point of time) with the preceding and following parts of the hiftory. But a fuller anfwer to this opinion I do not think myself yet obliged to make; only would refer the reader to the foregoing table.

As to the hints, which Mr. Whifton proposes, to restore thefe difordered parts to their true order again, I cannot think, that, befides what has been already faid, they require any particular confideration. I would only make this one remark

a Cum infiniti fuperfint libri in volumina diftincti, vel unum in tota antiquitate oftendatur volumen, quod ad tantam excrefcat molem, ut vel dimidiam librorum Moyfis partem

exæquet. Voff. Refponf. ad iterat. P. Simon. Object. p. 371, et ejufdem Refponf. ad tertias Simon, Object. p. 95.

from

'from them, viz. that he, who did transpose them, must be one that was very well acquainted with the Gospel history; and fuch a one could not poffibly make fuch blunders as these. But I leave this, and the more particular confideration of this matter, to those who shall judge it nécessary.

CHAP. XVII.

Mr. Whifton's Obfervation, that our prefent Greek Copies of this Gospel are a Tranflation out of Hebrew, and for that Reafon more liable to the Disorder, which he fuppofes, confidered. St. Matthew did not write his Gospel in Hebrew, though it is afferted by all the Fathers. The Fathers have frequently (one after another) fallen into the fame Mistake in Matters of Fact. How they came to fall into this Miftake, viz. by taking the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites for the true authentick Gospel of St. Matthew. The Fathers were under a Sort of Neceffity of believing this Mistake.

THE

or

HE remaining part of what Mr. Whifton fays, to estab_ lifh his propofition, confifts of an observation or two, which he imagined would make it appear more probable, and give fome light in this matter to fome future inquiries; and a vindication of himself from fuch cenfures, as the frangeness of the propofition would occafiona.

The two obfervations which Mr. Whifton makes, are, he fays, instead of some conjectures which he once defigned to have offered, how these sections came to be so strangely tranfpofed. It is to be lamented, that any thing fhould have been the unhappy means of preventing fo good a defign. Mr. Whifton's zeal for truth, and his indefatigable endeavours to find it out, perfuade me, that nothing but the impossibility of

accomplishing his defign, would have prevented him in pursuing it. For my part (as I have already faid) I cannot see any other way of accounting for the diforder, than that which Mr. Whifton and Mr. Toinard have taken, and which has been confidered in the two foregoing chapters.

I proceed now to confider Mr. Whifton's two obfervations; the firft is this, viz. "The prefent copies of St. Mat"thew are only a tranflation from the Hebrew (in which lan

guage all antiquity affirm that Gospel was written), and "may therefore more probably have been fubject to fome "confufion and diforder than any of the reft, whofe own co"pies we ftill have in the fame language wherein they were "originally written by their authors.”

This obfervation of Mr. Whifton's will appear to be no fupport to his hypothefis, when the two following propofitions are duly confidered.

1. That St. Matthew's Gospel, in our prefent copies, is not a tranflation out of Hebrew, but the original Greek itself, in which that Evangelift wrote.

2. Suppofing our prefent Greek copies are a tranflation out of Hebrew, yet they were not, for that reafon, at all the more likely to fuffer any fuch diflocations or diforder, as Mr. Whiston Supposes.

1. St. Matthew's Gospel, in our present copies, is not a translation out of Hebrew, but the original Greek itself, in which that Evangelift wrote. I own indeed with Mr. Whifton, that all antiquity hath affirmed this: I cannot find, that fo much as any one of the antients did believe this Gospel originally wrote in Greek. Papias a, Irenæus », Origens, Jerome a, Austin, Eufebius, Theophylact, and feveral others, do all agree

to affure us, that this Gofpel was originally wrote in Hebrew. I fhall not go about particularly to confider each of these testimonies; Dr. Whitby has already done this, as to the most confiderable of them, in his Prefatory Discourse to the Four Evangelifts: inftead of this, I will make a few observations, which may help to give fome light into this matter.

1. It is certain, that a great many of the Fathers have fallen into the fame mistake, not only in matters of mere speculation (which was very common), but also in matters of fact. Every one, who is at all acquainted with the Popish controverfial writings, will eafily admit this obfervation to be true. It is common in them to meet with a great body of Fathers, cited to fupport the most apparent falfehoods. A perfuafion that the Scriptures of the Old Testament were corrupted by the Jews, prevailed very much among the Fathers, though a notorious falfehood: and Dr. Whitby, in his Treatife of Traditions, has fhewed, that "the Fathers have been "impofed upon by the Jews, in other things, received from "them by tradition, and afferted by more teftimonies of an"tient Fathers, than are vouched to prove that the Gospel "according to St. Matthew was firft written in Hebrew. "So, for inftance, they do a great many of them relate the

ftory, of the feventy tranflators of the Greek Bible making "their tranflation in fo many cells, which is a mere fable." For a further confirmation of this matter, I fhall think it fufficient to refer the reader to that excellent treatise of Mr. Daillé, Concerning the Right Ufe of the Fathers".

It may here be objected, that I myself have made ufe of their testimony, to prove the manner in which St. Mark's Gospel

was wrote ".

To this I only answer, that in such cases, where there can be no objection made against any particular teftimony, nor any probable reafon affigned, why they fhould fall into fuch mistake, we ought certainly to believe them. The former was the cafe in refpect of the writing of St. Mark's Gospel;

a Sect. 5.

See especially Part II. c. 3.

c P. 50.

the