"had heard St. Peter preach, was more concerned to be true " in his account of things, than to obferve the order, in which "the things were done." I might add here, that several more modern writers have been of the fame opinion; and that St. Matthew's Gospel is more according to the order of time, than either St. Mark's or St. Luke's. But (as I said before) I will not dispute this head; and then the question between us will be only this, Whether St, Matthew appears originally to have obferved the order of time through his whole Gofpel. Mr. Whifton, for the following reafons, afferts it, viz. 1. Because all the other writers of the Gospel-history intended to obferve this order, 2. St. Matthew, in the greatest part of his Gospel, daes obServe the order of time in his narrations. 3. The notes of the order of time are as many, and the fame in that part which is now difordered, as in that which is regular, and in its proper order. 1. Mr. Whiston supposes, that all the other accounts of our Saviour's Alts were intended according to this order. For the proof of this he refers us to the first and third propofitions (which, by the way, feem to be very near the fame, only dif ferently expreffed). The principal proof in both places is taken from those words of St. Luke, chap. i. 1, 2, 3, viz. Forafmuch as many have taken in hand, to fet forth in order a declaration of thofe things, which are moft furely believed among us; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. "St. Luke (fays Mr. Whifton) affures us, not only "that himself had observed the order of time, but that the fame "was intended by thofe many others, who had written the "Evangelical History before him." This indeed seems plaufible, but will by no means prove that for which Mr. Whiston contends. For I. It is very probable, that St. Luke in these words had no reference to either of thofe Gospels, which we now receive; rem ipfe non vidit, fed ea, quæ audierat magiftrum prædicantem, juxta fidein magis geftorum narravit, quam ordinem. Hieron. Præfat. in but but to fome other accounts of our Saviour's life and acts, which were at that time wrote. As to St. John's Gospel, it is very certain he could not refer to that, because it was undoubtedly wrote a long time afterwards. Nor is it at all likely, he had any respect to either of the other two Gofpels which we now have, as will be apparent from a fhort confideration of St. Luke's word. The defign of them evidently, is to give us an account of the reasons or motives, which induced him to write his Gospel, viz. as he fays, because many others had undertaken the like work before him. Now how the writing of others should be the reafon or occafion of his writing, is very hard to conceive, unless we fuppofe fome inaccuracies and defects in their writing. If the other accounts or histories he is supposed to refer to, were wrote as they ought to have been, this should have been fo far from inclining him to write, that it should rather have prevented him, if he had had any fuch defign. And therefore the hiftories or accounts, which St. Luke here refers to, were inaccurate and falfe. This is fo very evident, that Mr. Whiston himself, in another place a, has asferted the very fame thing, where he thus paraphrases these words of St. Luke, viz. That feveral of the hiftories of our Saviour, which he (St. Luke) had perused, though they attempted it, were not able to arrive at a fufficient accuracy in the order of time. St. Luke therefore, in these words (even according to Mr. Whifton), cannot refpect either St. Matthew or St. Márk, because they both wrote very accurately, and, according to him, observed the order of time. I conclude, therefore, that not the Gofpels we now receive, but the other falfe Gofpels, which were then wrote, were intended by St. Luke in these words: this opinion will appear yet much more. probable, if we confider that there were, even at this time, a great number of falfe and fpurious Gofpels fpread abroad in the world. Irenæus tells us, that, before his time, the hereticks had an infinite number of Spurious and Apocryphal Scriptures, which contained (as is plain from what he fays a P. 114. b • Αμύθητον πλῆθος ἀποκρύφων VOL. II. afterwards) an account of our Saviour's life and acts. Men immediately upon the publishing of Chriftianity, formed themfelves into various parties of different denominations; and many or most of these had their own Gofpel, which was different from that of others. It would be endless, as well as needless, for me to mention the several Gospels of the Ebionites, Marcionites, Nazarenes, the Gospel of St. Peter, Andrew, James, Bartholomew, &c. Every one, who has in the least made Christian antiquity his study, is acquainted with these things; those that are not, may be fully fatisfied in the matter, by a bare cafting their eyes upon the authors cited at the bottom of the page, who have, especially fome of them, made a very full collection of the falle Gofpels, which were spread abroad in the world, in the very infancy of Christianity. These were the Oi wool, the many, whom St. Luke referred to. I would only add here, that this hath been the opinion of many, if not moft, antient and modern writers. "St. Luke (fays "Auftin) gives us this reafon for his writing in order, be"cause many others had attempted it; but we are to under"ftand him of fuch, who had no authority nor esteem in the "Church, having undertaken what they were by no means "able to perform." To the fame purpose fays Eufebius. "St. Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, tells us what (( was the occasion of his writing; intimating, that because (( many others had rafhly and inconfiderately undertaken to "write of those things, of which he had a fuil and certain "knowledge, he alfo would write to prevent the mischief of "those uncertain accounts." So Theophylact, in explain Dr. Grabe's Spicileg, Patr. bIdeo autem dicit fibi vifum effe bemus accipere, quorum in Ecclefra nulla extat auctoritas, quia id, quod conati funt, minime potuerunt implere. Auguft. de confenf. E. vangel, 1. 4. c. 8. . Ὁ δὲ Δεκᾶς ἀρχόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν συγγράμματος, την αἰτίαν προύθηκε, δι ̓ ἣν πεποίηται τὴν σύνταξιν δηλῶν, ὡς ἄρα συλ λῶν καὶ ἄλλων προπετέσερον ἐπίετη δευκότων διήγησιν ποιήσαθαι, &c. Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. 1. 3. c. 24. ing these words 2, puts the question, Who were those men, intended by St. Luke, that took in hand to write, &c. and anfwers, They were false Apostles; for many fuch had wrote Gofpels. In the fame opinion are the learned Erafmus, Grotius, Father Simon, Bellarmine, Calvin, all afferting St. Luke here had no regard to St. Matthew or St.Mark, but to fome other writers, who had not wrote as they ought to do. The learned Mr. Dodwell carries the matter further, and (if I mistake not) does by a good argument conclude from these words of St. Luke, not only that he had no reference to either of these two Gospels, but that he never saw them. What he faith is to this purpofe, viz. & "St. "Luke, in the Preface to his hiftory, giving this reason for "his writing, that he had received his accounts from those "who were eye-witneffes, plainly intimates, that the writers of "thofe other Gospels, which he had seen, were not furnished "with that help; fo that neither being eye-witneffes them❝ felves, nor duly consulting such as were, their credit must "be doubtful: and thence it muft neceffarily follow, that the "Gofpels, which St. Luke had seen, were not any of those we "now receive." Upon the whole, therefore, I hope I may justly fay, that Mr. Whiston has here failed in his proof; because these words of St. Luke, having no reference to either of the Gospels we now receive, cannot prove what Mr. Whiston brings them for that St. Matthew, or any of the Gospel-writers, defigned to observe the order of time in their histories. But, II. If it should be allowed and taken for granted, that St. Luke in these words had refpect to the Gofpels we now receive, yet there is nothing in his words, which will prove, a Vid. eum ad Luc. i. 1. b Annot. in N. T. ad Luc. i. 1. Annot. ad eund. loc. d Critic. Hift. of the New Test. par. 1. c. 3. • De Matrimon. Sacram. l. 1. c. 6. f Harmon. Evangel. in init. Et cum novæ fcriptionis edit in Præfatione caufam, quod ipfe AUTÓT narrationibus adjutus fuerit aggreffus, id plane innuit desti M 2 tutos hoc fubfidio fuiffe viforum a fe Evangeliorum auctores, ita nimirum non fuisse airóπras, ut ne quidem αὐτόπτας cum cura aliqua et fedulitate confuluerint, vacillare proinde meritoque dubiam fuiffe eorum fidem. Ut plane alios fuiffe neceffe eft Evangelicæ Hiftoriæ fcriptores a Luca vifos, a noftris, quos habemus, Evangeliftis. Differt. 1. in Iren. p. 68, 69. they they were intended and wrote according to the order of time. Indeed, according to our English Translation, one would be apt to think fo; Forafmuch as many have taken in hand, to fet forth in arder a declaration, &c. From the words to fet forth in order, Mr.Whifton concludes, that these Gospels, and particularly St. Matthew's, were wrote according to the order of time; but the original word avaratuodas implies no fuch thing, but only in general to compile, or compofe, or fet together, without any particular regard to the order of time, or any other order whatsoever. This is the fenfe Suidas and Hefychius give of the word avarážaodas; and fo it is taken by the old Syriack interpreter, and the best modern translators. So Beza', componere narrationem, and Caftalio, contexere narrationem; De Dieu, apparare feu concinnare; fo that the whole meaning is, Forafmuch as many have undertaken to write the history, &c. and consequently nothing can hence be concluded, concerning the Evangelists designing to obferve the order of time in their hiftories. The three other arguments which Mr. Whifton offers, to prove the Gospels were wrote according to the order of time, p. 97, 98, 99. are fo much the fame, with thofe which are brought to prove this concerning St. Matthew in particular, that they need not be diftinctly confidered. 3 • Αναλάξασθαι, Εὐτρεπίσασθαι, i. e. apparare, inftruere, componere, Εὐτρεπισμὸς, ἡ Ἑτοιμασία, Suid. Mihi vero τὸ συντάτεσθαι b idem videtur generaliter declarare, atque confcribere, et conficere. Bez. ad loc. CHAP. |