Matthew (and fo indeed each of the other Evangelists) does for the most part exactly observe the order of time; yet it will by no means follow, that that infpired writer was always fo confined to a strict obfervance of this order, that he could upon no occafions whatsoever depart from it. Several reasons have been affigned, upon the account of which an historian may fometimes deviate from this order, though for the most part he strictly observe it. And it has been proved, that St. Luke sometimes relates things in a different order from that in which they came to pass, though for the most part he exactly obferves the order of time. Mr. Whifton's argument therefore, that because St. Matthew for the most part writes in this order, therefore he does never recede from it, will not hold.

Mr. Whifton's last argument, by which he endeavours to prove, that St. Matthew originally observed the order of time through his whole Gospel, is, that the notes of the order of time, and coherence of parts, are as many in that part which is now difordered and misplaced, as in that which is regular and in its proper order. It is true indeed, thofe which Mr. Whifton has here collected, and calls notes of the order of time, are as frequent in this as any other part of the Gospel; but then thefe are fuch which are only (if they may be fo called) notes of transition, generally inferted by the hiftorian only for the fake of connecting the feveral ftories together, and not to denote the regular fuccession of the facts related. They are most of them fuch as can only relate to the story that follows them, and do not at all connect it with that foregoing. This will appear by a very flight confideration of them: they are fuch as thefe: Ἰδὼν δέ· καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ ςόμα αὑτῷ· καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους· καὶ ἰδού· εἰσελθόντι δέ· καὶ ἐλθών· καὶ προσελθών &c. and feeing; and opening his mouth; and coming down from the mountain; and behold; and as he was entering; and coming, &c. Is it not evident that these, and fuch as these, are designed only for the better tranfition from one story to another.? Is it not very plain that they regard only the subsequent story? For inftance, 'Idav de xai 'Id' and when Jefus faw; and behold; have these phrases any reference at all to what goes before? Do they intimate that the next fact related, was immediately in

order

order of time after that which was before related? Let us fuppose the story, to which one of these notes is prefixed, a confiderable time after that which immediately precedes it in the history, might not the hiftorian very properly prefix one of thefe notes to it? Might he not fay, xai idàv, or xai indŵv : 'Inošs, and Jefus seeing, or coming, did such or such a thing, only regarding what he was about to tell, without the least respect to what he had faid before? Nay, let us go further, and suppose one of those notes prefixed to a story, which in the order of time was before that which it immediately fucceeds, yet would the prefixing of fuch a note be very proper. For inftance, to the fermon on the Mount (Mat v. 2.) is prefixed xal ávolžas тò sópa airou (which is one of Mr. Whifton's notes of the order of time) and he opened his mouth. Might not this note be very well prefixed to our Saviour's preaching, although the fermon, in the order of time, were really before that which immediately precedes it in the hiftory? The fame may be proved of almost every one of thefe notes, which Mr. Whiston has here mentioned, if it were neceffary.

The truth is, it is a common thing in all histories to make use of such transitory or introductory phrases as these; nay even of those which seem most to imply an immediate and orderly fucceffion of events, in a very great latitude. So for inftance, Gen. xxxviii. 1. immediately after the account of Jofeph's being fold into Egypt, it follows, at that time Judah went down from his brethren, &c. when as it is certain this happened a confiderable time before Joseph's being fold into Egypt a. Hence, says Dr. Lightfoot", "The words at that time are not to be refer"red to the next words going before in the preceding chap"ter, concerning Joseph's fale to Potiphar, but are of a more "large extent; as that phrase, and the phrafe in those days, are "oft in Scripture." It is a trite obfervation among the writers of facred chronology, that these phrases in Scripture are frequently used with a great deal of latitude. It has been observed, that this phrase, In that day or time, is used fixteen times in the Old and New Teftament in a lax fenfe, and not im

See above, p. 36.

N 3

b Harmon. and Chronic. of the Old Teft. Gen. c. xxxviii.

plying

plying a regular fucceffion of events. So the words 'E, di Tais Яμépais ievais, Matt. iii. 1. are put to introduce the history, which is next to Chrift's fixing at Nazareth; which was about thirty years after. Upon the whole then, if this be the use of most of these notes, only to introduce the following ftory, if those which seem most to be notes of time regard principally what follows, and are used in such a lax sense; then they do not prove, that this part of St. Matthew's Gospel was originally wrote according to the order of time.

Thus I have confidered Mr. Whifton's firft affertion, viz. That St. Matthew defigned originally to obferve the order of time through his whole Gofpel, and have endeavoured to fhew that the feveral arguments he brings to fupport it, are not conclufive.

a Locutionem autem illam (in tempore illo) eodem modo in Deuter. x. 8. ufurpari notat Aben. Ezra; quomodo et ab aliis eft obfervatum, in die illo, fine determinata aliqua temporis notatione, sedecies in Veteri et Novo Teftamento efle pofitum hocque ipfo in loco,

in tempore illo, non ad illud, quo in Egyptum venditus eft Jofephus, fed quo ipfe Judas in Cananæam cum Patre advenit, referendum effe defendimus. Uffer. Chronol. Sacr. C. IO. Vid. Spanheim. Dub. Evang. tom. ii. Dub. 10, et 95.

CHAP.

CHAP. VI.

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 false. That St. Mark is not an Epitome of St. Matthew, proved, Firft, from the Account 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 Observations from Scripture to support these Teftimonies.

M2 thew,

R. Whiston having attempted to prove, that St. Matin this part of his Gospel, defigned to obferve the order of time, proceeds to fhew, that the feveral branches of the history in this part, are not according to the order of time. But before he comes to a particular proof of this, he fays, He will in general prove the main propofition by the most authentick evidence, viz. the teftimony of St. Mark. This indeed, if it be any evidence at all, will be moft authentick and indisputable. Let us a little confider it.

"St. Mark (fays Mr. Whifton) was the epitomizer of St. " Matthew-gives us fuch an account of our Saviour's Acts, "as demonftrates that St. Matthew's Gofpel lay then before "him, and was the almoft only guide he followed in his hif "tory, Now fuppofing this (fays he), it will follow, that "either that copy of St. Matthew, which St. Mark made ufe "of, was in a different order from that which we now have (in the chapters under confideration), or else that he knew "the order of his copy to be wrong, and contrary to the ori"ginal one, and so reduced it in his epitome to the true and "regular series of events, which he learned from St. Peter. "Now either of these is fufficient for my present purpose; for "it is evident, that St. Mark does not observe the order of the "prefent copies of St. Matthew (whom he epitomizes), in that " part we are speaking of, &c." This now is St. Mark's tefti

66

1

mony, and Mr. Whifton's most convincing argument, of the truth of the propofition, viz. that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel, in our present copies, is not now in its true and firft intended order.

However fpecious and plaufible this argument may at first appear, I doubt not but every unbiaffed mind, after a more close examination, will be very far from thinking it conclufive and convincing. The two following confiderations will fufficiently invalidate the force of this reasoning, viz.

I. St. Mark did not epitomize ar abridge St. Matthew's Gof pel, nor had he it lying before him, when he wrote.

II. Suppofe St. Mark did abridge, and make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in compofing his, yet it will not follow either that the copies he then used were, or our prefent copies now, are mifplaced, and out of the order originally intended by St. Matthew.

I. St. Mark did not epitomize or abridge St. Matthew's Gospel, nor had he it lying before him, when he wrote. In undertaking to prove this, I am very well aware, that I oppose the fentiments of learned men in all ages of the church: antient and modern writers have almost all, with one common confent, voted and agreed St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome of St. Matthew's.

Austin, among the antients, and among later writers Erafmus, Sixtus Senenfis, Alfted, Grotius, Spanheim, Toinard, and many others, affert it. Nay, Erafmush in another place has carried the matter somewhat further, and by a certain likeness, which he imagined he obferved in the ftyle and idiom of these two Gospels (contrary to all antiquity, and even to himself in the place first cited), is induced to believe they both were wrote by the fame person.