« НазадПродовжити »
impressed them, even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural guidance. We may farther observe, that the idea of St. Mark's writing from St. Matthew's Gospel, does not correspond with the account given by Eusebius and Jerome, as stated above. . .
P ART II.
CHAPTER THE FOURTH.
OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.
1. History of St Luke.-II. Genuineness of his Gospel.
III. Its Date. - IV. Place of its Publication,
1. The New Testament informs us of very few particulars concerning St. Luke. He is not named in any of the Gospels. In the Acts of the Apostles, which were, as will hereafter be shewn, written by him, he uses the first person plural, when he is relating some of the travels of St. Paul; and thence it is inferred, that at those times he was himself with that Apostle. The first instance of this kind is in the 11th verse of the 16th chapter;-he there says, Loosing from Troas, we came up with a straight course to Samothracia.” Thus we learn that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in this his first voyage to Macedonia. From Samothracia they went to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. At this last place we conclude that St. Paul and
- St. Luke
St. Luke separated, because in continuing the history of St. Paul, after he left Philippi, St. Luke uses the third person, saying, “Now when they had passed through Amphipolis, &c. (a);" and he does not resume the first person till St, Paul was in Greece the second time. We have no account of St. Luke during this interval ; it only appears that he was not with St. Paul. When St. Paul was about to go to Jerusalem from Greece, after his second visit into that country, St. Luke, mentioning certain persons, says, “ These going before tarried for us at Troas; and we sailed away from Philippi (b).” Thus again we learn that Luke accompanied Paul out of Greece, through Macedonia, to Troas; and the sequel of St. Paul's history in the Acts, and some passages in his Epistles (c), written while he was a prisoner at Rome, informs us that Luke continued from that time with Paul, till he was released from his confinement at Rome, which was a space of about five
years, and included a very interesting part of St. Paul's life (d).
Here ends the certain account of St. Luke, It seems probable, however, that he went from
Rome (a) Ch. 17. v. I. (b) Ch. 20. v. 5 and 6. (c) 2 Tim. c.4. v. 11. Col.c. 4. y. 14. Philem, v. 24. (d) Vide the nine last chapters of the Acts. VOL. I.
Rome into Achaia ; and some authors have asserted that he afterwards preached the Gospel in Africa. None of the most antient fathers having mentioned that St. Luke suffered martyrdom, we may suppose that he died a natural death; but at what time, or in what place, is not known.
We are told by some that St. Luke was a painter, and Grotius and Wetstein thought that he was in the earlier part of his life a slave; but I find no foundation for either opinion in any antient writer. It is probable that he was by birth a Jew, and a native of Antioch, in Syria; and I see no reason to doubt that i Luke, the beloved physician,” mentioned in the Epistle to the Colossians (e), was Luke the Evangelist. In the introduction to his Gospel (f), Luke appears to intimate that he was not himself an eye-witness of the things which he is about to relate; however, some have thought that he was one of the seventy disciples; but there is no authority in the Scriptures for that opinion, and there are now no means of ascertaining whether he was or was not, unless the abovementioned passage may be considered as conclusive against it.
II. LARDNEB (e) Col. C. 4. v. 14 (f) C. I. V. I.
II. LARDNER thinks that there are a few allusions to this Gospel in some of the apostolical fathers, especially in Hermas and Polycarp; and in Justin Martyr there are passages evidently taken from it; but the earliest, author, who actually mentions St. Luke's Gospel, is Irenæus; and he cites so many passages from it, and points out so many peculiarities in it, all agreeing with the Gospel which we now have, that he alone is sufficient to prove its genuineness. We may however observe, that his testimony is supported by Cle, inent of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and many others.
III. The two learned authors, mentioned at the end of the last chapter, have compared many parallel passages of St. Mark's and St. Luke's Gospels; and Dr. Townson has concluded that St. Luke had seen St. Mark's Gospel, and Dr. Owen, that St. Mark had seen St. Luke's; but it does not appear to me that there is a sufficient similarity of expression to justify either of these conclusions. There was among the antients a difference of opinion concerning the priority of these two Gospels; and it must be acknowledged to be a very doubtful point. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that St. Luke wrote
Y 2 : before