in their place in the Jewish Wars*. Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, -have, all three, written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the restt, yet no objection is from thence taken to the respective credit of their histories. We have in our own times, if there were not something indecorous in the comparison, the life of an eminent person, written by three of his friends, in which there is very great variety in the incidents selected by them; fome apparent, and perhaps some real contradi&tions; yet without any impeachment of the subftantial truth of their accounts, of the authenticity of the books, of the competent information or general fidelity of the writers.

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not write histories but memoirs; which is perhaps the true name and proper description of our Gospels : that is, when they do not undertake, or ever meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular

* Lard. part i. vol. ii. p. 735, et seq. ^ Ib. p. 743. U 3

and

and complete account of all the things of importance, which the person, who is the subject of their history, did or faid; but only, out of many similar, ones, to give such palfages, op such actions and discourses as offered themselyes more immediately to their at tention, came in the way of their enquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were sugo gested by their particular design at the time of writing,

This particular design may appear fometimes, but not always, nor often; Thus I think that the partiçular design which St. Matthew had in view whilft he was writing the history of the resușrection, was to attest the faithful performance of Chrift's promifę to his discipleg to go before them into Galileę; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to have taken it from him, has record, ed this promise, and he alone has confined his narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the great and most public manifeftation of our Lord's person. It was the

thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew's mind,
and he adapted his narrative to it. But,
that there is nothing in St. Matthew's lan-
guage, which negatives other appearances,
or which imports that this his appearance to
his disciples in Galilee, in pursuance of his
promise, was his first or only appearance, is
made pretty evident by St. Mark's Gospel, .
which uses the same terms concerning the
appearance in Galilee as St. Matthew uses,
yet itself records two other appearances prior
to this : “ Go your way, tell his disciples
and Peter, that he goeth before you into Ga-
lilee, then shall ye see him as he said unto
you.” (xvi. 7.) We might be apt to infer.
from these words, that this was the first time
they were to see him ; at least, we might in-
fer it, with as much reason as wę draw the
inference from the fame words in Matthew :
yet the historian himself did not perceive
that he was leading his readers to any such
conclusion; for, in the twelfth and two
following verses of this chapter, he informs,
us of two appearances, which, by comparing
the order of events, are shewn to have been

V4

.

prior to the appearance in Galilee. “ He

ap. peared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and they went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them: afterwards he appeared unto the eleven, as they fat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.

;

Probably the fame observation, concerna ing the particular design which guided the hiftorian, may be of use in comparing many other passages of the Gospels.

СНАР,

CHAP. II.

Erroneous Opinions imputed to the

Apostles,

A Species of candóür which is shewn towards every other book, is sometimes reful ed to the Scriptures ; and that is, the placing of a distinction between judgement and testimony. We do not usually question the credit of a writer, by reason of any opis nion he may have delivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence, and even upon subjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from observation, narrative from argument,

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, much controversy and much obje&tion has been raised concerning