antients, detailed at full length by Dr. Lardner, we shall not find any preference whatever given to the Gospel of Luke, either as written more early, or in any other respect of more value, than the others. On the contrary, the preference is always given to the Gospels of Matthew and John, as written by eyewitneffes, whereas it was thought that Mark and Luke could only collect, and digest, the evidence of others. But Mr. Evanson writes as if he had never heard either of Mr. Jones or Dr. Lardner, or of the evidence produced by them in favour of the prefent canon.

Mr. Evanfon fays, p. 114, that "Luke's work "itself very strongly implies that Matthew had written no gospel at all before the fourth year " of Nero," meaning before he himself wrote. But all that can be inferred from what Luke really fays, is, that he had not feen any fatisfactory account of the life of Chrift before he undertook his, and therefore that he had not feen the Gospel of Matthew or Mark, which are nearly as large and full as his own. Dr. Lardner more naturally infers from this circumstance, that all the three evangelifts wrote about the fame time, unknown to each other, viz. A. D. 63, 64, or 65; and the circumftances of the Christian church at that time, viz. the approach of the difperfion of the apostles, and other primitive Chriftians, by the Jewish war, would lead Chriftians in different and diftant places to defire to have fome written account of what they

had

had been taught concerning Chrift; and for this purpose they would naturally apply to those whom they thought the best qualified to give them the information they wanted.

The account of Theodore of Mopfueftia, from fuch evidence as he could collect, and though late, yet before the lofs of any of the writings of the primitive Chriftians, of which we now complain, appears very natural. "When Peter went to Rome, " and John to Ephefus, about this time, the other evangelifts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, published "their Gospels, which were foon spread over all "the world, and were received by all the faithful in

general with great regard. Nevertheless, the Chrif"tians of Afia brought those Gospels to John, earneftly entreating him to write a farther account of "fuch things as were needful to be known, and " had been omitted by the others, and with this requeft he complied." Lardner's Works, vol. vi. P. 37.

In confequence of this, the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, would be written about the fame time, and that of John not long after; and there is nothing in any of the Gospels that is unfavourable to this fuppofition.

Mr. Evanfon lays great ftrefs on the writer of the Gospel of Luke intimating that he was the companion of Paul, whereas, he adds, p. 21, "the "Gofpels according to Matthew and Mark contain "not the flighteft infinuation that their authors were apostles

"apostles of Jefus Chrift, or even men of the "apoftolic age." But the fame objection might be made to the authenticity of many of the books of the Old and New Teftament, and other antient writings, the authors not mentioning their own names, or fpeaking of themselves in the third perfon. We believe that Mofes, and others, wrote the books that are ascribed to them from the teftimony of those who first received them, and who transmitted them to pofterity. It is not a writer's calling himfelf the author of any book, or his indirectly intimating that he was prefent at the tranfactions that he relates, that will enfure our belief of it. We must know that fuch affertions, or intimations, were credited at the time of the publication. This is our only authority for the facts. It is on this evidence that we believe that Julius Cæfar, and Tacitus, wrote the books that are afcribed to them.

According to univerfal uncontradicted tradition, the writers of the Gofpels of Matthew and John were eye-witneffes of what they relate; and there is nothing in the narratives that is inconfiftent with this fuppofition, but many circumftances highly favourable to it; whereas,' according to Luke himself, he was only a collector of the evidence of others.

We are, no doubt, furnished by Luke with the date of his works, viz. foon after Paul had been two years prisoner at Rome. But there is no evidence whatever that Matthew, or Mark, wrote later; and the fimilar manner in which they all introduce

D

troduce the prophecy concerning the deftruction of Jerufalem, makes it highly probable that they all wrote in fimilar circumftances with refpect to that event, viz. before it took place.

Mr. Evanfon lays great ftrefs on Silas being the real author of the books that now bear the name of Luke. But admitting this, I do not know that it will add to the authority that they would be entitled to from the confideration of their being written by any other companion of Paul, as the writer, whatever might be his name, certainly was. criticism is by many thought ingenious, but it appears to me to be ill founded. Had it been juft, I should have expected some intimation of it in fome early Chriftian writer, whereas none of them appear to have had any fuch idea.

The

Mr. Evanfon fays, p. 106, that "the author of "the Acts of the Apostles himself informs us that "his name was Silas, that he was one of the chief "men among the brethren, &c." But this Mr. Evanfon is certainly not authorized to fay. All that he can pretend is, that it may be inferred from circumstances that the author of the book was Silas, But furely that high commendation of himself is not favourable to Mr. Evanson's hypothefis.

Befides, if it was this writer's cuftom to speak of himself in the firft perfon, as is evident from his fometimes faying we did fo and fo; why did he not do fo uniformly, and inftead of faying, (ch. xvi. 20,) they went out of prison, when himself was

one

one of them, fay, We went out of prison? This he never does, when Silas was certainly one of the company. I wonder it should not have ftruck Mr. Evanson himself to observe that from Acts xvi. 10, to ver. 17, we or us occurs in almost every verse; but that immediately after, whenever Paul and Silas only are mentioned, the ftyle changes to they and them.

It is not natural for a writer to call the fame perfon by two different names, unless he fomewhere fignify that they do mean the fame perfon. Now in two epiftles, viz. 2 Cor. i. 19, and 1 Theff. i. 1, Paul mentions Silvanus, which is not doubted to be the fame with Silas, who otherwise is never mentioned by Paul at all; and in three epiftles, viz. Col. iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 11, and Philemon, v. 24, he mentions Luke. It is natural, therefore, to conclude that Silas, or Silvanus, and Luke, were different perfons.

Mr. Evanson says, p. 107, the writer of the Acts of the Apostles must have been Silas because only he and Timothy went with him " through Phry

gia and Galatia, and came to Troas, where "Paul, in a vifion, was directed to go over into "Macedonia; and after he had seen the vision, "fays the author, immediately we endeavoured to

go into Macedonia, affuredly gathering, that the "Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto "them. This is the first paffage in which the writer speaks in his own perfon, and in the fame per"<fon

D 2