1 The practice of other hiftorians, as well as the Evan- gelifts, to neglect the order of time. Several in- ftances out of the Old Teftament hiftory. Inftances Mr. Whifton's fecond argument confidered. It does not follow, that because St. Matthew, for the most part, obferved the order of time, therefore he did in every particular. The third argument difcuffed; Mr. Whifton's proof of the main propofition confidered. It fuppofes St. Mark's Gospel an epitome of St. Matthew's. This the opinion of most learned men, but certainly falfe. That St. Mark is not an epi- tome of St. Matthew, proved; firft, from the ac- count given in antiquity of the manner and occafion of his writing, viz. that he wrote at Rome, from St. Peter's mouth. The teftimonies out of antiquity produced. Two obfervations from Scripture to fup- CHA P. VIII. The third argument, by which it appears, that St. Mark's Gofpel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. the remarkable difagreement there feems to be, between these two Evangelifts, in feveral parts of their Gofpels. It is first premifed, that all these are CHA P. IX. The fourth argument, to prove St. Mark's Gofpel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because it has a great many hiftories, which are not in St. Mat- thew. A catalogue of them. The fifth argument, viz. that it wants feveral remarkable hiftories. CHA P. X. The fixth argument, to prove St. Mark's Gospel is not an epitome of St. Matthew's, viz. because that sup- pofition makes its infpiration more dubious and uncertain; it makes the author look like a pla- giary. Two objections against this argument an- fwered. The feventh argument, the fuppofing this Gofpel an epitome, detracts from its honour and ufefulness. Spinoza and Father Simon for this reafon affert most of the books of the Old Teftament, to be only epitomes, made out of records that are loft.. Laftly, fuppofing this Gofpel an epitome, invalidates 1 in a great measure its teftimony to the truth of Christianity. The Evangelifts did not fee one another's Gofpels. CHA P. XI. If it be allowed, that St. Mark did epitomize St. Matthew, it will not follow that our prefent copies of St. Matthew are misplaced, and contrary to the order originally intended by the Evangelift. CHAP. XII. The particular branches of St. Matthew's Gospel, which Mr. Whifton fuppofes misplaced. Four propofitions for the difcovering the true order of time in the Gospel-history. Several of those branches, which Mr. Whifton fuppofes mifplaced, are fo far from that, that they are in the exact order of time, in which they came to pass. Inftances of this pro duced. CHA P. XIII. None of thofe branches, which are not according to the order of time, in this part of St. Matthew's Gofpel, are misplaced. This evidenced by confidering feveral of them. Mr. Whifton's method of accounting for the diforder he fuppofes in this part of St. Matthew's Gospel, viz. that St. Matthew wrote it on small pieces of paper; that these were confusedly put together by thofe, who did not perfectly understand the true series of the hiftory. Mr. Toinard of the jame opinion. The improbability of it, propofed to be Shewn Shewn from the antient way of writing. The moft antient methods confidered. CHAP. XV. That St. Matthew did not write his Gospel on fmall pieces of paper, proved by a large differtation on the manner, in which the antients wrote their books. The ordinary method was to write upon large skins, which were faftened together, and rolled up. This the practice of the Jews long before, and in our Saviour's time. The words opened and closed the book, Luke iv. 17, 20, difcuffed. The words, bring the parchments, 2 Tim. iv. 13. confidered. It does not appear that the Jews made use of paper, or any other material befides that mentioned, to write their books upon. CHA P. XVI. Mr. Whifton's frange fuppofition, of St. Matthew's writing this part of his Gospel on fmall pieces of paper, confuted from the confideration of their number and unequal fize. A table of them, by which it appears, that they were at least twenty in number, of very different fixes. Some contained feveral chapters, others but a few verfes, others but one verfe. The improbability of St. Matthew's writing thus. The fixe of the parchment rolls, on which the Jews wrote. CHA P. XVII. Mr. Whifton's obfervation, that our present Greek copies of this Gofpel, are a tranflation out of Hebrew, and for that reafon more liable to the dif order order 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 miftake in matters of fact. How they came to fall into this mistake, viz. by taking the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites for the true authentick Gospel of St. Matthew. The Fathers were under a fort of neceffity of believing this mistake. CHA P. XVIII. The Fathers fell into the mistake, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, becaufe none of them, except Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius, underflood that language. They were upon that account unable to compare the Gospel of the Nazarenes with their own Gresk copies, and difcover its Spurioufness. This confirmed by a remark, that none of the Fathers, who affert St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, have cited the Gospel of the Nazarenes, except the three mentioned, who underftood that language. The reafons affigned, why they (Epiphanius, Jerome, and Origen) fell into the fame mistake. Papias, the firft Chriftian writer who afferts this, was a very fabulous and credulous perfon; yet was followed by many of the Fathers in his mistakes (as Eufebius obferves) by reafon of his antiquity. His teftimony in this matter, proved by one part of it to be falfe. CHA P. XIX. Several arguments by which it appears probable, that St. Matthew did not write his Gospel in Hebrew. The |