tian doctrine, which, notwithstanding the many unfavourable circumstances wherewith it was attended, excited the curiosity, and awakened the attention, of persons of all ranks and denominations; insomuch that every narrative which pretended to furnish men with any additional information concerning so extraordinary a personage as Jesus, seems to have been read with avidity. 5. WHO they were to whom the Evangelist alludes, who had, from vague reports, rashly published narratives not entirely to be depended on, it is impossible for us now to discover. Grotius justly observes, that the spurious Gospels mentioned by ancient writers, are forgeries, manifestly, of a later, date. He seems to except the Gospel according to the Egyptians, which, though much earlier than the rest, can scarcely claim an antiquity higher than that according to Luke. That there were, however, some such performances at the time Luke began to write, the words of this Evangelist are sufficient evidence; for, to consider this book merely "on the footing of a human composition, what writer of common sense. would introduce himself to the public by observing the numerous attempts that had been made by former writers, some of whom at least had not been at due pains to be properly informed, if he himself were actually the first, or even the second, or the third, who had written on the subject; and if one of the two who preceded him, had better opportunities of knowing than he, and the other fully as good? But the total disappearance of those spurious writings, probably no better than hasty collections of flying rumours, containing a mixture of truth and falsehood, may, after the genuine Gospels were generally known and read, be easily accounted for. At midnight the glimmering of a taper is not without its use; but it can make no conceivable addition to the light of the meridian sun. And it deserves to be remarked, by the way, that, whatever may be thought to be insinuated here by the Evangelist, concerning the imperfect information of former historians, there is no hint given of their bad design. 6. SOME have inferred from Luke's introduction, that his must have been the first genuine Gospel that was committed to writing. In my opinion this would need to be much more clearly implied in the words than it can be said to be, to induce a reasonable critic to adopt an opinion so repugnant to the uniform voice of antiquity. The remark of Grotius, on this head, appears to have more weight than is commonly allowed it. Luke, he observes, wrote in Greek, Matthew's Gospel had been written in the Hebrew of the times, and probably was not then translated into Greek. The expression of Papias implies, in my opinion, as was hinted already, that that Gospel remained a considerable time without any translation into Greek. If so, the only authentic 7 Preface to Matthew's Gospel, § 6. Gospel which had preceded Luke's in Greek, was the Gospel by Mark, which comparatively was but a compend. The arguments (if we can call them arguments) in Basnage's exercitations, employed to prove that the Gospel by Luke was the first written, will be found, on examination, to rest on nothing but conjectures supported by reasonings which, to a superficial view, may appear ingenious, but are merely hypothetical, and can never overturn the only adequate evidence of a point of fact, the testimony of those who had best occasion to know, in a matter which they were under no conceivable temptation to misrepresent. § 7. LUKE, in composing this Gospel, is supposed by some to have drawn his information chiefly from the Apostle Paul, whom he faithfully attended, as Mark did from the Apostle Peter. They even proceed so far as to suppose that when Paul, in his Epistles, uses the expression my Gospel, he means the Gospel according to Luke: but nothing can be more unnatural than this interpretation. That Paul, who was divinely enlightened in all that concerned the life and doctrine of his Master, must have been of very great use to the Evangelist, cannot be reasonably doubted; yet, from Luke's own words, we are led to conclude, that the chief source of his intelligence, as to the facts related in his Gos * Rom. ii. 16. xvi. 25. 2 Tim. ii. 8. pel, was from those who had been eye and ear witnesses of what our Lord both did and taught.. Now of this number Paul evidently was not. But, though Luke appears to have been an early and assiduous attendant on the ministry of that Apostle, and to have accompanied him regularly in his apostolical journeys, from his voyage to Macedonia, till he was carried prisoner to Rome, whither also the Evangelist went along with him, he could not fail to have many opportunities, both before and after joining him, of conversing with those Apostles and other disciples who had heard the discourses, and seen the miracles, of our Lord. 8. As to the time when this Gospel was written, hardly any thing beyond conjecture has yet been produced. The same may be said of the place of publication. Jerom thinks it was published in Achaia, when Paul was in that country, attended by Luke; and by the computation of Euthymius, it was fifteen years after our Lord's ascension; but Paul's journey into Achaia could not have been so early. Grotius supposes that both the Gospel and the Acts were written soon after Paul left Rome, to travel into Spain. His principal reason seems to have been, because the latter of these histories ends nearly about that time, to wit, when Paul was first a prisoner at Rome. But though this may be admitted to be a very strong presumption, that the Acts of the Apostles were composed then, it affords no sort of evidence that the Gospel may not have been composed and published long before. That it actually was some time before the other, appears to me the more probable supposition of the two. By the introduction to the Gospel, where the author particularly addresses himself to his friend Theophilus, his whole intention at that time appears to have been to give a history of our Lord's life, teaching, and miracles. And even in concluding the Gospel, no hint is given of any continuation or further history then in view. Again, in the beginning of the Acts, when he addresses the same friend, he speaks of the Gospel as of a treatise which he had composed on a former occasion, and which was then well known. And as to the place of publication, though nothing certain can be affirmed concerning it. I am inclined to think it more probable that it was Antioch, or at least some part of Syria, if not Palestine. Every thing here seems addressed to those who were well acquainted with Jewish customs and places. No hints are inserted, by way of explanation, as we find in the Gospels of Mark and John. 9. BUT, though no certainty can be had about the precise time and place of publication, we have, in regard to the Author, the same plea of the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, which was pleaded in favour of the preceding Evangelists, Matthew and Mark. Some indeed have thought that, as an Evangelist, Luke has the testimony of Paul himself, being, as they suppose, the brother |