early Jewish believers, and eye-witneЛles of the Lord, and fome of the Apoftles, who were ftill at Jerufalem. And I make no doubt, but that before that season he had converfed with feveral of the Apoftles, and other eye-witnesses of our Lord's perfon and works. Nor can any hefitate to allow the truth of what is faid by fome of the ancients, that Luke, who for the moft part was a companion of Paul, had likewise more than a flight acquaintance with the reft of the Apoftles. Whilft he was with Paul at Rome, it is likely, that he had fome leifure for compofing, and writing. When St. Paul left Rome, I imagine, that Luke accompanied him no longer: but went into Greece, where he finished, and published, one after the other, his two books. Which he infcribed to Theophilus, an honorable friend, and a good Chriftian in that countrey. Here Luke died, and, perhaps fomewhat in years. Nor need it to be reckoned an improbable fuppofition, that he was older than the Apostle. VIII. I fhall conclude this chapter with fome obferObfervations vations upon St. Luke's Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apoftles. But thofe upon his Gospel will chiefly relate to upon his Gospel. the introduction: though fome were mentioned formerly. 1. St. Luke's two books, his Gofpel and the Acts, are infcribed to Theophilus. Whereby fome understand any good Christian in general, others a particular person. Epiphanius (x) fpeaks as if he was in doubt, whether thereby fhould be understood a particular perfon, or a lover of God in general. Salvian (y) feems to have fuppofed it to be only a feigned name. Auguftin (z) and Chryfoftom (a), and many others, have thereby underftood a real perfon. Theophylact expreffeth himself after this manner : "Theophilus (b) to whom Luke wrote, was a man of fenatorian rank, "and poffibly a Governour: forafmuch as he calls him most excellent, the "fame title, which Paul useth in his addresses to Felix and Feftus," Oecumenius fays, "that (c) Theophilus was a Prefect or Governour." However, we have no particular account in the ancients, who he was, or of what countrey. Cave (d) fuppofed Theophilus to have been a Nobleman of Antioch. And in his Lives of the Apoftles and Evangelifts (e) writ in English, he refers (*) Ειτ' ἔν τινὶ θεοφιλῷ τότε γράφων τῦτο ἔλεγεν, ἤ παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ θεὸν ἀγα TWITI. Epiph. Hær. LI. n. vii. p. 429. A. ) Pofitus itaque in hoc ambigua opinionis incerto, optimum fere credidit, ut beati Evangelifta facratiffimum fequeretur exemplum: qui in utroque divini operis exordio Theophili nomen infcribens, cum ad hominem fcripfiffe videatur, ad amorem Dei fcripfit: hoc fcilicet digniffimum effe judicans, ut ad ipfum affectum Dei fcripta dirigeret, a quo ad fcribendum impulfus effet. Salvian. ad Salon. ep. 9. p. 215. (z) De Confenf. Evan. 1. 4. c. 8. T. 3. (a) Chryf. in A. Hom. i. T. 9. p. 3. 4. (b) See Vol. xi. p. 423. (c) Hyper i Juros à eos, &c. Comm. in A. T. 2 p. 2 C. (d) Utrumque opus infcripfit, Theophilo optimati, (ut credere fas eft,) Antiocheno. Hift. Lit. in Luca. () P. 224. refers to the Recognitions: where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch, of this name. But I do not esteem that to be any proof, that St. Luke's Theophilus was of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not speaking of Paul, nor of Luke, but of Peter: who, as he says, in (f) feven days converted ten thousand people at Antioch. And Theophilus, the greatest man in the city, turned his house into a church. Moreover, fuppofing him to intend St. Luke's Theophilus, his authority is of no value. A writer at the end of the second centurie does not speak of his own knowledge. And if St. Luke published his books in Greece, which to me seems probable, I fhould be inclined to think, that Theophilus, to whom they are addreffed, was a man of the fame countrey. 2. It may be of more importance to inquire, whom St. Luke means by the many, who before him had attempted to write hiftories of Jefus Chrift. Epiphanius fays, that (g) St. Luke intended Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others. How Origen (b) expreffed himself concerning this, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel: and how Jerome (i) in his preface to St. Matthew, may be seen by thofe, who are pleafed to look back. They fay, that many attempted to write Gofpels, as Bafilides, Apelles, and others. And they mention divers Gospels, not received by the Church: Such as the Gospel of Thomas, and Matthias, the Gospels of the Egyptians, and of the Twelve. But it is not neceffarie to be fuppofed by us, that they thought, that all, if any, of those Gofpels were writ before St. Luke's, or that he fpoke of them. For Bafilides and Apelles could not write Gospels before the second centurie. And they might suppose, that several, if not all the other, mentioned by them, were writ after St. Luke's. The meaning of what these ancient writers fay, is, that the Church receives four Golpels only. There were many others. But to them may be applied the words of St. Luke: they only took in hand, or attempted. They did not perform, as Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John did. And they might express themselves in that manner concerning Gofpels writ after St. Luke's, as well as before it. However, Theophylact, as was formerly (k) observeä, in the preface to his Commentarie upon St. Luke, exprefleth himself, as if he thought, the Evangelift referred to the Gofpels according to the Egyptians, and according to the Twelve. 3. We will now obferve the judgements of fome learned moderns. Grabe (1) allows, that St. Luke did not refer to the Gospels of Bafilides, or (f) Et ne multis immorer, intra feptem dies, plus quam decem millia hominum credentes Deo baptizati funt, et fanctificatione confecrati: ita ut omni aviditatis defiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate fublimior, domus fuæ ingentem bafilicam, ecclefiæ nomine confecravit. Recogn. 1. x. cap. 71. (β) . . Φάσκων ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν, ἵνα τινὰς μὲν ἐπιχειρητὰς δείξῃ, φημὶ δὲ τὰς περὶ κήρινθον, καὶ μήρινθον, καὶ τὰς ἄλλες. H. LI. n. vii. in. (b) See Vol. iii. p. 317. 318, (i) See Vol. x. p. 140. 141. (k) Vol. xi. p. 422. (Reliqua quippe ab Origene et Ambrofio nominata falfa Evangelia, veluti Bafilidis, aliudque Manichæorum, Apoftolo Thomæ perperam adfcriptum, procul omni dubio poft S. Lucæ obitum prodiere: adeo ut ea in primis Evangelii verbis, in quorum explicatione Origenes et Ambrofius ifta afferunt, refpicere or Thomas, or fome others, mentioned by Origen. For they were not published, till after St. Luke's death. But he thinks, that St. Luke might refer to the Gofpels according to the Egyptians, and according to the Twelve, and fome others, now unknown. That St. Luke might refer to the Gospel according to the Egyptians, he thinks for the following reafons, which I fhall confider. The first is, that (m) St. Luke's Gospel was writ in Egypt. To which I answer: That is faid without ground, as has been lately (n) fhewn. Grabe's fecond argument is, that (0) Clement of Rome, or fome other, in the fragment of the fecond epiftle afcribed to him, has quoted the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. Which argument, as one would think, might have been fpared: fince Grabe himself allows, that (p) fecond epistle to be fuppofitious, and not to have been compofed, till about the middle of the third centurie. If that be the true date of the epiftle, it is too late a thing, to warrant the fuppofition, that St. Luke referred to the Gofpel according to the Egyptians. I fhall take no further notice of Grabe. But I imagine, that the Gofpel according to the Egyptians was not compofed before the fecond centurie. Clement of Alexandria is the first known Catholic author, that has cited it. And in his time it was very obscure and little known. This (9) was fhewn formerly. Dr. Mill does not much differ from Grabe. He thinks, that (r) of the many Narrations, to which St. Luke refers, the two principal were the Gospels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyp tians. The general account, which Mill gives of tions, feems to be very juft and reasonable. him here largely. "About (s) the year 58. thofe Memoirs or NarraAnd I intend to transcribe or somewhat fooner, says "Mill refpicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud eft abfimile, ifta fecundum Hebræos et Ægyptios ante fuiffe fcripta, atque ad ea, una cum aliis pluribus jam ignotis, Lucam intendiffe digitum, dum præfatus eft. &c. Gr. Spic. T. i. P. 31. 32. (m) Evangelium, de quo agitur, ab Egyptiis editum fuiffe ante Luca Evangelium, huncque iftud inter alia, fi non præcipue, refpexiffe, dum in prooemio plures hiftorias evangelicas memorat, ad quas emendandas, et defectus eorum fupplendos, fuam literis confignaffe fe innuit, probabile redditur ex eo, quod Lucas Evangelium fcripfiffe dicatur Alexandriæ in Ægypto. Id. ib. p. 33. in. (n) See before p. 103. . 105. (0) Accedit, quod jam Clemens Romanus, vel quifquis eft auctor ep. 2. ad Corinthios, certe antiquiffimus, ifto Evangelio ufus effe ex fragmento mox recitando, colligatur. Ibid. p. 34. (p) Ceterum quæras, quando epiftola illa Clementi fuppofita fuerat, refpondeo, id feculo iii. et quidem medio, factum effe. Ib. p. 269. in. (9) See Vol. ii. p. 527... 530. Second edition. p. 526. . 529. first edition. (r) Ex dictis autem hifce hiftoriolis.. duæ præ ceteris celebratæ erant, quæ et ipfæ Evangelia appellabantur, fecundum Hebræos alterum, alterun fecundum Ægyptios. Proleg. n. 38. vid, et n. 39... 41. et n. 112. &c. (s) Sub hoc quidem tempus, annum dico LVIII. feu etiam aliquanto ante, contextæ fuere a fidelibus quibufdam illius ævi dinynous evangelicæ, feu ་་ "Mill, were compofed by fome of the faithful Evangelical Narrations, or fhort hiftories of Chrift. This appears from St. Luke's introduc"tion to his Gospel. From which we learn, in the firft place, that they were not our Evangelifts, Matthew and Mark. For Matthew was an eye-witnefle. Nor can two be called many. In the next place, it is to be obferved, that these narrations confifted of things moft furely be"lieved among us, that is, as I understand it, of the things fulfilled and "done by Christ among the first profeffors of the faith: of which number "Luke reckons himself. Lastly, from the words of that introduction it appears, that thofe Narrations were received either from the Apostles "themselves, or from their affiftants in the work of the gospel. It is "therefore manifeft, that there were fome of the firft Chriftians, who "before Luke, (and alfo, as we may fuppofe, before Matthew and Mark,) "wrote hiftories of the things done by Chrift, and received from apo"ftolical traditions: and that not with a bad, or heretical defign, as many infituate, who comment upon this introduction of St. Luke, but "with the fame defign, as our Evangelifts: that Chriftians might have "at least some account in writing of the Lord's actions. Nevertheless it 66 may be alfo inferred from what St. Luke here fays, that their hiftories "were inaccurate, and imperfect: there were in them fome things not "certain, or well attefted, and poffibly, here and there, fome mistakes. "For which cause it seemed good to him, who had attained to full in"formation, to write a compleat and copious hiftorie of the things done "by Chrift." If this account be right, fome confequences may be deduced, which will be of ufe to us. And indeed, it seems to me to be very right. There were feveral hiftories of Chrift, to which St. Luke here refers. They were composed with a good view, like to that of our Evangelifts. But they were defective and inaccurate. If there were any mistakes, I would imagine, that they were not numerous, nor in things of the greatest importance. Nor were the writers fufficiently qualified for the work, which they had undertaken. feu hiftoriola de rebus Chrifti. Patet hoc ex Evangelii D. Lucæ proœmio: ... Exinde colligimus, in primis equidem, roaλes hofce, qui hiftoriolas conficiebant, alios prorfus effe ab Evangeliftis noftris, Matthæo et Marco. Erat enim Matthæus unus ex dvróтas, ideoque neque ab iftorum traditionibus pendebat, ficut hi quos memorat Lucas. Ne dicam, quod duos duntaxat nemo πολλές dixerit. Deinde vero notandum, eos narrationes fuas infti. tuiffe περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ὑμῖν πραγμάτων, hoc eft, ut ego lubens interpretor, de rebus apud primos fidei profeffores, quorum numero feipfum accenfet Lucas, a Chrifto impletis five geftis. Denique liquet ex verbis modo citatis, traductas fuiffe naratiunculas iftas feu proxime, feu mediate faltem, ab Apoftolis ipfis, eorumque in opere evangelico adjutoribus. Manifeftum eft igitur, fuiffe e primis Chriftianis nonnullos, qui ante Lucam, [addo etiam Matthæum et Marcum,] res Chrifti, (feu Evangelia,) ex apoftolicis traditionibus. undecunque acceptis, confcripferant: idque non ftudio aliquo maligno, feu hæretico, quod infinuant fere qui in hoc Lucæ procmium commentati funt: fed eodem plane fine, quo Evangeliftæ noftri: ut haberet fcilicet Ecclefia rerum a Domino noftro geftarum qualem qualem notitiam. Ceterum cum in iis quæ fequuntur apud Lucam, fingula Chriftianæ rei hiftoriam fpe&tantia accurate fe affecutum effe dicat Evangelifta. . . haud obfcure quidem hinc colligi vi detur, undertaken. This, I think, to be intimated by St. Luke, though modeftly, and without cenforioufneffe, in what he fays of himself, that he bad perfect understanding of all things from the very firft. Which, probably, could not be faid of the compofers of the Narrations, to which he refers. They were men, who had an honeft zeal. But they had writ too haftily, before they had obtained full information. For which reafon their hiftories could not answer the end aimed at. These things being allowed to be right, feveral confequences may be deduced by us. In the first place, and in particular, we hence learn, that the Gospel according to the Twelve, or according to the Hebrews, was not one of thofe Narrations, or Memoirs, to which St. Luke refers. For thefe were very fhort hiftories: [hiftoriole as Mill calls them :] that was a full Gospel, or large hiftorie of Jefus Chrift. Many, in Jerome's time, fuppofed it to be the authentic Gospel of St. Matthew: which, certainly, is not a fhort and imperfect Memoir. From the notice taken of that Gospel by feveral ancient writers, especially by Jerome, it appears to me very probable, (and I should think, muft appear very probable to others likewife,) that the Gospel according to the Twelve, or according to the Hebrews, either was St. Matthew's original Hebrew Gofpel, with additions or his original Greek Gospel, tranflated into Hebrew, with additions. But this last seems to me most likely, as has been often said already upon divers occafions. Secondly. Another thing to be deduced from Mill's account, if right, is, that (E) the Golpel according to the Egyptians was not one of the Narrations, to which St. Luke refers. For that Gospel was not compofed upon the fame principles with thofe of our Evangelifts. It was an heretical Gospel, as appears from the fragments of it, collected by Grabe, and (r) probably, it was compofed in the second centurie, by fome Encratites, enemies of marriage. Thirdly. I add one thing more, whether it be a confequence from what has been already faid, or not: that nothing remains of the Narrations, to which St. Luke refers, not fo much as any fragments, they not being quoted in any Chriftian writings, now exftant. 3. I fhall now tranfcribe a part of Dr. Doddridge's remarks upon St. Luke's introduction. “This (s) must refer to some hiftories of the life "Chrift, detur, row, iftorum dınyious minus accuratas fuiffe, minufque perfectas: ita quidem, ut in his, quæ tradiderant, aliqua hinc inde occurrerint parum certa, ne dicam a vero aberrantia. Unde omnino vifum fit ipfi plenariam hiftoriæ hujus cognitionem confecuto, integrum jam et luculentum rerum a Chrifto geftarum Commentarium fcribere. Mill. Prolog. num. 35. ... 37. (E) I am not fingular in fuppofing, that the Gofpel according to the Egyptians is not intended by St. Luke. Beza fays the fame ftrongly. And as I imagine, he juftly afferts, it not to have been writ, till after St. Luke's Gofpel. Quod iftos ait Lucas, non fatis commode præftitiffe: minime tamen opinor, fabulofas, imo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem Ecclefie fub Nicodemi, Nazaræorum, Thomæ, Ægyptiorum, nominibus impudentiffime obtrufas. Bez. ad Luc. cap. i. ver. 1. (r) Vid. Grabe Spic. T. i. p. 31. |