CANON XII. Tho a man writes lefs, it is no argument but more might have been faid or done, unless the contrary is infinuated: And tho another writes more, it is no argument that he hath given an unfaithful account, who is lefs copious. THE HE evidence of this Canon might be made appear from unerring Rules in Logick, concerning univerfal and particular Propofitions: But fince it is plain to all (how ignorant foever of Logick) that understand the words it is expreft in, I fhall rather chufe to illuftrate it in an inftance or two. In Mat. 8. Mark the 4th, and Luke the 8th, we have a relation of the Devils entring into the Herd of Swine. Mark and Luke take notice of only one perfon poffeft, but Matthew af firms there were two: But as he that affirms there are two, does not deny there is one; fo he that afferts but one, if he infinuates nothing to exclude more, does not at all clafh with thofe that make mention of two. But it is objected, why does Mark and Luke fpeak only of one, and not take notice of both? Because they were told of no more by thofe from whofe mouths they received the Materials of their Gofpel; and for what reafon they omitted one, I cannot tell. There may be many reafons, which 'tis needlefs to recite; but which is the true one, or the moft probable, can never be gueft. St. Auftin's Opinion is, that one of the Damoniacks was more celebrated, and of greater note than the other. Thus he, in his Treatife of the Harmony of the Evangelifts, lib. 2. n. 56. In that Matthew affirms there were two poffeft of that Legion of Devils, and Mark and Luke obferve only one, we must know that one of the Perfons was of more repute and worth, for whom that Region was very fenfibly afflicted, and extremely concerned for his recovery: And the two Evangelifts being willing to fignify as much, only commemorate him whofe Intereft in the Fact had made the Fame of it spread farther, and become more luftrious. But this is taking aim in the dark, when we neither fee the Mark, nor know when we have hit it; fo that 'tis better, as I faid, not to guefs at all. However that which follows in St. Auflin is worth transcribing here, as extremely conducive to the the Evangelifts in this Relation. Nor affords it clearer understanding of the Agreement of fay is differently reported by the Evangelifts; for any matter of fcruple, that what the Demons they may be all reduced to one meaning. Nei ther affords it any for that the Dæmoniack peaks in Matthew in the Plural number, and in the reft in the Singular, when answer is returned to a demand what he was called by the Spirits themfelves, they answered, Legion, for they were many Damons. will The fame may be faid of fuch another diverfity in the Gofpels, in the ftory of the blind Perfons cur'd by Jefus in the fourth year of his Miniftry, as he was journying to Jeru falem, Mat. 20. Mar. 10. Luke 18. and p.393. of the Harmony. For Matthew observes there were two blind perfons cur'd; the others inftance but in one, called by Mark the Son of Timau, but not named by the others. Of which St. Auftin is much to the fame effect in the fame Book, n. 125. For, fays he, of the two blind perfons here mentioned, one was better known, and more famous in that City than the other, as is evident from the recital of his and his Father's Name in Mark. Which, among all the perfons that were healed by Jefus, you fearce find obferved, unless in Jairus, the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, who is exprefly named, whofe Daughter he had rais'd to Life, which makes the conjecture more evident, because he was chief Ruler of the Synagogue, and illuftrious by his place. Therefore, without doubt, this fame Bartimæus, the Son of Timæus, was fuddenly caft from fome eminent Profperity, and become a great and famous example of Wretchednefs, in that he was not only blind, but fate begging. Mark therefore exemplifies in him only whofe recovery of fight would make that Miracle as confpicuous as his calamity was notorious. What hath been faid in thefe inftances may be conceived of all others, more or less copioufly related in their Circumstances by one and t'other Evangelift: He that writes at large, comprehends what is spoken in little, and he that writes in little, denies nothing that is faid at large. CANON CANON XIII. The Miftakes of Transcribers, if any are to be found in the Gospels, are not to be mistaken for Contradictions in the HiStory. M ANY Great Criticks are of opinion that there is a mistake of this nature committed in John, having all in vain at temrted to reconcile him with the other Evangelifts, concerning the Hour in which Jefus was condemned by Pilate. John determines it about the 6th Hour, chap. 19. 14. whereas Mark affirms him to have been crucised at the 3d hour. Matthew, Mark and Luke, after Jefus had been fome space upon the Crofs, confent that about the 6th hour there was a univerfal Darknefs till the ninth. See the Harmony, p. 535. They contend therefore for another reading in John, that inftead of woe Extn, should be read we reirn, about the third hour. And doubtlefs John must be understood to have meant the fame with Mark, who agrees exactly with the other three Evangelifts. If there is a wrong Lection therefore, John ought rather to be reftor'd by Mark, than Mark by him, contrary to the judgment of the Author of a Comment upon Pfalm 77. afcrib'd to St. Jerom. The Figures might have been prefixed inftead off in John, but not in Mark, as he mistakes. In which wrong Notion he is followed by Dion. Petavius, in his 12th Book and 19th Chapter de Do&trina Temporum, as will plainly appear from the bare reading of my Harmony. But neither does this correction please me, nor have I been able, after due weighing of all the Circumstances, to find out any thing fatisfactory in this particular. I have indeed lately, in my Additions to Dr. Hammond's Annotations upon the New Teftament, given an explication which hath been lik'd by fome. But to make it exact, the reading in John fhould have been for exтn, Evvarn, the ninth. I leave it therefore in fufpence. But we muft ufe great Precaution in admitting the Conjectures of the antient Criticks and Tranfcribers; whofe ignorance in recon- ciling feveral places of the Evangelifts occafion'd them to correct one by the other oftentimes, as the best Commentators have fre quently obferv'd. In which take an inftance Chapter of Mark, v. 1. The antient Greek Editions differ wonderfully in this Chapter, which St. Jerom affirms is not to be found in fome Copies of this Gospel, being so full of Clashings with the other Evangelifts. And then he continues: But my judgment is that it was struck out wrongfully, and may be easily reftor'd, and made to agree with the reft. To whofe opinion I freely fubfcribe, and cannot fufficiently exprefs how much I blame this rafhnefs of the Criticks and Tranfcribers. or two from Beza: Thus he, upon the last: Another inftance he gives us from a Manu-fcript in Greek and Latin, now in Cambride, of great antiquity. There, namely in the 3d Chapter of Luke, the Genealogy of Chrift is recounted, not by a Line of Defcent, as in Matthew, but of Afcent (with the addition. of thofe names only that were omitted by Matthew upon the account of his diftinguishing the Genealogy into feveral Claffes, each of which contains 14 Generations) to Solomon, agreeably with Matthew, and not to Nathan, as 'tis in all other Editions. For fatisfaction herein confult Beza himself. Now this was done to reconcile Matthew and Mark, against the authority of all the other Editions, and the confent of all Antiquity, which was greatly perplex'd in its endeavours to reconcile this difference in the Evangelifts. We must be cautious therefore of reconciling places from fuch corrupted Manufcripts; and moft com-. monly prefer that reading in which the difference occurs, to that wherein the Evangelifts agree: For the Chriftian Editors had no reafon: to make Repugnances in the Text; but there. may be a very plain one affigned for the altering of it, namely, to reconcile feeming differences.. CANON CANON XIV. The Order of the Hiftory refter'd, reconciles many things which feem contradictory when it is confus'd. to a F many undertake to write a Hiftory, containing plain matter of fact, without any fictitious mixtures, but not in the due courfe of the Circumstances, upon comparing them together, to thofe that are ignorant that no regular Order of time is obferved in their account of the feveral Circumstances (efpecially if they have not selected the very fame) they will feem at first fight to contradict one another. This is the cafe of the Evangelists, as hath been copiously observed, and is apparent from the Harmony; and therefore we ought not to judg haftily that they write Inconfiftencies, altho we knew not what we learn exprefly from the 4s, viz. that they had receiv'd the Spiric, by whom they were guided into all truth. 'Tis therefore an excellent Remark of St. Auftin, in his Piece fo often cited, Lib. 2. n. 27. upon John Baptift's Teftimony of Chrift: If any man asks which were the very Expreffions Spoken by John Baptift, thofe mentioned in Matthew or Luke, or those deliver'd in fewer terms, and with fome omission in Mark, be may fatisfy himself in this point, if he wifeLy confiders, that, whatever the Words are, 'tis the Senfe is neceffary for understanding the Truth: For the fame thing may be fet down in a different Order of Words, and imply no contradi&tion; nor is it a contrariety, if one man obferves what is pretermitted by others. For 'tis plain they have given us the fame story in fubftance, tho differing in fome, Circumftances; which Variety arifes from the different Memories of the Hiftorians, and their different purposes of writing in a fhort or more copious Stile. For thefe reafons, in collating the Evangelifts, I have thus digefted their Writings: First, What is faid in common is fet parallel to one another in diftinct Columns, to which the Titles of each Author are prefixed. Secondly, What is peculiar to every one is distinguish'd by a Hand and Finger pointing at it, and an empty space is left under all the other Evangelifts. Thirdly, From all these Materials thus digefted and difpos'd in the most convenient Order the thing it felf required, I have framed one uninterrupted Relation, which I have exprefs'd intire in the History annex'd. In which, tho the order of their Hiftories is obferved in Mark and Luke and John (except one place in Luke about John Baptift's Imprifonment, chap. 3. 19, 20.) yet in their Relations of particular Facts or Speeches, I have upon occafion taken their words afunder, and inferted them where it was neceffary to connect the Story. But the Words and Verfes thus broken and divided, are conftantly marked with Afterisks and Figures. Which method no body can cenfure, that hath ever collated the Gofpels together, and feen, from the comparing of them, that the Order muft neceffarily be inverted by one or other of them, fince it is by no means the fame in all. And whofoever hath furveyed my method, and read the Historical Paraphrafe, will perceive many things happily reconciled, which differ much, and feem to be inconfiftent in the Gofpels. For example, the Account of John's Imprisonment, p. 66. of the calling of Peter, Andrew, John and fames, p. 89. of Herod's opinion of Jesus, P. 218, 219. of the five thousand fed, P 224. of the Apostles reprov'd of Ambition, p. 270. and laftly of the Condemnation, Suffering and Refurrection of Chrift, will abundantly convince him that many feeming Contrarieties are remov'd, purely by the method and difpofition of the parts. I might indeed have taken their Relations into lefs portions, and collated them more particularly; but this did not fignify much, and would perhaps be tedious to the Reader, not to mention a too frequent tranfpofition of Scripture-Phrafe. CANON CANON XV. Matters of Fact remote in time, are connected by a tranfition, as matters are that immediately fucceed; and this by omitting what happened in the intervals. HERE are a world of examples in this kind in all Epitomes of larger Volumes, if we compare them with the Originals from whence they are abridg'd. As in Livy's Epitome compard with Livy himfelf, or Johannes Xiphilinus with Dion Cocceianus: For things are usually joined together by Tranfitions, fo that matters of Fatt at greatest distance hang together by this means, as if they immediate ly fucceeded; which betray the unlearned Readers into an erroneous Opinion that those things are nearly related in time that are connected by a short tranfition. There is a very acute Remark of St. Auflin to this effect, in his 2d Book, n. 16. of his Harmony of the Evangelifts, and exceeding applicable to the first and, fecond year of our Saviour's Miniftry. I fhall cite the whole Paffage, tho a little of the longeft. It may be demanded when that could poffibly be which is recorded by Matthew of the going into Egypt, and the return after the Death of Herod, fo that they might dwell in the City of Nazareth at that time, when Luke mentions their being returned, after they had accomplished every thing concerning the Child according to the Law of Mofes. We must know therefore. (and this will fatisfy other fcruples of the fame nature) that all the Evangelifts continue their story with that tenour and thred, as if they had omitted no circumftance, giving no hint of things they will not treat of; and fo linking together all their incidents, as if they feemed immediately to fucceed one another. When therefore the omiffions of one are publish'd by another, if we mind the Order of the Hiftory, the place is very difcoverable where the other skipt, and by a tranfition connected what goes before and follows after, as if there had been no intervals between. Afterwards he inftances in this particular. And thus Matthew may be illuftrated, where faying that the wife men were warned in a Dream not to return to Herod, but to go back another way into their own Country, be omitted our Lord's being in the Temple, and Luke; and Luke in like manner, where taking the Prophesy of Simeon and Anna mentioned by no notice of the Journy into Egypt mentioned in Matthew, he proceeds directly to their return to Nazareth, as if it followed immediately in courfe. Ifcarce need add any more inftances; but however fee Matthew and Mark in p.87. and 88. of the Harmony, and compare them with Luke concerning the calling of Peter and Andrew; and tho there is no vifible omiffion nor gap in the ftory, yet what Luke obferves about the fishing muft neceffarily be inferted. Many things of like nature occur in the History of the 4th year of Chrift's Ministry, which may be better confidered as they lie together in the Paraphrafe by comparing the Evangelifts themselves, than here in a dark Citation.. CANON XVI. What any man employs another to do, he is accountable for himself, and therefore faid to do it. HIS is a celebrated Maxim of the Civi Tas, which fhould be frequently reve membred in the reading of the New Testament as well as all other Hiftories. For two things follow from hence: A Perfon may be introduc'd, efpecially in a fhort Narrative, as doing that which he imployed others to do; and a Legate or Ambaffador delivering his bufinefs after the fame manner as the Perfon that commiffioned him, if he were present, would exprefs himself. The Jews had a double Proverb upon this occafion, as Buxtorf obferves in his Lexicon: 1710 80 w Every man's Meffenger is as it were bimfelf: And again, N70, The King's Ambassador is as it were the King himself. This well confider'd will teach us to reconcile the Relation of the Centurion of Capernaum, Mat. 8. and Luke 7. and p. 148. of the Harmony. In Luke he is faid to fend fome of the Jews to Jefus, not daring to accoft him in Perfon: But in Matthew. he addreffes him himfelf: for Matthew being more concife, after the manner of the facred Writers,defcribes him doing that which he employed others to do for him. Agreeably to which custom, in Luke the Messengers are introduced reprefenting him in perfon, and fpeaking as if he had been prefent. The Centurion fent his Friends to him, faying, Lord, trouble not thy felf, for I am not worthy that thou should enter under my roof, &c. That this was a common practice of the Sacred Penmen, I have prov'd in many inftances in my Comment upon the Pentateuch, to the Index of which I refer the Curious, upon the word Nuncius. CANON XVII. When a Perfon is defcribed in generals, the Plural Number is often put for the Singular. THIS HIS Canon is very neceffary to reconcile places in the Gofpels, where that is applied to a fingle perfon by one Evangelift, which is afcrib'd to more by the reft. Thus in the cafe of Herod, a fingle perfon, a King of Judea, an Angel is introduc'd in Mat. 2. 20. TEDVÁRROT OF (TVTs, they are dead who fought the Child's Life. Agreeably to which in Mark 5. 31. the Apoftles are reported to fay that which is reftrained purely to Peter by Luke, ch. 8. 45. And the Difciples are made to fay, Mat. 14. 17. Mar. 6. 38. Luke 9. 13. a Paffage afcribed by John to Andrew alone, John 6. 9. And indeed what is fpoken by one, with the approbation of all the reft, is in effect fpoken by all. Nay, fometimes fuch a general Expreffion is made ufe of without the confent of the Parties. And thus may be folved the difficulty arifing from the remarkable difagreeing of Luke with Matthew and Mark: For they have it that the Thieves reviled Chrift, whereas Luke makes only one of them reproach him. But fee the following Canon. CANON XVIII. That which is done or faid by one or two, is often afcrib'd to all promifcuously. IN IN the 14th Chapter of our Hiftory of the Gofpel, after John had been caft into Prifon by Herod, 'tis related from John and Mark and Luke, that Jefus went into Galilee, and had a very unkind reception from his Coun try men the Nazarenes; to which is annex'd an account from John, beginning at the 45th Verfe of his 4th Chapter, in thefe words: Then when Jefus was come into Galilee, the Galileans received him, &c. And 'tis objected, how does this cohere with the foregoing, where mention is made of the cold entertainment of the Galileans? This therefore happened fomewhere elfe in Galilee, amongst other Galileans; for which reafon is added, from thence he went into other parts of Galilee, where he was more kindly received. There are very many Expreffions like this, couch'd in general terms, but having a particular meaning concealed. Thus, John 8. 3. the Scribes and Pharifees are faid to bring an Adulterefs to Jefus, that is, fome Scribes and fome Pharifces; and this is frequent. There are often Ambiguities of this nature in the Greek and Latin, which are alfo deriv'd to other Languages in which they are tranflated. See 8, 9, and 10. Chapters of the fame Evangelift, where it is evident that by those Terms, and by the name of Jews, are not only understood all of that Sect, but allo men of feveral Denominations. No won der therefore if inconfiftent Expreffions and contrary Inclinations be now and then attri buted to a company of People that go all under one name. For example, thofe Jews, mentioned John 8. 30. to have believed in Jefus, are by no means the fame who are upbraided by our Lord for their barbarous intent to kill him, v. 40. or who contumelioufly revile him, v. 48, c. For tho John gives no diftinguishing mark to know one Party from the other, and always calls 'em Jews indefinitely, when he fpeaks of their Conferences with Chrift; yet in his 9th Chap |