refers to the Recognitions: where is mentioned a rich man of Antioch, of this name. But I do not efteem that to be any proof, that St. Luke's. Theophilus was of Antioch. That fabulous writer is not fpeaking of Paul, For of Luke, but of Peter: who, as he fays, in (ƒ) feven days converted un thousand people at Antioch. And Theophilus, the greatest man in the iv. turned his houfe into a church. Moreover, fuppofing him to inToni St. Luke's Theophilus, his authority is of no value A writer at the end of the fecond centurie does not fpeak of his own knowledge. And it St. Luke published his books in Greece, which to me feems probable, I Ghould be inclined to think, that Theophilus, to whom they are addressed, was a man of the fame countrey. 2. It may be of more importance to enquire, whom St. Luke means by the many, who before him had attempted to write hiftories of Jefus Christ. Epiphanius fays, that (g) St. Luke intended Cerinthus, Merinthus, and thers. How Origen (b) expreffed himself concerning this, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel; and how Jerome (i) in his preface to St. Mat. how, may be feen by thofe, who are pleafed to look back. They fay, that many attempted to write Gospels, as Bafilides, Apelles, and others. And they mention divers Gofpels, not received by the Church: Such as The Gospel of Thomas, and Matthias, the Goffels 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 thofe Gospels were writ before St. Luke's, or that he Spoke of them. For Bafilides and Apelles could not write Gofpels before the fecond centurie. And they might fuppofe, that several, if not all the oher, 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 exprefs themselves in that manner concerning Gofpels writ after St Luke's, as well as before it. However, Theophylact, as was formerly (k) obferved, in the preface to His Commentarie upon St. Luke, expreffeth 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 (allows, that St. Luke did not refer to the Gospels of Bafilides, or () Et ne multis immorer, intra feptem dies, plus quam decem millia ho num credentes Deo baptizati funt, et fanctificatione confecrati: ita ut omni pvaduatis defiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate fubhonor, domus fuæ ingentem bafilicam, ecclefiæ nomine confecravit. Recogn. 1. a. cap. 71. φάσκων ἐπειδήπε, πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν να τινὰς μὲν ἐπιχειρητὰς δείξῃ, (π ὶ δὲ τὰς περὶ κήρινθον, καὶ μήρινθον, καὶ τὰς ἄλλες. H. LI. n. vii. in. ) See Vol. iii. p. 317. 318. (i) See Vol. x. p. 140. 141. 1) Vol. xi. p. 422. Reliqua quippe ab Origene et Ambrofio nominata falfa Evangelia, viti Bafilidis, aliudque Manichæorum, Apoftolo Thomæ perperam adicrip, procul omni dubio poft S. Lucæ obitum prodiere: adeo ut ea in primis Lageli 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 Gotpel according to the Egyptians, and according to the Twelve, and fome others, now unknown. That St. Luke might refer to the Gofpel 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 (1) fhewn. Grabe's fecond argument is, that (0) Clement of Rome, or fome other, in the fragment of the fecond epistle ascribed 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 epiftle 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 obfcure 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 Egyptians. The general account, which Mill gives of thofe Memoirs or Narrations, feems to be very juft and reasonable. And I intend to transcribe him here largely. "About (s) the year 58. or somewhat fooner, says "Mill, refpicere haud potuerit. Contra vero haud eft abfimile, ifta fecundum Hebræos et Egyptios 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 Luc 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 Alexandria in Egypto. Id. ib. p. 33. in. (n) See before p. 103. 105. (e) Accedit, quod jamn 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 queras, quando epiftola illa Clementi fuppofita fuerat, refpondeo, id feculo iii. et quidem medio, factum effe. Ib. p. 269. in. (q) See Vol. ii. p. 527 · 530. fecond edition. p. 526.. 529. first edition. (r) Ex dictis autem hifce historiolis.. duæ præ ceteris celebratæ erant, quæ et ipfæ Evangelia appellabantur, fecundum Hebræos alterum, alteruin 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 dnycu; evangelics, feu "Mill, were compofed by fome of the faithful Evangelical Narrations, or short hiftories of Chrift. This appears from St. Luke's introduc"tion to his Gofpel. From which we learn, in the first place, that they were not our Evangelifts, Matthew and Mark. For Matthew was an "eye-witneffe. Nor can two be called many. In the next place, it is "to be obferved, that thefe 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 firfl profeffors of the faith: of which number "Luke reckons himself Lastly, from the words of that introduction it "C 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 alío, 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 ma 66 ny infinuate, who comment upon this introduction of St. Luke, but "with the fame defign, as our Evangelifts: that Chriftians might have "at leaft fome account in writing of the Lord's actions. Nevertheless it may be also inferied from what St. Luke here fays, that their hiftories << were inaccurate, and imperfect: there were in them fome things not "certain, or well attefled, and poflibly, here and there, fome mistakes. "For which cause it seemed good to him, who had attained to full information, 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 compofed 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. seu historiole de rebus Christi. Patet hoc ex Evangelii D. Luce proœmio: ... Exinde colligimus, in primis equidem, ès hofce, qui hiftoriolas conficiebaut, alios prorfus effe ab Evangeliftis noftris, Matthæo et Marco. Erat enim Matthæus unus ex durórtais, ideoque neque ab iftorum traditionibus pendebat, ficut hi quos memorat Lucas. Ne dicam, quod duos duntaxat nemo was dixerit. Deinde vero notandum, eos narrationes fuas inftituiffe 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, fuifle 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 Luce proœmium 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 fpectantia 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 himfelf, that he had 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 anfwer 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 those Narrations, or Memoirs, to which St. Luke refers. For thefe were very fhort hiftories: [hiftoriole as Mill calls them :] that was a full Gofpel, or large hiftorie of Jefus Chrift. Many, in Jerome's time, fuppofed it to be the authentic Gofpel of St. Matthew: which, certainly, is not a fhort and imperfect Memoir. From the notice taken of that Gospel by feveral ancient writers, efpecially by Jereme, it appears to me very probable, (and, I should think, must 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 faid already upon divers occafions. Secondly. Another thing to be deduced from Mill's account, if right, is, that (E) the Gospel 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 Golpel, as appears from the fragments of it, collected by Grabe, and (r) probably, it was compofed in the fecond 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 of "Chrif, detur, two iftorum diynous 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 Gospel according to the Egyptians is not intended by St. Luke. Beza fays the fame ftrongly. And as I imagine, he justly 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 Ecclefiæ fub Nicodemi, Nazaræorum, Thomæ, Ægyptiorum, nominibus impudentiffime obtrufas. Bez, ad Luc. cap. i, ver. 1. (r) Vid. Grabe Spic. T. i. p, 31... 37. "Chrift, now loft. For Matthew and Mark, the only Evangelifts that " can be fuppofed to have written before Luke, could not with any pro"priety be called many. And of these two, Matthew at left wrote from "perfonal knowledge, not from the teftimonie of others. I conclude, "that the books referred to are loft: as I am well fatisfied, that none of "the apocryphal Gofpels, now extant, published, particularly, by Fa"bricius, and Jones, can pretend to equal antiquity, with this of St. "Luke... And St. Luke feems to allow these hiftories, whatever they "were, to have been honeftly written, according to information receiv"ed from capable judges." 4. Mr. Beaufobre, fpeaking of thefe Memoirs, fays: "The (t) life "of our Saviour was fo beautiful, his character fo fublime and divine, "his doctrine fo excellent, and the miracles, by which he confirmed it, "were fo fhining, and fo numerous, that it was impoffible, but many "should undertake to write Memoirs of them. This produced many "hiftories of our Saviour, fome more, others lefs exact. It is great "pity, that they are loft. For we might have confulted them, and could "have judged for ourselves concerning the character of the writers, and "their compofition. St. Luke, who fpeaks of Narrations, or Gospels, "that had preceded his own, intimates indeed, that they were defective, "but he does not condemn them, as fabulous, or bad." 5. That is right. Thofe Memoirs were not bad, nor fabulous. But they were imperfect, as I apprehend, to a great degree. Nor do I lament the loffe of them. I can pay fo much deference to the judgement of Christian Antiquity, efpecially, the earliest of all, as to believe, that thofe many Narrations, to which St. Luke refers, did not deserve to be preferved, or to be much taken notice of, after the publication of the Gofpels of our firft three Evangelifts. I imagine, that when once these came abroad, the former appeared to the faithful fo low, and mean, and defective, that they could not bear to fee, or read them. Obfervations upon IX. I shall now make some observations upon the the book of the Acts. other work of our Evangelift. 1. The book of the Acts was writ according to (u) Mill, in the year 64. And from what has been argued by us in feveral places that muft appear to be as likely a time, as any. It could not be writ till after St. Paul's confinement at Rome was come to a period. 1 fuppofe, it to have ended in the former part of the year of Chrift 63. And I think it probable, that St. Luke finished this book the fame, or the next year, either at Rome, or in Greece. 2. It cannot be difagreeable to recollect here fome of the obfervations of ancient writers upon this book, the only book of the kind, which we have, containing a hiftorie of the preaching of Chrift's Apostles after his refurrection. 3. Tertullian (x) often fpeaks of the importance of this book, as fhewing Chrift's fulfilment of the promife of the Holy Ghost to his difciples. 4. "The (y) Acts of the Apoftles, fays Jerome, in his letter to Pau (t) Hift. de Manich. Tom. i. p. 449. (u) Prolegom. num. 121. (x) See Vol. ii. p. 588.... 590. or p. 587... 589. « linus, (y) Actus Apoftolorum nudam quidem fonare videntur historiam, et na fcentis |