been made of the Old, and the other parts of the New Testament into all languages, not one has produced this bad effect; neither the Seventy, nor Jonathan, nor Onkelos, nor any other of the Greek or Chaldee tranflators, difordered the Old Testament by their Verfions; neither the Syriack, nor Arabick, nor any of the many Latin tranflators of the New Testament, did occafion any fuch diflocations in it; and is it then to be credited, that the tranflator of St. Matthew fhould be the occafion of so many dislocations in this part of his Gofpel? When not one of all the Verfions in the world has occafioned fo much as one fingle diforder, is it likely the translator of St. Matthew fhould occafion about twenty, in ten fhort chapters ?

But to fhew the abfurdity of this fuppofition, I would argue in the following manner:

If the tranflation of this Gospel be supposed to influence, and cause the transposition and disorder of these feveral parts, then it is plain these parts were not tranfpofed or misplaced before the tranflator began his work, and confequently the dif order must happen either in the time of tranflating, or afterwards. It was not likely to be done in the time of tranflating; for why should a perfon's reading a book with a defign to tranflate it into another language, any more occafion a diforder in it, than if he had read it with no fuch defign? If it was in its right order then (according to the fuppofition), it is much more reasonable to fuppofe the tranflator would endeavour to keep it fo, than by any means mifplace it. Thus it was not done in the time of tranflating; and it is very evident the translation could not influence the disorder after it was made, but would rather be a good means to prevent any fuch disorder happening to the original, if there had been any danger of it.

The other remark, which Mr. Whifton makes, is, that this diforder concludes, and the true order begins to be obferved, at a very remarkable period, viz. the death of St. John the Baptift, and the commencing of our Saviour's fingle miniftry thereupon. To this I think it fufficient to anfwer, that there are

a P. 111.

feveral

feveral other periods of the Gofpel history, as remarkable as this, where no diforder has happened.

CHAP. XXI.

Several Arguments to prove, that our present Greek copies of St. Matthew are not at all transposed or difordered, fince that Evangelift's first writing. No Book ever was thus difordered. It does not feem agreeable to the Care, which Divine Providence always exercifed towards the facred Books, to permit this to have happened to St. Matthew's Gospel.. No other Part of St. Matthew's Gospel difordered, and therefore not this. The Dislocations, which Mr. Whiston fuppofes, could not happen to this Gospel in the Apostles' Time....

TITHERTO I have been confidering what Mr. Whif

H

ton offers in defence of his propofition, and by many ways fhewing how unreasonable it is, to affert this Gofpel fo tranfpofed and mifplaced, as he does. All that I fhall do further, fhall be only to add three or four other arguments, by which it will appear, that our prefent copies of St. Matthew have not fuffered any dislocations, but are in this respect the very fame, as when St. Matthew at firft wrote. In order to which I obferve;

1. That there never has yet been discovered or proved an inftance of any fuch tranfpofitions and mifplacings, in any writings facred or profane, in any language, by any means whatsoever. It is indeed very difficult to affert and defend an univerfal negative propofition, and to fay fuch a thing never has been, unless the being of it be impoffible, and imply a contradiction to fome certain and well-established truth. Though indeed fuch a diforder as Mr. Whifton fuppofes, be not a thing in itself abfolutely impoffible to have happened either to this, or fome other book; yet I will venture to affert, it is such a diforder, as never has happened to any one whatsoever. If U 2

ever

ever such a thing did happen, it was most likely to have been before the art of writing was brought to that perfection, and had received those improvements, which it had in St. Matthew's time instead of this, not one of the books of the Old Teftament, nor Homer, Hefiod, Demofthenes, Ifocrates, &c. who wrote long before St. Matthew's time; nor any of the books of the New Teftament; nor Cicero, Ovid, Horace, nor any of the Roman poets or hiftorians, who wrote about his time, have suffered any such misfortune, as Mr. Whiston fuppofes this Gospel to have done. It is true indeed, Spinoza, and after him Father Simon, and Mr. Whifton, have imagined fome fuch diflocations to have happened to some parts of the Old Teftament (as has been said in the Preface). But after the closest examination of what they have said, I can find little more than bare affertions; and therefore till fome further proof, than yet has been, be made, I must conclude their opinion falfe.

2. It does not feem consistent with that care, which Divine Providence always did exercise, and may be reasonably supposed always would exercise, towards the books of inspiration, to fuppofe this Gospel fo confufed and difordered as Mr. Whiston does. Every one, who is at all acquainted with the hiftory of the Jewish nation, muft needs acknowledge, that a remarkably kind Providence has always concerned itfelf in the prefervation of the books of the Old Teftament. In the moft degenerate state of that unhappy nation, in the times of their ignorance and idolatry, their flavery and captivity, the books which were given them by God, and received into the Canon of their Church, were preferved fafe and uncorrupted, notwithstanding the malicious efforts of their enemies to the contrary. It does not appear that any one of all these books has been loft, though their conquering enemies endeavoured to the utmost to deftroy them. A remarkable inftance of this Jofephus tells us; viz. that Antiochus Epiphanes, when he

had fubdued Jerufalem, tried all poffible methods to abolish the religion of the Jews; and, in order to that, made particular Search after the facred volume, destroying it wherever it was found, and punishing with death all those in whofe poffeffion it was. But he, who was the author of them, took care of them, and preserved them not only from being loft, but from being in any remarkable degree corrupted. It is true indeed, there are some flight corruptions crept into the text, both of the Old and New Teftament, through the carelessness of transcribers; there are a great number of various lections in both; but these are fuch as without a conftant miracle could not but happen, and are to be found in as great, or greater number, in feveral of the profane authors (as the learned Dr. Bentley has very well obferved'), and are for the most part fuch, that it is not much matter which reading we choose. But the corruptions, which Mr. Whifton fuppofes in St. Matthew, are of another nature: these are such as render the text of the Gospel very precarious, and make it depend upon the judgment and fancy of every one, who pleases to alter it.. And is this now confiftent with the care of Divine Provi dence? Is it likely God would permit this useful Gofpel to be thus confusedly put together by fuch a blunderer, who out of twenty parts could not put but one in its proper order? This fure can never be believed by any, who acknowledge a divine. Providence to have concerned itself at all about the facred volume.

3. It is very improbable this part of St. Matthew's Gospel fhould be fo difordered and confufed; because all the otherpart of it is exactly in the order, in which the Evangelist wrote, without the least transposition. Mr. Whifton's hypo-" thefis, by which he accounts for the diflocation of the several: periods of the former part of this Gospel, is, that they were: wrote upon separate and diftinct pieces of paper: now upon this hypothefis I argue thus ;

Either St. Matthew wrote the other parts of his Gospel on finall pieces of paper, or he did not. If it be faid, he did not, then it is yet more unaccountable, that he should write this for

Answer to the Discourse of Free Thinking, Part I. p. 64, &c.

mer part fo; it is incredible, that these fourteen chapters should be written on twenty feveral pieces of paper, and the other? fourteen on one large roll. If on the other hand it be faid, that St. Matthew wrote the latter part of his Gospel, as he did the former, on many pieces of paper; then it is no lefs incredible, that none of these pieces fhould have the fame misfortune to be disordered and mifplaced, as the former. How can it be fuppofed poffible, that every one of the papers in the latter part fhould be in its right and due order, and not fo much as one of the former but is misplaced, except the first? I conclude therefore, that the former part of this Gofpel is not misplaced...

4. The improbability of this part of St. Matthew's Gospel being misplaced, will appear, if we confider that there has been no time ever since St. Matthew wrote, in which there were not fome circumstances, which would prevent such a dif order. To evidence this, I argue thus; If this part of St. Matthew's Gospel be misplaced, either the disorder happened' in the Apostles' time, or not till after their deceafe. But as it is improbable that it happened in their time, so it is morally impoffible that it fhould have happened afterwards.

I. It is not probable, that this diforder could happen in the time of the Apostles; for if it had, they would, no doubt, have rectified it. Many reasons would oblige them, not to suffer fo great a dislocation to remain in the Gospel hiftory. They would never recommend a book to the perusal of their converts, which they knew justly chargeable with such notorious corruptions. It is much more reasonable to suppose, that, if this Gospel was then misplaced and out of order, they would restore it to its proper order, and take care that fome copies fhould be made, in which the histories should be placed in the fame order in which the Evangelist wrote. Now if they did this, it is strange none of these copies fhould have others made from them, but all the books in the world fhould proceed from. one difordered copy, made in the Apostles' time,

It may perhaps be faid, that this diforder might happen in the Apostles' time, and they be ignorant of it, This indeed is poffible, but very improbable. The office and business of an Apostle was to preach the doctrine, and publish the mi

racles,