CHAP. XI.

Of St. Luke's Gospel. It was wrote from the information of the Apostles, and other Eye-witnesses of Chrift's Actions. Alfo under the Direction and Approbation of St. Paul. The Defign of it to confute the Apocryphal Gofpels. An Enquiry into the Time of its being written.

I

PROCEED now to give fame account of that Gospel which we have under the name of St. Luke. Concerning which, I obferve,

1. That the Evangelift wrote it from the informations and relations of those, who were eye-witnesses of the things which it contains. For though we cannot yet take his own teftimony in the matter, (who ch. i. 2. faith, he wrote the things, which were delivered unto him by thofe, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minifters of the word) yet there is so much other evidence of the truth of the fact, that it cannot with any reafon be difputed. Irenæus a faith, that Luke has delivered to us, what the Apostles delivered to him. This Tertullian calls authenticam paraturam; i. e. authentick intelligence, or sufficient and credible informations, out of which he compiled his Gofpel. Eufebius teftifies, that he converfed intimately with the Apostles, and that he left the doctrines of curing fouls, which he learned from them, in two divinely inspired volumes. To the fame purpose with all thefe, Jerome faith, that Luke wrote not only what he learnt from Paul, but the other Apoftles. This tradition receives no fmall confirmation from St. Luke's having been one of the feventy difciples, and fo much with St. Paul at Jerufalem, and elsewhere, that it cannot without

с

Adv. Hæref. lib. 3. c. 14. Ea quæ ab iis didicerat, tradidit nobis.

Adv. Marcion. lib. 4. c. 2.
Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. c. 4.

d Catalog. Vir. Illuftr. in Luca. Non folum a Paulo didiciffe Evangelium-fed a cæteris Apoftolis.

manifeft

manifest abfurdity be supposed, that he knew none of the Apoftles, or learnt nothing from them.

e

2. It is probable that St. Luke's Gospel was wrote under the direction, and published with the approbation of St. Paul. Thus much at leaft feems evident from the teftimonies of Irenæus, who carries the matter fo far as to affert, that Luke compofed his Gospel out of what Paul preached; of Tertullian, who adds, that St. Luke's Gofpel was afcribed to Paul as its author, for those things may feem to be the mafter's, which the difciples have published. How much this was the opinion of the antients, will farther appear from this notion, which seems to have been common among them, that when Paul in any of his Epiftles uses the words, My GOSPEL, (as he does Rom. ii. 16. 2 Tim. ii. 8.) he particularly meant this Gospel of Luke. This was thought by feveral before Eufebius, and Jerome; and though Mr. Fabricius will not believe it to be fo, yet it shews us clearly, that it was the common opinion of thofe times, that St. Paul was concerned in publishing this Gospel of St. Luke; to which I conceive alfo, that of Origen is to be referred, where he faith, that the Gofpel of Luke was iwò Navλcũ iæasvoúμevov, i. e. commended, or cited by Paulf. But how much foever St. Paul was concerned in approving or directing the publication of this Gospel, it is certainly a miftake in Irenæus, and those who have followed him, to suppose St. Luke wrote only what he heard Paul preach, because himfelf faith, and I have above proved, that he wrote what those who were eye-witneffes delivered to him, of which number St. Paul was not. I therefore chose rather to lay it down in my proposition, that St. Paul approved or directed the publishing of this Gospel, than that he dictated it.

3. The particular view or defign, which St. Luke had in this Gofpel, feems to have been, to confute them any filly Apocryphal

a

Gofpels which were then extant, and to prevent the bad influence of them, and their heretical doctrines, upon the Chriftian converts. This is what is fo manifeft from the first words of the Gospel, and the univerfal voice of antiquity, that I need fay no more, only fhall refer the reader to the firft Volume, Part I. Ch. II. p. 24. and the places there cited, Befides this, which is allowed by all as the principal occafion of St. Luke's writing his Gofpel, there have been other more particular reasons gueffed at by learned men. The two French criticks, Father Simon and Du Pin, conjecture, that he wrote it at the defire of Theophilus, to whom he dedicates it; Dr. Grabe and Dr. Mill suppose, that St. Luke wrote it in Egypt, and with a particular defign to confute the Gospel of the Egyptians, (of which above, Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XVI. &c.) but as the first of these feems but little to agree with the received notions of infpiration, fo the latter feems very improbable, because we not only want any good evidence of St. Luke's having ever been in Egypt, but because we find none of those, which we know to have been the peculiar doctrines of the Egyptian Gospel, so much as once referred to in this of St. Luke.

d

4. The time or period in which this Gospel was wrote, is very uncertain, there being not (as far as I know) any monuments of antiquity, by which it can be fixed, or determined. The antients generally place the writing of this Gospel after those two of St. Matthew and St. Mark. In this order I find them ranged by Origen, Eufebius, Jerome, and many other writers of those times; from whence it is plain, they were bound together in their volumes in the order which they are now; this, I think, can be no better way accounted for, than by fuppofing, that they did imagine them written in the, fame order; and accordingly they are placed in all the old

manufcripts, of which I have met with any account, except in that very antient manuscript of Beza, now called The Cambridge Manufcript, being given by Beza to that University. In this manuscript, the order stands thus ; Matthew is placed firft, then John, after him Luke, then Mark. It is certain, this was not the order in which the Evangelifts wrote; and it is very probable the writer of this manufcript intended to place first thofe of the Evangelifts who were Apostles, viz. Matthew and John, and then those who were not, Luke and Mark; fuppofing perhaps, that as John wrote after Matthew, fo Mark did after Luke. But according to the general opinion of the antients, Luke wrote after Mark; the particular time they have not determined. According to feveral old manufcripts, St. Luke wrote his Gospel fifteen years after the afcenfion of Chrift, viz. about the year 49, but this must certainly be a mistake; for if he wrote after Mark, he must write after the year of Chrift 63; i. e. above thirty years after our Saviour's afcenfion; for I have above proved, that Mark did not write till after that time. Jerome informs us, that St. Luke wrote in the regions of Achaia and Bithyniaa; and as his words are commonly understood by Grotius, Dr. Cave f, Father Simon, and others, that he wrote it when he accompanied St. Paul into those parts. If this be true, it was wrote about the year of Chrift 52, or 53; but this is upon many accounts improbable; for, upon a close observation of Jerome's words, I find they have hitherto been quite mifunderftood; and it is evident,

1. That Jerome does not fay that Luke wrote his Gospel, while he was with Paul in Achaia and Bithynia; he only afferts, according to the common punctuation of the words, that he was a difciple of Paul, and compofed his Gospel in Achaia. and Bithynia; Lucas-Difcipulus Apoftoli Pauli, in Achaia

Mill on the laft verfe of Luke.

d Præf. in Comment. in Matth. • Annot. in Titul. Luc.

f Life of St. Luke, §. 4.

Critic. Hift. of the New Teft. Part i. c. 12. p. 102.

Bithyniæque (other copies read Baotiæque) partibus volumen condidit.

2. The prefent punctuation of Jerome's words feems not to be right; for the comma, or diftinction, ought rather to be put after the word partibus, than after the word Pauli; fo that the sense or conftruction feems rather to be, that Luke was the disciple of Paul in Achaia and Bithynia, and (afterwards) wrote his Gospel; than that he was the disciple of Paul, and wrote his Gospel in Achaia and Bithynia.

For any thing therefore which has been yet faid to the contrary, it seems moft probable, that St. Luke wrote his Gofpel after St. Mark's, i. e. after the year of Christ 63: and as it is very likely that he wrote it not long before the Acts of the Apoftles, which must needs be written after the year of Chrift 62, so it is probable he wrote them both at Rome after Paul's departure thence; for that he continued at Rome after Paul, at least that he did not go away along with him is evident, because his hiftory ends at that period. There is indeed a paffage, which I have obferved in the old book of Hypotyposes, under the name of Clemens Alexandrinus, cited by Eufebius (Hift. Eccl. lib. 6. c. 14.), wherein it is afferted that St. Luke's Gofpel was written before St. Mark's, viz. weyeyedφθαι ἔλεγεν τῶν εὐαγ[ελίων τὰ περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας : viz. That thofe of the Gospels were written firft, which contain our Saviour's genealogies; but this book of the Hypotypofes not being wrote by Clemens, but the composure of fome filly Heretick, (as I have proved, Vol. I. Part II. Ch. XXXVI. p. 373.) I think it needless to regard the teftimony.

CHAP.