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 the 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 proceeded so far as to suppose, that when Paul in his Epistles uses the expression my Gospel, (Rom. 2: 16. 16: 25. 2 Tim. 2: 8), 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 Gospel, was from those who had been eye and earwitnesses 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 journies, 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 of Palestine. Every thing here seems addressed to those who were well acquainted with Jewish customs and places. No hints are inserted by the 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 favor 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 whose praise is in the Gospel, mentioned in 2 Cor. 8: 18. But admitting that Luke is the person there intended, another meaning may, with greater plausibility, be put on the expression in the Gospel, which rather denotes in preaching the gospel, than in writing the history of its author. The name evangelist was first applied to those extraordinary ministers, such as Philip and Timothy, both expressly called so, (Acts 21: 8. 2 Tim. 4: 5), who attended the apostles, and assisted them in their work. Luke was doubtless an evangelist in this sense, as well as in the current but later acceptation of the term. It may indeed be justly affirmed, that Paul appears to have been the first who has quoted this Gospel, though he does not name Luke, and quoted it as of authority. In writing to Timothy he has these words, For the Scripture saith, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and " The laborer is worthy of his reward," 1 Tim. 5: 18. The former of these sayings is a quotation from the Pentateuch, Deut. 25: 4; the latter is found nowhere else in these terms but in Luke. (10: 7), whose very words the apostle has adopted. "Αξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθού avtov. Lardner has taken notice of allusions to some passages in this Gospel to be found in some of the apostolic fathers; and there are evident quotations from it, though without naming the author, in Justin Martyr, and the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. Tatian, a little after the middle of the second century, composed a Harmony of the Gospels, the first of the kind that had been attempted, which he called the DIATESSARON, (did reooάowv), of the four, and which demonstrates that at that time there were four Gospels, and no more, of established authority in the church. Irenæus, not long after, mentions all the evangelists by name, arranging them according to the order wherein they wrote, which is the same with that universally given them, thoughout the Christian world, to this day. When he speaks of Luke, he recites many particulars which are peculiar to that Gospel. And, though the reasons assigned by that ancient author why the Gospels can be neither fewer nor more than four, we should justly consider as very whimsical; the attempt, though unsuccessful, to account for it, shows at least the certainty of the fact, that the four Gospels were then received by Christians of all denominations, and that beside them there was no Gospel or history of Jesus of any estimationi n the church. From that time downwards, the four evangelists are often mentioned; and whatever spurious narratives have from time to time appeared, they have not been able to bear a comparison with those, in respect either of antiquity or of intrinsic excellence. Early in the third century, Ammonius also wrote a Harmony of the four Gospels. As these were at that time, and had been from their first publication, so they continue to this day to be regarded as the great foundations of the Christian faith. If Monsieur Freret had been so lucky as to meet with Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, and had taken the trouble to read it attentively before he wrote his Examen Critique, his natural penetration must have made him sensible, notwithstanding the artless simplicity of the English writer, how little his own much-labored remarks can bear a comparison with the naked truth. 10. The Gospel by Luke has supplied us with many interesting particulars, which had been omitted by both his predecessors, Matthew and Mark. From him we learn whatever relates to the birth of John the Baptist; the annunciation, and other important circumstances concerning the nativity of the Messiah; the occasion of Joseph's being then in Bethlehem; the vision granted to the shepherds; the early testimonies of Simeon and Anna; the wonderful manifestation of our Lord's proficiency in knowledge, when only twelve years old: his age at the commencement of his ministry, connected with the year of the reigning emperor. He has given us also an account of several memorable incidents and cures which had been overlooked by the rest; the conversion of Zaccheus the publican; the cure of the woman who had been bowed down for eighteen years, and of the dropsical man; the cleansing of the ten lepers; the repulse he met with when about to enter a Samaritan city; and the instructive rebuke he gave, on that occasion, to two apostles, for their intemperate zeal: also the affecting interview he had, after his resurrection, with two of his disciples, in the VOL. II. 32 way to Emmaus, and at that village. Luke has likewise added many edifying parables to those which had been recorded by the other evangelists. Of this number are the parable of the creditor who had two debtors; of the rich fool who hoarded up his increase, and, when he had not one day to live, vainly exulted in the prospect of many happy years; of the rich man and Lazarus; of the reclaimed profligate; of the Pharisee and the publican praying in the temple; of the judge who was prevailed on by a widow's importunity, though he feared not God nor regarded man; of the barren fig-tree; of the compassionate Samaritan; and several others; most of which so early a writer as Irenæus has specified as peculiarly belonging to this Gospel; and has thereby shown to all afterages, without intending it, that it is, in every thing material, the same book which had ever been distinguished by the name of this evangelist till his day, and remains so distinguished to ours. 11. In regard to Luke's character as a writer, it is evident, that though the same general quality of style, an unaffected simplicity, predominates in all the evangelists, they are, nevertheless, distinguishable from one another. Luke abounds in Hebraisms as much as any of them; yet it must be acknowledged, that there are also more Grecisms in his language than in that of any of the rest. The truth is, there is greater variety in his style, which is probably to be ascribed to this circumstance-his having been more, and for a longer time conversant among the Gentiles, than any other evangelist. His ordinary place of abode, if not the place of his birth, appears to have been Antioch, the capital of Syria, the seat of government, where people of the first distinction in the province had their residence, and to which there was great resort of strangers. Here the Greek language had long prevailed. Besides, Luke's occupation, as a physician, may very probably have occasioned his having greater intercourse with those of higher rank. Not that the profession itself was then in great esteem in that country; for it has been justly observed, that in Rome, as well as in Syria, slaves who gave early signs of quickness of parts and manual dexterity, were often instructed in physic, who, if they proved successful, were commonly rewarded with their freedom. That Luke himself, whatever may have been his early condition in life, was, when a Christian minister, a freeman and a master of his time, is evident from his attendance on the apostle Paul in his peregrinations for the advancement of the gospel. But the profession of medicine and surgery (for these two were then commonly united) not only proved the occasion of a more general intercourse with society, but served as a strong inducement to employ some time in reading. This may sufficiently account for any superiority this evangelist may be thought to possess above the rest, in point of language. 12. His name, Aovxas, Luke, rendered in one place in the common translation Lukas, (Philem. 24), is supposed to have been a contraction of the Roman name Lucilius, or of Lucanus, in like manner as Demas is contracted from Demetrius, and Epaphras from Epaphroditus. Names thus contracted from the master's name were commonly given to slaves, but not peculiarly to such. That a considerable portion of Luke's time had been spent in Rome, or at least in Italy, has been argued from some Latinisms discovered in his style; such as, dos oyaoiav, da operam, endeavor, ch. 12: 58; and καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, Benefacite his qui oderunt vos, with the dative case, Do good to them who hate you, ch. 6: 27; whereas, in the parallel place in Matthew, ch. 5: 44, the verb is construed more in the Greek manner with the accusative, καλώς ποιεῖτε τοὺς μισοῦντας ὑμᾶς. Butl see no reason why, in the evangelist Luke, by birth a Syrian, this should be accounted a Latinism rather than a Syriasm, as in Syriac the prefixed (which is necessary in the expression of this precept) is always considered as corresponding to the dative in Greek and Latin. That he has also a greater variety in his words and phrases than any of the evangelists, will be quickly discovered by an attentive reader of the original. I mention one evidence of this, from a circumstance I have had particular occasion to attend to, which is this: Each of the evangelists has a considerable number of words which are used by none of the rest; but in Luke's Gospel, the number of such peculiarities, or words used in none of the other Gospels, is greater than that of the peculiar words found in all the other three Gospels put together. Again, some expressions which are frequent in the other Gospels, in Luke, occur but rarely. The Hebrew word Amen as an affirmative adverb joined with yo vuiv, and used for ushering in solemnly the instructions given by our Lord, is employed by Luke much seldomer than by any of the other evangelists. Instead of it he sometimes says anos, sometimes ναί, and once ἐπ' αληθείας λέγω ὑμῖν, phrases never used by the rest. On the other hand, he, oftener than they, employs the neuter article zó, in reference not to a noun, but to a sentence, or part of a sentence. Of this there are at least seven instances in his Gospel: Luke 1: 62. 9: 46. 22: 2, 4, 23, 24, 37. I recollect but two in the rest, one in Matthew 19: 18, and one in Mark 9: 23. As to these two, they are not parallel places to any of the passages wherein this mode of construction has been adopted by Luke. It may be observed in passing, that the terms peculiar to Luke are for the most part long and compound words. The first word of his Gospel, neonato, is of the number. So much for what regards his words and idioms. 13. As to the other qualities of his style, we may remark, that there is more of composition in the sentences than is found in the other three. Of this the very first sentence is an example, which |