refers. For these were very short histories [ historiola' as Mill calls them :] that was a full gospel, or large history of Jesus Christ. Many, in Jerom's time, supposed it to be the authentic gospel of St. Matthew: which, certainly, is not a short and imperfect memoir. From the notice taken of that gospel by several ancient writers, especially by Jerom, it appears to me very probable (and I should think must appear very probable to others likewise) that the gospel according to the twelve, or according to the Hebrews, either was St. Matthew's original Hebrew gospel, with additions; or his original Greek gospel, translated into Hebrew, with additions. But this last seems to me most likely, as has been often said already upon divers occasions. a Secondly. Another thing to be deduced from Mill's account, if right, is, that the gospel according to the Egyptians was not one of the narrations, to which St. Luke refers. For that gospel was not composed upon the same principles with those of our evangelists. It was an heretical gospel, as appears from the fragments of it, collected by Grabe, and probably it was composed in the second century, by some encratites, enemies of marriage. Thirdly. I add one thing more, whether it be a consequence from what has been already said, or not that nothing remains of the narrations, to which St. Luke refers, not so much as any fragments, they not being quoted in any christian writings now extant. 3. I shall now transcribe a part of Dr. Doddridge's remarks upon St. Luke's introduction. This must refer to some histories of the life of Christ, now lost. For Matthew and Mark, the only evangelists that can be supposed to have written before Luke, could not with any * propriety be called many. And of these two, Matthew at least wrote from personal knowledge, not from the testimony of others. I conclude, that the books referred to are lost: as I am well ⚫ satisfied that none of the apocryphal gospels, now extant, published, particularly by Fabricius and Jones, can pretend to equal antiquity, with this of St. Luke....And St. Luke seems to ⚫ allow these histories, whatever they were, to have been honestly written, according to informa⚫tion received from capable judges.' Mr. Beausobre, speaking of these memoirs, says 'The life of our Saviour was so beautiful, his character so sublime and divine, his doctrine so excellent, and the miracles by which he 'confirmed it, were so shining and so numerous, that it was impossible but many should undertake to write memoirs of them. This produced many histories of our Saviour, some more, others less exact. It is great pity that they are lost: for we might have consulted them, and ⚫ could have judged for ourselves concerning the character of the writers, and their compositions. St. Luke, who speaks of narrations, or gospels that had preceded his own, intimates indeed, that they were defective, but he does not condemn them as fabulous, or bad.' 5. That is right. Those memoirs were not bad, nor fabulous: but they were imperfect, as I apprehend, to a great degree; nor do I lament the loss of them. I can pay so much deference to the judgment of christian antiquity, especially the earliest of all, as to believe, that those many narrations to which St. Luke refers, did not deserve to be preserved, or to be much taken notice of, after the publication of the gospels of our first three evangelists. I imagine, that when once these came abroad, the former appeared to the faithful so low, and mean, and defective, that they could not bear to see, or read them. IX. I shall now make some observations upon the other work of our evangelist. e 1. The book of the Acts was written, according to Mill, in the year 64. And from what has been argued by us in several places, that must appear to be as likely a time as any. It could not be written till after St. Paul's confinement at Rome was come to a period; I suppose it to have ended in the former part of the year of Christ 63. And I think it probable, that St. Luke finished this book the same, or the next year, either at Rome, or in Greece. 2. It cannot be disagreeable to recollect here some of the observations of ancient writers upon this book, the only book of the kind which we have, containing a history of the preaching of Christ's apostles after his resurrection. ⚫ I am not singular in supposing, that the gospel according to the Egyptians is not intended by St. Luke. Beza says the the same strongly. And, as I imagine, he justly asserts it not to have been written, till after St. Luke's gospel. Quod istos ait Lucas non satis commode præstitisse: minime tamen, opinor, fabulosas, imo etiam impias narrationes intelligens, tandem ecclesiæ sub Nicodemi, Nazáræorum, Thomæ, Ægyp tiorum, nominibus impudentissime obtrusas. Bez. ad Luc. Vid. Grabe Spic. T. I. p. 31-37. e a 3. Tertullian often speaks of the importance of this book, as showing Christ's fulfilment of the promise of the Holy Ghost to his disciples. 4. The Acts of the apostles,' says Jerom in his letter to Paulinus concerning the study of the scriptures, seems to promise a bare history, and an account of the early infancy of the church: but if we consider, that the writer is Luke the physician, we shall at the same time discern, that every word is suited to heal the maladies of the soul.' с 5. Says Augustin: Luke after having written a gospel, containing a history of Christ's words and works to the time of his resurrection and ascension, wrote such an account of the Acts of the apostles, as he judged to be sufficient for the edification of believers. And it is the only history of the apostles, which has been received by the church: all others having been rejected as not to be relied upon.' 6. I beg leave to refer my readers to the passages of Chrysostom, already transcribed, relating to this book: and to the whole of his first homily upon it. I add now only one passage more out of the same homily. The gospels,' says he, are the history of the things which • Christ did and spake. The Acts, the history of the things which another Paraclet spake and did.' 7. It is not needful for me to make a distinct enumeration of the things contained in this book. Every one who has perused it with care, cannot but know, that it contains an account of the choice of Matthias to be apostle in the room of the traitor, of the wonderful and plentiful pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, and other disciples of Jesus at Jerusalem, at the Pentecost next succeeding his crucifixion, and of the testimony borne by the apostles to his resurrection and ascension in their discourses, and by many miracles, and various sufferings their preaching first at Jerusalem, and in Judea, and afterwards by themselves, or their assistants, in Samaria: and then to Gentiles in Judea, and afterwards out of it, as well as to Jews: and of the conversion of Paul, and his preaching, miracles, labours, sufferings, in many cities and countries, parts of the Roman empire, and the polite world, and at length in Rome itself. 8. If we were to indulge ourselves in making remarks upon this useful and excellent performance, nothing, perhaps, would be more observable than its brevity and conciseness: by which means many things must have been omitted, which happened during the period of that history. For it is very true, which Chrysostom said, that Luke leaves us thirsting for more. 9. Says Le Clerc: Luke's apostolical history relates the beginnings of the preaching of the 'gospel among Jews and Gentiles, chiefly by the ministry of Peter and Paul: for of the other apostles he is almost entirely silent....I wish,' says he, that some other apostolical man, of like judgment and integrity, had written the history of the other apostles, and had undertaken to supply what was wanting in Luke's history, and that this work had come down to us.' But, however desirable it may now appear to us, we cannot perceive, from ecclesiastical history, that ever such a work was published. 10. Estius imagined, that Luke, possibly, intended to write a third book, to supply, particularly, the omissions of the two years, which St. Paul spent at Rome.' But I verily believe, there is no ground at all for that conjectural supposition. 11. Again: Le Clerc, above-mentioned, thinks, that Luke breaks off the history of St. Peter, of whom he had said so much before, very abruptly, in those words, Acts xii. 17. "And he departed, and went to another place." Nevertheless St. Luke afterwards drops St. Barnabas in a like manner. ch. xv. 39. And in the end he will take his leave of the apostle Paul himself without much more ceremony. terio quidem Petri et Pauli potissimum, scribere adgressus est. De cæteris Apostolis altum ubique apud eum est silentium... Utinam vero vir quispiam apostolicus, pari judicio, et fide, cæterorum res gestas literis mandâsset, quæ narrationi Lucæ desunt supplere voluisset, idque opus ad nos pervenisset. Cler. H. E. An. 61. n. iv. Sed proculdubio multa actorum Pauli a Lucâ sunt omissa ... Ac fortasse Lucas meditabatur tertium librum, in quo repeteret acta illius biennii...sicut Act. i. quædam exposuit tacita ultimo capite Evangelii. Est. ad Act. Ap. xxviii. 30. 'Mirum est, Lucam, postquam liberationem Petri e carcere narravit cap. xii. 17, eumque in alium locum,' hoc est, extra Ierosolymam, ivisse dixit, ne verbulum uidem de eo habere, de quo tam multa alia dixerat. Id. ibid. 12. Those omissions are no reflection upon the writer, nor any disparagement to his history. The proper deduction to be made by us is this: we hereby perceive, that it was not the design of St. Luke, to aggrandize Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles, nor to write their lives: but to record the evidences of our Saviour's resurrection, and to write a history of the first preaching and planting the christian religion in the world. This design he has admirably executed: and having filled up his plan, he concluded. 13. However, undoubtedly, many things are omitted by St. Luke: some of which we may learn from St. Paul's epistles. I shall observe some omissions. 14. St. Luke has not, in the course of his history, mentioned the writing of any of St. Paul's epistles. It is probable, that he was at Corinth when the apostle wrote thence his large epistle to the Romans. Nevertheless he takes not any notice of it, nor of the epistles written by St. Paul at Rome, when he certainly was with him, nor indeed of any other. By comparing the epistles themselves, and St. Luke's history of the apostle in the Acts, we are enabled to trace the time and place of divers of those epistles: but they are no where particularly mentioned by the historian. 15. In Acts ix. 19-26. St. Luke, after the account of St. Paul's conversion, speaks of his being at Damascus, and his preaching there, and of the opposition, which he there met with from the Jews, and his escape thence, and then going to Jerusalem. But St. Paul, Gal. i. 17, 18. informs us, that after his conversion he went into Arabia, and then returned to Damascus: and that three years passed between his conversion and his going to Jerusalem. This is an instructive instance for the omission is certain, and undoubted. I am of opinion, that St. Luke did not omit the journey into Arabia, because he did not know of it: but designedly, and because he did not judge it necessary to be mentioned. Jerom has taken particular notice of the omission of that journey into Arabia. a 16. Like omissions are in St. Luke's gospel. I shall take notice of two. 1.). Having given the history of our Lord's presentation at the temple, he says, ch. ii. 39. "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth." Nevertheless, I think the holy family did not go directly from Jerusalem to Nazareth, but to Bethlehem. There, as I suppose, our Lord received the homage of the Magians. And afterwards, to avoid the persecution of Herod, they removed thence to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth. All which is recorded Matt. ii. 1-13. The visit of the Magians must have been after the presentation at the temple. If it had been before, and if they had presented "their gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh :" mentioned Matt. ii. 11. Mary would not have made the lesser offering for her purification, mentioned Luke ii. 23, 34. Nor could the child Jesus have been safely brought to Jerusalem, or such notice have been taken of him at the temple, as St. Luke particularly relates, ch. ii. 25—38, if "Herod and all Jerusalem," had been just before alarmed by the inquiries of the Magians: "Where is he that is born king of the Jews?" Matt. ii. 1, 2. Omitting therefore all those things, St. Luke says, as above observed, and afterwards they returned to Nazareth, the place of their usual abode: which is agreeable to Matt. ii. 22, 23. 2.) Another thing observable is, that all our Saviour's appearances to his disciples, after his resurrection, recorded by St. Luke, ch. xxiv. were at Jerusalem, or near it. He takes not any notice of our Saviour's meeting the disciples in Galilee, so particularly mentioned Matt. xxviii. 7, and Mark xvi. 7. St. John also, ch. xxí. 1-23, speaks of our Saviour's showing himself to the disciples at "the sea of Tiberias." And St. Paul assures us, that our Lord was seen of above five hundred brethren at once," 1 Cor. xv. 6; which, probably, was in the same country. And though at the beginning of his book of the Acts, St. Luke resumes the account of our Saviour's showing himself to the disciples after his resurrection, there is nothing more about Galilee, than in the former relation. Insomuch, that, if we had St. Luke's histories only, we might have been apt to conclude, that all the appearances of our Saviour to his disciples were at Jerusalem, or near it, and no where else. 17. St. Paul's epistles inform us of many things omitted by St. Luke. But we should have a Lucam vero idcirco de Arabiâ præterisse, quia forsitan nihil dignum apostolatu in Arabia perpetrârat; et ea potius compendiosa narratione dixisse, quæ digna Christi evangelio videbantur. Nec hoc segnitia Apostoli deputandum, si frustra in Arabia fuerit; sed quod aliqua dispensatio et Dei præceptum fuerit, ut taceret. Hier. in Ep. ad Gal, cap. i. T. IV. p. 235. known many more, if we had had a parallel historian. A comparison of St. Luke's history of our Saviour, with that of the other evangelists, may assure of this. 18. In the eleventh chapter of the second epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul mentions divers visions and revelations, with which he had been favoured: but St. Luke has not taken notice of any of them. St. Paul in his speech to the people at Jerusalem, recorded by St. Luke, Acts xxii. 17, mentions a trance which he had in the temple. But St. Luke has no where told us the exact time of it; nor has he otherwise mentioned it. 19. I do not think that these things were omitted by St. Luke, because St. Paul concealed them from him; or because by some other means he was unacquainted with the time and place of them: but it was a regard to brevity that induced him to pass them over. They were not necessary to be inserted in his history: without them he has recorded sufficient attestations of Paul's apostolical authority, and of the truth and divine original of the doctrine taught by him. 20. Says St. Paul, unwillingly, and constrained by the disadvantageous insinuations and charges of self-interested and designing men. 2 Cor. xi. 23. "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool:) I am more. In labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft." "In prisons more frequent." Therefore before writing this epistle, in the year 57, Paul had been imprisoned several times: though St. Luke has mentioned before this time one imprisonment only, which was at Philippi. Acts xvi. 23-40. Upon which Estius observes, that Paul did and suffered many things not mentioned in the Acts. And Rom. xvi. 7. "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow-prisoners...who also were in Christ before me." Paul was not a prisoner when he wrote the epistle to the Romans, in the beginning of the year 58. But he had been in prison before with those two early Christians, his relations: but where, or when, we cannot exactly say. b с 21. Ver. 24. "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." Nevertheless St. Luke has not mentioned one of those times. Estius conjectures that Luke omitted these, and many other things, because he was not with the apostle when they happened, and Paul out of modesty forbore to tell him of them. I rather think that Luke was fully acquainted with Paul's history: but he aimed at brevity, and judged the things mentioned by him to be sufficient. 22. Ver. 25. “Thrice was I beaten with rods:" meaning, I suppose, by Roman magistrates. But St. Luke has mentioned one instance only of this; which was at Philippi, when Paul and Silas both underwent this hard usage. Acts xvi. 19-40. Of this likewise Estius has taken notice in his Commentary. d "Once was I stoned:" undoubtedly meaning at Lystra in Lycaonia, as related by St. Luke Acts xiv. 19, 20. "Thrice I have suffered shipwreck." St. Luke has recorded but one instance, which was not until after this time, in the apostle's voyage from Judea to Rome: Acts xxvii. which therefore must have been the fourth. "A night and a day have I been in the deep." At one of those times I escaped with the utmost difficulty, by getting on a plank, and floating in the sea a night and a day, or a whole day of four and twenty hours. с 23. Ver. 26. "In journeyings often, in perils of waters," or rather "rivers." Which are sometimes very dangerous. But St. Luke has not recorded any dangers of the apostle upon rivers, either in crossing them, or sailing upon them. f 24. Says Tillemont, in his life of St. Paul: The greatest part of interpreters think, that St. Paul made no voyages, but those which are taken notice of in the Acts......Nevertheless we De Paulo autem incarcerato ante hanc epistolam, in Actis Apostolorum non legimus quidem, nisi cap. xvi. ubi a Philippensibus in carcerem missus legitur. Sed permulta Paulus et fecit et passus est, quæ in Actis non scribuntur. Est. ad 2 Cor. xi. 23. Porro concaptivos intellige, quod aliquando communia cum Paulo vincula pro Christo passi fuissent. Ubi tamen, aut quando factum sit, ignoratur. Est. ad Rom. xvi. 7. • Sed cur Lucas in Actis ne unius quidem flagellationis ex quinque meminit? Ideo videlicet, quod de Paulo pene ea sola, quibus ipse præsens fuit, sigillatim recenseat; alia vero vel silentio pertranseat, vel summatim ac breviter referat.... VOL. III. Quâ in re notanda humilitas Pauli, qui suas tot et tam graves pro Christo passiones Lucæ comiti suo non aperuerit, ne hic quidem recitaturus, nisi coëgisset eum amor salutis Corinthiorum. Id. ib. ad ver. 24. Ter virgis casus sum'-a Gentilibus. Erat enim Romanis consuetudo virgis cædere nocentes. . . . Forro Lucas tantum semel meminit hujus contumelia Paulo illatæ, scilicet Act. xvi. ubi scribit eum unâ cum Si â virgis cæsum a Philippensibus. Est in loc. Periculis fluminum'-quæ interdum non minus periculosa sunt navigantibus, quam mare, Est. in loc. f Mem. Ec. T. i. St. Paul. note xviii. 2 E must necessarily acknowledge, that beside what St. Luke informs us of the sufferings of St. Paul this apostle was five times, scourged by the Jews, twice beaten with rods, and thrice shipwrecked. All this happened before he wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians; that is, in the time of which St. Luke has written the history. Nevertheless St. Luke says nothing of all this. It is certain therefore, that either he has omitted the circumstances of the most remarkable events which he relates, or that St. Paul made several voyages, of which he has taken no notice.' 25. The reason of St. Luke's silence here I take to be the same as has been already assigned of his silence upon other occasions: it was not necessary that these things should be related. To have written an account of all the apostle's journies and dangers, would have rendered the work more voluminous and prolix than was judged proper. When St. Luke set about composing and publishing this book, he had all the materials before him, and his plan was formed. Agreeably to which he determined to write at large the history of St. Paul's voyage from Judea to Rome, in which are many remarkable incidents, and to omit some other of the apostle's journies and voyages: though divers of them likewise were attended with affecting circumstances. 26. The chapter, from which I have just now transcribed several things, concludes in this manner: Ver. 31-33. « The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knows that I lie not. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king, kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me. And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands." I have often reflected with great satisfaction on St. Luke's not omitting this dangerous attempt upon the apostle's liberty and life: with which himself was so much affected, and which he has here mentioned with such solemnity. The history of it may be seen in Acts ix. 23-25. I now proceed to some other things. 27. St. Paul assures us Gal. ii. 1-3, that when he went up to Jerusalem upon occasion of the debate concerning the manner of receiving Gentile converts, he took Titus with him: which is not said by St. Luke, Acts xv. though he gives a particular account of Paul's going from Antioch to Jerusalem upon that occasion. Nor indeed has St. Luke once mentioned Titus in. his history: though St. Paul wrote an epistle to him, and has mentioned him several times in his epistles sent to others. a 28. Gal. ii. 11-21. St. Paul speaks of Peter's being at Antioch, before he and Barnabas had separated: but St. Luke says nothing of it. Jerom, in his Commentary upon the epistle to the Galatians, says: We are not to wonder, that Luke has taken no notice of this. For by 'the usual privilege of historians he has omitted many things performed by Paul, and which we 'know from himself,' 29. Rom. xvi. 3, 4. St. Paul applauds an action of great generosity in Aquila and Priscilla: but St. Luke has not informed us of the place, or occasion of it. Doubtless he did not omit it, for want of respect to those excellent Christians, whom he has mentioned more than once, ch. xviii. 18, and 26. But that particular did not come within the compass of his design. 30. Many things, not expressly mentioned by St. Luke, may be argued and concluded to have been done, from those which he has recorded. 1.) In Acts iv. 23-30, is recorded a prayer of the apostles, in which they request, that they may be enabled to work miracles for farther confirming the doctrine taught by them. And unquestionably their prayer was heard, and their request granted, and they did work many miracles in the name of Christ, more than are related by St. Luke. 2.) Acts v. 12. "And by the hand of the apostles were many signs and wonders done among the people:" and what follows. Whence it may be concluded, that many miracles were wrought, not only by Peter and John, but also by the other apostles also, beside those which are particularly recorded. See also eh. ii. 43. C 3.) Says Mr. Biscoe: Many and great miracles are related in the history of the Acts to Nec mirum esse, si Lucas hanc rem tacuerit, quum et alia multa, quæ Paulus sustinuisse se replicat, historiographi licentiâ prætermiserit. In Gal. cap. ii. T. IV. p. 244. Ecumenius says, that Luke omitted many miracles wrought by the Apostles, for avoiding ostentation. Iλλv δε θαυματων επιτελεμένων ύπο των αποςόλων, ώς και ανωτέρω non rauтa ypaqwy Aexas, [cap. ii. 43.] edevos EXEIX ονομασί μνημονευεί, αλλ' εκείνο γράφει μόνον αφ' ε παντες εκινήθησαν.... η και ότι 8 κομπς χαριν ἡ συγγραφη αυτώ AUTY ECπedacty. Ecum. in Act. Cap. iii. tom. i. p. 25. A. B. The History of the Acts confirmed. ch. xi. sect. 8. p. 407, 408. |