well known some years after by the title of the Evangelist. Now how is it to be accounted for, that this person should have been distinguished by this new title in preference to his former, if he had not written a Gospel? And if it was on that account, as he was described by this new appellation only a few months after Paul left Corinth with the contributions of Achaia, of course his Gospel must have been in circulation before that time, though how long we cannot discover. Philip then, by the testimony of Luke himself, in all probability acquired the respectable appellation of the Evangelist for writing a Gospel; and yet it does not appear that it was carefully preserved by the church.

Besides this instance, it may be thought difficult to produce another. Let us, however, not be discouraged from trying, as another such would contribute much to throw light on the subject of our enquiry.

In the last chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and in the 25th verse*, we find this expression," according to my Gospel." Now what sort of Gospel is here meant was it a written Gospel, or was it not? It has ever been a prevailing opinion, that these words were dictated by Paul to Tertius, as well as the preceding part of the epistle; and as it is pretty certain that our apostle had not visited Rome when he sent his epistle to the believers in that city, that he must have meant a written Gospel by them. In support of this conjecture, as it does not apper that he ever published a Gospel in his own name (for a Gospel by Paul would surely not have been soon lost; on the contrary, we may well suppose that it would have been most religiously preserved by the churches founded by him, above all others,) recourse has been had to the supposition that the Gospel here alluded to, must have been that by St. Luke. But how will it be made to appear that these are the words of Paul, and not of Tertius? Or if they proceeded from Paul, that he would have claimed the Gospel which Luke wrote, as his own? What authority is there for this supposition? Surely if we may believe Luke, he obtained his information, not from Paul, but from eye-witnesses from the beginning, and wrote of his own accord. As it is not quite clear then, that Paul could by this expression have alluded to the Gospel by

According to our copy. Some think that this and the two following verses should be placed at the end of the 14th chap.

St.

St. Luke, it may not be altogether amiss to enquire whether these words are really the words of Paul, and whether they are not more likely to have been the spontaneous effusion of Tertius. If it can be made to appear that they are not the words of Paul, but of Tertius, we shall perhaps be better able to judge whether he meant a written Gopel by them or not. Let us then endeavour to obtain all the information we can on this point.

Towards the conclusion of this Epistle we perceive that Paul adds a solemn benediction; we also perceive that, in the midst of the salutations which follow immediately after, the salutation of Tertius is introduced to the particular attention of the Romans, as coming directly from himself, and is accompanied by that very remarkable piece of information, that the preceding Epistle had been' written by him. And we furthermore perceive, that the last person mentioned among those companions in the faith at Corinth, is "Quartus a brother," (who surely was not more a brother than any of the others mentioned with him; nor less likely to have been a younger brother according to the flesh, to Tertius, than a brother by election to him and the rest of the party; nor less likely to have been known to those disciples who were natives of Rome, than any of the others, if he was a Roman, as his name may be thought to imply.) And, lastly, we perceive the same solemn benediction, which immediately preceded the salutations from the members of the church at Corinth, is again addressed to the whole church at Rome, immediately after those salutations. When all this is considered, what inducement have we to acquiesce in the opinion, that the three following verses were certainly dictated by Paul to Tertius? Why should we not rather consider them as being the continuation of Tertius's postscript? Is it at all unlikely that the person, who was of that respectability as to be employed by Paul as an amanuensis on such an occasion; who appears to have thought it not an improper step to address a salutation directly from himself to the brethren at Rome, and not at all indecorous to confer a solemn benediction on all of them, should have proceeded further to make that animated doxology to the only wise God, which we read immediately after? Or that he should have been instrumental in edifying the church at Rome by a written Gospel? Who was this Tertius? Was he indeed a Roman, as his name may be thought to imply, and of Roman extraction? And will U u 2

it

it be said, that it is not likely that a Roman could have. been qualified to write a Gospel that could with safety be relied on? Though known by a Roman name, it appears he was able to write Greek; and it is also observable, that the persons to whom St. Paul's preceding salutations are addressed, seem to have been mostly Jews and Greeks; and Tertius, we see, addressed the same party, and, it may be, informed them that his brother Quartus also saluted them. Why then should it be thought that he had not been previously acquainted with them? And if he had, how will it be made to appear that he could not have been of that rank in the same church, to qualify him to confer a solemn benediction on all the brethren at Rome, as well as Paul? His having been acquainted with the pillars of so eminent a church as that at Rome, may surely be thought to imply a no inconsiderable degree of respectability in him. But if he was so respectable a character, why does not his name occur any where else in the New Testament? Though the name Tertius does not occur any where else, yet the corresponding Hebrew name, we find does occur, and as belonging to a fellow-labourer of Paul of considerable note; for Tertius, we are told, is by interpretation Silas. Now Silas, we are informed, was deputed by the apostles from Jerusalem to Antioch, as well as Paul, with the decree concerning circumcision; from thence afterwards accompanied our apostle to Corinth, when he first travelled into Achaia; and his name, we moreover find, stands next after that of Paul in each of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. It is true he is in each of those epistles named Sylvanus; but if Paul thought it advisable to change his name to Sylvanus when writing to Grecians, it surely is not strange that Silas should have. thought it not amiss to latinise his own name in his address to Romans. Silas then seems to answer the particulars here applied to Tertius very exactly. And surely it cannot be said, that he was less likely to have written a Gospel than Paul; or, if he really wrote the Epistle to the Romans, to have been the author of the conclusion of that Epistle, as it is in our copy. Now, if he had written a Gospel before the Epistle to the Romans was written, that is, within a year after the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, and that Gospel had then found its way to Rome, he surely may have been one of the

many.

Besides those several Evangelists above alluded to, we

find Jerom speaks of some others, and as having published their performances before St. Luke. In his prologne to his commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, that writer says, "Plures fuisse, qui evangelia scripserunt, et Lucas evangelista testatur; et perseverantia usque ad præsens tempus monimenta declarant. Quæ a diversis auctoribus edita diversarum hæreseon fuere principia; ut est illud juxta Egyptios et Thomam, et Matthæum, et Bartholomæum, duodecim quoque apostolorum." By this author's account then, those Gospels of which only fragments were existing in his days, had been the cause of as many different heresies, though they were most of them the reputed productions of certain apostles. But had the four last-mentioned been really written by the apostles whose names they bear, would they have been the cause of as many different heresies? Or, if they had been written before that by St. Luke, and by persons of such eminent respectability, would Luke in that case have thought it at all necessary to write after these had been written? Would it not have been presumption in him to have done it? That they were forgeries we may therefore, very well suspect. And if they were, or in any remarkable manner reprehensible, would such spurious or erroneous accounts have been suffered to be circulated any where in or near Judea, without the most strenuous opposition, as long as any of the apostolic body were living? The whole body of the apostles surely; and especially Thomas, Matthias, and Bartholomew, were deeply concerned to expose the imposture. These Gospels mentioned by Jerom therefore, are for the reasons here assigned, likely to have been of a later date than he supposes. course, since Philip and Silas, and those other Evangelists mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, appear to have been respectable characters, and duly qualified and authorised to write Gospels, and more likely to have published their works before Luke, than those here alluded to by Jerom; the opinion adopted by a very respectable and learned modern *, viz. that the Gospels alluded

And of

*Doddridge, See quotations [p. 247, notet] Concerning "the many," the same writer thus expresses himself: "This must refer to some histories of the Life of Christ which are now lost; for Matthew and Mark, the only Evangelists which can be supposed to have written before Luke, could not with any propriety be called many, &c. One must readily conclude,

the

alluded to by Luke in the place under consideration, were not unworthy of attention, though they were soon laid aside, is by no means unlikely to have been a wellfounded opinion.

MAGAZINE.

[OTWITHSTANDING the many benefaétions,which the piety or liberality of our forefathers bequeathed for the founding of Professorships in our universities, there is still room left for the exercise of the same pious and benevolent principle, in a way, which would confer at least equal credit on the donor, and certainly greater benefit on society. Languages, poetry, and even musie have their Professors; but the most important to the clergy, of all sciences, the science of pastoral duty, has hitherto found no patronage. We have divinity Professorships, and very beneficial is their effect. But the heart wants to be interested, as well as the head to be informed. Theology, it is well known, may exist in the mind without a correspondent degree of piety. It becomes in this case mere science, and, like the mathematics, is pursued for the pleasure which the discovery of truth of any sort never fails to bestow. The faculties of mind, which it exercises, are purely of an intellectual kind, It excites none of those tender sensibilities, and virtuous energies, which are necessary to the due discharge of the pastoral office. To supply this deficiency, I would recommend the founding of a Professorship, to be called the Pastoral Professorship; the object of which should be to teach

the books referred to are lost, as none of the apocryphal gospels now extant, published particularly by Fabricius, (in his Codex Apoc. N. T.) or Mr. Jones (in his History of the Canon), can with any shadow of reason pretend to equal with authority with this of St. Luke."

young