« 前へ次へ »
he faw the other three had done before him. I am partly beholden to Mr. Le Clerc a for this observation, and partly to the learned Mr. Dodwell TM, who endeavours also by several other arguments, to prove the point I am now contending for. Upon the whole, that which is most probable, is, that the Evangelists, who were scattered up and down the earth, into very distant countries, to preach the Gospel ; by the solicitation and importunity of those whom they converted, were prevailed upon to write down the substance of what they had preached to them ; in which good undertaking, God by his Spirit was pleased to affift them, keeping them from all error, leading them (according to his promise, John xvi. 13.) into all truth, and bringing (as our Saviour had foretold he should do, John xiv. 26.) all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them.
CH A P. XI. If it be allowed that St. Mark did epitomize St. Matthew; it will not from thence follow, that our present Copies of St. Matthew are misplaced, and contrary to the Order, originally intended by the Evangelift. Soos
CINCE then St. Mark did not make use of St. Matthew's
2. Quoi qu'ils n'aient pas vû les fuisse visos Evangelistas vel exinde écrits les uns des autres: car ils fufpicio eft, quod primo illi prædi. n'auroient pas redit ce qu'ils au- cationis anno res geftas duntaxat é; roient vû avoir été publié avant narrent; reliquorum annorum Pal. eux, surtout par des Apôtres. Aufli chatumque memoriam folus confer-, remarque-t-on que St. Jean, qui a vavit S. Joannes Evangelista : unde vû fans doute les autres Evangiles, - poslet quis fortaffe colligere, visa a évité de redire les mêmes choses. effe ab eo et probata, fuppletaque See his Frenchi Teft. at Luk. i. 1. decessorum Evangelia. Dissertat,
Sed et reliquos ab invicem non 1. in Iren, S. 39.
most authentick evidence, and most convincing argument, to prove, that the former part of St. Matthew's Gospel in our prefent copies is very much misplaced, contrary to the method ori. ginally intended by the Evangelift. But
II. If it were to be granted that St. Mark did abridge St. Matthew, yet it would by no means follow, that our present copies of St. Matthew's Gospel are not in their true and first intended order. Let us then suppose St. Mark's Gospel to be an epitome, and consider how Mr. Whifton does argue upon that supposition. « If, says he, St. Mark was the epitomizer “ of St. Matthew, and had his history before him, when he “ wrote his own; it will follow, that either that copy of St. “ Matthew, which he made use of, was in a different order “ from that which we now have (in the chapters under confi. “ deration); or else that he knew the order of his copy to be « wrong, and contrary to the original 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 sufficient “ for my present purpose ; for it is evident that St. Mark does “not observe the order of the present copies of St. Matthew “ (whom he epitomizes), in that part we are speaking of. &c."
This is Mr. Whiston's arguing; but, with submission to so great a judgment, I think it is very far from being conclufive, as will very evidently appear by the following consideration; viz. St. Mark making use of a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, which was exactly the same with our present copies of that Gospel, might deviate and recede from St. Matthew's order, and yet not believe that order to be wrong, and contrary to the original one intended by St. Matthew. Mr. Whiston has here very artificially joined two things together, as the fame, which are certainly different. To be wrong in respect of the order of time, and to be contrary to the original copy, are certainly two things very distinct. St. Mark's being supposed an epitome of St. Matthew's, proves indeed the former, viz. the t he believed St. Matthew not to have observed the order of time in every particular, but not the latter. Why might he
not, even having St. Matthew's Gospel lying before him, sometimes relate his histories in a different order from that of St. Matthew? He might easily perceive it was not Sc. Matthew's design (as indeed it was not his own in every particular inftance), to relate all things exactly in the order, in which they came to pass; and therefore might, if at any time he saw juft occasion, recede from his order. Certainly this is a much more reasonable supposition, than that our present copies of St. Matthew are so much confused and disordered. For making the matter more clear, I would illustrate my argument by the following example.
Let us suppose, that, when Lucius Florus made his abridgment of Livy's History, there were several branches of it, which were not placed by Livy exactly according to the order of time, in which they came to pass, but interspersed up and down in the history, as the circumstances required. Let us suppose further, that Florus in his epitome had taken every one of these particulars, and placed them according to the most exact order of time, in which they came to pass. Are we una der any necessity of concluding, either that Florus knew his copy of Livy to be wrong, and contrary to the original one, or that the copies of Livy are fince corrupted and disordercd? By no means. Now this is exactly the case here, and therefore I conclude, that although St. Mark did make use of St. Matthew's Gospel in writing his, yet it does not follow, that our present copies of St. Matthew are confused and misplaced.
CHA P. XII. The particular Branches of St. Matthew's Gospel, which Mr. Whifton supposes misplaced. Four Propositions for the discovering the true Order of Time in the Gospel History. Several of those Branches which Mr. Whiston suppojes misplaced, are so far from that, that they are in the exact Order of Time, in which they came to pass. Instances of this produced.. .
IN the following pages a Mr. Whiston proceeds to Thew, I which those several branches or periods of St. Matthew's Gospel are, which he supposes misplaced in our present copies, and contrary to the order, originally intended by the Evangelift. They are contained in that part of the history, which is from the twenty-third verse of the fourth, to the end of the thirteenth chapter
For the use of those, who may not have Mr. Whiston's book, I thought it proper particularly to set them down ; that the reader himself may, from the rules hereafter laid down, judge concerning those, which I do not particularly conlider.
The periods of St Matthew's Gospel, which, according to Mr.
. Whiston, are misplaced in our present copies.
1. The Sermon near the mount, in the fifth, fixth, and seventh chapters; together with some verses at the end of the fourth, and part of the eighth chapter belonging thereto.
2. The voyage to the Gergelenes, towards the end of the eighth chapter. .
3. The healing of the paralytick, the calling of Levi, his feast, and the discourle at it, in the former part of the ninth chapter.
4. The healing Jairus's daughter, with the woman that
a P. 103, 104, &c.
had the Aux of blood in the way thither, of two blind men as he went thence, and of a dumb demoniac just afterwards ; towards the conclusion of the ninth chapter.
5. The mission and instruction of the twelve Apostles, in the tenth chapter.
6. The message from John in prison, with our Saviour's answer, and the following discourses, in the eleventh chapter.
7. The vindication of the disciples plucking the ears of corn, with the healing the withered hand on the Sabbath, and Chrift's avoiding the designs against him, in the beginning of the twelfth chapter.
8. The healing a blind and dumb man, and Christ's vindication of himself from the imputation of casting out devils by Beelzebub, with many discourses and parables following, in the rest of the twelfth, and almost the whole thirteenth chap
9. The cure of the leper, just after the Sermon on the mount. ; 10. The cure of Peter's wife's mother, towards the middle of the eighth chapter.
11. Christ's answer to two, that were ready to follow him, succeeding the former.
12. His coming the second time to Nazareth, in the end of the thirteenth chapter.
These are the twelve branches of St. Matthew's Gospel, every one of which Mr. Whiston fupposes to be misplaced, and put, in our present copies, out of their true and originally intended order. Any one that confiders these several branches, their number, size, &c. will be surprized to find such disorders here, and not so much as one single disorder in all the other part of this, or either of the other Gospels. But of this I shall say more hereafter. My business now shall be to consider the matter of fact, viz. whether these several periods are misplaced, or not. In order to the more clear discussing of which question, I shall lay down the following propofitions.