years been made, by those who deny the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ, to impugn the authority of the first two chapters. It is admitted that they are to be found in all the antient manuscripts and versions at present known; and the first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel is connected with the second, precisely in the same manner as we have seen (pp. 239, 240. supra.) that the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel are connected: Εγένετο ΔΕ ταις ημέραις. Now it came to pass in those days, &c. (Luke ii. 1.) and the second chapter of Saint Luke's Gospel is in a similar manner connected with the third: - Ev ETE AE TEVTExaιdexaTw― Now, in the fifteenth year, &c. (Luke iii. 1.) This Gospel, therefore, could not possibly have begun with the third chapter, but must have been preceded by some introduction: but because the first two chapters of it were not found in the copies used by Marcion, the founder of the sect of Marcionites in the second century, it is affirmed that they are spurious interpolations. A little consideration will show the falsehood of this assertion. The notions entertained by Marcion were among the wildest that can be conceived; that our Saviour was man only in outward form; and that he was not born like other men, but appeared on earth full grown. He rejected the Old Testament altogether, as proceeding from the Creator, who, in his opinion, was void of goodness; and of the New Testament he received only one Gospel (which is supposed, but without foundation, to be the Gospel of Saint Luke,) and ten of Saint Paul's Epistles, all of which he mutilated and disguised by his alter

1" The Gospel used by Marcion certainly did not contain the first two chapters of Luke; but neither did it contain the third chapter, nor more than one half of the fourth and in the subsequent parts, (as we are informed by Dr. Lardner, who had examined this subject with his usual minuteness and accuracy,) it was "mutilated and altered in a great variety of places. He would not allow it to be called the Gospel of Saint Luke, erasing the name of that evangelist from the beginning of his copy." (Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 393-401.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 611 -615.) His alterations were not made on any critical principles, but in the most arbitrary manner, in order to suit his extravagant theology. Indeed, the opinion that he used Luke's Gospel at all, rests upon no sufficient foundation. So different were the two works, that the most distinguished biblical scholars of modern times, particularly Semler, Eichhorn, Griesbach, Loeffler, and Marsh, have rejected that opinion altogether. Griesbach maintained that Marcion compiled a work of his own, for the service of his system and the use of his followers, from the writings of the evangelists, and particularly of Luke. (Hist. Text. Gr. Epist. Paul. p. 92.) "That Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel at all," says Bp. Marsh, "is a position which has been taken for granted without the least proof. Marcion himself never pretended that it was the Gospel of Luke; as Tertullian acknowledges, saying, Marcion evangelio suo nullum adscribit auctorem. (Adv. Marcion. lib. iv. cap. 2.) It is probable therefore that he used some apocryphal Gospel, which had much matter in common with that of St. Luke, but yet was not the same." (Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii. p. 159.) Dr. Loeffler has very fully examined the question in his Dissertation, entitled Marcionem Paulii Epistolas et Lucæ Evangelium adulterasse dubitatur. Frankfort on the Oder, 1788. The conclusions of his minute investigation are, (1.) That the Gospel used by Marcion was anonymous: (2.) Marcion rejected all our four Gospels, and maintained the au thenticity of his own in opposition to them: (3.) His followers afterwards main tained, that Christ himself and Paul were the authors of it: (4.) Irenæus, Tertul lian, and Epiphanius, had no reason for regarding Marcion's Gospel as an altered edition of Luke's, and their assertion is a mere conjecture, resting upon none but frivolous and absurd allegations: (5.) The difference of Marcion's Gospel from Luke's is inconsistent with the supposition: (6.) There are no just grounds for believing that Marcion had any pressing motives to induce him to adopt a garbled

ations, interpolations, and omissions. This conduct of Marcion's completely invalidates any argument that may be drawn from the omission of the two first chapters of Saint Luke's Gospel in his copy; and when it is added that his arbitrary interpolations, &c. of it were exposed by several contemporary writers, and particularly by Tertullian, we conceive that the genuineness and authenticity of the two chapters in question are established beyond the possibility of doubt.3 From the occurrence of the word Asyswv (Legio, that is, a Legion), in Greek characters, in Luke viii. 30., a suspicion has been raised that the whole paragraph, containing the narrative of Christ's healing the Gadarene Demoniac (viii. 27-39.) is an interpolation. This doubt is grounded on the assertion that this mode of expression was not customary, either with Saint Luke, or with any classic writer in the apostolic age. But this charge of interpolation is utterly groundless; for the passage in question is found in all manuscripts and versions that are extant, and the mode of expression alluded to is familiar both with the evangelist, and also with classic writers who were contemporary with him. Thus,

1. In Luke x. 35. we meet with Anvagia, which is manifestly the Latin word Denaria in Greek characters. In xix. 20. we also bave Zoudagion; which word, though acknowledged in the Greek language, is nothing more than the Latin word Sudarium, a napkin or handkerchief; and in Acts xvi. 12. we also have KOANNIA, (Colonia) a COLONY.

2. That the mode of expression, above objected to, was customary with classic authors in the apostolic age, is evident from the following passage of Plutarch, who was born not more than ten years after Jesus Christ. He tells us that, when the city of Rome was built, Romulus divided the younger part of the inhabitants into battalions Each corps consisted of three thousand foot, and three hundred horse; and (the historian adds) Εκληθε δε ΛΕΓΕΩΝ, τω λογάδας είναι τους paxious Tavswv, that is, It was called a LEGION, because the most warlike persons were selected.' A few sentences afterwards, we meet with the following Latin words in Greek characters, viz. HATРIKIOTE (Patricios), PATRICIANS; ZENATOΣ (Senatus), the SENATE; HATPONA】 (Patronos), PATRONS; KAIENTAE (Clicopy of Luke; and the motives assigned by the fathers are inconsistent and selfdestructive." Dr. J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. ii. pp. 13, 14.

i

Epiphanius has given a long account of Marcion's alterations, &c. of the New Testament. See Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ix. pp. 369–393.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 610-624.

2 See the passage at length in Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 256-288.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 419, 420.

3 Much stress has been laid upon the apparent discrepancy between the genealogies of Jesus Christ in Luke iii. and Matt. i. and also on the supposed chronological difficulty in our Saviour's age; but as these seeming contradictions have already been satisfactorily explained in the Appendix to vol. I. No. III. pp. 533, 534. and 546. it is not necessary to repeat those solutions in this place. See also Dr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 27. et seq.; Archbp. Laurence's Critical Reflections on the Misrepresentations contained in the Unitarian Version, pp. 51-73.; and Dr. Hales on Faith in the Trinity, vol i. pp. 88-110.

entes), CLIENTS; and in a subsequent page of the same historian, we meet with the word KEAEPEE (Celeres), CELERES.2 Again, in Dion Cassius,3 we meet with the following sentence: Twv yog KEAEPION αgxwv siμ, for I am chief, or commander, of the Celeres. Whether these are Latin words in Greek characters or not, the common sense of the reader must determine. The word AETEON is not so barbarous, but that it has been acknowledged by the two Lexicographers, Hesychius and Suidas. We have therefore every reasonable evidence that can be desired for the genuineness of this passage of Saint Luke's Gospel.

III. With regard to the time when this Gospel was written, there is some difference of opinion; Dr. Owen and others referring it to the year 53, while Jones, Michaelis, Lardner, and the majority of biblical critics, assign it to the year 63 or 64, which date appears to be the true one, and corresponds with the internal characters of time exhibited in the Gospel itself. But it is not so easy to ascertain the place where it was written. Jerome says that Luke, the third evangelist, published his Gospel in the countries of Achaia and Boeotia; Gregory Nazianzen also says, that Luke wrote for the Greeks, or in Achaia. Grotius states, that about the time when Paul left Rome, Luke departed to Achaia, where he wrote the books we now have. Dr. Cave was of opinion that they were written at Rome before the termination of Paul's captivity, but Drs. Mill and Grabe, and Wetstein, affirm that this Gospel was published at Alexandria in Egypt, in opposition to the Pseudo-Gospel circulated among the Egyptians. Dr. Lardner has examined these various opinions at considerable length, and concludes that, upon the whole, there is no good reason for supposing that Saint Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, or that he preached at all in Egypt: on the contrary, it is more probable that when he left Paul, he went into Greece, and there composed or finished and published his Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.5

IV. That Saint Luke wrote his Gospel for the benefit of Gentile converts, is affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity, and it may also be inferred from his dedicating it to one of his Gentile converts. This indeed appears to have been its peculiar design : for, writing to those who were far remote from the scene of action, and ignorant of Jewish affairs, it was requisite that he should descend to many particulars, and touch on various points, which would have been unnecessary, had he written exclusively for Jews. On this account he begins his history with the birth of John the Baptist (i. 5-80.), as introductory to that of Christ; and in the course of it he notices several particulars, mentioned by Saint Matthew. (ü. 1—9.

1 Plutarchi Vitæ, in Romulo, tom. i. pp. 51, 52. edit. Bryani.

2 Plutarchi Vitæ, vol. 1. p. 71. In the same page also occurs the word KANITAAION (Capitolium) the CAPITOL.

3 Dion Cassius, lib. iv. cited by Mr. Rennell (to whom we are principally indebted for the observations above stated), in his Animadversions on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, p. 52.

4 See their Lexicons, in voce; their elucidations of this work are cited by Schleusner, in his Lexicon in Nov. Test. voce Aɛyεwv.

5 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 130-136.; 4to. vol. iii. ·PP. 199-202.

&c.) Hence also he is particularly careful in specifying various circumstances of facts that were highly conducive to the information of strangers; but which it would not have been necessary to recite to the Jews, who could easily supply them from their own knowledge. On this account likewise, he gives the genealogy of Christ, not as Saint Matthew had done, by showing that Jesus was the son of David, from whom the Scriptures taught the Jews that the Messiah was to spring; but he traces Christ's lineage up to Adam, (agreeably to the mode of tracing genealogies in use among the Gentiles, by ascending from the person whose lineage was given to the founder of his race (iii. 23--38.); and thus shows that Jesus is the seed of the woman, who was promised for the redemption of the whole world. Further, as the Gentiles had but little knowledge of Jewish transactions, Saint Luke has marked the æras when Christ was born, and when John began to announce the Gospel, by the reigns of the Roman emperors (iii. 1, 2.)-to which point Saint Matthew and the other evangelists have not attended. Saint Luke has likewise introduced many things not noticed by the other evangelists, which encouraged the Gentiles to hearken to the Gospel, and, when their consciences were awakened by it, to turn to God in newness of life, with a pleasing prospect of pardon and acceptance. Of this description are the parables of the publican praying in the temple (xviii. 10.), and of the lost piece of silver (xv. 8-10), and particularly the prophetic parable of the prodigal son; which, besides its spiritual and universal application, beautifully intimates that the Gentile, represented by the younger or prodigal son, returning at length to his heavenly father, would meet with the most merciful, gracious, and affectionate reception. (xv. 11. et seq.) Christ's visit to Zaccheus the publican (xix. 5.), and the pardon of the penitent thief on the cross (xxiii. 40-43.), are also lively illustrations of the mercy and goodness of God to penitent

sinners.

Lest, however, doubts should arise whether any but the lost sheep of the house of Israel were interested in these good tidings, other parables and facts are introduced which cannot be taken in this limited sense. Thus, Saint Luke recites a parable in praise of a merciful Samaritan (x. 33.); he relates that another Samaritan was healed and commended for his faith and gratitude (xvii. 19.); and, when a village of this people proved rude and inhospitable, that the zeal of the two apostles who wished to consume them by fire from heaven was reproved (ix. 52-56.); and they were told that "the Son of man came, not to destroy men's lives, but to save them."

Lastly, this evangelist inserts examples of kindness and mercy shown to the Gentiles. Thus, our Saviour, in the very first public discourse recorded in Saint Luke's Gospel, takes notice that such favours were vouchsafed to the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian, both Gentiles, as were not conferred, in like circumstances, on any of the Israelites. (iv. 25-27.) And the prayer upon the cross (xxiii. 34.), "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," is placed between the act of crucifying our Lord and that of

parting his raiment, both of which were performed by the Roman soldiers; to whom, therefore, this prayer must have respect, as much as to any of his persecutors.1

V. Great and remarkable characters always have many biographers. Such appears to have been the case with our Saviour, whose life was so beautiful, his character so sublime and divine, his doctrine so excellent, and the miracles by which he confirmed it were so illustrious and so numerous, that it was impossible but many should undertake to write evangelical narrations, or short historical memoirs concerning his life, doctrines, and transactions, which are now lost. This we infer from Saint Luke's introduction to his Gospel : Forasmuch, says he, as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of THE WORD, delivered them unto us; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest learn the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (i. 1-4.) From these introductory sentences we learn, in the first place, that the writers alluded to were not our evangelists Saint Matthew and Saint Mark, who were the only evangelists that can be supposed to have written before Saint Luke; for Saint Matthew was an eye-witness and wrote from personal knowledge, not from the testimony of others; and two cannot with propriety be called many. In the next place, it is to be observed, that these narrations consisted of those things which are most surely believed among us—that is, of the things performed by Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the fullest evidence, among the first professors of the Christian faith, of which number Saint Luke reckons himself. Lastly, it appears that these narrations were received either from the apostles themselves, or from their assistants in the work of the Gospel, who were eye-witnesses of the life and miracles of Jesus Christ, to whom Saint Luke (as well as the apostle John) gives the emphatic appellation of THE WORD ;

1 Dr. Townson's Works, vol. i. pp. 181-196.

2 That this is the true meaning of Luke i. 2. is evident from the following considerations, which are transcribed from Mr. Archdeacon Nares's Veracity of the Evangelists demonstrated by a comparative View of their Histories. "It has long appeared to me," he observes, "that Saint John is not, as is commonly thought, the only evangelist who thus speaks of the Word, or Logos, as a person.* St. Luke surely personifies him quite as much, when he says, that the facts which he collected were related to him by those who from the beginning were eye-wit nesses and ministers or attendants of the WORD (Luke x. 2.) that is, the Logos (Tou Aoyov). For how could they behold or attend upon that, which was not visible, or had no personal existence? Observe particularly, that the word in the original (bänpɛrns) denotes a personal attendant, even more properly than the word ministers, employed by the translators. The expression ministers of the word

*In the opening of the Revelations, it is particularly said of St. John, that he bore witness to the Logos. Ος εμαρτύρησε τον λογον του Θεού, και την μαρτυρίαν, Ιησου Xporov. ch. i. v. 2.

Again, in the nineteenth chapter of the same book, the person who sits on the white horse is called the Word of God, καλείται το όνομα αυτού Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ του Θεον