[PART VI. CHAP. II. Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and a host of later writers; duced. There is not in all the writings of antiquity, a hint, that whose evidence, being collected by the accurate and laborious any Christian belonging to the church ever suspected that these Dr. Lardner, it is not necessary to repeat in this place. Gospels were inferior in authority to the others. No books in Notwithstanding this unbroken chain of testimony to the the canon appear to have been received with more universal genuineness and authenticity of Luke's Gospel, its canonical consent, and to have been less disputed. They are contained in authority (together with that of the Gospel by Mark) has every catalogue which has come down to us. They are cited as been called in question by Michaelis; while various attempts Scripture by all that mention them; and are expressly declared have been made to impugn the authenticity of particular by the fathers to be canonical and inspired books. Now, let it psssages of St. Luke. The celebrity of Michaelis, and the be remembered, that this is the best evidence which we can have plausibility and boldness of the objections of other assailants, that any of the books of the New Testament were written by will, it is hoped, justify the author for giving to their objec-inspiration. Michaelis, indeed, places the whole proof of inspi tions a full and distinct consideration.

1. The objections of Michaelis to the canonical authority of the Gospels of Mark and Luke are as follow:OBJECTION 1. The two books in question were written by assistants of the apostles. This circumstance, he affirms, affords no proof of their inspiration, even if it could be shown that St. Mark and St. Luke were endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit (as appears to have been the case with Timothy and the deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles), of which, however, there is no historical proof: because a disciple might possess these gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired. And if we ground the argument for their inspiration on the character of an apostle's assistant, then we must receive as canonical the genuine Epistle of Clement of Rome, and the writings of other apostolical fathers.3

ANSWER. "It will be admitted, that Mark and Luke were humble, pious men ; also, that they were intelligent, well-informed men, and must have known that the committing to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended in the Gospel was not left to the discretion or caprice of every disciple, but became the duty of those only, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake the work. Now, if these two disciples had been uninspired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have argued great presumption in them, without any direction, to write Gospels for the instruction of the church. The very fact of their writing is, therefore, a strong evidence, that they believed themselves to be inspired. There is then little force in the remark of the learned professor, that neither St. Mark nor St. Luke have declared, in any part of their writings, that they were inspired: for such a declaration was unnecessary; their conduct in undertaking to write such books, is the best evidence that they believed them

it is admitted that this is a weighty consideration, it does not ration on the promise made by Christ to his apostles; but while versal church, including the apostles themselves, that these writappear to us to be equal in force to the testimony of the uniings were penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not perfectly clear, that the promise referred to was confined to the twelve. Certainly, Paul, who was not of that number, of the twelve never wrote any thing for the canon. There is was inspired in a plenary manner, and much the larger part nothing in the New Testament which forbids our supposing, that other disciples might have been selected to write for the use of the church. We do not wish that this should be believed, in regard to any persons, without evidence, but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the undeniable fact, that the wri tings of these two men were, from the beginning received as in. spired. And this belief must have prevailed before the death of the apostles; for all the testimonies concur in stating, that the Gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of Luke by Paul, and approved by them respectively. Now, is it credible that have recommended to the Christian church the productions of these apostles, and John who survived them many years, would looked up to the apostles for guidance, in all matters that related uninspired men? No doubt, all the churches, at that time, to the rule of their faith, and a general opinion that these GosPels were canonical could not have obtained without their conmended as useful human productions, and by degrees came to currence. The hypothesis of Michaelis, that they were recombe considered as inspired writings, is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all the testimony which has come down to us on been placed among the books, universally acknowledged, but the subject. If this had been the fact, they would never have would have been doubted of, or disputed by some. The differ ence made between inspired books, and others, in those primitive OBJECTION 2. It has been said that the apostles themselves distinction was not only broad, but great pains were taken to times, was as great as at any subsequent period; and the line of have in their epistles recommended these Gospels as canoni- have it drawn accurately; and when the common opinion of the cal. That the passages depended upon for proof do refer to church, respecting the Gospels, was formed, there was no diffithese or any other written Gospels, Michaelis denies but culty in coming to the certain knowledge of the truth. For even if they did so recommend these Gospels, the evidence thirty years and more, before the death of the apostle John, these (he affirms) is unsatisfactory; because they might have commended a book as containing genuine historical accounts, two Gospels were in circulation. If any doubt had existed rethe fathers, who state that these Gospels were respectively general agreement of all Christians, over the whole world, re without vouching for its inspiration. And the testimony of specting their canonical authority, would not the churches and their elders have had recourse to this infallible authority? The approved by Peter and Paul, Michaelis dismisses with little ceremony: and, finally, he demurs in regard to the evi-specting most of the books of the New Testament, doubtless, dence of the canonical authority of these books, derived from should be attributed to the authority of the apostles. If, then, the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which they these Gospels had been mere human productions, they might were undoubtedly received into the canon; and suggests that have been read privately, but never could have found a place in the apostles might have recommended them, and the primitive the sacred canon. The objection to these books comes entirely church might have accepted them, as works indispensable to too late to be entitled to any weight. The opinion of a modern a Christian, on account of the importance of their contents, critic, however learned, is of small consideration, when opposed and that by insensible degrees they acquired the character to the testimony of the whole primitive church; and to the suf of being inspired.5 frage of the universal church, in every age, since the days of the apostles. The rule of the learned Huet is sound, viz. that all those books should be deemed canonical and inspired, which were received as such by those who lived nearest to the time when they were published.'

selves called to this work."+

very

ANSWER 1. The objection drawn from the writings of other apostolical men is not valid: "for none of them ever undertook to write GOSPELS, for the use of the church. All attempts at writing other Gospels, than THE FOUR, were considered by the primitive church as impious; because, the writers were uninspired men. But

“2. The universal reception of these books by the whole primitive church, as canonical, is, we think, conclusive evidence that they were not mere human productions, but composed by divine inspiration. That they were thus universally received, is manifest, from the testimonies which have already been ad

Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 107-112.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 181–191. 22 Tit. i. 6. Acts vi. 3-8.

Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 87, 88. "The Canon of the Old and New Testaments ascertained by Archibald Alexander, Professor of Theology at Princeton, New Jersey," pp. 202, 203. (Princeton and New York, 1826. 12mo.)

Michaelis Introduction, vol. i. pp. 88-94. Alexander on the Canon,

p. 201,

"3. But if we should, for the sake of argument, concede, that no books should be considered as inspired, but such as were the productions of apostles, still these Gospels would not be excluded from the canon. It is a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among the fathers, that Mark wrote his Gospel from the mouth of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had heard this apostle every day declaring in his public ministry. And Luke did the same in regard to Paul's preaching. These Gos pels, therefore, may, according to this testimony, be considered as more probably belonging to these two apostles, than to the evangelists who penned them. They were little more, would seem, if we give full credit to the testimony which has been tended. Paul, we know, dictated several of his epistles to some exhibited, than amanuenses to the apostles, on whom they at

it

of his companions; and if Mark and Luke heard the Gospel from Peter and Paul, so often repeated, that they were perfect masters of their respective narratives, and then committed the same to writing, are they not, virtually, the productions of these apostles which have been handed down to us? And this was so much

ledged to have been written by uninspired men, and you will need no nice power of discrimination to see the difference the first appear in every respect worthy of God; the last betray, in every page, the weakness of man."i

2. Besides the preceding objections of Michaelis to the canonical authority of this Gospel in general, the genuineness of some particular passages has been questioned, the evidence for which is now to be stated.

(1.) The authenticity of the first two chapters has of late years been impugned by those who deny the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus Christ; but with how little real foundation, will readily appear from the following facts:

[i.] These two chapters are found in ALL the ancient manuscripts and versions at present known.

[ii.] The first chapter of Luke's Gospel is connected with the second, precisely in the same manner as we have seen (p. 299. supra) that the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel are connected; Eero AE Tas μps-Now it came to pass in those days, &c. (Luke ii. 1.) And the second chapter of St. Luke's Gospel is in a similar manner connected with the third;-E STE SE TENTERASET-Now, in the fifteenth year, &c. (Luke iii. 1.) This Gospel, therefore, could not possibly have begun with the third chapter, but must have been preceded by some introduction.

the opinion of some of the fathers, that they speak of Mark's Gospel as Peter's, and of Luke's as Pau'ls. But this is not all. These Gospels were shown to these apostles, and received their approbation. Thus speak the ancients, as with one voice, and if they had been silent, we might be certain, from the circumstances of the case, that these evangelists would never have ventured to take such an important step, as to write and publish the preaching of these inspired men, without their express approbation. Now, let it be considered, that a narrative prepared by a man well acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely correct without inspiration; but of this we cannot be sure, and, therefore, it is of great importance to have a history of facts from men, who were rendered infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should be remembered, however, that the only advantage of inspiration in giving such a narrative, consists in the proper selection of facts and circumstances, and in the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose, then, that an uninspired man should prepare an account of such transactions as he had seen, or heard from eye-witnesses, of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative should be submitted to the inspection of an apostle, and receive his full approbation; might not such a book be consider[iii.] But because the first chapters of it were not found in ed as inspired? If in the original composition, there should the copies used by Marcion, the founder of the sect of Marcionhave crept in some errors, (for to err is human,) the inspired re-ites in the second century, it is affirmed that they are spurious viewer would, of course, point them out and have them corrected; interpolations. now such a book would be, for all important purposes, an inspired volume; and would deserve a place in the canon of Holy Scripture. If any credit, then, is due to the testimony of the Christian fathers, the Gospels of Mark and Luke are canonical books; for, as was before stated, there is a general concurrence among them, that these evangelists submitted their works to the inspection, and received the approbation of the apostles Peter and

Paul.

A little consideration will show the falsehood of this assertion. The notions entertained by Marcion were among the wildest that can be conceived;-that our Saviour was man only in outward form, and that he was not born like other men, but appeared on earth full grown. He rejected the Old Testament altogether, as proceeding from the Creator, who, in his opinion, was void of goodness; and of the New Testament he received only one Gospel (which is supposed, but without foundation, to be the Gospel of Saint Luke') and ten of Paul's Epistles, all of which he mu1 Alexander on the Canon, pp. 203-210. The importance of the subject and the conclusive vindication of the Gospels of Luke and Mark, contained in the preceding observations, will, we trust, compensate for the length of the quotation above given; especially as the learned translator of Michae is, whose annotations have so frequently corrected the statements and assertions of the German Professor, has offered no refutation of his ill.

44

4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in favour of the Gospels under consideration, as of any other books of the New Testament. There is no reason to think that Mark or Luke were capable of writing with such perfect simplicity and propriety, without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of inspired men. If we reject these books from the canon, we must give up the argument derived from internal evidence for the in-founded objections to the canonical authority of these Gospels. There spiration of the sacred Scriptures altogether. It is true, the learn- is," indeed,-Professor Alexander remarks with equal truth and piety,ed professor, whose opinions we are opposing, has said, the criticism, which has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in Ger'something reprehensible, not to say impious, in that bold spirit of modern oftener I compare their writings (Mark's and Luke's) with those many, first to attack the authority of particular books of Scripture, and of St. Matthew and St. John, the greater are my doubts.' And next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, we need not say; speaking in another place of Mark, he says, 'in some immaterial for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late, the most dangerous enemies of instances he seems to have erred,' and he gives it as his opinion, the Bible, have been found occupying the places of its advocates; and the 'that they who undertake to reconcile St. Mark with St. Mat- critical art, which was intended for the correction of the text, and the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in a most unnatural way, been turned thew, or to show that he is nowhere corrected by St. John, ex- against the Bible; and finally, the inspiration of all the sacred books, has perience great difficulty, and have not seldom to resort to unnanot only been questioned, but scornfully rejected, by Professors of Theology! And these men, while living on endowments which pious benevo tural explanations.' But the learned professor has not mentioned lence had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly connected any particular cases of irreconcilable discrepancies between this with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far forevangelist and St. Matthew; nor does he indicate in what state- gotten their high responsibilities, and neglected the claims which the church had on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning, to sap the ments he is corrected by St. John. Until something of this foundation of that system which they were sworn to defend. They have kind is exhibited, general remarks of this sort are deserving of had the shameless hardihood to send forth into the world, books under no consideration. To harmonize the evangelists has always been their own names, which contain fully as much of the poison of infidelity, as [was] ever distilled from the pens of the most malignant deists, whose found a difficult task, but this does not prove that they contradict writings have fallen as a curse upon the world. The only effectual security each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable. Many which we have against this new and most dangerous form of infidelity, is found in the spirit of the age, which is so superficial and cursory in its things, which, at first sight, appear contradictory, are found, upon reading, that however many elaborate critical works may be published in closer examination, to be perfectly harmonious; and if there be foreign languages, very few of them will be read, even by theological stusome things which commentators have been unable satisfactorily dents, in this country. May God overrule the efforts of these enemies of Christ and the Bible, so that good may come out of evil!" (Alexander on to reconcile, it is no more than what might be expected, in nar- the Canon, pp. 212, 213.) In this prayer, we are persuaded, every candid ratives so concise, and in which a strict regard to chronological and devout critical student of the Scriptures will most cordially concur. order did not enter into the plan of the writers. And if this chapters of Luke; but neither did it contain the third chapter, nor more The Gospel used by Marcion certainly did not contain the two first objection be permitted to influence our judgment in this case, it than one half of the fourth; and in the subsequent parts (as we are inform will operate against the inspiration of the other evangelists as ed by Dr. Lardner, who had examined this subject with his usual minutewell as Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discrepancies He would not allow it to be called the Gospel of Saint Luke, erasing the ness and accuracy), it was "mutilated and altered in a great variety of places. are impartially considered, and all the circumstances of the facts name of that evangelist from the beginning of his copy. " (Lardner's candidly and accurately weighed, there will be found no solid Works, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 393-401. ; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 611-615.) His alterations were not made on any critical principles, but in the most arbitrary manner, ground of objection to the inspiration of any of the Gospels;-in order to suit his extravagant theology. Indeed, the opinion that he used certainly nothing, which can counterbalance the strong evidence Luke's Gospel at all, rests upon no sufficient foundation. So different were arising from the style and spirit of the writers. In what respects times, particularly Semler, Eichborn, Griesbach, Loeffler, and Marsh, have the two works, that the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern these two evangelists fall short of the others, has never been rejected that opinion altogether. Griesbach maintained that Marcion comshown; upon the most thorough examination and fair compari- piled a work of his own, for the service of his system and the use of his son of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all indited followers, from the writings of the evangelists, and particularly of Luke, (Hist. Text. Gr. Epist. Paul. p. 92.) "That Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel by the same spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all at all," says Bp. Marsh, "is a position which has been taken for granted human compositions. without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the

"Compare these Gospels with those which are acknow

Gospel of Luke; as Tertullian acknowledges, saying, Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscríbit autorem. (Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. c. 2.) It is probable

tilated and disguised by his alterations, interpolations, and omis- (3.) The forty-third and forty-fourth verses of Luke xxii. sions. This conduct of Marcion's completely invalidates any are wanting in the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, in argument that may be drawn from the omission of the first two the Codex Leicestrensis, in the Codex Vindobonensis Lamchapters of Luke's Gospel in his copy; and when it is added becii 31., and in the Sahidic version: and in the Codices that his arbitrary interpolations, &c. of it were exposed by seve- Basiliensis B. VI. and Vaticanus 354. (of the ninth or tenth ral contemporary writers, and particularly by Tertullian, we century), and some other more recent manuscripts, these conceive that the genuineness and authenticity of the two chap-verses are marked with an asterisk, and in some of the MSS. ters in question are established beyond the possibility of doubt.3 collated by Matthæi with an obelisk. Their genuineness, therefore, has been disputed. (2.) From the occurrence of the word Aey (Legio, that is, a Legion), in Greek characters, in Luke viii. 30., a suspicion has been raised that the whole paragraph, containing the narrative of Christ's healing the Gadarene demoniac (viii. 27-39.) is an interpolation. This doubt is grounded on the assertion that this mode of expression was not customary, either with Luke, or with any classic writer in the apostolic age. But this charge of interpolation is utterly groundless; for the passage in question is found in all the manuscripts and versions that are extant, and the mode of expression alluded to is familiar both with the evangelist, and also with classic writers who were contemporary with him. Thus,

[i.] In Luke x. 35. we meet with Anvape, which is manifestly the Latin word Denaria in Greek characters. In xix. 20. we also have up; which word, though acknowledged in the Greek language, is nothing more than the Latin word Sudarium, a napkin or handkerchief; and in Acts xvi. 12. we also have KOлONIA (Colonia) a COLONY.

Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome bear testimony that, in their time, these verses were wanting in some Greek and Latin MSS. But, on the other hand, they are found in by far the greater number of MSS. (as Rosenmüller remarks), without an obelisk, and in all the ancient versions except the Sahidic. They are also recognised by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenæus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Titus of Bostra, Cæsarius. The reasons for the omission of these verses in some MSS. and for their being marked as suspected in others, are obvious: they were rejected by some of the more timid, lest they should appear to favour the Arians.

The verses in question are certainly genuine, and they are accordingly retained by Griesbach in the text, without any mark to indicate that they are either spurious or suspected.

IV. With regard to the time when this Gospel was writ ten, there is some difference of opinion; Dr. Owen and others referring it to the year 53, while Jones, Michaelis, [ii.] That the mode of expression, above objected to, was cus- Lardner, and the majority of biblical critics, assign it to the tomary with classic authors in the apostolic age, is evident from year 63 or 64, which date appears to be the true one, and the following passage of Plutarch, who was born not more than corresponds with the internal characters of time exhibited ten years after Jesus Christ. He tells us that, when the city of in the Gospel itself. But it is not so easy to ascertain the Rome was built, Romulus divided the younger part of the inhabit-place where it was written. Jerome says, that Luke, the ants into battalions. Each corps consisted of three thousand third evangelist, published his Gospel in the countries of foot, and three hundred horse; and (the historian adds) Ex Achaia and Boeotia; Gregory Nazianzen also says, that Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. Grotius states, δε ΛΕΓΕΩΝ, τω λογάδας είναι τους μαχίμους πάντων, that is, It was called a LEGION, because the most warlike persons were "select-that about the time when Paul left Rome, Luke departed to ed." A few sentences afterwards, we meet with the following Latin words in Greek characters, viz. ПATPIKIOTZ (Patricios) PATRICIANS; ZENATOZ (Senatus), the SENATE; HATPONA (Patronos), PATRONS; KAIENTAX (Clientes), CLIENTS; and in a subsequent page of the same historian, we meet with the word KEAEPEZ (Celeres), CELERES. Again, in Dion Cassius, we meet with the following sentence: Top KEAEPION agovμ,—for Ium chief, or commander of the Celeres. Whether

these are Latin words in Greek characters or not, the common sense of the reader must determine. The word AETEON is not so barbarous, but that it has been acknowledged by the two Lexicographers, Hesychius and Suidas.'

We have, therefore, every reasonable evidence that can be desired for the genuineness of this passage of Luke's Gospel.

therefore that he used some apochryphal Gospel, which had much matter
in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same." (Marsh's
Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 159.) Dr. Loeffler has very fully examined the ques
tion in his Dissertation, entitled Marcionem Paulli Epistolas et Luca
Evangelium adulterasse dubitatur. Frankfort on the Oder, 1788. The
conclusions of his minute investigation are, (1.) That the Gospel used by
Marcion was anonymous: (2) Marcion rejected all our four Gospels, and
maintained the authenticity of his own in opposition to them: (3.) His fol-
lowers afterwards maintained, that Christ himself and Paul were the au-
thors of it: (4.) Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, had no reason for
regarding Marcion's Gospel as an altered edition of Luke's, and their as-
sertion is a mere conjecture resting upon none but frivolous and absurd
allegations: (5) The difference of Marcion's Gospel from Luke's is incon-
sistent with the supposition: (6.) There are no just grounds for believing
that Marcion had any pressing motives to induce him to adopt a garbled
copy of Luke; and the motives assigned by the fathers are inconsistent
and self-destructive. Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Mes-
siah, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14.
Epiphanius has given a long account of Marcion's alterations, &c. of
the New Testament. See Dr. Lardner's Works, Svo. vol. ix. pp. 369-393.;
4to. vol. iv. pp. 610-624.

lated

Achaia, where he wrote the books we now have. Dr. Cave termination of Paul's captivity, but Drs. Mill and Grabe, was of opinion that they were written at Rome before the and Wetstein, affirm that this Gospel was published at Alexandria in Egypt, in opposition to the pseudo-Gospel circuthese various opinions at considerable length, and concludes among the Egyptians. Dr. Lardner has examined that, upon the whole, there is no good reason for supposing that Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, or that he preached when he left Paul, he went into Greece, and there composed at all in Egypt: on the contrary, it is more probable that or finished and published his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.9

V. That Luke wrote his Gospel for the benefit of Gentile converts, is affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity, and it may also be inferred from his dedicating it to one of his Gentile converts. This, indeed, appears to have been its peculiar design; for writing to those who were far remote from the scene of action, and ignorant of Jewish affairs, it was requisite that he should descend to many particulars, and touch on various points, which would have been unnecessary, had he written exclusively for Jews. On this account he begins his history with the birth of John the Baptist (i. 5-80.), as introductory to that of Christ; and in the course of it he notices several particulars, mentioned by Matthew. (ii. 1-9, &c.) Hence, also, he is particularly careful in specifying various circumstances of facts that were highly conducive to the information of strangers; but which it could not have been necessary to recite to the Jews, who could easily supply them from their own knowledge. On this account, likewise, he gives the genealogy of Christ not as Matthew had done, by showing that Jesus was the son of David, from whom the Scriptures taught the Jews that the Messiah was to spring; but he traces Christ's lineage up to Adam, agreeably to the mode of tracing gene

See the passage at length in Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 256-288.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 419, 420. Much stress has been laid upon the apparent discrepancy between the genealogies of Jesus Christ in Luke ini. and Matt. i., and also on the supposed chronological difficulty in our Saviour's age; but as these seeming dictions have already been satisfactorily explained in the first contralogies in use among the Gentiles, by ascending from the of this work, it is not necessary to repeat those solutions in this place. See also Dr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 27. et seq.; Archbp. Laurence's Critical Reflections on the misrepresen tations contained in the modern Socinian Version, pp. 51-73.; and Dr.

Hales on Faith in the Trinity, vol. i. pp. 88-110.

Plutarchi Vitæ, in Romulo, tom.i. pp. 51, 52. edit. Bryani.
Plutarchi Vitæ, vol. i. p. 71. In the same page also occurs the word
KAJITOAION (Capitolium), the CAPITOL.

Dion Cassius, lib. iv. cited by Mr. Rennell (to whom we are principally indebted for the observations above stated), in his Animadversions on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 52.

See their Lexicons, in voce; their elucidations of this word are cited by Schleusner, in his Lexicon in Nov. Test. voce Ayv

person whose lineage was given to the founder of his race (iii. 23-38.); and thus shows that Jesus is the seed of the woman, who was promised for the redemption of the whole world. Further, as the Gentiles had but little knowledge of Jewish transactions, Luke has marked the æras when Christ was born, and when John began to announce the

• Griesbachii et Schulzii Nov. Test. tom. i. p. 470. Rosenmüller, Kuinõel, and Bloomfield on Luke xxii. 43, 44. Pritii, Introd. ad Nov. Test. pp. 19, 20. Lipsiæ, 1764.

Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 130-136.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 199-22

The scope of Luke's Gospel therefore was, to supersede the defective and unauthentic narratives which were then in circulation, and to deliver to Theophilus a true and genuine account of the life, doctrines, miracles, death and resurrection of our Saviour. Irenæus and some of the fathers imagined that Luke derived his information chiefly from the apostle Paul, and that he wrote his Gospel at his command ;s but this conjecture is contradicted by the evangelist's own words; whence we are authorized to conclude that he obtained his intelligence principally from those who had both heard and witnessed the discourses and miracles of Jesus Christ. Now it is manifest that St. Paul was not of this number, for he was not converted to the Christian faith until the end of the year 36, or perhaps the beginning of the year 37. It was from conversing with some of the apostles or immediate disciples of our Lord, that Luke was enabled to trace every thing from the beginning, in order that Theophilus might know the certainty of those truths of which he had hitherto received only the first elements.

Gospel, by the reigns of the Roman emperors (iii. 1, 2.)- | intention, though they were inaccurate and defective. What to which point Matthew and the other evangelists have not these imperfect and incorrect histories of our Saviour were it attended. Luke has likewise introduced many things not is impossible now to determine, as they are not mentioned by noticed by the other evangelists, which encouraged the Gen- any contemporary writer, and probably did not survive the tiles to hearken to the Gospel, and, when their consciences age in which they were composed.3 were awakened by it, to turn to God in newness of life with a pleasing prospect of pardon and acceptance. Of this description are the parables of the publican praying in the temple (xviii. 10.), and of the lost piece of silver (xv. 8-10.), and particularly the prophetic parable of the prodigal son; which, besides its spiritual and universal application, beautifully intimates that the Gentile, represented by the younger or prodigal son, returning at length to his heavenly Father, would meet with the most merciful, gracious, and affectionate reception. (xv. 11. et seq.) Christ's visit to Zaccheus the publican (xix. 5.) and the pardon of the penitent thief on the cross (xxiii. 40-43.), are also lively illustrations of the mercy and goodness of God to penitent sinLest, however, doubts should arise whether any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel were interested in these good tidings, other parables and facts are introduced which cannot be taken in this limited sense. Thus Luke recites a parable in praise of a merciful Samaritan (x. 33.); he relates that another Samaritan was healed and commended for his faith and gratitude (xvii. 19.;) and, when a village of this people proved rude and inhospitable, that the zeal of the two apostles who wished to consume them by fire from heaven was reproved (ix. 52–56.); and they were told that "the Son of man came, not to destroy men's lives, but to save

ners.

them."

Lastly, this evangelist inserts examples of kindness and mercy shown to the Gentiles. Thus, our Saviour, in the very first public discourse recorded in Luke's Gospel, takes notice that such favours were vouchsafed to the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian, both Gentiles, as were not conferred, in like circumstances, on any of the Israelites. (iv. 25-27.) And the prayer upon the cross (xxiii. 34.), "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is placed between the act of crucifying our Lord and that of parting his raiment, both of which were performed by the Roman soldiers; to whom, therefore, this prayer must have respect, as much as to any of his persecutors.

VII. From some striking coincidences between certain passages in Luke's Gospel and the parallel passages in that of Matthew, Rosenmüller and some other critics have imagined that the former had seen the Gospel of the latter, and that he transcribed considerably from it. But this conjecture does not appear to have any solid foundation; for, in the first place, it is contradicted by the evangelist Luke himself, who expressly states that he derived his information from persons who had been eye-witnesses; which sufficiently account for Logos, as a person. St. Luke surely personifies him quite as much, when he says, that the facts which he collected were related to him by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers or attendants of the WORD (Luke 1. 2.); that is the Logos (Tou Ac.) For how could they be ence? Observe particularly, that the word in the original (pas) dehold or attend upon that, which was not visible, or had no personal existnotes a personal attendant, even more properly than the word ministers, employed by the translators. The expression ministers of the word con veys, to the English reader at least, the idea of the ministers of the Gospel; but eyewitnesses of, attendants upon, or servants of the Word, cannot fail to imply that the word was a person capable of being seen, and of receiving attendance. In any language, eyewitnesses of a thing not visible must the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory; he be a very harsh and unintelligible expression. When St. John also says, comes very near indeed to St. Luke's eyewitness of the Word. I am well aware that this idea is not new. How indeed should it be new? being so very obvious, upon the inspection of the Greek text, that it is more extraor dinary for it to be overlooked than remarked. But in this country it has been little noticed. It has been thought by some, that the same writer, St. Luke, has again given the personal sense to the term Logos, or Word in the xxth chapter of the Acts, ver. 32.; and if so, it is also the expression of St. Paul, whose speech is there recited. And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you By the Word of his grace is thus supposed to be meant our Lord Jesus

Christ; in which case, it would be better to render it who is able, &c.
This, however, is by no means so c'ear as the former passage. But the
Word whom the apostles saw, and upon whom they attended, according
to St. Luke, cannot, I think, be any other than OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST."
Nares on the Veracity of the Evangelists, pp. 40-43. 2d edit. London, 1819.
Mill's Proleg. $25-37. Doddridge's Fain. Expos. vol. i. p. 1. Lardner's
Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 142–145.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 205, 206.

As the literal import of this name is friend of God, some have ima

VI. Great and remarkable characters always have many biographers. Such appears to have been the case with our Saviour, whose life was so beautiful, his character so sublime and divine, his doctrine so excellent, and the miracles by which he confirmed it were so illustrious and so numerous, that it was impossible but many should undertake to write evangelical narrations, or short historical memoirs concerning his life, doctrines, and transactions, which are now lost. This we infer from St. Luke's introduction to his Gospel :-up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. Forasmuch, says he, as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of THE WORD, delivered them unto us; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest learn the certainty gined that, under this appellation, St. Luke comprised all the followers of of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (i. 1—4.) Christ, to whom as friends of God, he dedicated this faithful history of our From these introductory sentences we learn, in the first place, Saviour. But this interpretation appears to have little solidity in it; for, that the writers alluded to were not our evangelists Matthew if all the followers of Christ are addressed, why is the singular number used? And what good end could there be accomplished by using a feigned and Mark, who were the only evangelists that can be sup-name? Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others, have understood Theoposed to have written before Luke; for Matthew was an eye-philus to be a real person; and Theophylact has well remarked that he witness, and wrote from personal knowledge, not from the was a man of senatorial rank, and possibly a prefect or governor, because he gives him the same title of xparis, most excellent, which St. Paul used testimony of others; and two cannot with propriety be called in his address to Felix and Festus. Dr. Cave supposed him to have been many. In the next place, it is to be observed that these nar- a nobleman of Antioch, on the authority of the pretended Clementine Rerations consisted of those things which are most surely believed cognitions, but these are of no weight, being composed at the end of the second century, and not from the writer's personal knowledge. The most among us -that is, of the things performed by Jesus Christ, probable opinion is that of Dr. Lardner, now generally adopted, viz. that and confirmed by the fullest evidence, among the first pro-as St. Luke composed his Gospel in Greece, Theophilus was a man of fessors of the Christian faith, of which number Luke reckons rank of the same country. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 138, 139; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 203, 204. Doddridge, Campbell, Whitby, &c. on Luke i. 1-4. himself. Lastly, it appears that these narrations were reDu Veil's Literal Explication of the Acts, pp. 4-7. English edition, Lonceived either from the apostles themselves, or from their don, 1685. assistants in the work of the Gospel, who were eye-witnesses of the life and miracles of Jesus Christ, to whom Luke (as well as the apostle John) gives the emphatic appellation of THE WORD:2 and that they were composed with an upright

1 Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 181-196.

That this is the true meaning of Luke i. 2. is evident from the following considerations, which are transcribed from Mr. Archdeacon Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists demonstrated by a comparative view of their Histories. "It has long appeared to me," he observes, "that St. John is not, as is commonly thought, the only evangelist who thus speaks of the Word, or

See Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. p. 91.

with Matt. ix. 2-17.; Luke vi. 1-5. with Matt. xii. 1-5.; Luke vii. 22-28. Compare Luke iii. 7-9. 16, 17. with Matt. iii. 7-12.; Luke v. 20-38. with Matt. xi. 4-11.; and Luke xii. 22-31. with Matt. vi. 25-33. Rosenmüller says that Bengel's mode of comparing and harmonizing the Gospels

of Matthew and Luke is the best.

In the opening of the Revelations, it is particularly said of Saint John, that he bore witness to the Logos. Os suapluphos Tov Moyoυ YOU LOU, xx THY Mepluptcy Inou Xprov. ch. i. v. 2. Again, in the nineteenth chapter of the same book, the person who sits on the horse is called the Word of God, καλείται το ονομα αυτού Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ του Θεού, ν. 13. † See Wolfii Curæ Philol. in Luc. i. 2.