of the early composition of this Gospel from a passage in St. Paul's second Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul says, 'We have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the churches.' That this brother was St. Luke, Macknight thinks highly probable, and quotes in favour of this interpretation the authority of Origen, Jerome, and the interpolator of Ignatius, who explains the passage in the same manner. But if we admit that St. Luke was the brother whom St. Paul sent, yet the word Gospel' in this passage ought not to be explained of St. Luke's written Gospel: the word 'ɛvayyedov in the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists denotes the glad tidings of the Christian religion,' or 'the preaching of Christianity in general,' and it was not till after their time, that it acquired the sense of a 'written narrative of the life of Christ.'

་

Bishop Pearce has used another argument in favour of the early composition of St. Luke's Gospel, which he has deduced from ch. i. 5. where St. Luke, speaking of Herod the Great, calls him simply Herod the King of Judæa, without the addition of an epithet to distinguish him from the Herod, who is mentioned Acts xii. 1. and who was likewise King of Judæa. Hence Pearce concludes that, St. Luke wrote his Gospel before the second Herod King of Judæa had begun to reign. But this inference is not valid, for St. Luke in speaking of the second Herod Acts xii. 1. calls him simply Herod the King, as he had named his grandfather the first Herod, and therefore if Pearce's argument proved any thing it would prove too much. Besides, it was not the practice of the ancient historians to distinguish princes of the same name by the addition of the first,' 'the second,' and so on, as is customary in modern ages: they left the reader to

'Ch. VIII. 18.

The words of Jerom are: Hoc de Luca intelligitur, qui laudem in Evangelio conscribendo videtur habere præ cæteris.

judge from the context, and in the case in question St. Luke could have no reason whatsoever for making an exception, since none of his readers could suppose that the Herod, under whose reign Christ was born, was any other than Herod the Great.

But whether St. Luke wrote before St. Matthew and St. Mark or not, it is evident that he had not seen their Gospels, when he wrote his own.

For the many of whom he speaks, ch. i. 1. cannot possibly be confined to St. Matthew and St. Mark alone: consequently, they must be either included among the many or not meant at all. But we cannot suppose that St. Luke would place the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark on a level with apocryphal Gospels, which stood in need of correction. Further, St. Luke speaks of the author of these Gospels, as if they themselves were not eye-witnesses of the facts which they had recorded, and therefore at any rate he could not have St. Matthew in view. Nor would he have neglected ver. 3. where he declares that he had traced up the history of Christ to the fountain head, to have quoted the authority of St. Matthew who was both Apostle and eye-witness, if the Gospel of St. Matthew had been known to him. Lastly, he would have avoided in that case every appearance of contradiction, and the variations which we find between the two Gospels, would hardly have taken place. For instance, if he had ever seen the Genealogy of Christ, which is given in the first chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, he would not have given another Genealogy, which appears so very different from the former, without giving some intimation of the manner, in which they may be reconciled. At ch. v. 12. St. Luke describing the cure of the leper, says, Εγένετο εν τῳ είναι αυτον εν μια τον πολεων ; the name of the city therefore, in which the miracle was performed, was unknown to him, or he would not have expressed himself in so indeterminate a manner. But this could not have been unknown to him, if he had read St. Matthew's Gospel,

where we see from ch. viii. 1-5. that the name of the city was Capernaum. At ch. vi. 17. he would either have avoided the apparent contradiction to Matth. v. 1. or would have introduced an explanation, to shew that the accounts were consistent. Again, at ch. viii. 22. he would not have written εγενετο εν μια των ημερων, if he had read what St. Mark has written ch. iv. 32., where it appears that the fact in question happened on the same day, as that which he had before related. At ch. xxii. 58. describing St. Peter's denial of Christ, he says of the person who addressed St. Peter the second time, ETEρos idwv avrov, whereas it appears from the reετερος ιδων αυτόν, lation both of St. Matthew and St. Mark, that St. Peter was addressed both times by a maid servant. Now, though it must be admitted that the word TEPOC may be taken indefinitely to denote either a man or a maid servant, because we generally use the masculine gender when the sex is not particularly distinguished, yet on the other hand, as this last mode of speaking usually takes place in those cases only, where the sex is unknown to us, it follows that St. Luke was uncertain whether the person, who addressed St. Peter the second time, was a male or a female, and consequently that he had not read the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Mark.

So far then is certain that the Gospel of St. Matthew, as well as the Gospel of St. Mark, was unknown to St. Luke, when he wrote his own. Moreover it is certain on other accounts that St. Mark's Gospel did not exist at that time: but whether St. Luke's want of knowledge of St. Matthew's Gospel warrant the conclusion that he wrote likewise before St. Matthew will depend on the decision of the question, where St. Luke's Gospel was written. If it was written either in Asia Minor, or in Greece, before St. Luke accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem, it is very possible that a Hebrew Gospel written in Palestine, might remain unknown to him; and therefore in that case we cannot argue from his want of knowledge of it

to its non-existence. But if it was written after the time that St. Luke had been with St. Paul in Jerusalem, whether in Palestine or in Rome we must conclude that when St. Luke embarked with St. Paul at Cæsarea to go to Rome, St. Matthew's Gospel had not been composed. For if it had, it could hardly have escaped the notice of St. Luke, who spent some time in Jerusalem, was two years either in Cæsarea or its neighbourhood, and made every where the most diligent inquiries relative to the history of Christ. The question therefore, whether St. Luke wrote before St. Matthew or not, depends entirely on the place where he wrote, which shall be the subject of inquiry in the next section.

SECTION VI.

Of the Various Opinions relative to the Place where St. Luke wrote his Gospel.

NOT less than nine different opinions have been advanced, either in ancient or in modern times, respecting the place where St. Luke wrote his Gospel. They are as follows. 1. That he wrote his Gospel at Antioch. 2. At Troas. 3. At Alexandria in Egypt, before he joined company with St. Paul. 4. In Bithynia. 5. In Macedonia. 6. In Achaia. 7. In Palestine. 8. At Alexandria in Egypt, after he had left St. Paul. 9. At Thebes in Egypt. According to the four first opinions, he must have written before he began to travel with St. Paul": according to the five

St. Luke in his account of Christ's Resurrection has omitted circumstances noted by St. Paul, for instance, that Christ appeared to five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor. xv. 6. This favours the supposition that St. Luke wrote his Gospel before he was acquainted with St. Paul. On the other hand he sometimes uses peculiar expres

last, at a later period. Each opinion shall be examined in order.

1. That St. Luke wrote his Gospel at Antioch, has not been asserted, as far as I recollect, in positive terms, but is only implied in the notion that Theophilus, to whom St. Luke addressed it, was bishop of that city. Now that this notion is erroneous every one at present will allow, and consequently the inference deduced from it falls of itself to the ground. If Lucas, and Lucius mentioned xiii. 1, were the same person, it would follow that St. Luke's Gospel might have been written at Antioch; but as the identity of Lucas and Lucius is incapable of proof, we have no ground even for a conjecture that it was written in that city.

2. The opinion that St. Luke wrote at Troas, in the Trojan district of Asia Minor, is grounded on the superscription to St. Luke's Gospel, which is found in the Syriac version, and the subscription to several Greek manuscripts. For the city of Troas was properly called Alexandria Troas, and in the superscription and subscription just mentioned, St. Luke's Gospel is said to have been written at Alexandria. It is true that the epithet there annexed to Alexandria, which in the Syriac is ;, and in the Greek μɛyaλn, is unfavourable to the interpretation Alexandria Troas, because the title of the Great' was particularly applied to Alexandria in Egypt. If therefore this epithet is not an addition of later ages, but stood there from the very beginning, the author of it cannot have meant Alexandria Troas, and the interpretation in question

sions, which he appears to have learnt from St. Paul: for instance, xxx, ch. xviii. 1. See Vol. I. Ch. iv. Sect. 8. But neither of these arguments is decisive.

The mistake probably arose from a confusion of St. Luke's Theophilus with the Theophilus who was Bishop of Antioch in the second century.

See the end of St. Luke's Gospel in Mill's and Wetstein's edition.