wrought at Capernaum, viz. the cafting out the unclean fpirit in the fynagogue there and after that, the recovery of Peter's mother in law from a fever (Mark i. 23-29, &c. and Luke iv. 33-38, &c.) in the fame town. Now this miracle of the leper's cure being done at this place, they mention it here together with thofe other miracles, though it was really done at another time. Indeed it is true, St. Luke relates, ch. v. 1, &c. the call of the four Apoftles between these two miracles, and that of the leper; but this is a very great confirmation of the foregoing obfervation, because this call of the Apostles hath been already proved, not to be in the order of time, and fo is for the fame reafon placed here, because it was in the city or fuburbs of Capernaum. If what has been faid be duly confidered, I cannot but think it will prove this branch of St. Matthew's hiftory to be in the proper order of time. And indeed, if it be not proved, I must do Mr. Whiston's hypothefis that juftice to own, that it is, as to this inftance, moft certainly true: if the ftory of the leper be not in the proper order of time, either there must be a tranfpofition in the hiftory, or St. Matthew was miftaken, which no body will fuppofe. Hence I cannot but wonder that Dr. Lightfoot, Mr. Le Clerc, and others, have in their Harmonies, left St. Matthew's order, and followed that of St. Mark and St. Luke. I cannot fee how they could join the first and fifth' verfe of this chapter, without supposing a transposition, which yet they certainly never thought of. Chemnitius, Ofiander, and fome few more, are much more confiftent with themfelves; who imagine this in St. Matthew, and that in St. Mark and St. Luke, to be different miracles; though there feems to be no foundation for this fuppofition, but only the difference in time.

What Mr. Whifton offers in defence of his opinion (viz. that this miracle was not wrought at this time), certainly very well deferves to be confidered. "St. Matthew," fays he, "as "well as the other Evangelifts, relates our Saviour's caution

"to the leper, to keep the miracle fecret; See no man know it ; "which certainly fhews, it was not done fo publickly as his "present order implies, viz. when the multitude was pre"fent."

To this I answer, that our Lord may very well be fuppofed to give this charge of secrecy to the leper, when the multitudes were prefent; because we have an instance of his doing the fame, at another time, where a tranfpofition cannot poffibly be fuppofed. The place I refer to, is Matt. xii. 15, 16. And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all, and charged them, that they should not make him known. Befides, there may be very good reasons affigned, why our Lord should give this charge in the presence of a multitude, viz.

I. That it might appear to the multitude, that he was not at all fond or ambitious of human applause, and fo withal fet his "difciples a lively pattern of modefty and humility. Our bleffed Saviour himself tells us, that he fought not to advance his own glory; John viii. 50. This was a character, which our Lord not only deserved, but which he seemed peculiarly careful to establish. To do this he had now (when he was come down from the mountain) a very fair opportunity. He could at once give a whole multitude to understand, that he did not affect or covet popular applaufe; See thou tell no man; i. e. do not publish and blaze abroad the cure that is wrought for thee; I defire not the honour, that men will be apt to give me on fuch an account. What could the people who were present conclude, but that he was a perfon of the utmoft modefty? Besides, our Saviour was not only careful to be thought humble himself, but was concerned that his disciples fhould learn of him, and imitate his example in this refpect: hence he tells them, Matt. xi. 29. to learn of him; for, fays he, I am meek and lowly in heart. Now here, in the prefence of the multitude, he had a very fit feafon to recommend the practice of this virtue to them by his own example. "Hence" fays Theophylacta, <c our Lord, by this caution, teaches us, that we are not

a Vid. eum ad Marc. i.

"to make oftentation of our virtues." And to the fame purpose, Cornelius à Lapide, Zegerus, and many other learned

men 2.

2. It is not at all abfurd, that our Saviour should give the leper this charge of fecrecy, in the prefence of the multitude; because hereby he gave them a very plain intimation, that he did not defign to fet up a temporal kingdom in the world; and fo ufed a very likely means to prevent the ill confequences of their entertaining fuch an opinion of him. Every body knows the Jewish nation had this expectation from the Meffiah, that, when he came, he would deliver them from their subjection to the Roman power, and reftore their kingdom to its antient grandeur. This is evident from abundance of paffages in the New Teftament b. Now it is very evident, our Lord took all poffible methods to prevent the Jews from entertaining this opinion of him. As foon as he perceived their defign to pro-" claim him a king, he retired, and went from them all into a mountain alone, John vi. 15. Nay it is obfervable, that our Lord fo much declined this character, that, for this very reafon, he forbad his difciples to publish him as the Christ: Matt. xvi. 20. Then charged he his difciples, that they should tell

Noverat quidem Dominus illos non tacituros (he is speaking of a like inftance); verum hoc ita præcipiens, nobis voluit humilitatis contemnendæque gloriæ præbere exemplum. Zeger. ad Mat. ix. 30.

6 Hence it was, that the mother of Zebedee's fons came with her petition, that her fons might have the highest posts in his kingdom. I paroît par cette demande, que la femme de Zebedée, et fes fils (à qui St. Marc attribue cette demande ch. x. 35.) s'attendoient toujours à un regne temporel, quoique Jefus Chrift leur eût pu dire au contraire, tant les préjugés de la nation Juda

ique étoient violens. It appears by this petition, that the wife of Zebedee, and her fons (to whom St. Mark attributes this petition), were always in expectation of a temporal kingdom, notwithstanding all that Jefus Chrift was able to fay to the contrary, fo very great were the prejudices of the Jewish nation. Le Clerc on Matt. xx. 22. This is confirmed alfo by the difcourfe of the two difciples, after our Lord's refurrection, Luke xxiv. 21. We trufted that it had been he, which should have redeemed Ifrael. And St. John tells us (ch. vi. 14, 15.), that when they were convinced by a miracle, which our Lord had wrought, that he was the true Meffiah, they immediately were for proclaiming and making him a king.

no

mer.

no man that he was Jefus the Chrift. He knew that the idea of the Meffiah, and that of a temporal prince, were almoft the fame in the minds of the Jews, at least that the idea of the one implied, and was infeparable from, the other; and therefore, that he might avoid the fufpicion of the latter, he would not, till after his refurrection, be publickly owned as the forHe knew, if he had indulged them in this their opinion of him, feditions, tumults, and infurrections, must neceffarily have enfued. By this he had too foon drawn upon him the fufpicion of the Roman governor, and fo had been hindered to go through the time of his publick miniftry, which he defigned. And now by this it appears, that a caution given to the leper, not to publish what was done for him, was not unreasonable, though in the presence of the multitude. Hereby they could not but perceive, that our Saviour had no defign to draw great multitudes after him; which was the most likely method to advance him to a temporal kingdom. They could not but conclude, he was against being popular, and confequently against being made a king. This undoubtedly was that, which, among other reasons, influenced our Saviour to give the leper this caution; for we find that, the leper difobeying our Lord's commands, and publishing his cure, he was for that reafon obliged to retire, and could no more enter into the city, Mark i. 45. Hence it is well obferved by Mr. Le Clerc, in an inftance like this, that our Saviour commanded fecrecy, that " he might not draw a great multitude of people "after him, for fear of a fufpicion, which might be enter"tained, that he had no defign but to raise a rebellion "."

a

3. It was not abfurd for our Saviour, at this time, to give the leper a caution of fecrecy; because his cafe and circumftances, notwithstanding the presence of the multitude, seemed neceffarily to require fuch a caution. Under the Jewith difpenfation, a perfon, that had been leprous, and now supposed himself cured, was, by divine appointment, obliged to submit

a Leur defendit d'en parler, pour ne pas s'attirer plus de foule, de peur du foupçon, que l'on pouvoit former, qu'il ne cherchât qu'à ex

citer quelque fedition. Le Clerc
on Matth. ix. 30. See alfo Dr.
Hammond on Matth. viii. 4.

himfelf

himself to the examination of the Priest, whether it were fo or not; Levit. xiii. Now had this miraculous cure of his been fpread abroad, and reached the Priest's ears, before this was done, there seems to have been danger of the two following ill confequences.

1. Very probably the malice of the Priefts would have carried them fo far, that when they found he was cured by a perfon, whom they fo mortally hated, they would not have pronounced him clean. This is the opinion of Grotius, Le Clerc, Dr. Whitby, &c. For the confirmation of it, Grotius urges, that the miracle was wrought in Galilee, a great diftance from Jerufalem, where the Priefts were; and that our Saviour (according to St. Mark's account, ch. i. 43.) sent him away in hafte, left the fame of the miracle fhould reach the Priefs' ears, before he could get there.

2. Had this ftory been told to the Priefts, it is very likely it would have raised their malice against our Saviour, and incited them to perfecute him, under the fpecious pretence of his having taken upon him, to do that which belonged to the office, and was the fole prerogative, of the Priests, viz. pronouncing a leprous perfon clean.

From all that has been faid, I think it is very reasonable to conclude, that our Saviour might give the leper a charge, not to publish what was done for him, till he had been with the Prieft, though there were feveral people prefent when the cure. was wrought; and then there seems not to be any reason, but we may conclude this hiftory is in its proper order of time.

2. Another inftance of a history, which in our present copies is in its due and proper order of time, and yet supposed by Mr. Whiston to be misplaced, is that of the two perfons, who came to our Saviour, profeffing their readiness to follow him, Matth. viii. 19, &c. It is placed in St. Matthew, between our Saviour's ordering a fhip to be got ready, and his entering

a Il femble que notre Seigneur ne vouloit pas s'attirer la haine des facrificateurs, à qui la Loi donnoit le droit de juger, fi un homme étoit gueri de ia lépre, ou non. It is probable, our Saviour had not a

mind to draw upon himself the hatred of the Priests, to whom the Law had given the power of judging, whether a perfon was cured of his leprofy, or not. Le Clerc ad loc.